Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 07/15/2003
l f TIGARD CITY COUNCIL t -WORKSHOP MEETING July 15 2003 COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE TELEVISED .rtnrat~~u►asctz, a 3 Agenda Item No. Meeting of COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 15, 2003 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Mayor Griffith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 1.2 Council Present: Mayor Griffith; Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Sherwood and Wilson 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 8T Liaison Reports: None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items ➢ Council agreed that City Engineer Duenas could present information to them about proposed amendments to the Sewer Reimbursement Program (See the paragraph marked with after Agenda Item No. 3, beginning on Page 3.) ➢ Council agreed to consider approval of Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to provide for sharing of legal expenses: Rogers Machinery, inc. - US Supreme Court Docket 02-750 - Petition for Writ of Certiorari (See Agenda Item No. 8.1, beginning on Page 4.) 2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD - UPDATE ON LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY IWB Members Norman Penner, Bill Scheiderich and Dick Winn were present. Public Works Director Ed Wegner presented the update. a Wholesale water contract negotiations continue with most participating agencies involved. The process has not gone as quickly as outlined in the original timetable. About a third of the draft contract has been reviewed. Key issues include nominations of supply; rates and charges; customer withdrawal; curtailment; and J g funding and management of the capital improvement projects. Mr. Wegner y reviewed the wholesale buyers' and the City of Portland's objectives to be met in the contract. The parties are currently meeting on a scheduled basis. Issues remaining include pricing, minimum purchase, joint funding and management of the capital improvement projects. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - July 15, 2003 Page 1 For the Joint Water Commission option, a City of Tigard membership proposal has been drafted and may be ready for approval this fall. It appears that this option will happen. Mr. Wegner reviewed the proposal, buy-in payment, and proposed projects schedule. Mr. Wegner reviewed the status of the Willamette River Water Supply Agency (WWSA) and its history. Next week Council will consider a request for a new IGA changing the name of this entity to the Willamette River Water Coalition. Major elements of the new IGA include: 1. The new name: Willamette River Water Coalition 2. New general powers and duties statement 3. New membership list (Clackamas River Water has withdrawn ) 4. New funding formula The mission of the coalition is to protect the Willamette River and to protect Tigard's water rights. The next joint meeting for Council and the iWB is scheduled for October 21, 2003. 3. POLICY DISCUSSION ON THE BULL MOUNTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ASSESSMENT REPORT Community Development Director Jim Hendryx and Long-Range Planning Manager Barbara Shields presented this item to the Council. The history of the issue and the growth management factors were reviewed. In addition, the impacts of the options available to annex all or some of the area were outlined: 1) site specific (status quo), 2) target areas, 3) entire area. After discussion about the pros and cons of the above annexation choices, funding concerns, and what the County's position is on annexation, the following key points IL were made:, to . Ask the County Board of Commission at its July 29 meeting with the ~ , Council about their interests and plans with regard to the Bull Mountain area's possible annexation to Tigard. . Capital improvement projects could be phased in over a number of years J and prioritized as is the process for addressing capital needs within the City of Tigard. Focus on areas to annex, which appear to want to come into the City, (may include areas not yet developed). Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - July 15, 2003 Page 2 Two new urban growth areas are now adjacent to Tigard. Community Development Director Hendryx advised that it would not be necessary to annex the Bull Mountain area before considering annexation of these areas. > REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT PROGRAM DISCUSSION City Engineer Gus Duenas reviewed some proposed amendments to the reimbursement programs, which were outlined in a handout distributed to the City Council. These amendments, Mr. Duenas advised, would make the program more equitable and encourage early connections. The proposed amendments address the disincentive for larger lot owners to connect their existing houses to sewer with payment. If the larger lot is subdivided in the future, a reimbursement fee would be charged at that time. Council supported the proposed amendments. A formal proposal to consider the amendments will be presented to Council on August 26, 2003. 4. BRIEFING ON RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT STUDY Finance Director Craig Prosser briefed the Council on the Right-of-Way Management Study. One of the conclusions was that "Tigard may have sufficient regulations already in place to protect the public health, safety, and welfare with regard to public rights of way, but there is room for improvement..." Mr. Prosser presented the significant conclusions of the report and the following recommendations: 1. Increase permit fees to recoup costs. 2. Assess a permit application fee. 3. Require all right-of-way users, including City water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer, to obtain permits. 4. Increase franchise fee percentages as allowed by state law. S. Assess a water franchise fee. 6. Automate permit Issuance and inspection process. 7. Map permit locations. L 8. Investigate adoption of integrated computer system. 9. Adopt procedures to ensure the Street Maintenance Division is informed in advance of issued permits. 10. Require franchise utilities with blanket permits to pay annual permit fee. 11. Adopt procedures to insure all franchises have consistent language in o significant areas. 12. Ensure that utilities consistently repair street cuts to City standards. 13. Require permit applicants to show proof of contact with the Oregon Utility Notification Center to verify locations of existing facilities. 14. Create a right-of-way manager position to coordinate City right-of-way policies and programs. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - July IS, 2003 Page 3 Council members discussed the findings of the study and were in general support. 5. POLICY DISCUSSION ON UPDATING PLANNING FEES Community Development Director Hendryx presented this item. Staff is seeking direction from Council on updating planning fees to reflect the cost of processing land use pennits and an option of charging a fee to offset costs for specialized planning studies. Staff is also seeking direction on an option for charging a fee to offset the costs of preparing specialized planning studies that are generally funded by grants or the general fund. After discussion, consensus of Council members was that they were not adverse to 100% cost recovery for planning services (including the urban forester's and engineering staffs time), and adjust the timing of review of planning fees to coincide with the April edition of the Engineering News Record. Also, staff will look further into the possibility of charging a fee to offset the costs of preparing specialized planning studies. 6. DISCUSS AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE JULY 29, 2003, MEETING WITH THE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS After discussion, Council decided to limit the agenda items it would propose to discuss with the Board to the Bull Mountain area annexation and the two new areas of the Urban Growth Boundary adjacent to Tigard. 7. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 8.1 Consider Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to Provide for Sharing of Legal Expenses: Rogers Machinery, Inc. - US Supreme Court Docket 02-750 - Petition for Writ of Certiorari City Manager presented the staff report on this item. The proposed IGA sets 4 forth the agreement among Washington County Cities to share in the defense of the Rogers Machinery case. Washington County is coordinating the payment for the defense of this case. 9 u Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to enter into the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County and authorize the City Manager to sign. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - July 15, 2003 Page 4 The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Not held 10. ADJOURNMENT: 9:43 p.m. (k) at Brine Wheatley, City ecor er Attest: Ty15e, utybf at 1:1AD MICATHIICCM120031060715. DOC L N J b u Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - July 15, 2003 Page 5 City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of posting . A4 CITY OF TIGARD In the Matter of the Proposed Notice of Revised Agenda OREGON STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) '(J g Y I, a3~~ being first duly sworn (or affirmed), b oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted in Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, a copy of the revised agenda for the City Council meeting of with a copy of said agenda being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of 20 U3 _ . Signature of Person who Performed osting Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this s7 A ay of OFFKX 4L WL A N Signature of Notary Public for Oregon NOTARY PUKO~pOREM btY COMN11~l~tMM1w10.>~ I I I 1:\ADM\GREER\FORMSIAFFIDAVITS\AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING - REVISED AGENDA.DOC Revised /15/03 (Mon-Agenda Business Item Added) a. t ` CITY OF TIGARD wY l t 6 OREGON tKA~~ a ! PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-41711 ext. 2410 (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 date by calling: 503-639-41717 ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices CL for the Deaf). a _3 n SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA -JULY 15, 2003 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING JULY 15, 2003 6:30 PM 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications ex Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items 2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD - UPDATE ON LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY Staff Report: Public Works Staff 3. POLICY DISCUSSION ON THE BULL MOUNTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ASSESSMENT REPORT • Staff Report: Community Development Staff 4. BRIEFING ON RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT STUDY • Staff Report: Finance Staff 5. POLICY DISCUSSION ON UPDATING PLANNING FEES L Staff Report: Community Development Staff it r 6. DISCUSS AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE JULY 29, 2003, MEETING WITH THE 3 COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS o Staff Report: Administration Staff 9 U 7. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 15, 2003 page 2 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 8.1 Consider Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to Provide for Sharing of Legal Expenses: Rogers Machinery, Inc. - US Supreme Court Docket 02-750 - Petition for Writ of Certiorari a. Staff Report: City Administration b. Council Discussion C. Council Motion: Approve IGA to Provide for Sharing of Legal Expenses: Rogers Machinery, Inc. - US Supreme Court Docket 02- 750 - Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Authorize the City Manager to Sign the IGA 9. 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 statute. 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. ADJOURNMENT h W DUCATHYICCA12003V030715P.DOC _J U J COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 15, 2003 page 3 City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Notification CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter of the Proposed Notification of Revised Agenda STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, cari146;t~rMeA e~ being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I notified the following people/ organizations by fax of the agenda revision of the City Council meeting on /_~;►~o?~t23 with a copy of the notification hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of- - 2003- 2/Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) O Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) 2 "Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) Signature of Person who Perfo otification L Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this day of 20 . Signature of Notary Public for Oregon I:WDOGREER%FORMS%AFFIDAVITSWFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION - REVISED AGENDA.DOC 07/14/2003 16:09 FAX 5036847297 City of Tigard (in 001 TX REPORT TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO 1793 CONNECTION TEL 5039686061 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID Oregonian ST. TIME 07/14 16:09 USAGE T 00'17 PGS. SENT 1 RESULT OK 115 A MNSMITTAL FAX TM Date July 14, 2003 Number of pages including cover sheet To: Emily Tsao From: Cathy Wheatley CR~ Co: Oregonian Co: City of Tigard Fax Fax 503-684-7297 Ph 639-4171, Ext. 2410 a SUBJECT: Revised Agenda to MESSAGE: W Emily, we've added a business item for the Workshop Meeting tomorrow night, J July 15, under the "Non-Agenda" portion of the agenda. On Friday, we received a request to process the Intergovemmental agreement, which is reflected in the following wording from the revised agenda: 8.1 Consider Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to Provide for Sharing of Legal Expenses: Rogers Machinery, Inc. - US Supreme Court Docket 02.750 - Petition for Writ of Certiorari a. Staff Report: City Administration h rnwinrn nicriuccii+n FAX TRANSMITTAL Date July 14, 2003 Number of pages including cover sheet To: Emily Tsao From: Cathy Wheatley ~Rn Co: Oregonian Co: City of Tigard Fax Fax 503-684-7297 Ph 639-4171, Ext. 2410 SUBJECT: Revised Agenda MESSAGE: Emily, we've added a business item for the Workshop Meeting tomorrow night, July 15, under the "Non-Agenda" portion of the agenda. On Friday, we received a request to process the Intergovernmental agreement, which is reflected in the following wording from the revised agenda: 8.1 Consider Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to Provide for Sharing of Legal Expenses: Rogers Machinery, Inc. - US Supreme Court Docket 02-750 - Petition for Writ of Certiorari a. Staff Report: City Administration L b. Council Discussion x c. Council Motion: Approve IGA to Provide for Sharing of Legal n Expenses: Rogers Machinery, Inc. - US Supreme Court Docket 02- 750 - Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Authorize the City Manager to Sign the IGA 0 9 U If you have any questions or need more information, please call me. I:\ADM\CATHY\CCA\FAX TRANSMITTAL - OREGONIAN - NON AGENDA ON 7-15.DOC IAEP"AX WT 07/14/2003 16:10 FAX 5036647297 City of Tigard Q001 s TX REPORT TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO 1794 CONNECTION TEL 5035460724 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID TT Newsroom ST. TIME 07/14 16:09 USAGE T 00'55 PGS. SENT 1 RESULT OK FAX TRANSMITTAL IN MENEM Date July 14, 2003 Number of pages including cover sheet To: Barbara Sherman From: Cathy Wheatley ~uN " 0 Co: Tigard Times Co: City of Tigard Fax Fax 503-684-7297 Ph 639-4171, Ext. 2410 L SUBJECT: Revised Agenda n MESSAGE: Barbara, we've added a business item for the Workshop Meeting tomorrow night, July 15, under the "Non-Agenda" portion of the agenda. On Friday, we received a request to process the Intergovernmental agreement, which is reflected in the following wording from the revised agenda: 8.1 Consider Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to Provide for Sharing of Legal Expenses: Rogers Machinery, Inc. US Supreme Court Docket 02.750 Petition for Writ of Certiorari a. Staff Report: City AdminWation b. Council Discussion FAX TRANSMITTAL Wull Date July 14, 2003 Number of pages including cover sheet To: Barbara Sherman From: Cathy Wheatley CAN" " ~1 Co: Tigard Times Co: City of Tigard Fax Fax 503-684-7297 Ph 639-4171, Ext. 2410 SUBJECT: Revised Agenda MESSAGE: Barbara, we've added a business item for the Workshop Meeting tomorrow night, July 15, under the "Non-Agenda" portion of the agenda. On Friday, we received a request to process the Intergovernmental agreement, which is reflected in the following wording from the revised agenda: 8.1 Consider Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to Provide for Sharing of Legal Expenses: Rogers Machinery, Inc. - US Supreme Court Docket 02-750 - Petition for Writ of Certiorari a. Staff Report: City Administration b. Council Discussion C. Council Motion: Approve IGA to Provide for Sharing of Legal E Expenses: Rogers Machinery, inc. - US Supreme Court Docket 02- 750 - Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Authorize the City Manager to Sign the IGA 9 u If you have any questions or need more information, please call me. I:\ADM\CATHY\CCA\FAX TRANSMITTAL -TIGARD TIMES -NON AGENDA ON 7.15.DOC Mayor's Agenda Revised 7/15/03 (Non-Agenda Business Item Added) TI ~]tUCITY C(O~uNLIL~ 5 ~ ~ °o:,~t1EETtNG - CITY OF TIGARD ]LILY i 5, 2003 6 30 p m OREGON y TIGARC~ 4}THALL ti Ha1C BLVD 3i,2'6`, SW, TIGA~;Q, ORl~97223-° PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (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 date by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices CL for the Deaf). go J U) SEE ATTACHED AGENDA w J COUNCIL AGENDA -JULY 15, 2003 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING JULY 15, 2003 6:30 PM 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 8z Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items Item 8.1 - Consider Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to Provide for Sharing of Legal Expenses: Rogers Machinery, Inc. - US Supreme Court Docket 02-750 - Petition for Writ of Certiorari (IGA to be signed by Washington County, Tigard, Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, King City, North Plains, Sherwood, and Tualatin) Request Council to Consider the following changes to the Agenda: • Discuss after Item No. 3: Proposal - Amendments to Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District Program (Resolution 01-46 attached) 8z Funding Limitation for Potential Projects this Year • Add to Non Agenda (8.2) Discuss Council Retreat Date (See memo from Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder) • Add to Non Agenda (8.3) Discuss whether Council would like to review the Council Groundrules 6:335 PM 2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD - UPDATE ON LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY • Staff Report: Public Works Staff 7:05 PM 0 3. POLICY DISCUSSION ON THE BULL MOUNTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ASSESSMENT REPORT .~i Staff Report: Community Development Staff 8:05 PM 4. BRIEFING ON RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT STUDY Staff Report: Finance Staff COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 15, 2003 page 2 8:20 PM 5. POLICY DISCUSSION ON UPDATING PLANNING FEES • Staff Report: Community Development Staff 8:50 PM 6. DISCUSS AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE JULY 29, 2003, MEETING WITH THE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS • Staff Report: Administration Staff 9:05 PM 7. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9:10 PM 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 8.1 Consider Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to Provide for Sharing of Legal Expenses: Rogers Machinery, Inc. - US Supreme Court Docket 02-750 - Petition for Writ of Certiorari a. Staff Report: City Administration b. Council Discussion C. Council Motion: Approve IGA to Provide for Sharing of Legal Expenses: Rogers Machinery, Inc. - US Supreme Court Docket 02- 750 - Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Authorize the City Manager to Sign the IGA 9:20 PM 9. 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 statute. 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. a iY F- 9:30 PM 10. ADJOURNMENT J 1:%DNACATHY\CCA\2003X030715).DOC m W J COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 15, 2003 page 3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 7- • t~'3 RESOLUTION NO. 01- 4(.P A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 98-51 AND ESTABLISHING A REVISED AND ENHANCE[) NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council has initiated the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program to extend public sewers through Reimbursement Districts in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.09; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 1998, the City Council established The Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program through Resolution No. 98-51 to encourage owners to connect to public sewer. The program was offered for a two-year period after which the program would be evaluated for continuation; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2000, the City Council extended The Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program an additional two years through Resolution No. 00-60; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that residential areas that remain without sewer service should be provided with service within five years; and WHEREAS, Council has directed that additional incentives should be made available to encourage owners to promptly connect to sewers once service is available and that owners who have paid for service provided by previously established districts of the Neighbc:hcod Sewer Extension Program should receive the benefits of the additional incentives. NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION l: Resolution No. 98-51 establishing the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Inaonlivo program is horoby repouled. SECTION 2: A revised incentive program is h;reby established for the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. 71ris incentive program shall apply to scorer eonnoctions provided through the sewer reimbursement districts shown on the attached Table 1 or established L thereafter. All connections qualifying under this program must be completed within r three years after Council approval of thie final City Engineer's Report following a n public hearing conducted in accordance with TMC Section 13.09.105 or by two years ` from file date this resolution is passed, which ever is later, as shown on the attached Table 1. 0 SECTION 3: To the extent that the reimbursement fee determined in accordance with Section 13.09.040 does not exceed $15,000, the amount to be reimbursed by an owner of a lot zoned single family residential shall not exceed $6,000 per connection, provided that the lot owner complies with the provisions of Section 2. Any amount over $15,000 shall be reimbursed by the owner. This applies only to the reimbursement fee for the sewer installation and not to the connection fee, which is still payable upon application for RESOLUTION NO. 01-40 Page I I i ~ sewer connection. SECTION 4: The City Engineer's Report required by TMC Chapter 13.09 shall apply the provisions of this incentive program. Residential tot owners who do not connect to sewer in accordance with Section 2 shall pay the full reimbursement amount as determined by the final City Engineer's Report. SECTION 5: Any person who has paid a reimbursement fee in excess of the fee required herein is entitled to reimbursement from the City. The amounts to be reimbursed and the persons to be paid shall be determined by the Finance Director and approved by the City Manager. There shall be a full explanation of any circumstances that require payment to any person who is not an original payer. The Finance Director shall make payment to all persons entitled to the refund no later than August 31, 2001. SECTION 6: The Sanitary Sewer Fund, which is the funding source for the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Program, shall provide the funding for the installation costs over $6,000 up to a maximum of $15,000 per connection. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2001 PASSED; This / b - day of 2001. ayor Ci of 'and ' ATTEST: L 2 i Recorder - City of tigard I: XCiWwxWtesWcwiudon ttemmg the Nctditd" Sewer Incentive Program J RESOLUTION NO. 01--40 Page 2 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder DATE: July 15, 2003 SUBJECT: Council Retreat - Select a Date and Time After hearing from several Council members, it appears that August 5, would be the only date left to consider from those I offered as suggestions for a Council Retreat. August 5 is a Tuesday night, which is not a regular Council meeting night. Another suggestion would be to hold the retreat on August 19. This would typically be a workshop meeting; however, the meeting agenda was very light and items could be easily rescheduled. OADMICATHMOUNCIURETREAT DATE MEMO.DOC 7 1 I Proposed Amendments to the Sewer Reimbursement Incentive Program July 15, 2003 The current Incentive Program (Resolution No. 01-46) provides that if an owner connects to the sewer within three years of it becoming available, the owner's reimbursement fee is limited to $6,000 plus the amount the owner's fair share of the cost of the sewer exceeds $15,000. For most owners, the amount of the fair share does not exceed $15,000 and the fee is limited to $6,000. However, some lots, particularly large lots that could be partitioned, are assigned fair shares that exceed $15,000 and would be required to pay an additional amount to connect their house to the sewer. This is a disincentive for those lot owners who merely wish to connect their existing houses to sewer. In addition, there are undeveloped lots that have the potential to subdivide into two or three lots at some point in the future. However, the lot owner may choose to build a house on the undeveloped lot and connect to sewer at the same time. The program should recognize these situations and allow participation of these lots in the incentive program. To make the program more equitable and to encourage early connections, the following revisions are proposed. 1. For those lot owners whose reimbursement fee exceeds $15,000 and merely wish to connect an existing house within three years after sewer becomes available, the amount over $15,000 would be deferred until such time as the lot is partitioned, subdivided, or otherwise developed. These lot owners would get credit for the amount between $6,000 and $15,000 if they do connect within that three year period. 2. For each lot that is currently undeveloped but is included in a reimbursement district, a reimbursement fee of $6,000 would be charged at the time a structure is constructed on the lot requiring sewer connection. Any amount over $15,000 would be deferred until the lot is partitioned, subdivided or otherwise developed. L 3. Those lot owners in reimbursement districts that have exceeded the three-year period t: for connection and have not connected to sewer can connect an existing structure, pay A a reimbursement fee of $6,000, and qualify for the deferral if they connect within one ` year after the effective date of this amendment. 1 4. The deferred amount would not be subject to the annual increase if development occurs and payment becomes due. Upon direction from Council, amendments will be drafted for Council consideration at the August 26, 2003 Council meeting. AGENDA ITEM # °Z FOR AGENDA OF July 15, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update on Long Term Water Supply PREPARED BY: Dennis Koellermeier DEPT HEAD OK , CITY MGR OK ~UV Y V 1~ /jfW ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The City has made progress on several issues since the last Council update affecting Tigard's efforts to secure a long term water supply. This will be the third joint meeting with the Intergovernmental Water Board where City staff will brief the Council and IWB on the most current information available regarding both our relationship with the City of Portland and our efforts to become members of the Joint Water Commission. There will also be a discussion relating to proposed changes that will come before the City Council relating to our membership in the Willamette River Supply Agency (WWSA). STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action is recommended at this time. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City had been actively pursuing ownership in a long term source of water. Past and current Council goals as well as the visioning process, has consistently directed the City to this goal. We have been working on two projects to this end, one being the regionalization of the Bull Run system and the other being membership in the Joint Water Commission. The City of Portland has recently withdrawn their support of a regional agency at this time. The City is currently dependent and will continue to be dependent on the Bull Run system to meet a portion of our water supply needs. Tigard, along with the other suburban wholesalers, must now shift their focus to the negotiation of new wholesale contracts. That process has been underway since May and staff will present a status report on the process. C. At the same time progress is being made in our efforts to gain membership into the Joint Water Commission. The current members of the Commission have directed their staff to negotiate the general terms under which Tigard would become a member. Tigard is currently requesting a membership that is based on the ability to obtain a firm 4 million gallons a day supply from the Commission. 00 In addition to the above informational updates, the members of the WWSA have suggested some changes to their LU organization. Those proposed changes will be presented and explained by staff at the meeting. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Current Council Goals and the Visioning document identify the desire to obtain a long term water supply, ATTACHMENT LIST none FISCAL NOTES W y UPDATE: C?~ty, of Tigard's Long Term Water supply Options Joint City Council & lWB Workshop July 15, 2003 ;r u;ryot .0,tions ILI ■ Portland Bureau of Water Works ■ Joint Water Commission ■ Willamette Water Supply Agency r d. a Wholesale Water contract Negotiations. ■ Participating Agencies F t!3 ■ City of Gresham ■ Rockwood people's Utility District .J ■ City of Tigard m ■ City of Tualatin ■ Tualatin Valley Water District W ■ West Slope Water District ■ Other small wholesale customers 1 a y ~~SUes,' . . ■ Nomination of Supply ■ Rates & Changes ■ Customer Withdrawal s Curtailment ■ Funding & Management of CIP es ~lcr objrrti~ es' . ■ Long term planning & rate projections ■ Stability in rates ■ Guarantee of fine supply, quality, pressure ■ Reduction in price ■ Objective standards used in pricing ■ Minimum purchase set at amount, not percent ■ Joint ownership of future facilities s No deferred maintenance to supply/transmission n Eliminate penalty if a wholesaler uses less water lam' ~ ~ t lava U~~c i e5 ' h ~f6" a s Insure benefits of water sales to wholesale customers ■ Certainty of revenue ■ Long term viability of water supply system a. Insure safe, reliable & efficient water supply system _J ■ Maximize benefits from Bull Run Supply System m ■ Balance risks associated with wholesale sales W ■ Protect ability to provide supply to retail customers J ■ Work for an economic solution benefiting retail customers. 2 N ` 71'x: 1 f lu Y\ Y ~•1(~. ■ Currently meeting on a scheduled basis ■ 113 of draft contract has been reviewed ■ Issues Remaining ■ Pricing ■ Minimum Purchase ■ Joint Funding & Management of future CIP ■ Complete "model" contract by Fall 2003 ■ Complete Tigard contract by Winter 2003 ■ Ask Council for action by January 2004 1h, 0 miln, . s L 2 ■ J WC has developed a City of Tigard Membership Proposal a ■ Future Capital Improvement Projects J 0 u 3 proposal Concept a 4 million gallons per day "membership share" ■ Buy-in costs are an estimated 9-12 million dollars ■ Need to "lease" stored water from member s May be ready for approval by Pail of 2003 buy=In ]Payment r Proposal avoids an `up-front" payment ■ Tigard would become responsible for larger percentage of future Capital Improvement Projects ■ Anticipate spreading 39 million dollar -buy-in-over three projects within the next 7 years l~~~pgsed P.~o~ects:Schedule L See Attached Worksheet 4 amette Water 8408 y Age oy; ■ Revisions to IGA ■ Name . Willamette River Water Coalition e Partners . Tualatin Valley Water District . Canby Utility Board . City of Tigard . City of Sherwood . City of Tualatin . City of Gladstone ■ Funding Formula ~~~ss~on of the `WR~VC ■ Protecting the Willamette River ■ Protecting our Water Rights M TIGARD'S "ASSIGNMENT" OF WATER RIGHTS ARE INTACT ``~~'DONS & ANSVtI.F~RS' ar 6L N Next Meeting: OCTOBER 21, 2003 m W J 5 Proposed Projects Schedule Cost Worksheet (DRAFT) All Treatment at Existing Plant (Figures 3 & 4) FY 02103 FY 03104 FY 04105 FY 05106 FY 06/07 FY 07108 FY 08109 FY 09110 FY 10111 FY 11112 FY 12113 FY 13114 FY 14/15 7777 Sc0 insDam $125,000,000. $1200 DUO $9$9,000 "$1,604;1X00 $21400,000 $4,500,000 $12,000,000 $35;935,920 $31,200,000 $35,179,980 Sain Creek Tunnel $25,000,000 $250,000 $2,250;000 17 500,000 ` $10,000;004 $5,000,040 Raw Water Ph 1 $50,000,000 50,OQR _ $4Q0,000 $3,750;000 $15 000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 Plant Upgrade #1 $25,000,000 $2,500 000 $12,500;000 $1Q10001000 Plant Upgrade #2 $50,000,000 $2;5001000 $io,000,000 $22,500,000 -$1.5;000,000 Plant Upgrade #3 $20,000,000 $21000,000 $101000,000 $8;000,000 Plant Upgrade #4 $20,000,000 Fern Hill $30,150,000 $2,000,000 $16,000;4.00 $101150,000 Cooper Trans. Line $25,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $12,500,000 . $7,500,000 Cooper Res, 25 MG $30,000,000 $2;000,000 $16,000,000 $10,150,000 ,Cooper Res, 25 MG $25,000,000 Total $425,150,000 $1,650,000 $4,034,000 $28,100,100 $47,550,000 $44,500,000 $29,500,000 $45,935,920 $56,200,000 $52,679,980 $12,500,000 $11,500,000 $28,000,000 $18,150,000 ,Tigard (Core Participation) $326,445 $771,334 $6,186,237 $12,815,150 $11,223,800 $5,754,550 $10,443,277 $12,976,230 $11,961,168 $2,115,000 $2,112,000 $5,568,600 $3,735,780 Ti and (Expanded Participation) $278,025 $642,262 $4,877,239 $9,542,990 $8,521,650 $4,901,900 $8,897,172 $11,081,990 $10,215,032 $1,918,750 $1,888,450 $4,914,000 $3,278,825 Difference $48,420 $129,072 $1,308,998 $3,272,160 $2,702,150 $852.650 $1,546,105 $1,894,240 $1,746,135 $196,250 $223,550 $654,600 $456,955 Tigard Buy-In FY 02103 FY 03/04 FY 04105 FY 05106 FY 06107 FY 07108 FY 08109 FY 09110 FY 10111 FY 11/12 FY 12113 FY 13114 FY 14!15 Sc0 ins Dam $3,000,000 $39,065 $58,62.x} $109,921 $293,121 _ $877,799 $762,116 $859,334 Sain Creek Tunnel $3,000,000 =$272,727 .$909,091 $11212,121 $6011061 Raw Water Ph.1 $3,000,000 $230,769 $923;x77 $1,230,769 $615,385 Total $9,000,000 $542,582 $1,890,792 $2,552,811 $1,514,567 $877,799 $762,116 $859,334 Grand Totals:(Core Participation and $9,000,000 Buy-in) $6,728,619 $14,705,942 $13,776,611 $7,269,117 $11,321,076 $13,738,346 $12,820,501 $2,115,000 4,112,000 $5,568,600 $3.735,780 $93,891,791 Proposed Projects Schedule 7I,S,U3 Cost Worksheet Mrsh--4buIx-A (DRAFT) 0* All Treatment at Existing Plant (Figures 3 & 4) FY 02103 FY 03104 FY 04/05 FY 05106 FY 06107 FY 07108 FY 08109 FY 09110 FY 10111 FY 11112 FY 12113 FY 13114 FY 14/15 Sco ins Dam $125,000,000 090 $1 sDpi00 5204000$4,5go,g00 F $120,040 $35s$5sz0 $31,206,000$35,17,9 980 Sain Creek Tunnel $25,000,000 $250,000 $2125D;Q0R $7;500,000 ,$10,000,000 $5,004,000 Raw Water Ph 1 $50,000,000 aAAQ, womoo $3750,400 $15.:000,000 $20,ooD,0o0 smco0;006 Plant Upgrade #1 $25,000,000 $0,D0o ;500,000 . ~$10 R00,gg Plant Upgrade #2 $50,000,000 $2,500,000 $14,000,000 w''4,1000,000 Plant Upgrade #3 $20,000,000 $2,000,000 ';$10,000,000. ,$8,o0a;0o0 Plant Upgrade #4 $20,000,000 Fern Hill $30,150,000 i~i000;000 $180D0;000 $,10;150,000 Cooper Trans. Line $25,000,000 $2,5001000 ;42,500,000 $12,500,000 47506,000 Cooper Res. 25 MG $30,000,000 $2,000;000 $18,000,000 - $10,150,000 Cooper Res. 25 MG $25,000,000 Total $425,150,000 $1,650,000 $4,034.000 $28,100.100 $47,550,000 $44,500,000 $29,500,000 $45,935,920 $56,200,000 $52,679,980 $12,500,000 $11,500,000 $28,000,000 $18,150,000 Tigard (Core Participation) $326,445 $771,334 $6,186,237 $12,815,150 $11,223,800 $5,754,550 $10,443,277 $12,976,230 $11,961,168 $2,115,000 $2,112,000 $5,568,600 $3,735,780 Tigard (Expanded Participation) $278,025 $642,262 $4,877,239 $9,542,990 $8,521,650 $4,901,900 $8,897,172 $11,081,990 $10,215,032 $1,918,750 $1,888,450 $4,914,000 $3,278,825 Difference $48,420 $129,072 $1,308,998 $3,272,160 $2,702,150 $852,650 $1,546,105 $1,894,240 $1,746,135 $196,250 $223,550 $654,600 $456,955 Tigard Bu 4n FY 02103 FY 03104 FY 04105 FY 05106 FY 06/07 FY 07108 FY 08109 FY 09110 FY 10111 FY 11/12 FY 12113 FY 13114 FY 14115 Sco ins Dam $3,000,000 $39,085 $58,624 $109,921 $293121 $877,799 ,'$76 1 2,116 $859;334 Sain Creek Tunnel $3,000,000 52722,727 $909,0W $1,212,121 $303;031 Raw Water Ph. 1 $3,000,000 $2?q,7B9 $323,077 ::51,230,769 $615,385 Total $9,000,000 $542,582 $1,890,792 $2,552,811 $1,514,567 $877,799 $762,116 $859,334 Grand Totals:(Core Participation and $9,000,000 Buy-in) $6,728,819 $14,705,942 $13,776,611 $7,269,117 $11,321,076 $13,7338,346 $12,820,501 $2,115,000 $2,112,000 $5,568,600 $3,735,780 $93,891,791 AGENDA ITEM # _3 FOR AGENDA OF July 15, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Bull Mountain Public Facilities and Services Assessment Report - policy discussion PREPARED BY: Jim Hendryx DEPT HEAD OK 41TY MGR OK ~ _V V W ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL General policy discussion about annexation issues and policy choices. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action is being requested other than discussion. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Public Facilities and Services Assessment Report has been developed to address Council's goal of evaluating Tigard's role in the provision of urban services. The primary objective of the report is to evaluate how the potential timing of annexations impacts the City's ability to provide for this area the most effectively and efficiently. The document serves as the foundation for more detailed policy discussions and decisions as listed on pages 23 and 24 of the Assessment Report. Council was presented a copy of the draft Assessment Report in June, 2003. Since that time, Council has had the opportunity to ask questions and the document has been further refined. At this work session, Council will be asked to discuss the policy choices and issues discussed in the Assessment Report. The Assessment Report will be finalized after this work session. Staff is scheduled to present the final document with policy direction at the August 26, 2003 Council 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. i ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Draft Bull Mountain Public Facilities and Services Assessment Report (July 1, 2003 update) FISCAL NOTES The Public Facilities and Services Assessment Report includes a fiscal analysis section which evaluates the financial impact of annexation over time. There are no direct costs for the production of the PF&S Assessment Report. Future action may have associated costs, however, estimation of potential costs depends on Council actions and decisions which are not planned to be part of the discussion at this particular meeting. IAlrpln\julia\annexation plans\facilities planW&S assessment report policy discussion ais.doc M Attachment 1 D PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE BULL MOUNTAIN AREA CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community L r Community Development Department o Long-Range Planning Draft - updated July 1, 2003 i i i Table of Contents Page 1. Executive Summary 1 II. Introduction 5 A. Background B. Report scope and objectives III. Methodology 7 A. Area of Evaluation B. Range of Alternatives C. Overview of Evaluation Criteria 1. Fiscal 2. Service Provision Impacts 3. Relationship to UGB D. Analytical Approach E. Assumptions F. Relationship to Bull Mountain Study IV. Analysis of Alternatives 11 A. Fiscal Analysis 1. General Overview/Approach 2. Analysis of on-going provision of services 3. Analysis of capital needs B. Analysis of Service Provision Impacts C. UGB V. Summary of Conclusions 22 A. Timing and Sequence B. Policy Analysis x' Appendices Appendix A. Study Area Profile o Appendix B. On-Going Service Costs and Revenues Appendix C. Growth Based Fund Descriptions Appendix D. Tigard Service Provision Impacts summaries by Department Appendix E. Change in Service Levels bet'Neen County and City Appendix F. Evaluation Criteria Tables Appendix G. Chronology of coordination in unincorporated areas 0 City of Tigard D Public Facilities and Services Plan for the Bull Mountain Area PRODUCED BY: THE CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IN COLLABORATION WITH THE FINANCE, ENGINEERING, POLICE AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS DIRECTOR, JAMES N.P. HENDRYX JULY, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OR 97223 503/639-4171 L , r A J u ~a Draft Section I. - Executive Summery With the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan in the early 1980s, the Bull Mountain area has been identified as within Tigard's urban services area. Over the years, portions of Bull Mountain have annexed into the City. However, major portions (approximately 1,430 acres) remain outside the City limits. This area is developing rapidly at urban densities. Given the existing development trends, portions of the Bull Mountain area are likely to reach build out in the next few years. Under the Oregon land use system, all cities and counties, through a cooperative process are required to establish Urban Growth Boundaries separating urbanizable land from rural land. Establishment and development within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) area is based on several factors, including orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services to support urban levels of development. However, the planning and development pattern in unincorporated Bull Mountain has not taken into account the capital needs, including the open space and recreational needs of its residents. Should the area fully build out before annexation, Tigard will not have all the financial/growth management tools that exist today to address the needs of the area. Ongoing services On-going services such as police service, street maintenance and other services are not one-time investments. On-going service needs are those needed to maintain newly annexed areas at the same level of service as provided to the City of Tigard. Revenues for on-going services are based on population and other factors, not directly tied to new development. Several funds are not projected to cover the on-going service costs, however, the Gas Tax fund is the only one that can not be increased to ensure that costs are covered. Policy choices are proposed to help minimize the Gas Tax fund deficiencies. The projections indicate that, with all revenue funds combined, the Bull Mountain area can be provided City of Tigard services without a reduction in services. Capital needs Capital needs include park acquisition, major road improvements, storm and sanitary sewer facilities. Revenue for capital needs comes from new development. The Bull Mountain Area has estimated capital improvement needs totaling approximately $36 million. While this amount appears significant, it is roughly proportional to the rest of Tigard's capital needs. a N Because revenue for capital needs comes from new developments, annexation should occur as soon as possible in order for the City to maximize the available funds to meet the projected needs. By delaying annexation until 2010, 25.6% of the capital funds will m not be available to Tigard. Approximately, 45.6% will not be available if annexation is delayed until 2015. W J Service provision All service providers except Public Works -Streets Division and Police, could temporarily absorb portions, or the entire area, using existing crews, until additional staff and equipment is purchased. The Police Department could absorb any portion or the entire area with a reduction only in response time to priority 3 (lowest priority, no one in danger) Pagel Draft calls. The Streets Division could not absorb more than one sub-area without additional staff being hired up front. Relation to the UG8 expansion areas The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) has recently been expanded. Two areas are adjacent to Bull Mountain. Both are suitable for urban development and eventual inclusion within Tigard's urban services area. Tigard's involvement in the development of these areas is critical to assure that urban levels of public facilities and services are available for future residents. Integration with Bull Mountain will also be necessary so that they can be planned to complement and enhance the Bull Mountain community and each other. Consideration must be given to providing logical connections to the UGB expansion areas and the rest of the City, ensuring that adequate service delivery can be provided. Conclusion Unincorporated Bull Mountain currently receives its public facilities and services from Washington County and special service districts. The County is responsible for law enforcement, road maintenance, and sanitary and storm sewer services. Law enforcement and road maintenance services are provided at enhanced urban levels as compared to rural areas of Washington County. The County has differing service and facilities standards than Tigard. The City has limited ability to manage growth outside its City limits to ensure that efficient and effective public facilities and services are provided. The timing of annexation is a major factor in addressing this issue. Development occurring outside Tigard's City limits, while subject to specific regulations, does not account for the City's ability to ultimately provide urban levels of public facilities and services. The Bull Mountain Assessment Report indicates: • As with the rest of the City, the Gas Tax Fund deficit issue must be addressed for Bull Mountain. However, there are policy choices that can minimize impacts. • As with the rest of the City, Bull Mountain has capital improvement needs. Delaying annexation impacts the City's ability to address those needs. ! • Annexation of the entire Bull Mountain area at one time impacts service delivery due to increased staffing and equipment needs. However, options are available to eliminate or reduce impacts. I • The two UGB expansions adjacent to Bull Mountain offer Tigard the ability to plan for the delivery of urban levels of service and capital facilities before these areas develop. • An annexation strategy is needed for Bull Mountain to address the long term delivery of services and capital facilities. Page 2 Draft Recommendations City Council needs to consider how and when it will be the optimal time to provide City services to Bull Mountain and eventually the two UGB expansion areas adjacent to Bull Mountain. Delay in addressing this issue reduces the City's ability to adequately provide for those needs. There is a series of policy choices Council can take. Council can decide to maintain the status quo or actively pursue annexation of portions or the entire area. Listed below are five potential policy choices, followed by sub-tasks to implement each policy choice. 1. Support property owner annexations and require annexation prior to development. (status quo) - Formalize existing policy that all undeveloped property should be annexed prior to developing. This will require amendments to the Urban Planning Area Agreement between Tigard and Washington County. - Utilize the double majority annexation method wherever possible. This method of annexation allows inclusion of additional properties beyond those requesting annexation. 2. Actively seek support of annexations in targeted areas - Formalize existing policy that all undeveloped property should be annexed prior to developing. This will require amendments to the Urban Planning Area Agreement between Tigard and Washington County. - Utilize the double majority annexation method wherever possible. - Focus on areas that have the greatest opportunities for Tigard to address the public service needs. 3. Actively seek annexations via island, cherry stem, and other annexation methods. - Formalize existing policy that all undeveloped property should be annexed prior to developing. This will require amendments to the Urban Planning Area Agreement between Tigard and Washington County. - Utilize the double majority annexation method wherever possible. - Focus on areas that have the greatest opportunities for Tigard to address the public service needs. 4. Initiate annexation and take to vote of Bull Mountain area only. a - Formalize existing policy that all undeveloped property should be annexed prior to developing. This will require amendments to the Urban Planning Area Agreement between Tigard and Washington County. - Consider annexation of the entire area or focus on areas that'have the a greatest opportunities for Tigard to address 'the public service needs. m - Extensive public involvement is necessary to proceed with either the Bull W Mountain or Annexation plan vote. J • Direct development of public involvement plan. • Actively involve Washington County in the development and implementation of any public involvement plan. Page 3 Draft 5. Annexation plan - vote of Tigard and the affected Bull Mountain area. - Formalize existing policy that all undeveloped property should be annexed prior to developing. This will require amendments to the Urban Planning Area Agreement between Tigard and Washington County. - Consider the entire area or focus on areas that have the greatest opportunities for Tigard to address the public service needs. - Extensive public involvement is necessary to proceed with either the Bull Mountain or Annexation plan vote. • Direct development of public involvement plan. • Actively involve Washington County in the development and implementation of any public involvement plan. If Council chooses to seek annexation of the entire Bull Mountain area, there will be short term impacts on service delivery. To address this issue, the following policy choices could be considered: - Delay the effective date of annexation until staffing and equipment can be obtained. • Delaying the effective date of annexation by up to a year would allow hiring and training of police staff and purchase of new equipment. • This would require authorizing funding in advance of the annexation becoming effective. - Negotiate agreements with the County to provide short-term assistance until Tigard service providers are fully staffed. - Accept short-term, citywide reduction in service levels until staff and equipment are up to standard levels. L w J 0 9 u Page 4 Section 11. - Introduction Draft A. Background With the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan in the early 1980s, the Bull Mountain area has been identified as within the Urban Growth Boundary of Tigard. Over the years, portions of Bull Mountain have annexed into the City. However, major portions (approximately 1,430 acres) remain outside the City limits. This area is developing rapidly at urban densities. Specific areas are nearing build out while other areas can accommodate considerable growth. The planning and development pattern in Bull Mountain has not taken into account the capital needs, including the open space and recreational needs of its residents. Given the existing development trends, portions of the Bull Mountain area are likely to reach build out in the next few years which would further exacerbate the open space/recreational deficiency. A detailed chronology of coordination efforts is provided in Appendix A. Unincorporated Bull Mountain currently receives its public facilities and services from Washington County and special service districts. The County is responsible for law enforcement, road maintenance, and sanitary and storm sewer services. Tigard, through an intergovernmental agreement with the County, provides development related planning, building, and engineering services to the area. Law enforcement and road maintenance services are provided at enhanced urban levels as compared to rural areas of Washington County. In December 2002, the Metro Council finalized the two-year process of reviewing the region's capacity for housing and jobs by expanding the urban growth boundary (UGB). As part of this decision, Tigard and Washington County will need to incorporate an additional 480 acres adjacent to the unincorporated Bull Mountain area as part of the overall urban services provision/annexation strategy. When combined with the projected Bull Mountain area population, this may ultimately result in approximately 15,000 new residents. Since the current Tigard population is approximately 44,000 (2002), the unincorporated portion of the Bull Mountain area will constitute approximately 21 % of the overall number of residents (59,000) living in this portion of Tigard's Urban Growth Boundary area at its estimated build out. In 2001, the Tigard Council established a goal to develop an annexation policy/strategy a for non-island areas, such as Bull Mountain. In 2001, Tigard developed a Bull Mountain annexation study to assess the feasibility of annexing the Bull Mountain area. The key conclusions and policy issues identified in the Bull Mountain Annexation Study centered 0 on the capital needs and lack of funds to meet all the needs in the Bull Mountain area. u After the Bull Mountain Annexation Study was published, a public opinion survey was completed to assess Tigard citizen and Bull Mountain resident opinions on the potential of annexing the Bull Mountain area. In fall 2002, Council considered a resolution to initiate an annexation plan for the Bull Mountain area; however, the resolution did not pass. While Council decided not to go further with an annexation strategy last year, its goals continue to involve the Bull Mountain area. Therefore, in order to develop a long-term Page 5 Draft strategy for providing services to the Bull Mountain area, a Public Facilities and Services Assessment Report has been developed. B. Report Scope and Obiectives The analysis contained in this report addresses the relationship between the efficiency of service provision and annexation strategies and its impact on the efficient use of urbanizable land. The objectives of the report are: • To provide a comprehensive analysis of public services and facilities needs for Bull Mountain, with the emphasis on the relationship between the timing of annexation and funding mechanisms for both on-going and one-time capital improvement projects. One of the primary objectives of the Bull Mountain Public Facilities and Services Assessment Report is to evaluate the potential timing and sequence of annexation and its impacts upon the City's ability to provide efficient and effective public facilities and services. The City has limited ability to manage growth outside its City limits to ensure that efficient and effective public facilities and services are provided. The timing of annexation is a major factor in addressing this issue. Development occurring outside Tigard's City limits, while subject to specific regulations, does not account for the City's ability to ultimately provide urban levels of public facilities and services. • To identify policy choices related to the provision of public services and needs upon annexation. The Assessment Report provides the framework for further policy discussion on how and when the area is annexed and receives City services. i i Page 6 Section III - Methodology Oraft A. Area of Evaluation The area evaluated for this assessment report, commonly referred to as Bull Mountain, is generally comprised of all the unincorporated area north of Beef Bend Road, east of the Urban Growth Boundary, south of Barrows Road and west of 99W. According to the 2000 census, there are 7,300 people in the study area. The area consists of a mix of larger undeveloped lots, large developed lots, and smaller lots built to the minimum densities (generally R-7). The study area was defined in the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study and consists of approximately 1,430 acres. While some annexations have occurred, they are not reflected in this study. However, the development of these areas was already approved at the time of the 2009 Bull Mountain Annexation Study and was factored in to the growth projections. B. Range of Alternatives Due to the size of the area, growth potential and nature of existing development, the study evaluated nine alternatives: four sub-areas, four combinations of sub-areas and the entire area as a whole. The entire area was divided into the same four sub-areas utilized in the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study (see Figure 1, next page). Because this report utilized the previous work conducted, the projected population and housing units for each sub-area over time is known and was used in the evaluation. The following is a brief summary of what is known about each sub-area (a more detailed description is located in Appendix B): North - This area consists of approximately 383 acres and a population of 3,001. It is largely built out with only about 10% of the area identified as vacant or redevelopable. Based on the household growth rate of 2.2% identified by Metro, the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study estimated that this area will be built out in 4.5 years. West - This area consists of approximately 259 acres with 944 people. The majority of the area has been developed with large lot subdivisions, which are not expected to be divided further. However, 15.3% of the land in this area is identified as vacant or redevelopable. Based on the 2.2% household growth rate identified by Metro, the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study estimated that this area will be built out in 6.9 years. South - This area consists of approximately 507 acres of land and 3,196 people. ' Many of the subdivisions were developed with large lots that are not expected to be divided further; as a result, this area has about 10.6% vacant or redevelopable land. Based on the 2.2% household growth rate identified by Metro, the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study estimated that this area will be built out in 4.8 years. East - This area consists of approximately 282 acres with 544 people. This area has most of the area's growth potential, with almost 40 percent of the land identified as vacant or redevelopable. Based on the 2.2% household growth rate identified by Metro, the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study estimated that this area will be built out in 18 years. However, recent land purchases in this area and initial discussions with developers indicate that this area could develop much sooner than projected. Page 7 `Et,Ialloy STRIP a used on 20ti~ cm Gtn~ts MP A tao Ouloll as l d% iL.di c UC~~' CD 'CJl~4'FY~11 l31 -.~{'1 -rl~ r ~ t ~Ek 6 .O 8p0 Feet BOO <OUl F Draft The information provided for each sub-area from the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study was utilized to make financial and service need projections to meet the objectives of this assessment report. In addition to the four sub-areas evaluated in the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study, this report also looked at combinations of 2 areas in order to evaluate impacts to the City to serve larger areas and also to identify if strategic combinations of areas created a more optimal provision of services than single areas alone. Because the possible combinations were countless, combinations were only considered if the areas were contiguous to one another. Four combinations of areas were contiguous: • South and East • South and West • North and South • North and West The report also looked at the entire area as a whole to determine the issues that may arise if the area were to annex at the same time. The end result is 9 alternatives. C. Overview of Evaluation Criteria To meet the objective of evaluating the efficient and effective provision of services to the Bull Mountain area over time, three criteria were developed: 1. Fiscal a. On-going provision of services - how much does it cost to provide on-going services over the long term (2015) versus the revenue that will be collected; and b. One-time capital facility needs - how much revenue can be expected to meet the capital needs. This analysis looks at the factor time (and continued development without annexation) has on the City's ability to collect fees to address the anticipated capital needs. Capital need estimates were based on existing Public Facilities Plans and Master Plans. 2. Tigard Service Provision Impacts a. Service provision impacts - What would the impact be on existing City services and their ability to meet the historically accepted service levels immediately upon annexation? L - This factor is temporary in nature because, as funds are collected, r additional staff and equipment will be obtained to bring each n department up to the desired service levels. o b. Proximity to City limits/require crossing unincorporated areas to serve - It is more efficient provide municipal services to contiguous area than non- contiguous areas. This avoids out of direction travel and simplifies service provision boundaries. This analysis looks at whether an alternative is adjacent to the City limits and whether service providers would be required to cross unincorporated areas to serve all or a portion of each alternative being evaluated. Page 9 Draft 3. Relationship to the UGB expansion area a. Does the area or combination of areas provide a link to one or both of the UGB expansion areas? By providing a link to the UGB expansion areas, the provision of services to both the Bull Mountain area and the UGB expansion area is more efficient and effective. The remainder of this report provides more detailed analysis of the factors discussed in this methodology section. D. Analytical Approach Each section of the report addresses the two main objectives of the report: 1. Sequence and Timing In order to evaluate the effectiveness of providing public facilities and services to each alternative (sub-areas), points were assigned to the criteria (i.e., fiscal, service impacts, etc). This provided a method to analyze the effectiveness of providing facilities and services. Ranking resulted from this analysis indicating the most optimal sequence to serve the areas. The "fiscal impacts" category was weighted most heavily with 45 possible points. "Tigard service provision impact" was allocated 30 possible points and "relationship to UGB expansion area" was allocated 20 possible points. An additional category was also included to capture additional considerations, such as publicly owned land with park potential, that didn't fit into the three main categories. The "Additional Factors" category was allocated 5 points. 2. Policy choices identified The analysis includes identification of key policy decisions that Council will need to consider. Policy decisions are identified when there is a "gap" in funding of public facilities such as roads, or in providing on-going services, such as street maintenance or police services. E. Assumptions In the development of this document, projections were made that were based on the following assumptions • Assumptions in the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation study for population and development were used to estimate the needs for on-going services and capital. 2015 population estimates from the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study were h used for on-going services All cost estimates are in 2002 dollars It is assumed that the entire area would, at some point, annex For analysis only, it was assumed that the revenue produced in the Bull Mountain ii area would go towards costs in the area and money for costs in the area would come only from the revenue generated from the area as opposed to Citywide I funds. Growth has occurred since the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study was complete. In an effort to continue building upon the original annexation study area projects, the boundaries, population numbers and growth projections were not updated. However, it is believed that the projections and information provided within this report represent an accurate picture of the issues. Page 10 M Draft Section IV - Analysis of Alternatives A. Fiscal Analysis 1. General Overview/Approach In order to evaluate how efficient service-provision will be provided over time, this report looked at the financial implications of annexation. The primary question asked is: Will the needs for public facilities and services in the Bull Mountain area create a financial burden on the City or will the revenues generated in the areas off-set the financial needs? There are two major funding considerations for the City to determine the financial implications of serving an area: • Projected impact on on-going provision of services and • Projected one-time capital investment needs (future/long term) Below is a brief summary of the two major funding considerations: • Projected impact on on-going provision of services On-going services are services such as police service, street maintenance and other services that are not one-time investments. The on-going service provision needs are those needed to maintain newly annexed areas at the same level of service as historically provided to the City of Tigard. Are the revenues projected to cover the costs or will the on-going needs exceed that of available funds? Revenues for on-going services are based on population and other factors, not directly to new development. If growth occurs prior to annexation, revenues will not be lost forever. For this reason, the long term impact of annexation was analyzed for on-going services to insure that annexation did not result in a burden on City services as the areas reach build out. Projected one-time capital facilities needs (future/long term) Capital facility needs include major one-time investments such as major road upgrades or park facilities. This report identified the potential capital needs for this area utilizing existing Facilities Plan, Master Plans and/or known or anticipated capital needs. The capital needs are mostly medium to long term needs (6 plus L years). Revenues for capital improvements come from the one-time costs R associated with new development such as park SDCs, traffic impact fees and n sewer connection fees. The 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study projected that t revenues do not cover the total anticipated need. The Assessment Report 4 analysis evaluated the factor of how time impacts the projected revenues. This re- evaluates the capital need assumptions by looking only at capital projects that are u identified in existing Public Facility Plans or Master Plans. The revenue potential decreases over time if property develops prior to annexation. For this reason, the one-time capital needs analysis factors in the revenue lost over time if annexations are delayed. For analysis purposes only, potential annexations in 2005, 2010 and 2015 were evaluated. Page 11 Draft 2. Analysis of On-going provision of services a. Scope of Analysis This section is intended to evaluate if the projected revenues from each sub-area cover the projected costs for providing on-going services. Do individual sub-areas or the entire area generate sufficient revenue to off-set the cost of providing on-going services? On- going services are any service that requires yearly funding to maintain, such as police service, street maintenance and water. For the fiscal analysis, it was assumed that Tigard will provide services at historic levels. The following table (Table 1) provides a brief summary of the assumptions used by each department liaison who participated in this assessment: Table 1 Sanitary Looked at existing and projected feet of sewer line and estimated needed staff and Sewer equipment based on the standard FTE per x feet of line. Also included pro-rated re lacement costs forequipment. Water Currently providing service for this area so numbers are based on known costs. Road Looked at age of existing roads in the area and calculated needs based on Quality projected pavement condition indexes on a sub-area basis. Street Looked at existing lane miles and projected lane miles based on projected housing Maint. units in each area. Applied these numbers to the existing cost per lane mile to conduct street maintenance activities (sweeping, checking signs, dust abatement, crack sealing, etc. Also included pro-rated replacement costs forequipment. Street Looked at how much Tigard currently pays per month for lights and estimated that Lights the entire Bull Mountain area represents about 1/5 of the entire City. Each area allocated a certain percent of the estimated area costs. Parks Looked at parks planned for in the 1999 Parks System Master Plan. Cost estimates were from the Master Plan with an inflation factor applied. Also included pro-rated replacement costs forequipment. Police Assumed 1.5 police officers per 1,000 residents. Also included pro-rated replacement costs for 1 fully equipped vehicle for every 3 officers. Community Assumed one additional long range planner was needed for the entire area. Each Dev. sub-area was allocated .25 new staff. Storm Looked at existing and projected feet of sewer line and estimated needed staff and Sewer equipment based on the standard FTE per x feet of line. Also included pro-rated re lacement costs forequipment. For on-going service cost projections and revenue projections, the 2015 population and dwelling unit estimates were used to determine what the long-term financial impacts would be for the City. In the East and West sub-areas, full build out is not projected to be reached by 2015, however, it provides a better picture of the on-going service needs each area will require and the ability of the City to fund those needs. The tables in Appendix C show the 2015 projected service costs for each area and the 2015 revenues for each area. Table 2, below shows the difference between the costs of providing on-going services and revenues for each sub-area. Page 12 l Draft Estimated 2015 Revenues versus Costs for on- oin services Table 2 Sub-areas North East South West Sanitary Sewer $41,600 $8,600 $49,700 $13,600 Water $70,900 $77,200 $69,600 $41,900 Gas Tax: ($1,200) ($19,600) ($70,500) ($236,400) • Road Quality Maintenance • Street Maintenance • Street Lights General Fund: $324,500 $474,500 $471,200 $330,700 • Parks and Open Spaces • Police • Community Development Storm Sewer $1,700 $300 $100 $1,200 Table 2 shows that, in all areas, several funds do not have enough revenues to cover the cost of providing service at current Tigard standards, however, the net result in each area is that the total revenues exceed the total on-going service provision costs. The Storm Sewer and Water funds are intended to be self-sufficient. Fees can and should be raised as needed to ensure that there are adequate funds to pay for on-going services. Currently the storm sewer and water funds have sufficient fund balances to meet anticipated needs. Should fund balances decrease significantly, citywide, fees could be increased to address the needs. Gas Tax rates are set by the state legislature. Throughout the City, Gas Tax Fund revenues have not been keeping pace with service provision costs. This is the case in the Bull Mountain area as well. The Gas Tax funds pay for road maintenance (widening, re-pavement, etc.), street maintenance (sweeping, pot hole repairs, etc.) and street lights. As Council looks at potential solutions to the Gas Tax deficit issues, citywide, one option they may consider is using General Fund revenues to subsidize the Gas Tax Fund deficiencies. The proposed street maintenance fee, if approved, would also help off-set the Gas Tax Fund deficits. If a citywide solution to the Gas Tax Fund needs is not found, the list of projects will continue to grow longer and longer. i In 2015 the total General Fund balance for all areas combined is 1.74 million. Based on the 2015 projections, it could be concluded that there would also be sufficient revenues to o provide for the on-going services if the area were to be annexed prior to 2015. If the i entire area were annexed earlier than 2015, it may be possible to use the additional 3 revenues to off-set or finance the anticipated capital needs. 0 u Page 13 Draft b. Conclusions for on-going provision of services i. Time and sequence ■ For on-going services, the long term projections indicate that overall, the revenues exceed the costs of providing on-going services for all areas evaluated. ■ There would also be sufficient revenue to provide on-going services if the entire area (or portions) were to annex prior to 2015. It may be possible to use the additional revenues anticipated to off-set some of the anticipated capital needs. ■ Water and storm funds do not cover the costs of providing on-going services based on current rate projections. If needed, fees can and should be raised so that, citywide, the funds are self-sufficient. ■ The Gas Tax Fund is projected to have a deficit in all areas and will not be able to provide all Gas Tax Funded services. ■ The total 2015 General Fund revenue for all areas combined is 1.74 million. ii. Council Policy choices for ongoing services The analysis shows that, with all funds combined, the projected 2015 Bull Mountain populations can be provided City of Tigard services at existing service levels. While some funds do see deficiencies over time, most are fee driven and the fees will be adjusted to accommodate the projected on- going service needs. A policy choice is needed related to the projected deficiencies in the Gas Tax fund. The choices identified include: • The General Fund surplus could be used to subsidize the Gas Tax needs; and/or • The Street Maintenance fee could be instituted which will provide needed funding which would help off-set the Gas Tax Fund L deficit; and/or r • The standards could be further reduced for the Gas Tax Fund services citywide. However, over the long-term, maintenance cost savings will not be realized due to the higher cost to replace 3 versus maintain. v 9 u J Page 14 Draft 3. Projected one-time capital facility needs (future/long term needs) a. Scope of Analysis This section looks at the anticipated capital needs of the Bull Mountain area and the impact time has on the ability to collect funds to address those needs. Capital needs include park land acquisition, major road improvements, and new storm sewer facilities to address capacity. While Facility Plans cover the entire urban services area and are used to calculate System Development Charges (SDCs), the City's Capital Improvement Plan does not include unincorporated areas. Capital projects for Bull Mountain are not included in Tigard's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) because the area is not in the City limits. To determine what the funding needs are for this area, the Assessment Report looked at existing plans to determine needed improvements, potential timing and estimated costs. Table 3 Typically, through the Capital Improvement Program Estimated capital needs process, priorities are made and funding is granted to the by sub-area projects with the greatest need. The same process would be short to long term used in the Bull Mountain area. Bull Mountain estimated North 5.2 Million capital improvement needs total almost $36 million. The East 13.3 Million east section requires the most improvements (it also has the South 8.3 Million greatest percentage of estimated revenue to cover the West 8.9 Million anticipated costs). Water-related projects are not included in Totai 35.7 this total, since the Tigard Water Division already administers this area and will continue to, regardless of annexation. Table 3, to the right, shows the total estimated capital needs for each sub-area. While the $36 million estimated need may seem high, it needs to be kept in perspective. Most jurisdictions (including the City of Tigard) have needs that exceed their revenues. Through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process, priorities are made and funding is granted to the projects with the greatest need. The same process would be used in the Bull Mountain area. The majority of funding for Capital facilities is tied to growth. Once growth subsides, growth-based capital funding mechanisms cease functioning to collect funds. Alternative funding sources are required, such as utilizing the general fund or applying for grants. Bull Mountain can absorb only a finite amount of growth. It is necessary to evaluate the capital needs and the impact the timing of annexation has on the ability to efficiently and effectively provide for those needs. L System Development Charges (SDCs) are collected at the time of development for parks, roads, water, and sanitary and storm sewer. These SDCs are one-time capital revenues tied to growth. If growth occurs, prior to annexation, some of the one-time capital o revenues will not be available to Tigard to provide for the needs in this area. While J Washington County and other service providers may collect funds, there is no guarantee J that the funds collected will be used in the Bull Mountain area (with the exception of Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) funds). There are two reasons: 1) the County and/or service district has a large number of projects from which to prioritize distribution of funds, and 2) many of the potential projects will not be needed until the area will be Tigard's responsibility. Page 15 Draft Table 4, below, provides a summary of the capital funds and the type of improvement that could be funded: Table 4 Sanitary Sewer SDCs a for major new line and line replacement to increase the system capacity._ Water SDCs pay for new line and major line replacement to pay for new capacity, revenues pay to replace existin infrastructure. Traffic Impact Pays for TIF eligible arterial and collector road improvements to bring them up to Fee (TIF) standard. Also pays for traffic flow and safety improvements such as traffic signals, intersection improvements, etc. Park SDC Pas for acquisition and development f ark land. Storm Sewer SDCs are used for capacity improvements to the drainage system such as culverts for streets crossing streams and replacing bridges to increase floodwater capacity. Gas Tax If funds are available, they could be used to bring any road up to standard, pays for street lights, etc. Gas Tax Funds are very limited. Table 5 illustrates how each fund source Table 5 decreases over time. In addition, the North 2005 2010 2015 majority of capital improvements needed Sanitary sewer 190,200 0 0 in each area are projected to be needed Water 161,200 0 0 in the medium to long term (6 plus TIF 178,500 0 0 years). At issue is whether the City will Park SDCs 129,600 0 0 have the capital funds necessary to WACO street (12,500) (12,500) (12,500) address the area's long term capital CIP cost sharing needs. As the area continues to develop Storm Sewer 39,500 0 0 outside Tigard's City limits, the City East 2005 2010 2015 loses the ability to provide for capital Sanitary sewer 505,600 440,600 365,900 needs. Water 428,600 373,500 310,200 TIF 474,600 413,600 343,500 It is important to note that parks are Park SDCs 344,400 300,100 249,300 urban amenities provided by Tigard. WACO street (12,500) (12,500) (12,500) The County does not have a method for CIP cost sharing addressing needed park facilities for the Storm Sewer 105,000 91,500 76,000 Bull Mountain area. Table 5 also illustrates the potential park SDCs that South 2005 2010 2015 would be collected if the area develops Sanitary sewer 260,000 0 0 in the Tigard City limits. Water 220,400 0 0 TIF 244,100 0 0 Park SDCs 177,100 0 0 i WACO street (12,500) (12,500) (12,500) CIP cost sharing Storm Sewer 54,000 0 0 West 2005 2010 2015 Sanita sewer 363,500 262,400 151,700 Water 308,200 222,500 128,600 TIF 341,300 246,300 142,400 Park SDCs 247,600 178,800 103,300 WACO street (12,500) (12,500) (12,500) CIP cost sharing Storm Sewer 75,500 54,500 31,500 Page 16 Draft b. Conclusions for one-time capital needs 1. Time and Sequence • The Bull Mountain Area has estimated capital improvement needs totaling approximately $36 million. • Some areas have greater capital needs than others, such as East which has 13.3 million in identified capital needs as compared to the North, which has only 5.2 million in capital needs. • In order for the City to maximize the available funds in the Bull Mountain area for capital needs, annexation of all areas should occur by 2005 to maximize potential financial contributions. With each incremental annexation delay, contributions are lessened or eliminated entirely. After 2010, the North and South are projected to provide no capital revenues. • Assuming annexation does not occur and current growth rates continue; by 2010, 25.6% of the capital funds projected for 2005 will not be available to Tigard. 45.6% will not be available if annexation occurs in 2015. H. Council Policy choices for one-time capital needs • As with existing capital needs in the City of Tigard, the potential funding does not cover all of the capital needs in this area. There are several options available for Council to consider which would help off-set the funding needs. These are: . Modify existing plans to anticipated funding levels Raise fees (Increase fees like SDC's and/or apply for grant funds to help off-set park funding deficiencies) Use other funding source to off-set capital needs (General Fund) • Immediate policy action is needed to help ensure as much growth based revenue is collected as possible. Page 17 Draft B. Analysis of Service Provision Impacts 1. Scope of Analysis Regardless of whether annexation is efficient from a fiscal standpoint, the Bull Mountain area must be able to be served by City services without a noticeable reduction in existing service levels, even in the short term, to Tigard residents. This report has identified in the fiscal analysis section that, over the long-term, existing service levels can be provided to the Bull Mountain area. The objective of this section is to analyze Tigard's initial ability to provide service to the unincorporated Bull Mountain area immediately upon annexation with no upfront hiring and equipment purchases. This was done to understand the impacts of a phased/sequential annexation versus annexation of the total area. Three factors were looked at: • Short term service provision impacts, • Proximity to the City limits, and Need to cross unincorporated areas to provide service. a. Short Term Service Provision impacts The City of Tigard service providers are Water, Sanitary and Storm Sewer, Street Maintenance, Parks, and Police. They were asked which of the nine possible annexation scenarios could be absorbed with the existing staff and equipment until additional hiring and equipment purchases could occur. A summary of their reports is provided in Appendix D. Based on the information provided, the following is a summary of the impacts immediately upon annexation: • All service providers except Public Works -Streets Division and Police, could temporarily absorb any or all areas annexed using existing crews, until additional staff could be hired and additional equipment purchased. • The Police Department could absorb any or all areas with a reduction only in response time to priority 3 (lowest priorty, no one in danger) calls. • The Streets Division could absorb any one area (north, south, east or west) but could not absorb more than one area without additional staff being hired up front. As an alternative, major reduction in services citywide would be necessary until L additional staff could be hired and equipment purchased. r • Additional funding would be necessary to provide for all the Gas Tax Fund services a (street maintenance, road maintenance, and street lights). Some sub-areas have less Gas Tax fund deficits than others. North has the lea.}i deficit in Gas Tax 4 Funds ($1,200 deficit), and West has the largest deficit ($236,400). 0 b. Proximity to City Limits J Providing service to an area that is not adjacent to the City limits, creates confusion and can result in longer response times for emergency service. If an area is not adjacent to the City limits, under current Comprehensive Plan standards, the area can not be annexed into the City. Cherry stem annexations (annexing the right of way to get to a non-contiguous parcel) may be an option, however, it would likely result in a boundary Page 18 Draft that is not uniform and could cause confusion regarding who the service provider is and could cause service delays in an emergency situation. • All areas and combinations of areas, except West, are adjacent to the City limits. c. Require crossing unincorporated areas to serve In order to provide service to an area that requires crossing unincorporated areas, efficiency is lost and the potential for confusion to the service provider and potential of reduction in response times in emergency service increases. Therefore, it is preferable to avoid primarily traveling through an unincorporated area to serve parcels in the City of Tigard. The following is a summary of how each sub-area or combination of sub-areas relates to the city limits: • North, East, South & East and the alternative "ALL areas" do not require crossing through unincorporated areas to serve. • South, North & West, North & South and South & West require crossing unincorporated areas to serve some portions. • West requires crossing unincorporated areas to serve. 2. Conclusions for Service Provision Impacts a. Time and sequence • Because of the limited impact on services and the proximity to the City limits, the North area (based on the technical ranking scores discussed further in this assessment report) provides the least impact on service provision immediately upon annexation. e The West area appears to provide the greatest impact on service provision because it is not adjacent to City limits, would require crossing unincorporated areas to service, and has limited gas tax funds projected to serve the gas tax needs. The following is a list of all scenarios evaluated in order from least impact to greatest impact on service delivery: - North - East - South - All areas/South & East - North & South - North & West/South & West, and is - West 0 b. Councii Policy Choice Because of the potential service provision impacts if the entire area or a combination of 2 areas were annexed at one time, Council must make a policy a choice if one of those options were desired. There are several options to address the efficiency of service issues: • Delayed effective date for portions. of the area. . Authorize funds up front to hire staff and purchase equipment prior to the effective date. Negotiate agreements with the County to provide short-term assistance until Tigard service providers are fully staffed. . Accept citywide reduction in service levels for a period of time. Page 19 Draft C. Relationship to the Urban Growth Boundary Expansion 1. Scope of Analysis Metro is charged with establishing the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to accommodate the projected housing and employment needs in the region. After much research, public involvement and analysis, the Metro Council adopted an expansion to the UGB that included several specific areas throughout the region. Two areas adjacent to the Bull Mountain area (63 and 64) have been determined to be suitable for urban development and inclusion within Tigard's urban services area. Both areas are approximately 480 acres in size. Figure 2 identifies the UGB expansion areas. Metro estimates 1,735 residential units can be accommodated in these areas which will require urban levels of facilities and services. Development of these areas will impact Tigard and the Bull Mountain area. The development in the Bull Mountain area, in turn, impacts how and when the UGB expansion areas can develop. Therefore, consideration of expansions of the Urban Growth Boundary is needed. The two areas are rural in nature and do not have extensive road or public infrastructure. The size of individual parcels, overall configuration, and location of the two areas complicates existing and planned transportation needs. Neither area is likely to develop as "balanced" and distinct communities. Integration with the existing Bull Mountain areas will be necessary so that they can be planned to complement and enhance the Bull Mountain community and each other. The evaluation looks at whether a sub-area or combination of sub-areas provides a link between the City and one or both of the UGB expansion areas. For example: The West sub-area is adjacent to both UGB expansion areas but is not adjacent to the City limits. When combined with the South, however, it is adjacent to both UGB expansion areas and, together, there is a link to the City limits. 2. Conclusions for relationship to the UGB a. Time and sequence o A combination of areas including the North and West, North and South, South and West, or All sub-areas provides connections to both UGB expansion areas. No single area alone provides adequate connections to both UGB expansion areas. • The north sub-area provides connection to the northern most UGB expansion area. The south sub-area provides a connection to the southern most UGB expansion area. b. Policy choices • Should the UGB expansion areas develop as two distinct, separate communities? • Should the UGB expansion areas be integrated with Bull Mountain? • Now does the City provide efficient and effective services to these areas? Page 20 Fiaure 2 vtiWDMER4L RFFF B Pfd i l~7` - tir IT r v 1i. Pil Tr . T i - -1 a 0 9 tip a _ gay ;r ~ a. _ ul E Page 21 Draft Section V - Summary of Conclusions A. Timing and Sequence Regardless of how and when annexation occurs, there will be gaps in certain funds compared to the on-going service and capital needs. The longer the time before annexation, the less capital revenues are available to Tigard. Based on the analysis in this report, the following was concluded: 1. Summary of analysis The previous sections discussed the evaluation factors in detail and the information from those sections was used in the analysis to apply point values to each alternative as it relates to the evaluation factors. A copy of the detailed evaluation chart is provided in Appendix E. A summary of the results is provided below: The following is a summary of how each individual sub-area ranked: Table 6 Financial Tigard Service Relationship to Additional All criteria Impacts Provision Impacts the UGB Factors considered (45 possible (30 possible pts) (20 possible (5 possible pts) (100 possible pts) is is 25 is East 30 is North (tied 10 pts each) (tied 5 pts each) 60 is South e 20 is South 28 is East North and South North and East 58 is East 15 is West 25 is South (tied 0 pts each) (tied 0 pts each) 55 is North (10 pts) North (10 pts) West West and East West and South (25 pts) West The following is a summary of how each combination of areas ranked Table 7 Financial Tigard Service Relationship to Additional All criteria Impacts Provision Impacts the UGB Factors considered (45 possible (30 possible pts) (20 possible pts) (5 possible pts) (100 possible is is (35 pts) (23 pts) (tied 20 pts each) (tied 5 pts each) (77 pts) South & East South & East North & West, North & West, North& South (30 pts) (32 pts) South & West, and South & East and (73 pts) IL North & South North & South North & South North & South South and East (25 pts) (tied 20 pts each) (tied 65 pts each) y Y South & West North & West and North & West and (20 pts) South & West (10 pts) (0 pts) South & West North & West South & East South & West In L7 J The following is a summary of how the alternative "All areas" combined ranked Table 8 Financial Tigard Service Relationship to Additional All criteria Impacts Provision Impacts the UGB Factors considered (45 possible (30 possible pts) (20 possible (5 possible pts) (100 possible pts) is is 40 23 20 5 88 Page 22 Draft 2. Summary of Conclusions for Timing and Sequence • The South area ranked highest of the single sub-areas with 60 points primarily because it provides revenues with minimal costs and creates a link to the UGB expansion areas. • The West area ranked the lowest of all scenarios with 25 points primarily because, if annexed alone, it would create impacts to the provision of services and would not provide a link to the UGB expansion areas. • North and South is the combination of two areas that received the highest ranking with 77 points. Together they provide revenue with minimal costs, have park land potential, create few service provision impacts, and provide a link with both UGB expansion areas. • The alternative "All areas" combined received the highest points (88 points) and was ranked the highest in each category except "Tigard Service Provision Impacts". B. Policy Choices 1. Council policy choices for on-going services Prior to annexation, the Gas Tax Fund deficit issue must be addressed. Potential policy choices identified for Council include: • The General Fund surplus could be used to subsidize the gas tax needs; and/or • The Street Maintenance fee could be instituted which will provide much of the needed funding and would help off-set the Gas Tax Fund deficit; or • The standards could be reduced for the Gas Tax Fund services citywide. However, over the long-term, maintenance cost savings will not be realized due to the higher cost to replace versus maintain. 2. Council policy choices for capital improvements • The potential funding does not cover all of the capital needs in this area. There are several options available to Council to consider which would help off-set the funding needs: - Modify existing plans to anticipated funding levels; - Raise fees (Increase fees like SDCs and/or apply for grant funds to help off-set park funding deficiencies); or e - Use other funding source to off-set capital needs. a Immediate policy action is needed to help ensure as much growth based revenue is collected as possible s i i Page 23 Draft 3. Council policy choice for service provision impact upon annexation Annexation of the entire Bull Mountain area at one time impacts service delivery due to increased staffing and equipment needs. To address this issue, several options exist: Delay the annexation effective date for portions of the Bull Mountain area; Authorize funds up front to hire staff and purchase equipment prior to the effective date; Negotiate agreements with the County to provide short-term assistance until Tigard service providers are fully staffed; or Accept short-term, citywide reduction in service levels until staff and equipment are up to standard levels. 4. Council Policy choice for UGB Council must determine how the UGB will be integrated into the community and what approach should be taken: • Continue existing trend of County controlling development in unincorporated areas; Use annexation and coordination as a growth management tool; • How do we ensure that we can provide efficient and effective services to the UGB expansion areas? L J >0 u J Page 24 Appendix - Additional information A. Chronology of Coordination in Unincorporated Areas B. Study Area Profile (from 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study) C. On-Going Service Costs and Revenues D. Tigard Service Provision Impacts Summaries by Department E. Evaluation Criteria Tables F. Change in Service Levels between County and City zn J 0 9 u Appendix Page 1 Appendix A Chronology of coordination in unincorporated areas Draft 1973 Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines established, setting the foundation for land use planning in Oregon. 1983 Comprehensive Plan adopted with specific policies regarding annexation. Sets framework for all future annexation efforts. 1988 Urban Planning Area Agreement signed between Tigard and Washington County to ensure coordinated and consistent comprehensive plans. The UPr~j1 defined a site specific urban planning area, a process for coordinating planning, and policies regarding comprehensive planning and development. 1993 Senate Bill 122 passed by the State Legislature, requires the coordination and provision of urban services for lands within the Urban Growth Boundary, 1997 Tigard and Washington Countyy entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement that transferred land development, engineering review and building permit activity to the City. March 2001 The Tigard Citjy Council establishes a goal to establish an annexation policy for non-island areas, such as Bull Mountain and began to study the feasibility of annexing the Bull Mountain area. July 2001 The City and County meet with Bull Mountain residents to identify questions which influence the scope of The Bull Mountain Annexation Study. Nov., 2001 City finalizes Bull Mountain Annexation Stud X. Jan., 2002 Study conclusions presented to a group of Bull Mountain residents. A survey is suggested as a means to get input from a representative sample of the area. July 2002 Public opinion poll conducted of Bull Mountain and L Tigard residents by phone. August 2002 Tigard Council examines the survey results and considers three annexation policy alternatives. Council considers a resolution to initiate an Annexation Plan, J however the motion does not pass. Oct 2002 - U May 2003 Public facilities and Services Assessment Report developed for Council to assist in making annexation policy decisions that come up. Nov, 2002 CouncilQbroves signing the SB 122 required Urban Service Agreements which spell out what urban services Tigard will be the ultimate provider of. Appendix Page 2 Appendix B Study Areas Profile from 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study The area identified in the Bull Mountain Study consists of approximately 1,430 acres of land located west of the City of Tigard (see map below) in Washington County, within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Study Area abuts Beaverton and Tigard on the north and east, respectively, King City to the southeast, and unincorporated County land outside the Urban Growth Boundary to the south and west. Figure 1 The land in the Study Area is sloped-steeply in some areas- Bu11,Mt Study,Area !Vicinity Map allowing for views at higher , f elevations. Traditionally a farming Portland area, the last decade brought Beaverton additional home developments to the area. Today, both farms and subdivisions co-exist here. Although the identified area is now outside the Tigard City limits, the City of Tigard provides krea' many urban services to residents. In 1997, the City of Tigard and Lake Oswego Washington County entered into an Bull not ! Urban Services Agreement, which i transferred responsibility for land use decisions, building and development- Tuaraun ~ related engineering to the City of Cm OFtIOARD Pdnted.nMfobelMh.Mf Tigard. The County adopted the City of Tigard Community Development Code for the Bull Mountain area, which applies standards to any new development in the area.' At the time the Bull mountain Annexation study was completed (November 2001), approximately 7,300 people lived in the Study Area, according to 2000 Census data. There is no commercial or industrial zoned land in the Study Area. Most of the property is zoned R-7, a medium density residential zone requiring lots of a minimum of 5,000 square feet. The area consists of a combination of (1) a mix of larger undeveloped lots, (2) larger lots developed through the County under different standards, and (3) smaller lots that are built to the minimum density allowed under the current zoning regulations. L The sub-area descriptions below represent the sub-area development assumptions utilized for this plan. North n This sub area is located south of Barrows Road, north of Baker Lane and Roshak U Road, east of the urban growth boundary and west of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) easement line. The North area consists of approximately 383 acres and a population of 3,001. This area has a combination of R-7, R-12 and R-25 zoning; however, all of the higher-density (R-25) residential lots were developed as single-family home subdivisions. While there are several larger Appendix Page 3 lots, there are very few redevelopable or vacant lots in this area due to steep slopes. This area is largely built out with only about 10% of the area identified as vacant or redevelopable. Based on the household growth rate of 2.2% identified by Metro, it is estimated that this area will be built out in 4.5 years. West The western sub area is bordered on the south and west by the Urban Growth Boundary. It is bordered on the east by SW 150th and to the north by Roshak Road and Baker Lane. The western area consists of approximately 259 acres with 944 people. The majority of the area has been developed with large lot subdivisions, which are not expected to be divided further. However, 15.3% of the land in this area is identified as vacant or redevelopable. The zoning in this area is R-7 (medium density residential). Based on the 2.2% household growth rate identified by Metro, it is estimated that this area will be built out in 6.9 years. South This sub area is generally located west of SW Peachtree, east of SW 150th, north of Beef Bend Road and south of High Tor Drive. The southern area consists of approximately 507 acres of land and 3,196 people. The zoning is primarily R-7 (medium density residential) with a small portion of R-25 (medium-high density residential) to the south between Foxglove #2 subdivision and Beef Bend Heights. Many of the subdivisions were developed with large lots that are not expected to be divided further; as a result, this area has larger lots with only limited infill potential. This area has about 10.6% vacant or redevelopable land. Based on the 2.2% household growth rate identified by Metro, it is estimated that this area will be built out in 4.8 years. East This area is generally located east of the Mountain Gate subdivision, south of Bull Mountain Road and north of Beef Bend Road. The eastern area consists of approximately 282 acres with 544 people. This area has most of the Study Area's growth potential, with almost 40 percent of the land identified as vacant or redevelopable. The zoning is R-7, which calls for a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Based on the 2.2% household growth rate identified by Metro, it is estimated that this area will be built out in 18 years. However, recent land purchases in this area and initial discussions with developers indicate that this area will develop much sooner than projected. va _J 1 Appendix Page 4 Draft Appendix C On-Going Service Costs and Revenues Estimated 2015 cost (in 2002 dollars) to provide services at City standards by sub area Table 1 North East South West Sanitary sewer $47,200 $13,600 $51,900 $20,000 Water $343,500 $145,500 $381,700 $145,200 Road quality maintenance $76,800 $15,600 $143,000 $240,000 Street Maintenance $47,900 $20,400 $66,900 $34,700 Street lights $20,200 $13,400 $20,200 $13,400 Parks and Open spaces $6,100 $57,600 $18,100 $18,100 Police $479,400 $166,100 $557,700 $244,400 Community Development $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Storm Sewer $44,400 $11,000 $49,000 $17,400 The numbers in the above chart have been refined and updated from the estimates provided for in the Bull Mountain Annexation Study (November 2001). While the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study provided broad brush estimates, the estimates provided here are based on detailed analysis of the population projections, and include staff, equipment and equipment replacement costs. In addition, the estimates from the Bull Mountain Annexation Study (November 2001) were based on 2000 population and did not project the financial implications time, and increased populations, had on the cost to provide services. Estimated 2015 Revenues to support on-going services Table 2 North East South West Sanitary sewer $88,800 $22,200 $101,600 $33,600 Water $272,600 $68,300 $312,100 $103,300 Gas Tax: $143,700 $29,800 $159,600 $51,700 • Road quality maintenance • Street Maintenance • Street lights General Fund: $830,000 $718,200 $1,067,000 $613,200 • Parks and Open spaces L • Police r * Community Development Storm Sewer $42,700 $10,700 $48,900 $16,200 i i i Appendix Page 5 Draft Appendix D Tigard Service Provision Impacts Summaries by Department Police Urban Services currently provided by Tigard: Currently Tigard responds to 911 priority 1 and 2 calls if they have an officer closer than a Washington County patrol officer. In many cases, this means Tigard is the first responder, secures the scene and waits for a Washington County Officer to take over the scene. This agreement occurs between all law enforcement offices in the State. Tigard does not currently have data on the number of calls they respond to in the Bull Mountain area, because when any officer arrives on the scene, the 911 system does not distinguish what jurisdiction responded, only that an officer responded. Beginning in May, 2003 Tigard began tracking these calls, so that we will be able to compile data on the number and types of calls we respond to in this area. The bottom line is that this area is receiving some Tigard police services without paying City taxes. Impact of providing services immediately upon annexation: The Police department has estimated that if any or all areas were annexed, the existing staff could absorb that area without a significant reduction in service levels until additional employees can be hired and fully trained to bring the department up to the standard of 1.5 officers per 1000 residents. The response time for priority 1 and 2 calls would not be noticeably reduced, however, until the department could be fully staffed, there would be a slight reduction in response times to priority 3 calls. Priority 3 calls are calls where no one is in danger (car broken into, loud noise, etc) but an officer is needed to take a report. The more people annexed at one time, the higher the demand on police services and the greater the chance that there would be a reduction in response time to these lower priority calls. Parks Urban Services currently provided by Tigard: None Impact of providing services immediately upon annexation: Tigard owns Cache Creek, however it is intended to be a nature park/preserve and is not developed. Because there are no developed parks in the Bull Mountain area, immediately upon annexation, there will be no requirement to provide park maintenance services. As parks are purchased and developed, equipment and L staff will be acquired to insure that maintenance is provided in accordance with Tigard City standards. n ~ Water Urban Services currently provided by Tigard: See Below io Impact of providing services immediately upon annexation: The City of J Tigard provides water service to the Bull Mountain area already through an intergovernmental agreement with the Tigard Water District. The only change t that will occur if the Bull Mountain area is annexed is that it will technically be withdrawn from the Tigard Water District and included in the City of Tigard Water Division. Because the area is already being served, there is no issue with when Appendix Page 6 Draft and how the Bull Mountain area annexes that would affect the efficiency or effectiveness of service. Sanitary and Storm Sewer Urban Services currently provided by Tigard: Tigard does not currently provide storm or sanitary sewer services to the Bull Mountain area. However, Tigard recently entered into an intergovernmental agreement with Clean Water Services that stipulates Tigard will begin providing maintenance services to this area effective July 1, 2004. Impact of providing services immediately upon annexation: While these services are based in different funds, they utilize similar equipment and staff. The Public Works department has indicated that all areas alone or in combination with one other area could be maintained immediately upon annexation, by stretching the current work crew, until additional equipment and staff could be acquired. Street Maintenance Urban Services currently provided by Tigard. None Impact of providing services immediately upon annexation: Street maintenance includes: sweeping 12 times per year, checking all signs annually, yearly dust abatement for gravel roads, 5 year cycle to replace street markings, 4 year cycle for crack sealing and road shoulders, and other maintenance as needed. Because of the equipment and staff needed to perform these tasks, the Public Works Department has stated that any one sub-area annexed alone could be temporarily absorbed by the existing staff and equipment. While services would be reduced, it would not be to the extent that roads would be neglected. However, if more than one area were annexed, service levels would be significantly reduced citywide until additional staff and equipment could be obtained to meet the added demand. Road Maintenance Urban Services currently provided by Tigard: None L Impact of providing services immediately upon annexation: Road is maintenance includes things like overlay or slurry seal on roads with poor pavement condition, pavement widening, etc. Many roads in the Bull Mountain area are new and will not require road maintenance for many years. Per the i Urban Services Agreement signed in 2002, prior to transferring roads to Tigard, the County shall make needed roadway improvements so that all individual roads have a pavement condition index (PCI) of 40 or greater and the average PC! of streets and roads in the area is 75 or higher. Finally, costs to do road maintenance are programmed based on available funding and construction is contracted out. For these reasons, annexation of the entire area (or combinations) will not result in a reduction of services for Tigard residents and service will continue to be effectively provided. Appendix Page 7 Draft Street Light Maintenance Urban Services currently provided by Tigard: None Impact of providing services immediately upon annexation: Street light maintenance involves paying electricity, lamp replacement and pole maintenance for existing street lights. Service in the study areas is currently assessed to the property owner. Upon annexation, maintenance is provided by the City and the property owner assessment would go away. Engineering staff has estimated that it will cost approximately $5,600 per month for the entire Bull Mountain area. Street lights are funded through gas tax. Because street light costs are paid to PGE, there is no ability to reduce service levels (short of turning off lights) however, the need to fund this service will reduce Gas Tax Funds that could be used for other Gas Tax Funded services. i>C n J Appendix Page 8 APpenoix 'LSGiB11..V STRIP $ SaW All i4a Now East &W S&E Yes Yes VVe`'$ :~ioutr► Yes Yes III 100 pE-1 Nortfi Yes Yes Yes evaluation criteria I act 311 pts No ice Provision IM Yes Ti and SO '4 limits fully t)lraft I Ad' acent to Cit can it be if area I. annexed n flcaritly decreasing served wl. Out si9 ediately rvce levels imm Yes se i current C y 7 Water. Sanitary sewer and Yes it wis eyatlOn. they already serve Yes No port ann use major N ° to U ocm sewerd m are not evaluasen not included bed will not be. Yes Yes No 54° into the CIP and Yes No 40% aintena2mmed parks maintenance Is area. Roa ass `(es rojects have to be p u n annexation. p Y@S Yes 45% 67% 80% immediate~e there are no develoPed P Yes Yes needed 60% not included beta tatn Yeo 69% N° ro -6estom' to yes ° 1810 part. Poli aintenance PW 99 % No Pad ` C+r as stre ht maint. (/o Of 9 part. St eet 9 that cover gas part. NO tax revenues yes yes-2 tax needs _2 of this area No Yes-1 Yes-2 YeS 745 ice provislon that is Yes-2 445 1,123, Woutd sere an area 1 NO 672,967 ,381 require crossing area 20 pts No Yes - 766,822 unincor orated? uG6 expansion Yes - Z 356,926 ship to 380,711 386,111 9.7% 9.5°l0 Relation UGB area provides link to 45 is 292,256 64,670 9.4% 8_3% i Financial m acts ping 9.6% Or °n"g costs - 9.9 % 1210 Total Tax Revenues ( Ding 6% .60/0 424 services) vS• Total on_0 7.9010 ~0• 4$8 b revenues 410 800 2015 s covered 2005 21 549 % of capital need ai funds 5 ) - 173 (includes all cap 237 No Yes tion difference Yes anneXa rowth potential (difference Yes Additional 9• baseline} dwelling Yes 88 be`Meen exlsting( units No Yes 77 65 and To'ected build-out dwel Yes No 65 73 Aadnai factors pith Some park 5 55 58 Appendix Page 9 Ian publicly owned 55 2 otential 'Total points s&vv All `t sTR►P E NgRs N&W g& 1a eSt c~path AO 10 10 osh Vd 10 N eet 10 t5) 0 10 Point atlooation shiteria X10P ® 3Q 10 C~ is is wa►uatio~ rovision in' as total and senno ~ Pr Gity limits -10 Pis a ft 0. • AdlacEYes_ o pis can it be fully No E, Hexed aloe decreas"i 5 if area is an ut significantly. diately 5 0 sewer and 5 5 0 2 served witho rvice levels imme Trent City se ? ? hNater, Sanitary e 0 since they aireadrouse, 5 0 2 upon an aeea no ttt0 a~ iuat inot ~nctuded be and 5 4 2 med into the arks 0 P 5 storm sewer an Road mat to be artogYam n anpee Lion. 5 this area. ve to b upo are no 5 5 2 milor proleded tmn1e ded because the 5 5 2 t)e wilt not is not mciu s to mamta'n 5 2 mainto.. ~ance arks ro ertte a deveio d 5 pts 5 pis 4 poll et maintenance , $tre maint• collected 6 Street i'ght funds are on ,Points en 3 oln eOt because it"sthe gas iax nee d 0/00 gas tax to pal 6 3 0nel based the ° 3 and we at tcibuted on will there be m 6 AK<'` wo, p be gas tax needs l 3 t b0sl 0 Ptsi a 23 the iigh 0--250/6:= g 20 25.75% g2ts of thts area 22 7a0l" - 23 $ 20 20 Would ser % 9 an area that ►s require Gross is total 2 20 orated? 6 P 10 25 20 unincorp s= o pis 10 3 Pis 30 20 Pat,• 0 20 No° 6 is is 0 10 20 20 page 10 btotal area 2~ 10 20 10 APPendix to t3 G13 ex is 0 Su ans1°n UGg area - 20 P 10 vela.►oP o ides link to is 0 Yes 10 Pis 10 0 is No Subtotal LEGISILTTS~'RIP S&E t4aS S&W All ~ East Ng~W West South 15 25 1001111 Woh ts 20 20 10 1 pU P~ 10 Evaluation -elteria ( 10 10 5 45 is oirtg acts Financ►al im Revenues (foon gosts - ®~,~~t • Total Tax Total on-9 5 services) vs' S _ 25 Pts total 5 2015 ,,800,000 = 25 Pts is 5 5 000-800,000 = 20 P is 5 800,000-800,000 = 15 P 10 5 400, 200,000-400,000 -10 Pis 5 0 is ,-200,000 eds covered by 10 % ital ne itat funds) - 5 5 °f caP ludes all caP 10 revenues (inc 10 5 2005 annexation - o Pts < 8% = 0 Pts 0 p 5 8.1°10-10 /o ' 5 Pts is ,,10.1°10 =10 difference rowth potentia► ( units elng Additional and g baseline) d units- o Pts etv,een exlsting( 40 b ild-out dw elling 25 projected bu o pts 30 < 250 d.u• ' - 5 Pts 20 35 25o-500 d.u - is build 25 > 500 d•u = 1o P rojections -if areas Will 20 5 based on ofrowth Pthe actual lost revenue 15 0 2.5 rlected, 10 5 out sooner than P 5 5 be different 0 5 Subtotal 0 73 77 ors 65 g5 otential with some park P Additional ried lands Pis 5 58 65 pubGd Yes = 5 Pts 25 60 No = 0 Pts 55 Total Points Appendix Page 11 Appendix F Change in Service Levels Between County and Cites vd =fTatl 11 Undue atl~'on ~""-T-- r~` C an a ~n } Police Washington County provides The City of Tigard would provide Yes 1.0 officers/1000 people 1.5 officers/1000 people There would (.5 standard; .5 from Enhanced be an increase Patrol) of approximately .5 officers/1000 people Fire/Rescue Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue No provides services. continues to provide services. Parks Washington County does not The Tigard Park Master Plan calls Yes provide parks services. for 2 neighborhood parks and 1 The City community park in the Bull provides park Mountain area. The plan also services. calls for a small playground to be built adjacent to the Cache Nature Park. General Road Washington County through the The City's road maintenance Yes Maintenance Urban Road Maintenance District. performs maintenance on regular The City General street maintenance by the schedules as well as on a provides County is primarily on a complaint- complaint-driven basis. Typical additional road driven basis. Typical maintenance maintenance activities include: maintenance activities include: services. • pothole patching • pothole patching • grading graveled roads • grading graveled roads • cleaning drainage facilities • cleaning drainage facilities • street sweeping • street sweeping • mowing roadside grass and • mowing roadside grass and brush (shoulder strip + ditch brush (only the shoulder strip) line) • maintaining traffic signals • maintaining traffic signals • replacing damaged signs • replacing damaged signs • installing and replacing street markings • crack sealing • vegetation removal for vision clearance • street light tree trimming for light clearance J • dust abatement on graveled n roads 9 Sanitary Sewer Clean Water Services (CWS) The City of Tigard will meet the No same level of service as CWS. All service levels for CWS and surrounding jurisdictions must be uniform b Jul 2003. Storm Sewer Clean Water Services (CWS) The City of Tigard will meet the No same level of service as CWS. All service levels for CWS and Appendix Page 12 surrounding jurisdictions must be uniform by July 2003. Water Intergovernmental Water Board Service remains the same. Tigard No contracts with the Tigard Water Water District will continue to District to provide water, provide water but will bill directly. Street Light Washington County administers The City of Tigard will assume all Service Maintenance Service Districts for Lighting for street light operations and remains the PGE. Residents pay an annual maintenance for existing lights. same but operations and maintenance Residents do not pay a separate property assessment. assessment, owners are notassessed for the operation of the lights. Community The City of Tigard provides building The City of Tigard will continue to Only change Development and services-including land use provide building services to this in service is Building Services decisions, building and area, that the City engineering-under an reviews intergovernmental agreement with All land use decisions will legislative Washington County. continue to be reviewed under the matters. City standards and through the All land use decisions are reviewed City's hearing process. The City under the City standards and would be the review authority for through the City's hearing process legislative actions as well (zone with the exception of legislative changes, comprehensive plan actions (zone changes, amendments, etc). Comprehensive Plan amendments, etc.) Library Washington County Cooperative The City of Tigard, which receives No Library Services (WCCLS) approximately 62%a of its funding Consortium, which provides funding through the WCCLS. Bull through the county tax to area Mountain residents would have libraries, including Tigard. influence on the library's services, and could advocate for the services they want. Schools Both the Beaverton School District Annexation does not change No and the Tigard School District school district boundaries. provide service based on district boundaries. Garbage Residents are charged rates The City franchises City garbage Service L Collection established by Washington County collection, and the Bull Mountain remains the for service provided by Pride. area would become part of the same, but Residents pay the fee depending on franchised area. The service rates will the size of container they use. provider remains the same but differ. residents would be charged the 0 rates established by City Council based on the size of the container the use. Appendix Page 13 ANNEXATION (PLAN FACTORS FOR AN EFFECTIVE PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN ♦ Timeline • December 2003 - Plan Must Be Developed • Implementation - Begins no later than nine months before the vote (January 2004 for November 2004 election) ® Define Message • Change discussion from "YESINO" to "WHEN" • Engage public in productive dialogue to resolve issues ♦ Utilize Supporters/Stakeholders Profiles • Niche communications as opposed to citywide ---37% Bull Mountain residents support annexation plan ---80% Tigard residents support annexation plan • income over $100,000 more likely to support • 18-24 years old give stronger support • 9 in 10 parents with kids support ♦ Focus on Values/Services that Yielded Highest Increase in Support (2002 Survey) • Parks 84% • Roads 76% • Library 75% • Political Representation 74% ® Maintain Communication Levels • Internal: City staff meetings • Inter-Agency: City/County staff meetings ® External: Niche communications with stakeholders O Apply Integrated Approach i . Communication at all levels • Third-party facilitation to assist with problem solving Prioritize current work programs to accommodate annexation Consistent message I:\LRPLN%eth\ANNEXATION JULY 2003 on\7-15-03CCboardPR.doc GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS 2 (Land Use Planning) 11 (Public Facilities and Plans) 14 (Urbanization) Jurisdictions produce Comprehensive Plans to Address the Goals and Guide Future Growth WASHINGTON COUNTY TIGARD Plan Area = Unincorporated Areas Plan Area = City Limits Rural (Non-UGB) Urban (UGB) ; i;oU1~L MOUNTAIN i 1988 UPAA - General Coordination Agreement 1997;2002 USIGA - Development Services by Tigard 2002 TUSA - Tigard = Ultimate Service Provider 0 u J TIGARD • Comprehensive Plan Amendments I:\LRPLN\beth\ANNEXATION JULY 2003 on\GROWTH MANAGEMENT CHART ver 2.doc GROWTH MANAGEMENT FACTORS: COORDINATION ISSUES Planning Annexation Comprehensive Planning a Bring into City Limits Development Review Provision of Services A Sewer, Water, Police, Fire and Rescue, etc. .#Agreements with County, service agencies/districts L " Growth Management Requires: 0 All Three Elements Close Coordination Between City-County 1 Missing elements compromise this structure, especially over the longer term I:\LULN\beth\ANNEXATION JULY 2003 on\Stool2.doc LEGIBILITY STRIP POLICY LATHS T® ANNEXATION All paths do the following: 1. Require new development to annex 2. Encourage double-majority annexations 1. SPECIFIC SITES R soua, Es ► Does not go beyond status quo. ► Staff time/resources minimal. ° FULL INCORPORATION ► Longest path to full incorporation. 2. TARGET AREAS .::RESOURCES ► Bring in subareas based on assessment report. ► More staff time/resources required. ► Full incorporation will be systematic. 3. VARIOUS METHODS ► Employ cherry stem, island, other methods to RESOURCES bring in areas based on assessment report. ► Requires more staff time/resources. ► Full incorporation takes more time than #2; path not as clearly defined. 4. ANNEXATION PLAN .RESOURCES ► Requires vote, public involvement plan, extensive county coordination. ► Requires the most staff time and resources. ► Could be shortest route to full incorporation. I:~LR '_RPLN\bethWNNEXAT[ON JULY 2003 on\Paths 3.doc LEGIBILITY STRIP IMPACTS OF ANNEXATION POLICY All paths do the following: 1. Require new development to annex 2. Encourage double-majority annexations 3. Require implementation of Assessment Report recommendations 1. SITE-SPECIFIC EFlcfEwWY ► Does not go beyond status quo. ► Longest path to full incorporation. 2. TARGET AREAS ; F1=FIC~Ers~Y-~` ► Employ cherry stem, island, other methods to bring in areas based on assessment report not ► Full incorporation takes more time; path as clearly defined- 3. AREA-WIDE Annexation Plan Are- a'N'vide _ '~~z w t Vote Bali Mountain Vote EFFICtEj!1GY Bull Mtn./City ► Requires vote of Bull (Mountain, City optional ► Requires public involvement plan, extensive county coordination. ► Full incorporation will be systematic; could be shortest route to full incorporation. 1176 er ased on Assessment Repoli) T1 1 icient any ec we ann o rovide elv! es in an j:~I,RPLN~beth EfrF -A i i aCIENCY T AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF Julv 15, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Briefing on Right-of-Way Management Study 0Y11 PREPARED BY: Craig Prosser DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK/, ~(~f~ r ~ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Receive informational briefing on the Right-of-Way Management Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive briefing and provide initial feedback on any recommendations or policies to be pursued. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard engaged the services of Maximus to review and assess Tigard's rights-of-way (ROW) management policies and procedures, costs, and fees: Maximus conducted on-site reviews and interviewed all staff working on ROW issues for the City of Tigard in January and February 2003. Maximus also reviewed City Code, State statutes, franchise agreements, permits, policies and procedures. Maximus also gathered information from cities across the country about their ROW policies, procedures, authority, and fees. City staff surveyed other Oregon jurisdictions for similar information. The ROW Management Study includes a number of recommendations, including short term actions and actions to be accomplished over a longer tern. These recommendations include: 1. Consider increasing permit fees to recoup City direct and indirect costs for managing the ROW. 2. Consider instituting a permit application fee. 3. Consider requiring all users of the ROW (including City Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Storm Sewer utilities) to obtain permits before working in the ROW. 4. Consider increasing franchise fees or instituting a privilege tax on utilities as allowed by State law. 5. Consider assessing a franchise fee on the City's water utility. 6. Consider automating permit issuance and inspection processes to expedite reviews, link inspections to y issued permits, provide access to permit information online, mechanically route permits, receive drawings electronically, and generate management reports. m 7. Consider mapping permits issued to better monitor work in the ROW. 8. Investigate the use of one automated system to manage all ROW management, accounting, and reporting needs. 9. Develop procedure to ensure that the Street Maintenance Division is informed up front of all issued permits. 10. Require franchised utilities with blanket permits to pay at least an annual permit fee based on forecasted maintenance activities 11. Develop procedures to ensure that all executed franchise agreements include the same language in significant provisions (i.e. compensation, right to audit, reporting, etc.) as is currently done with Telecommunications franchises. 12. Review established procedures to ensure that utilities consistently conduct street cut repairs as required by permit conditions. 13. As part of the permit process, develop procedures to 'ensure that utilities are contacting the Oregon Utility Notification Center to verify location of existing facilities prior to commencement of work. 14. Consider establishing a Rights-of-Way Manager position, which would coordinate the City's ROW program and negotiate franchise agreements. Finance staff will present the results of the study and staff from Engineering and Public Works will be available to address specific topics and areas of concern and to respond to questions. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. Information briefing only. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY NA ATTACHMENT LIST ROW Management Study. FISCAL NOTES The study cost $25,000. The recommendations of the study have not yet been costed out. L_ 9 u NIAXI HELPING GOVERNMENT SEREE THE PEO5 U5 PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL FINAL REPORT I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i 1 RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY SUBMITTED: MAY 8, 2003 L "r MAXIMUS, INC. 1 P. O. BOX 41321 700 ACKERMAN ROAD, SUITE 150 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77241-1321 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43202 713/906-0715 713/541-6649 Fax carolyngrant@maximus.com jam CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY CONTENTS SECTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 2 RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PROCESSES 3 CITY'S PERMITTING PROCESS FOR ROW USERS, 4 I DOCUMENT PROCEDURES AND REVIEW COSTS RELATED TO ROW MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ROW MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF SELECTED MAJOR 5 I U. S. CITIES EXHIBITS 1 - Survey of Fiber Optic Telecommunications Franchise Fees 2 - Survey of Franchise, Licenses, and Fees 3 - Critique - City of Tigard Utility Franchise Agreements/Ordinances 4 - Summary - City of Tigard Outside Legal Costs 5 - Example - Rights-of-Way Administrator and Manager Job Descriptions r 6 - Franchise Fee Rate Comparisons - Other Oregon Cities 2 3 D 7 J MAx>yMu, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON NMIMUS 1 RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MAXIMUS was engaged to conduct an assessment study of the City of Tigard's (the City) rights-of-way management (ROW) policies and processes, perform a review of the City's costs associated with managing access to public rights-of-way and prepare a report summarizing the rights-of way management practices of other major U.S. cities. Our conclusions and recommendations are detailed below. CONCLUSIONS I. The City is not recouping all of its direct and indirect costs associated with the management of the use of the rights-of-way. 2. The City does not require all users of the rights-of-way to obtain permits, i.e. 1 Water, WasteWater, Storm Water, etc. 3. The City does not charge inspection fees to utility companies. 4. All permit issuance and inspection activities are manual which: 0 affects the length of time for a permit application to be reviewed and approved; creates the possibility for established policy not to be conducted due to change in staff; and ■ affects the communication between effected departments. 5. The City utilizes botl~ the Hansen and Tidemark systems to track some rights-of-way and permit issuance activities. However, these systems do not communicate with MY MU5 r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS r RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY each other; thus, affected departments do not effectively communicate with each other on a timely basis. Additionally, neither of these systems have been programmed to link to the Finance system. 1 6. Franchise utilities, with blanket permits, are not required to pay permit fees. 7. The City does not map locations of issued permits. 1 8. Policies are not in place to ensure uniformity of franchise agreement provisions. 9. Established procedures are not consistently enforced to require utilities to be responsible for their street cut repairs as required by issued permit specifications/conditions. 10. Prior to issuing permits, procedures need to be reviewed to ensure utilities are contacting the Oregon Utility Notification Center to verify location of existing facilities prior to commencement of work as a problem exists with utilities consistently cutting storm water lines. 11. A formal procedure does not exist for Street Maintenance to be informed of permits issued to utilities, the nature of permitted work, the date work is to commence, amount of inspection required, information regarding planned repair work, etc. 12. Responsibilities for managing the use of the rights-of-way are spread out over several r departments. For example, the Finance Director coordinates the negotiation of franchise agreements with telecommunication, solid waste and other utility companies that request usage of the City's rights-of-ways. r r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS MAXIMUS recommends the City consider the following to enhance its management of rights-of-way activities. The timeframe for implementation is dependent on City staff available to coordinate. However, implementation of the Rights-of-Way Manager position would expedite the timeframe as this Manager would be available to coordinate appropriate tasks with all departments. 1. Consider increasing permit fees to recoup some of the City's direct and indirect costs from managing the use of the rights-of-way. 2. Where appropriate, consider assessing a permit application fee. If application fee is assessed, review state law for compliance. 3. Consider requiring all users of the rights-of-way to obtain a permit including water, r waste water and storm water. Review recommendations included in the City Attorney's April 29, 2002 comments regarding the City's rights-of-way concerns. 4. Consider increasing franchise fee percentages as allowed by State law. Review recommendations included in the City Attorney's April 29, 2002 comments regarding the City's rights-of-way concerns. Z r n 5. Consider assessing franchise fees to the Water department. Review recommendations included in the City Attorney's April 29, 2002 comments regarding the City's rights- 0 of-way concerns. 6. Consider automating the permit issuance and inspection processes to expedite review of submitted applications, link inspection activities to issued permits, allow access to 3 M CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY pending and issued permit information online, mechanically route permits, receive drawings electronically (could be linked to GIS), generate required management reports to monitor utility activity by contractor/company, administrative costs, backlog of permit processing, backlog of inspection activities, monitor number of street cuts, and track number of permits issued (by type). 7. Consider mapping permits issued to monitor construction activity in the rights-of- way. 8. Investigate the usage of "one" automated system to manage all of the City's rights-of- way accounting and reporting needs. Currently, the City is utilizing Hansen and Tidemark which are systems that do not "talk" to each other. Also, neither system is linked to the City's financial system. Utilizing one system would enhance communication between departments, ensure all departments have access to the "same" information at the same time, enhance management reporting, etc. 9. Develop procedures to ensure the Street Maintenance department is informed "up t front" of all issued permits. 10. Require franchise utilities, with blanket permits, to pay at least an annual permit fee based on estimated forecasted maintenance activities. 11. Develop procedures to ensure all executed franchise agreements include the same language in significant provisions, i.e. compensation, right to audit, reporting, etc. I 1 12. Review established procedures to ensure utilities consistently conduct street cut repairs as required by issued permit specifications/conditions. D 4 MAX ~a CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY 13. As part of the permit issuance process, develop procedures to ensure utilities are contacting the Oregon Utility Notification Center to verify location of existing facilities prior to commencement. r 14. Consider establishing a position for a Rights-of-Way Manager. This position would coordinate the City's rights-of-way policies and program objectives within budget limitations, including negotiating franchise agreements with utilities, solid waste companies and other users of the rights-of-way. An example of a job description has been included as Exhibit 5. For example, this manager would assume the responsibility of coordinating the negotiation of franchise agreements from the Finance Director. 1 r r r r ~r Wr J 1 r r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGH'T'S-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY INTRODUCTION The City of Tigard, incorporated in 1961, is a community located minutes southwest of Portland. The City is home to more than 43,040 residents and expects a population nearing 47,280 by 2005. Tigard strives to manage its growth and blend the amenities of a modem city with the friendliness and community spirit of a small town. Downtown Tigard is experiencing a renaissance of business and community involvement. Quaint antique shops, espresso bars and fashionable eateries are located on Main Street. Side streets are sites of community facilities and activities such as the Tigard Civic Center, fire station and many retail and service businesses. Tigard has developed a strong tax base and a diverse number of businesses. The City's tax rate is among the lowest in the Portland metropolitan area, and industrial and commercial properties represent a large portion of the tax base. Today, there is over 4.5 million square feet of commercial and industrial space in Tigard at business parks. One of the goals of Tigard's fiscal policies is to provide and maintain essential public facilities, utilities, infrastructure, and capital equipment. The City has several Special Revenue Funds that account for revenue derived from specific taxes or other earmarked L ~ revenue sources that are restricted to finance these activities. The following details some of these revenue sources. J Gas Tax Fund - Accounts for revenues received from state gasoline taxes which are to u be expended as specified in the Constitution of the State of Oregon, Article IX, Section 3 that requires revenue from the following to be used exclusively for the construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, maintenance, operation and use of 6 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY public highways, roads, streets and roadside rest areas. Fiscal year 2003 budgeted amount is $1,806,961. t 1. Any tax levied on, with respect to, or measured by the storage, withdrawal, use, sale, distribution, importation or receipt of motor vehicle fuel or any other product used for the propulsion of motor vehicles; and 2. Any tax or excise levied on the ownership, operation or use of motor vehicles. r Traffic Impact Fund - Accounts for traffic impact fees charged for new development. Funds are used for highway and transit capital improvements approved by the County that provide additional capacity t6 the major transportation system. Fiscal year 2003 budgeted amount is $1,966,905. ■ Underground Utility Fund - Accounts for monies received from developers for future underground utility improvements. Fiscal year 2003 budgeted amount is $59,700. ■ Urban Services Traffic Impact Fee Fund - Accounts for traffic impact fees collected in the unincorporated Bull Mountain area. Funds are used for highway and transit capital improvements approved by Washington County that provide additional capacity to the City's transportation system. Fiscal year 2003 budgeted amount is $370,490. ■ Urban Services Fund - Accounts for all revenues and expenditures related to services provided in the unincorporated Bull Mountain area. The City of Tigard provides services to this area pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with Washington County. Fiscal year 2003 budgeted amount is $607,700. L r 7 .M.5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1NMIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY City's Permitting Process for Rights-of-Way Users, Document ' Procedures and Review Costs Related to ROW Management Activities 1. Permit Application and Issuance Process Review The purpose of this review was to gain an understanding of the rights-of-way permitting process, determine the volume of permits issued and determine whether the process is in compliance with the code for the City. In addition, the process enabled MAXIMUS to determine what departments were involved, their percentage involvement and related departmental costs. The following steps had to be performed to accomplish this objective. o Interview appropriate individuals in Public Works, Engineering, City Planning, Legal, Finance and Street Maintenance departments in order to gain an understanding of the their involvement as it pertains to the rights-of way permit issuance and inspection process. o Review a sample of number of permits. o Review the City Code to determine if the actual process in effect is in compliance. n_ OG H N II. Selected Oregon Statute Provisions J_ m 0 ' Statutory authority exists for the City to regulate use of its rights-of-way and to impose J charges.' Specifically, the City may: 8 MA CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY 1. Determine by contract or prescribe by ordinance the terms and conditions, including payment of charges and fees, upon which any public utility, electric cooperative, people's utility City or heating company may be permitted to occupy the streets, highways or other public property within the City. 2. Require any public utility, by ordinance or otherwise, to make such modifications, additions and extensions to its physical equipment, facilities or plant or service within the City as shall be reasonable or necessary in the interest of the public and designate the location and nature of all additions and extensions, the time within which they must be completed, and all conditions under which they must be constructed. 3. Fix by contract, prescribe by ordinance, or in any other lawful manner, the rates or tolls to be paid to, or may be collected by, any public utility or the quality and character of each kind of product or service to be furnished or rendered by any public utility furnishing any product or service in the city. No schedule of rates, charges or tolls, fixed in any manner ...shall be so fixed for a period longer than five years. 4. In some instances, a City may elect not to enter into a franchise with a utility who has requested use of the City's rights-of-way. In this case.. the city council may levy and collect from every electric cooperative, people's utility City, privately owned public utility, telecommunications carrier or heating company a privilege tax for use r ' of the public streets, alleys or highways, or all of them, an amount not exceeding five n percent of the gross revenues of the cooperative, utility, City or company currently 3 earned within the boundary of the city. However, the gross revenues earned in interstate commerce or on the business of the United States Government shall be u a Municipal Regulation of Public Utilities, ORS 221.420 9 NI)V A CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIML]S 0 RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY exempt. The privilege tax shall be for each year, or part of each year, such utility, cooperative, City or company operates without a franchise 2 5. All franchises, privileges or permits for the use of the public highways, streets or alleys granted after June 5, 1931 by any municipal corporation shall not be granted for a term longer than 20 years.3 6. Determine by contract, or prescribe by ordinance, the terms and conditions including payment of a privilege tax.... and other charges and fees upon which any telecommunications carrier may be permitted to occupy the streets, highways or other public property within such municipality. Provide for a penalty for noncompliance with the provisions of any charter provision, ordinance or resolution adopted by the municipality.4 7. The council may levy and collect from every telecommunications carrier operating and using the streets, alleys or highways a privilege tax in an amount not to exceed seven percent of the gross revenues of the telecommunications carrier.5 8. A telecommunications carrier paying the privilege tax shall not be required to pay any additional fee, compensation or consideration, including the free use or construction of telecommunications facilities and equipment, to the municipality for its use of public streets, alleys or highways and shall not be required to pay any additional tax or fee on the gross revenues that are the measure of the privilege tax. The term "use" includes, but is not limited to street openings, construction and maintenance of fixtures or facilities by telecommunications carriers. The term Z Tax on Public Utilities Operating without a Franchise, ORS 221.450 a Duration of Franchises, Privileges and Permits, ORS 221.460 4 Municipal Regulation of Telecommunications Carriers, ORS 221.510 5 Privilege Tax on Telecommunications Carriers, ORS 221.515 to Cdr,/ U5 x CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY "additional fee, compensation or consideration" does not include commissions paid for siting public telephones on municipal property. To the extent that separate fees are imposed on telecommunications carriers for street openings, construction, inspection or maintenance of fixtures or facilities, such fees may be deducted from the privilege tax. However, telecommunications carriers shall not deduct charges and penalties imposed by the municipality for noncompliance with charter provisions, ordinances, resolutions or permit conditions from the privilege tax.6 9. In regards to telecommunications, gross revenues means those revenues derived from exchange access services? which are: a. Telephone exchange access lines or channels that provide local access by a subscriber to the local telecommunications network to effect the transfer of information; and b. Unless a separate tariff rate is charged, any facility or service provided in connection with the services in "a" above. III. Tigard Municipal Code and Ordinances The City of Tigard may have sufficient regulations already in place to protect the public a health, safety, and welfare with regard to public rights-of-way, but there is room for ~N improvement in the actual implementation of these regulations from an operational J viewpoint. M J 6 Privilege Tax on Telecommunications Carriers, ORS 221.515 Definitions, ORS 401.710 11 MAMINl l4 s. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON NMIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY The use of standardized franchise agreements/licenses, incorporating requirements for compensation, insurance, bonding, restoration, removal of facilities, and provision of maps, applicable penalties and plans would streamline the franchise agreement/license issuance and enforcement process. A Pertinent chapters effecting the City's management and monitoring of the use of its rights-of-ways are: r ■ Chapter 5 - Business Licenses and Regulations ■ Chapter 7 - Public Peace, Safety and Morals ■ Chapter 15 - Streets and Sidewalks ■ Chapter 18 - Community Development Critique of executed franchise agreements, ordinances and licenses between the City and utilities granted access to use the rights-of-way is included as Exhibit 3. IV. Permit Issuance Process Various city program departments are involved in the permit issuance process as follows: Table 1: City Departments Involved in ROW Maintenance/Permit Issuance Process 7 ' Program Department Responsibility General City Legal The City utilizes the firm of Ramis Crew Corrigan & Government Bachrach, LLP to handle all of its legal needs i including ROW and utility issues. Public Works Street Maintenance Maintenance of the City's infrastructure (roads, I I parks, grounds, and City buildings) as well as provision of water, sanitary sewer, and storm water services. Also responsible for the maintenance of 12 MAX CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS ' RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY City vehicles and facilities. ■ Maintenance of sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems is funded by the collection of sewer and storm drainage charges. ■ Street maintenance is funded by a combination ' of State and County gas taxes. ■ Park maintenance is funded by property taxes. ■ Fleet and Property activities are funded through a variety of revenue sources. Community Current and Long Range Community planning; administration of the Development Planning Development Code; parks planning and development; building plan review and inspections; general economic development activities; and customer service at the front counter. t ■ Current Planning - provides zoning and development information; conducts pre- application conferences, and reviews land use applications. ■ Long Range Planning - responsible for monitoring and analyzing present and future physical, demographic, economic, and development conditions and trends; clarifying and recommending ways to implement shared City goals; developing and implementing L growth management and annexation programs; OC maintaining, updating and implementing n Tigard's comprehensive plan; conducting technical studies and special planning projects 9 ' such as transportation planning; coordination of planning issues with other jurisdictions; developing and maintaining citywide geographic information mapping system (GIS) 13 t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON NMIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY Development Engineering Designs and constructs capital improvement projects; Services and review of private development and inspection to Engineering ensure compliance with City standards. ■ Manages capital improvement program for public streets and utilities and prepares facilities plans for future improvement needs. • Provides technical review and issues permits for proposed private development projects, provides inspections to assure compliance with City standards, and maintains records relating to public facilities. Development Street Lights & Signals Maintenance and energy costs for street lighting and Services - traffic signals on public streets. All maintenance work is done by contract and no City personnel are funded Policy and Finance Manages annual budget process; long range financial Administration planning; review and processing of all requests for new utility franchises; financial advice to City Council, boards, committees and issuance of debt for general and enterprise activities. Policy and Network Services Provides computer systems installation and Administration maintenance, telephone inventory and usage, and television facilities to all City departments including maintenance of Hansen and Tidemark systems and creation of reports for Street Maintenance and IL Engineering. I- M The permit issuance process begins when a contractor or utility representative arrives at J m the Engineering department to obtain an application for proposed work. The completed application along with as built drawings, traffic control plan and other required data to obtain a permit is submitted to Engineering for review and processing. Depending on the nature of work being requested by the permit, Engineering may route the application to 14 Ml~ i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON NMIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY other departments for appropriate review. After ensuring all obligations have been met, a permit is issued. The applicant pays the appropriate permit fees based on the rates detailed below. Table 2: Current ROW Permit Fees Permit Tye Current Fee Public Facility Improvement Minimum $150 fee plus cost recovery Fee in Lieu of Undergrounding $27.50/LF of frontage where existing OH utilities exist and where they serve the development in question Address Fee $30 per address Application Fee None required except where required in executed franchise agreements Inspection Fee None required Table 3: Number of Permits Issued Total Permits Issued in 2002 136 Total Permits Issued to Franchise Utility Companies in 2002 * 75 Fiscal Year 2002 Permit Revenue $69,890 Fiscal Year 2003 Budgeted Permit Revenue $209,128 ' Included in total permits issued amount of 136 Street Maintenance, along with Engineering, is responsible for monitoring and inspecting a the permitted work being conducted to ensure it is in accordance with the specifications OC v}~j and conditions attached to the permit. Upon completion of the.work, the utility is t responsible for repairing the road back to conditions as required by the City. If the utility _J m fails to properly repair the road, Street Maintenance staff is utilized to conduct the repair. t9 J Costs for all such repairs by the City are billed to the utility. According to the City, no problems exist with collection of reimbursement for these repairs. However, it should be MAXIMIS 15 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON NMIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY noted that Street Maintenance also inspects and conducts repairs for non-permitted utilities such as Water, Waster Water and Storm Water. V. Street Maintenance Repair/Inspection The Street Maintenance department commences its involvement with rights-of-way activities upon receipt of work orders from other departments including the water, waste water and storm water divisions. Upon receipt of a work order, an assignment is made to the appropriate crew.to make road repairs, conduct inspection or perform other activities as requested. Other activities may include roadside mowing, street signs, dust control associated with rock roads, rock road maintenance, street marking, curb painting, etc. Upon completion of work required by the work order, the Administrative Assistant enters the cost for labor, equipment and other associated costs into the Hansen system. While Hansen has a report module, most reports utilized by management are generated by the City's Network Services (Systems) department. Specific Street Maintenance issues are: 1. The utilities should be required to be more responsible for their street cut repairs. 2. There exists a problem with utilities cutting storm water lines. 3. A formal procedure does not exist for Street Maintenance to be informed of permits L issued to utilities, the nature of permitted work, the date work is to commence, amount of inspection required, information regarding planned repair work, etc. 3 0 VI. Costs Associated With Managing Rights-Of-Way Our objective for this part of the management study is to assist the City with appropriate modification and revisions in its schedule of charges for the use of the public rights-of-ways 16 N A?(> CITY OF TIGARID, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY to affect fair and reasonable charges to recover costs of managing the public rights-of-ways. The following had to be determined to accomplish this objective: • Determine the costs associated with managing the rights-of-way in the City including the management, acquisition, construction, maintenance and inspection cost of the public rights-of-way. • Determine what costs can be reasonably applied to current and potential users of the public rights-of-way. • Review the City's permit fee schedule to determine if rates assessed are sufficient to recover the City's costs from the public rights-of-way users. The full costs of managing the City's rights-of-way consist of direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are costs that can be specifically identified with a particular final cost objective. Indirect costs are costs not specifically identified with a single, final cost objective but are identified by two or more final cost objectives or an intermediate cost objective. Direct costs for this rights-of-way project were determined to be departments or responsibility cost centers which are only specifically identified with public space. Indirect costs are costs which are not directly identified with public space but are incurred for several divisions of the City and/or the general operations of Public Works and related departments. i ~t For purposes of determining direct costs associated with the users of the City's rights-of- way, several departments were identified. Costs associated with these departments are accumulated in the City's financial system by program cost centers. These departments and their related responsibilities have been summarized in Table 1. 17 MAP-NU NI§ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON NMIIAUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY The following tables detail the actual costs incurred by each department associated with the management, including permit issuance and inspection activities, of the ROW. The results detailed in these tables clearly exhibit that the City is not recouping its direct and indirect costs incurred with managing the rights-of-way. Table 4: Street Maintenance Classification Title Salary % of Effort Allocable Salary Senior Utility Worker $38,160 100% $38,160 Senior Utility Worker $38,160 100% $38,160 Utility Worker II $34,524 100% $34,524 Utility Worker 11 $34,524 100% $34,524 Utility Worker 11 $34,524 100% $34,524 Utility Worker 11 $34,524 100% $34,524 Utility Worker II $34,524 100%$34,524 Streets supervisor $55,033 100% $55,033 Subtotal Costs $303,973 Fringe benefits 34.7% $ 105,479 Materials & Services total = $326,181 $20,549 Allocated salaries $10,240 is 6.3% of department salaries Total of Direct costs $430,001 Indirect cost rate is 12.8% $55,040 Total Costs $485,041 Table 5: Engineering Classification Title Salary % of Effort Allocable Salary En ineerin Manager $68,359 90% $61,622 Engineering Survey Specialist $53,570 89% $47,752 Engineering Tech 1 $26,241 100% $26,178 Engineering Tech 11 $44,598 98% $43,849 Sr Engineering Tech $48,094 50% $24,186 Sr Engineering Tech $47,905 33% $15,938 Subtotal Costs $219,526 Fringe benefits 36.3% $79,688 Materials & Services total = $109,688 Allocated salaries (28,877) is 3.4% of department $3,729 salaries Total of Direct costs $302,943 Indirect cost rate is 25.63% $11,043 Total costs $313,986 18 MAXIM[1S CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON NMIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY Table 6: Finance Classification Title Salary % of Effort Allocable Salary Total Director of Finance $82,432 10% $8,243 Bud et/Financial Reporting Analyst $39,945 5% $1,997 Subtotal Costs $10,240 Fringe benefits 28.7% $2,939 Materials & Services total = 82,623 $5,205 allocated salaries (10,240) is 6.3% o department salaries Total of Direct costs $181385 Indirect cost rate is 31.58% $5,806 Total costs $24,191 1 Table 7: Planning Classification Title Salary % of Effort Allocable Salary M Assistant Planner $39,216 3.60% $1,412 Fringe benefits 35.93% $507 Materials & Services total =102,332 allocated salaries (1,412) is 1.0% of $102 department salaries Total of Direct costs $2,021 Indirect cost rate is 17.14% $346 Total costs $2,367 i Table 8: Legal Costs Time Period Amount July - December 2001 $103,584 January - December 2002 $166,757 January 2003 $ 8,703 Annualized 2003 $104,440 19 !e!~! CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON NMIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY Table 9: Street Maintenance Actual ROW Repair Costs - 2002 Category Amount ROW Mowing Maintenance $40,793 Dust Control Maintenance $1,918 Road Rocking Maintenance $3,131 Digout and Replace Asphalt $229,711 ...Streets $143,382 ...Parks $167 ....Waste Water/Storm $22,254 .....Water $63,908 Total $275,553 Table 10: Solid Waste Franchising Management Classification Title Sala % of Effort Allocable Sala Total Financial Operations Manager $65,640 10% $6,564 Subtotal Costs $6,564 Fringe Benefits 28.7% $1,884 Materials and Services total $180,294 $2,524 Allocated salaries ($6,564) is 1.4% of department salaries Total Direct Costs $10,972 Indirect Cost Rate is 31.58% $ 3,465 Total Costs $14,437 Table 11: FY2003 Permit Revenue Permit Type Revenue PH (Public Facility Improvement Permits $75,230 city $55,720 Urban Services Boundary (USB $19,510 Fee In-Lieu of Under roundin $20,544 (All Ci ; Not required or collected in USB) Address Fee $8,790 city $6,120 Urban Services Boundary (USB) $2,670 Total FY2003 Revenue* $104,564 FY2003 Revenue Annualized $209,128 Permit Revenue FY2001/2002 $ 69,890 o January , 20 .I,VIAX1Ml CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY Table 12: Summary Departmental Costs Compared to Actual Revenue Permits Actual Cost Issued 2002 Actual Cost Department Per Permit Street Maintenance $485,041 136 $3,566 Engineering $313,986 136 $2,309 Finance $ 24,191 136 $ 178 Planning $ 2,367 136 $ 17 Total $825,585 Street Maintenance 2002 $275.553 Repair Costs Solid Waste Franchising $14,437 Management Legal 2002 Costs $166,757 FY2002 Permit Revenue $ 69,128 FY2003 Projected Permit $209,128 Revenue FY2002 Franchise Fee $2,800,000 Revenue r Issue The results of this review clearly disclose the City is not recouping all of its costs. Therefore, careful consideration must be given to proposed franchise fee percent a increases, potential new franchise fee for some utilities, privilege tax implementation, permit fee increases, and other proposed new tax implementation as all these assessments directly impact residents of the City. All City departments must work together jointly to J ensure agreed upon decisions benefit the City not only for the short term but for ten to m twenty years in the future to accommodate pending and unknown legislative changes that could effect revenues allocated to the City's general fund. 21 MAXINLq CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY Conclusions 1. The City is not recouping all of its direct and indirect costs associated with the management of the use of the rights-of-way. 2. The City does not require all users of the rights-of-way to obtain permits, i.e. Water, Waste Water, Storm Water, etc. 3. The City does not charge inspection fees to utility companies. 4. All permit issuance and inspection activities are manual which: ■ affects the length of time for a permit application to be reviewed and approved; ■ creates the possibility for established policy not to be conducted due to change in staff; and ■ affects the communication between effected departments. 5. The City utilizes both the Hansen and Tidemark systems to track some rights-of-way and permit issuance activities. However, these systems do not communicate with each other; thus, affected departments do not effectively communicate with each other on a timely basis. Additionally, neither of these systems have been . programmed to link to the Finance system. A 3 a 6. Franchise utilities, with blanket permits, are not required to pay permit fees. 7. The City does not map locations of issued permits. 8. Policies are not in place to ensure uniformity of franchise agreement provisions. 22 lVIAXII!!141$ r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY 13. Established procedures are not consistently enforced to require utilities to be responsible for their street cut repairs as required by issued permit specifications/conditions. 14. Prior to issuing permits, procedures need to be reviewed to ensure utilities are contacting the Oregon Utility Notification Center to verify location of existing facilities prior to commencement of work as a problem exists with utilities consistently cutting storm water lines. r 15. A formal procedure does not exist for Street Maintenance to be informed of permits issued to utilities, the nature of permitted work, the date work is to commence, amount of inspection required, information regarding planned repair work, etc. 16. The Finance Director coordinates the negotiation of franchise agreements with telecommunication, solid waste and other utility companies that request usage of the City's rights-of-ways. Recommendations MAXIMUS recommends the City consider the following to enhance its management of rights-of-way activities. The timeframe for implementation is dependent on City staff available to coordinate. However, implementation of the Rights-of-Way Manager a position would expedite the timeframe as this Manager would be available to coordinate N appropriate tasks with all departments. m 1. Consider increasing permit fees to recoup some of the City's direct and indirect costs .j from managing the use of the rights-of-way. 23 MxMU5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS ® RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY ■ 2. Where appropriate, consider assessing a permit application fee. If application fee is assessed, review state law for compliance. 3. Consider requiring all users of the rights-of-way to obtain a permit including water, waste water and storm water. Review recommendations included in the City Attorney's April 29, 2002 comments regarding the City's rights-of-way concerns. 4. Consider increasing franchise fee percentages as allowed by State law. Review recommendations included in the City Attorney's April 29, 2002 comments regarding r the City's rights-of-way concerns. 5. Consider assessing franchise fees to the Water department. Review recommendations included in the City Attorney's April 29, 2002 comments regarding the City's rights- of-way concerns. 6. Consider automating the permit issuance and inspection processes to expedite review of submitted applications, link inspection activities to issued permits, allow access to pending and issue permit information online, mechanically route permits, receive drawings electronically (could be linked to GIS), generate require management reports to monitor utility activity by contractor/company, administrative costs, backlog of permit processing, backlog of inspection activities, monitor number of L ¢ street cuts, and track number of permits issued (by type). n 7. Consider mapping permits issued to monitor construction activity in the rights-of- way. u 8. Investigate the usage of "one" automated system to manage all of the City's rights-of- way accounting and reporting needs. Currently, the City is utilizing Hansen and 241115 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY Tidemark which are systems that do not "talk" to each other. Also, neither system is linked to the City's financial system. Utilizing one system would enhance communication between departments, ensure all departments have assess to the "same" information at the same time, enhance management reporting, etc. 9. Develop procedures to ensure the Street Maintenance department is informed "up front" of all issue permits. 10. Require franchise utilities, with blanket permits, to pay at least an annual permit fee based on estimated forecasted maintenance activities. 11. Develop procedures to ensure all executed franchise agreements include the same language in significant provisions, i.e. compensation, right to audit, reporting, etc. 12. Review established procedures to ensure utilities consistently conduct street cut repairs as required by issued permit specifications/conditions. 13. As part of the permit issuance process, develop procedures to ensure utilities are contacting the Oregon Utility Notification Center to verify location of existing facilities prior to commencement. L r 14. Consider establishing a position l:or a Rights-of-Way Manager. This position would coordinate the City's rights-of-way policies and program objectives within budget limitations, including negotiating franchise agreements with utilities, solid waste 0 companies and other users of the rights-of-way. An example of a job description has been included as Exhibit 5. For example, this manager would assume the responsibility of coordinating the negotiation of franchise agreements from the Finance Director. MI~XIMIS 25 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON NMIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY r r w e r r r L C D ;r r 26 ~VU~X~MI l$ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON N0,Y]MUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY a Rights-Of-Way Management Practices of Selected Major U.S. Cities This section of the report summarizes survey information outlining right-of-way (ROW) management practices of other cities. The objective of our research was to provide information on other jurisdictions' approach toward providing utilities (and other companies) access to ROW, methodologies utilized for assessing fee for rental of ROW and legislative instruments used to regulate access to public space. Row Management Research Objectives The objective of the ROW management research focused on the following: • ROW valuation methodologies • ROW user costs • Usage and marketability of underground conduits, bridges, aerial, wireless, tunnels, and poles • Street cut policies and fees ROW Valuation Methodologies ` Our review of local governmental entities indicated that typical right-of-way (ROW) r . ' users are electric, gas, telephone, cable, communications, and fiber optic companies. These utilities and telecommunication companies use the surface, subsurface and airspace of the city's alleys, sidewalks and streets; as well as tunnels, poles, conduits, and ducts to provide their customers services and transact business. Based on the information collected and reviewed during this process, it is apparent that significant right-of-way revenues are derived via franchise agreements or ordinances with utilities, telecommunications companies and cable providers. The majority of franchise fees are 27 MAXIMl1S CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS 1 RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY collected as percentages of the utilities' or providers' gross revenues or gross receipts. On an average, these fees range from 3% to 5% of utility gross revenues within a given jurisdiction. Revenue Based Compensation This method of payment is most common for local utilities, cable companies and competitive local exchange companies (CLEC). Local utilities include local exchange telephone companies, electric, gas, water and steam. CLECS are companies that compete with local exchange carriers in the area of providing access to long distance carriers, private line and local telephone service. Our review of the types of franchises or licenses granted by the cities researched revealed that there are three general categories of utility users of public rights-of-way: Table I - Utility Users of Public Rights-of-Way Tye Category, of Use ROW Valuation Method Franchise Local Distribution Networks (i.e. local Percentage of Gross Revenues exchange carrier, competitive access provider, water, steam, chilled water, electric, gas service and solid waste License Interstate Carriers (i.e. long distance telephone, Linear Foot Fee as pipe interstate) License Private Networks (i.e. hospitals, universities, Linear Foot Fee r private companies and non profit agencies) MAXIMUS' research of local governments' rights-of-way compensation arrangements for d ' these categories indicates rights-of-way fees are generally assessed in the following manner: 28 MAXIm CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAMMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY Table 2 - Rights-of-Way Assessment Type Compensation Method Fee Range 1) Local distribution networks percent of gross revenue or receipts .05% to 10% 2) Local distribution networks Linear foot, Fee per access line .001 to 5.50 per ft 3) Interstate carriers Flat fee/ linear foot .30 to $5.50 per ft 4) Private networks Flat fee / linear foot .30 to $5.50 per ft. Table 3, below, details the comparison of gross revenues derived from rights-of-way fees for selected cities: Table 3 - Gross Revenues from Rights-of-Way Fees Electric Telephone Franchise Fee Franchise Fee % Franchise Fee Ci Revenue Electric /Telephone Revenue Chicago $ 63,000,000 4%-Elec./ 3%-Tele. $ 29,580,000 Houston** $ 60,000,000 4%-Elec./ Flat Fee-Tele. $26,900,000 St. Louis* $ 26,000,000 10%-Elec./ 10%-Tele. $12,000,000 New Orleans $ 9,000,000 2.5%-Elec./ 3% Tele. $3,000,000 * St. Louis has a gross receipts tax instead ofa franchise fee. **Texas recently deregulated electricity and telecommunications services. Specifically, franchise agreements are now prohibited. Houston continues to receive franchise fee payments from the local electric company based on kWh sales and from telecommunication service providers based on a fee/access line. Deregulation prohibits electric and telecommunication payments from being based on a percentage of gross receipts. L Gross receipts based franchise agreements generally permit utilities to have unlimited access to public space and rights-of-way for a specific purpose such as providing electric or gas service within the City. These franchises typically regulate pole placement, conduits, buried 7 ~ (:able and all other aspects of the utility's activities in public rights-of--way. In return for ROW access, the franchised utilities agree to pay the City based on a percentage of all gross receipts from operations within the City. Utilities are typically required to pay property, 29 MAMA I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY utility and other taxes such as sale, use, special taxes and assessments for public e improvements, in addition to gross receipts franchise fees. Linear Foot Fee Generally, the linear foot charge is used for limited access to public ROW as in the case of a telecommunications operator building a limited network in a downtown urban area. Many of the cities researched used this method for fiber optic local loop, interstate long distance carrier and interstate pipeline companies: For example, Atlanta and Chicago use the percentage of gross receipts model for utilities such as local exchange, electric and gas companies. Philadelphia, on the other hand, only charges a linear foot fee. In addition to the cities below, MAXIMUS included the rate charged by a public transit authority to telecommunication providers for the use of their facilities. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) uses the public right-of-way to operate the public mass transit rail system within D.C. ROW is leased for the installation of fiber optic cables ranging from $1.60 to $3.80 per linear foot per year. The City of Atlanta charges certain ROW tenants a $5.00 per linear feet for the usage of the City's rights-of-ways and the City of Pittsburgh charges $1.00 per linear foot. (See Table 4) Table 4 - Survey of Selected Cities Population Com an Fee/Lnr Ft o. I WMATA $3.80 to 1.60 2 Albuquerque, 384,736 AT&T 0.60 NM m 3 Atlanta, GA 394,017 AT&T 5.00 4 Atlanta, GA 394,017 Western Union 5.00 5 Baltimore, MD 736,014 Bell Atlantic 0.06 6 Birmingham, AL 265,968 AT&T 2.00 7 Boca Raton, FL 61,492 Telecommunication services 2.00 30 M/~?C1M~IS CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY 9 Des Moines, IA 193,187 1.00 8 Chica o, IL 2,783,730 rteleph,telegr,communications 5.50 10 Des Moines, IA 193,187 1.00 11 Flint, MI 140,761 AT&T Communications 1.00 12 Fort Worth, TX 447,619 AT & T 1.00 13 Fort Worth, TX 447,619 MCI 1.00 14 Fort Worth, TX 447,619 N/A 1.33 15 Philadelphia, PA 1,586,000 Aerial/Electric 0.0011 16 Philadelphia, PA 1,586,000 Telecomm. 0.0007 17 Pittsburgh, PA 369,879 Telecomm. 1.00 18 Phoenix, AZ 983,403 City Signal 0.60 19 Richmond, VA 202,798 Bell Atlantic 0.02 20 St. Louis, MO 396,685 N/A 1.50 21 St. Paul, MN 272,235 Any Franchise 1.00 22 Tulsa, OK 367,302 US Sprint 0.75 Average Linear Foot Fee $ 1.50 Over time, the term of franchise agreements has decreased. Initially, agreements were made for extensive periods of time, such as 30, 40 or 50 years. The recent trend has been for the agreement to have a term of 10 or 15 years, with incorporation of a provision outlining the city's right to renegotiate and a clause for inflation factors. Based on the information obtained from the survey, the average agreement term is approximately 18.29 years. Franchise agreements normally specify the compensation basis and method L of calculating the franchise fee. Additionally, the franchise agreements are normally r initiated through an application process which includes review(s) by the city, i coordination of different city departments and/or localities, and approval by the City Council (or an applicable legislative branch). a i 31 SAM--jMi1~ Ain M CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY Written Policies or Agreements for Subleasing and Permitting Our research indicated that generally, regulations pertaining to the public ROW are usually documented in the city's Municipal Code(s) or Ordinances. The documents outline the franchising or permitting process for the users of public space. All of the cities that responded have a written policy or policies in place to monitor franchising, subleasing and permitting. Only two of the cities (Milwaukee, WI and Seattle, WA) did not require a company to negotiate a franchise or lease agreement prior to gaining access to their city's ROW. Additionally, most cities also require users of the public ROW to apply for a permit, submit plans and receive approval from the Public Works (or equivalent department) prior to entering the public ROW. The permit fees vary according to the nature and volume of work to be performed. The permit fees range from a minimal fee for access to utility poles and flat fees per street cut to fees based on the nature, volume or length of time work will be performed. In addition to the street cut permit fees, several cities require the utility to pay the costs associated with degradation of streets due to utility cuts. Conduit Rentals C The cities that lease conduit space to private companies are Los Angeles, CA and i , Milwaukee, WI. Both cities lease to telecommunications providers. However, Los 1 y Angeles' compensation is based on in-kind consideration, while Milwaukee leases its duct space for $.55 per linear foot. Sea:atle City Lights, a city-owned electric company, owns underground conduits, but only leases to other government and public agencies. 32 MtgX,105 e e CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON NMINIUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY Additionally, we researched information on fees for poles, pole attachments, bridge access, tunnel fees, subleasing, cellular tower sites, and attachments to municipally- owned poles. Milwaukee, WI and Seattle, WA assess pole fees. Richmond, VA and 1 Seattle, WA assess fees for pole attachments. Atlanta, GA has a tunnel fee. Seattle, WA assesses an annual fee of $2,041 for its skybridge and $3,070 for a pedestrian tunnel. Seattle's fees are reevaluated every five (5) years. Milwaukee, WI and St. Petersburg, FL assess a subleasing fee. Milwaukee's fee is for underground conduit. St. Petersburg assesses fees on its telecommunications companies but did not provide details. Milwaukee, Wl reported that television, radio and telecommunications companies use the tower sites and pay for plan exams, permit fees for construction plus any other permits fees for outbuildings. Richmond, VA charges an annual fee of $2.00 per pole for city owned poles. Seattle, WA is enacting a pilot program to charge a fee for pole attachments. Additionally, four of the respondents assess utility pole license fees listed below: Atlanta, GA, charges $5.00 per pole; • Milwaukee, WI, charges a permit fee of $21.00 per block with inspection fees of $12.00 per pole; • Norfolk, VA charges $5.00 per pole; and L Seattle, WA, charges a $58.00 permit fee. n a 0 a 33 MW~N 11,,5 A CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAx1mus RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY Presented below in Table 5, is a listing of other cities and their fees per pole. Table 5 - Survey of Poles City Fee Per Pole Baltimore, MD $ 50.00 Philadelphia, PA $ 2.00 New York, NY $ 150.00 Dayton, OH $ 10.00 Richmond, VA $ 2.00 Policy for Utility Street Cuts Information was requested from the cities regarding their requirements for street cuts, including: • fees • trench responsibilities • street condition evaluation e restrictions • trenching coordination, and • permanent repairs As stated earlier, cities researched require service providers to have a permit prior to C entering the public ROW. All of the researched cities except St. Petersburg, FL require a permit. St. Petersburg did not require a permit because the city does not allow street cuts. i t Companies are required to jack and bore, which is a method of laying new cable or performing repairs via excavation at the side of the road. Presented below in Table 6, is a listing of cities with their required intervals before newly paved or replaced streets are allowed to be cut. 34 !!wtX~a CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY Table 6 - Restriction on Newly Paved Streets Moratorium Length City Comments (Years) Los Angeles, CA Only after prescribed time frames. 1 - S Milwaukee, WI Only after prescribed time frame, unless by 3 resolution of Common Council. Nashville, IN Only after prescribed time frame. 5 Seattle, WA Only after prescribed time frame. 3 St. Petersburg, FL Only after prescribed time frame. 5 Once a specified street is replaced or resurfaced, most of the cities place a moratorium on proposals for street cuts to that specific street. The shortest time identified before the allowance of street cuts was one year, with council approval. The normal time was from 3 to 5 years. The respondents also indicated that the city and utilities coordinate with each other before trenching activities are allowed to start. All but one of the cities researched requires the utility company (or contractor) to repair and complete permanent repairs to the trenches under the supervision of the city's Public Works. Seattle, WA was the only city that indicated that the responsibility for the reconstruction of the trench rested with the Public Works. The Public Works for the other cities is responsible for inspecting the repair work and ensuring that it has been performed in accordance with the city's regulations and codes. 35 M) r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY 1 a r r r r r EXHIBIT 1 SURVEY -FIBER OPTIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS RIGHT-OF-WAY/FRANCHISE FEES 1 r L ;r 0 1 r MA?Cll~l[,I LEGIBILITY STRIP City o( Tigard, Oregon Fiber Optic Telecommunleation Survey Right-Of--Way Fees (SCbedule Prepared by: MAXIMOS) pehnWart of Right to Bond Revenue Com ^sati°^ Term ears Other Compensation Audit? R uiremem Insurance Com nation city Name Population Com n Name yes $250.000 2 fiber Pairs for We own use surety bond 8,783 Metropolitan Fiber mater of: S% of gross revenue 7 years Systems, Inc. (MFS) OR $5,000, payable quarterly no additional #O^' none not none S1 million fiabil{ty.Dinh!^~ sing enumerated limit .avenge for bodily WWII, buqumque, NM 384,738 Arnerican Telephone & $0.60 per Nn it, Silt?) to incr due eff 0-1129185 death or property damage Telegraph Co. (AT & T) to annexation, payable annually exp 07/29!00 (currently a min of $9.750) t5years 394,017 Metre- Corp greater M: 4%of gross revenu 10 years U, GA OR $25,000 Souther et greaterof: 4%o11grossrevenue loyears no additional OR $25,000 none not none $t million personal injury enumerated $700,000 property damage munications osti Birmingham, AL 265,966 of AT&T the South Central $2.00 per linear it of annually exp 09117 15 at the , in Central used, payable 30 years (unless term'd by mutual consent) nn al gross billings based fee = 3% total Stites, Inc. (AT 8 TI a 5500,000 workers comP¢nsa- annual gross billings during a compensation yea ) d continuous fiber optic strands; yes $ surety, 0 urety, bond lion & occupational disease; 2793,730 Oiginet COmmunlcatiart5, greater of: 53.54 per linear toot eH exp 0!!01191 single termination point for City OR b) $5 million, combined single us iness area 12131,05 total gross billings =all amounts (e-.lading Chicago, 1L Inc. -Midwest in the dow n town b fibers in up to 5 municipal build- %1 15 years ings: maintenance of City fibers letter of credi limit) comprehensive genera sai.s w) due to Company. derived from (DBA) - 51 .77 per Ile foot - Fab or commercial tiab the DBA (min annual fee) OR the occurrence) rail its operation, lease, e-change in or a ll use of a flab ($6 million its telecommunication syst e other annual gross billings based fee: c) $2 road million protective (per session of payable monthly yes surety apply) revenue arising from the eH 04101(90 surety bond annual aggregate may the rights under the telecommunications Teleport Communication d) $2 million (per occurrence) combined single limn auto !tab use agreement Chicago- Inc. 1-time processing tee of $2,3J0 exp 1213t105 15 YT, a 9 mos $t million pers injury per Person; gross revenues =gross rev derived from none y- none provision of vOicehfidoOldita transm $t mil per occurence: $1 mil prop over telecommunication system. lease of gross revenu incinnati.. OH 364,040 Access Transmission greater o(: 3 A quarteHyes 15 years ding per occurence+ costs of re iCtlers or Other Services, Inc. OR $1,250: payable defense; OR $S million combined the system to third-paM - 3% of third-parry reseller (i.e., xcess a private line service Single limit. costs of defense Ethernet Telecommunications o no additional Cincinnati, Inc.) gross revenues none none not none enumerated Denver. CO 467,610 MCI Telecommunications $100,000 in 20 annual payments exp ~ M11 Corporation of $5,000 each earlier of: 20 yrs rocs revenue =all rev (eXUuding Dales. rration v9d OR first 201inear miles new telec onduit not none 5500,000 single limit comp" ehen- 9 Ong' 7eleport Denver, ltd. 5 om c none use or. other U-es) deri from eff 03109/92 enumerated sive general Fabib of end user ~Iorri ry telecern traffic E of gross revenue l --t P i-- equipment to expires the earlier of date ot: termination by City, salNlease of rem /license agrt with Mile I CICPOrt -Mile High (MH); exp of MH's franchise High Cabtevision) Telepu,; or any modification end user enstomers with City; default by 1055 rC+¢nrM = a0 rev (eXGYtling sales, tlisallowin9 MH to extent! license to Teleport none 5500,000 single limit comprehen- 9 1 d' pvc conduit for Cites use yes sive general liability use or other Uxes1 delved from origination Jones Lightwave of $0.10 per linear it of right-of-wa eff 12192 (-t) only Denver, inc. occupied by newly-constructed Oehnn upon ti c Ik era o' 1flN STRIP of Tigard s yght of-Way Fees ae enue telecoms to IEGfB pm nnwap bY : MA7ttt'tusl bond hrsura xe of ena of cost Pre'nises i T.Sber ppheT (SrbOult Prepares Ri9htlo uirement sa'tease omens Audit? It end oset oust revs^ue' derived OU+er Com "ration Goal gross revenues ¢ gt°s of cor0mu ears front sale or exchange wN' dye operation Term insurance rerfuired' ces in cOnnecbo"sYstam `u`rn ttre s"A Com nation yes bond Wmnrunwat'a rin9the Y0w min 550) i 5% of gross required .ray Name none Sei City Pubhc 09t`t Lagoa Com facilities l 8 p{her standards as b to Mg change z ail rcpt' (excluding sale`' ptame P revenue . amourd Loyal DeP m ~s feceiPts on of rr?M ed by C Ke w, d ective whe" 8 aPPrw t- coet gen 1 taX y~ dhom GPIW oDerab S1W CR g•/, of gross raMed• Sto milt," each o ens & related nY greater of. license 91 ea Yr 5500.000 enol lmPai^n ;neat lim ple annually exp 0313 n Oo0~ cortP ipe cnorD°f 1p3,187 any r,mPanY revenues. WYa yes nd Gab. errrino "I,*, e ds >7 . $50 for unless sooner 8 conduit surety tw auto; ♦ S500 'se 'aett accidenUdise sac IFdfwa' W t fee terminated space in all ducted for t'~ limit oo u"... Opp edchamemlm tihereto) wlsutfic7,e-tsPaca for diseasr°-0O fa'dles dark fiber employ,-, fa no DPt 0 (estl necessary (ointstht ti Von o ubifc right et! 0409 test) a poro of exP Pair gru9hW r H P s m ~ i'n¢a used for tranrtisston cortDr genera l6 ram "Y. orks. 54.33 Per tr • Sy, of 9fp5 55 ym sups to netwod' S4 million Access NeM of-ay aversed paM1ed renegotiation none Oop auto Pncr to S 610 lAetr° ya6fe 4 purposes not 5500. very, after 5 Wo AA7, s 1Wo tnc. receipts. Pa ranee lee at loth year none enumerated St "1111 resl emPloyef ytime accep anniversary worker' comb li 510.000 tee witty staWfory mbs 5500 pmco ssin91aPP1 10Yrsunless Ve attach- , by ity Sp.es Per In anra t not specified W. C .Pny no bond City St9na1' lnc. ment tee i ce for City Ye`' MI 169.426 i e cable Spa ypWs. S5A006"In jif-woY a "ment &S5: St upon execuon of a9s bond 5500000 Pr ec~ dor.t: & S`~0•~0 tpyrs no million per Don per f~persoo nM atrPtrp ross revenue + ComPany 4•f. of annual 9 ovided by htanriber conduitfiber $2.000 Por Year ocessin9laPPlfee pper put, ll of Citys "ono • to-.T'X 1.630.y5p MotroPoSystems lMF51 $1.500 Pr none' 9d on its ySYears Yes an nit Ya ba, t of the O~GOn 4N• of grass revenue * $2.000 none • no bond it Telec .0 of TranPo Ule -fete port Datable quart-AY aV'Ifec whh permit Sec netapPl~ S4 5oa Prooesswri, le cut eff Olife k es') none asing exP 01113 (es) per Sdo mit tee to, 1 submitted: none muttiPie- 25 Yrs, subj, nicaUons payable when app not 7;1,952 Telecommu t canceltaUon none ted ndianap°es•lN "ices of Indiana additional u r added payr" enumera cut Panrra re4ui not apPlicatrle of S20 Per cut 20 Years rob snot upon passages approval commercial gene Idp, less than acurresme cations 1.500 r 5500• not contractual, 9, r Telecommuni e9 ed publication of ordi- none w/no T67 MCI annual enumerated 55p0,000 a9 ids, 1"c. nonce: iG xe d Sea 8c at ation is n one ewimodi an9a sas City. KS subI t°, scope of table system tr t until 1: t0 be in etfec terminated 2 Inc Sg20 annual fee • Yaaeach Year Wisconsin, increased by 3Y. for netted 491,262 Teievis,n Ty Channel 3) ayreemeni rt va (dba WISC- that the wo adis° ~r ® wo ,...rv.re r r v . r,rr City of Tigard, Oregon Fiber Optic Telecommunication Survey Right-of-Way Fees (Schedule Prepared by., MAXIMUS) Right to Bond Definition of C Name lotion C..-.y Name Compensation Term (Years) Other Compensation Audit? Requirement Insurance Revenue Com on for bodily injury/deathiproperty damage is. TN 810,337 City Signal, Inc. 5% of gross receipts, payable eff 11101/92 none yes $50.000 $500,000 personal injury to any gross receipts =any 8 all gross receipts quarterly exp 10/31/12 20 years minimum person; $1 million personal injury derived from the famishing of fiber optic performance in any 1 accident; $1 million communication service to subscribers with- bond prop dmg in any 7 accident; in present or future corporate limits of City ST million umbrella coverage without purporting to be exhaustive ibn N 510,786 any comparty granted a 5% Of Its gross revenues effective when 4 tlark fiber optic Fibers in back- yes 5500,000 $t million combined single limit/ gross revenue all receipts collected for all villa & Davidson franchise to provide fiber franchise is bone of Co's cyst for use by 7st 5 years, bodily injury/real prop dmg any communications 8 related operations w ' County. TN optic telecommunications granted, term metro govt for manic coordinationlen purp only. then 1 occurrence; $1 million aggr, services within Corp limits of metro govt. d services of 15 years _ ginin, assist reduced to S1 million auto each accident/ any other revenue arising from operation for providing fiber optic accesses $250.000 single limit/bodily injury/prop ding possession of the trarwhise, excluding r as metro govt may require; cur- I combined; workers' comp in min uncollectible from customers rent list of all publicfprivate bidgs amt of statutory limit for same; In which It provides services $500,000 employers liability Minneapolis. MN 366,383 any company $500,000 Navr Orleans. Ul 496,938 MCI Telecommunications $9,280 for year 1 (subj to verifc eff 05101185 none not 210,000 none not applicable Corporation ton by Dept of Utilities); yrs 2.7 exp 05'01195 enumerated surety bona as set forth in a valid ord of gen 10 years aPPI to telecom co's a services 1 dime fee of 5700 ew York City, N 7,322,560 Metropolitan Fiber tOX of gross revenue 6 SX of 15 years for City's exclusive use: 113 of yes 55 million 550 million min combined and gross revenue = rev rcvd by Company from Systems of New York, ordinary gross rev from leases/ I the max fiber count (bet. 12 & Inc. (MFS) LOC during for bodily injury, death & prop customers for provision of telecom services sales, payable quarterly 24 single mode fiber strands of consh of init damage, incl contractual liability + all rev rcvd by Company for lease 8/or dark fiber) in the backbone of backbone, as relates to cos indemnification sale of any multiplexing w similar equipm the system then $1.75 obligation interconnected with or part of the building mil for term network burgh, PA 369,879 Metropolitan Fiber 5% of annual total local gross re 1 year, Systems of Pittsburgh, derived from customers, payabl renewable one yes bond amt insurance type 8 coverage set total local gross revenue= cash, credits or determined by the Director of Dept of Public prop derived from the sale or exchange of Inc. (MFS) quarterly annually if in by Dir of Dep Works in consultation with the private communications services within the compliance of Public Wks City Solicitor City or in any way derived ft the operation of its private communications system Pgrm. TX 128,713 Metropolitan Fiber greater of: 5% or $5,000 annual, 10 is 2 fiber pairs for City's own use yes $500,000 Systems of Pittsburgh, payable quarterly including lateral lines surely bond Inc. (MFS) ortUrW, OR 437,319 Electric Ligfitwave, Inc. franchise fee of 5•/. of gross rev, eff 10101190 right to install or air,, 8, maintain yes 5300,000 in public liability/property damage: gross revenues = gross revenues derived payable quarterly exp 10101110 v,hc equipment for municipal force for term $300,(100 pers injury per person, from provision of telecommunications r r a rvr City of Tigard, Oregon Fiber Optic Telecommunication Survey Right-of-Way Fees (SchcdWe Prepared by; MAXIMUS) Right to Bond DelnWon of City Name population Cormiamy Name Compensation Term (Years) Other Compensation Audit? R ent Insurance Revenue Con, nation 10 yrs, unless purposes only upon any & all of $500,000 per occurrence; but services terminated Company s telecommunications 5500,000+costs of defense per system facilities without charge occurrence involving prop dmg; OR $500,000 single limit policy, per occur, covering all claims + costs of defense Paul. NN 272,235 any company 5% of gross revenues, payable effective when none yes 5500,000 not enumerated gross revenues = all revenue derived from quarterly license granted for a term of 15 years or in connection with the operation of the cable communication system Wsa. OK 307,302 any nomfranchise, tele- $0.75 per linear it annual fee effective when none not none none rto additional ommunications cable $0.75 per Pinar it application (ei permit granted enumerated company or carrier to until revoked whom a permit is granted by city jam CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON "Imes RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY i M 1 1 i EXHIBIT 2 SURVEY: FRANCHISE, LICENSES, AND FEES L C 1 J J e LGV(Lill.lt s I KIF CITY OF TIGARD9 OREGON MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY JGUTS_OF-WAY AND FEES SURVEY-. FP'NCHISE, LICENSES, Term Franchise Com an Percent Annual Franchise Fee NIA Revenue $ ces, Inc. Unknown Ci Po ulation Access Transtrussio S v 40 years $5 per linear R. Atlanta Cable Partn Min. 3 40l0 of gross revenues Atlanta Gas Light years 394,000 0 gross revenues AT&T Community of Southern States Atlanta, GA 3% of BellSouth Unknown $5 per linear ft. Long Hospital NJA 3% of defined revenues Crawford W N/A Georgia Baptist Medical Center $5 per linear ft. oration N1A $5 per linear ft. Georgia Pacific corporation 25 years Georgia Power Properties, Inc. N/A $5 per linear ft. 4% of gros s revenues Hooker Ten. Inc. CIO Cousins NIA $5 per linear rev Hospitality Network NIA 50!° of gross revenues Lincoln Investments Corporation NIA $5 per linear ft. MCI Telecommtion 10 years Metrex Corp N/A $250 per ROW crossing ($5,500) $25,000 or 4% of gross, whichever is Morehouse College Center, Inc. N/A Robert' Woodruff Arts Inc. greater 10 years $5 per conduit ft. eater Sp therNete In the Sontlreas ILi ghmet Corp• NIP' $5 per linear ft. S ectradyn , unity NIA $25,000 or 4% of gross whichever is Sr Whitel/Williams Comm 15 years $250 Per $9,000) 5% of gross revenues Telepo rt Communications ROW Crossing ( 15 years Ccessing fee Dignet Communication, Inc. - Midwest Pr 2,784,000 $2,300 one time c1licato, IL linear ft. in Greater of $3.54 per per linear ft. rate a cable downtown area and $1.77 p gOW occupants must ope outside of downtown or the annual stem and have cable service ermit fee of 3% of gross communications sy oss billin s based on fees Cable service p permit. revenues 633,000 No Cable Columbus, OH Warner New Coaxial Communications Media NIA MCI license agreement NIA Teleport Denver, Ltd. Denver, CO 468,000 in 20 annual payments with license agreement with Mile High Cablevision $100,000 5°!° of gross revenue l ® so no an No ® am No WS am LEG11311-TTY STRIP 1000L O"GOPI T STUDY CITY OFTLGAENT ASSESSMEN E A FE Term ENSESa ND ~GHTS-OF-wAFRANCKISE~YMANpGEM LIC C°rri an SURVEY Francht$e N/A percent chise Fee have of Denver Annual Fran Iones Lig 10 years Revenue $ 10$ Pei linear' lus - • 15 ear po Marion oss revenue P newly constructed giber System 15 yeses Ci o°f° ROW occupied by Metropolitan 000 per 10 ears in. $50 lus S2, Tele ort Cable Television 30 yeses facilities ual grOSS revenue P rnor q% of ann Times M you Inc_ 30 years ear tocessin fee The pO Utilities GomPany 30 years % of Bross revenues Florid ht a G over and Lig Cod Telegraph 50/, 51.40 eL cubic ft. e Flori ell elePhOIIe an 15 years 3% of gross tevenu gout 'h hem gonston, TX 3,695,000 60/aof tevenue5 and received Co an Arne" Cable 30/00 f revenues taken in Los ~geles, CA 4,300 _ 4% of annual revenues gross Mlam1' et for Office 3Up to 5% is allowed between budg d the amount 628,000 Difference unications an 15 years ofTelecomn' to be received Companies Mpwankee+ of franchise fee a unication j0 years execution> mak tie Telecotnm following exceed Fiber Op lrt 3 years ro not to additional Pau e d by city for MCI $SOK, if re4 ctron costs 50 of giOSS teVenues 15 years extraordin constN ear 2.10 as setforth ina • 1, Y Fiber Systems $9'280 yr nice aPPlicab. s etroPolitan 15 yew M Inc- 10 years 511,000 valid ordnnservices ° of ordinary Roads am anres NAyyvillA TN 00 $100 one time fee tele°coOf noss icat revenue es anan .sales Cable kI pion , New Ohs, LA 497,0 10oss revenue for leas Telecotnmunrcatron Comp e ht sterns that sere % of gross revenues the franchise has a rig unication s Fibe r Systems) 5 ensation private co Metr opolitan 1,323,000 per the ordinan ers fair and reasonable corn custom al total gross revenues from all New York' NY $25,000 to fix a fissions that by es no $2,500 PYOCessing fee 50/-0 f ann transm which sere Norfolk, VA revenues desived from unications vate comet pas,LATA customer Inc 15 Years 3-10,000 icirmond, Pittsburgh' pA eter of Continental Cablevision of R $1 per lit" a onduit or wire and .25 OSS revenue each undergr er annum 5% St so for aerial wire Igo 203,000 Nip, 2 00 ~chmona'VA so so Igo so so _ i ~ go LEGIT►LIIY STRIP CITY OF TIGA~ OOGON Tenn ASSES MV TAY -QF `'V A~ctt SE IcENSES, AND Co WGIITS te an SDgVEYt y Fnch j$e 25 years ra percent 30 years Franea,eFeB Co ~pAnnual ars gevenue $ CIP Ordinance 40 ye po ulation Franchise 1t'c' t4lA prelitninarY of gic ond• tur' 15 years Ci S stem 10 years Expired metro olitarrFiber 30years on Cable ears rl1A parag media V enures lo y M oration ations) Expired oss revenue F~ dapovveri elecommuntc of annual gr Hues electric energy GTE Flonda, 20 years ues from sale of e of Florida 5°loof gross r TCVe receipts on iecumng Company it request 6°to of ra onnthly gross TM COtntrmnication 239 000 5300 perm ]0tloca service revenue 2°t0 10 years erat1 g revenue plnlion and SG Qeter--<harg, 100/0 of gross op exceeds 2'S nil 0 venue ue eeds $3. peoples Gas, ]nc. re exc FE when gross Ven 30 years Fees 3%when Srossre years atural Gas Corporation 20 years 50 000 million the sale Of n from United 9 -years 1 - 5 years 100,000 6% of doss revenue peoples 20 years 6 _ 10 yews 150,000 Gas System ll-20years gas ieceived GfEF % lorida IVA rOss reeel is Of it fees paid Co. any revenue a Electric c Comp 0 of gross receipts less perm Tarn ton City Electri 1 /o sent to ordinances VJilming IP10 Of Voss revenues 4.6 /0 ss amo jnt 284,440 2°/ of 90 .[amp", FL espon$e !2.000 NOg ton, DE ♦Vilming 3 ® ® 00 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY EXHIBIT 3 UTILITY FRANCHISE AGREEMENT CRITIQUES L_ C 7 i LEGIBILITY STRIP PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL eRTipald, propon c7, SallR Y: Executed Wtily FnltcMSadltcens gleeanMdR anopn ij mCRy Cade Mgtft VWaY ChePten cURRFM PR/A1CIeSE /MEREST FwwREa FFE copPErswT Faa-M iwrrExis oRaRiwareE EFPECTrvE oawwmr Errr RlOrir-TOwfnMPRaealol+ vwyrErT m,e,.~xeesee•a~vPa eaa.m~ seRewRE eorvFiwTwrwrlxwr REiERIEOEFdeT10R id,aeatNSCPama+~1pe' axam,laemm lnndlae r/I11iT TYPEOFUraMY MaeeE PURPOSE LUTE TEIW fWr OwTE See See 5.ll5ea:Mmuab Se GmM mlmue VesusaM V.leinlM W1561l1oan ~Y- Rtee Mcm ~OBgS)I~ITe S ye~'+. Wmna~ ISec5-lq Muir 4aa laxaepa COae (a)COmW rNetlr llpaaea mmx 1Pt513ea. Tab Mmes Pandisemavbry~q~ meamaad Fradwa CIIY bmdu mdadY arvKa teV~ myaprrrnwnM rs.u,mre p5.ama amlwe s.uo~0.e mnewea am0aay11/~lha ana WlS'ax mar~Paa In aRmR,rs.rl:nue eve nnw>K Cay_. daloP.l.xe F y(om_gareaa Taemmmt.:raw aemaa. >oni manes;. mwm Peama mrlwnammeroa s.lasq PwrR.•n.amew ao-15 ry)Pmnaa m~aPelamm ardear aa... tsar er~~p'ewvm vanu.sin.sa+v»I• peace lvlYl000. amnaeuvehnM- 5a1+ e'la~m aBO(sll ~a~~~,~ (~1 Eammape Pevubna CM. cal ne arovebsePaary %p ybttau~ ~ old area aA mngealNe +Gatea^ne masse VamnieYre nut carer 1 limta voeFaep tlemrnmaeotian < ea MtM1nlte qty 5M ae reaWaea ddfiaae er+ar. nairaf b uaetw. (a)-e ad -e auniaelROrl. anI aawu Wm ae W. ott^'e*°eseuanatle amxu b Vu uceiraa br rMr d Iadelu Mlan rald+see mai aeaW say papc ROW Or raM<lway. and ep'oar ah»~ tlWa Imm le) bmFatturne Cay: ameau savirea M ne ImCasee Irswase' Ice WP^ruaxna. aan o.mac mm of Ir senru p+mdw resme rPe>d d Wamry atl reppiaq rwkeslpmlaeaMee lroRdJeee WvbR~ rVS GrPW na =ate a¢est m ad ne lK ladmies a Ml tle fepd of UatlY a lfr Welk ROW an ISec S.tI C8M3)7 yyeuf~enasepafa eM mmor% Ey me >0 eelsor¢ sa'alaa9 aaeu a+a m seaxe lrr w ~~me aamoaesaam ma uramM~aoaw oeaPw<v anu~aa efine r .:sevsvas n.olc Row. _ '.ii!E m-i Re•ervq Oro. vb. xa irermm n;arvKaR' Trlemmn GTE NYV tx. Pevmrm~ n fbKWMra: dvWWn rlorclneanra 'OFe SNabYam3Mk'ea TtK CaY SiW IM+e Ole aprb Nxeapeare0- Rruweanelaa~aesed x/IV 199TH la ]l1YtW3 PaYade semmauaYYq 5%dGmu Rennes ncirve0 tbl MuN. mrtlW rcammnemNUPW. Y'awa'tRb'JS' GTE Mw Tdvatmaaaalne Y30B Y15hy to sic maven nariaa ImnaWVa acvzs x++ns. aada across mareeaa GTE: RadacM ana eMea lLJVaa ana 9/tSM.a aMrtieab ORS aal.ilaaraa ae9aea naca. Sum atlu mrym ex.tztm PraelP.rma an 9a.rs. uyna abr.m me~attla zyar ae~as ae a~a... ma~9a oarm.awa.al.eoam e,,ya,;raz wsenr me enem~,a - aaedms99leen+elE Tee eay snw maeua er era a m apn mimipeax. PaMlaae We H1M W tt 166.iae.9a ai.uMnyu ba-t.Y rte.. sasrsl.4 nYa:~a'Rlwi - - - k' :vKeiMa ytwaa+a-ss+ +r 3:+~:-~+s tee3 Sum 5%dOmu mne<e 4nrm ORS aoI >ta-EaWVew~a GTE rer 15 m lz. Reaxrn Paaee .r12 ruse ey G hoot eaceape acmes aelvias rielyirRS: yd rtpeaeah91a5. srzlrla99bla t petne115d exdti w aadmed m ms M1.i10 (a)we"-rmage 9cfRb 9rcs ena.>;ve ne ~i~msrer lxeceala9 ee9re.u mneW. rmamw lw oms'umd ar>s. Tr1n995m as~l~abwe wremna needy ad me rw crow as lrkm.anaa+r=cte ael.Mm oarm Ra.am ~snalxwme anade,a o-awttawmmaasa: seas me,~ m)l.+a:,.,.al=sa uan rree ~ra~ a m coca augaa tre,alr. ay bduro d ' p9vkW bmneaull aiM de servka aesmeea'm Daapra9e lal - wsasMx- was aXa a iE riw elem~n.aams R-12 + F a5. jy.•~ y i R ,6:fT!<SS-s Yaleaz to veers Lrleex TE NW Tt4Wmaaan6aa Raewlry olanila Na.@ &MY82 y to Yeas 1fl1W2 13 -t1uR, x.. tbartW6Yrt _ W w m 1>DM ad.4pmoraas n eb PPleeae Sdama.n+.cams W'- -YTa+ ~a-.w+.i•a~. - ^ew~.o.s'•e.*•. v„ auen~mrmr ur..Rtr .ar..oameazw a.aar sparemsSlF ey amr9e P w «ttv sa+e speswa.l- ~p,`mwaa. Gw~m Pcs nare.K.n °'a _ ~ ,K.':+-"`, >-::.Z-u'£ii H3+i-•' i+in't. @Yf"i:ah.n +a.+fri "trn.:. .[rM.tRY '.L L~ _ e.,.e.,,....~ alr r'x ,r •..raa rx...ru~ LEGIBILITY STRIP PRNATE AND CONPIDEN-'U& C%y d Tgaed. UeeYOyl SpmnuYY• EieMed UtNItY FIaMNael4kenee ApraamaMS and Perdned Cky Coda RkMSOI-WaY ClraptaYa tua~d]i iRlalOeg _ aEE fOR UiE YC,eUSE LOllI6YY5 woa/jye GOl1tEMSAT10n PAYME el le Wv TJDM tAYYEMY glGflf l'OAfARPRJYl51GM DEH~ ORS ~p Stl1EnN.E Gpyp[u6digNAYOUNf REVEAVE pg ~iGE aPleY fYyd wie de.rea ons ao].iw-E.aueu•ACCess or~o,.em enr naammya+p. Yeas tifeDO ErIYanWI%1«pp Mho S%ap«d mMw Senkas: mrpa.eda.aed0 yia.ry 1'YPFOt1YYLYiY YAK ]ifePW to ee~neyiulbea M.OJOI aNe «CNmd lmma<nuWan+a p«W alms 4~n MlasY IrJd)pe leadlt5 b0~eWmorXfl m.erro.bGpS aoi ifom la)~ aM~bd mbneXannyv XaM'd+ anmd typed pardp~pn Ji u'auectX+e*." 5% is Wrtln vn 5eannp«lS lorbeW eaY~ddlX wiO be ar¢pe.n WasuDSpmn N.iu ~elwkb nledlw.Aea WtaPea^erL moM pao. eri.M Ape>a p'rymnX dl arY l{ceere. P~°d9d 1ea14ekmmfuXicb^'e iilaa oaMWOIeaN YNs «ocp4pp^9u «IK nulpa. elfe3.le pars!«ol peonnf'«[ CAY ml «+z:da seuulrm.n Ba.... Aro ml.na5a MnWalwY«nruwe dpr°e. Vldyebr.am'braM1y« mrdldf+OenullXea.l'adve °"'9055 i««wnean~X~mard°• aanmemmrwawae- msea«olpadmwnaaaf ply a 20.°J°~a pat«e X.S fJ.WOXppidwilae:5%d taf~anf>vv1«s iTeCW YW NVe °rt ry«m 26JanW fOVeas »tn Gdaladyonor arced pl pored. bT Gra+aadMbap alpl oxAa. «daysampe mvWa.. na aia5 ie v«d ao-anns mn amfropeaaaa °10""' ~:..rrmas Xep.a m: anrm a~c~~d mw~a ar. 'ea °a,X,am.efxe.adeX..e<~a•. d~•m"'°d"`~p1+ d~~ ~ w ya.lna«onn«a.re omen rp aa„dre als au«me eaY« t89J aN mnmilap t«a pd. addayaM lruoaW~tl Grad .'yaM bmr -cete aa.M a pn wm a m. pm,a~p,aae oef«. wmo~°+d« G a~wdd•sw pdwnMdwiw.Jo IraMlide. afdmlp~p mmapn pwnw ba alfn.rsmv«Ydwtllm«. aM«ee united'. 2. tamepox epeeal ebuas ann c9mPXluYe onlep «IdryimK pxnpaXas Pmnuq lod mdlaR . ite'~I-oct- M WvMbe cv«1nXadm G, q aa^d ga~a1'pw ~ «~Ne Ne «d«e as Ja.oro appXaaallee:5xa .ser+irrstro pN bl Gnnee~~empeoon.uoe.. an au.Xd P a~`Af CeYduT w>ri« ~d~ axy Ua ampa ~°d Wd tO Yen lJLLOi Qw1dA'Y On« eyfed on "npWe9 ytl °mXN m: maples .avM end.. .am assesdan lncmli T'_ bGtaeaaastla en edkbcv' vln uppR'dry 4m'+dfe+eruu ppr~eaa tlrradorc on ¢parn rerwsb .mvX e~ demnmadcaeoR w. ei. io pae ao-rwde °i ~pomdx+r•+Op M^•m ma p~e~m~ nm servim aro ter ~rsden« .mdmnoawY,d~.ee _ aldl'n pods ypmaapW « .e eabm9 a«^e pae. ;omeaY ~~lava ye aPypirXd «eMXq Seq one 9n fmm.r sale«kadeo tang. vri. amY efXay o«er Dun ve CaY nb apdN f49^W bM ~ayXla..alY. leas«RMlepe sand dp^ ~ an/Iwae~epldto ° vN al. znimtcfor eam wa,e.l«a amapo~i ape«eerpnmapn u.~«,feaennle uY-Gead ee-4. mm~roia'.w'a e«oamd~aemP mefamf .4 fnMpa. r'dl°^m~o~5rvi5 neV bOlapunpe Da(apld w'olin J°daYS alln aerl[e ~aey laNapo"dyam°~ pwnan. mmpary 9mr 2.¢mreryaf sudl enoy. nrv«eas dom atlrdad Me d.s %O~e otlwyuab saraasmapse %y nn.evE~l^ farttvwobeNeen sealed ndp aYGraaee. dl ae ~ynfep CaYS pprbK Nnea6nr9d onmas. paapnure raven«mepnp eea~ae 1~~a e.~eaaa mmpmn pwp'm° ba nelaga Gpss fare^ud+denre.lmmd eatlWe attess SnKes. as o,-g .aY yyl pRE OOI ]fO wNVn 11e CXYIVnXe. blrY~a glues: S ame ~yp.e dmnyeWre>p ~pa(anpp%rI MOM PRNATF AND CONFIDENTIAL Ctty of Tigard, Oregon Sff r. Eaacoted UtJMy Franchise&Icertse Agreamaraa and PaMnant City Coda Righbc/-Way Chapter cmVOrswmr] cuurerT «larM1 TYIE Me/rflM1 FFifGIwE OPFATIJII FAYNFM OllEllE.St FAaGRm fA A J@ Forrurt w]toas ~ a af.oT~erao,«r raa NJf ~'0.Tf T ~(YM MTE sC1eDULE CGY/EMATiGWAYOUNI o«a+.~ay es.anm zaamT.+o s.m an.rtm«oat«, xd aot eacrrr-so.rrxarvwotnsna vw.arear .a.aa mau®rrs ~ «aN ~e.aw.aaYa.e Nam fs b<m,em«m n«,m .]fo-eamam. Aerae ~ «~me. ~ ra m dw•auca.enxa s.rmr ~ .rda. Deranaa at eamMNORS aef.Tfewmin al wepmir eaaurea«:ss vrr rnaa wwa.a.«.~ s,a mmY+ew.a..v saaanaa rs mare mremfmnr a,>r„aya,r ab'n. maf mama aama adea Jar Oro «mnedmbs. ~mr«infaeerf.o raa +reawaa awm,tar wr.. q srsadeamtl:a rYeber Y.e«Ya a.aaa+'m MOTe Yfs .o4s w..Ytmrteo sudf sx aanr~.ar oa awafeo rot wamnm..:rm.r.xY,mm Maw.ar,dme aanarrra f.rrmvre Maenema aa,a n tlrcalm,m me Graver abo Med me aarfa dNfmmabc Gal'rul oaeW eraWY -nor ownendaya®.e. ml a.em a+ewrYe mar r,x e:oa.e. Aq «naama «n'aaaa««vaaamara«ree rraaea eeera.. a,y fairy« r~rwwa aw rename ur« r,aa,a brnyramrr«rra.. aarfm«neeoNmrmrdbnwm, raTee..aran at««wv.s. a.wxa. TM Sx canne«m «ames aeaamee Npraa,yn xa«eea wangmmer uyana a®oratNrYwadm„a dal era.e. aiu. xpbYb wmanm rac,~-aab.. m~n~M«"m arr anraamrayra,eramr. Grae,Y daama a,vv. nr r]am:se apewrwe Nemwaamb,r.am cm«'s aabm«amwtro mr of repy~a ama seaon a aaa er my a faooeon,ar« sedbn n NarsAm,r rr,m,raa.ym~x G.anav W.f4E eraar]amre m. - .,.ram;. rafaexYar savru - mrraesam to-sayac Teaa fa-srow eweoi upr«ra sxawar 2.~.a Gnswf.]ro-e,~ro,ACCera m. Gav w. m.e Orr rnnm ur u.r ]w.a~a agreanaa can varame a«ese - saves: roam Or cpEUOee.aeWpvcbaapeapm on«esrr. MrN la for mer.ma NORG.ref.]texean (allJrormne ea mieWamsem or ra maae,«.ma nra read aromr wafam. envN V>Na nmM Orr GN'emb less tluvah AYarovae bcYasss Oemraria~5«n aiatir Ervf Oe Ne YedNesO.Tnna aa.aTi9a oem,maaf ana s«n sx orw~ra.+ee gaaraoraa Nrm aYemm. mMUCea YTwo Sgarriaa tobttlb6 a«<qM Mer Clry aom aie bd lekWanaYYgsrr«oM1m yea aaavra aovee. -moaaraaaafte- norm aa`aa enEalJUr>0 Gra«ee YmN a.waos~Tea aname Yfavmar «r mlvN -e.ornr oraomiprM (~~«Ymmsa fsepaaea Gar rev mrGw me~atl daytlu'pe. aTM:+n r,a~ ay raaaY« Arsr«nram.aaarnw. Nmrcmfon rN «tq wmra urp acxpMm Orr raves eesviaMNpaa«apa .a,Wa amra a«em c"aaba- euea (al wmgea.rm Gar ara Gr+aee Gar t«bema«,. a Geaan m :t,a. a oaraeb wmm m mn a atlq~YasMwaauaaGMRY erydrtlrm«. iaarM ircLgY9 ya imaNbGraagYCUgLwsm ~d]e.rYa utla Safent>d mparebt>ton el®mwa,rsgr Nsv atYN .aE'CXA*a' aP:' T Sa'ti-a.my: hM8 Sx of Orr To-- oaa.ahaOw 1f. LLCO Teas 11-JU41G Oman Maars Uafval ORS A01.]IU-FiWOa R«aa ne Gh W.rWeeR 3avina- iaoraR.1W~ edtne xr~naar~ave aaem rnvi2s, Savi«s: miew aria aeaaem's mean Tne Gal YO.nMTegam «LL~ae a ORS a0f.T10. Ul releorrm nCrape attess mcs S~atlm n«y aemNUyeaa y~_ aoeaftnrm J4dr to Mere 9rsortlr ay imaa fesa ~nmaeC4Lea. Namrt aut poveeW leY lravYS aepNary two 0e iermn, 0aaeeaaha artl aeW Oemnar Jt saa S%w:ea.a«aaeagm. gasuDrapaNmn rYem Cie yeas ana Orr Menke aYeafKS e«nrmren,mpa- Seaemea t5 bee9 Gay lmm ma Gnu+ee rm in bolrtlea«nuroy«s nmwam a«a'er~Ma. Tae GaY S1r11 mrYrt mealsavber Me2reay ~naraoorgaeMeaJUr]0 r a~Y Mtvse. PlvAbCe W Uaslerae✓omrmr[ adlais own «.Cabe. waY arym~apa, f«recaaay e5 a.~atliYpee ml avesa aaenaYe tam aeu an dwmraa~erarbe « r~apN~ may racNy« Caya Graace aaoaan en«« llr0oses. Ttr S%WYmnau mmection.M aMwisezfin'a'11wngEOOf aaegM NSdisianbna rervlQy ennmea'vn OanOrrea me Car Ore GraaeeNWa Nnr~r,s mxearttmDamim ay lal pryaEkwYVn aO erys ana eaaKradcama a..aaa r+m.errawa error. ~ a«awra Ndimy er m Grrrees oarearvr eea Orr ~_tdrewr. «er m s«san a Ore me mr a ~rxaan wa seeNw e. LEGIBILITY STRIP PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CRY aTlpa]d.Oa.0- S-r . E -tel UWdy f-ran°mseyucntse Apraamenta and Per mp ClW Code RWMao/-War Cl P- aA~an aTrvresr rwwrem w"pO°E CorPEKSaT10H l.alE ~TSOas sg Gwnw]as ~crrv>E a]weawTSGw cwwExr _ ~yapty. yanaTr Trac ol5 u]a5rc ]Aarme ae.Udse soauae eoavrTyys,a acveaayeuraaraon mcyyr->taauarrvaowsa>r] IwrrT.M aea rvo. euu T°prnaxanv tt.aao° toraan ttwi-to s~rmd:~ane ease. r..b..5 °eivm au av]to-e.d~aea,toe5s Toe cey wa m.. a. nyam Tt. c.]aw m+.u..v.b wn.v.na Savima, be °ndna brnr w~a n. trta nd5ape asaaawba. sa.bs: mrbua.aoa.bn. mnaa.a. °OO1aaOaa AO° aaeseweon anetve aesfer0mOR5 aef.]tq aie la)meanr nNapaa~ord vlaW aaasrevamee SuN .Manta arryame is MeremmM eta aevbebolavffi attlas to Yea tlrWderapeenra eNeeam o.mema raarn~owaeaaae trta paxaavbeTbnaa aa. mer eea~eay~.:ro t.a veaa arT nwmatm mass can arsb atam5 sepa°w umrme and bamammmama wytelem..ea.:owm aaaoam .n.pro. tlaader aeaa.o'a etoateomy5 arrrmvr e mwatrmtleMN Aar .a trtn ndvpe epasa anew er naraladneomWVa ear 5naa aoe°w meawna4 daear]a.p.. Servem wla be C.ylns Rluataasepaae taral ta.b Dan newts. TmY anvensa umCaditlev aaa~d mwebr. aryta8yx paymw. tlue epnlM GM.r SuN SY Ny]ewa Me Ee bepwbenmmrbNbn Mw Ceases ihapnwrt or.Urmne aoxaatlMme CW eam IM ae56espieetlbpaaenpn bapteetl up°n Mndn the LW aid GrAee alsobpaymva ofaW (alp Ghee aea.MDMad. vnlain 00 attne. pNYwr a ompabt nays alter EamvwY of waA Bert. lee WpeObrtpJaay' wet puposee Ter SY paPnwe n M ample b saWaCbnapaynMSdue. CW bnr frlu.dGMeeb pwtane agdGraaeea od9zmra Pas~uab IM havYite apeemM mdutle9laa roe l:Metl m Grar4e'a m Wei.aWd uNw Setlion a ab m9 a rebvlbn utlw Semon 6 tee e]-t To Vary aeaurae t2-wup-eT reaa 12a 1 C1~Srtwiymar nwore e5 A.OOp appbron ter.ex der R GaY wuO nave or rolebmMUS. t. hem er roab e. IiSY dGreaal demrmae~crols Says am er a.mde+a amm rtvnrn earrtlm Pavitlee tly Graew eWWVp ad mrWnee ratla° 1aPassm+ram eaeW wa~ta m.a..reroa mnr tdammml..rabm 5ary~a5 nmlmtl m: wo5e =Wt; C4 puatw eedkpSNemew the CW. t. Comedbee Eeto.en prymwlNe CWa CW tm ve rlwtbdtapeer 34,Wa91 tBpi ain mraYSUq lar atwnNape omwsammpdinv Gm1ee V]oWe wmrdomwane ea.aaxavee5ea..aaaae eamr ~xer let va tame e~uywerew aaprtal wonMU.o~me ary a.n ~earrrpeavrm~mn~m y vnanroe5aew, Grasse Na Mpaydle aeM ]0 mdApenber mmpetnive tirkr wataeNoro days aer Olsmvery of suN wrt. atla.day Nape opmpary pmvwro 1od eaNape dM Nan bteSmNaroe owf ns, mmpdeive ~~rn atekppr mapa:ea Paaearo loos neaps a. °awra aroro~amrv. ~w°..tm a,tl audw,aae a raw ape aae 6reaeul are MOevasse ebanwria d-I 1 a. pov rtvereetleMetl mm nnproe .4 tlNUad N ORS G1.T10 xef/n CW CT+ar aaa5 Cagpa W.OO .preset-,ianuue m en Tina-tp s w....a.aae a ~eaVr PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL Ctty d Tioard, Orepon S arr. Eaearted Wlity FmmhlaN e-a Agreements and Perdnerd City Cod<Riplbof-Way Chapters QJMFM CGYPdSAIT}N a11I01C1e5E anowweaz 6PEGrryE WmAnp<I IAVe1ENr ~ sr FAVGREO il£ Ilrem tY'Epr1]falfY rlo9e 1wTE NwTmlrB COYY6rtS espvgse are re>brryy..) acre ••F«.. wemr<rrsrswnorrwrourr aevEratownrgn wcrrr.>o+uarrpovisiai rrei]r cuusa ava<a ezfa Were Gas Ha e}p opafatrptlrae W f6 Vean Ser~a.edae4®M axapma maw. mueaeaW ...b <apeb arty memeeanm MGraaee mere keep a0orpe a MC«ap. rtfpne. rgpm amapmere:.mmm Granee DVn es ma.nps er ear aom m.saea mpkaae®w.p,p err b d fab~a ~m aepm. ms.a:,rM mrgasmmuaea am,m cross'. r.n.a oa. ripamw~m nwn nm asgaa epeb Pmmea p.Pbmaea oaroasr. ...dame craryee nr mrp me mmpasauemme M w~wmam~n. sae ~a~M•a~p,r~fmr apmp i~~aP"a'°M1m vwwwmawPb aopem aaa~s am maraie m< p..gerw ppw an NVn{ambiaMl atlrdle. Gookslvn Mrommne. M mr aPaam.p«dmenas Gross Meru snielKAde -may mmire pemaic reports lm asyspnpbmeale9ve ape opts Nam me use. melw eom meGMee rtlaivgmb Ir aW.ra0n8 rsiYliesaee mepiw¢rE mmueaMM Ne arN avC<. aaerwvam car. .wpeap~oeWme earaa« spa¢p~0.a>haf V eVlbe.r<. aaNm+aiua MDeaecmrOm4 Gross .ms.flallCa irafae ever aya pn'b Aa re.mstmp me saes Darm+. - frprJ.w om,rw wwmessp. m.riu>oe pmip«amaa a mr ma. er amrap+a a ec ur areamube. aewe.nauo xs. py bimp«al+.smemtle ' saes p wtbiape m a Pub sent ay Dom user evaDWbp api a m. wart ammpfmar wpam;..~pm., a~r.w be a m Dr ems ~ mmuaa., nmr mren.o ary eppr: are m spa aeemy by err -r e assuaanmmow>ma GNaprges. Gpvai raemrP..orae fro aoza «+eavpub. zs.on.m torean soa-to sm.p..pr. «erya ereawasr,soo per nww oas aoi.rfa-Eawme acres >fre«sNUiweiro ronm Meermsfuae yr aP.b a 1-7 -aoxoaac"rp^' abrna mrnr meafro sxame gpa moues aemm swybc maapd,woaemwmaa,em. r Mpoe me paipa~ea Proms ameenwemwDelom Iron eaMpgeY msawvim. lal fekgwr nclunpe aooess ors rauMalrpMise paymww. emnparryemeawYm apM 154rareaman oast moos am -a,-.-a- eka,~m swnaafsm«eemmPaeap props wmea oew.meerai D<«wfnv wapnsmeer:f mmb upemme avawas DSwa:re mo paa+nm Dy ia.P«naa etas ad sePmmwss rwere ~ ere seoype spm bo~tacmpamairrym M.wsb news anw nr enw«eeaeprms mmeseM pwQm.mrbpm mormOVfoa wmm Jprm aammmbnbmemea ellea err traefaaDaonnaion: reanera. MGry myl mrHW tm aayspvber erlemveaae m Iron aNyme a¢eb (a ueemasepvpetafn rpeu upwee. a>ry wve. A, rRS aalinbe CilY limas lei mtlwiaw. pry fa maaC.n bn )nrmzd WYmwa 0ue eaa+ine mmeeWbes. serv~¢P«bmb wiN Gry wGMM Wagn erro or _spM iraMiu pararreWDe smmaesuiDm mparyraM aMw~se az apmwl upon DY rom acc.pmawrmwaa acs' cb pr ear wa Gra.R. sn]ex . p«ewe wa¢.ryrn oayaaev.mia m oars anw w rm MaBm Mrepapory vmo suM era. aab P.OO%s. M v:aaaiu wrmma e M b earOlxsu a NYPW Oue m eer fa me taws a Gran Perbrm wryer Grwee.Y m awgal4mm Oewer ma pl rebolbn Wmt dema,t..doy Qtrra W.BiUt aYUa rePaswe Il{ry8] fO Veers a 11{dfe) SemFamup:Wn0eas mpl ,S%DIVr mE pJ6' air i'w-Jtw.iBaS.`6NA.6 L+:tr~? slue R'rvelne ryam i 03}DS.t] 01°° Bross memos ORS Sm.it0-E.Myq<w~ss ins CM mere nave 8r npnb Cho- w~wema<cnr «erve a.a.m smm~~ aa~. swam: mr~a„emee mm.em. ar~wen or dvoe n. permraueapob revs err w«tr+~e.u mmw tom yr beanie .n pp5 U)falpra~e ercaaryazaza ]ury maarary vue Pavtlm erns P Wnnwmt nae aprerm[mw 4fan err mY Ynmaless iae loo~aaeas Sad nu4 sus mexb.m.b plus )am-. CPiGptl. MyM fS rw Ore mwM MbmeepiDla. Dyasaaamwmi~is sfammiM ~p- ~mW.rin pwba<n0eaD-W]l, ...SUM S% No ye awvm Dm+.irgis +m aarsp«mxeeeoneape akpw A*Ym. IBra ad p Ymea siege 4pl lekmmmui SbrnneMOnb ymnaM tlb dpeaNb apndip9e- amydmynm pd SegemW Isla era sasses Mtlr CRY lmm er dfat9m trpelerdiawfnpion N- . Tt- rcty De)'WtlmMud amv4. eGT ~WM MDaiba enOC0 ham 70 Grar.eeaW Mpaymwaapry la ubeztasepype matt torso ins a,mpns owr espeme. My Onr art n De bwme. Piv'k9e er°mga4o^ M>Am iMelw. yryl~aya dttvm¢el oalraare sue eerier me a ONwwra fm.>i euwMfwrtven.ew .vu q Mwprweeeflmwnerrww ~eaaraomenea imm smaaavm wr sims~w er maesm<mmpyaa.apn aomaw.oemewn b, t~ura me penn8. (al ~ t~My wm er+ace. slue pep«ab immlipvr. can8edrn or la m Oars anw Oismvery of nib aer Diner Prpox Mpmb suM erro. ' povbim faemmeuwywe swvtss m mnrca in Ou mpoaea M me my uwnar Grweee awmp lr term a vis ^a-~..ix:r•';r. .14P~a. F,n 'a. 4MLiNp.: tiba S:.i'.'.':. ~f...iT~i.:;. AYf-y.:O't'S.,r;'tl/.'=.~."!`6h:.iY.:i. .a.... .'t-i4..r f:..:.~w.n'aRC'F'Kw>::Y.-ttu.~.•n:er. .._~~...9-M/R~ ! ;At.... .t._..'S L-C%Xic"u 1 T STRIP PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. City of Tigard, Oregon Swmvey: E.-,W USNy Fn-c .Lk-Apneas and PMIMM City Code RighW fAVay ChaPtms 71 tw east COYPEI6ATpN I!lFRESy FAynwEtl FRANGlaSE oaf ~ t]PwwyarY vwrrExr YaRUrE Yundus F~ VMT 1YIEOIYRIIN nlla0pt YWOSE MTE JEMIMw' Ml£ 3CxE'Of6f Lolr/F.%tn TaMlAafOfMf AEVpirtoFflMlrN wlCil/Y-TMfANYPwONSION PAYMIX! f1wfRE COfY£MYt rq aSOY ooiSatr4tlara tJ+raf mb~4 ven Aga Min dr4aarwY4d an ndi (:late 4yera naamaeenwab CaY rmenmab aadbaabuct aq LlYd G44vr/Yr 6bi4vw OY SfailwCa3a aN aT'Wym. mamnPTy ebia Yg4L 4h M4e4 e4wlrlain owabbmrgWeb.raNd mrP+rdea~eenat sel4r~Srem4oii (nybVStYYak4div heb dY GOn a+e aabddeWic M4bm gPGE WYavDCPf£• maruaadpai va'frM1woWb4yeardutrYVe 4oPl Jlia~mmd for tlia n9 f~'Y libalmdnve 0~4~ atle C4nO4ry~En CR waamb lratlise prgmvq aMd4baaealae4mNS 3%.a mas ra.4 rat Ob44tlre0 b11b ebye4lW]r4aeul lee mnpaaam ma arbape 4md rol P4mmadcaarya del ta4YmiedidY ]3%aab aranrnaesa rwe bor aw^FnY SdbmtluOe fee.4mtislz.b ta4bMCre4 darma.m a4ahu,. aweaa4a u4.admrr..m,aaama amar4i nm+nneauY ~ b 4ry piptio LLYay Mir Cty tld baasib me ad+ac diy 4adrie9 euU attleldlha+erUfa deoKe,mn b ml me Warute rsa+a 4n sw1 nmMe. Y M Ni m elect h ir4 Im i ehee b NpM W eutl~oOar Ceya neaicgal mpvYa~r PGEt Oioi m'Rbe~tlair CaY i de(aieE b O4 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY EXHIBIT 4 SUMMARY: CITY OF TIGARD LEGAL COSTS oc J co w MAX M 5 LEGIBILITY STRIP PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL City of Tigard Right-of-Way Management Study Summary: Legal Expenses - July 2001 through December 2001 Period Period Period Period Period Period Period Period Period Period Period Period Percent Through Through Through Through Through Through Through Through Through Through Through Through of Matter 7/15/2001 7131/2001 8/1512001 8/3112001 9/15/2001 9/30/2001 10/15/2001 10131/2001 11115/2001 11/30/2001 12/15/2001 12131/2001 Total Total Labor Personnel $ $ $ $ 2,116.00 $2,199.00 $ 338.00 $ 37.50 $ 392.50 $ 490.00 $ $ $ $ 5,573.00 5% Risk M mt Insurance $ 105.00 $ 62.60 $ $ 495.75 $ $ $ 75.00 $ 37.50 $ $ $ 105.00 $ 113.90 $ 994.75 Municipal Courts $1,157.00 $ 2,015.00 $ 633.50 $ 1,469.50 $1,222.00 $ 2,899.00 $2,691.00 $ $2,457.00 $ 715.75 $1,963.00 $ 598.00 $ 17,820.75 17% Community Development/Urban $ 840.00 $ 2,474.39 $ 60.00 $ 1,184.75 $ 285.00 $ 1,519.10 $1,032.50 $ 695.41 $ 75.00 $ 171.40 $ $ $ 8,337.55 8% Etections/Public Meeting $ $ $ $ $ 30.00 $ 25.00 $ 15.00 $ $ $ 45.00 $ 630.00 $ $ 745.00 1% RnancelFees/Taxauon $ 698.00 $ 844.60 $ 805.00 $ 242.15 $ $ 226.55 $ 105.00 $ 385.00 $ 165.00 $ 90.00 $ 135.00 $ 794.00 $ 4,490.30 4% General/Council $1,096.50 $ 4,113.80 $3,286.50 $ 4,194.85 $ 816.50 $ 3,536.09 $1,473.00 $2,646.80 $1,449.50 $ 895.40 $1,098.50 $2,688.20 $ 27,295.64 26% Hearings $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ I $ 0% hifergovt Actlons/Boundarles $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1 $ 0°/ Police/Fire $ 60.00 $ $ $ 46.50 $ 105.00 $ 26.00 $ 832.50 $ 239.48 $ 225.00 $ $ $ 47.80 $ 1,582.28 2% Public Works $ $ 90.00 $ $ 703.85 $ 55.00 $ 28.85 $ 315.00 $ - $ 466.00 $ 195.80 $ 195.00 $ 33.60 $ 2,083.10 2% Parks 6 Recreation $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ 89.20 $ 60.00 $ $ 22.50 $ $ 171.70 0% Real Property $ 592.50 $ 500.54 $1,050.00 $ 2,023.30 $1,240.00 $ 1,533.69 $2,670.00 $1,325.05 $3,150.00 $3,137.04 $3,817.50 $3,146.31 $ 24,185.93 23% Engineering $ 705.00 $ 225.00 $ $ 75.00 $ 60.00 $ 45.18 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ $ 260.00 $ 525.00 $ 181.25 $ 2,136.43 2% Contract Drafting $ $ $ $ 180.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 180.00 0% Dartmouth LID $ $ $ $ $ $ 45.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 45.00 0% Martin Ud ation $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 20.00 $ $ $ 20.00 00% Gordon Martin Condemnation $ $ $ 135.00 $ $ $ $ $ 135.00 0% Martin Appeal $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0% Martin Circuit Court (Writ of Review $ $ 561.20 $ 490.00 $ 3,550.79 $ $ 30.00 $ $ 90.00 $ $ $ $ 165.00 $ 4,886.99 5% Martin Tax Court $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ _ 0% Martin Supreme Court $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 77.ard Water District Mthdrawal $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ _ 0% Joint Water Agency $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ! $ 0% Tigard Water Department $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0% Regional Drfnki, Water Supply $ it $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0% Schrau er, Rosemary $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0% R er's Machine v. Wash. (Appeals) $ $ $ $ $ $ 20.20 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 20.20 09/. R er's Machine v. Wash. (Supreme) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0% Metro 2040 (Title 3 LUBA Appeal $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0% 69th Avenue UD $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 31.60 $ 31.60 0% 69th Avenue LID/Peirce Condemnation $ 35.00 $ $ $ 755.00 $ 325.50 $ 125.00 $ $ 45.00 $ $ 30.00 $ 150.00 $ 140.50 $ 1,606.00 2% Williamette Water Project $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0% White Condemnation $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0% Morford Condemnation $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ 0% LUBA-Jean Haskell Trust $ $ $ $ 181.00 $ $ $ $ 39.00 $ 372.00 $ 651.20 $ $ $ 1,243.20 1 1% Land Use Application (Library) $ $ $ $ - $ $ - T$ $ $ $ $ $ $ - 0% $ - $5,289.00 $10,887.13 $6,325.00 $17,218.44 $6,338.00 $10,397.66 $9,276.50 $6,149.94 16--P6-.211.59 $8,641.50 $7,940.16 $103,584.42 100% LEGIBILITY STRIP PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL City of Tigard Right-f-Way Management Review Summary: Legal Expenses -January 2002 through December 2002 ParbA prbE P4rbd Pwlod P-- P-- P-- ParbG P4riPG P4 w P- P- 1 P-- P4rbE P-- ParltM ParbE PxbE ParbG P- PerloB PpbC Parts Parc«n Thou h Tluw h h _h-Rh "rough Thro9 h Tivou h Through Throu h THOU h Throu h Throu h Throu h Throu h Ti-, h TNOUThruu9~ TN~OU3-h-~ TNw9h Throuph TMOU.~h ihrou h Throu h d Yaltr 1/152002 1131r2W2 2/1512002 2252002 311512002 3212W2 41152002 4/302002 5152002 s1]12002 51saw2 T115f2W2 713112682 51512002 5112682 9/152002 91]02002_ 1d15rz0_2 101312002 11115200-21i 11/308002 1L15MW211N112002 Tod To b1 taborP ....0 51.252.50 $ 45W IS 30.. 1-- T- _~S 120.68 S 1..7.50 11 mak U0. k- S 2'2.20 S 90.68 S 71.28 S 25.68 S Sle W S t3T~__, $ 345.68 S 90.68 S 1,668 86 l% GPM S 466.. s 966.. S1,320. $ 949.. S 498.68 S 911W $1.599.. S 430.20 S2.21OW S 6504^ $ 949.W S 910W S 459.20 f 9Ba.0 $ 1_625681 S 2.212.70 $1,729.. S 687.. S 96800 51,Om.. 221,.60.10 13X $ 229.211 SI.W&75 51,435.. 51,616.10 S 525W 833.70 $ WM S 168.W $1.512.50 51,584.40 S 340.. S 810. S 295.50 S 75W S 315.70 S 2400o__9T.681S 430001$ 360.36 3 W.. $ 355..0 S 38000 S 77.60 S 12.831.73 8% ElOcV..PleSC Uw1xV - S 120.W S 368.68 S 2B6.W $ W.W $ 425.W S 24675 $ x45.00 S 75.W $ 1m.W S 68.. $ WW I ? i S 2111.]5 t% fi4~IwFaWTaaatlon S 135.68 S 221.20 f 30.68 S 82568 5 5.650.20 S 4 00W S 104.11 $ MM $ 37040 $1,W5.W S 152.40 S 33068 S 1656815 168. S 195.68 f 90.. $ 91.68 Y 270.W S 70.68 S /O,d01.91 6% (7u1uWCaM 51,689.68 51,860.24 S 218.50 $ 836.11 S 614.68 S 58810 f 196.68 S ]1968 $2.186.92 $1,966.50 f 591.50 3 411.]5 51,019.68 $ 775.48 $2.34312 32841-(S1.676.W~Y 69025 f1,110.68 S 897.fi8 s T20.W S 53064 f 21.111.06 13X 31,230.68 51,38.5.68 f BMW $ -WW S 540. 5 915.68 S 1.205.68 $ _1m.W -j--90 W $ 9S.. S NOW $ 817.50 $ 930.00 51..500 $ 540 W $ 1.020.1 $ 75.1 $ .250 51,667.50 f 825.68 S 525.68 $ 4m.. S 17,832.50 11X AdlaW8olwwlariaa _ S 25568 $ 330.68 5 420.68 S1.O45.W $ 30.W~5 79500 5 4568 S 675.68 3 SSW $ 3ASO.W 2% P9f0a1F S 829.68 S 4568 S 6860 S 415.. S 198.85 S 23760 S W.W1~Y 255.OOIS 11068 S 70.50 S 345W S 202.68 S 567.68 3 95.68 S 3,48835 4% Pa 165.. S 45. S 1,345.12 l% 1461rika S 75.W $ 87060 $ 168.75 S 90.. S 168. S BaO.W S 376.75 51,3]5.. 31.06040 $1,535.. f 210. -r Y .3.= 15. S de,&Raaaa6bn S W.W S 480.68 $ 75.68 S 3000 s 675001$ 715. $ -37600~~ S 165.. _ $ 21160 $ 2,64760 RW S"655100 S 698.65 S 415.68 f 351.70 S 75568 S 365.68 S 5w is 644.68 S 288.68 S 126.W $1,6W.W $ 3W.W $ 168.W $ 220.68 31.54235 $111768 S 3,286.01 LL52.020.68 E 4.97705 13.68$.68 5 345.71 52.465.50 S 612.98 $ 28312.56 17% S 105M 3 30.. S 45.68 $ 45.. S 120.68 3 608.. $ 45. S 30.. $ 3o.W S 75. $1,015W S 39668 S 3568 S 1.86 W S 150.1 f 4568 $ 4,514.40 3X Ca4ap Dra S 105.. $ -W App,W ora.l9wt uo - S - o% a19na1 1ip11 - ~ i s - ox llanarl _ - $ 68.24 $ 1500 7524 0% 51afEn CYail Cant dd Review S 675.00 S 135.68 S 45.68 _ $ 155.68 5 303.80 S_f000 22.955.. 5 )49.16 S 5,02056 MrW TU Cart 5 10,W $ i5W $ 55.. 0% 51.1111 COUt $ 616.81 S 3s5W S 12692 M'a84104u11cr IwOrdrawu _ _ - S 0% 1YaM i _ S - OX WaMS t E 638 W S 25W S 588.. S 960.50 S 1 323 W $ 3,516.50 v. Wash. k r $ 310.68 $ 352.68 S 415.. _ S _ 5. S 30 3 1152.68 t% SbbO2040 3v1 WB - S 77068 S 5340 S 230. S 31 W S 0. I. $ 87_50 5 SB.W S 616.19 32.568.. S 222.40 O% BBU1 A- U0 $ im 20 $ 15.68 - L - $ 12120 0% 6810 AVeaw UDlPeiu CoMarclaOm S 368.. 31,440.04 S 686.. 54181.95 S 982.. 31,35884 S fim7 5 122 $ 830.. 5 95.51 S 154.. S al].30 S 11068 S 13270 S 35W S 53166 E 41600 $ 44.40r 25.68 S 255.]0 S 132.50 513.074.58 01. •W9W Pmf~ Whoa CaWaau~b011 I S - O% a49r1a111 Ca10emu - -j ~ S - o% 11 4e7n HaxkN T V S 20W La U- aon $ 525.W _ $ 3a5W $ 195W I$ W. 51,11568 $ _60.W _ S 30.. $ 3000 S 2,990.68 1% 3 5539910 $9568.49 55847.68 56076.89 $5.461.68 $4,583.fi9 S~ 812005 $11.74845 S9,WI.W S7.m5d0 39.91.68 SS 130.50 15.588.]8 $698500 S1,839.11~S?43162 510 59.368.50 0.62096 Sep16.W 54,333]8 1071368 S3,2W.60518675735 100% PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL City of Tigard Right-of-Way Management Study Summary: Legal Expenses - January 2003 Period Period - i _ Percent_ Through Through of Matter 111512003 1/31/2003 Total-___ - Total_ Labor Personnel $ $ 0% Risk Mgmt Insurance _ $ - $ 0% Municipal Courts $ 169.00 $1,183.00 $ 1,352 00 16% Community Development/Urban_ $ 105.00 $ 315.00 $ 420.00 5% Elections/Public Meeting $ $ $ 0% Finance/Fees/Taxation _ $ - $ 151.20 $ 151.20 _2% General/Council $ 600.00 $1,037.20 $ 1,637.20 19% Hearings $ 330.00 $ _ $ 330.00 4% Intergovt Actions/Boundaries $ - $ 75.00 $ 75.00_ 1% Police/Fire $ - $ 494. 0 $ -494.60 6% Public Works $ $ $ 0% Parks B Recreation $ - $ - $ 0% Real Property $ 110.00 $ 169.61 $ 279.61 3% Engineering $ $ $ 0% Contract Drafting $ $ $ 0% Dartmouth LID $ - $ - $ - 0% Martin Litigation $ - $ - $ 0% Martin Appeal $ $ $ 0% Martin Circuit Court (Writ of Review) $ - $ - $ - 0% Martin Tax Court $ - $ = - $ 0% Martin Supreme Court $ $ $i 0% Tigard Water District Withdrawal $ - $ - $ _ 0% Joint WaterAgency 0% Tigard Water Department $ $ $ 0% Regional Drinking Water Supply $ $ $ 0% Schrauger, Rosemary $ Roger's Machinery v. Wash. (Appeals) $ $ $ 0% Roger's Machinery v. Wash. (Supreme) $ 20.00 $ $ 20.00 0% Metro 2040 (Title 3) LUBA Appeal $ - $ - $ - _ 0% 69th Avenue LID $ - $ _ $ - 0% 69th Avenue LID/Peirce Condemnation $ 480.00 $ $ 480.00 6% Williamette Water Project $ - $ - $ - 0% White Condemnation $ _ $ _ $ - 0% ' Morford Condemnation $ $ $ 0% LUBA-Jean Haskell Trust $ - - $ - 0% Land Use Application (Library) $ 615.00 $ 273.45 $ 888.45 10% Anderson Condemnation $ 545.00 $ 329.20 $ 874.20 10% Linn Condemnation $ 682.50 $ 201.40 $ 883.90 10% Landstrom Condemnation $ 615.00 $ 202.20 $ 817.20 9% a $ 4,271.50 $ 4,431.86 $ 8,703.36 100% I CostbyDepartment.xls LegalDollarshn2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON NIAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY EXHIBIT 5 EXAMPLE - RIGHTS-OF-WAY ADMINISTRATOR AND MANAGER JOB DESCRIPTIONS J m W J IV►AXI~ i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY I RIGHTS-OF-WAY ADMINISTRATOR JOB DESCRIPTION POSITION CONTROLS Works under the general supervision of the Engineering Manager or Director Public Works and receives advice only on matters regarding City policy, department and program objectives and budget limitations. These guides are rarely adequate for solving complex and unique problems. Because the work is performed under time pressures and involves unique considerations, a high degree of originality and technical judgment is exercised to develop techniques and processes to direct timely completion of work effort. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Responsible for planning, organizing, directing and controlling long-term, short-term and day-to-day operations of the Rights-of-Way activities to ensure major projects and programs are implemented efficiently and effectively to enhance management of access to and occupancy of public space, structures, and rights-of-way; adhering to City policies; and achieving Department goals and objectives. 2. Develops, adapts and implements appropriate rights-of-way management policies, procedures, directives, methods, practices and techniques to support the mission of the Department of Public Works and Engineering Department. 3. Provides expert advisory services by analyzing and advising the Rights-of-Way Manager and line managers as to course of action to take when making operating program/project decisions. 4. Provides overall management of employees engaged in issuing permits to access the ROW and certificates for the long-term occupancy of the ROW to utilities, J telecommunications providers, cable companies and other persons to conduct and p maintain a business in the City. 9 j ' 5. Manages and administers implementation of computerization plan including automation of permit work flow process, public space counter maps, and coordination of information technology requirements of the branches within DPW. MA?CIMt~„~ i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY 6. Recommends, implements and monitors rights-of-way rental fee in compliance with published City policy. 7. Initiates periodic reviews of public space permit issuance and inspection fees to ensure public space management costs are being fully recovered. e 8. Evaluates staffing levels and job descriptions to determine if the number of current staff and technical abilities are appropriate for the permit issuance, inspection and rights-of-way management functions. t 9. Performs long and short range planning, develops policies and procedures and monitors controls to ensure efficient and effective operations and high level of customer service. 10. Communicates with utilities, telecommunication providers, cable companies, citizens, customers, businesses and other persons to provide information and assistance related to occupying the public ROW for business purposes. 11. Develops, implements, updates written and system wide internal control procedures for the section to use to safeguard against waste, loss, unauthorized use or misappropriation of City assets. 12. Ensures compliance with federal law, City, Engineering and DPW policies and procedures. 13. Makes recommendations for change in City rulemaking regarding public space and federal and City government policies and procedures to improve operating effectiveness. 14. Performs a variety of activities such as publishes training manuals, administers o. budget, monitors changes in government policies, and coordinates with various City departments to facilitate smooth operations. 15. Participates in negotiation of City cable franchise agreement and other rights-of-way agreements, as it relates to the occupation of public space, and any renewal of rights m 5 ' in public space. W J 16. Prepares various management reports to maintain records of activities. 17. Advises the Director Public Works, Manager Engineering, Finance Director, and others as appropriate, and/or recommends solutions and/or approaches regarding areas of major concern. M NW 0 0.4 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY FACTORS Knowledge required by the Position • Thorough knowledge of the principles and practices of management, accounting, and public/business administration. • Thorough knowledge of City and federal laws governing the permitting and occupancy of public rights-of-ways by utilities, telecommunications providers, cable companies and other persons. • Knowledge of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Knowledge of department policies and procedures. • Skill in oral and written communication. • Skill in planning, directing, coordinating and organizing people and activities. • Ability to read and understand engineering drawings. e • Ability to effectively supervise the work of others. • Ability to establish a rapport with all levels of City workers, officials, contractors and the general public. L • Ability to develop and present reports to the Public Works Director. • Ability to evaluate relevant factors and constraints to make good decisions. J G Suaervisorv Controls u Work assignments are primarily self-directed following the duties and responsibilities described above. Completed work is reviewed only for adherence to administrative policy, and all technical aspects of the assignment are accepted without review. The incumbent confers with the supervisor on policy matters that require clearance from higher authority. M.AXIMO t e CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS ' RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY Guidelines Guidelines include City Code, Building Code and national codes as applicable, State statutes and accounting and procurement regulations; the Federal Telecommunication Act of 1996 and court decisions arising from it; Memorandums of Agreement among utility and telecommunication providers and ROW Agreements; and department policies and procedures. The incumbent is expected to use these guidelines to ensure completion of routine assignments. The supervisor is consulted when guidelines are nonexistent or when policies are unclear. Complexity The incumbent is responsible for implementing a computerization plan including: automation of permit work flow process, public space counter maps and coordination of information technology requirements of the Section within DPW; implementing a rights- of-way rental fee in compliance with City policy; and conducting periodic reviews of public space fees to ensure public space costs are being fully recovered. The incumbent is e expected to manage these new initiatives from their inception to completion and then to oversee and evaluate their annual operation. Duties include a broad range of managerial and technical responsibilities to include extending the capabilities of Washington Geographic Information System (WGIS) to the section, digitizing manually maintained counter maps, monitoring hardware/software consultant contracts and ensuring a successful WGIS implementation. He also is the Department's representative to the WGIS team to supervise and coordinate the Section's digitized geographical layout of the existing and proposed structures on public space and computerized tracking of the permit application and processing functions performed by public space personnel. He may also represent the department on public ROW issues before the National Capital Planning Commission, Fine Art Commission and Public Space Committee. L Scope and Effect n The purpose of the position is to efficiently and effectively manage the access to and occupancy of public space, structures, and rights-of-way; improve the existing systems 0 g ' and procedures through automation; serve as a liaison between the department and utilities, telecommunication providers, cable companies and other persons who use the public ROW in their business; and make decisions regarding section priorities to ensure that schedules are met and department overall goals and objectives are achieved. Personal Contacts ! MMOS 2aft CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY The incumbent is in contact with utility, telecommunication providers and cable company representatives and department technical staff regarding ROW occupancy and permit issues. Contacts with these representatives and construction personnel are made at the time they apply for access to the ROW and throughout the period in which their facilities occupy the ROW. Other contracts are made with Corporation Counsel attorneys, ROW consultants, managers and technical staff in Public Works and other City departments and ' agencies (ex. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Water and Sewer Authority and Department of Administrative Services. etc.), agencies of the Federal Government, staff of the National Capitol Planning Commission, and Washington Geographic Information System (WGIS) hardware and software vendors/consultants. Purpose of the Contacts The incumbent meets with utilities, telecommunication providers and cable company representatives to address problems and questions related to occupancy of the ROW, inventory of facilities, calculation of rental fees, audits of company records, interpretation of existing ROW agreements, and transfers of control/ownership. Contacts with consultants and contractors are made to ensure compliance with the scope of work, monitor work progress, clarify invoices and ensure accurate payments for work performed. Additional contacts with outside departments, agencies and the public are often required to plan and coordinate work on public ROW related programs and projects, monitor and report progress, resolve implementation problems and evaluate the project at completion. Physical Demands Work is sedentary. However, there may be office tasks and field trips that require walking, bending, lifting, stooping and standing. Work Environment a r Most work is performed in an office but may, on occasion, require field trips to non- routine ROW projects. J M J MAXIM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON NMIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGER JOB DESCRIPTION POSITION CONTROLS ' Works under the general supervision of the Rights-of-Way Administrator and receives advice only on matters regarding City policy, department and program objectives and ' budget limitations. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Responsible for planning, organizing, directing and controlling employees responsible for managing the access to and occupancy of public space, structures, and rights-of-way; adhering to City policies; and achieving Department goals and objectives. 2. Provides overall management of employees engaged in issuing permits to access the ROW and certificates for the long-term occupancy of the ROW to utilities, telecommunications providers, cable companies and other persons to conduct and maintain a business in the City. 3. Manages and administers implementation of computerization plan including: automation of permit work flow process, public space counter maps, and a coordination of information technology requirements of the Section within DPW. DC N 4. Recommends and implements rights-of-way rental fee in compliance with City policy m w 'i 5. Initiates periodic reviews of public space fees to ensure public space costs are being fully recovered. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON NMIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY 6. Evaluates staffing levels and job descriptions to determine if the number of current staff and technical abilities are appropriate for the permit issuance and ROW ' management functions. 7. Supervises staff including making work assignments, hiring, training, performance evaluation and other personnel actions to ensure productivity and duality standards are maintained. 8. Performs long and short range planning, develops policies and procedures and monitors controls to ensure efficient and effective operations and high level of customer service. 9. Communicates with utilities, telecommunication providers, cable companies, citizens, customers, businesses and other persons to provide information and assistance related to occupying the public ROW for business purposes. t 10. Develops, implements, updates written and system wide internal control procedures for the section to use to safeguard against waste, loss, unauthorized use or misappropriation of City assets. 11. Ensures compliance with federal law, City and DPW policies and procedures. L ' 12. Make recommendations for changes in City rulemaking regarding public space and q federal and City government policies and procedures to improve operating effectiveness. J G u ' 13. Performs a variety of activities such as publishes training manuals, administers budget, monitors changes in government policies, and coordinates with various City departments to facilitate smooth operations. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON NMIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY 14. Participates in negotiation of City cable franchise agreement and other right-of- way agreements, as it relates to the occupation of public space, and any renewal of rights in public space. 15. Prepares various management reports to maintain records of activities. 16. Performs other duties as assigned. FACTORS Knowledge required by the Position • Thorough knowledge of the principles and practices of management, accounting, and public/business administration. a Thorough knowledge of City and federal laws governing the permitting and occupancy of public rights-of-ways by utilities, telecommunications providers, cable companies and other persons. • Knowledge of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Y Knowledge of department policies and procedures. Skill in oral and written communication. Skill in planning, directing, coordinating and organizing people and activities. C • Ability to read and understand engineering drawings. e Ability to effectively supervise the work of others. • Ability to establish a rapport with all levels of City workers, officials, contractors and i i the general public. s Ability to develop and present reports to the Engineering Manager, Public Works Director, Finance Director, and others as needed. AJU I5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY • Ability to evaluate relevant factors and constraints to make good decisions. Supervisory Controls Work assignments are primarily self-directed following the duties and responsibilities described above. Completed work is reviewed only for adherence to administrative policy, and all technical aspects of the assignment are accepted without review. The incumbent confers with the supervisor on policy matters that require clearance from higher authority. Guidelines Guidelines include City Code, Building Code and national codes as applicable, and accounting and procurement regulations; State statutes, the Federal Telecommunication Act of 1996 and court decisions arising from it; Memorandums of Agreement among utility and telecommunication provides and ROW Agreements; and department policies and procedures. The incumbent is expected to use these guidelines to ensure completion of routine assignments. The supervisor is consulted when guidelines are nonexistent or when policies are unclear. Complexity The incumbent is responsible for implementing a computerization plan including: automation of permit work flow process, public space counter maps and coordination of information technology requirements; implementing rights-of-way franchise/license fees in compliance with City policy; and conducting periodic reviews of public space fees to ensure public space costs are being fully recovered. The incumbent is expected to manage these new initiatives from their inception to completion and then to oversee and evaluate their annual operation. Sege and Effect The purpose of the position is to efficiently and effectively manage the access to and occupancy of public sPace structures and rights-of-way; improve the existing systems 'p ~ t and procedures through automation; serve as a liaison between the department and J utilities, telecommunication providers, cable companies and other persons who use the public ROW in their business; and make decisions regarding section priorities to ensure that schedules are met and department overall goals and objectives are achieved. "J1M CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MAXIMUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT STUDY Personal Contacts The incumbent is in contact with utility, telecommunication providers and cable company representatives and department technical staff regarding ROW occupancy and permit issues. Contacts with these representatives and construction personnel are made at the time they apply for access to the ROW and throughout the period in which their facilities occupy the ROW. Other contacts are made with City attorneys, ROW consultants, managers and technical staff in Public Works , Engineering, Finance and other City departments. Purpose of the Contacts The incumbent meets with utilities, telecommunication providers and cable company representatives to address problems and questions related to occupancy of the ROW, inventory of facilities, calculation of rental fees, audits of company records, interpretation of existing ROW agreements, and transfers of control/ownership. Contacts with consultants and contractors are made to ensure compliance with the scope of work, monitor work progress, clarify invoices and ensure accurate payments for work performed. Additional contacts with outside departments, agencies and the public are often required to plan and coordinate work on public ROW related programs and projects, monitor and report progress, resolve implementation problems and evaluate the project at completion. Physical Demands Work is sedentary. However, there may be office tasks and field trips that require walking, bending, lifting, stooping and standing. Work Environment L r Most work is performed in an office but may, on occasion, require field trips to non- routine ROW projects. 3 5 9 i e I Right-of-Way Management Comparison Beaverton Euaene Fairview Forest Grove Gresham Hillsboro Lake Oswego 1. Doesyou city charge PGE•15% Local Phone •7%of revenues Electricity-3.5% Electricity-5% Electricity •5% of gross revenues Elecicily-3.5% Electricity - 3.5% se fees-7 ax genom Whom loc wirene s- 5-b - s• as• gross revenues much? Vemon•4.03% service. Owest is one of 5 Garbage-4% Cable-5% Telecommunications Carrier -5%of Garbage-3% Garbage-3% Cable •5% ILECs in the Stale operating Cable-5% elecarm.•4% gross revenues with a minimum fee of Cable-5% Telephone-4.3% Qwest-5.1% under ORS 22.515 and the only Telecomm.-7% Water-5% $5,000 per year Local Telephone -7%Cable -5% NW Natural Gas-3% ILEC in Eugene. Telecomm.-5% Telecom franchises various rates Cable .5% of gross revenues Water - 6% Garbage-3% Telecommunications Utility -7%of Long Distance low of 4.03% to 5% earned in the City. Sewer -6% Storm with no charge for gross revenues Telephone-3.5% Natural Gas•5%of gross -6% collection of City Transmission Line-$2.50 per lineal Water-3.5% revenues earned in the City garbage foot within the public right-of-way per Sewer - 3.5% (Norh-NWNG suppliers are Sewer -5%on year. SWM-35% currently challenging the tax). City portion (0% Privilege tax- the applicable amount Fiber Optic $1.500 or Electric-6% of retail electric on CWS portion) as described above, or, it none are 5% lower and 17% of net applicable, 5% of gross revenues Ambulance - County wholesale electric power. collected for operation within the city. OrdlSlate Licensed. Telecom License Fee - tax Taxi Cabs - $35.00 based on principle of per vehidelyear compensating the public for use of the ROW. Facility owner- 7%o4gross receipts earned within Eugene. I Resell" -7% of gross receipts earned within Eugene with deduction for compensation paid to a facility owner. There is also a per fool charge for telecom networks that do not generate revenue and the ability to enter into in-kind agreements in lieu of fees. 2. Does your city have a Yes, depends on scope of work Streetlights - billed at actual cost No Yes. $150 for excavations permit application fee Minimum fee is $53; more (actual costs include salary, materials, out of paved surfaces; for construction done in substantial construction is based and overhead charges). Sheet signs for in pavement cuts. For the ROW? How much? on cost estimates of publicly- - per street sign face $180; per stop larger projects, we reserve maintained infrastructure or sign $80; other signage per sign $80. the right to charge a privately maintained sidewalks Construction/connection permits: minimum of $300 plus T& and drive approaches. If the cost Water -$100 plus Water Division M. once we bill in excess of estiamte is over $5,000, then it is Connection Peril fee & installation $300 3% or $250, whichever is greater. charges; Wastewater - $65 plus If udner $5,000, it is 5% or $53, Wastewater Divsion Connection whichever is greater. Franchise Permit fee & inspection dirges; utilities are exempt from paying Storm - $40 any permit fees after yearly franchise fees are paid. 3. Does your city require No Water- Water System Connection Yes, we require No, if public improvements water, waste water, and Permit Fee - Residential $10; permits. There is a are for private storm water to obtain - Commercial $25. Wastewater-New $50 tap permit for development. Ifforprivate permits for construction Connections Permitflnspedion Fee- sanitary and storm systems, then yes peril in the ROW? How much Single Family $10; Other per cm $25. water. (ft is to connect fees are charged Same if different than question to the system- does amount as #2, above. 2? not involve SOC's) 4. Does you city require The Citys water, sewer and storm 5% of user fees wltected. We require water to No water, waste water, and funds are shared a paymenWr- pay 3.5% in franchise stain water to pay a lieu of 5%. fees. franc hiss? How much? 5. Does your city charge a The City of Beaverton does not Yes, in lieu of any franchise lee. Only Verizon is No privilege tan? If yes, in currently charge a privilege tmc Privileged Tax (for utility operating charged a privilege lieu of or in addition to without a license). The applicable tax because they any franchise fee? How amount as describe in Question 1, or would not sign a much? if none are applicable, 5% of gross franchise. All other revenues collected for utility utilitilies and operations within the city, telecommunications have a franchise. 6. Does your city require Yes, included in franchise fees for Billed at actual cost (actual costs Yes, they do have to Yes. See response to #2, franchised utilities to the big five(PGE NW Natural, include salary, material, and overhead obtain a permit above, obtain permtis before Owed, Verizon Corncast), Some charges), working in the ROW? If o the tekwms that went bankrupt yes, do you change for were charged individual peril those permits or, Is the fees in 199, 2000, and 20D7 work included in the because a full franchise franchise fee? agreement had yet to be exerted. Right-of-Way Management Comparison Beaverton Eugenia, Fairview Forest Grove Gresham Hillsboro Lake Oswego 7. If you issue blanket No blanket permtis except that Do not issue blanket permits to We do not offer No utilities rather than and time of construction are issuing individual combined for efficiency sake. permits, do you charge a fee for the blanket permit? How much? 6. Do you charge a Yes for ton-franchise; 5`K of cost Permit application and processing fee No, there is not a For public improvements separate inspection fee estimate. If less Nan $53, than -$25. AdministratioNplan separate inspection constructed to serve private for work in the ROW? the fee is not charged. review/inspection fee - billed at actual fee other than the SW development, we chargeT How much? cost (actual costs include salary, tap fee required for $ M including overhead for material and overhead charges), water. inspection services. 9. Do you charge a fee in Yes. The per-foot-lees right now Not to the utilities. The city a If they qualify - No, We require new lieu of undergrourding are indexed to the ENR Seattle developer pays the charges. Require sometimes we do it for commercial development or 0 overhead utilities? How CCl, to be revised each year on undergrounding as pan of the storm water. That is subdivisions to much? April 1. FY 03-04 are in Class development process the Only use. The fee underground all utilities 1 Facilities - elecrial $25 ($27); is square footage of telephone $10 ($11); cable tv $10 impervious surface ($11). Ctit"21'acilities• divided by 2640 x SOD. electrical $55 ($59); telephone (Eg. 5,000)2640 = $16 ($17); cable tv $10 ($11). 2x500 = $1,000 Class 3 Facilities - electrical $125 ($134); telephone $20 ($21); able N$20($21). Trenching- ' $25 ($27). All the abover are additive depending upon class, type, and number of EXISTING wires; trenching is only charged Once per length no matter low many utility lines. 10. Do you charge a fee to No. Land division or subdivision street No, we do not charge Yes. If a change of assign new addresses? review (for review 8 assignment of a fee for assigning address is requested for Haw much? street names) - $50 base fee+S5AoL new addresses unless reasons other than fire and Assignment of Dwelling address I. it needs plan review. life safety, we charge $60. 3 units (for review, assignment, and notification of new dwelling address) - $40/address. Assignment of address/building letteringfunity number for multi-family dwelling units of more than 3 units (apartment complexes, moorages, and manufactured home parks) - $60 base lee per address+ 45 per unit number for the first 50 units, and $2 per unit number thereafter. Assignment of addressladdress rangeltenant address unit numbers for new commercial buildings - $60 base fee per address + $40 per tenant address or unit number thereafter. Requested change by property owner of existing address $200 per address. Misc. review of address - $15 per address. 11. Do you impose a Yes. One year or as determined Yes, 2 years. Yes, it is policy, not We do not impose a moratorium on street by the City Engineer (potentially actually written in a moratorium. We do cuts for newly longer On collector and arterial rule. We like 2 years however, require the constructed or overlaid streets). minimum. constructor of the utility in a streets? N so how long? new overlay to mill and repave a section of 10 feel on each side of the utility cut The cast is significant enough that most contactors either relocate the utility or use trenchtess techniques for installation. 12. Do you charge entities No charge; utility is expected to Yes. Perpetual. For Telecom we have Generally, we have a one- which have performed repair regardless with their forces a performance bond year warranty requirement work in the ROW the and expense upon notification. equal to at least 50% on all street opening costs to repair of railed No stable of limitations if a direct of the estimated costs permits. utility cuts duriga link between a specific utilitys of construction within given time period after work and a failed cut or other the ROW. It remains the initial work was problem an be made. in force for 60 days performed? What is the after construction and time period? is not released until the City writes a letter Right-of-Way Manager Mliwaukie Newberg 019QW City Portland Salem Sherwood S n eld TI Troutdale Wilsonville 1. Does you city charge PGE-35% PGE-3.5% Electricity-3.5% CLECs(those who provide retail Yes, 7% as allowed by Electricity -3.5% ILEC-7%of Loral Electricity - 3.5% F-lectricity-5% Elactricily-3.5% Tor ffzrM.3wT6a7-Fww RYTREamr-m- VMUNT-M - servlces~ D~ ur gross reven- 1,13-21 M. - 5% Elt. - V. Acc0- tIzfMrW1G3T--3W- Ift- - 8-- - 5 94111 14-t- - ft- - 5% much? AT&T •5% Comcast•5% Garbage-4% earned in Portland 7% of gross revenue far Garbage-5% Revenue Garbage-3% Garbage-5% Garbage-3% Owest-7% NWN Gas-3% atecomm.-7% CLECS. Cable-5% CLEC-5%of gross Cable-5% Cable-5% Cable-5% Electric Lightwave- Garoage•3% Cable- Telecomm.-5% revenue Telecom.-5% Telecomm.-7% Telecomm.-5% 5% $1.SMootlyear Fees based an gross wet".6% Point-to-point or long haul co's Note: Salem does not Natural Gas-5%of Water-5% Water-4% revenue. Sewer-6% (those with fiber in the streets, but have a business license gross revenue Sewer-5% Seve -Al% Storm-6% they just pass through Portland): tax Cable -5%of gross Storm-5% Storm-4% $3.0alllinear trench foot (which revenue increases by CPI each year), The Solid Waste-7%o1 trenches are ma3slred linearly gross revenue ' parallel to street centerlines. It is No local service not a volumetric charge. provided telco $2.25 perfoot. Direst 8 4erizac 7% of local exchange access revenues per ORS limitations. Pipeline: linear fool charge that varies. One is gross revenue based. Phone booths 15.40% of gross Railroads: linear charge, but this is currently in dispute. Water/Sewer. 77.5% of gross Gas 8 Electricity: 5% of gross Wireless'. $3,000 per pole with equipment per year (ie, per-pole fee only includes poles with antennasuequipment boxes and ' excludes poles that just have fiber/copperlmax connecting the antennas to the base station). Others use the ROW with authority coming from encroachment permits, such as awnings, bus benches, paper and advertising boxes, restaurant sidewalk tables, etc. 2, Does your city have a $135 for simple Yes- $10 No application fees, however, on Yes, $653 minimum fee Yes. $120.00 No permit Yes, for public works permit application fee projects or, for larger, some permits a deposit will be or5%of engineers application per se. permit, I% plan review for construction done in more complex projects required. This deposit will be a estimated project cost for Our entire permit and 4% inspection and the ROW? How much? -5.5%of cost of portion of the estimated fees for city infrasWeture. A process is a cost administration. Percent project, the project. franchise utility recovery system. based on engineers construction permit is The minimum up estimate for cost of $385 froM'Yee'is public improvements. No $150,00. charge for public utility permit for franchise utilities. 3. Does you city require Yes, we require them. No Yes, depends an the project type Yes, same fees as No No. Tigard All work in public ROW wader, waste water, and Same as other and scope. above. Municipal Code or public easement stone water to obtain utilities. Chapter 15 requires a permit permits for construction expressly excises in the ROW? How much City projects from if different dean question the permit 2? process. 4. Does you city require Yes, 5% and heals go No Yes, see At No, these are city No No Yes. See rates above. water, waste water, and to the Streets Dept. services. slonnwaler to pay a franchise? How much'? S Does you city charge a Not yet,butwe may Yes.1.5% No The City receives 5% of No No No privilege tax? If yes, in pass one soon to levy gross revenues for the lieu of or in addition to on PGE for another gas and elecCtc utiibes, any franchise fee? How 1.5%. and utilities wswki- the much? fast 1.5%as beinga privilege tax. 6. Does yurr city require They have to submit Yes. Included in Yes, Franchised utilities are Yes, a construction Yes. Fee is included No. Yes, inchuded in franchised utilities to plans, but are not franchise fee. charged a franchise fee and a per permit fee of $385 is in franchise fee. franchise lee, obtain permts before charged a lee, lineal fait permit fee, Point-to- required for projects over working m the ROW? N points are $3 08+CPI. 100 feet of service line, yes, do you charge for and a maintenance fee of those permits or is the $65 is charged for small work included in the projects Permits are franchise fee? charged in accord with the terns of the franchise. Forexample, Direst does deduct permit fees from their franchise fee, but most CLECS do rrot. Right-of-Way Managen IBhnukN Newberg Oregon City Portland Salem Sherwood S r eld T' and Troutdale yalsonvills 7. If you issue blanket No blanket pemits. No blanket Blanket permits are issued; No Included in No Answer not provided. PEYMW- Ts very defined ciramstarxes. I ublitles rather than issuing Individual Some types of work is allowed to permits, do you charge occur and be billed at the end of a fee for the blanket the month, rather than collecting a permit? How much? permit for each individual instance. B. Do you charge a No Utility companies - Depends on the project, most Inspection fees are No No See answer in to separate inspection lee no. Private inspection fees are built into the included in the permit fee question 2. for work in the ROW? contractors-3% permit fee base, with the exception of How much? of'pmblic additional inspection improvement" charges if necessary at costs, the rate of $55/ea. 9. Do you charge a fee in No No No. However, some areas of No No Yes. $27.50 par No lieu of undergrounding Portland require underground lineal feet of ' overhead utilities? How utility installations. frontage much? 10. Do you charge a fee to No No Yes. $45 No Yes. $9 Yes. $30 No assign new addresses? How much? 11. Do you impose a No No Yes. 5 years. Yes. 5 years with indefinite (until Not a formal 5 years moratorium on street exceptions on a case-by- there is no other moratorium. cuts for newly wsebasis. feasible way of However, ifa constructed or overlaid providing service) street was overlaid streets? It so how long? within the last year, we will not allow an open M. 12. Do you charge entities We require them to 2 year warranty The utility routs made to the City of Work in the PROW is to Yes. Warranty is Yes. We require The standard is a one which have performed repair the street and it period, if the Portland streets are the be done by a bonded one year. repairs as long as year maintenance period work in the PAW the they don't and we emity does not responsibility of that utility until the contractor or bonded the failures show costs to repair of failed have to repair it - they perform, the repair street is either repaved or franchisee and they are upduring theone- utility cuts during a pay OUR costs. is usually reconstructed. The pemutee must responsible for repairs to year maintenance given time period after performed by city correct any failures to the street cuts indefinitely. period the initial work was staff and billed to pavement. performed? What is the entity. time perod? a LEGIBILITY STRIP CCtG ~JSS~I - `J Right of Way Management Study July 15,2003 ,ECie1urY sTwP Now RoW Study I,.urpose Management . Assess City Of Tigay-d ROW policies and PrOCesse ement Costs and M.anag ROW g_eview Revenues of Associated Management PYactiCes . Summ-arize RAW Cities d Fees of Other rnajox US W -polices an *Sumzna~ize R~ 0Yegon CitieS* • JUSIOJIS CO 11C Place to Prot"' • s already_ Zn ublac rights regulation .th regard to' have suficient and ~ekare wZ » `rI'igard may lth, safea r~veynent• • . the public c hea room • f or impcost © wad,, but there is fated with of s assoc all teCo-Upli'l g Vnits 1ga-r d iso meat obtain per ~ • ~ Nj-anage ~e~ul~ed t go users are ° t all ROW ' taly} to ut~tY 2 ~ Sam (\-V'ateT-j Stotrn, inspect~.o~- fees -~1ga,d does .not Charge 3 • comp ani-es L.EGIB►LIT`j STR14 0000 collcltlsl ac~.~ltie in s sP ec~-o~. e a~.d . ~ j;.ss-u,ail.c ,to a~ a Oicatiofj 4. .teal re e for a~e~~-t t~ of d- won of Nf f ects 1eao cl appr®-ve t oppica _ .wed aa onslste~ ~c bete Vie ~ for s osslb ~ ents Create p ~epa~tm .wee olic es t1o b e x f fects h coow Issues w®&iag ~oienrrv gTap COIICluslo~s terns U- cg R~ ~rook~ are cater SYS ilia SP g corRp Tiden1 (,,aselA,) ~o~c~rn 5 activitie edHh affects lanket ljerr~ts are 'r f eeS. nit ~chised u~~eS wl43 6' Fxa Ye used to pay loca~ons of issued n°he Cdoes n°t map ~ permits' LeG-~Ry gTR1P C onclusions sure unifoYxnitY en not in place to g po]icies are ent provisions of fYanC~Se agree q~ed to be .ties are not consistently re n, U~ S onsible for street cut rep wed t° Sh°~, resP of req licants are n S of o to ther 10. I' soo of contacting Or g°. location p Cente No'gication facW:des in the R-OW. wwwwwwwow ---.MEMO wwwwom Conclusions 11. No procedure to formally notify Street Maintenance of permits issued. 12. ROW Management responsibilities are spread over three departments. LEGIBILITY STRIP Recomnieu-ndations 't fees to recoup costs 1. Increase perms ement Fee - Change from 1. public Fac~]sty Improv "per project» toper cut 2. Fee in lieu of undergrounding 3. Address fee it alp Ocatlon fee 2, Assess a perm3. ' nclud~-ng City Z'~ater, ( Require a ROW users 1its nd Storl-n) to obtain. perm Suer a LEGIBILITY STRIP . Pon P,ecommendatiolls ise fee percentages as allO~ed 4, Increase Franchise State 'aw $a ®od C y r by to 5.0% electrical - 3.50/0 was _ 3% to 5% o j~ ataral 0 0 I3p, ~ wo I ~ 2 50/" to7/ elecomtn-a .catlons - Lw-4 3. Water a franchise fee 5 ssuance and inspection . Assess Automate perm~-t 1 process Was TR Le6IstLtty S W WOOL---- Recommendations Map permit 1°cati ors of integrated comp"ter 7. g, Investgate ad°ptSystem ensure Street issued Adopt pToceduYes to 9. ~e is informed In adVance ° 1Vlaintenan ~ blanket permits u~]ities ~`'i 1o geq~refranc~a dual permit fee pe~n`uts tO pay ~.oieamt sTwv P,ecol,1110lendatlOns .are all fYanc~ses have t YocedureS to enS fica~t areas la (Code 11. AdOp p age in sign' onsistent ngu amendn1ent~ consistently Yepalr street 12. censure that ut~~es cuts to City standards show prop f on T ermit applicants to uise p Notification 13. neq pie on Ufacilities contacting the log Lions of e~sting Centex to verify all moose ~~~gati'r siR1P co~~endatl~ns ~.e ate ~oor~ er positio to n R~`yJ Ivlanag s Create a ~W policies and program R allClty AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF -July 15, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Policy Discussion on Updating Planning Fees PREPARED BY: Jim Hendryx DEPT HEAD OK 3N PO CITY MGR OK 1_Q K ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Staff wishes to get direction from Council on updating planning fees to reflect the cost of processing land use permits and charging a fee to offset costs for specialized planning studies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After evaluating relevant information, direct staff to proceed with updating planning fees to recover costs of processing land use permits and charging a fee to offset costs for specialized planning studies. INFORMATION SUMMARY Staff is seeking direction from Council on updating planning fees to reflect the cost of processing land use permits and an option of charging a fee to offset costs for specialized planning studies. Council established a goal in 2002 to evaluate fees and charges to ensure that City costs were being recovered. Council adopted new planning fees that went into effect in July 2002. At the time of the previous fee evaluation, it was recognized that two components of planning fees were not included. The time that Engineering (Development Review Engineer) and Public Works (Urban Forester) spend on plan review was not included in the costs. Planning fees include an annual cost of living adjustment that is based on the June edition of the Engineering News Record (ENR). Effective July of each year, the City updates the Master Fee and Charges List. Planning related fees must be adjusted the following month in order to capture the ENR June index. In an effort to L standardize the annual update of all City fees and charges, it is recommended that the planning fees reflect the G April ENR index instead of the June index. Staff is also seeking direction on an option for charging a fee to offset the costs of preparing specialized i planning studies that are generally funded by grants or the general fund. Such studies can be substantial in cost, either in direct costs of staff or for outside assistance, such as consultants. i i OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Direct staff to not proceed with updating planning fees or charging a fee to offset costs for specialized planning studies. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: July 1, 2003 Memo from Jim Hendryx to City Council - "Planning Fees" FISCAL NOTES Potential revenue varies - proposed fees would help to offset the actual costs of processing individual land use permits. They do not attempt to recover total costs of the Planning Division. a OC a t _J m W J Attachment 1 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE: July 1, 2003 SUBJECT: Planning Fees The purpose of this memo is to get direction from Council on updating planning fees to reflect the cost of processing land use permits. A second issue is to discuss the option of charging a fee to offset costs for specialized planning studies. Council established a goal in 2002 to evaluate fees and charges to ensure that City costs were being recovered. Following that charge, Merina & Company was hired to assist Community Development update its planning application fees. After an extensive analysis, Council adopted new planning fees that went into effect in July 2002. At the time of the Merina & Company study, it was recognized that two important components of planning fees were not included. The time that Engineering (Development Review Engineer) and Public Works (Urban Forester) spend on plan review was not included in the costs. Engineering and Public Works have estimated their hours for individual planning permits. Personnel and overhead costs have been determined, resulting in greater accuracy for the total costs associated with processing planning applications. It should be noted that the fees represent the actual costs of processing the individual permits and do not attempt to recover total costs of the Planning Division. Planning fees include an annual cost of living adjustment that is based on the June edition of the Engineering News Record (ENR). This report is released monthly and includes construction, o building, and material cost indexes. Effective July of each year, the City updates the Master Fee and Charges List. Planning related fees must be adjusted the following month in order to capture the ENR June index. In an effort to standardize the annual update of all City fees and charges, it is recommended that the planning fees reflect the April ENR index instead of the June index. This would provide for a standardized process for all fees and charges, including planning fees. The second issue I would like to get direction on is the option for charging a fee to offset the costs of preparing specialized planning studies, such as completion of the Downtown Plan, Goal 5, Bull Mountain Study, etc. Planning studies, similar to these examples, are generally funded by grants or the general fund. Such studies can be substantial in cost, either in direct costs of staff or for outside assistance, such as consultants. How could such a fee be charged? Various options exist, from imposing a percentage charge on all planning applications to charging a specialized fee on all planning and building permit applications. Potential revenue varies greatly, depending on the desired outcome. Few jurisdictions have not attempted to collect fees to support specialized planning studies or long range planning activities. Specific fees and tables are not included at this time. Council direction is desired prior to proceeding any further with this effort. L >C b J u AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF July 15, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discuss Agenda Topics for the Joint Meeting with the Washington County Board of Commissioners PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK'~ , 'V r I~'.;iTY MGR OK y'~ r ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Discuss agenda topics for the joint meeting with the Washington County Board of Commissioners STAFF RECOMMENDATION Determine which items should be placed on the City of Tigard Council/Washington County Board of Commissioners joint meeting. INFORMATION SUMMARY Council has requested a joint meeting with the Washington County Board of Commissioners. A special Council meeting has been set for July 29, 2003, 6 p.m., in the Tigard City Hall Town Hall. Council members in recent discussions have noted possible agenda topics including annexation, cities subsidizing urban-developed "rural" areas adjacent to city boundaries, and systems development charges. Other issues might include commuter rail update, Bridgeport development status, affordable housing efforts, and transportation improvement plans. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY 1 No specific Vision Task Force goal identified. However, Goal 7 of the Council Goals for 2003 relates to Communication. Subsection "A" of this goal states: "Increase Tigard's communication with other elected bodies through active participation of City Council members and staff." r ATTACHMENT LIST 0 None a FISCAL NOTES N/A 1:1NDKPACKET'03V0030715UOINT MEETING WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD.DOC OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON DAN R. OLSEN JANET G. ANDERSON County Counsel Legal Administrative Specialist PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING ANH NGUYEN LORETTA S. SKURDAHL 155 N FIRST AVE, STE 340, MS #24 BARBARA L. BLAKE ALAN A. RAPPLEYEA HILLSBORO, OREGON 97124 Legal Assistants WILLIAM G. BLAIR Phone: (503) 846.8747 SHERYL S. HAYASHIDA Fax: (503) 846-8636 SHARON A. BIDSTRUP ELMER M. DICKENS CHRISTINE HICKS JACQUILYN SAITO-MOORE DEE BYNUM Assistant County Counsels Sr. Administrative Specialists July 10, 2003 Vi~D C 112003o r Mr. William Monahan, City Administrator ~C11h/mstral`ip City of Tigard 17 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Portland, OR 97223 Re: Rogers Machinery Inc - US Supreme Court Docket 02-750 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Dear Mr. Monahan: Enclosed please find a series of proposed Intergovernmental Agreements to provide for sharing of legal expenses in the above-referenced case. Our earlier IGAs covered work on the case through the final decision of the Oregon Supreme Court. These IGAs are modeled on the earlier documents, and cover the work performed in response to the petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court. These are three-party agreements with the exception of the IGA between your City and the County. If these agreements meet with your approval, please have them executed on behalf of the City and returned to me. I will have them approved on behalf of the County following our contract review process. We will then be in a position to process payment from the County to City. I will then forward the contracts to the other cities for their review and signature. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, L C Loretta Skurdaht Sr. Assistant County Counsel Enclosures a C: Charlie Cameron Kathy Lehtola Margaret Renard Gary Firestone Dan Olsen Visit Washington County's website at: www.co.washington.or.us INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into by and among the signatories. WHEREAS: • The voters of Washington County overwhelmingly adopted the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) to tax new development throughout the County to pay for a portion of the extra-capacity road improvements necessary to accommodate new development; • The jurisdictions signing this Agreement benefit from the revenues generated by this tax and benefit from working cooperatively to administer the tax and coordinate use of TIF revenues; • If successful, the case of Rogers Machinery v. Washington County and the City of Tigard, U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 02-750, could preclude or significantly complicate the ability of the parties to impose this tax and address the need for road improvements; • The County and City of Tigard have successfully defended the TIF program at the appellate court level in the State of Oregon and it is fair and equitable for all jurisdictions to contribute to defense costs on appeal to the United States Supreme Court. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED: 1. Washington County and the City of Tigard shall continue to be responsible for defense of this matter and retain authority to take such actions and make such decisions as they each determine to be reasonable and prudent; 2. Each signatory shall contribute to defense costs on review based on their respective percentage of the total population of the County as illustrated in Exhibit A, with the exception of City of Banks, City of Durham and City of Gaston, all of which are no longer participating in the defense of this matter. As such, the percentages are to be absorbed by the remaining jurisdictions such that the proportionate share shall be equitably adjusted based on population. This shall include defense costs for work incurred after August 13, 2002, and for work related to the appeal to the United States Supreme Court, but shall not include defense costs for any court-ordered judgment or award; i i 3. For purposes of this Agreement, defense costs shall include all attorney fees, both in- house and outside counsel at the following hourly rates: i i Washington County Counsel Attorney $ 110.00 Legal Assistant $ 52.00 Page 1 of 3 - Intergovernmental Agreement (City of Tigard) City of Tigard Partner $ 145.00 Associate/of Counsel $ 135.00 Support $ 45.00 4. Defense costs also shall include any extraordinary non-legal staff time devoted to defense and the applicable jurisdictions' actual labor cost, including benefits and overhead and shall include all incidental expenses such as copying, travel and postage. County and City of Tigard may continue to consult with the firm of Kane, Ballmer and Berkman (special expert counsel) as needed at the rate of $145.00 per hour. These rates may be adjusted annually to pass through any rate increases incurred without amendment of this Agreement. 5. County and City of Tigard shall make efforts to keep fees and costs reasonable, necessary and appropriate. Each month, Tigard shall forward a statement to the County for payment. County shall advance sufficient funds to pay all amounts due. County shall promptly forward to each jurisdiction party to this Agreement a statement representing the jurisdiction's proportionate share of all costs. In the event that revenues from jurisdictions are not sufficient to cover costs through withdrawal or non-payment by a jurisdiction, the proportionate share shall be equitably adjusted based on population. 6. Each party shall remit to County within 10 days of receipt of the statement the amount due. 7. Each party shall have 30 days from the date of receipt of the statement to challenge the amount paid to County. A refund or credit against future billings shall be provided if an overcharge is found. 8. Any party may request a briefing or update on the status of the case. County and City of Tigard shall consult with the signatories regarding any settlement proposal or other resolution that may impact the operation of the TIF program. Neither County nor Tigard shall be obligated to divulge any information that might constitute a waiver of the attorney-client or work product privileges if to do so, in their opinion, would prejudice the defense of this matter. The parties to this Agreement acknowledge that they are not parties to the litigation and are in no way represented by counsel for County or Tigard. 9. This Agreement shalt include legal defense costs for work performed until a final decision by the United States Supreme Court or the case is otherwise resolved, whichever i first occurs. However, any party may withdraw from this Agreement by providing 90 days written notice to County and Tigard. The party shall be responsible for its proportionate share of costs incurred prior to the effective date of withdrawal. 10. This Agreement may be amended by the written consent of all the parties. 11. This Agreement may be executed separately by each jurisdiction and an executed copy shall serve as an original. Washington County shall maintain a central file containing a Page 2 of 3 - Intergovernmental Agreement (City of Tigard) signed copy for each jurisdiction. This Agreement is binding on each signatory without regard to whether other jurisdictions sign. Each signatory represents and warrants that he or she is authorized to bind his or her respective jurisdiction. WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON: CITY MANAGER, TIGARD: Signature Signature Printed Name Printed Name Date: Date: FOR CITY OF TIGARD: Signature Printed Name Date: L n _J D u Page 3 of 3 - Intergovernmental Agreement (City of Tigard) ROGERS TIF DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION FORMULAS Jurisdiction % Beaverton 17.20 Cornelius 2.07 Forest Grove 4.09 Hillsboro 16.46 King City 0.54 North Plains 0.44 Sherwood 2.43 Tigard 9.40 Tualatin 5.41 Washington County 41.97 100.01 L C a i i , Exhibi# A r-- ryr i of r . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 7. RESOLUTION NO. 01- 4(J0 A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 98-51 AND ESTABLISHING A REVISED AND ENHANCED NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council has initiated the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program to extend public sewers through Reimbursement Districts in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.09; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 1998, the City Council established The Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program through Resolution No. 98-51 to encourage owners to connect to public sewer. The program was offered for a two-year period after which the program would be evaluated for continuation; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2000, the City Council extended The Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program an additional two years through Resolution No. 00-60; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that residential areas that rcrnain without sewer service should be provided with service within five years; and WHEREAS, Council has directed that additional incentives should be made available to encourage owners to promptly connect to sewers once service is available and that owners who have paid for service provided by previously established districts of the Neighbcficod Sewer Extension Program should receive the benefits of the additional incentives. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Resolution No. 98-51 establishing the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program is hereby repealed. SECTION 2: A revised incentive program is hereby established for the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. Thus inccntive program shall apply to scwcr connections provided through the server reimbursement districts shown on the attached Table 1 or established thereafter. All connections qualifying under this program must be completed within t_ three years after Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report following a C public hearing conducted in accordance with TMC Section 13.09.105 or by two years ? from the date this resolution is passed, which ever is later, as shown on the attached Table 1. i SECTION 3: To the extent that the reimbursement fee determined in accordance with Section 13.09.040 does not exceed $15,000, the amount to be reimbursed by an owner of a lot zoned single family residential shall not exceed $6,000 per connection, provided that the lot owner complies with the provisions of Section 2. Any amount over $15,000 shall be reimbursed by the owner. This applies only to the reimbursement fee for the sewer installation and not to the connection fee, which is still payable upon application for RESOLUTION NO.01 4(P Page I i sewer connection. SECTION 4: The City Engineer's Report required by TMC Chapter 13.09 shall apply the provisions of this incentive program. Residential lot owners who do not connect to sewer in accordance with Section 2 shall pay the full reimbursement amount as determined by the final City Engineer's Report. SECTION 5: Any person who has paid a reimbursement fee in excess of the fee required herein is entitled to reimbursement from the City. The amounts to be reimbursed and the persons to be paid shall be determined by the Finance Director and approved by the City Manager. There shall be a full explanation of any circumstances that require payment to any person who is not an original payer. The Finance Director shall make payment to all persons entitled to the refund no later than August 31, 2001. SECTION 6: The Sanitary Sewer Fund, which is the funding source for the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Program, shall provide the funding for the installation costs over $6,000 up to a maximum of $15,000 per connection. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2001 PASSED: This ~Q day of 2001. IV _Q7 ayor Ci of 'and ' ATTEST: / ~17-4-jk 0 - i - 0 A L i Recorder - City of *and I:Vi4wide\Res\Rm1u8an Revising the Neighbodiood Sewer Incentive Prom RESOLUTION NO.01- 40 Page 2 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON T0: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder DATE: July 15, 2003 SUBJECT: Council Retreat - Select a Date and Time After hearing from several Council members, it appears that August 5, would be the only date left to consider from those I offered as suggestions for a Council Retreat. August 5 is a Tuesday night, which is not a regular Council meeting night. Another suggestion would be to hold the retreat on August 19. This would typically be a workshop meeting; however, the meeting agenda was very light and items could be easily rescheduled. 1AA M\CATHMOUNCURETREAT DATE MEMO.DOC L C i i i i