The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 08/17/2004 t ^`+Fko- ,C,¢`4 fi C f 3 4,; 't - t t- - .s -~.i ff H 3 k3 a 3 1i1 1 - t -F {v i { S , t F - { " - - 5, x"r,,r'e'i.C 3 t - , -jt t J _ q> 7- _ -r= 3 f P , _ 'kl t3 - 1 r 1 ! - x r "s Fir 't - ---V - - 'd ,t t e xf,.- -t f n#a v i r5 t 1 i i _ ) -t t t L ) _ 3 Sb t 9 9 i y - .Y- ~t } 1~^ Z - - F r " TI ARD ITS UNTIL 'a } Y C f' t RKH EI - : may- 1 M .t I ,Z--,,. - - e - . - - - - - - -r~ - Is t - fk K ; F t j , ~ 0 1 ~ I I ~ f i - - - - - P _ _ I - S Y- - - - - - - _ - - Fy, - ~ - - I - - I : _ 'i t - - 3 - ~ - G. - - - - -t-,? I - - _ - - - ` NCILMEET f INGWILL. NOT BE ~ - co - , -1 - - - . - - - - _ - - - - - _ - - - - - . - - - 0 110f81U0nn -8 ±{d2 - t t , ~.i f . _ 'L, 4--aG -A E } - - - - -trs,c. _ ,u 4s t x c - . - 4 ' - 1'- - - - - - - - - - a z I -r.r:4t'- Item No. For Council Meeting of ab'~b COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 17, 2004 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors Moore, Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff were present 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 8z Liaison Reports: 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items: 2. QUARTERLY WATER UPDATE a. Staff Report Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director, presented the staff report which included a PowerPoint presentation. Copy is on file with the City Recorder. The contract with Portland was been renegotiated and the notice requirement was removed, which expires June 30, 2007. A replacement contract is currently being negotiated. The City currently receives four million gallons of water per day from the.Joint Water Commission. No water is currently being taken from the Willamette River Water Coalition. Two months ago, the Oregon State University Fish Deformity Study was released which indicated there was no water quality issue as a result of the fish deformity but that the fish contain a parasite which causes the deformity. Tests were conducted by Wilsonville and the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) on water from both the river and TVWD sources, and tests from both sources were excellent. Tigard will be asked to participate with the Willamette River Coalition concerning an advertising campaign. Councilor Moore indicated he attended the last meeting of the Coalition and would recommend Tigard's participation in their public education piece. Mr. Koellermeler stated summer is a busy time in the water business. He reviewed the water usage charts and conservation measures being used. He noted the City of Portland fired up its East County well system the end of July, mixing that water with water from Bull Run and Portland monitors quality. Generally when the Bull Run water is replaced by just the well water, there are quality issues but water has been mixed from the two sources leaving a better quality water product. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 1 Meeting of August 17, 2004 Mr. Koellermeier noted the Joint Water Commission continues to receive questions about fluoride. The questions generally address the amount of fluoride in the water so parents can adjust the amount of supplement to give their children. The City currently tests 32 sites around the city on a monthly basis, to show the fluoride trends in each site. The City checks for 30 different things so one more test is not a problem; no additional cost is incurred to add the test for level of fluoride. Mr. Koellermeier stated Tigard currently pays $1.11 for water from Portland, 71 cents from the Joint Water Commission, and 66 cents for water from their own wells. The City receives 62% of its water from Portland, 28 to 30% from the Joint Water Commission and about 10 to 12% from its wells. The Water Operations budget is over $5.24 million with $3.56 million of that spent on buying water. There is $6.15 million in capital reserves, $1.2 million in contingency, and $3.5 million in various reserves. Mr. Koellermeier pointed out the third year rate increase of 6% goes into effect October 1. The Department is looking at a possible revenue bond sale next year that would be tied to construction of the Alberta Rider Reservoir. Mr. Koellermeier stated the received the penalty notice from Portland in the amount of $304,000 which is less than anticipated. This penalty results from taking more water from the joint Water Commission as the City used less water from Portland. This was done so Tigard could be a partner in the joint Water Commission. He believes that Tigard and other jurisdictions will contest the penalty clause of the Portland contract. Mr. Koellermeier noted the City drilled one production and one test well. The target set for the production well was i million gallons per day, but they are currently pumping between 2 and 2-1/2 million gallons per day. Once the Alberta Rider reservoir is built and on line, they will be able to store some of that water. 3. RIGHT- OF- WAY MAINTENANCE a. Staff Report Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director, presented the staff report including a PowerPoint presentation. Copy of presentation is on file with the City Recorder. Mr. Koellermeier presented some historical information about this subject, and then a series of options for maintaining right-of-way. The options were: Tigard City Council Minutes Page 2 Meeting of August 17, 2004 I) Maintaining the status quo at a cost of $37,000 a year; 2) Status quo plus volunteer, at a cost of $7,000 a year, 3) The city assumes basic maintenance responsibility for right-of-way along major collectors in residential zones, and right-of-way mowing where there are deep ditches or steep banks, at an estimated cost of $135,782 per year; 4) Enhanced level of right-of-way maintenance along major collectors in areas zoned residential that are not currently being maintained, at an estimated cost of $138,644 per year after $144,873 initial cost; and 5) Premium level of right-of-way maintenance and basic right-of-way maintenance, for an estimated cost for first year of $430,683. Mr. Koellermeier pointed out if the City decided to do some of the higher levels of maintenance; he would recommend using Durham Road as a demonstration project. He noted out of the 159 lots abutting Durham Road, 118 lots are in compliance, 41 violations were issued and of that, 34 are repeat offenders. For the first offense, a warning is issued, and a citation issued after that. Most of the warnings are issued to new owners who are unaware of the requirements. Many of these have gone to court as owners do not think it is fair because their lot is on two streets - Durham Road is in the rear of their property. In his PowerPoint presentation, he showed photos of lots in violation as well as in compliance with the code. Public Works have applied for grants, some of which could be applied to the initial improvement but the City does not have money for on-going maintenance. The upgrade effort would have to be funded as a capital improvement project unless it could be part of a volunteer program. Councilor Moore indicated Council talked about this as part of the street maintenance fee back in 2000. Given the City's financial problems, Council had to make choices between this or programs such as police officers. Mayor Dirksen stated he would prefer moving beyond the status quo and eventually being able to go to the last option where the City would maintain the right-of-way. In the meantime, he would like for staff to explore a combination of options with a volunteer component. He is concerned with the image that is projected as people drive through the city. There are various ways people have addressed the maintenance which results in a quilt block pattern as people have a different concept of what compliance is and then you also have lots that are not in compliance as well. Councilor Sherwood noted when Council considered the street maintenance fee, Council considered a number of programs that needed funds, such as streets, sidewalks, right-of-way maintenance, etc. She wanted to make sure the Tigard City Council Minutes Page 3 Meeting of August 17, 2004 money is spent on the top priority projects that were identified in how the street maintenance fees would _ be used before even thinking about spending funds on other areas. Mayor Dirksen said it is not known what a project might cost, but it might be a hybrid between city work and volunteer involvement. It might be possible for a small demonstration project to be made, but in two years, something else might be possible. Mr. Koellenneier asked if Council wanted him to look into this further and estimate what a project might cost using a variety of options. Councilor Moore replied it should be part of the 2005-06 budget process. Mayor Dirksen indicated he would like to move ahead on this as well even though there may be some people who would feel it is an extravagance. He concurred with Councilor Moore that the City is in a tough budget crunch but people have said that for many years. Councilor Woodruff indicated he was in favor of the goal but concerned about the means as it relates to the street maintenance fee. It might be they could do some of the alternatives or possibly doing some reprioritization of projects. He would not support going back and identifying other uses of the street maintenance fee or creating other fees in the foreseeable future. Mr. Koellermeier indicated this discussion provided good direction for staff on how to proceed during the next budget cycle. 4. BUILDING CODE ADOPTION UPDATE a. Staff Report I Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, noted Tigard had in the past adopted the Uniform Building Code for all building and construction in the city. He indicated Gary Lampella, Building Official, will provide an update of the building code adoption. Gary Lampella, Building Official, explained that building officials throughout Oregon and the United States have been trying to standardize the building codes. Tigard has used the Uniform Building Code since 1998, but it is an antiquated code. The State of Oregon mandates there be a standardized building code for all its municipalities; once the State adopts a code, the Tigard City Council Minutes Page 4 Meeting of August 17, 2004 municipalities are required to adopt the same code. The City is scheduled to adopt a new code at its September 14 meeting. Mr. Lampella noted that former Mayor Griffith served on numerous boards and committees relating to the state-wide building codes for as long as he can remember and was a staunch supporter of developing an international code to be used by the construction/building industry, including architects, fire officials, engineers, and building officials. He served on the state committee to research various codes which has completed an in-depth study of the proposed code to determine its effects. This code focuses more on sprinkler systems, has more design options for architects and engineers, used different building approaches, allows larger buildings and is more creative, but not at an increased expense. Fees will not go up. What is proposed to be adopted to go into effect October 1 is the International Mechanical Code and International Building Code. The Fire Marshal will adopt the International Fire Code as well. Mr. Lampella indicated one thing that occurred in the past, a code would be adopted which referenced a code that had yet to be adopted by the State of Oregon. This created a lot of problems and required code changes to be approved every six months or so. This proposal is to adopt the Mechanical, Building and Fire Codes all on the same date, and they reference each other. On April 1, 2005, a new plumbing and electrical code will be adopted in Oregon. Mr. Lampella indicated a new code, formerly the One, Two Family Dwelling Code will be replaced by the Low Rise Residential Code. The Low Rise Residential Code will apply to all apartment buildings three stories or less that have their own exterior exits. One problem which will occur is when the City adopts the International Building Code effective October 1, all apartments regardless of size will be required to be sprinkled. When the Low Rise Residential Code is approved effective April 1, some building will not be required to be sprinkled. In the past, the City has approved Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue regulations as Chapter 9, which required any apartment building more than either one story or 16 units was required to be sprinkled. It is not possible to adopt a lower standard, but municipalities are allowed to adopt stricter standards. Mr. Lampella indicated the entire building staff will be going through extensive training in the next month on the new code. Mr. Hendryx noted since Mr. Lampella worked on the code at the state level, he was aware of the training requirements and included training costs in this Tigard City Council Minutes Page 5 Meeting of August 17, 2004 year's budget. He noted Mr. Lampella was nominated and received the "Building Official of the Year" award for his work on this committee. Councilor Woodruff asked if the codes were being standardized throughout Oregon, or will they be applied piece-meal throughout the state. Mr. Lampella explained that all municipalities are required to adopt the same code with the same effective date. This will make it much easier for developers. He noted in Texas, each jurisdiction could adopt different codes. Approximately 45 states in the United States are also adopting the International Codes in order to standardize the building code throughout the country. Other countries are also considering adopting the International Codes as well. President Bush just signed a bill calling for participation in an International Code Congress to work with Latin American countries to encourage them to adopt the International Codes for their buildings, as these areas are prone to earthquakes and weather problems where safer buildings are needed. He recently attended the International Building Officials conference, and there were delegates from not only the United States, but also from India, Japan, China, Turkey, and many other countries, who were looking at these new codes. Councilor Wilson asked if special codes could be adopted such as the requirements of the American's with Disabilities Act. Mr. Lampeila noted that Oregon has amended that entire section relating to ADA requirements. Individual states can adopt additional codes relating to climatic, geographical or statute related matters where more stringent codes are required. Oregon is probably more restrictive than any other state. 5. FINANCIAL STATEMENT ALTERNATIVE REVIEW AND SELECTION a. Staff Report Tom Imdieke, Financial Operations Manager, distributed copies of the PowerPoint presentation as the type would be difficult to read on the screen. Copy of the handout is on file with the City Recorder. He explained these reports were the results of discussion by the Council and Budget Committee who asked for more financial reports to be prepared. He then reviewed the purpose of each report: Tigard City Council Minutes Page 6 Meeting of August 17, 2004 Expenditure Budget to actual information by fund and divisional 5 pages Summary work group, such as Police Administration, Police Operations. Beginning balance for the year is zero, but as time progresses, will represent the balance year to date. The ending balance shows what the unit has spent year to date from the beginning of the fiscal year. Report does not show revenues or fund balances, and would need to be used in conjunction with other reports Expenses vs. Presents expenditure data by fund, divisional work 72 Budget group, and individual account. This is the most pages detailed expenditure report. Shows amount spent for the current month, year to date, and encumbrances against the budget. Available column is amount remaining to be spent, includes percentage of the budget this is represented. Needs to be used in conjunction with other reports to give current revenues and fund balances. Report given to managers and supervisors on monthly basis to give status of their budget. Revenue Presents revenue by fund received during the month, 13 Analysis gives year to date, and uncollected amount compared pages to budget. Used in conjunction with other reports. Does not show beginning or projected fund balances. Revenue vs. Presents revenues and expenditures by fund, with 1 page Expenses grand total per fund. Calculates differences between Summary current revenues and expenses. Does not give impacts by department, division, or program. Revenue vs. Similar to Expense vs.. Budget report, but presents 32 Expenses by total number for revenue by fund and expenditures b pages Account y division or work group, and major expense grouped Type (Personal Services, Materials 81 Services, and Capital Outlay). Would not give fund balances if that is important. Revenue Similar to the previous report, but broken down by 11 Vs. fund only, as well as totals for Personal Services, pages Expenditure Materials 81 Services, and Capital Outlay. Some by Fund I major categories included. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 7 Meeting of August 17, 2004 Budget to Most comprehensive report. Gives both revenue and 2 pages Actual expenditure information compared to budget, by for department and program. Does not go down to each Division level. Example: in Police Department, totals fund, given for Community Services Program. Could be 25 used to tract those expenditures throughout the year. funds in Gives beginning and ending fund balances for each City fund. Actual column is year to date information Mr. lmdieke stated he would recommend providing copies of the operating funds only which would include the general fund, building fund, and enterprise funds which are water, sanitary and sewer programs. Council did not really need reports that were revenue only on a monthly basis. That would reduce the number of pages from 50 pages to 30 pages. Finance Director Craig Prosser would still provide updates on those revenue funds on a quarterly basis. Councilor Sherwood said she receives three pages of budget updates every month at the Department of Housing, which allows her and other board members to track the trends and where they are at. She did not need the detailed reports relating to expenditures. Mr. Imdieke recommended Council start with the last report and if they find they need more information, Councilors can request additional information. He explained the Finance Division runs these reports anyway so it is not additional work to develop the reports. Councilors Moore and Wilson indicated they did not feel they needed even that much information. Mayor Dirksen pointed out the general fund and other operating funds were where the action is. The Council concurred to receive and review the Budget to Actual reports the general and operating funds on a monthly basis, with other revenue funds being reviewed on a quarterly basis. The reports would be put in their regular mail distribution packet. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 8 Meeting of August 17, 2004 6. CITYWIDE SEWER EXTENSION PROGRAM UPDATE a. Staff Report Gus Duenas, City Engineer, presented his staff report including a PowerPoint Presentation concerning the Citywide Sewer Extension Program. He reviewed the history of the program which began in )une 2001. The City is entering its third year of the program. In 2001, there were 677 residential lots identified of needing to be serviced by sewer. To date, 195 sewer laterals have been installed and the remaining 482 are scheduled during the next three years. Under the incentive program, Council agreed to cap the property owners cost at $6,000 to the extent the cost does not exceed $15,000 provided the owner connects to the sewer within three years after sewer becomes available. Any amount over $15,000 can be deferred upon request until development occurs. Other costs the property owners incur includes: ® $2,535 connection fee and inspect fee ® $50 average sewer charge every two months for operation and maintenance ■ All costs to connect the lateral from the house to the sewer line Mr. Duenas explained the Department has a public information process for the sewer program. This begins with a general meeting where all the property owners for the various districts being considered for the upcoming years are invited. They do not get into details about specific projects at this meeting. When a specific project is being considered, then notices and project brochures specific to that project is prepared and mailed to all affected property owners. Mr. Duenas stated in FY 2004-05, Council has awarded contracts for the construction of the 121" Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project and the 100, and Murdock Sanitary Sewer Project. The 100' and Murdock project is currently underway and the 121 n Avenue project will begin in the next week or so. The next big project is Elmira and Edgewood area and the design is currently being worked on. That project will probably be put out to bid next March, awarded in April, and construction completed before the end of the fiscal year. In FY 2005-06, there are projects with 158 laterals and 129 laterals for FY 2006- 07. Some projects require easements, which staff is working to acquire now. ? The projects requiring easements were put in the last year of the program. Council and Mr. Duenas discussed the drainage problems in the Omara area, which might require pumping. Mr- Duenas answered questions of Council regarding what is included in bid documents to recognize possible problems, such as rock that requires blasting. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 9 Meeting of August 17, 2004 NEEMEMEEM He referred to next year's Communication Plan the Department follows which gives specific dates that legal notices need to be filed and deadlines. 7. DRAFT SANITARY SEWER & STORM DRAINAGE PUBLIC FACILITY PLANS a. Staff Report Gus Duenas, City Engineer, explained that staff has prepared draft Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage plans that will be part of the Public Facility Plan. The Public Facility Plan is a support document for the comprehensive plan which the City will be working on soon. Other plans will be needed for streets, sidewalks, street lights and water. Several of the plans refer to master plans or transportation plans which have already been adopted. Staff had time to do this now so they went ahead with these two plans. These will be a document that someone could pick up and find out everything they needed to know about sewers, how they are maintained, funded, and looks at a plan for 20 years in the future. He explained staff wanted Council's preliminary approval before proceeding with other plans, whether the Council feels they are on the right tract, should the Department proceed with other updates, or if they wanted the Department to wait for the comprehensive plan to be updated before preparing the Public Facility Plan. Mr. Monahan explained the Public Facility Plan is something the City is obligated to do anyway, and will be needed as part of the comprehensive plan or shortly after. He explained they do not need to be worked on in concert with the comprehensive plan. Different departments are responsible for different parts of the Public Facility Plan, whereas Planning will be the lead on preparing the comprehensive plan update. When the City last updated its comprehensive plan in 1983, the Public Facility Plan was not a requirement. There has been a need to look at the various infrastructure programs, and the Engineering Department has done those updates as needed. The new plans will provide better information and can be worked on in advance of the comprehensive plan update. Councilor Wilson asked is the comprehensive plan likely to influence the Public Facilities Plan. Mr. Duenas explained he and Mr. Monahan discussed this issue earlier. The comprehensive plan components are being updated as time goes by. In the past, the City has updated its transportation plan and sanitary sewer master plan. He did not believe they could be far wrong as they would be using the latest information to develop these plans. Once the comprehensive plan is Tigard City Council Minutes Page 10 Meeting of August 17, 2004 updated, it may be necessary to go back and make minor changes to update these plans, but the major work would have been completed. He noted that he was working on this while he is not under pressure to complete them, which has been a big advantage. Mayor Dirksen asked if there was a possibly that the comprehensive plan process would negate all the work that has been done on these elements of the public facilities plan. Mr. Duenas replied the document can be used by anybody to provide information about the infrastructure. For one thing, this element organizes the information into one location so that anyone can find out everything about the specific element. The second reason for doing the work now is that by the time the comprehensive plan is worked on, a lot of the groundwork will have already been completed. He explained that there will be a public process with hearings by the Planning Commission and Council before these elements are approved as part of the Public Facilities Plan. The Council concurred for the Engineering Department to proceed with the other elements of the Public Facilities Plan. 8. AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL SERVICES GRANT PROGRAM DISCUSSION a. Staff Report Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, reviewed her staff report and background of this program. At the June 22 Council meeting, staff was directed to assemble information for a Council policy that would address food and housing support for Tigard residents in need. Council requested staff to look at a three step process. 1. Discuss the policy at an upcoming work session (this meeting); 2. Consider approving the policy at a subsequent meeting; and 3. Reconsider the application by St. Vincent De Paul/St. Anthony's Church and other requests at a subsequent meeting once the policy has been established. Ms. Newton explained staff looked at the City of Portland's program titled "Emergency Fund of the Council," with the funds being used any way the Council deems appropriate. Tigard staff proposes more limits on the use of its funds, which would be to meet an unmet or growing need to support basic services for Tigard residents (food, shelter, clothing); not for ongoing Tigard City Council Minutes Page 11 Meeting of August 17, 2004 operations or maintenance; do not meet the criteria for the City's Social Services Program; and must meet the same reporting requirements as social service grant requests. The proposal is to limit the amount of the fund to one- half of one percent of the previous years funding for social services grants and affordable housing set-asides. Ms. Newton responded to Council questions, and Council concurred to direct staff to bring back the written policy as outlined in her memo. Ms. Newton noted that in addition to the policy, a budget amendment would be required to appropriate the funds. 9. SOCIAL SERVICE GRANT PROGRAM COORDINATION a. Staff Report Mr. Monahan noted the Council had talked about the social services grant program several years ago. It was noted several agencies were receiving money annually, applications were not being received from new agencies, and there was a problem with some agencies providing even the most simple information to explain who the agency was providing services to. During the budget process last year, the Council and Budget Committee requested staff to look into a process of determining how funds for social services groups are utilized. Ms. Newton was asked to be the contact between the City and the social services operators, as well as prepare a recommendation for Council's consideration on how to improve the grant process. Liz Newton explained the purpose for tweaking the program is to ensure that a wide range of qualified activities and programs are submitted for funding. She then reviewed the proposed four-phase Social Services Grant Fund Application process. Y Phase 1 - Outreach - In Mid-March, send a postcard to potential qualified agencies and programs inviting them to apply for funding. The list would be developed from past applicants, Chamber of Commerce directory, Washington County, and State agencies. Interested Agencies would be requested to contact the City for an application packet. o Phase 11 - Application - The applications would be sent to those agencies who requested packets. Applications would be required to be submitted by early February and the review process begun in early to mid-February. Phase III - Grant Award - The Social Services Funding Subcommittee would consider the funding recommendations and Council would approve the grants and budget. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 12 Meeting of August 17, 2004 • Phase IV - Reporting - Require a mid-year report be submitted in December, and an annual report In June. Ms. Newton indicated Phase IV was a new requirement. Staff felt it was Important to receive information from the agency on who they have served, how the funds were being used, and what other outreach the agency had accomplished. In the past, there has been a problem receiving even the most basic information, so the intent is to receive information on what is needed. The reason for the information is two-fold: the City wants to expand services to citizens in need and to consider all programs that serve our citizens in need. The Staff requests Council's direction on the recommendations and whether the packet needs to be revised for the next funding cycle. Councilor Moore stated he felt additional outreach was a good idea but was concerned about the possibility of having too many agencies bidding for the small amount of funds available. .Mayor Dirksen noted the Budget Subcommittee looks at all the applications they receive and noted that Ms. Newton's memo indicated that not everyone who applies will receive funding. Councilor Sherwood noted she was pleased to see this revision as the agency she works for submits applications to cities and approves grants all the time. The agency is required to submit quarterly reports explaining who they serve and the dollars spent in the specific jurisdiction as a requirement of the granting agency. In addition, the agency gives grants to others, and those agencies are required to verify they have a balanced budget, what efforts have been made to solicit other funds, what the population they serve, etc. As an example, she routinely submits reports to the City of Beaverton on a quarterly basis providing this type of information. What is being proposed is not new as this type of information is something agencies already provide to other grant programs. Mid year reporting is not a problem. An agency even getting $2,500, if they are operating and taking of their budgets properly, would be able identify the number of Tigard residents they serve, the dollars spent on that service, and how much money raised elsewhere. This is just part of doing their proper reporting responsibilities. Ms. Newton said she used to be involved with the Community Development Block Grant program and recalled having to do those reports. She would look at those reports to guide her in developing Tigard's reporting forms. Councilor Wilson noted he did not have a problem with the program on a basic level but was concerned about going out to recruit additional agencies to Tigard City Council Minutes Page 13 Meeting of August 17, 2004 apply for the small amount of money. If an agency is applying for a $2,500 grant, if a lot of applications are submitted, the chances of being awarded a grant are reduced. He felt bad when someone applying for $500 had to spend an evening at the Budget Committee Subcommittee meeting and then again at the Council meeting. This seems to be a lot to ask that it makes some agencies wonder if it is worth applying for. Councilor Sherwood responded this happens all the time and is part of the process for applying for funds. Councilor Woodruff stated he has sat on several foundation boards and indicated it was reasonable to require an end of the year report to show how the funds were used, how successful they were, and what the funds were used for. If $100,000 was granted, there would be different reporting requirements, than for a $2,500 grant. He understood what Councilor Sherwood was saying, that semi-annual and annual reports should be submitted to explain how the funds were used and populating served. Mayor Dirksen asked if Council should put a limit on number of reports required based on the amount of the grant received. If someone received a $10,000 or $7,500 grant, then mid-year reports would be required in addition to the annual report. Otherwise, the mid-year report would not be required. Mr. Monahan explained the City had problems with one agency who does not submit reports because they have a different definition from the City's definition of the Tigard area. Since Tigard provides the funding, Tigard should be able to set the boundary, and the agency should respond. However, that same agency continues to submit grant requests and the City continues to award the funds even though the agency does not provide the requested information. This sends the wrong message to that agency. Councilor Wilson stated the subcommittee needs to look at that concern. Reasonable reporting is essential. He was concerned the applications might be too complicated; there are too much competition for the small amount of funds being awarded, and too much time required by agencies to make presentations. He hoped the City could come up with a policy that demands were minimized. Ms. Newton responded staff needs to be clear in the information packet what information is required, the approval criteria, and the total amount of money available to be awarded. Council could indicate that certain criteria had a higher ranking than other criteria. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 14 Meeting of August 17, 2004 Council directed Ms. Newton to come back with additional information on the rating cr iter .a', making the appliratinn process as simple as it can be while getting the Information that is needed, looking at the intent of the reporting requirements, and perhaps developing a rating sheet to help the committee prioritize the criteria. Council meeting recessed at 8:33 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 8:39 p.m. 10. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO THE REGIONAL BLUE RIBBON HOUSING TASK FORCE a. Staff Report Liz Newton noted she prepared this report at Councilor Sherwood's request, and a copy of the draft report of the Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resources Development was included in the staff report. Councilor Sherwood explained the Blue Ribbon Committee has met every month for nearly a year and talked about different funding sources for affordable housing. Portland Mayor Vera Katz and Commissioner Erik Sten proposed this be addressed on a regional level. She had testified before the State Legislature on a proposed real estate transfer fee as the law would need to be changed to allow this fee. The committee looked at a number of funding methods. Affordable Housing Programs in Seattle and either California or > Florida were looked at to see if they could be adapted to Oregon. The real estate transfer fee will not work without the support of the real estate industry, which they did not have. The Committee will continue looking at other sources of revenue to fund affordable housing. Councilor Sherwood noted the report includes some legislative history about funding affordable housing. The City of Ashland actually conducted a pilot program for affordable housing in their community. The Committee looked at the program for the tri-county area, and realized they would need between $25 million and $35 million a year that would be put into a trust fund, and then developers or agencies who were interested in conducting an affordable housing project would apply for those funds. Councilor Sherwood explained that the low income citizens often have both adults working and still struggle to buy food and pay rent. There is currently Tigard City Council Minutes Page 15 Meeting of August 17, 2004 an 8-year waiting list for housing assistance funds. She reviewed the case of a single mom with two kids who had saved funds to qualify for a matching program so she could buy a house. Based on her salary and savings, it was determined the woman would afford a $150,000 home. The woman was unable to find a $150,000 home in the Tigard/Tualatin School District and finally had to walk away from the program. Mayor Katz wanted the committee to designate $75 million a year, but the Committee felt that was too unrealistic to fund. Washington County has a real estate transfer fee of .1 percent, with the funds going to the general fund. This fee was created before the real estate transfer fee was ruled invalid, so their fee was grandfathered in. Councilor Sherwood noted the Council and citizens could attend a program in October relating to affordable housing and hunger and to lobby their legislators in Washington, D.C. She noted three housing authorities have recently closed their doors because of administrative costs problems. The Washington County program is in pretty good shape because they have been very conservative and carefully reviewed its financial reports every month. When they saw a trend coming in increased administrative costs, cuts were made quickly. Mayor Dirksen noted the presentation makes it clear that there continues to be a problem. Very few cities were even making an attempt to do something. Tigard has not done as much as it would like, but it is more than many jurisdictions. Councilor Sherwood responded there is still an uphill battle regarding the real estate transfer fee, and if done statewide, would be a start. She noted citizens in the entire state were suffering and needs affordable housing. She noted that low income residents living in Sherwood and Newburg cannot afford to drive their cars to their jobs in Beaverton or Portland, so have to take the bus. The bus costs $3 a day to get to and from work. That is a lot of money when they do not have money for rent. There are affordable housing projects around Washington County but many people are unaware of them. There is a waiting list of between 6 to 8 years to get a house. Councilor Wilson noted this is a statewide problem, and is not just in the metropolitan area. A recent newspaper article talked about the problems the low income citizens have in Bend and Medford. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 16 Meeting of August 17, 2004 11, REVIEW COUNCIL GROUNDRULES a. Staff Report Mr. Monahan noted Council Groundrules require the Council to review its rules in July or August of each year. A copy of the last revision, Resolution 01-47 is included in the Agenda packet. He asked if Council had any concerns or suggestions to modify the Groundrules. Councilor Sherwood asked if there was a way to reduce the number of items on an agenda. Mr. Monahan explained he and the City staff are responsible for scheduling agenda items. They currently plan agendas for two months ahead. He noted several upcoming meetings have almost nothing scheduled. Other meetings are full. There is a problem when Council continues an item over to a meeting where the agenda is already full. For the most part, staff has been successful in scheduling the agenda. He also noted the Mayor does not participate any more than any other Councilor in setting the agenda, as it is the City Manager's responsibility to set the agenda. However, the Mayor and Councilors can suggest agenda items be scheduled for a later workshop or meeting. The Tentative Agenda is submitted to Council every month to indicate items that have been scheduled. Some items might be added because they are time sensitive. Councilor Wilson asked what is the process for deciding when to adjourn. Mr. Monahan noted the Groundrules indicate the Mayor or a Councilor can call for a point of order around 9:30 p.m. to determine whether the Council wants to continue meeting past 10 p.m. The Council's goal is to adjourn at 10 p.m. unless the majority of the Council extends that time. He and the staff try to structure the agenda in order to fit the time schedule and adjourn by 10 p.m. At weekly executive staff meetings, the weekly agendas are reviewed, and determine if modifications need to be made. If someone has asked for too much time, the staff will be asked to reduce the amount of time requested. In addition, staff reports are limited to 10 minutes. He noted Council is now allowing the staff to present their report before asking questions. Mayor Dirksen expressed concern about the Visitor's Agenda. He is concerned when someone comes in talking about issues such as "persecution of a religious group in China." While being a worthwhile topic, it is not Council Business. During the Bull Mountain Annexation process, some citizens used the Visitor's Agenda as a time to bludgeon the Council about issues that were on Tigard City Council Minutes Page 17 Meeting of August 17, 2004 the Council agenda. He was concerned that some people will use the Visitor's Agenda to comment about election Issues, which is not Council Business. The Groundrules state, "Visitor's Agenda is a regular feature of the Council business meeting. This item will be placed near the beginning of the Council agenda as a way to give citizens and visitors a chance to introduce a topic to the City Council. Council may decide to refer an issue to staff and/or schedule a tape for a later meeting." He did not feel this should be used as a forum to push their issue during the Council Business. He suggested some additional guidelines that say the Visitor's Agenda should be something appropriate to the business of the Council. Councilor Moore stated he concurred with that. The Visitor's Agenda should not be a candidate forum. The only concern he would have is that citizens have the right to address the council on any issue, and whether restricting that would be a Fourth Amendment issue. Mr. Monahan noted the City in the past has invited all candidates to a Candidate forum that is taped and rebroadcast on cable television. This has been just for Council Candidates, but it could be expanded to invite state and federal legislative candidates, and/or having a night for issues. He also noted the statement on the visitor's agenda differs from what the Groundrules state. Maybe the definition in the Groundrules and the signup sheets needs to be revised to allow political statements under the Visitor's Agenda. Councilor Woodruff stated he felt this was a time for people to comment about items not already scheduled. He suggested the name might need to be changed. Mr. Monahan noted the sign-in sheets may need to be modified in order to conform to what is in the Groundrules. He also noted Council does not have to address the person's concern at that time, but can either schedule further discussion at another meeting or at the end of the meeting under "Non- Agenda Items." There may be groups concerning a specific ballot measure who are going to come to every municipality to discuss the measure. It is possible the Council might want to schedule that group on the agenda rather than having the presentation during the Visitor's Agenda. He suggested he request staff to contact other municipalities to ask how they handle comments from citizens, forms used for sign-up, time limits, and other issues. The Council concurred with Mr. Monahan's suggestion, and indicated he would try to have the results at the September workshop meeting. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 18 Meeting of August 17, 2004 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS - None 13. NON-AGENDA ITEMS - None ANNOUNCEMENTS ® The Library Grand Opening is on Saturday, August 21, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Tentative Council Meeting on August 31, if needed relating to Ballot Title review ® Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue lunch is on September 29 at noon ® League of Oregon Cities Annual Meeting, November 4-6 at the Portland Marriott, and no Sunday session. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Dirksen adjourned the meeting at 9:19 p.m. U /~L ne McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder Attest: Mayor City of Tigard Dates C2~ Tigard Citty Council Minutes Page 19 Meeting of August 17, 2004 1'IGARp Cl~ CQI INCIL t411[ETIN( CITY OF TIGARD ALIGUST 17, 2W4- 6<30 lp.nz, OREGON TnG kl) CITTHALL -j fl25 SW NAL..LLl3LVD T3iGARD OR 07223 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 for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA -AUGUST 17, 2004 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING August 17, 2004, 6:30 PM 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 8t Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items 2. QUARTERLY WATER UPDATE a. Staff Report: Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director b. Council Discussion 3. RIGHT- OF- WAY MAINTENANCE a. Staff Report: Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director b. Council Discussion 4. BUILDING CODE ADOPTION UPDATE a. Staff Report: Gary Lampella, Building Official b. Council Discussion 5. FINANCIAL STATEMENT ALTERNATIVE REVIEW AND SELECTION a. Staff Report: Finance Staff b. Council Discussion 6. CITYWIDE SEWER EXTENSION PROGRAM UPDATE a. Staff Report: Gus Duenas, City Engineer b. Council Discussion 7. DRAFT SANITARY SEWER 8t STORM DRAINAGE PUBLIC FACILITY PLANS a. Staff Report: Gus Duenas, City Engineer b. Council Discussion 8. AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL SERVICES GRANT PROGRAM DISCUSSION a. Staff Report: Liz Newton, City Administration b. Council Discussion COUNCIL AGENDA -AUGUST 17, 2004 page 2 9. SOCIAL SERVICE GRANT PROGRAM COORDINATION a. Staff Report: Liz Newton, City Administration b. Council Discussion 10. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO THE REGIONAL BLUE RIBBON HOUSING TASK FORCE a. Staff Report: Liz Newton, City Administration b. Council Discussion 11. REVIEW COUNCIL GROUNDRULES a. Staff Report: Bill Monahan, City Manager b. Council Discussion 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 13. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 14. ADJOURNMENT I:\ADM\CATHY\CCA\2004\040817P. DOC COUNCIL AGENDA -AUGUST 17, 2004 page 3 AGENDA ITEM # 2004 FOR AGENDA OF AuVst 17 _ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE uarterl Water U date CITY MGR OK PREPARED BY: Dennis Koellermeier DEPT HEAD OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL the regarding The City continues to make progress creasine the last Council iW wiupde ll beat joint rmeeting w th the Intergovernmental water supply and with capacity increasing projects. Water Board (IWB) where staff will brief the Council and IWB on the most current information available reg ding our relationship with the City of Portland, our membership with the Joint Water Commission (JWC), progress the Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) program expansion, and status of the Alberta Rider School Reservoir. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action is recommended at this time INFORMATION SUMMARY current Council and The City has been actively pursuing ownership in a long term source of water. Past and on projects to achieve this the visioning process have consistently directed the City to this goal. Tigard ater goal by pursuing the regionalization of the Bull Run System and also by seeking membl rs p in the Joint Wban and other Commission. Since the City in Portlandwithdrew dfor a new wholesale water regional contract w th the City of Portland. Staff wholesalers have been involved d m negotiations will present a status report on their efforts. Tigard has successfully gained membership into the Joint Water Commission (JWC). Membership is based on the ability to obtain a supply of 4 million gallons per day (mgd) from the Commission. Staff will also report on the continuing pursuit for increasing current capa it cothrough nstruction our Aquifer Storage Staff Recovery (ASR) Program and will present an update of progress will also report on the status of the Alberta Rider School Reservoir project. OTHER ALTERNATNES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Current Council Goals and the Visioning document identify the desire and Stain a long term #wat 1 er supply as well as to increase capacity as stated under Urban and Public Services, Water Actively participate in regional development of drinking water sources and adequate innovative funding mechanisms to develop those sources for Tigard users, while exploring local options for water reuse and groundwater source. " ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A date a ~l lply U 1,N' ter S& City o f Tigard Public Works Department Water Division'- August J7,,2004 ter Su %%0 l plate ppiv/1- Tonight's summary will include information I, on: 6 Potential Sources 0 Summer Operation Issues Water Quality 6 Finances u rces Potential PORTLAND WATER BUREAU ➢ Current contract amended; expires June 30t" 2007 No intention notice requirements JOINT WATER COMMISSION Receiving 4 million gallons per day during summer season 2 million gallons per day during non-summer season 1 LLA ETE RIVER ATE COALITION Results of OSU Fish Deformity Study Quarterly water test results _➢__Tigard's pas~tcipc~_tior~__in__VI/RI/VC's Public Education Campaign jj~ Operations Summer _ t Production: Supply vs. Demand 14 12 10 ® 8 6 4- 2 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Month /average Use 1998 - 2002 Year 2003 Year 2004 Summer Pleaking TIG 'S PE AY DEMANDS i 2004 ❖ 13.16 MGD (July 24) 2003 ❖ 14.28 MGD (July 28) CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES Voluntary Even/Odd Watering Program Water Wise Rebates: Washer Machine Landscape Regional Water Provider's TV & Radio Campaign Water Iss S t, .k ,.4>.x..-.,v~..,.,,... i....... r...'.. ~+y»n.:> >.Y'..!+.'%. :Y:..... ~rl :~Y~'.-".Y,. '4.i)""`~Fry .;T'✓. ..nY a,.sr::~= sn->°x .y ~ i;~.'' ,`^s+. - u'Y✓`-""' a - ~W t.y PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Decision to extend Bull Run supply introduced groundwater (35 MGD) on July 27th 20% blend to minimize changes in water quality WATER COMMISSION . J ➢ Fluoride questions continue Dosage information Offering information Testing Results Map of service area with corresponding levels of fluoride • Kates 141ater ~,osts ®sis ® star (per ccf): Current Costs of Water (per ccf): j j ➢ Portland Water Bureau: $1.117 joint Water Commission: $0.71 (includes wheeling cost) Aquifer Storage Recovery: $0.66 Current Retail Rate (per cc : i Residential Rate = $1.81 Multi-family Rate = $1.79 ➢ Commercial Rate = $2.11 Industrial Rate = $1.75 $2 Irrigation Rate = .25 "Starus. F~i n a.a ix. 'T'ia., 4''~'M A' ...yq;' F^ ,~~»."+c' Si .i-,_ .i F !?~k byp' „,.C -^~v~3yJ q ae5 r:J~K t' i Current Operations Annual Budget i $5.24 million dollars ter Purchase Costs $3.65 million dollars 70°0 of operating budget) Capital Reserve $6.15 million dollars [ Contingency/Reserves $ 1.2 million dollars (operating contingency) $3.5 million dollars (undesignated fund balance) CURRENTLY N DEBT HMO= -Financial Porecasts Rate Increase Effective October 1, 2004 6% Increase Revenue Bond Sale .$25 million dollar FY 2004/2005 i Portland Penalty S304,522 (FY 200312004) i Projections for FY 200412005 m ~ t y AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF A9M17 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Review of Right-of-Way and Sidewalk Maintenance Practices PREPARED BY: Dennis Koellermeier DEPT HEAD OKJV--- CITY MGR OK_ - ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council is being updated on the status of right-of-way and sidewalk maintenance issues on collector and arterial streets following the policy set by Council in 2001. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review current information and advise staff if the Council wants to change current policy. INFORMATION SUMMARY In 2001 Council reviewed City ordinances and policies relating to the maintenance of public right-of-ways. Of particular concern were major collector and arterial streets with Durham Road being the prime example. Many of these streets abut double frontage lots and, in many cases, abutting properties are actually fenced off from these right-of-ways and have no access. City code requires an abutting property owner to be responsible for a minimal level of maintenance on adjacent right-of-ways. Currently the Public Works Department limits its activities to maintaining right-of-ways abutting public properties and industrial level mowing of brush at selected ss of notification of property owners where maintenance has fallen below minimal standards. managed the process This has caused some complaints from property owners. The City Council recently considered a proposal to include certain right-of-way maintenance activities in the then developing Street Maintenance Fee proposal. Council ultimately chose to drop this component from the final fee. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1) 'Maintain status quo, 2) Change municipal codes to shift maintenance responsibility of certain classes of streets or specific streets from the abutting property owner to the City and budget accordingly, 3) Develop a volunteer effort to assist in this program TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The right-of-way vegetation maintenance program falls within the general parameter of the "Tigard 'Beyond Tomorrow" goal for Community Character and Quality of Life. ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES The 2004/2005 fiscal year budget for the Street Maintenance Division is $844,875 and includes funding for five (5) annual cycles of roadside mowing, each cycle representing approximately 6.75 miles. Public Works estimates approximately $130,000 is spent annually for right-of-way maintenance citywide. An additional cost for code henforcement activities exists and has not been included in as been estimated to cost an dditional $150,000 to $400,000 annually, depending program on he level f service requested. ~ ~ y and RmghtimatamV;~ Sidewalk Maintenance Presented by: Dennis Koellermeier, PW Director 8/17/04 i story 2000: Council received & reaffirmed status quo (i.e. abutting property owner responsible, TMC 7.40) • 2002: Discussion in context of street maintenance fee, adding $270,000 - Council decided not to do this. • 2004: Status report Current Maintenance Activities • Owner responsible for abutting property • City crews maintain 6.8 miles of public 61 property, brush and ditches. Potential Options/Costs to cozy • Option 1: Status quo -The City currently mows 6.8 miles of right-of- way 3-4 times per year. Homeowners are responsible for adjacent property. - Estimated cost: $37,000/yr. • PW cost = $27,000 • Code enforcement cost = $10,000 iS:2 F P1ST3 vp'~y6,R4§t'~•t; ee2 } fit ;_rti . • '~l ~~°t',`. ` 1 :*~a1.1~ x. { U+e..aayx^vy:'gg i'Y,.,;~''..'' • ' 7r§, - ~ r ~ n t'~„ s,,4 k`~3 I t? 'fit ,7;,•• L'~~'2`t.;§ - 4.:e p.Py. .,"~v iC. ~,:''S Ar ~ a~'aiB '?t,'~'yJtw ~ryw~-F-n«.,~~;::~;~.,q,.w k:~ -1 'A 4 A ~ ~"~~'.~:~(fM.~µ ~ •av :~'ys, `k°fyb~~(sf t : ~s are : ,r ~ ~a~~ 'r•°~,~:;~ Ca. u Potential Options/Costs to City • Option 2-. Status quo plus volunteer program. -City to mow 6.8 miles of right-of-way 3-4 times per year ($27,000) -Include volunteer coordination to assist property owners who are in violation (-$10,000). -Code enforcement ($10,000) - Estimated cost: $47,000/yr. `r iii r y ! s, z ~ d! r v r' K. i ~t t C .d'`.tt r ~i{ ~3~{a p r a^ it ' z tr! Y - d v im- ~ r 1 4 t "E„ 1 K SS'' S "i"Ilk Y L h~pl.~ 4S ~ -7r y~sr. I of Potental Options/Costs to City i • Option 3: The City assumes basic maintenance responsibility for right-of-way along major collectors in residential zones, and right-of-way mowing where there are deep ditches or steep banks. - Basic right-of-way maintenance defined as: • Weeds and grass below 10" in height - Estimated cost: $135,782/yr. Potential Options/Costs to City • Option 4: Enhanced level of right-of-way maintenance along major collectors in areas zoned residential that are not currently being maintained 27,315 ft.) -Enhanced right-of-way maintenance defined: • Grass planted and mowed to less than 3"-4" • Weekly mowing from April to July and October to November. Monthly mowing from July to October and November to April. - Estimated cost: $138,644/yr. (after $144,873 initial cost) ID 1-9 q a ,jp 1. ~ ~ Pik } K j t¢y d) Ws°t tGs.F t ti t i n a^ s S _ 9 7t 741 1 ~~~n ~ 'k C~M1 p=~,^~ t at'3'# Ai-~'di wak Sa i Y,3+ 8 {qfq eta ~~«'i~a' y~- S-iii y,_; ..•..'.t'~''`~ ';a :.3c:t~'+~'..~R';"('5:.:• ;'..~''Y. a"~;€:a`,"` {'saefFcy~`£. b,'' ~-tri ,j."a' .rgi }A'. t .73 ~ - 4. s~i ` ,~,e,~ryp,.?4r. m, • ~ ~ '~'•~s rt'~ `.tH F ~ J +9 T.° 'eta x~-,,~w,d r y :,x.. F'..=¢ai„~A-J ao& tt- 4 = ST. s„~rY d^:yg5}'a"p,;; .^#,1•'.,.as'sPr',w`''di `°a ~R~'43'a~`,s~. ~F^>l'~y.4s°~~~!•~.~4P`4~~: ' i~FAnYT s.. r. £ t4S. 66.14.?~,A~ ~~w3A4.`i'+~✓ rrv gg 1.' -77 4« - z: r~ ' X C » ~i "!rF +~~,t a? 5 - "-rt&dn' a Y r - , y.iN,b v. „w . r r: Ow~ . 77 u~M~ ~~1 MI YJ sxarw T~ Fb# r, T - t w«3b 1 y~ Potential Options/Costs to City • Option 5: Premium level of right-of-way maintenance 277315 ft.) and basic right- of-way maintenance 26,290 ft.) - Premium right-of-way maintenance defined: • Landscaping with irrigation • Low lying shrubs and annuals - Estimated cost for first year: $430,683 ♦ S;- ~ irk ~ F L ~ 'S' N m - L m~ '<a u ,,.-..,~ar,..,,.<.~ .............e,.mS• ~:~kw-.....u>.aa"x ,.a "-.,,.,::-r I!, ~»r~:.:s~et";>;,a"..~Kr: - 111,1415 r ~;,r.,:_...~.>u° ^;.~~"-`,ea z;~.,«~,'ae. .:..~aw,.T `•~=y,.»•sr:.,~,~r£:... _ ,.-!r°~»;:.'w.:;'y»,="``~~~ - 4 q9 ° .F a~ - Y N ° , " - r . m j -41 ,s r tu= ( ~.-V j 1 ~ 1 Yb ~ I S f* ` ~ 1~lLt. III 1 . ti `J t L ?V r<Hir~pY'r t T' v y~ _ x Fr 7, C A*l Note: Any upgrade in level of service could not be implemented until FY 05/06 for budgetary reasons. Durham Road • Number of abutting lots: 159 • Number of lots in compliance: 118 • Number of lots in violation: 41 -Tickets issued (repeat offenders): 34 -Warnings issued (first time offenders): 7 Wt wu, r ~ ~t" $ „Yii~*~i x~ ,R aa~~ ~,'iY#i:•~dE< 1~~ ,4 aTk ~ 4 ~tv`s~.~:ii€'t5}X4;....1 4 r' ''#(t.{Yt".a 4. yE caW V.H4?1 Y. SiS `~''F ~[ta:+b' ;«:{a:Er'ts.f ,,,•~=~'~d.''`t47{•~t,s~'i->t~'Ktd~^ ip•tir+ ;J S,:i. U tit:: A ~8y 74 «,s :'C,. ~ 4~ ! 'EJ. S`,•4+'u 54''r y;•'rt•~h.~hi'~ ~,y `~G~in~§.t'1.4~~ i~: ~ •L !°'~~q" 1~c' Td';t*r~r~;~q•«3F'ie !i J{ei'{ 1'.Y ~r;f ~ T~t' ~pj€~tipY'a`1ti3„TM" i.•. f'~~ataFS#~;=y ~ .~,T j ~E~+"~•«"{1ti i<6#"w .).f ~x sit ~C''b i , # x.3131- £..Q &1`(..,_, < P~ <;s" • ~ C d't 4:°• s' t.l.,I+r;'t~."u; `.s'4's°'r`s.t''i."'.,t,c.t~+ iR 1 is ♦ 3Y• ;t,{.erft~' Hi g~. s.. {•y. yPoS~,. T.. J'YI.; Y'.^#:i '`@~•'F~'y: ._T 1 7 as .v'«ki '^.i ;i jz ,fin:., .•!.'AJ,:: i,~~:~,x..~a.4}'.~'+"') is rr~ti; ~A. '2i'.{y ~,"~F Y~ ..•,3.s.y..a,.. a., .a: - 1' Sx. '$~'~+'a''Si' MI 'R+f ~~w~o.ty Y.^` • t ,r.. f:.1.,y1,.N'.F + f ~~=r ps''r"rD~6L i zv- re' 'fie"st•.;.,,r:. i r,... r.;I.,ti4 03 r, ig {R;: P';15'-",,3 „i'f 1'a'r, .:=>r,e zt~r•'~;r e€t~d':Zir4's, ,at f a i 'fX ,".P iyt~ { ,~•j t- '•s; °4fti."a t• a r~` pgvnML"; ii:;FA,. .':5t„;`' S pt j ~ ~r.',}~. .,'~~'•'i h.:K,°x15 L:. i`~f•`p yt, i, ~ $t? =':x; ~ F's t N Lti; `~~.5?» ,at,.ly',t *3 fz, € y4sLa 74% •'y- Yv#'a~'u q~R,,~" w4~"~ ,A°^fi'~,411Y~Y 3..K ~ ~'a a.1 ~ Si .4t{,°,n j>"• .a• :.,-y;..,_,Kr` t` }•Mhea':. iz -"i ~y'~+ 'y '„y `~C 3a ~~.~,n.Y: '~';:ky,, t:..:, j~...,,':.%$^~~"'jt'a ~y~~'6+,y]~y~ ~ a~ T~~`~.~a4-,x n.. r_L., a<,k.. .ti .r,tt,a~ ~•`E' i : ~~6 f'X"., µa,y,-,, :T4'~'x'±~*,, rr .,.°';l sg~,„~': , et ;"v4: ,.agtph? ~ 'k1~k•~:ld:ff~ ~:~*r`;i'1~, ~TY~~,`t d. /Y_i'_~"«:{v.. `tl. ~~e,y#~'e ayi „ s - az :~f' c7`f >s£ ;r, ek h Y•t7~~„~ • i+` Y 5 ii} '~4 4 :~J: ~ a.~S,{~~e '~kP:" i :Y hF. jY F.t. ~ ,~i '~C b`- ~a,.tr~'= °y,~ .Jc.3'#=1`„' •~~:`~i~+i~ et8 w~r ~`~:'ri.~-~' +OAK,, x .Y ti-. ~Y.F6 S.'tv'•ie Fi'y'.'~ 15 '~„2. r1!'L ' ~ „M}4.; °;at; •;*a, r~. b'i',;_~`:r 6`i,t,' '.y"'",~y,. a; Vii. I I ~ "k 'a'~;a.`~~"v~~q~: A?'t•`r'f'' Jt~%~ s:,,;, `;,"~iir?,; z~ e~~ r1+~ i} x f l 1 _ °_q,i~ ~!~f'~:'r~° t`_z(.s t.e`+:~•k." :l'/'.. x..:A~r,. w +8'1, 3ONVildINOO M a _ Y - v r - iqqr, ~e -w `mil ~ r 41T5~ i~_T ^ 4 I X ma,,~yy`` ff _ ~ -1 ~ i~ r } _ 4er. !x!~11 t,'tl~ilr ~4it+, V j tai ` ~~aRgr~jw }I-iM ii~~j~ ~ ~ t •.1 I-A Nth- 000 II"~. r L ~ S t"' f E 1 It 'i ~ y NZ-V f n' . E - x X53. . "a"t» , C",~ f'4- ~ " k', r i` ` f;:Y'i',F'<,'•'~',F~'1Fyi~roF..". .~~i = J q'~,pri i~ f y" F` -s?'' ;t/~`.- kacu .'ty, `,1f ~.w .`y-:°:~t~a'+at,.~+"~'`$,y'~.a ~•~~`,'S3'" y,'s ~5 .f N y. amp., T~~, -P - Ml ,'Y 40 4-1 z O "+r AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF August 17-2004 CITY 0FTIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Building Code Adoption l1 date + . , PREPARED BY: Gary Lampella DEPT HEAD OK I&AAKY MGR OK Wl~r ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL An update on the State of Oregon code adoption process and a proposed Ordinance amending TMC Title 14. No action is being requested at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION This is an informational Agenda Item to update the City Council on the State of Oregon code adoption process and aproposed Ordinance amending TMC Title 14. No requested action at this time. INFORMATION SUMMARY The State of Oregon is adopting the International Building Code (IBC) as a statewide document on October 1, 2004. This replaces the previous building code, the Uniform Building Code (UBC) that is no longer being published. There are some changes in the new code that require changes to the TMC to reflect chapter number changes and references to the appropriate code and the publisher of such code. The changes are minor in nature and will not result in additional fees or charges, nor will it result in changes in operating procedures for either the City of Tigard or the Building Division. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. ORS 455 mandates that all jurisdictions within the State of Oregon enforce the same code. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY' N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1, History of Code Adoptions in Oregon. FISCAL NOTES Cost of new code books has been budgeted in Fiscal Year 2004-05 Building Division budget. History of building codes adoptions The following chronology lists the building codes adopted and amended by the State of Oregon up to current code adoption. (As of October 1, 2003) Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code (OPSC) Edition UDC Effective date Edition UPC Effective date 1973 July 1, 1974 1973 February 1, 1975 1976 March 1, 1978 1976 January 1, 1978 1979 July 1, 1980 1979 July 1, 1981 1982 August 1, 1983 1980 (based on 1979).................. October 13, 1984 1985 July 1, 1986 1985 January 1, 1987 1988 January 1, 1990 1988 January 1, 1990 1991 January 1, 1993 1991 February 1, 1992 1994 April 1, 1996 1994 April 1, 1996 1997 October 1, 1998 1997........................................ April 1, 2000 1997....... Oregon Amended .....1998,4/99,10/99, 4100 10/00,10/01, 1 /02 10/03 Oregon Electrical Specialty Code Oregon Mechanical Specialty Code (OMSC) Edition NEC Effective date Edition UMC Effective date 1968 January 1, 1969 1973 July 1, 1974 1971 May I, 1972 (est.) 1976 March 1, 1978 1975 July I, 1975 1979 July 1, 1980 1978 .lanuary 1, 1978 1982 August 1, 1983 1981 October 1, 1981 1985 May 1, 1986 1984 July 1, 1984 1988 .............................................January 1, 1990 1987 May 1, 1987 1991 .............................................January 1, 1993 1990 July 1, 1990 1994 April 1, 1996 1993 July 1, 1993 1998...(IMC).......................... October 1, 1999 1996 October 1, 1996 2000...(IMC)........................ .October 1, 2002 1999 . .....................................Apri11, 2000 2002 .....................................October 1, 2002 Oregon One & Two-Family Dwelling Specialty Proposed Future Code Adoptions code Bldg-Elect Mech-P/mg Edition CABO Effective date Edition Effective Date 1983 May 1, 1986 2003... (IBC)......................... October 1, 2004 1986 Not adopted 2003... (IMC)........................ October 1, 2004 1989 April 1, 1990 2003... (IRC)............................. April 1, 2005 1992 May 1, 1993 2003.. (UPC)........................... April 1, 2005 1992 April 1, 1995 2005.. (NEC)........................... April 1, 2005 1995 April 1, 1996 1998...(Int.1 & 2) .......................April 1, 2000 NOTE. The 2003 edition of the IFC will be adopted on 2000...(IRC) .............................April 1, 2003 1011104 and be adopted hereafter on the same date as the OSSC and OMSC. 77 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF August 17, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Workshop - Financial Statement Alternative Review and Selection , PREPARED BY: Tom Imdieke/Roger Dawes DEPT HEAD OK _ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Determine format and type of monthly financial reports to be submitted to City Council members. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Format and level of detail of financial reports will be selected by Council members at the workshop on August 17, 2004. INFORMATION SUMMARY During the recent Budget Committee hearings, Councilors requested that the Finance Department begin submitting monthly financial statements to members of the City Council. At the Council workshop on August 17, 2004, staff will present various types and formats of financial reports that can be made available for distribution. The reports will give Council members an option as to the level of detail they wish to review on a monthly basis. After selection, staff will prepare and begin distribution of the reports to Council and the citizen members of the Budget Committee beginning with the accounting period ending August 30, 2004. Reports will then be available for distribution by the tenth of the following month. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRP.TEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Presentation and explanation of alternative reports will be presented at the August 17, 2004 workshop. FISCAL NOTES N/A Monthly Financial Report Options City Council Workshop August 17, 2004 Monthly Financial Report Options During committee hearings, Councuors requested that Finance begin distributing monthly financial statements to Council and Budget Committee members. Tonight"s objective review format select the reports. yA S H'. .w`R x ON pp 000 888~h °0,8 88 C° aNQ~n~N"~@~e hoo-~vn aQ N ooo~N o0o non a $ n°'~~, {nN{nP,ofnw=mr~sn~ - = en m ° p N A-an MM eq b ntn p a q aQ p~} QpQ pp p f, 6r ~h41T 1~' b00 gM~°M~Ynl wminSV{1Q'1 000 oo0ci 88~ 08$ .t 4`. AmR°p°nl~plnlp~h°!„p~~~w~cd~ do0 po oop oop m a wm~MryMrBnv=wa00av~88~ 88$ 888v°°jh 88~ 880 NP'A10 r i OM wNr~naad0~ 000 OOONN 000 nOn 'De a :a a a g88g888888$888888880 88g 88880 880 880 ''??0~~0~ 0000000OOOOCOOOb000 Co 0000 00 00 .3y 4-4 _e 888ssss88ss88888888° 88$ 8888< 88$ 88N n ca 1-CO l.: W Y bN O~n r4 ON ~O84- 00 mospow B p '!~1lbx nip OV~{O ITV aG aD Y:N 't q 1%0 en'1 ''41 NN p 1~ O na A Nb~~n~nOv101Mh ~m♦ Oh NK N b~N p~'pN r r n ~°~'1wMr-Abro Nn71`~ N no NN 7 . b ~ O Z u m ~ gg }e a LU IMIll vaa~ .7J as 0 v ~ep-vn~ebv~~8$~g~ vbiQ~p- ~ p, geg~$ g$ n25 yy NN `tiAsg N6 8a~4 ~m ~a 0Ro pbd C6 3 g$$8$$$$$$$$$$$$ 096 N n-- NNNN NN NNN 888 R8.6$ae$$: 8.=$$$ = $$$$$x:888 ~ I &ow°a$po~8S8881 a 88888SS888 $ 606 " 8,P$~38.C~$n$$$$~8$888 ~ 888$88¢3888$ . C q 4 a ~ ~ nn N 1~~~+n~~~~• ~ a +ri Pnn LL i 0 $$8$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ $$$8.8$$$$$ ~t r 0000000 o00000000000 0 Coco 06000 E a $P8:3$n8n$n36"8pR888 ? 8$88883$88 O~Og~o d^~^w~Orn1,q na7n $ $„$„°n~q8$^ y,~. Iv n ~ z yJ~i 5 $a87,&$~$Ki~=P$$R8$$ q $8$$$$s88$ p o»oo+o nn ero~ooo n odoovn~ddo LU ® i C $s$~&$[$vn~~ngry8r°.,8$$ 8$88$$x$$$ R qqPOggj~j ~oFdod r odooog"Coo m rl n '4 O A n "P. 9 t 7 d$o88$$888$$$$$$8$$ 8 S E 'Big 5+ IlgTsm.7~ N LAJ W 0 S ° dQ m m 8$88,888888=8888n+,8°-ha",8~a$8888N88o$ d o000000000~0ooooovgnda~wooo~ndo-o - vry a Q ~ a 88Qg88888888r8888o88,888~8"ss•,88$~g°-g8088 ~fao., ad' nv~-Nrv•• w ~tf ~ N a r o m a r 0 ~_v RIM my o -N L ~ n ~ N Q • ii~~,: VIP Y 8$88g'a8ry888Ncop°o8 $888$88888n8$$8a dddododdoo~oooa~d~geodq~ooo8ado~d r i AWMENd 8888888888v"8cg88s88g88"o8?8o$ra{ag'oo,8 's Dg doooodooooroooonded~oranooo~~onogo oa Y y AM %k Y 884Q88888888888888888888888888$8888 $ZS~o v°~°Ong °pog$~ g r:c; gO°*o Ing; $ N- YN N f'1 - T N 9 161 Dpi ~ av+o s~ D C CI a z°8 ~tw 16 b Y a u w q Q a LAM ~H~ q~F ~ ~ q ~ ~~3~~•~-~0.~p, y S ~ ~V ~ ono' CC d v a ~ N w~~sggg$ gp Yg[p~$ m 7a~o~SU a p 0 uBw u~i mn9~V~t~Ua C6 a a~ ~ a o00o Oo O a e•t NN ne'I N1 nnnnA of vi nuf v~h E - 888888888 ea 888888 a ~~pOm JJUaiBuaNN~puA W~,11H UU WOW OSO Npoc" N.NW0 yN~,1 too. VSOOODOO OSUOUOMSMS4 08 p~ A 00~0'Ant~~4 N ®~Oaq mm f~'WR Cb'~~~f~O~Op Ruz a P~ m Y f1'n . p T ~i Y a C rp ~ ~ Gd d qSl Q L C C 7 0 000000000000000000000OOOOOOOaoo9000 8 8$$8$$$888$$$$8$$$$$$$$8$$$$$$80888 N ~l 4tpp k N q 1S J`AO tOnJ u PQ Wp N ~p wJ W N m CD a {jNN~mN.~l P JJPNa~ Q~ C N J Dpooopopapop~++Nppeomooooo-ANomynoo~'~poeo~oo O 08SCO~OSASaOSVSSSSS WB N$~O$S8$8V048,0 ~L jtJ N A 1 ~ H N U pp ~i3lH'~~~ iV P W W W m ~ y ~O m P_ A 000000 04? I A4# a oooo~Q ppp .z, NO Jf N S8SS4N8SNSP J:lSSS88SNSSS^$$$$$ODBm$m ;;NNW WJ W C _ PaN AN, pN A p y$ qp p ppN p,A,aOpNJUN~O0 Roe 00p0y0y,~~~~pp NppSu00N pap0~00od NpQB d 0 Op0 p0 W 8pOOvbOONOOW8JOv80SAJN8~OSSS~08 Ewe N'A Revenue vs. Expenses by Akccount Type General Ledger Revenue vs. Expenses by Account Type CITY OF TIOARD User. roger Printed: 0810912004 - 11:45 Period 1, 2005 Pull Year Budget 1112 Aae r Deseriptioa Budget Period Amount YTD Amount VTD Variance Budg Antt % Budg Expended 100 GENERAL FUND RI?VEN[I8 t6,217,510.00 182,7A1.37 182,241.37 16,035368.63 1,351.459.17 1.12 intern°cs 106,629.58 106,62258 2,038.684.42 178,776.17 4.97 Inter}itod'IYancfer Revenue 2,145,314.00 18,362,824.00 288,870.95 288,870.95 18,073,953.05 1,S30,235.33 1.57 RGVENUH Totala: EXPENSES 100-1110 Police Administration 296.921.00 19.617.52 59,617.52 267,303.48 23,910.08 6.84 Personal ~OQ1 44,294.00 152.16 152.16 44,141.84 3,691.17 034 Ca tal g8ervioea 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0-00 0.00 Capital Outlay 1004110Totals: 331315.00 19,769.68 19,769.68 311,445.32 27,601.25 5.97 100-1120 Police Operations Personal Services 4,033,831.00 269,921.80 269,921.80 3,763,909.20 336,152.58 6.6 Materials & Scrvicea 421,390.00 6,020.33 6,020.33 415,369167 35,115.63 1.43 73,000.00 0.00 0.00 73.000.00 6,083.33 0.00 Capital Outlay 100-1120Totslc. 4,528.221.00 275,942.13 275,942-13 4,252,278.87 377,351.75 6.09 100-1130 Police Support Service P..Kw services 2,122,24 127,119.18 1,995,126.82 176,853.83 5-99 6.00 127,119.18 Materials & smites 869,905.00 102,081.67 ]02,081.67 767,623.33 72,492.08 11.73 o.pp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Capital Outlay - ; -100.1130 Totals: 2.992,15 f.00 229,200.85 229.200.85 2,762,950.15 249,345.92 7.66 •rF Page 1 GL - Revenue ws Expenses (08109/2004 -.11:45) sT r _ 1 'A E l og coq ~^8888g 3 88 888p 3 "8«"pp, 8888y~y n 88 NqP aa$~5~~ r~i 88 OP.OP 00.00 SSOSPO. A .k a LL v:CRC! ~8888~ 88 888 g n°o,n 8888a~ s Sg ~s r~i = m M hod 4d~viri 'l! g$d^ .pO.p Q8o$^8 " dd. ~~s.+z~t., e M v ° 300 n e $ $ 22SS 2S h .•i of vi n and gypp' nr bPP b P P b N N Nb N.~~1 b k~_f.;(; L~i;: op P 0~ Q r N nb 00 1 AMIN, hmN "'N 8888°° 88 888 g e88 8888h~ o ryPryO yNy 'COOC8yp 00 CCO O NON OCCONN 8 00 N•0 nW prat O•f M 1IVV M N N lib W ky(' pp N N R %~^N rr NN ~ V N N mm N ~ Y,..~.12...~ v r ■ 4 Q i p ppp p p F~.~ ~n'1~0„i a.SSSSe'1 80, $SS 8 ~COV S$SCVm1N O SS 6-`~ nor dcdOr~ cic ~ PC pb OCC8yp ~ 00 000 O N ~y NN N `NO p9rp0 O n pO O •N+ •N^ v N ~O b An %k .p.~[V ~p ,O^ v G O mm r i • n p8 p 8888888 p p p~ 88 8x8 88 8$8 8 8~,8$ O8Q O8O 88 rO.~ 88 hn0ry0 f~0 N 01~ p OI'SN l'1 N 0 m 0o OCP~, O a!-' fN 6 00 rib QOr tip ymjbN h .~rv P P r' N N Nb 00n B ® K ~ rr;N rh1V w ~ N of rn e~'~ry v bf`fm rfN n~ v 9 u g a n a A p.. t C. N N U~ - 8 8 is yt~ isyp ssl3j jjs 8n ~nh,3~g h AOOt• hg; j33~ ~ ' o~i~od* M4 m ri~~ro nd a ~i O RP b Fl►:~~OOP m0 POOOmO Oh 3d ~ m~mommw~n ~ P r~~aa~N~wg C an qp n n 9y C N > M vvva. w' h~ a N 0 •LL;C 1i F~~M v SOP qq-p Qqp p p 4 Oi'.' qn or p h ~0g'{o~Mlg ~iFNNONMM I gff a~ ft ok !~7 w m id I~PIL i$ R 0: M P $ adaiiw a a w w 0 1" at eIONNrNMNh 4=j CL 90 r Rq, PL h O tlwVall * hN00 ma a ry or r WW U W r , c~ 7 r pLL W ~ff LU s Og p Q r 0 5 N C o to m r ra E 1 a e Y~m m tiw e o 1~ s efi 4, ® Q.OLLLLLL_ O ~ o~a~Nh QaaG1NNiLa3r ;m3~3~ 033i333~ ai3~ 3z3 w z x a d aide m o oa a o ro d 0 +;ra Cp q O Ca op Oo ~ , ~ a ScalQ01. NNNm °N W NWN08N~ ry j b nn1n0 D A a~ g~ as c ry~ ~ N N N lo,ga'n ~ 'f As" 2 Eat HUSH, S N°O ORSo3o kNNn • q . ~ ~ II''N11 ~ q ~j tK. ~~J M NNN ~ 'N n N „po qq pp pp p~pq N Nn ~ m so '►n'fONN tlNMMNNMn On1 °q°n USCLN 9 w p P't ttl~d' 0 ° N ' so td ®A ~ ~ nN x c~ t®a~ P ~ e~ q On Mwl OR~ O ® /'9 N a ~ N» M p 7 b i r ~aa Aq %k ita 0 ¢ e al 0 ° 9 I ~I age p 3 ~ w s ci0i u~~ QfzBa~ir ~oH~r U i Oul 111 1 lary of Repofts Expenditure By Fund,, By Division * Expenses vs. Budget Division, By Individual Account - s * Revenue Analysis - By n s Revenue r * Revenue vs. Expenses Summary - By u (Total Revenue, Total Expense) * Revenue ® Account Expenses by - Total Revenue By Fund,, Expense b Type * Revenue ® Expenditure - Total Revenue n Expense Types Including Contingencies n Transfers Actual * Budget to n s Program,, Current Revenue by cats orys an u Balances 1 Monthly Financial Options will be available for Reports distribution tenth of each montn TM. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF August 17, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Cit ide Sewer Extension Pro am Update PREPARED BY:_ Agustin P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK: Agustin P. Duenas CITY MGR OK: Bill an ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Informational briefing on the status of the Citywide Sewer Extension Program. No official Council action is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION This is a status update on a program established by Council. Staff welcomes any questions from Council regarding the progress of the program. INFORMATION SUMMARY On June 12, 2001, City Council established the Citywide Sewer Extension Program to extend sewer service to all developed but unserved lots in the City. The projects were divided into manageable segments and were tentatively scheduled for design and construction over a 5-year period beginning with Fiscal Year 2002-03. At the beginning of the program, 677 residential lots were identified as needing sewer service. By the end of FY 2003-04, 195 sewer laterals have been installed and are now available for connection. The program is now early in its third year. Attached is a summary update providing a status of the program. Attached to that update is Table 1 (Program Status Report), which provides the schedule for installing the remaining 482 sewer services. The projects shown in Table 1 will be completed through the City's annual Capital Improvement Program. The actual projects for FY 2004-05 have already been included in this fiscal year's CIP. The projects for the next two fiscal years will be selected through the CIP formulation process. The priority of the projects may change in the upcoming fiscal years depending upon proposed street projects and potential difficulties involved in acquiring easements for extension of the sewer lines. The program completion may extend beyond the next three fiscal years, depending upon the ease of forming these anticipated districts. However, every attempt will be made to program and construct the projects shown during the next three years. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A Nola ATTACHMENT LIST Citywide Sewer Extension Program Update with Attachments Attachments: Table 1(Program Status Report) Resolution No. 01-46 Resolution No. 03-55 Communication Plan FISCAL NOTES Funding for sanitary sewer projects in the Citywide Sewer Extension Program are funded through the Sanitary Sewer Fund in the City's annual Capital Improvement Program. is r4gakandl agenda suamades\9.17-04 dlyWde sewer eztomilm program update als.dec Citywide Sewer Extension Program Update August 17, 2004 Background The Citywide Sewer Extension Program is a Council-directed program to systematically extend sewer service throughout the City. The mechanism to extend the sewer lines and provide service is through the formation of reimbursement districts. Reimbursement districts are formed to install public sewers to the lots within the districts and the owners would reimburse the City for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer at the time of connection. On June 12, 2001, Council established a 5-year program to systematically extend sewers Citywide in accordance with a sewer master plan developed for that purpose. The intention was to extend sewer service throughout the City so that as aging septic systems failed, sewers would be available for the owners to connect to without delay and at the least possible expense. At the beginning of the program, there were 677 residential lots throughout the City, plus about 80 commercial lots in the Tigard Triangle Area, identified as being without sewer service. These lots were typically on septic systems 30 years old or more. Failed septic systems create health hazards to the community. It is extremely difficult to react to failed septic systems that occur at random. The Citywide Sewer Extension Program was established to extend sewers to all unsewered residential areas such that City sewer would be available as these systems fail. Incentive Programs Some of the unserved areas in the City are difficult to serve. Existing basements require the sewer lines to be placed relatively deep. At those depths, soil is sometimes unsuitable and requires importation of suitable fill. Proper shoring of the deep trenches is always a challenge. The costs to extend the sewer lines can rapidly increase because of those circumstances. This often results in widely varying individual costs to the home owners. The average cost per owner in sewer extensions at reasonable depths (up to 10 feet) in relative stable soils is approximately $6,000. In an attempt to equalize the cost of extending sewer to residents Citywide, and to encourage early connections, City Council established incentive programs to reduce the reimbursement fee for those who choose to take advantage of the programs. Resolution No. 01-46 (attached) reduces each owner's fair share to $6,000, to the extent that it does not exceed $15,000, for connections completed within three years of City Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report. Sewer becomes available to residents following Council approval of that report. In addition to paying for the first $6,000, owners will remain responsible for paying all actual costs that exceed $15,000. The City therefore provides a subsidy of up to $9,000 to encourage early hookup. Resolution No. 03-55 (attached) allows those home owners with costs that exceed $15,000 to (upon request) defer those amounts that exceed $15,000 until the lot is partitioned or otherwise developed. This would allow home owners on septic systems that merely wish to connect an existing house, or a home owner that wishes to build a house on an existing lot, to connect to sewer at the same cost as anyone else ($6,000 if done within the first 3 years). Citywide Sewer Extension Program Update Page 1 of 3 The Current Program Under the current program, the City forms reimbursement districts to construct the sewer improvements. At the time the property owner connects to the sewer, the owner would reimburse the City for a fair share of the total project cost. The amount an owner reimburses the City to connect to the sewer includes the actual amount the contactor is paid to construct the project plus 13.5% for engineering and administrative costs. For those owners that connect within the first three years after sewer becomes available, the City offers the incentive program that caps the owner's share at $6,000 for the fair share that falls between $6,000 and $15, 000. The owner would pay for any costs that exceed $15,000. This, in effect, is a maximum $9,000 subsidy from the City. Costs that exceed $15,000 for any particular lot typically indicate that the lot is large in size and is capable of being subdivided into two or more lots upon development. In addition to the fair share of the project cost, each owner would be required to pay a connection fee of $2,535 before connecting to the line and would be responsible for disconnecting the existing septic system according to County rules and for any other plumbing modifications necessary to connect to the public line. Because the costs for plumbing modifications and closure of the existing septic systems vary widely for each lot and structure, each owner would need to consult a plumbing contractor to provide an estimate for what that cost would be. The costs involved are therefore: • Fair Share of the Project Cost (Each lot's share of the actual cost of the project plus 13.5% for engineering and administrative costs) • Connection Fee (currently $2,535.00) • Plumbing modifications to connect to the sewer lateral provided (Owner's Responsibility-Costs vary dependent upon situation)) • Closure of the existing septic system (Owner's Responsibility-Costs vary dependent upon situation) There is no requirement to connect to the sewer or to pay any fees until the owner chooses to connect to the sewer. Property owners that connect to the sewer fifteen (15) years or more after the district is formed do not have to pay the reimbursement fee. The connection charges at the time of connection would apply. For those that do not choose to connect during the first three years after the sewer is made available, the reimbursement fee would be the full share of the project cost plus an annual increase as established by the City's Finance Director. The current rate (simple interest) is 6.05%. Public Information Process General Meeting: City staff conducted a general meeting on March 18, 2004 to describe the Citywide Sewer Extension program to property owners in proposed districts. Citywide Sewer Extension Program Update ` Page 2 of 3 Project Specific Meetings: Meetings to discuss project details with homeowners in specific districts will be held prior to project implementation. These meetings would allow homeowners to ask detailed questions regarding the project and provide one more opportunity for input into the process prior to actual construction of the project. Some of the smaller districts may be combined in scheduling these meetings. Other Communications: Notices will be sent to each homeowner in a district providing information on the project and on the program in general. Brochures specific to each project will also be prepared and distributed to supplement the notices. Progress Report Table 1(attached) provides a program status report. The 5-year program is expected to be substantially completed by the end of Fiscal Year 2006-07. Most of the unserved areas will be sewered by the conclusion of the program. It may be impractical to extend sewers to some of the areas currently included in the program. Potential problems include environmental constraints, difficult topography, and existing obstructions (existing homes, etc.). These difficult projects will be identified as the detailed design work is performed. Those projects that may not be feasible because of various reasons will be reported to Council for discussion and direction when sufficient information is acquired to conduct these discussions. Once the program is concluded, any remaining lots would be served based on interest shown by the residents and would be dependent upon availability of funding at that time. Attachments: Table 1 (Program Status Report) Resolution No. 01-46 Resolution No. 03-55 1.1enQyiskltywiderower ezterdon proRamldrywidesewer extension program epdata 8-17.04.doc Citywide Sewer Extension Program Update Page 3 of 3 Table 1 Program Status Report Citywide Sewer Extension Program AREA LOTS Status Easement Required Previous Districts Since Program Initiation 195 Completed FY-2004-2005 OMARA, EDGEWOOD 45 In Design Yes 121ST AVENUE 70 Established 7-13.04 100TH, MURDOCK, SATTLER 74 Under construction 117TH AVE 3 Planned WALNUT - PHASE 3 3 Planned SUBTOTAL 195 FY-2005-2006 100TH AVE 21 Planned Yes CHERRY STREET (ROCK) 25 Yes 97TH AVE / 100TH AVE 21 Yes HILLVIEW STREET 6 Yes 112TH /WALNUT 34 WALNUT ST. FERN STREET 7 ASH AVENUE 11 93RD AVENUE 33 Yes SUBTOTAL 158 FY-2006-2007 FAIRHAVEN STREET 19 Yes HOODVIEW DR `(ROCK) 27 VARNS STREET '(ROCK) 27 Yes ANN STREET 6 87TH AVE 6 Yes 110TH AVE 3 Yes 115TH AVE 3 MCDONALD ST. SWR (Finish) 0 Yes ALBERTA/JAMES/MARION ST 29 Yes FONNER 9 Yes SUBTOTAL 129 TOTAL REMAINING: 482 • Projects where City may pay to extend the lines to the area to be served. 1.W#g9&*ftnwnxp d$*&;t*W= summary sup Oa.CbC CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 01- , / 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 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 Neighborhood 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. This incentive program shall apply to sewer connections provided through the sewer reimbursement districts shown on the attached Table 1 or established thereafter. All connections qualifying under this program must be completed within three years after Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report following a 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. 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-~ Page t 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 tp 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 1(2 - day of 2001. i ayor +Ciof 'and ATTEST: Recorder - City of ' and r:lCirywi&~Re T=oludcn Revising the NeighboftW Sewer hec=6ve Progrun . I I i I i RESOLUTION NO.01-Y(J Page 2 TABLE 1 Reimbursement Districts With Refunds Available DISTRICT FEE PER LOT REIMBURSEMENT AVAILABLE INCENTIVE PERIOD ENDS 'nGARD ST.No.8 5,193 No relmbursement evadable FAIRHAVEN STAVYNo.9 4,506 No reimbursement available HILLVIEW ST No.11 6,000 July 11, 2003 108 3 JOHNSON No.12 5,598 No reimbursement available 100M 31NEZ No.13 8.000 July 11,2003 WALNUT & 71EDEMAN No.14 8,000 July 11,2003 BEVELANDSHERMOSA No.15 5,036 No rehnbursement avaiable DELMONTENo.16 8,000 July 11,2003 O'MARANo.17 8,000 July 11,2003 WALNUT A 121' No.Ia - Amount to bo roimburood w0l ba Tfvoo yearo from cervlco 2vafablliy -ROSE VISTA No20 determined once final costs are determined. Currently being construcled CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO.03- A RESOLUTION PROVIDING ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAM (RESOLUTION NO.01- 46). 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 July 10, 2001, the City Council established the Revised and Enhanced Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program through Resolution No. 01-46 to encourage owners to connect to public sewer within three-years following construction of sewers; and WHEREAS, Council has directed that additional incentives should be made available to encourage owners of large lots to promptly connect to sewers once service is available. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: In addition to the incentives provided by Resolution No. 0146, any person whose reimbursement fee exceeds $15,000 and wishes to connect a single family home or duplex to a sewer constructed through a reimbursement district may defer payment of the portion of the reimbursement fee that exceeds $15,000, as required by Section 3 of Resolution No. 0146, until the lot is partitioned or otherwise developed in accordance with a land use permit. The land use permit shall not be issued until payment of the deferred amount is made. The Annual Fee Adjustment required by TMC Section 13.09.115 shall not apply to payment of this deferred amount. SECTION 2: Lots that qualify under Section 1, within reimbursement districts that have exceeded the three-year period for connection, and have not connected to sewer can connect the existing structure, pay a reimbursement fee of $6,000, and defer payment of the portion of the reimbursement fee that exceeds $15,000 if connection to the sewer is completed within one year after the effective date of this resolution. SECTION 3: Vacant lots improved with a single family home or duplex during-the term of the reimbursement district shall qualify for the provisions of Resolution No. 01-46, pay $6,000 if the fee exceeds that amount, and may defer payment of the portion of the reimbursement fee that exceeds $15,000 as provided by Section 1. SECTION 4: Vacant lots that are partitioned, subdivided, or otherwise developed during the life of the reimbursement district shall qualify for the provisions of Resolution No. 01-46, shall pay a reimbursement fee of $6,000, and shall pay any amount due over $15,000 at the time of development. The Annual Fee Adjustment required by TMC Section 13.09.115 shall not apply to payments made under this section. SECTION 5: The owner of any lot for which deferred payment is requested must enter into an agreement with the City, on a form prepared by the City Engineer, acknowledging the RESOLUTION NO.03- 5!5 Page 1 owner's and owner's successors obligation to pay the deferred amount as described in Section 1. The City Recorder shall cause the agreement to be filed in the office of the County Recorder to provide notice to potential purchasers of the lot. The recording will not create a lien. Failure to make such a recording shall not affect the obligation to pay the deferred amount. SECTION 6: Any person who qualifies under Section 1 and has paid a reimbursement fee for the portion of the reimbursement fee in excess of $15,000 is entitled to reimbursement for that amount from the City upon request. 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. Any person requesting a refund must sign an agreement similar to that described in Section 5 acknowledging the obligation to pay the refunded amount upon partitioning or developing the lot. SECTION 7: The Sanitary Sewer Fund continues to remain the funding source for the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Program and shall provide the funding for the installation costs over $6,000 up to a maximum of $15,000 per connection and for any deferred payment permitted by this resolution. SECTION 8: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. /L rA- PASSED: This / " 7 day of D,,+Dbzr 2003. Craig E. Dirksen, Council President ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard L%&VWVp-O~dWA=Vwy},I m M 0144 &V MOW 74 W aov, A10444M 3"dw m m 1.0 -ox RESOLUTION NO.03- Page 2 Communication Plan Sanitary Sewer Extension Program Goat: Construction of Sanitary Sewer Extension Projects through Reimbursement Districts. Timeline: FY 04-05 Communication Goal: To communicate to property owners within proposed sanitary sewer reimbursement districts the general features of reimbursement district and the project schedule. Date Item Description Responsibility Jan. 31,'05 Project Descriptions Provide maps, schedule, estimate to CIP Division Project Engineer Manager Feb. 4'05 Web Page Provide project descriptions to Sr. Admin. Project Engineer Spec. Feb. 4, "05 Community Connectors Submit to Asst. City Manager Project Engineer Feb. 4'05* Cityscape Article Edit and submit Project Engineer Feb. 13, '05 Web Page Submit to Web Team Sr. Admin. Spec. March 1, '05 FOT Submit to presenter Project Engineer March 1, '05 Press Release Issue Project Engineer Lot Numbers and Mailing CIP Division March 21, '05 List Provide to Sr. Admin. Spec. Manager Engineering Tech March 21, '05 Notice of Neighborhood Provide to Sr. Admin. Spec. Project Engineer Meeting Mail Notice of Notice of the meeting is mailed to each March 28, '05 Nei hborhood Meeting owner within the proposed districts. Sr. Admin. Spec. Inform owners within proposed districts of the general features of reimbursement CIP Division April 14, '05 Neighborhood Meeting districts and the project schedule. Receive Manager Project and record comments. Town Hall 6:30 PM Engineer Project Formation of Districts Preparation of notice and support Project Engineer Dependent documents Mail Notices and Submit notices and documents. Mail all Project Engineer Documents notices and documents. Sr. Admin. Spec. " Finalize Districts Preparation of notices with final cost Project Engineer information. µ Mail Notices and Final Submit for mailing. Mail notices and final Project Engineer Cost Information. cost information. Sr. Admin. Spec. * Based on 03-04 Schedule Prepared by: Greg Berry Approved by: 04~z~ P. 1:WngV"WimWWMgrA cost Wnas kedon plan • rolmhummem dWAdidoe wide Sewer Extension ram Update August 17, 2004 i_l; wide Sewer Extension Program ❖ Established by Council in June 2001 ❖ Proposes to extend sewer to developed but unserved residential lots in the City ❖ Uses City-initiated reimbursement districts to construct these projects ❖ Programmed the construction over a 5-year period 2 i -`sons for the Program ❖ Septic systems last from 15 to 50 years ❖ Failed septic systems are difficult to address on a Citywide basis ❖ Most of the septic systems in these residential lots are 30 to 50 years old or older 3 4 4#, gram Status ❖ Entering the third year of the program e• 677 residential lots identified initially ❖ 195 sewer laterals have been installed to date ❖ Service to the remaining 482 lots are programmed for the next three years 4 . 2 k, ~~7y _a „t. gent Program ❖ Lot owners pay their fair share of the sewer extension costs ❖ incentive Program + Reduced to $6,000 to the extent that it does not exceed $15,000 if connection is made within three years after service becomes available + Amount over $15,000 can be deferred upon request until development occurs 5 gent Program e• Other lot owner costs • $2,535 connection and inspection fee, which funds treatment facility construction + $50 (average) service charge per two months for operation and maintenance of the entire system + All costs to connect to the lateral installed through a reimbursement district project 6 3 1 l1 t~ lic Information Process t , ❖ General Meeting - Conducted March 18, 2004 ❖ Project Specific Meetings - Set by project to discuss project details with lot owners ❖ Other communications • Notices • Project Specific Brochures • ~ 'ects for FY 2004-05 Project Lots Status O'Mara/Edgewood 45 In design 121St Avenue 70 In construction 100th, Murdock, Sattler 74 In construction 117th Avenue 3 Planned Walnut - Phase 3 3 Planned Subtotal 195 S 4 .1. 3J7'ects for FY 2005-06 Project Lots Status 100th Avenue 21 Planned Cherry Street 25 Planned 97th Ave/100th Ave 21 Planned Hillview Street 6 Planned 112d'/Walnut 34 Planned Fern Street 7 Planned Ash Avenue 11 Planned 93`d Avenue 33 Planned Subtotal 158 9 L'w sects for FY 2006-07 Project Lots Status Fairhaven Street 19 Planned Hoodview Drive 27 Planned Varns Street 27 Planned • Ann Street 6 Planned 87'b Avenue 6 Planned 1100' Avenue 3 Planned 1150, Avenue 3 Planned Alberta/James/Marion St. 29 Planned Fonner Street 9 Planned Subtotal 129 10 5 AGENDA ITEM # ' FOR AGENDA OF August 17, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Draft Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage Public Facility Plans PREPARED BY: Agustin P. Quenas~DEPT HEAD OK: Agustin P. Duenas CITY MGR OK: Bi~ o ahan ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Discussion of the Council goal for preparation of Public Facility Plans for streets, streetlights, sidewalks, sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities in general. Review and discussion of the draft Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage Public Facility Plans. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council provide direction to staff to proceed with the preparation of Public Facility Plans for specific public facilities, which would form the basis for future preparation of a Public Facility Plan that would support an updated Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 11. Staff further recommends that Council provide direction on the public process for adoption of the plans developed for those speck components. INFORMATION SUMMARY Several years ago, one of the Council goals was to prepare public facility plans for streets, streetlights, sidewalks, sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities. A Public Facility Plan is a formal document described in the Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 11 as a required element of the City's land use planning program. The primary purpose of a Public Facility Plan as defined in that OAR is to ensure that adequate public facilities are provided within a jurisdiction. It is a support document to a City's comprehensive plan. A Facility Plan as described in the OAR includes all public facilities (water, sewer and transportation) that are required to support the land uses designated in the comprehensive plan within an urban growth boundary and is submitted to the Land Conservation and Development Department for approval. Because the Council goal only specified certain public facilities, staff proposes to develop public facility plans that are not necessarily tied to the land use requirements but would be usable for anyone that needs to know essential information about each public facility covered. The draft plans for sanitary sewer and storm drainage are prepared with that in mind and are provided for Council review and discussion. Each includes a section on maintenance, which is not typically part of a public facility plan as defined by the OAR. These plans developed for specific elements could form the basis for future preparation of a Public Facility Plan as part of the land use planning process and which covers all the public facilities (including water) in one comprehensive document. Council direction is needed to determine how staff should proceed to comply with the Council goal. Two possible options are presented as follows: Option 1: Staff proceeds with preparation of Public Facility Plans for specific components that would provide complete information on each public facility covered, including a maintenance element for each component. These plans would form the basis for preparation of a future Public Facility Plan that complies with the land use planning requirements. The adoption process should include, at a minimum, public review and comment, Planning Commission review and comment, followed by review, comment, and adoption by Council. Option 2: Council decides that a Public Facility Plan in accordance with the OAR should be developed. Staff would not proceed any further with the specific components identified in the Council goal. The Public Facility Plan should be prepared as part of the comprehensive planning process and should be programmed to follow the Comprehensive Plan update, which is expected to be initiated in 2005. It should be one comprehensive document that includes all the elements required by OAR Chapter 660 Division 11 (including water), and should be submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development Department for review and approval. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 11 (Public Facilities Planning) Draft Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan Draft Storm Drainage Facility Plan FISCAL NOTES There are no funds allocated for preparation of Public Facility Plans. All work would be completed with inhouse staff. OAn"A% m cH agenda s =das%-17-04 drallsadtary a r and etorm dralmpa pubic latlly plum als.doc Dept. of Land Conservation and Development-660-011 http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/ruies/OARS-600/OAR-660/660-01 Lhtml OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE "WE ® Oregon State Archives 5EAAtH SEAraCTUS legislative records mgmt genealogy governors holdings state agency local govt webexhibits tour _ The Oregon Administrative Rules contain OARS filed through June 15, 2004 LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIVISION 11 PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANNING 660-011-0000 Purpose The purpose of this division is to aid in achieving the requirements of Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, OAR 660-015-0000(11), interpret Goal 11 requirements regarding public facilities and services on rural lands, and implement ORS 197.712(2)(e), which requires that a city or county shall develop and adopt a public facility plan for areas within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500 persons. The purpose of the plan is to help assure that urban development in such urban growth boundaries is guided and supported by types and levels of urban facilities and services appropriate for the needs.and requirements of the urban areas to be serviced, and that those facilities and services are provided in a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement, as required by Goal 11. The division contains definitions relating to a public facility plan, procedures and standards for developing, adopting, and amending such a plan, the date for submittal of the plan to the Commission and standards for Department review of the plan. [ED. NOTE: The goal referred to or incorporated by reference in this rule is available from the agency.] Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & OAR 197 Slats. Implemented: ORS 197.712 Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & ef. 10-I8-84; LCDD 4-1998, f. & cert. cf. 7-28-98 660-011-0005 Definitions (1) "Public Facilities Plan": A public facility plan is a support document or documents to a comprehensive plan. The facility plan describes the water, sewer and transportation facilities which are to support the land uses designated in the appropriate acknowledged comprehensive plans within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500. Certain elements of the public facility plan also shall be adopted as part of the comprehensive plan, as specified in OAR 660-11-045. (2) "Rough Cost Estimates": Rough cost estimates are approximate costs expressed in current-year (year closest to the period of public facility plan development) dollars. It is not intended that project cost estimates be as exact as is required for budgeting purposes. (3) "Short Term": The short term is the period from year one through year five of the facility plan. (4) "Long Term": The long term is the period from year six through the remainder of the planning period. (5) "Public Facility": A public facility includes water, sewer, and transportation facilities, but does not include buildings, structures or equipment incidental to the direct operation of those facilities. (6) "Public Facility Project": A public facility project is the construction or reconstruction of a water, sewer, or transportation 1 of9 7/30/2004 9:31 AM Dept. of Land Conservation and Development-660-01 I http://areweb.sos.state.or.us/ruies/OARS-600/0AR-660/660-01 I.html facility within a public facility system that is funded or utilized by members of the general public. (7) "Public Facility Systems": Public facility systems are those facilities of a particular type that combine to provide water, sewer or transportation services. For purposes of this division, public facility systems are limited to the following: (a) Water: (A) Sources of water; (B) Treatment system; (C) Storage system; (D) Pumping system; (E) Primary distribution system. (b) Sanitary sewer: (A) Treatment facilities system; (B) Primary collection system. (c) Storm sewer: (A) Major drainageways (major trunk lines, streams, ditches, pump stations and retention basins); (B) Outfall locations. (d) Transportation: (A) Freeway system, if planned for in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; (B) Arterial system; (C) Significant collector system; (D) Bridge system (those on the Federal Bridge Inventory); (E) Mass transit facilities if planned for in the acknowledged comprehensive plan, including purchase of new buses if total fleet is less than 200 buses, rail lines or transit stations associated with providing transit service to major transportation corridors and park and ride station; (F) Airport facilities as identified in the current airport master plans; (G) Bicycle paths if planned for in the acknowledged comprehensive plan. (8) "Land Use Decisions": In accordance with ORS 197.712(2)(e), project timing and financing provisions of public facility plans shall not be considered land use decisions as specified under ORS 197.015(10). (9) "Urban Growth Management Agreement": In accordance with OAR 660-003-0010(2)(c), and urban growth management agreement is a written statement, agreement or set of agreements setting forth the means by which a plan for management of the unincorporated area within the urban growth boundary will be completed and by which the urban growth boundary may be modified (unless the same information is incorporated in other acknowledged documents). (10) Other Definitions: For the purposes of this division, the definitions in ORS 197.015 shall apply except as provided for in section (8) of this rule regarding the definition in ORS 197.015(10). Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197 Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712 Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & ef. 10,18-84 660-011-0010 7/30/2004 9:31 AM 2of9 Dept. of Land Conservation and Development-660-011 http://areweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_600/OAR_660/660_01 l.html The Public Facility Plan (1) The public facility plan shall contain the following items: (a) An inventory and general assessment of the condition of all the significant public facility systems which support the land uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; (b) A list of the significant public facility projects which are to support the land uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan. Public facility project descriptions or specifications of these projects as necessary; (c) Rough cost estimates of each public facility project; (d) A map or written description of each public facility project's general location or service area; (e) Policy statement(s) or urban growth management agreement identifying the provider of each public facility system. If there is more than one provider with the authority to provide the system within the area covered by the public facility plan, then the provider of each project shall be designated; (I) An estimate of when each facility project will be needed; and (g) A discussion of the provider's existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these and possible new mechanisms to fund the development of each public facility project or system. (2) Those public facilities to be addressed in the plan shall include, but need not be limited to those specified in OAR 660-011-0005(5). Facilities included in the public facility plan other than those included in OAR 660-011-0005(5) will not be reviewed for compliance with this rule. (3) It is not the purpose of this division to cause duplication of or to supplant existing applicable facility plans and programs. Where all or part of an acknowledged comprehensive plan, facility master plan either of the local jurisdiction or appropriate special district, capital improvement program, regional functional plan, similar plan or any combination of such plans meets all or some of the requirements of this division, those plans, or programs may be incorporated by reference into the public facility plan required by this division. Only those referenced portions of such documents shall be considered to be a part of the public facility plan and shall be subject to the administrative procedures of this division and ORS Chapter 197. Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197 Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712 Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & ef. 10-18-84 660-011-0015 Responsibility for Public Facility Plan Preparation (1) Responsibility for the preparation, adoption and amendment of the public facility plan shall be specified within the urban growth management agreement. If the urban growth management agreement does not make provision for this responsibility, the agreement shall be amended to do so prior to the preparation of the public facility plan. In the case where an unincorporated area exists within the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary which is not contained within the boundary of an approved urban planning area agreement with the County, the County shall be the responsible agency for preparation of the facility plan for that unincorporated area. The urban growth management agreement shall be submitted with the public facility plan as specified in OAR 660-011-0040. (2) The jurisdiction responsible for the preparation of the public facility plan shall provide for the coordination of such preparation with the city, county, special districts and, as necessary, state and federal agencies and private providers of public facilities. The Metropolitan Service District is responsible for public facility plans coordination within the District consistent with ORS 197.190 and 268.390. (3) Special districts, including port districts, shall assist in the development of the public facility plan for those facilities they provide. Special districts may object to that portion of the facilities plan adopted as part of the comprehensive plan during review by the Commission only if they have completed a special district agreement as specified under ORS 197.185 and 197.254(3) and (4) and participated in the development of such portion of the public facility plan. (4) Those state agencies providing funding for or making expenditures on public facility systems shall participate in the development of the public facility plan in accordance with their state agency coordination agreement under ORS 197.180 and 197.712(2)(0. 3 of 9 7/30/2004 9:31 AM Dept. of Land Conservation and Development-660-011 http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/ruies/0ARS-600/0AR-660/660-01 1 -html Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197 Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712 Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & cf. 10-18-84 660-011-0020 Public Facility Inventory and Determination of Future Facility Projects (1) The public facility plan shall include an inventory of significant public facility systems. Where the acknowledged comprehensive plan, background document or one or more of the plans or programs listed in OAR 660-011-0010(3) contains such an inventory, that inventory may be incorporated by reference. The inventory shalt include: (a) Mapped location of the facility or service area; (b) Facility capacity or size; and (c) General assessment of condition of the facility (e.g., very good, good, fair, poor, very poor). (2) The public facility plan shall identify significant public facility projects which are to support the land uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan. The public facility plan shall list the title of the project and describe each public facility project in terms of the type of facility, service area, and facility capacity. (3) Project descriptions within the facility plan may require modifications based on subsequent environmental impact studies, design studies, facility master plans, capital improvement programs, or site availability. The public facility plan should anticipate these changes as specified in OAR 660-011-0045. Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197 Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712 Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & cf. 10-18-84 660-011:-0025 Timing of Required Public Facilities (1) The public facilities plan shall include a general estimate of the timing for the planned public facility projects. This timing component of the public facilities plan can be met in several ways depending on whether the project is anticipated in the short term or long term. The timing of projects may be related directly to population growth, e.g., the expansion or new construction of water treatment facilities. Other facility projects can be related to a measure of the facility's service level being met or exceeded, e.g., a major arterial or intersection reaching a maximum vehicle-per-day standard. Development of other projects may be more long term and tied neither to specific population levels nor measures of service levels, e.g., sewer projects to correct infiltration and inflow problems. These projects can take place over a long period of time and may be tied to the availability of long-term funding. The timing of projects may also be tied to specific years. (2) Given the different methods used to estimate the timing of public facilities, the public facility plan shall identify projects as occurring in either the short term or long term, based on those factors which are related to project development. For those projects designated for development in the short term, the public facility plan shall identify an approximate year for development. For those projects designated for development over the long term, the public facility plan shall provide a general estimate as to when the need for project development would exist, e.g., population level; service level standards, etc. Timing provisions for public facility projects shall be consistent with the acknowledged comprehensive plan's projected growth estimates. The public facility plan shall consider the relationships between facilities in providing for development. (3) Anticipated timing provisions for public facilities are not considered land use decisions as specified in ORS 197.712(2)(e), and, therefore, cannot be the basis of appeal under ORS 197.610(1) and (2) or 197.835(4). Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197 Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712 Mist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & cf. 10-18-84 4 of 9 7/30/2004 9:31 AM Dept. of Land Conservation and Development-660-011 http://areweb.sos.state.or.us/ruies/0ARS-600/OAR-660/660-01 l.html 660-011-0030 Location of Public Facility Projects (1) The public facility plan shall identify the general location of the public facility project in specificity appropriate for the facility. Locations of projects anticipated to be carried out in the short term can be specified more precisely than the locations of projects anticipated for development in the long term. (2) Anticipated locations for public facilities may require modifications based on subsequent environmental impact studies, design studies, facility master plans, capital improvement programs, or land availability. The public facility plan should anticipate those changes as specified in OAR 660-011-0045. Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197 Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712 Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & ef. 10-18-84 660-011-0035 Determination of Rough Cost Estimates for Public Facility Projects and Local Review of Funding Mechanisms for Public Facility Systems (1) The public facility plan shall include rough cost estimates for those sewer, water, and transportation public facility projects identified in the facility plan. The intent of these rough cost estimates is to: (a) Provide an estimate of the fiscal requirements to support the land use designations in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; and (b) For use by the facility provider in reviewing the provider's existing funding mechanisms (e.g., general funds, general obligation and revenue bonds, local improvement district, system development charges, etc.) and possible alternative funding mechanisms. In addition to including rough cost estimates for each project, the facility plan shall include a discussion of the provider's existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these and possible new mechanisms to fund the development of each public facility project or system. These funding mechanisms may also be described in terms of general guidelines or local policies. (2) Anticipated financing provisions are not considered land use decisions as specified in ORS 197.712(2)(e) and, therefore, cannot be the basis of appeal under ORS 197.610(1) and (2) or 197.835(4). Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197 Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712 Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & ef. 10-18-84 660-011-0040 Date of Submittal of Public Facility Plans The public facility plan shall be completed, adopted, and submitted by the time of the responsible jurisdiction's periodic review. The public facility plan shall be reviewed under OAR Chapter 660, Division 25, "Periodic Review" with the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and land use regulations. Portions of public facility plans adopted as part of comprehensive plans prior to the responsible jurisdiction's periodic review will be reviewed pursuant to OAF. Chapter 660, Division 18, "Post Acknowledgment Procedures". Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197 Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712 Hist.: LCDC 4-.1984, f. & ef. 10-18-84 660-011-0045 Adoption and Amendment Procedures for Public Facility Plans 7/30/2004 9:31 AM 5 0€9 Dept. of Land Conservation and Development-660-011 http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/ruies/0ARS-600/0AR-660/660-01 I.htmI (1) The governing body of the city or county responsible for development of the public facility plan shall adopt the plan as a supporting document to the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and shall also adopt as part of the comprehensive plan: (a) The list of public facility project titles, excluding (if the jurisdiction so chooses) the descriptions or specifications of those projects; (b) A map or written description of the public facility projects' locations or service areas as specified in sections (2) and (3) of this rule; and (c) The policy(ies) or urban growth management agreement designating the provider of each public facility system. If there is more than one provider with the authority to provide the system within the area covered by the public facility plan, then the provider of each project shall be designated. (2) Certain public facility project descriptions, location or service area designations will necessarily change as a result of subsequent design studies, capital improvement programs, environmental impact studies, and changes in potential sources of funding. It is not the intent of this division to: (a) Either prohibit projects not included in the public facility plans for which unanticipated funding has been obtained; (b) Preclude project specification and location decisions made according to the National Environmental Policy Act; or (c) Subject administrative and technical changes to the facility plan to ORS 197.610(1) and (2) or 197.835(4). (3) The public facility plan may allow for the following modifications to projects without amendment to the public facility plan: (a) Administrative changes are those modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing, capacity, or other general characteristic of the project; (b) Technical and environmental changes are those modifications to a public facility project which are made pursuant to "final engineering" on a project or those that result from the findings of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508)or any federal or State of Oregon agency project development regulations consistent with that Act and its regulations. (c) Public facility project changes made pursuant to subsection (3)(b) of this rule are subject to the administrative procedures and review and appeal provisions of the regulations controlling the study (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 or similar regulations) and are not subject to the administrative procedures or review or appeal provisions of ORS Chapter 197, or OAR Chapter 660 Division 18. (4) Land use amendments are those modifications or amendments to the list, location or provider of, public facility projects, which significantly impact a public facility project identified in the comprehensive plan and which do not qualify under subsection (3)(a) or (b) of this rule. Amendments made pursuant to this subsection are subject to the administrative procedures and review and appeal provisions accorded "land use decisions" in ORS Chapter 197 and those set forth in OAR Chapter 660 Division 18. Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197 Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712 Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & et 10-18-84 660-011-0050 Standards for Review by the Department The Department of Land Conservation and Development shall evaluate the following, as further defined in this division, when reviewing public facility plans submitted under this division: (1) Those items as specified in OAR 660-011-0010(1); (2) Whether the plan contains a copy of all agreements required under OAR 660-011-0010 and 660-011-0015; and (3) Whether the public facility plan is consistent with the acknowledged comprehensive plan. Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197 6 of 9 7/30/2004 9:31 AM Dept. of Land Conservation and Development 660_011 http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/0ARS_600/OAR_660/660_011.httnl Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712 Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & ef. 10-18-84 660-011-0060 Sewer Service to Rural Lands (1) As used in this rule, unless the context requires otherwise: (a) "Establishment of a sewer system" means the creation of a new sewage system, including systems provided by public or private entities; (b) "Extension of a Sewer System" shall have the same meaning as stated in Goal 11; (c) No practicable alternative to a sewer system" means a determination by DEQ or the Oregon Health Division, pursuant to criteria in OAR 340, Division 071, and other applicable rules and laws, that an existing public health hazard cannot be adequately abated by the repair or maintenance of existing sewer systems or on-site systems or by the installation of new on-site systems as defined in OAR 340-071-0100; (d) "Public health hazard" means a condition whereby it is probable that the public is exposed to disease-caused physical suffering or illness due to the presence of inadequately treated sewage; (e) "Sewage" means the water-carried human, animal, vegetable, or industrial waste from residences, buildings, industrial establishments or other places, together with such ground water infiltration and surface water as may be present; (f) "Sewer system" means a system that serves more than one lot or parcel, or more than one condominium unit or more than one unit within a planned unit development, and includes pipelines or conduits, pump stations, force mains, and all other structures, devices, appurtenances and facilities used for treating or disposing of sewage or for collecting or conducting sewage to an ultimate point for treatment and disposal. The following are not considered a "sewer system" for purposes of this rule: (A) A system provided solely for the collection, transfer and/or disposal of storm water runoff; (B) A system provided solely for the collection, transfer and/or disposal of animal waste from a farm use as defined in ORS 215.303. (2) Except as provided in sections (3) and (4) of this rule, and consistent with Goal 11, a local government shall not allow: (a) The establishment of new sewer systems outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries; (b) The extension of sewer lines from within urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries in order to serve uses on land outside those boundaries; (c) The extension of sewer systems that currently serve land outside urban growth boundaries and unincorporated community boundaries in order to serve uses that are outside such boundaries and are not served by the system on the date of this rule. (3) Components of a sewer system that serve lands inside an urban growth boundary (UGB) may be placed on lands outside the boundary provided that the conditions in subsections (a) and (b) of this section are met, as follows: (a) Such placement is necessary to: (A) Serve lands inside the UGB more efficiently by traversing lands outside the boundary; (B) Serve lands inside a nearby UGB or unincorporated community; (C) Connect to components of the sewer system lawfully located on rural lands, such as outfall or treatment facilities; or (D) Transport leachate from a landfill on rural land to a sewer system inside a UGB; and (b) The local government. (A) Adopts land use regulations to ensure the sewer system shall not serve land outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries, except as authorized under section (4) of this rule; and 7of9 7/30/2004 9:31 AM Dept. Qf Land Conservation and Development-660-01 I http://areweb,sos.state.or.us/ruies/OARS-600/0AR-660/660-01 l.htmi (B) Determines that the system satisfies ORS 215.296(1) or (2) to protect farm and forest practices, except for systems located in the subsurface of public roads and highways along the public right of way. (4) A local government may allow the establishment of a new sewer system, or the extension of an existing sewer system, to serve land outside urban growth boundaries and unincorporated community boundaries in order to mitigate a public health hazard, provided that the conditions in subsections (a) and (b) of this section are met, as follows: (a) The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) or the Oregon Health Division initially: (A) Determines that a public health hazard exists in the area; (B) Determines that the health hazard is caused by sewage from development that existed in the area on the date of this rule; (C) Describes the physical location of the identified sources of the sewage contributing to the health hazard; and (D) Determines that there is no practicable alternative to a sewer system in order to abate the public health hazard; and (b) The local government, in response to the determination in subsection (a) of this section, and based on recommendations by DEQ and the Oregon Health Division where appropriate: (A) Determines the type of sewer system and service to be provided, pursuant to section (5) of this rule; (B) Determines the boundaries of the sewer system service area, pursuant to section (6) of this rule; (C) Adopts land use regulations that ensure the sewer system is designed and constructed so that its capacity does not exceed the minimum necessary to serve the area within the boundaries described under paragraph (B) of this subsection, except for urban reserve areas as provided under OAR 660-021-0040(6); (D) Adopts land use regulations to prohibit the sewer system from serving any uses other than those existing or allowed in the identified service area on the date the sewer system is approved; (E) Adopts plan and zone amendments to ensure that only rural land uses are allowed on rural lands in the area to be served by the sewer system, consistent with Goal 14 and OAR 660-004-0018, unless a Goal 14 exception has been acknowledged; (F) Ensures that land use regulations do not authorize a higher density of residential development than would be authorized without the presence of the sewer system; and (G) Determines that the system satisfies ORS 215.296(1) or (2) to protect farm and forest practices, except for systems located in the subsurface of public roads and highways along the public right of way. (5) Where the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) determines that there is no practicable alternative to a sewer system, the local government, based on recommendations from DEQ, shall determine the most practicable sewer system to abate the health hazard considering the following: (a) The system must be sufficient to abate the public health hazard pursuant to DEQ requirements applicable to such systems; and (b) New or expanded sewer systems serving only the health hazard area shall be generally preferred over the extension of a sewer system from an urban growth boundary. However, if the health hazard area is within the service area of a sanitary authority or district, the sewer system operated by the authority or district, if available and sufficient, shall be preferred over other sewer system options. (6) The local government, based on recommendations from DEQ and, where appropriate, the Oregon Health Division, shall determine the area to be served by a sewer system necessary to abate a health hazard. The area shall include only the following: (a) Lots and parcels that contain the identified sources of the sewage contributing to the health hazard; (b) Lots and parcels that are surrounded by or abut the parcels described in subsection (a) of this section, provided the local government demonstrates that, due to soils, insufficient lot size, or other conditions, there is a reasonably clear probability that onsite systems installed to serve uses on such lots or parcels will fail and further contribute to the health hazard. (7) The local government or agency responsible for the determinations pursuant to sections (4) through (6) of this rule shall provide notice to all affected local governments and special districts regarding opportunities to participate in such determinations. 7/30/2004 9:31 AM 8 of 9 Dept, of Land Conservation and Development-660-011 http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/ruies/0ARS-600/OAR-660/660-01 Lhtml (8) Applicable provisions of this rule, rather than conflicting provisions of local acknowledged zoning ordinances, shall immediately apply to local land use decisions filed subsequent to the effective date of this rule. [ED. NOTE: The goals referred to or incorporated by reference in this rule are available from the agency.] Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197 Slats. Implemented: ORS 197.712 Hist.: LCDD 4-1998, f. & cert. ef. 7-28-98 660-011-0065 Water Service to Rural Lands (1) As used in this rule, unless the context requires otherwise: (a) "Establishment" means the creation of a new water system and all associated physical components, including systems provided by public or private entities; (b) "Extension of a water system" means the extension of a pipe, conduit, pipeline, main, or other physical component from or to an existing water system in order to provide service to a use that was not served by the system on the applicable date of this rule, regardless of whether the use is inside the service boundaries of the public or private service provider. (c) "Water system" shall have the same meaning as provided in Goal 11, and includes all pipe, conduit, pipeline, mains, or other physical components of such a system. (2) Consistent with Goal 11, local land use regulations applicable to lands that are outside urban growth boundaries and unincorporated community boundaries shall not: (a) Allow an increase in a base density in a residential zone due to the availability of service from a water system; (b) Allow a higher density for residential development served by a water system than would be authorized without such service; or (c) Allow an increase in the allowable density of residential development due to the presence, establishment, or extension of a water system. (3) Applicable provisions of this rule, rather than conflicting provisions of local acknowledged zoning ordinances, shall immediately apply to local land use decisions filed subsequent to the effective date of this rule. [ED. NOTE: The goal referred to or incorporated by reference in this rule is available from the agency.] Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197 Slats. Implemented: ORS 197.712 Hist.: LCDD 4-1998, f. & cert. ef. 7-28-98 The official copy of an Oregon Administrative Rule is contained in the Administrative Order filed at the Archives Division, 800 Summer St. NE, Salem, Oregon 97310. Any discrepancies with the published version are satisfied in favor of the Administrative Order. The Oregon Administrative Rules and the Oregon Bulletin are copyrighted by the Oregon Secretary of State. Terms and Conditions of Use Alphabetical Index by Agency Name Numerical Index by OAR Chapter Number Search the Text of the OARS uestions about Administrative Rules? Link to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Return to Oregon State Archives Home Page 9 of9 7/30/2004 9:31 AM SANITARY SEWER FACILITY PLAN City of Tigard Engineering Department August 2004 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this Plan is to guide the expansion of the existing sanitary sewer system to meet the City's existing and future needs and to ensure the City's ability to sustain a fully maintained sewer system that provides excellent sewer service now and upon full development. This will require accomplishing the following objectives: ■ Ensure that lines constructed for new developments can be readily extended to serve other areas within the basin as development occurs ■ Provide a guide for providing sewers to developed but unsewered areas within the study area ■ Identify portions of the future collection system that should be considered for a capital improvement project e Determine adequacy of each existing line to meet the demands from the area it serves when fully developed a Provide a maintenance plan to address the existing system, the additions to the system as growth and development occur, and the system once full development has been attained. 1.2 Background In 1970, Washington County and the Cities within the Tualatin River basin, including Tigard, entered into an agreement that established Unified Sewerage Agency (USA), recently renamed Clean Water Services (CWS), as the regional sewerage authority. The agreement provided that the Cities and County would enforce construction standards, rules and regulations, and rates and charges adopted by CWS governing the use of and connection to the sanitary sewerage system. In return, CWS agreed to provide and maintain sewer lines with a diameter of twenty-four inches or greater, as well as pump stations and treatment facilities. In addition, CWS assumed responsibility for the planning of wastewater collection in the Tualatin River basin. CWS's original Sanitary Sewer Master Plan was issued in 1969 and updated in 1985. In 1995, a Collection Systems Needs Analysis was prepared to create a computer model that was used establish a prioritized list of pipelines recommended for improvement. In 1998, a facility plan was prepared for the Durham Treatment Plant. Draft Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan- 2004 Page 2 of 10 CWS's current master plan for wastewater collection in the Tualatin River basin, including the City of Tigard, is the 2000 Sewer Master Plan. Update, This plan analyzed all sewers that are at least ten inches in diameter and eight-inch sewers with known capacity problems. In addition, trunk lines (fifteen-inch or greater diameters ieyuired to serve are.:s without service were identified. The County and the cities remain responsible for the planning of the remaining smaller lines. These smaller lines within the City are the subject of this Plan. Developed residential areas may be provided with sewers as shown on the Facility Plan Maps through the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program established by City Council in 1996. Under the program, the City of Tigard installs public sewers to properties within a project area designated as a Reimbursement District. At the time the property owner connects to the sewer, the owner would reimburse the City for a fair share of the total project cost. There is no requirement to connect to the sewer or pay any fee until connection is made. On June 12, 2001, City Council established the Citywide Sewer Extension Program to systematically extend sewer service to all developed but unserved residential lots in the City. At the beginning of the program, 677 residential lots were identified as needing sewer service. The projects were divided into manageable segments and were tentatively scheduled for design and construction over a 5-year period beginning with Fiscal Year 2002-03. By the end of FY 2003-04, 195 sewer laterals have been installed with the remaining 482 services scheduled for installation during the 3-year period from FY 2004- 05 through FY 2006-07. The projects listed in the 5-year program are expected to be completed by the end of FY 2006-07. Once the program is concluded, any remaining lots would be served based upon interest shown by the residents and would be dependent upon availability of funding at that time. To encourage owners to promptly connect to the sewer once it is available, City Council established the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program on October 13, 1998. The July 10, 2001 revisions to the program limit the amount any residential owner is required to pay for a share of the public sewer to $6,000 up to a maximum of $15,000 if the connection is completed within three years from when it was first available. On October 14, 2003, City Council approved additional incentives that allow owners to defer payment of the amount in excess of $15,000 until the lots are developed. Reimbursement districts for commercial areas may also be established through the Commercial Area Sewer Extension Program. Unlike the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program, the Incentive Program is not available and there is no schedule of projects. Projects are scheduled in accordance with the interest expressed by owners. Draft Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan- 2004 - Page 3 of 10 Partially developed residential and commercial areas will be provided with service as part of the privately constructed public improvements required for further development of the areas. 1.2 Summary of Findines e The Collection System Master Plan Update-1995 found that all-existing lines in the City of Tigard have adequate capacity to accommodate anticipated development. • Projects required to provide a properly operating system have been completed or scheduled. Currently, there are no lines in a condition that requires replacement or extensive repairs. However, the line serving the Lincoln and Commercial Street area appears to have excessive inflow that should be investigated and reduced. e The Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program is expected to provide service to all fully developed residential areas that remain without service. ® Privately constructed public sewers are expected to provide service to areas other than fully developed residential areas. These areas include developing residential and commercial areas. Construction will occur as required to accommodate development. ® Lines remaining to be constructed are of small diameter that will be operated and maintained by the City. No larger proposed lines provided by Clean Water Services are required. 2. EXISTING FACILITIES The condition of these City-maintained facilities has been evaluated over the past seven years by video inspection of the pipe interiors. The entire system has been inspected as a result of this routine program. Damaged or improperly-constructed facilities were repaired as encountered resulting in a system that is generally rated in good to fair condition. City staff has prepared an index map of existing facilities from as-constructed drawings. The map is continuously revised as as-constructed drawings are received. The locations of all sewer lines within the City are shown schematically on the included Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan Map. 3. SYSTEM EVALUATION 1 i e system was evaluated by first determining the adequacy of the capacity of existing lines to meet expected demands. Next, the sewer extensions necessary to serve areas currently unsewered were determined. 3.1 C;nn[tity of E3dsting Lines Draft Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan- 2004 _ Page 4 of 10 Lines within the City that are at least ten inches in diameter and smaller lines with su~pWted capacity defi:encies ::'ere evaluated by the model developed for the 2000 Master Plan Update. The lines identified as having possible capacity deficiencies are described in Appendix A. Using the criteria shown in TABLE 1, the remaining smaller lines were inspected to determine the adequacy of the lines to meet the expected demands from the served areas. Anticipated wastewater flows into the sewer are expressed in gallons per acre per day (gpad). The character of the various sources of flows shown are described in the Master Plan Update- 1995. Domestic flows are determined by using 70 gallons per capita per day as suggested by the Master Plan and 2.3 persons per housing unit as reported by the Portland State University Population Research and Census Center. The rate of inflow/infiltration is the rate expected of a system in good to fair condition without storm drainage connections. All of the smaller existing lines in the City have adequate capacity for expected development. Draft Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan- 2004 Page 5 of 10` TAB WASTEWATER SOURCES ZONING gad ZONING. Qpad R-1 161 Commercial 1,000 R-2 322 Industrial 3,000 R-3.5 564 Inflow/Infiltration 1,000 R-4.5 725 R-7 1,127 Residential Peaking factor: R-12 1932 18 + P'/z where P is population R-25 4025 4 + PI/2 in thousands R-40 6440 3.2 Required Extensions Sewer extensions required to serve fully developed residential areas that remain without service are 'shown on the Facility Plan Map. Sewer extensions required for the other areas that remain without service, will be privately constructed as development occurs. The Sewer Master Plan Update- 1995.found that none of these extension will require lines fifteen inches in diameter or larger. Consequently, all remaining sewer extensions will be planned and maintained by the City. 3.3 Recommended Capital Imurovement Projects Appendix A describes the lines identified in the 2000 Sewer Master Plan Update suspected of having inadequate capacity. Flow monitoring should be conducted on these lines to determine the extent of the inadequacy and to prepare a prioritized list of capacity improvements. Table 2 shows the estimated cost of the improvements currently required and required at buildout. Draft Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan- 2004 Page 6 of 10 TABLE 2 Estimated Cost ($1000) Project Current Buildout Total Bonita Trunk 73 496 569 Durham Dr Lateral 0 49 49 East Tigard Trunk 230 368 598 Elmwood Lateral 0 204 204 Hiteon Trunk 0 84 84 Leron/Tigard Trunk 591 0 591 Summerfield Trunk 0 7 7 Katherine Lateral 434 112 546 Total 1,328 1,320 2,648 Estimated costs nave been escalated to W 2 (ENR Index 6851) and include an additiona130% for en ' eerie , administration and contin en 4. MAINTENANCE The current agreement with CWS sets out the required scheduled maintenance programs and period each program must be completed for the entire system. These requirements are summarized in TABLE 3 TABLE 3 PROGRAM PERIOD Video' Inspection 7 Years Line Cleaning and Repair 3 Years Manhole Ins ection and Rehabilitation 3 Years The video inspection program identifies deficiencies that may be considered for correction through the Capital Improvement Program. Currently, all proposed projects are included in the Capital Improvement Program. Draft Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan- 2004 Page 7 of 10 5. RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Determine the sources of inflow to the line in the Lincoln and Commercial Street area. Develop an inflow reduction plan. 5.2 Conduct flow monitoring on lines identified in Appendix A as having inadequate capacity. The results of the flow monitoring should be used to prepare a prioritized list of capacity improvement projects. 5.3 Continue the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program, with the adopted schedule of projects, to provide service in developed but unserved residential areas. As with undeveloped areas, sewer extension should be installed as shown on the Facility Plan Maps. Draft Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan- 2004 Page 8 of 10 Appendix A► The 2000 Sewer Master Plan Update recommends capacity improvements to the following lines; Bonita Trunk (D-2) - The 1995 Plan identified three lines between consecutive manholes that are without adequate capacity. However, following 0.12 inch of rainfall, inspection revealed that only a very small portion of the capacity of these lines was being used. Since then, there has been significant development in the area and City Public Works staff has reported near capacity flows. Recommendation: Conduct flow monitoring. Durham Rd. Lateral (D-6) - This line is only a concern at build-out and it is currently fully developed. Consequently, the capacity of the line will remain adequate unless the area is redeveloped with increased density. Recommendation: Low priority flow monitoring. Fast Tigard Trunk (D-8) - This is the line that runs along Red Rock Creek serving the Triangle and has been improved at the railroad crossing. Public Works staff has reported near capacity flows. Recommendation: Conduct flow monitoring. Elmwood Lateral (D-10) - The concern here is capacity at build-out and the area is becoming fully developed. Public Works staff has reported high flows; inflow is suspected. Recommendation: Conduct flow monitoring and investigate inflow. Oteon Trunk (D-14) - This line is also only a concern at build-out. Additional development in the portion of Beaverton served by this line will result in increased flow. Recommendation: Low priority flow monitoring and development in this portion of Beaverton should be monitored. Leron Trunk (D-15a) - This line is shown to be currently of insufficient capacity and no flow monitoring has been conducted. Recommendation: Conduct flow monitoring. heron Trunk OD-15b) - In addition to be shown as currently of insufficient capacity, this area is known to have excessive inflow. Recommendation: Investigate for inflow. Summerfield Trunk (D-29) - The concern here is capacity at build-out and the area is fully developed. So long as the served area remains as currently developed, capacity problems are not expected. Recommendation: Low phority flow monitoring. Katherine St. Lateral (D-30) - This 12-inch line was identified in the 1995 Update as one requiring further investigation. It serves a developing portion of the Walnut Island. CWS installed a flow monitoring station from November 20, 1998 through December 22, 1998 to record wet weather flows. Peak rainfall of 2.18 inches occurred on November 25, 1998 resulting in less than 3 inches of peak flow in the pipe and replacement of the line was not further considered. Since then, several residential developments have been constructed that have caused significantly increased flows. Recommendation: Conduct flow monitoring. Draft Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan- 2004 Page 9 of 10 In addition to the deficiencies identified in the 2000 Sewer Master Plan Update, City Public Works staff has reported that the following lines appear to be approaching their capacity. ■ Garrett Street north to the Fanno Creek Interceptor ■ SW 128' Avenue near Winterlake Drive ■ Winterlake Trunk These areas are shown the Plan Map. i A Draft Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan- 2004 Page 10 of 10 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: 503-639-4171 Fax: 503-6240752 Drainage Facility Ran City of T~-ard Engineering Department August 2004 Table of Contents Summary 3 Introduction 4 Purpose 4 Institutional Background 4 Previous Plans 5 Existing Drainage Facilities 6 Recommended Improvements 9 Maintenance 11 Recommendations 12 gnu Glossary 13 Appendix A-Notes on Medium Priority Culvert=Projects Attacinnents l Bridge Capacities .ilongFanno, Summer anti_Arh Creaks- PWR, October 12, 2001 2. GW5 Agrcwaent Separate Cover Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan, Technical Appendices-June 1997 Drainage Facility Plan Map Zero-rise Floodplain Map Draft Storm Drainage Facility Plan - 2004 Page 2 of 13 Summary The Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan (June 1997) is the principal plan currently guiding drainage planning in the City. The Plan was prepared by CWS (Clean Water Services) for all jurisdictions within the Fanno Creek Basin. The Plan includes an inventory of drainage structures and a hydraulic model evaluation of the adequacy of their capacity. These facilities are shown on the Drainage Facility Plan Map by hydraulic model node number and are tabulated on Table 1 in order of priority of replacement and with the facility required to correct the deficiency. The hydraulic model was used to determine required facility improvements and to produce a flood plain map that is currently being used to regulate development in the flood plain and for flood insurance purposes. The projects recommended by the Plan for the City of Tigard are described in Table 2 and are shown on the Storm Drainage Facility Plan Map. The highest priority projects are replacement of bridges, which the hydraulic model has determined have inadequate openings underneath to pass the flows of the base flood. These bridges should be replaced with higher and longer bridges that are less likely to flood. Proposed bridge replacements across the main stem of Fanno Creek at Tigard Street, Hall Boulevard, and North Dakota Street are recommended. The remaining high priority project is the replacement of the Summer Creek culvert crossing of SW 12151 Avenue with a bridge. Because of the high cost of bridge replacement, it is expected that bridges will goy be replaced if required for structural reasons or reasons other than flood mitigation thtttprovide an additional funding source, At this point, all the bridges recommended for replacement are structurally sound, do not qualify for fie&.6d or state funding, but are sufficiently deteriorated to'qualifv fnr rehabilitation funding. Rehabilitation of the existing bridges will not suffice. There arv also two low priority bridge replacement projects along Ash Creek at the Oak Street and Hall Boulevard crossings. These low priority pr©ects are only recommender! if the bridge's are replaced for reasons ether than flood protection. The remaining Fanno Creck bridges; Main Street, Grant Avenue and Tiedeman Street, are more recently constructed a;id wi:ie found to have adequate flood protection. The estimated cost of all bridge replacement projects is $4.7 million. Drainage funding should be combined with other funding to accomplish bridge replacement projects. The medium priority projects are replacement of culverts along tributary streams with inadequate capacity. Fanno Creek tributary crossings at Hall Boulevard and Frewing Street, as well as a Summer Creek tributary crossing of Walnut Street are recommended. The estimated cost of all culvert replacement projects is $67,000. The low priority culvert replacement projects shown on Table 2 are not recommended as proposed improvements. Draft Stone Drainage Facility Plan - 2004 Page 3 of 13 Introduction Purpose The purpose of the Plan is to guide the planning process for drainage and flood control. This effort is directed towards two distinct drainage systems. First is the minor system consisting of ditches, streets and gutters, storm sewers and smaller open drainageways. Current standards this system to accommodate the 25-year storm, Second is the major system consisting of larger drainageways and streams that are expected to convey the 100-year storm. Previous planning efforts have been mostly directed towards the major system. Institutional Background On July 27, 1989, the former Portland Area Local Government Boundary Commission approved the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA), recently renamed Clean Water Services (CWS) as the regional storm water service provider within the boundaries of CWS. CWS submitted an initial Surface Water Management (SWM) program to the Boundary Commission that included a comprehensive management program, watershed planning, engineering, public information, financial management and legal services. Dudug:17611 aiy 1990; CWS submitted the Surface Water Management Plan on behalf of eleven cities within the service area, including Tigard, and Washington County. The purpose of the plan was to, ,7 provide' greater detail on the program to be implemented by CWS and to meet the planning requirements of the Oregon State Department of Environmental"Quality (DEQ), The DEQhad set Total-Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for discharges oftotal phosphorus to the Tualatin River, As the regional stormwater service provider, CWS was responsible for preparation of this plan to meet TMDL requirements. This plan and an agreement with DEQ established' CWS as the Designated Management Agency for Watershed management throughout the CWS service area. In dttaon to meetrug the requirements for TMDLs, the plan also included flood control and recommended that subbasin plans, including the Fanno Creek subbasin, be prepared. The resulting Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan ( June 1997) is the principal plan currently guiding drainage planning in the City. The Plan was prepared for CWS and has been adopted by all jurisdictions within the Fanno Creek Watershed. The Plan includes the entirety of the City of Tigard except for the southwest portion of the City that drains directly to the Tualatin River. The Management Plan recommends projects and programs to improve the quality of stream water and reduce flooding. In addition, a revised computer model of the flood plain was prepared for flood insurance and development regulation in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 as administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The resulting hydraulic information may be used to determine the required hydraulic capacity of structures proposed by the plan. A hydrologic flow model (HEC-1) was used to create the map for the Fanno Creek Watershed Flood Insurance Restudy. The final draft of the map was completed on October 1, 2000 and has been submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for approval. Once approved, it will define the flood plain for all jurisdictions within the Fanno Creek basin for flood insurance purposes and development regulation. The City of Tigard has adopted a more restrictive floodway (zero-rise) than other jurisdictions within the basin. Consequently, the City contracted for the preparation of a map showing the zero-rise floodway and computed by the hydrologic flow model. The map was completed on March 20, 2000 and is available for development regulation. Draft Storm Drainage Facility Plan - 2004 Page 4 of 13 The first category of projects in the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan is Bridge and Culvert Replacement. The Plan recommends bridge replacement for Fanno Creek at SW Tigard Street, SW North Dakota, SW Hall Boulevard, and three others bridges outside the City. Design criteria for these facilities could be provided as part of the revised floodplain computer model. The improvements recommended in this Facility Plan are based on this portion of the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. The Plan also recommends nonstructural projects and programs aimed at improving water quality by protecting and improving wetlands, streams, and greenways. Implementation will be in cooperation with others cities and agencies with CWS as the lead agency. Finally, the Plan recommends water quality and flood prevention structural projects. The water quality projects are intended to treat run-off or prevent stream bank erosion. Flood prevention is expected by regrading floodplains so that low intensity storms would flow over streams banks into the floodplain and reduce peak flows. The City through its separate Surface Water Management Program will accomplish these projects. Through an agreement with CWS in June 25, 1990, the City agreed to enforce the orders promulgated by CWS. CWS, in cooperation with the Cities, agreed to "adopt policies, standards, specifications, and performance criteria necessary for the proper and effective operation of CWS and to comply with State and Federal permits laws and regulations." CWS has prepared the storm drainage construction and design standards currently enforced in the City as a result of this agreement. war% Previins Plans The City of Tigard Master Drainage PI(m - July 1981 was-therG#y's master plan before the adoption of t the FmznoGCreek Watershed Mcnrageent Phvi. T1is earlier plan «7as primarily concerned ith the inajor open drainage system. A coi.nplitcr model .vas used to determine current and future floodwater surface elevations: and to prepare a floodplain mzp that was used for the City's Flood Insurance Program. w In addition, the Ash Creek Drainage Master Plan -January, 1986 was prepared for Washington~.ounty Departalwnt of Land Use<and Transportation before an annexation that included the ash Creek basin' Draft Storm Drainage Facility Plan - 2004 Page 5 of 13 Existing Drainage Facilities Existing minor drainage facilities are shown on the Storm Drainage Facility Plan Map. Where constructed as part of full street improvements, the facilities are generally adequate. In areas with partial or substandard street improvements, drainage is generally accomplished with roadside ditches and culverts. These facilities are frequently inadequate resulting in flooded streets and private property. As part of the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan, the major drainage facilities were identified during the delineation of the drainage system as those facilities conveying flows from an area of more than about 100 acres. These facilities are shown on Storm Drainage Facility Plan Map by node number and are tabulated on Table I in order of priority and with the replacement facility required to correct the deficiency. The high priority projects, bridge replacement, are likely to be too costly to be funded by drainage funding along. There are no high priority culvert or other major structure replacement projects. A cross-reference (four digit number) to the 1981 Master Plan is also provided. } Draft Sto;m Drainage Facility Plan - 2004 Page 6 of 13 Major Structure Inventory Table 1 1981 Master HEC-1 Nodes Priority Current Size Current Type Proposed Replacement Plan Structure 6900 & FM2 High BRIDGE higher, longer bridge, N. Dakota 6800 & FM I High BRIDGE higher, longer bridge, Tigard St. 600 & AS7T High 84"X72" RCB Washington County 8300 & FL6 High BRIDGE higher, longer bridge, Hall Blvd. 2200 & SM3 Medium 2-66" CMP Bridge 4400 & KR1S1 * 3-36" CMP Walnut St. Improvements 5220 FL9N Medium 36" CMP 36" CONC 5230 FL9N Medium 36" CMP 30" CONC 5240 FL9N Medium 24" RCP 30" CONC 500 & AS7 Medium 54" CMP 3-8'X3' BOX 1000 & AS7E1 Medium 72" CMP 2-6'X3' BOX 2900 & FL7W1 Medium 30" CMP 3-5'X2' BOX 2800 FL7W2 Medium 30" RCP 2-30" CONC 5000 & FL5S2 Medium 24" CMP 36" CONC 3900 & BL1 Medium 6X5.8' CONC.ARCH 2-6'X5' BOX 3800 & BL1 Medium 61X5.8" CONC.ARCH 2-6'X5' BOX - &c AS4E' Medium 30" RCP 2-6'X2' BOX ,f Et?E IvWium 90" CMP 3-6'X4'BOX 4300 & kk2 Low 30" CMP 2-30" CONC 4700 DI33 W2 Low 24" , CMP 30" CONC 1600 & AS4E2 Low '2- 24" RCP 3-6'X2' BOX & RR5 Low 2-30" CMP! 3=6`X3' BOX & RR6 Low 42" 1 CMP 2-36" CONC 3200 & RR2 Low 2-54" CMP 2-8'X4' BOX 3420 & RRl Low 96" CMP 3-8'X3' BOX 3410 & RRl Low 721IX72" CON. ARCH 4-7'X4' BOX 2600 & DD2 Law 43" CMP 2-4X3' BOX 5500 & FL6S1 Low 24" RCP 3-24" CONC 4900 FL5W Low 12" RCP 2-24" CONC AS7E2N Low 30" CONC 2-36" CONC AS4E4 Low 24" PVC 3-30" CONC & FUE Low 12" CONC. 30" CONC & FL6S2 Low 24" CMP 2-24" CONC & DD2E Low 60" CONC. 2-6'X3' BOX & FUN Low 24 CONC. 2-30" CONC & AS2N1 Low 42" CMP 36" & SM7S3 Low 18" CONC. 2-24" CONC Structures of Adequate Capacity 4000 & HN2 248" CMP 2300 SM1S 18" 4200 & KR1S1 30" RCP 4100 & KR3 SUBMER. 2000 & SM6 BRIDGE 2500 & DD3W1 3611-24" CMP 4820 DD5 24" CMP 4810 & DD4 48" CMP 1700 & AS2 BRIDGE 6700 & FLA BRIDGE 2700 &DDI 48",36" CMP 4500 & SMI 6600 & FL9N BRIDGE Grant St. 6400 & FUN BRIDGE Draft Storm Drainage Facility Plan - 2004 Page 7 of 13 1981 Master HEC-1 Nodes Priority Current Size Current Type Proposed Replacement Plan Structure 1500 & AS3 2-108"X144" RCB 1300 & ASS 2-601IX601" RCB 1400 & ASS 2-601"X601" RCB 1200 & AS6 60" CMP & AS7E2 421" CAP & RR4 2X481" CMP 3300 & RR3 1201"X721" RCB 3500 FLSS 30" CMP 5100 & FLSS1 601" CMP & FL5S1 60" CMP 6200 & FL5 BRIDGE 3420 & FLOE 181" CMP 5410 & FLOE 12" RCP 6100 & FUSE BRIDGE 6000 & FL2 BRIDGE & DD3 W 1 2-36" CMP DD3W2 481" CMP & AS7E3 248" CMP SN14LK WIER & DD3 248"X30" CMP i, DD3 _ 3-30" CMP AS.I N 42" CMP i-IN2 5-18" CMP & RR5 48" CMP R; ~US2 d 36" CONC. 8c SM7S1 42" AL1vI i & SM7S2 11111, CONC. SL SM7S2 2-?0" COW. SM7S2 2-30" CONC. & KR-1W 2-36" Chip KR4 30. C1VIP KRIS3 36" RCP * A problem with this node is being resolved with PWR. Draft Storm Drainage Facility Plan - 2004 Page 8 of 13 Recommended Improvements The Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan based project recommendations on the expected cost of the project, the expected reduction in flow deficiency that would be provided and the type of flood risk being mitigated. The recommended projects have been grouped by priority. Funding for these projects is available through the Surface Water Management Fund. The highest priority projects are to replace bridges with openings underneath which are inadequate to pass the flows of the base flood. Bridge Capacities along Fanno, Summer and Ash Creeks (Attachment 1) depicts the stream cross-sections at the bridges required to pass the flows of the base flood. Generally, these cross-sections require replacement bridges that are longer and higher. Because of the high cost of bridge replacement, it is expected that bridges will only be replaced if required for structural reasons or reasons other than flood mitigation that provide an additional funding source. At this point, all the bridges recommended for replacement are structurally sound, do not qualify for federal or state funding, but are sufficiently deteriorated to qualify for rehabilitation funding. Rehabilitation of the existing bridges will not suffice. The medium priority projects are replacing culverts of inadequate capacity. Culvert replacement projects should be evaluated for the need of fish passage as required by the Endangered Species Act. Table 2 shows the projects and their recommended priority. These culverts are generally across streets that are not fully improved. The recommended culvert replacement should be considered as part of projects to ecommended for construction i9lOve it•,e street ects. that provide a low benefit at a high cost are not recommended' and are not included in the table. Draft Storm Drainage Facility Plan -2004 Page 9 of 13 Proposed Improvements Table 2 Existing Structure Proposed CIP Structure Deck Capacity Low Chord Proposed Structures Capacity Installed Priority Creek Node # Description NOW FUTURE NOW Lower Chord Deck Surface opening Width Cis Cost Rank High-Priority (Bridge Replacement) Projects Fanno & FMI Tigard St <2 YR <2 YR (Def) 158 It 160 ft 90 ft 2,360 $ 1,292,000 High Fanno & FL6 Hall Blvd lower ODOT <5 YR <2 YR (Def) 144 it 146 It 7411 3,275 $ 1,098,000 High Fenno & FM2 North Dakota St 5 0.5 (Def) 158 ft 160 it 90 ft 2,360 $ 942.000 High Summer &SM3 SW 121st Ave. <2 YR <2 YR (Def) 168.5 it 170.5 ft 29 ft 1,830 $ 498,000 High Ash &AS5 Oak St <10 YR 2 YR (Def) 170.5 ft 172 it 45 ft 1,220 $ 432.000 Low Ash SAS7 Hall Blvd <25 YR 2 YR (Def) 170.5 ft 172 it 25 ft 927 $ 392.000 Low TOTAL $ 4,654.000 Design Criteria Def. Crit. Capacity Defic. Flow Year Cfs Cfs Year Cfs,2040 # W H L Inlet Type Medium-Priority Culvert Projects Fanno Tr FL9N RR Upper 100 13.4 16 100 37 3 40 PROJ CONC 38 $ 7,000 1 Fanno-Tr FLOE RR 100 4.8 48 100 53 4 2 40 MITER CONC 56 $ 17,100 2 Summer Tr &KRISI Walnut St 10 0 62 25 120 4 50 PROJ CONC 122 $ 11,800 3 Fanno Tr & FL552 Hall Blvd 25 63.4 48 50 111 3 52.5 PROJ CONC 127 $ 9,200 4 Ash Tr & AS4E3 82nd Ave 100 49.9 71 100 121 2 6 2 40 HW4S BOX 144 $ 32,200 5 Fenno Tr FL4E FIR 100 13.1 40 100 53 2.5 150 PROJ CONC 55 $ 21,000 6 Fanno Tr & FL.7WI Frewing St 100 34.4 49 100 83 3 5 2 40 HW45 BOX 94 $ 40,800 7 Fanno Tr FLTN2 Garrett St 100 49.9 8 100 58 2 2.5 25 PROJ CONC 62 $ 7,000 8 Ball & BLI 74th Ave + RR 5 432.8 287 25 720 2 6 5 40 H45 BOX 746 $ 49,800 9 Ball & BLI R.R 5 432.8 287 25 720 2 6 5 40 H45 BOX 746 $ 49,800 10 Bail & BL2E Bonita Road 100 493.2 268 100 761 3 6 4 150 H4S BOX 861 $ 241,800 11 Summer Tr SMIS Walnut St 10 16.2 30 25 46 2.5 50 PROJ CONC 54 $ 7,000 12 Summer & S1M3 121st Av 10 653.2 412 25 1,065 2 10 6 50 HW Box 1073 $ 104,400 13 TOTAL $ 598,900 DESIGN YEAR PROPOSED STRUCTURES Smallest design event that can bo conveyed while still meeting the design criteria # Number of identical barrels without flooding itself or upstream structures H Height of opening W Width of opening (if different from height) OTHER NOTES INLET Installed costs have been adjusted to the January 2003 ENGR Index of 6581. HW45 Headwall 45° from sides Bridge Replacements (6): 6581/ 3391 (Sep.'01) = 1.0297 HW90 Headwalls square to sides Culvert Projects(13): 6581/ 5860 (June'97) = 1. 1230 Mitre Headwall mitred (conformed) to slope Proj Inlet project from slope on headwall 1/7/2004 a Maintenance The current routine maintenance programs and the time required to complete the maintenance elements o__.i. .,_.:r JysWUt tee hv Table ? Muaintenanee reennneihilitiec are! shared with CWS as IV1 We GULLIG ar°v . °iu~ia in , u Y described in an agreement (Attachment 2). Table 3 Scheduled Maintenance Program Cycle Video Inspection of pipe interiors 7 Years Line Cleaning and Repair 4 Years Manhole/Catch Basin Inspections and Cleaning 1 Year Water Quality Facility Inspection, Maintenance Monthly Roadside Ditching and Inspection 5 Years .n Leaf Pickup Seasonal Non-routine maintenance requiring prompt response by an ind,pendent contractor is funded through the City's Drainage Major Maintcuarnce Proerai-a. In addition, bridges are respected for debris accumulation during periods of high flow. The hydraulic capaciiics report (attachment 1) specifically recommends monitoring debris accumulation at the Ash Creek bridges. Draft Storm Drainage Facility Plan - 2004 Page l l of 13 Recommendations Minor system 1. Improvements to drainage should be provided as private or public street improvements are constructed. 2. A prioritized list of projects to correct drainage deficiencies resulting in property damage or hazards should be maintained. Projects should be initiated and completed as funding becomes available. 3. Additional facilities should be provided by development and street improvement projects. Major System 1. Drainage funding should be combined with other funding to accomplish bridge replacement projects. 2. Medium priority culvert replacement projects should be completed as permitted by available funding. The need for fish passage must be considered in culvert replacement projects. 3. The identified facility deficiencies should be accounted for in the design of developments. Draft Stone Drainage Facility Plan 2004 Page 12 of 13 Glossary Return Period- Flood flow is commonly defined by its return period or recurrence interval which signifies -f--- w4hin which a given flood will be exceeded. Flood events of a magnitude thu avulag@ elulllwa - - which are expected to be equaled or exceeded once on the average during any 10-, 50-, 100-, or 500- year period (recurrence interval) are particularly useful in describing flooding problems. These floods, commonly referred to as the 10-, 50-, 100-, or 500- year floods, have a 10, 2, 1 and 0.2 percent chance, respectively, of being equaled or exceeded during any year. Statistical methods are available to determine the chance of a given flood to occur over a given period. For instance, there is a 75 percent chance that the 100-year flood (1 percent chance of annual occurrence) will not be exceeded in the next 29 years. Floodplain- a relatively flat or lowland area adjoining a stream or other body of water which has been or may be covered temporarily by floodwater. The 100-year flood has been adopted as the base flood for purposes of floodplain management measures. The area of the 100-year floodplain is divided into a zero- rise floodway and fringe. Zero-rise floodway- the channel of the stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment in order that the 100-year flood (base flood) is carried without increasing the flood height. Zero-rise floodway fringe- the area between the floodway and the boundary of the 100-year flood. This is the portion of the floodplain that could be completely obstructed without increasing the water surface efe-vit K of t"(i' ° 1110ayear flood. Alterations within the floodway fringe are regulated'by Scc6on" 18.775.070 ofthe Conununity Development Code. Draft Storm Drainage Facility Plan - 2004 Page 13 of 13 Appendix A The Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan, at Table A.13 presents medium- priority culvert projects throughout the basin. The projects within Tigard were reviewed in detail and included in Table 2. The following projects listed in Table A.13 were found to be not required and are not included in Table 2 as detailed here. • Node FL9N Proposed Project: Replacement of 24-inch culvert in Tigard Street with a 36-inch. As part of improvements to Greenburg Rd. in 1990, the 24-inch line was abandoned and the flow was redirected to the newly constructed Greenburg Rd. line. • Node FL4E Proposed Project: Replace 12-inch railroad crossing with four 24-inch culverts and replace a 15-inch culvert with a 36-inch culvert. Rather than 12 and 15-inch culverts there are 18 and 27-inch culverts with adequate capacity. • Node &FL5S2 Proposed Project: Replace 24-inch across Hall Blvd. with a 36-inch. ODOT has replaced this with an adequate culvert. In addition, The Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan, at Table A.13 listed five medium-priority culvert projects that are connected to undersized private or railroad storm drains: • Node &AS4E3, Ash Creek tributary at 82nd Av. Node FUW2, Fanno Creek tributary at Garrett St. e • Node &BL1, Ball Creek at 74th Av. and railroad • Node &BL1, Ball Creek at railroad • Node &BL2E, Ball Creek at Bonita Rd. In addition to the right-of-way improvements shown on Table A.13, capacity IR1prvVerncina vil1•11 at r~~ llosov aq.-I- i;mnrovements on private or railroad property. To a r r account for these additional costs, these five culvert projects are entered on Table 2 as low-priority projects. 1\Tig333WSMEPTSIENGIGREG1Drainage\Fadlity PW App A.doc Attachment 1 REPORT BRIDGE CAPACITIES ALONG FANNO, SUMMER AND ASH CREEKS Clean Water Services, Washington County, Oregon Pacific Water Resources, Inc. (PWR) is pleased to submit this report to Clean Water Services of Washington County, Oregon, in satisfaction of7ask 10.0 of the Fanno Creek Watershed Managemernt Plan (WV1P) to evaluate bridge capaoities along the FIS-restudied reaches of Fanno Creek, Summer Creek, and Ash Creek. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report documents the hydraulic evaluation of the 33 major (railroad and public road) crossings over the FIS-restudied reaches of the Fanno Creek Watershed. These reaches include the lower 13.5 miles of Fanno Creek (upstrear • through Oleson Road), the lower 2.0 miles of Summer Creek (through 135`h Avenue), and tl lower 1.5 miles of Ash Creek (through Hemlock Street). We evaluated the hydraulic performance of the ;e 33 structures in terms of flooding frequency of the bridge deck, the low chord (i.e. beam), and he road approach to the bridge, under both existing (1996-2000) and future (2040) watersl td conditions. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 1. Our conclusions are as follows: A: 14 structures had capacities in excess of the 100-year event. ® B: 9 structures also had OK deck capacities but their low chords were frequently submerged, so blockage posed a significant risk. We recommend watching for debris during floods. ® C: 2 flood near Oregon Episcopal Schaal and isolate it during even moderate flooding, but structural fixes are impractical. We -ecommend providing emergency access via the adjacent public school to the east. e D: 6 other structures had capacities usually much less than the 25-year flood: Hall Blvd (downstream), T_ igard, North Dakota, ai d Oleson (Fanno Creek), 121 Ave. (Summer Creek), and Hemlock (Ash Creek). We recommend replacing them. = E: 2 other structures on Ash Creek appeared deficient in the profiles and FIS work maps, but the flooding was shallow and in the approaches. These bridges become more deficient in the future. They are Oak and Hall (Ash Creek). We recommend replacing them, but in the future and as lower priority projects. Pacific Water Resources, Inc. Page I October !l, 2001 Report: Bridge Capacities along Fanno, Summer and Ash Creeks Then, HEC-RAS models were developed using the HEC-2 geometry to provide visual checks of the bridge geetinnc anti of the Annd nrnFilnc near the r rnccinoc NF('_R AC nm6rleri a nnnrl yiciiat -b• _ r..,...... o r - b" check of the flooding frequency at the 33 crossings evaluated. The more frequent flooding of the HEC-2 or HEC-RAS results were used in the tabulation. The HEC-RAS model was also then used to model the proposed bridge sizes, including the opening width, low chord and.deck elevation, raised road approaches, and, in some cases, laid-back stream banks near the crossing. DESIGN FLOWS The design flows for this analysis were from both the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan (WMP) and the Watersheds 2000 Project (WS2K). The WMP flows were modeled for existing (1996) and future (2040) land use conditions using standard, 24-hour SCS Type IA design storms. The WS2K flows were modeled for existing (2000) and future (2040) land use conditions using a 72-hour design storm developed for that project to reflect the larger frontal storms that are more typical for the area. For ease of use, the WS2K storm was normalized to the same 24-hour peak depth as the WMP flows, so the results using the two can be consistently compared. The greater flow (thus flooding elevation) of the two sources was used to evaluate the bridge capacities. Note that no additional hydrologic modeling was done for this analysis, thus the WS2K flows include the 500-year event, while the WMP does not. The WS2K storm has agreater total depth but lower peak intensity. Thus WMP hydrographs have higher peak flows than the WS2K ones further up in a watershed. But the WMP peak flows are "averaged" more as they are routed through the downstream watershed, so that at some point (about 8 square miles) the WS2K peak flows become greater, and remain so for the rest of the downstream system. Thus the WMP flows are more appropriate for smaller drainages, while the WS2K flows would be used for larger watershed areas. When the two flows were compared for Fanno Creek, we determined that the 72-hour WS2K flows (and thus water surfaces) were higher upstream through Scholls Ferry Rd. (above Hwy 217) under existing land use, and through Tiedeman Rd. under future conditions. The resulting water surfaces remained similar further upstream. For the HEC-RAS (visual) profile check, the WS2K flows were used for Fanno Creek throughout. For Summer Creek, the WMP flows were higher for all of the watershed under both existing and future conditions. For Ash Creek, the WMP flows were higher for all of the future conditions and all but the one lowest section for existing conditions. Thus for the RAS modeling and profile checks, the WMP flows were used for both of these watersheds. Nvnaei 11 ir_ MnnFl wr, mn PPRI 11 TR The FIS Restudy models developed using HEC-2 were used to evaluate the hydraulic capacities of these 33 bridges. The FIS flows were replaced in turn with the WMP flows for existing and then future conditions, and also with WS2K flows for existing and then future conditions, resulting in four sets of flood elevations. The WMP results include flood profiles (elevations) for Pacific Water. Resources, Inc. Page 3 October 12, 2001 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FANNO CREEK WATERSHED RAS/HEC2 DEFICIENCIES By Pacific Water Resources. Inc..- September 2001 FANNO CREEK DECK - CAPACITY LOW CHORD - DEBRIS XS JUR LOCATION NOW PUT NOW FUT GROUP RECOMMEND NOTES 6123 RR (high trestle) ok ok ok ok A x 7992 Durham Rd ok ok ok ok A x 14692 Bonita Ftd ok ok - 25 YR < 25 YR A x Deck ok but creek may back up Into building area on upstream right 21791 Tigard Has BMI. (DS) < 5 YR - 2 YR (def) (def) D REPLACE (Figure 1) 26202 Tigard Main St.. - 25 YR < 25 YR < 5 YR < 5 YR B Watch debris Future problem / existing is borderline 26370 Hwy 99IN (High) ok ok ok. ok A x 27486 Grant Ave ok -ok ok ok A x 31338 Tiedeman Rd ok ok. ok ok A x Deck ok but shallow flooding of road in left overbank 32825 Tigard Tigard Iii < 2 YR < 2 YR (def) (def) D REPLACE (Figure 2) 34058. Tigard North Dakota St < 5 YR < 5 YR (dot) (def) D REPLACE (Figure 3) 38753 Schons Ferry Rd (DS) ok ok ok ok A x 46057 Beaverton Han (U1') ok - 25 YR < 2 YR < 2 YR B Watch debris Watch for debris - Future borderline problem 50364 Denny Rd (DS) ok ok - 25 YR < 25 YR B Watch debris Watch for debris - deck ok hem but pools upstream - Q - 50 YR 50693 Beaverton Denny ~Rd (UP) - 10 YR < 10 YR Q < 5 YR < 5 YR B Not fix / watch debris No other access to substation. Fix at downstream bridge not here. Watch debm. 51676 RR (hlslh trestle) ok ok ok ok A x 51907 Hwy217(both) ok ok ok ok A x 56716 Beaverton Scholls Ferry Rd (UP) - 50 YR < 25 YR < 10 YR < 5 YR B Watch debris Borderline now/ problem In future 58163 Beaverton 92nd Ave ok ok < 25 YR < 10 YR B Watch debris Watch debris 59439 Beaverton Bohman Dr ok - 25 YR < 25 YR < 25 YR B Watch debris Borderline future - watch debris 60771 86th Ave ok ok ok ok A x Flooding of road In left overbank - unrelated to bridge • ISOLATES houses 64085 Beaverton Nicol Rd - 25 YR ^ 10 YR (def) (def) C Emerg. Acc. To E Major flooding In road (Q < 2 YR) unrelated to bridge ISOLATES residential school 64550 Beaverton Venno.lt St - 5 YR - 5 YR (def) (del) C Emerg. Acc. To SE Major (boding in road (Q < 2 Y'R) unrelated to bridge ISOLATES area 70209 Beaverton Oleson Rd < 5 YR - 2 YR .(def) (def) D REPLACE (Figure 4) SUMMER CREEK XS JUR LOCATION NOW FUT NOW FUT GROUP RECOMMEND NOTE 105888 Tigard SW 121st Ave < 2 YR < 2 YR (def) (del) D REPLACE (Figure 5) 109158 130th.Ave ok ok ok ok A x 110526 135th Ave ok ok ok ok A x ASH CREEK XS JUR LOCATION NOW FUT NOW FUT GROUP RECOMMEND NOTE 200545 RR (hgh trestle) ok ok ok ok A x 201183 Tigard Greenburg Rd ok - 25 YR ok < 25 YR B Watch debris Potential borderline problem In future 202899 Hwy 217 & Shady Ln ok ok ok ok A x 205708 Tigard Oak St < 10 YR - 2 YR • (del) (del) E FUTURE (Figure 6) Shallow road approach flooding / watch for debris and replace in future 205865 Tigard Han B Ivd < 25 YR - 2 YR (def) (def) E FUTURE (Figure 6) Shallow road approach flooding / watch for debris and replace in future 206747 Tigard Locust ok < 25 YR < 25 YR < 2 YR B Watch debris Future problem only - watch debris 208008 Tigard Hemkick St < 2 YR < 2 YR (def) (def) D REPLACE (Figure 8) Shallow flooding DS In Hall Blvd - raise grade 2 feet 7 Report. Bridge Capacities along Fanno, Summer and Ash Creeks FIGURE 1 - PROJECT - FANNO CREEK AT D.S. HALL BLVD (Tigard) Parameters: Deck Low Chord Deck Opening # Pier Max Span Inlet Velocity Feet INGVD 29 Thickness (Beam) Surface Width Sets Length Area (so (fps) 2 It 144 146 74 0 74 655 5.0 PROPOSED STRUCTURE (100 year future surface shown) 3~2~ VV Fannd Creek F 72 Hts Bridge Checks Plan: Proposed Bridges / Ftt 100.500 Y r 72 Hrs RS-21754 SR U PROPOSED -Hat By DS -Deck 144.146 (2) I Width 964-1038 (74) / .984 .07-'-.081 Legend EG PF 6 145 W S PF 6 Grokvld Ineff 1 140 Bank Sta 175 r 130 800 900 1000 Station (ft) EXISTING STRUCTURE (2.500 year existing surfaces shown) Fanno Creek F 72 Firs Bridge Checks Plan: Existing / 72 Fbur RS-2t754 BRU HalMd.(DS)-skcued6Y100aIready-3 sets Of mundple p .084 .07 -+-.081 ISO Legend WS PF 7 WSPF6 145 W S PF 5 WS PF 4 :.;K~yeiy►y WS PF 3 WS PF2 140 WSPF 1 Ground Ineff 175 Bank St. 130 700 800. 900 1000 1100 Station 01) Report. Bridge Capacities along Fanno, Summer and Ash Creeks FIGURE 2 • PROJECT - FANNO CREEK AT TIGARD ST (Tigard) Parameters: Deck Low Chord Deck Opening # Pier Max Span Inlet Velocity Feet /NGVD 29 Thickness (Beam) Surface Width Sets Length Area (st) (fps) 2 ft 158 160 90 1 50 762 3.1 PROPOSED STRUCTURE (100 year future surface shown) 3 b2 + 2) Fanno Creek F 72 Hn1 Bridge Checks Plan: Proposed Bridges / Fit 100+500 Yr 72 Hrs RS-32811 BR U PROPOSED - Tigard St -Deck 158.160 (2)1 Width 940.1030 (90)1 .115 .07 1 -.075 Legend EG PF 6 160 W S PF B 111' PIP, Ground 155 Bank Sta ISO 1451 - 800 900 1000 11,00 Station (tt) EXISTING STRUCTURE (2-500 year existing surfaces shown) Fanno Creek F 72 M Bridge Checks Han: Fx'strlg 172 Hour RS a 32811 BR U Tigard St - 3 sets of 12' plea event/ spaced -16 oc -973. 939 .115 .07 -+-.075 _ Legend ~~N 160 WS PF 7 WSPF 6 WS PF 5 WSPF 4 155 `4oJ:aftrv - WSPF3 roa3 WSPF2 . .y,. WSPF 1 Ground I~f .150 Bank Sta 145 800 9W 1100 HBO Stanon Ott Report. Bridge Capacities along Fanno, Summer and Ash Creeks FIGURE 4 - PROJECT - FANNO CREEK AT OLESON RD (Beaverton) Parameters: Deck Low Chord Deck Opening # Pier Max Span Inlet Velocity Feet /NGVD 29 Thickness (Beam) Surface Width Sets Length Area (SO (fps) 2 ft 235 237 70 0 70 392 3.2 PROPOSED STRUCTURE (100 year future surface shown) Fanno C1eek F 72 I*s Bridge Checks Plan: Proposed Bridges / Fut 100.500 Yr72 Hts RS=70193.58RU PROPOSED DESIGN -OlesonRd-Dock 235-237(2)/Width 970.1040 076 - .07-- 06 240 Legend EGPF6 235 WS PF 6 Ground I nef f 230 s Bank Sta 225- 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 Station (f t) EXISTING STRUCTURE (2-500 year existing surfaces shown) Fans Creek F 72 ft Bridge Checks Ran: Existhg / 72 Flour RS =701935 OR U Oleson Rd- 3 sets of circular pie 12 inch da pien at station 238 Legend WSPF7 238 WS PF e WSPF5 234 WS PF 4 e. I WSPF3 232 wS PF 2 a t WSPF1 270 Ground Irerl 228 Bank Sla 225 724 ono 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 Station 01) Report: Bridge Capacities along Fanno, Summer and Ash Creeks FILL 1RE a , rR-_'1-T _ ~ ~R'c'cn AT vrv~ ST (Tigard] NOTE - the shallow flooding or roads suggests this is a lower priority / future project Parameters: Deck Low Chord Deck Opening # Pier Max Span Inlet Velocity feet /NGVD 29 Thickness (Beam) Surface Width Sets Length Area (so (fp's) 1.5 It 170.5 172 45 0 45 200 6.1 PROPOSED STRUCTURE (100 year future surface shown) ; 22 Ash Creek Bridge Capacities Plan: Design 100 Yr Fut / Prop Oak, Has, Herniock RS-205691 BR U PROPOSED Oak St -Deck 170.5-172(Z /Width 981-1025 (45) / no .056 osi .053 Legend 172 EG PF 6 WSPF6 170 GfOUr Iretf Bank Sta 166 166 164 800 900 1000 11,00 120o Station (tt) EXISTING STRUCTURE (2-100 year existing surfaces shown) Ash Creek Bridge Capacities Plan: Existing 2.100 Flows/ Existing Geom RS =205691 BR U Oak St 172 .056--'~-.OS f e .06J--'~ PFB S r1WIS egend 170 •x S PF 5 PF 4 WS PF a 168 Nt~+d WSPF2 WSPF 1 166 tYWnd Irelt e Bank Sta t64 162 1100 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 Station 00 Report: Bridge Capacities along Fanno, Summer and Ash Creeks 1-1 VRG O - PRWGV T - A3f1 Cn.... U HEMLOCK ST Pry+g- - ar•l+ Parameters: Deck Low Chord Deck Opening # Pier Max Span Inlet Velocity Feet /NGVD 29 Thickness (Beam) Surface Width Sets Length Area (so (fps) 1.5 it 181 182.5 30 0 30 178 7.6 PROPOSED STRUCTURE (100 year future surface shown) Ash Creek Bridge Capacities Plan: Design 100 Yr Fut / Prop Oak. Hal, Hembck RS -207965.50R U PROPOSED Hembck St - Deck 181.182.5 (i.5) / Width 985-1015(30) 8 Legend 1a EG PF e WSPF6 18z GnmA a 180 Ineff e Bank Sa +re 176 114 172 800 850 900 950 1000 low Station (ft) EXISTING STRUCTURE (2-100 year existing surfaces shown) Ash Creek Bridge Capacities Plan: Existing 2-100 Flows/ Existing Geom RS : 2079W.5CuIvU Hemlock St - 60' CSP inlet (about size of Wtbt too). used mt 6 Legend 182 WS PF 6 WS PF 5 160 WS PF4 W S PF 1 WS PF2 178 WSPF 9 - Ground 176 4- Irelf Bank Sta 174 172 850 900 950 1000 Station (It) AGENDA ITEM # v FOR AGENDA OF August 17, 2004 CI i i' OF TIG AD .D, OPW , COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL SERVICES GRANT PROGRAM DISCUSSION PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Ann Newton" D PT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK V" ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Consideration of a policy that would address food and housing support for Tigard residents in need. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Provide direction to staff on how to proceed. INFORMATION SUMMARY At the June 22, 2004 City Council meeting, Council considered a request by St. Vincent DePaul and St. Anthony's Church for a grant to offset the cost of building and planning fees associated with a new a food storage and distribution center. Funds were requested through the City's Affordable Housing Assistance Program. Consensus of the Council was that the request did not meet the Affordable Housing Assistance Program Guidelines established by the Council. After some discussion Council directed staff to assemble information for Council consideration of a policy that would address food and housing support for Tigard residents in need. Specifically, consideration of a policy would be a three-step process. The first step - to discuss the policy at a work session meeting. A memo outlining a proposal for discussion is attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Modify the proposal Delay action Direct staff not to proceed with development of a policy. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST 11 Memo dated August 6 from Liz Newton with attachments. FISCAL NOTES N/A i!\adm\liz\agenda item. summaries\a££ordable housing residential services grant.doca/6/04 MEMORANDUM Ariminictratinn CITY OF TIGARD Shaping A Better Community TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: August 6, 2004 SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Residential Services Grant Program Background: At the June 22 City Council meeting, Council considered a request by St. Vincent DePaul and St. Anthony's Church for a grant to offset the cost of building and planning fees associated with a new food storage and distribution center. Funds were requested through the City's Affordable Housing Assistance Program. Consensus of the Council was that the request did not meet the Affordable Housing Assistance Program Guidelines established by the Council. After some discussion Council directed staff to assemble information for Council consideration of a policy that would address food and housing support for Tigard residents in need. Specifically, consideration of a policy would be a three-step process: 1. Discussion of the policy at an upcoming work session (August 17) 2. Consider approving the policy at a subsequent meeting 3. Reconsider this application and other requests at a subsequent meeting, once the policy has been established (a copy of the minutes is attached). Proposal for Discussion: The City of Portland appropriates $7,000 each fiscal year for an "Emergency Fund of the Council" to be used in any way the Council deems appropriate. Any balance left in the fund at the end of the fiscal year goes back to the General Fund Staff proposes that the City Council consider establishing a Residential Services Emergency Fund to be distributed by the Council under the following guidelines: ■ Requests meet an unmet or growing need to support basic services for Tigard residents (food, shelter, clothing). ■ Requests are not for ongoing operations, or maintenance. ■ Requests do not meet the criteria for the City's Social Services Program. ® Requests must meet the same reporting requirements as social service grant requests. Affordable Housing Residential Services Grant Program Memo -1 - • Total funding available will be limited to.5% of the previous fiscal year's funding for social service grants and the Affordable Housing set-aside ($82,100 + $20,000 = $102,100 x.5% = $5,105 in FY 05-06) _ iw_ u► •h r: .t riSiadali i car. • Funds do not carry over c. i8x.a Next Step: Staff requests Council direction on the proposal. If Council directs staff to proceed, a written policy will be prepared for review and consideration at a later meeting. Affordable Housing Residential Services Grant Program Memo -2- The motion was approved by unanimous vote: Mavnr Dirksen - Yes - - Yes Councilor Moore - Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes Councilor Woodruff - Yes 5. UPDATE ON THE NEW LIBRARY Library Director Barnes gave a PowerPoint presentation on the timeline and transition to the new library. A copy of the presentation is on file In the City Recorder's office. place a and would be handled by Beaverton Library, Ms. Barnes relayed s reserved the new library's address would be 13500 commemorative SW Hall Blvd. 6. CONSIDER ST. VINCENT DE PAUL AFFORDABLE HOUSING GRANT a. Staff Report City Manager Monahan introduced this Item. Mr. Monahan stated Fr. Seig had requested assistance, in the form of a grant, to offset the cost of building and planning fees associated with a new food storage and distribution center associated with St. Vincent DePaul and St. Anthony's Church.. Funds were requested through the city's Affordable Housing Assistance Program. This program was established to fund affordable housing acquisition, development and rehabilitation. It was noted that although the food storage and distribution center serves the low income community, no low income housing units would be affected by the requested funds. The request does not meet the Affordable Housing Assistance Program guidelines established by the Council. b. Council Discussion Councilor Sherwood stated St. Vincent DePaul provided financial assistance to keep low income people from becoming homeless. The agency supports the homeless shelter and prepares food boxes. She stated she hoped the Council could figure out a way to provide assistance relating to the new food storage and distribution center. Interpretation of program guidelines and applicability and impact to the city's social, J st __._.G V~ra...e r-'131-ft 1-ft p--t-' am ware discussed. .p•-••• - Council Minutes Page 10 Tigard City Meeting of June 22, 2004 unds cern over aking an exction to existing Councilor Wilson expressed fcon for a granmwhich did no tdirectly support b,arlaunPS. He stated using y, n,„t, nrAwt-s that the affordable housing could mean a lost opporW111Ly w lu..u money was Intended to support. In response to an inquiry, Mr. Monahan commented it would be difficult to make an exception to the guidelines. He explained the program had been In place for two years and specific criteria had making ane excep olnshw u debeathe modifying the program, rather than izations appropriate course of action. He noted other thenstated guidel nes not have applied for funding under this program based upon Mayor Dirksen explained the program was created so funds could be earmarked for affordable housing. If the program is changed, or an exception is made, this will set a precedent and the original goal of the Progra m, He support the renovation or construction of affordable housing, may be lo inquired if there were any other sources of funding that could be used. In response to an inquiry, Finance Director Prosser remarked that in the past, the Council had approved a budget amendment in which social service grants tie Council were created or increased during the s amenyear. Mr. dment Prosser add fund sto the c ty's could direct staff to prepare a budget social service grants, drawing on the general fund contingency. dent . He Mr. Monahan commented such a budget amendment mayors t Ong cceee normal • added St. Vincent DePaul had not submitted marked some agencies who process of applying for social service funding. He remarked had compiled with the process had not been fully funded and no funds were awarded to new applicants. Mr. Monahan suggested the Council could also consider toe food s tor sea service and i distribution center as a unique funding request, support ongoing projects as budget. It was noted social service funds typically opposed to one-time requests. Councilor Moore proposed developing a policy to address one-time funding ant requests which are not a good asked if service or could i vestigateetheuissue and programs. Councilor Moo Council could discuss staff's findings at an upcoming work session. He stated Page I 1 'ffgard City aCouncil rse 22 Minutes Meeting l i he was not comfortable supporting the request' under the existing circumstances. Councilor Woodruff acknowledged the good work and vaiur amt. ...a..) organizations, including with St Vincent DePaul, add to the community. He expressed concern about the Impact of other organizations ight•seek explained should the Council fun the same consideration. Mayor Dirksen summarized the Council's comments regarding this specific request, saying the Council's answer to the funding request appeared to be "no." However, he suggested since the Council did not have a mechanism in place to' address this type of funding request, It could justify a one-time exception. address Mayor Dirksen which did not meet criteria established policy other funding future funding ing reqq programs. a commitment support. discussion, Councilor not Wilson He want said thathto be construed new but tied n expressed concern over the budget. C. Council Consideration Motion by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Moore, to revisit this item, not as a housing item, but as a food and housing support issue and discuss a policy decision at a future meeting. Mayor Dirksen sought to clarify Councilor Sherwood's motion, stating the motion had two parts: ■ to consider this request specifically to consider a policy regarding this kind of request P Councilor Moore interjected the policy should be established and in place before this request is revisited. Mayor Dirksen confirmedn amdootioon twa to briing he Issue back to Council to i consider a policy and to ruesL Page 12 Tigard City Council Minutes Meeting of June 22, 2004 The motion was approved by unanimous vote: Mavor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes Councilor Woodruff - Yes Mr. Monahan replied staff would try to assemble information for the July 20 or August work session. He confirmed this would be a three step process: 1. Discussion of the policy at an upcoming work session 2. Consider approving the policy at a subsequent meeting 3. Reconsider this application and possibly other requests at a subsequent meeting, once the policy has been established Mr. Monahan mentioned the need to set aside funds should the policy be established. 7. PUBLIC HEARING - ADOPT , MAKE APPROPRIATIONS AND CREATE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE FUND a. Summation by Finance Staff Finance Director Prosser introduced this item. He indicated this budget amendment of then 2003-2004 as detailed Mr. Prosser described the Agenda Item thg highlights Summary. b. Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing. C. Public Testimony There was no public testimony. d, Staff Recommendation Mr. Prosser recommended approval of the supplemental budget e. Council Discussion There was no discussion. Y f. Mayor Dirksen closed the public hearing. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 13 Meeting of June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM # / FOR AGENDA OF August 17, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE SOCIAL SERVICE GRANT PROGRAM COORDINATION PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton DEPT HEAD OK -CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council revise the Social Service Grant Funding Process to ensure a wide range of qualified activities and programs are considered for funding and that the reporting requirements reflect the approval criteria? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Provide direction to staff on the recommendations to revise the Social Service Grant Program Funding Process. INFORMATION SUMMARY In the 2004-05 budget cycle, the policy limit was $135,645 for events and social service appropriations. Although the City received over $150,000 in grant requests, the proposed budget includes a total of $82,100 for social services, and $44,450 for community events for a total of $126,550; $9,095 less than the policy limit. No programs or activities were funded that have not been funded in prior years. The intent of the Social Services Grant Program is to support programs and activities that address unmet and growing needs to assist and/or benefit Tigard residents that do not have the ability or resources to address these needs without assistance. In an effort to ensure that a wide range of programs and activities that qualify can be considered for funding, staff recommends the Social Service Grant Funding process be revised to expand the outreach to potential applicants and clarify the reporting requirements to ensure grant recipients are serving the intended clientele. A memo is attached that recommends revisions to the application process and funding criteria. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Modify the recommendations Delay consideration of the recommendations Direct staff not to proceed %♦rracvTn,.viT Tecu RnRr'F. MA L AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY a. N/A ATTACHMENT LIST 1) Memo dated August 6 from Liz Newton with attachments. FISCAL NOTES N/A is\adm\liz\agenda item surtmucies\social service grant program coordination. docB/6/04 MEMORANDUM Administration _ CITY OF TIGARD Shaping A Better Community TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager 07/ DATE: August 5, 2004 SUBJECT: Social Service Grant Funding Process Background: Each year, the City appropriates funds to support Social Service activities that assist or benefit Tigard Citizens. Community organizations are invited to submit requests in February of each year. A subcommittee of the Budget Committee meets to review Social Service requests and to recommend funding in the Budget. In 1993, the Budget Committee established the Social Service Funding Policy (attached). The Budget Committee policy is to set total events and social service appropriations at .5% of the prior year's operating budget. The policy limit for FY 2004-05 was $135,645. In addition, the City budgets two set-asides within this appropriation in addition to the target amounts for grants: the Housing Program "Emergency Fund" to assist occupants of housing declared to be unsafe and the Affordable Housing Set-Aside to assist providers of low-income housing. The City received over $150,000 in grant requests for community events and social services for FY 2004-05. The Proposed Budget includes a total of $126,550 for social services program grants ($82,100), plus $20,000 for the two set-asides. The grant funding is less than targeted, in recognition of the limited General Fund revenues for all City programs. In addition to direct grants, some of the grant recipients also receive in-kind services from the City. These services range from provision of a building and its operating costs for the Loaves and Fishes/Tigard Senior Center to Tigard Public Works and Police overtime to support community events. These in-kind services are budgeted in departmental budgets and are estimated to cost about $200,000 per year. Issue: In the 2004-05 budget cycle, the policy limit was $135,645 for events and social service appropriations. Although the City received over $150,000 in grant requests, the proposed budget includes a total of $82,100 for social services, and $44,450 for community events for a total of $126,550; $9,095 less than the policy limit. No programs or activities were funded that have not been funded in prior years. social service grant funding process 040805.doc- i - The intent of the Social Services Grant Program is to support programs and activities that address unmet and growing needs to assist and/or benefit Tigard residents that do not have the ability or resources to address these needs without assistance. In an effort to ensure that a wide range of programs and activities that qualify can be considered for funding, staff recommends the Social Service Grant Funding process be revised to expand the outreach to potential applicants and clarify the reporting requirements to ensure grant recipients are serving the intended clientele. Recommendation; Beginning with the 2005-06 budget cycle, implement a 4-phase Social Service Grant Funding application process. ■ Phase I Outreach Mid October - Postcard mailing to all potential qualified agencies and programs inviting them to apply for funding. Use past applicants, Chamber of Commerce directory, Washington County, and State agency contacts to develop a mailing list. Ask interested agencies to contact City for application packet. ■ Phase 11 Application Late December - Send Application packet with instructions to all previous applicants and any agencies that have requested information. Early February - Deadline for applications Early-Mid February - Review requests for compliance with criteria ■ Phase III Grant Award Late February - Social Services Funding Subcommittee meets to consider funding recommendations. April - Social Service Funding Subcommittee recommendations incorporated into budget proposal May - Budget consideration by Budget Committee June - Council consideration and adoption of budget. ■ Phase IV Reporting December - Each program or agency that received funding will file a mid-year report that details how many Tigard residents have been, or are being served, how the funds provided by the City have been/are being spent and the status of efforts to obtain funding from other sources. June - Each program or agency that receives funding will file a year-end #+nf nmviricna tho ~qMe information requested in the mid-year report. social service grant funding process 040805.doc- 2 - Service Grant Funding Criteria: The attached Social Service Funding Policy outlines some funding criteria. Staff recommends clarifications and additions to those criteria as follows: Agencies requesting funds shall: o Address an unmet or growing need in the Tigard community o Demonstrate efforts to explore other funding options o Describe how the service or program meets the convenience of the consumer o Be fiscally responsive. o Demonstrate that use of the program funding comes from the City or that more residents are served with the same level of funding. The approval for grant funding will be included in the application and based on the criteria contained in the policy. Next Steps: Staff requests Council direction on the recommendations. If Council directs staff to proceed with or without modifications, staff will revise the Grant Funding packet material as appropriate. s social service grant funding process 040805.doc- 3 - CITY OF TIGARD BUDGET COMMITTEE SOCIAL SERVICE FUNDING POLICY The City of Tigard receives funding requests from various agencies and non-profit corporations each year during the budget process. This policy provides the framework within which funding decisions will be made by the Budget Committee. 1. The maximum social agency funding total each year will be one half of one percent of the previous year's operating budget, rounded to the nearest $1,000. 2. Agencies requesting City funds shall: • Demonstrate that the Agency has been providing service to City of Tigard residents for at least one year prior to the date of application. • Be registered with the Internal Revenue Service with a 501 (c) (3) not for profit tax status. • Be run by a volunteer Board of Directors with representation from the City of Tigard that Is reflective of the agency's overall geographic membership and client service. • Operate with a balanced budget. • Be Incorporated In the State of Oregon and registered to do business here. • Fill out and submit a completed application to the City of Tigard Finance Department by January 31. • Provide written reports to the Budget Committee on a quarterly basis during the period of funding. Reports must include information related to the use of City funds and a discussion of services provided to Tigard citizens. 3. The Budget Committee shall review the applications and hear oral presentations from each requesting agency. 4. After all information has been gathered and reviewed, the Budget Committee; at u _::M 44- r nri+c of aa^h annliration individually and a separate meeuug, will danua:ate uw - - - - _ , make decisions about which agencies should be funded. 5. The Budget Committee will then determine how much each approved agency chnudri hA funded on its merits without regard to the funding available. 5. The approved funding for each approved agency will then be aggregated and the total will be compared to the calculated funding limit. All approved funding amounts will then be adjusted proportionately so that their total does not exceed the funding limit. 7. The Budget Committee may amend those procedures as necessary. hibginWime wayna%zoc nLund AGENDA ITEM # 10 FOR AGENDA OF Auguz st 2004 CI T Y OF TIGARD, 01WCOr; COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO THE REGIONAL BLUE RIBBON HOUSING TASK FORCE. 1 PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton `a DEPT HEAD OK t CITY MGR OK llv► ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council discussion on the Working Draft Report from the Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Provide specific comments on the report. INFORMATION SUMMARY At the June 22 City Council meeting Councilor Sherwood reported no vote had been taken on the Regional Blue Ribbon Housing Task Force from Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas Counties. The issue of the acceptance of the report and findings was referred to a subcommittee for more work and the item is scheduled to come back for consideration in September. Councilor Sherwood said the task force was seeking recommendations. She indicated she would like to discuss the matter with the Council at an upcoming workshop meeting. It was agreed the item would be scheduled for the August workshop. The Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development (the "Committee") was convened to address the critical and long-standing need for additional resources to increase the supply of affordable housing in the Tri-County (Washington, Multnomah and Clackamas) Metropolitan Region. Councilor Sherwood is a member of the Committee. The growing demand for affordable housing in the region has been well documented and quantified in the Consolidated Plans of local governments in the region, the Metro Housing Technical Advisory Committee (H-TAC), the Housing and Community Development Commission, the City Club of Portland, Housing Authorities in the region and the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department. Highlights of affordable housing needs are presented in this summary report and links to more complete documentation can be found on the Committee's website http://www.pdc.us/hsa-bre/. Primarily due to a lack of financial resources, many jurisdictions in the region are not meeting benchmarks for. implementation of adopted housing polices and goals, including the fair share targets in the Metro Urban Growth Mannaement Functional Plan. Members of the Committee believe that a proactive approach, such as offering .,11r s-AtP.QV financial incentives to encourage the development of affordable housing, IJ a luvtc ctl w1."o -..d re„al.i_ cti-_ than a pure regulatory approach as jurisdictions strive to provide the range of housing called for in these plans and required to meet the demands of people who live and work in communities across the region. Between Noveinoer 200, and Pule 20~d, the Committee met five times. All meetings were open to the public and were well attended. The Committee reviewed existing data on the regional need for affordable housing, the economic impacts of housing development and financing, and existing funding for affordable housing. They also „ - ..,.o.r,,,a,o affnrtc xo secure housing. funding locally, examined various potential sources of new revenue, as w%=a u~ y=~•=~~~ statewide and across the country. They discussed program priorities and the populations who they believe should be helped with new funding, political challenges and opportunities, and the partnerships necessary to successfully secure a new funding to address regional housing needs. The Committee agreed that the principle elements of a successful strategy would include building coalitions and consensus, increasing general public awareness of the problem, gaining public support for solutions, and increasing support among local and state officials, including legislators, for the changes needed to tap potential funding sources and to reduce the cost of housing financing and development. A copy of the draft is attached. The recommendations are in Section 5 of the report, beginning on page 11. Councilor Sherwood will convey any comments or suggestions Council members have to the Committee in September. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Growth Management Goal #3) Partnerships for advocacy for development of additional units and preservation of affordable housing are encouraged and supported by the City Council. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. The Working Draft Report of the Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development. FISCAL NOTES N/A iAadm~city councilkouncil agenda item summaries\20041ais for blue ribbon comet on housing 040810.doc8/6104 Co-pi-es ✓ Other- Councilors -7-c _ City Manager RECEIVED C.O.T. Council Mail Mayors Calendar J V L 212004 •'Atiministration TO: Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development FROM: Margaret Bax DATE: July 14, 2004 RE: BRC Working Draft Report Attached is the updated Working Draft Report of the Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development. I have made the changes suggested at the June 14th Meeting and have included the additional information requested or added references to the appropriate documents. As directed, the Next Steps Section has been removed from the draft and will serve as an outline for the activities of the Resource Steering Committee. We are in process of scheduling the first meeting of the Steering Committee for early August. They will review the market survey instrument at that meeting and the survey will be conducted in August. The Steering Committee will meet again in early fall to hear the consultant's report and prepare recommendations for the full Committee. Please share this Working Draft with your organizations, constituencies, and colleagues for comment and feedback. As discussed at the June meeting, it will be most helpful if we get specific suggestions such as: • What will make the Report stronger? Ask for specifics. a Ask for a specific alternative if they do not agree with, or support a recommendation. ® What can/will your group to do help? If you get feedback to me in writing I will get it to the Steering Committee. I can be reached at rnbax0ei.portland.or.us or by phone at 823-3606. i I•P, C]IOil71 RB~Oy oomm IT-rsElt {loft SitlJ r:Sal.ireH GI+3 / IO}t1'10 ri f. SUMMARY REPORT OF THE REGIONAL BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE ON HOUSING RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT July 14, 2004 WOMUNVG D RAFT Ackn6wl:edqi.ments Reade-nal Blue Ribbon Committee on Dousing, kesource Development 1\V GiV11Na Blue Mayor Vera Katz r City of Portland Commissioner Erik Sten City of Portland T.... Steve Schneider D vu -&Y, Chief F of Staff Governor ng TCiilnnvoa__ki_•, . (Alternates, Erinn Kelley-Siel, David Reese) Chair Diane Linn Multnomah County Senator Kate Brown District 21 Representative Dave Hunt District 40 Bob Repine Director, Oregon Housing and Community Services Dept Mayor Rob Drake City of Beaverton Mayor Chuck Becker City of Gresham Sydney Sherwood Tigard City Council, Exec. Director Good Neighbor Center, Washington Co. Housing Authority Commissioner Martha Schrader Clackamas County Councilor Rex Burkholder Metro Regional Government Rev. Dr. Wes Taylor Tualatin United Methodist Church, Board Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon Richard Harris Executive Director Central City Concern, Portland Business Alliance Housing Committee Commissioner Jeff Bachrach Housing Authority of Portland Commissioner Janet Byrd Co-Chair Housing and Community Development Commission Brian McCarl Housing Developer, Chair Portland Business Alliance Housing Committee David Bell Regional Housing Developer Mark Dodson CEO NW Natural Gas Co., Portland Business Alliance Dan Noelle Retired Multnomah County Sheriff Ken Allen Executive Director Oregon AFSCME Council 75 Mark Wiener Consultant Robert S Bail Attorney Ball Janik LLP Commissioner Doug$lomgren Portland Development Commission Phil Kalberer Kalberer Company, Oregon Food Bank Board Melvin Broadous RE/Max Equity Group, Portland Housing Center Board Debbie Thomas Debbie Thomas Real Estate Morgan Smith Morgan Financial Company Dan Hempy Executive VP Pacific Continental Bank, Immediate Past Chair Oregon Bankers Association Kelly Ross V.P. Government Affairs, Home Builders Assn of Metropolitan Portland Tonya Parker Senior Deputy Director, Fannie Mae Blue Ribbon Staff Margaret Bax Housing Policy Manager City of Portland Lisa Frack Housing and Urban Development Staff Andy r,rilPr Senior Housing Program Manager, BHCD Jane Ediger PDC Housing Policy Manager John Cardenas PDC Administrative Assistant Facilitator Consultant Carter MacNichol Patricia McCaig Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. McCaig Communications & Opinion Research, Inc. SUMMARY REPORT OF THE REGIONAL BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE ON uOUSING RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Background and Introduction I ■ Committee Charge, Membership, and Expected Outcomes 2. Affordable Housing: Local Needs & Public Benefits ..................................................3 ■ Affordable Housing Defined ■ The Importance of Meeting Housing Needs ■ A Growing Housing Affordability Crisis in the Region and State 3. Potential Funding Sources 6 ■ General Obligation Bonds ■ Local Option Property Tax Levy ■ Real Estate Transfer Fee ■ Local General Fund Allocations ■ Mortgage Interest Deductions ■ Summary Recommendation 4. Potential Uses of Funds 9 ■ Rental Preservatiori and Production ■ Homeownership ■ Rental Assistance ■ Rental Operating and Maintenance ■ Administration • 5. Recommendations .......................................................................................................11 6. Key Challenges .............................................................................................................12 7. Attachments ..................................................................................................................13 ■ Summary of Preliminary Market Assessment ■ What is Affordable Housing in Portland? ■ Housing's Direct Economic Impact ■ Snapshot of Regional Housing Funds and Production: Federal, State and Local Funds ■ Potential Use of Real Estate Transfer Fees to Fund Affordable Housing Development ■ Summary of Potential Funding Sources ■ What are Eligible/Preferred Activities for New Funds SUMMARY REPORT OF THE REECIONAL BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE ON HOUSING RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION The Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development (the "Committee") was convened to address the critical and long-standing need for additional resources to increase the supply of affordable housing in the Tri-County (Washington, Multnomah and Clackamas) Metropolitan Region. The growing demand for affordable housing in the region has been well- documented and quantified in the Consolidated Plans of local governments in the region, the Metro Housing Technical Advisory Committee (H-TAC), the Housing and Community Development Commission, the City Club of Portland, Housing Authorities in the region and the Oregon Housing and eommunity Services Department. Highlights of affordable housing needs are presented in this summary report and links to more complete documentation can be found on the Committee's website http://www.pdc.us/hsg-bre/. Primarily due to a lack of financial resources, many jurisdictions in the region are not meeting benchmarks for implementation of adopted housing policies and goals, including the fair share targets in the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Members of the Committee believe that a proactive approach, such as offering financial incentives to encourage the development of affordable housing, is a more effective and realistic strategy than a pure regulatory approach as jurisdictions strive to provide the range of housing called for in these plans and required to meet the demands of people who live and work in communities across the region. The federal government's retreat from its historic role as core financier of affordable housing along with high unemployment rates, steadily rising housing costs, and a dramatic increase in homelessness motivated these private and public sector leaders to come together to develop a winnable strategy to secure a new.source of long-term, stable funding for affordable housing. Between November 2003 and June 2004, the Committee met five times. All meetings were open to the public and were well attended. The Committee reviewed existing data on the regional need for affordable housing, the economic impacts of housing development and financing, and existing funding for affordable housing. They also examined various potential sources of new revenue, as well as previous efforts to secure housing funding locally, statewide and across the country. They discussed program priorities and the populations who they believe should be helped with new funding, political challenges and opportunities, and the partnerships necessary to successfully secure a new funding to address regional housing needs. The Committee agreed that the principle elements of a successful strategy would include building coalitions and consensus, increasing general public awareness of the problem, gaining n blic support for solutions, and increasing support among local and state officials, including legislators, for the changes needed to tap potential funding sources and to reduce the cost of housing financing and development. Consultant Patricia McCaig conducted a preliminary market assessment of recent local and national market research on attitudes regarding affordable housing and related issues. Her Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development Page 1 i findings are reflected in a memo to the Committee titled Summary of Preliminary Market Assessment (Attachment #1). The Committee agreed that additional research and polling would be necessary over the next 12-18 months to refine and successfully implement their recommended strategy. The next phase of market research will occur in July and August 2004. This Report summarizes the Committee's activities, discussions, and recommendations. Attachments at the end of the Report provide background data and additional information the Committee considered in their deliberations. A website was set up to provide community access to the Committee and their materials. It provides links to numerous documents and resources the Committee reviewed. The website address is http://www. dp c.us/hs z brcl. Committee Charge, Membership, and Expected Outcomes A. Charge: To identify and recommend a winnable strategy to secure a new source of long- term stable furopg to meet affordable housing needs in the Portland Metro area. New funds will be used to help people with disabilities, young families and low-wage workers afford safe, stable housing. The preferred source is one that is flexible and can be used for construction, rehabilitation, acquisition and preservation of affordable units and rents, and other appropriate subsidies as identified by local plans. B. Membership: The Committee was composed of private and public sector leaders representing business, faith-based and philanthropic organizations, labor, housing providers and developers, and state and local governments in the Portland Metro area. C. Outcomes: The Committee set the following as the outcomes expected upon completion of its work. Identification of a specific new source(s) of regional and/or local funding.to pursue. The selected funding mechanism will generate a long term, sustainable source of funding to meet identified affordable housing needs. The recommendation will be specific as to: o Geographic scope of the program o Mechanism(s) to actively pursue (Bond, Levy, RETF, Niche Tax, other) o Amount of funding to pursue o Outline of a strategy or set of actions to secure the preferred funding mechanism. o Commitment by state and local leaders to carry out the strategy. ® Recommendation of broad guidelines for allocation of new affordable housing funds. If regional strategy, allow flexibility for local jurisdictions to meet local priorities. Development of Action Plan to secure funding. ■ Implementation Recommendations: Roic of agency(ies) that administer funds o Oversight of funds to ensure accountability and evaluation i o Administration Costs o Reporting Mechanism Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development Page 2 2. AFFORDABLE HOUSING: LOCAL NEEDS & PUBLIC BENEFITS The Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development reviewed comprehensive data documenting the current and projected need for affordable housing in the ons, the Committee Tri-County Metro Region. In adopting `this report and its recominnendati acknowledges the enormous need to increase the supply of affordable housing for a range of low- income people, including many who are working. The Committee recognizes that full implementation of its recommendation will not solve the affordable housing problem. However, when leveraged with private and other public resources, a new sustainable resource dedicated to affordable housing would allow local communities to meet their most critical housing needs and to stabilize families, schools, neighborhoods and local businesses. The overall need for affordable housing within the Portland Metro Region has been quantified and measured across many dimensions. The most comprehensive regional analysis of the need was conducted by the JRpgional Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee (H-TAC) in 2000. They estimated that an additional 90,000 units of housing affordable to families whose income is below 50% of the median family income ($34,000 for a family of 4) will be needed by year 2017.1 This estimate was based upon a comparison of the current affordable housing stock and projected population growth in the relevant income sectors. The H-TAC report set the following specific affordable housing production goals to meet projected need: Of the 90,000 units of affordable housing needed by 2017, the Metro Region needs to produce 65,300 units affordable to households with incomes at 30% MFI ($20,000 for family of 4) and 25,394 units affordable to households with incomes between 30-50% MFI ($20,000 to $34,000 for family of 4). ■ H-TAC's affordable housing production goals were allocated across all of the regional jurisdictions pursuant to a fair share formula in which each jurisdiction is responsible to meet its proportionate share of the need. ■ Looking at the three-County region, the H-TAC 2017 housing goal of 90,000 units produced can be summarized as follows 2: o Clackamas County: 21,078 additional units o Multnomah County: 27,696 additional units o Washington County: 41,922 additional units Affordable Housing Defined According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, housing is affordable when a person or family pays no more than 30% of their annual income on housing (rent or home mortgage plus utilities). Families, especially those with lower incomes, who pay more than 30% of their income are considered cost burdened and often Metro, Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, Appendix b: Benchmark Housing Production Goals, available at: http://www.metro-region.org/library_docs/land_use/appendix_bfairshare.pdf s A complete break-out of H-TAC's need-based housing goals by jurisdiction can be found at http://www.metro- renion or library docs/land use/appendix bfairshare.pdf. County numbers are only working estimates, since some jurisdictions exist in more than one County: Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development Page 3 have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.3 ■ Increasingly, cost burdened households include people who work in retail, health care, child care, clerical and other service sector jobs. Attachment #2, What Is Affordable Housing in the Tri-county? profiles the make-up and incomes of some typical households in the Metro Region and what those families can afford to pay for housing. The Importance of Meeting Housing Needs With respect to meeting the community's demand for affordable housing, the Committee makes the following findings: A. Housing is an essential part of the built community infrastructure, like roads, bridges, parks and water supply. B. Without Affordable Housing, families face hunger, homelessness and instability ■ When families cannot find housing the can afford, they are forced to move frequently, live in overcrowded conditions or they become homeless. Low- income families are increasingly moving within the Portland region in search of affordable housing.4 ■ Families that lack affordable housing are much more likely to experience hunger and homelessness. According to Patti Whitney-Wise, Director of Oregon Hunger Relief task Force, too many families are forced to choose between paying the rent and paying the grocery bill because they do not have enough income to cover both. Every month, these parents have to decide if their kids will be homeless or go hungry. No Parent should ever be confronted with that choice." ■ Renters in Oregon have a 50% higher hunger rate than renters across the country.5 C. Stable Housing is essential for children to succeed in school ■ Each time a student moves and changes school; his/her odds of dropping out increase by 30%6 ■ When families move frequently, student attendance and achievement drops dramatically. In one study, average reading scores of students who moved three or more times were half those of students who did not move.7 ■ Affordable housing helps low-income families remain stable in neighborhoods and schools and thereby boost student achievement. Students with stable housing climb up to a half of a school year ahead of peers who move frequently.s s See: http://www.bud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/index.cfm 4 According to a survey conducted by the City of Portland of over 1700 households on the waiting list for the Housing Authority of Portland in FY 2000, 49% of survey respondents indicated that they were forced to move in the-12 months prior to the survey, and 50% of that group indicated that they anticipated having to move again in the next 12 months. The most frequently cited reason for moving was housing affordability or lack of sufficient income. Report of the Housing Services Planning Committee, Bureau of Housing and Community Development, 2000. s From presentation by Michael Leachman, Oregon Center on Public Policy, to Governor's Summit on Hunger, February 27, 2003. e See: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousinglindex.cfm 7 Family Housing Fund, "Kids Mobility Project Report., " 2001 Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development Page 4 ■ According to one elementary school principal in the region, "Mobility is the single biggest factor interfering with kids' success. Mobility makes it very difficult to even asses the effectiveness of our programs. Until we can solve the school mobility problem and create stability in kid's lives, at least at school, it will be difficult to address the myriad of social and educational problems that grow out of high mobility. Affordable housing is part of the solutions9 D. Affordable housing development boosts economic growth ■ Public investment in affordable housing development creates family-wage jobs and stimulates construction and related economic sectors. See Appendix #3, "Housing`s Direct Economic Impact" for a summary of the economic effects of affordable housing development. ■ Employers, especially larger ones, are reluctant to locate in communities that lack affordable housing and stable schools. ■ Homeownership continues to constitute one of the greatest family wealth-building engines. Public investment to boost homeownership rates for populations that cannot currently access it is essential for basic economic equity and community stability. E. Increasing the supply of affordable housing conserves public resources by avoiding the public costs related to homelessness. ■ Studies show that the public costs of chronic homelessness - including the costs of shelter, jail, and psychiatric beds - greatly exceed the public costs of providing appropriate housing for that population.to ■ In cost-comparisons conducted in major cities, the public investment in providing housing and services for a homeless person is typically less than 10% of the cost to hospitalize or incarcerate them. t t A Growing Housing Affordability Crisis in the Region and State A. HOMEOWNERSHIP ■ Many families can no longer afford to become homeowners Most families with incomes at the region's median ($67,900 for a family of four) cannot afford to purchase a median-priced home ($185,000). s Varlas, Laura "Slowing the Revolving Boor: Schools Reach Out to More Mobile Families, " in the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development's Education Update, Vol. 44, No. 7, November, 2002. 9 Dennis McCauley, Principal, Reynolds School District, Fairview, Oregon. in a statement to the staff of the Blue.. Ribbon Committee, 2004. 10 The University of Pennsylvania's Center for Mental Health Policy and Services Research recently tracked the cost of nearly 5,000 mentally ill people in New York City for two years while they were homeless and for two years after they were housed. They concluded that housing created an average annual savings of $16,282 per participant by reducing the use of public health services, shelter use and incarceration of the homeless mentally ill. See http:I/www.csh.orglindex.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pagelD=722. 11 See the Corporation for Supportive Housing cost comparison at http://www.csh.org/html/ny.htm]. Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development Page 5 ■ For every available home that is affordable for purchase by low-income working families (50%MFI), there are more than three qualifying families waiting to buy it. 12 Across all categories of inrnme, the hnmenwners-_ip rates of racial minorities continue to lag behind the home ownership rates of the white population in our region. This "minority homeownership gap" must be addressed by broad strategies that will most likely require public investment. 13 B. RENTAL HOUSING ® For a working family of four with an annual income of $33,000 (50% MFI), the region currently has a shortage of approximately 3,500 affordable rental units. 14 For extremely low-income households (30% MFI), the affordable housing shortage is even more dramatic. HUD statistics indicate that the region currently lacks approximately 20,000 rental units as compared to the size of the population that needs it.ls Without new resources, current projections indicate that this shortage will widen to over 50,000 units by 2017.16 ■ In the Portland Region, for every affordable rental unit available to extremely low-income families (30% MFI), there are more than 3 families who need it.17 ® It is increasingly difficult for low-income working families to find affordable rental housing near their jobs requiring them to travel long distances every day. Attachment #4, Snapshot of Regional Housing Funds and Production summarizes annual average funding and accomplishments over the last 5 years. Although significant, these resources are inadequate to meet the growing demand. Not included are all federal subsides such as Section 8 vouchers, bonds, mortgage insurance and the home mortgage income tax deduction. 3. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES The Committee reviewed background information and previous research regarding potential funding sources. The principal report reviewed was entitled New Funds for Affordable Housing (available upon request and at website), prepared by the Heritage Consulting Group and Consultant Janet Byrd for the Community Development Network, the Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland, the Neighborhood Partnership Fund and the Portland Business Alliance. 12 National Low-Income Housing Coalition, Local Area Low-Income Housing Database, 2004, available at: http://www.nlihc.org/research/lalihd/ 13 See, Homeownership in the City of Portland, October, 2001, pp. 3-7 available at iitilr://riwv1.^y^.rtl°..^.d^,^linP rnmfcharrrl/rfm/jm~ge,cfm?id=32189 14 See, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Data, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 2000 available at: http://8ocds.huduser.orglscriptslodbic.exe%haslindex.htm is Ibid. 16 Metro, Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, Appendix b: Benchmark Housing Production Goals, available at: http://www.metro-region.orgnibrary_docs/land_use/appendix_bfairshare.pdf 17 National Low-Income Housing Coalition, Local Area Low-Income Housing Database, 2004, available at: http://www.niihc.orgiresearch/lalihd/ Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development Page 6 Ms. Byrd also prepared a summary memorandum, Attachment #5, Potential Use of Real Estate Transfer Fees To Fund Affordable Housing Development, for the Committee. A matrix outlining the characteristics of each source was the principal tool used by the Committee to evaluate the alternatives. This matrix entitled Summary of Potential Funding Sources follows as Attachment #6. The following summarizes the discussions and conclusions of the Committee regarding the sources considered. A. General Obligation Bonds. General Obligations Bonds (GO), if approved by voters, could be issued for affordable housing projects and paid back over a fixed period of time from a special property tax. Pro's- • Raises a predictable amount of funds ■ Not subject to property tax limitation (Measures #5, #47, and #50) ■ Can be used for capital improvements and land acquisition Con's: ■ Use of GO Bond proceeds is limited to publicly owned projects. ■ The GO Bond would require a public vote, and possibly a double majority. approval ■ Competition with other publicly funded programs (schools, parks, public safety) at a time when there are very high demands on limited public finds ■ Funds cannot be used with tax credit financing ■ Funds limited to capital investments, cannot be used for homeownership programs and rental assistance, or privately owned buildings and land ■ Temporary source ■ Public opposition to general tax increases B. Local Option Property Tax Levy. A local levy would earmark new property tax revenues.for affordable housing. Such property tax levies are common for libraries, public safety, parks and other public purposes. The additional property tax backing the levy is typically levied for 3-5 years. Pro's: ■ An advantage of the levy over the GO Bond is the use of the funds is highly flexible and can be used for capital, operating costs and other forms of subsidy. ■ No restrictions related to project ownership Con's: ■ Like the GO Bond, a property tax levy would require voter approval, and possibly with a double majority approval. ■ Competition with other worthy public causes at a time when there are very high demands on limited public finds The amount collected annually would also be uncertain as actual collections would be subject to the limitations of Measure 5 and Measure 50 which result in VL11JWo"cornpres'oivnCi.::re::tluMultnomah County and some of the smaller , cities iu the region are in compression. (See discussion in Attachment #Z) ■ A levy is generally in place for a limited number of years before going back for voter approval of a renewal. ■ Public opposition to general tax increases Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development Page 7 C. Real Estate Transfer Fee. A real estate transfer fee is a fee charged at the time of sale or transfer of real estate. The fee is typically paid by the seller. The fee discussed by the Committee assumed commercial property transactions would be exempted and the fee applied only to residential sales. The structure of real estate transfer fees varies widely, but it is a common fee in at least 37 states and many local communities across the country, including Washington and California. Pro's: ■ Strong nexus to affordable housing issue ■ Revenues reinvested into the housing industry ■ Once in place, the fee will provide stable funding ■ Funds flexible and can be used for capital, operations, homeownership, rent assistance ■ Does not compete with funding of other public services - schools, public safety, parks ■ Fudd9 could be dedicated through legislation to housing programs only ■ Fee paid when property sold (average home sells every 5-7 years), not an general tax paid annually by all residents ■ Fee can be designed to reduce and/or completely eliminate impact on lower priced homes Con's ■ Not allowed under current Oregon law. Current statutory pre-emption requires action by the Oregon legislature, an act that has not been successful in the past. ■ Opposed by the realtors associations ■ Could be perceived as `new' tax D. Local General Fund Allocations. All local governments have the option to allocate a portion of their general funds to affordable housing programs. Some jurisdictions have chosen to do so. Demands for general fund dollars have increased and property tax limitations have squeezed the availability of funds in most jurisdictions. Pro's: ■ Highly flexible funds that can be used for capital, operating cost and other forms of subsidy ■ Decided by elected officials, jurisdiction by jurisdiction. Con's ■ Would not provide a regional solution as different jurisdictions have widely varying funding capacity and/or commitments to fund affordable housing programs with existing limited resources. ■ Would not be long term or stable as jurisdictions could change commitments and allocate funds to other programs in annual budget process. ■ Would compete with demand for funding of other public services --s Sub;P~rect to r nrnnertv tax limitations and compression E. Mortgage Interest Deductions. A member of the Committee suggested that the Committee consider a reduction or cap on the home mortgage interest deduction for Oregon income tax payers. The Committee looked at 1) capping the mortgage interest Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development Page 8 deduction at $20,000 per year and 2) elimination of the mortgage interest deduction for mortgages on other than the taxpayer's primary residence. Pro's: ■ The strong nexus with the affordable housing issue ■ Highly flexible funds that can be used for capital, operating cost and other forms of subsidy Con's ■ Requires change in Oregon tax code by the Oregon legislature ■ Could be perceived as "a new tax" ■ Such a change would be extremely politically unpopular ■ The amount of money raised statewide would not be sufficient to address regional affordable housing needs ■ Legislature could allocate funds to other programs 11 F. Summary Recom mendation. Based on a thorough evaluation of each of the potential funding sources, the Committee concluded that the real estate transfer fee is the preferred new source of funding for affordable housing programs in the metropolitan area. Key reasons include: ■ Provides long term, stable funding ■ Strong nexus between the source and use of the funds ■ Stimulates local economy through direct investment in housing market ■ High spending flexibility ■ Can be designed to reduce and eliminate impact on low income households ■ Does not compete with demand for funding of other public services Although not enough to solve problem, enough to make significant impact ■ Is not a general tax increase The Committee recommends that the fee be kept small, probably less than I% of sales price, apply only to residential properties, and be designed to minimize the impact on lower priced housing by exempting lower prices homes. 4. POTENTIAL USES OF FUNDS The Committee discussed the broad program areas that could be funded and the people who should benefit from housing assistance programs. They agreed that these are low-income people with disabilities, low-income seniors, people who are homeless or are at risk of being homeless, and low-income families. They also discussed the value of homeownership as a tool for wealth creation and for building community stability and livability. They agreed that it is critical for the public to understand and support the goals-of programs to be funded and that accomplishments are measured and reported regularly. The Committee also emphasized that maximizing the leverage of private equity as well as other public funds is critical to a successful strategy. The Committee endorsed the concept that the eligible uses and the method for allocation be tied to the housing plans of local jurisdictions, such as the Consolidated Plans. These locally developed and adopted plans reflect local needs, markets, and priorities. They also are action plans for use of federal dollars coming to cities and counties and articulate identified and documented community priorities. To facilitate efficient distribution and monitoring of funds, Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development Page 9 the Committee felt that using existing housing agencies and programs would be key. This would include agencies at the city, county, and state level in partnership with local private housing developers and non-profit organizations. The Committee requested research to assess the level of public understanding of the need, the baseline level of support for affordable housing programs, and who should be served with new resources. This research will help in the design of a winnable strategy that balances political realities with the desire to serve those most needy. Proposed Program Areas The proposed program areas are: Rental Preservation and Production a Homeowner s Rental Assistance • Rental Operating & Maintenance Administration These program areas are summarized on Attachment #7, What are Eligible/Preferred Activities for New Funds? A. RENTAL PRESERVATION AND PRODUCTION. Provides project funding for new construction, acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units, and land acquisition for future projects. Additionally funds could be used to reprogram the rent structure of existing projects to achieve greater affordability. Provides housing options for low- income people with. disabilities, low-income seniors, people who are homeless or are at risk of becoming homeless, and low-income families. The Committee agreed that the largest share of funding should be targeted to serve people with the greatest need. Projects could be mixed-income and/or mixed use, in order to achieve neighborhood revitalization and project stability. Committee did not make a recommendation on the percentage of funds targeted to specific income levels (0-30% MR or 30-50% MFI) B. HOMEOWNERSHIP. Provides funding for financial products assisting low-income families in becoming homeowners. Products could include down payment assistance, interest rate buy downs, shared-appreciation or other subsidized mortgages, and land trust or other shared equity models. Funds could be used for needed repairs on older homes or short-term construction financing that lowers the purchase price on newly built units. The success of homeownership programs is dependent on adequate credit counseling and homebuyer education before purchase. Homeownership brings financial stability to families and to neighborhoods. C. RENTAL ASSISTANCE. Provide funding for local rent assistance programs. Jurisdictions currently sponsor a variety of successful rental assistance programs that complement the Federal Section 8 and Shelter Plus Care programs that provide long-term Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development Page 10 rent assistance vouchers. Examples of these local programs include Transitions to Housing, Rent Assistance Supplement Program (RASP), and Housing Connections Access Services. Rent assistance programs can also provide emergency, short-term financial help to stabilize families facing temporary economic hardship. This'type of support fosters family, school, and neighborhood stability. Other programs help people transition out of homelessness by providing move-in assistance and support until families stabilize. The City Club of Portland recommends rent assistance vouchers. Their analysis shows that local governments cannot build their way out of the affordable housing crisis due to the cost of new construction. D. RENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE. The goals of this proposed program are to provide a decent living environment for very low-income residents, to ensure the long-term financial viability of the publicly funded units, and to promote neighborhood livability. Funding in this category would be used to assist agencies with units serving extremely low income residents to provide a decent, safe and secure living environment foi the residents and their neighbors. Without assistance, these projects may have a difficult time sustaining financial viability and contributing to neighborhood stability because the rent revenues may not cover the project's operating and reserve requirements. These properties may have a need for extra on-site support for tenants (enhanced property management) to enable individuals and families to be successful residents. This type of expenditure would require accountability from participating property owners by including provisions such as minimum maintenance standards, affordability requirements and recapture mechanisms in the event of the owner's failure to live up to the program's provisions. E. ADMINISTRATION. Funds should be administered by existing housing agencies/programs. Costs of administration should be as low as possible, with a goal of no more-than 6% and include clear expectations and provisions for ensuring accountability. 5. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Uses: The allowed uses/program areas should be consistent with plans developed and adopted by local jurisdictions within general regional guidelines: Rental preservation and production for very low-income families, seniors, people with disabilities, and people who are homeless; targeted homeownership programs; rent assistance; and a limited amount for rental property operations and maintenance for those projects requiring enhanced property maintenance. B. Geographic Scope: The new funding source should be implemented throughout the tri- county metropolitan area that includes Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas counties. A statewide source is preferable to address the growing housing affordability crisis in other Oregon communities such as the Ashland-Medford area, the Bend-Redmond area and along the coast. A local pilot program could provide valuable data on a long-term statewide solution. C. Administration: New revenues should be administered by existing housing agencies/programs. Costs for administration should be as low as possible, with a goal of Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development page 11 no more than 6% and include clear expectations and provisions for ensuring accountability. D. Preferred Source: Real Estate Transfer Fee (RETF). Keep it small, preferably no more than 1%, applied to residential sales only, and include an exemption for lower priced homes. The ability to implement the RETF will require action by the State Legislature. Consider a pilot program with a 5 year sunset provision. The actual rate and structure to be determined based on polling, discussions with interested parties, and assessment of political support. E. Amount: Needs to be enough "to make a difference", but not so much that it creates "sticker shock". Final amount and structure to be determined based in part on research and political support. Committee discussed a range between $50 million and $100 million annually for the region as a goal. They acknowledged that it would take many years to solve affordable housing problem at the lower end of range. F. Steering Committee: Establish a Resource Development Steering Committee to oversee market research and refine strategy recommendations. Steering committee will function as a subcommittee and report to full Committee in the fall of 2004. G. Coalition Building: - Build a broader coalition that includes organizations and agencies that promote economic development, community stability, and livability as well as the housing industry, financial institutions, and hunger and social service providers. 6. KEY CI~ALLENGES The Committee recognizes that implementation of the recommendations will be take considerable amount of additional work and ongoing commitment by members of the Committee and partners in the greater community. Some of the key challenges to address and overcome are: ■ Need for legislative action to allow local governments access to a RETF ■ Historically, the expansion of a RETF beyond Washington County has faced organized opposition ■ Competing needs for scarce public resources ■ Voter tax fatigue ■ Resources are inadequate to completely solve the affordable housing problem ■ Limited public awareness of housing affordability crisis Page 12 Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development 7. ATTACI1a MNTS 1. 5,,;•mnary of Preliminary Market Assessment 2. What is Affordable Housing in Portland? 3. Housing's Direct Economic Impact 4. Snapshot of Regional Housing Funds and Production: Federal, State and Local Funds 5. Potential Use of Real Estate Transfer Fees to Fund Affordable Housing Development 6. Summary of Potential Funding Sources 7. What are Eligible/Preferred Activities for New Funds To review additional background material, please go to http://www.pdc.us/hsg-brc/ J Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development Page 1133 Attachment #1 WCAIG COMMUNICATIONS OPINION RESEARCH To: Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development From: Patricia WCaig Date: April 2Y-,-'2004 Re: Summary of Preliminary Market Assessment I've reviewed the work of the Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development (Committee) and the preliminary draft report recommendations. The Committee's work defined the overall affordable housing needs for the region, established core priorities, and identified a funding source. The Committee's charge to develop a new source of long-term stable funding to meet affordable housing needs in the Portland Metro area led them to the real estate transfer fee as the preferred funding mechanism. The RETF meets the Committee's goals of flexibility, stability, and provides a new source of revenue. As the Committee recommended, their work to date should now be tested and further informed by quantitative and qualitative research. (Additional research will probably be necessary in 12-18 months to reform and refine the package and test specific messages.) Quantitative research now would provide the Committee with a better understanding of the public's awareness of affordable housing needs, the level of support for funding affordable housing programs, and reactions to the proposed funding mechanism. Additionally, this research could test support for different housing priorities as well as different combinations of programs to guide the development of an affordable housing package. Based on the Committee's work, I reviewed existing quantitative and qualitative research for key findings that could provide additional insights to help inform the development of a "winnable strategy" and the next level of research. The review includes statewide and local surveys, regional and statewide focus groups, recent focus groups done for the Regional Housing Managers and a cursory review of the campaigns for real estate transfer fees around th4 ~-,,.nt , 1 GENERAL FINDINGS Affordable Housing ® In recent focus groups most participants agree housing is expensive and becoming unattainable for more people. ■ Participants in regional focus groups could identify groups of people who cannot secure housing they can afford. ■ In public and voter surveys conducted statewide, affordable housing does not surface as a top tier concern. ■ In some local community surveys, housing quality and housing density are mentioned by respondents as issues of concern. Generally the public supports some sort of assistance for:* ■ KeepingJseniors in their homes; ■ Preserving and rehabilitating existing low income housing; ■ Providing care services to low income citizens who are disabled or can't live independently; and ■ Families (children). General/Government ■ Oregonians think the state is headed in the wrong direction and hold local and state officials responsible. The economy, jobs, and education (funding and quality) are the issues of greatest concern to most Oregonians. Confidence in government is mixed - the public expresses skepticism about government generally, however on specific programs they often indicate they are satisfie6with the service. When asked in a statewide survey whether local government made their community a better place to live, no difference, or less appealing, just over half (51 of respondents found local government made their community more appealing, only 38% believed state government made their community more appealing, and as many people thought the federal government made their community LESS appealing (29%) as more appealing (28%). Community ■ Respondents believe small business (86%), colleges and universities (85%) and nonprofits/charities (82%) make their communities more appealing. Small town feel, neighborliness, quality of life are the top reasons given for why people like their community. Oregonians are equally divided, 1/3, 1/3,1/3, on whether their community will be better, about the same or worse in 10 years. ■ r~__i., aL.,,a 4ke n nhAienn rinh a or will grow and Most Oregonians believe it is likely that tic gap b.....,,, nd po ! y. a..d most see it as undesirable *Test again 2 i Many-Oregonians think we're doing a very good or good job helping families in need. ■ Although Oregonians may think we are off on the right track, their feelin s about Oregon remain positive. ■ Participation in family is the most intense and important core value for Oregonians. Real Estate Transfer Fee Campaigns Many states do have a RETF and those that do seem to have both a state levied RETF and have legislated authority for cities and/or counties to levy one as well. ■ Voter approval requires a researched, funded, disciplined, and strategic approach. ■ 'Successful campaigns isolate or eliminate formal opposition. ■ The purposes towards which the RETF monies are applied vary. In most cases the purpose is deemed a high priority or even a crisis situation. In addition to affordable housing, uses ingl.gde open spaces, parks, and transportation. In only one state did the money go directly to the general fund. ■ The percent, exemptions, and safeguards vary from state to state and should improve the viability of the package. ■ Florida's Housing Trust Fund has been funded by a RETF for over twelve years, it is supported by the Florida Association of Realtors and the Homebuilders. OBSERVATIONS The Committee has assembled the initial elements of a regional affordable housing proposal, including the funding mechanism, with long-term success in mind. The success of this effort is dependent now on developing a strategy that recognizes the challenges, accurately assesses public opinion, and maximizes existing conditions. Based on the Committee's work, what we know from existing research, the challenges facing gny funding proposal, and the current climate in Oregon, the next steps in developing a "winnable strategy" should include exploring a range of strategic options. From the Committee's work and existing conditions, I've identified four different strategic approaches that the Committee could consider as they develop their research. #1 Build Awareness and They Will Come This is based on an assumption that if voters understand the need and urgency of the affordable housing crisis they will ultimately support funding a solution. This strategy assumes that proposing the 'right' package and building awareness and mobilizing supporters will help the 2005 legislative strategy and ultimately deliver at the polls. !Closest example = Seattle's compassion for lower income and spacial needs populations.) The Committee has indicated an interest in this direction with its recommendation to increase public awareness of affordable housing needs and build support for a regional solution. Polling needs to confirm that: 3 a. Increasing public awareness will result in increased public support for funding affordable housing programs; b. Increased public awareness and building support for funding could withstand opposition arguments; and c. Proposing a regional solution enhances support for the proposal. #2 Build Awareness PLUS and They Will Come Basically this is the same as above but looks for broader community benefits like reducing crime, producing jobs, and stabilizing schools and communities to push it over the top. (Closest example = Charlotte's compassion and good for all. Housing with economic development benefits.) #3 Share the Wea(ti This strategy incorporates affordable housing into a broader and bigger package with benefits that stretch across interest groups and constituencies. It increases the number who benefit from the RETF. (Closest example = Baltimore's Help Shape Our City's Future. Parks, schools & housing.) #4 Give It BACK Is there a potential ballot title strategy that taps into voter support for local control? Explore ballot title language authorizing local control. Conclusion Research will help you understand where you begin, the strengths and weaknesses of your proposal, and direct you towards a winnable strategy. Meeting regional affordable housing needs will take a strategy that captures and uses existing conditions to achieve the desired outcome. There's a substantial difference between trying to bring the public/voters to where you want them to be and finding a way to intersect with where they are. The findings from the research could also prove very valuable in developing a 2005 legislative strategy to remove the statutory barriers to local implementation of a real estate transfer fee. i 4 Attachment #2 What is Affordable Housing in the Tri-county? Information for Clackamas, Multnomah, & Washington Counties: L Fair Market Rent (FMR) for Metropolitan Area: 1 BR/$644 2 BR/$795 3 BR/$1106 4 BR/$1200 One Person Household Four Person Household Annual Converted to What is Annual Converted to What is Income Hourly Wage Affordable Income Hourly Wage Affordable 30% $14,250 $6.85 $356 $20,350 $9.58 $501 Median 4/5 time fast food worker, 3/4 time child day Full time personal and home care aide, Family care worker or 3/4 time parking lot attendant. painter/wallpaper hanger or janitor. Income 4. 50% $23,750 $11.42 $594 $33,950 $16.32 $835 Median Full time retail salesperson, reservation/ticket Full time construction laborer, meter reader Family agent or receptionist. or postal service mail sorter Income 80% $38,000 $18.27 $950 $54,300 $26.11 $1,336 Median Full time cement mason, advertising sales Full time database manager, landscape Family agent, paralegal or credit analyst. architect, technical writer, or insurance Income salesperson. 100% $47;550 $22.86 $1,189 $67,900 $32.64 $1,671 Median Full time medical lab technician, computer Full time industrial engineer, human Family programmer, or insurance claims adjuster resource manager, police supervisor or Income software engineer Sources: City of Portland, Bureau of Housing and Community Development 2004 median family income (MR) levels for PortlandlVancouver; Oregon Employment Department wage information, 2003 Using This Information Median Family Income (MFI) is a term used often in talking about housing. As a statistic, median refers to the middle number. So given 101 people, person number 51 would be the middle, or median. The median family income for Portland, then, indicates the amount of household income for the middle family among all the families in the city. Hourly wage assumes 40 hours/week, 52 weeks/year. "What is affordable" figures are 30% of total inrnmv_ and- shn1-11d cover rent mortaavac and taxasl plus utffities The 30 a_-~ c ~ye-r ran(-o-r --0. a-- - _ , p /o of-income Stai+ualu Gi affordability is used by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. This information is supplied by Community Development Network and Portland Development Commission. For more information contact Community Development Network. 2627 NE MLK Jr. Blvd., Portland, OR 97212 503-335-9884. mike@cdnpordand.org Attachment #3 HOUSING'S DIREE T ECONOMIC IMPACT The National Association of Homebuilders reports that although it's difficult to gauge the indirect impact, the direct impact of residential construction on the economy is significant. Residential construction stimulates the economy directly by generating jobs, wages and tax revenues and indirectly as the demand for goods and services created by the construction of new homes "ripples" through the economy. ■ Impact of Single-Family Construction The construction of 1,000 single-family homes generates 2,448 full-time jobs in construction and construction-related industries; $79.4 million in wages; and $42.5 million in combined federal, state and local revenues and fees. ■ Impact of Multifamily Construction The construction of 1,000 multifamily units generates 1,030 full-time jobs in construction and construction-related industries; $33.5 million in wages; and $17.8 million in combined federal, state and local tax revenues and fees. The joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University reported in the State of the Nation's Housing that residential investments account for nearly one-fifth of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product). The report also discussed the benefits of homeownership state and how increased homeownership equals increased spending and increased net wealth. ■ Impact of Homeownership o In 2001, the median net wealth of the lower-income owners was $68,000 while that of the lowest income renters was only $500. o For the homeowners, home equity accounted for 80% of their total net wealth o It is estimated that households spend $150 for every $1,000 gain realized from a home sale or home equity. The Association of Oregon Community Development Organizations recently completed a study on the economic impact of the State of Oregon's investment in non-profit-based housing development. The report summarized that a $94 million investment resulted in: ■ 7,562 affordable housing units were developed ■ $408 million was leverage in funding from federal and private sources ■ Economic Impact of the development projects was 12,200 jobs, $393 million in wages, and $23.2 million in state income taxes during the construction phase and the construction "ripple". It was estimated that the ongoing annual impact of the developments resulted in over 800 jobs, $23.5 million in wages, and $1.4 million in state income taxes. This assessment does not take into account the impact locally in property tax revenues and development fees. ECO Northwest, The Economic and Fiscal Impacts Associated with the Proposed Redevelopment of Columbia Villa, estimated the impact of the $152 million Housing Authority of Portland HOPE VI redevelopment project. The project will generate up to: ■ 1,325 jobs ■ $40.4 million in wages ® $22.4 million in small business and other income ■ Firms and individuals involved in the construction work will pay $5.5 million in state and local taxes. • Federal housing subsidies will boost spending by low-income households in Portland which will further support 250 jobs, $7 million in wages, $5 million in income, and $1.3 million in state and local taxes. ECO Northwest also estimated that for: • Every one construction job generated by the New Columbia HOPE VI project would generate an additional 1.38 jobs elsewhere in the Portland economy • Every dollar in construction wages generates an additional $1.43 in wages for workers in other sectors of the economy. • Every $1,000,000 in construction spending in Portland created 15 jobs, $456,000 in wages, $87,500 in income to businesses, and $164,800 in other income such as profits and corporate dividends. Resources: ■ National Association of Homebuilders [www.nahb.org] C State of the Nation's. Housing 2002 and State of the Nation's Housing 2003, Joint Center for Housing Studies pf Harvard University. [www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/marketsAndex.html] State Economic Impact of Affordable Housing Development 2003, Association of Oregon Community Development Organizations [http://www.aocdo.org/docs/EcoDevoStudyFinal.pdf] ■ The Economic and Fiscal Impacts Associated with the Proposes Redevelopment of Columbia Villa, ECONorthwest Attachment #4 - regional , r~ean houelno reeouroe develo~ar 5 u DATE: January 23, 2004 TO: Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development FROM: Blue Ribbon Committee Staff RE: Snapshot of Regional Housing Funds & Production: Federal, State and Local Funds FEDERAL FUNDS Table 1 (below) shows annual average housing production for the three regional counties based on project spending over the last five years. Combined, the three counties spend approximately $9.5 million annually in federal funds for housing production. They produce 744 units annually with CDBG and HOME funds. Other HUD funds administered by jurisdictions include additional CDBG, public housing support, Section 8 vouchers, new 202 and 811 (elderly and disabled), and a number of homeless grants (including emergency shelter, support services and transitional housing). Table 1.• Federal funding and unit production by county Ic as;CtpiP9u t nomah Ctosh~t~ tor! Counf4. Progr am Area - Ug~ts. = Funds UR~ts Funds Units FU0 Rental rehab & 785,009 103 4,164,750 212 1,122,104 112 new construction Homeowner rehab 384,840 26 1,777,965 194 186,950 24 Hornebuyer 237,675 8 798,340 61 58,200 3 assistance TOTAL $1,407,524 137 $6,741,055 467 $1,367,254 140 NOTE: These fcgmw are not am&ted and therefore are an estimate. Multnomah County production includes Portland and Gresham. Washington County inelmdes the County and Beaverton. STATE FUNDS The CFC invites project developers to apply for state grants and tax subsidies to develop housing for lower-income Oregonians. Funds are provided through a number of programs, including: 1) Housing Development Grant Program (Trust Fund), 2) HELP Program, 3) Low-income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC 9% credits), and 4) Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit Program (OAHTC). Most units funded in these cycles also receive local jurisdiction funding, including locally-administered federal CDBG and HOME funds. Due to this overlap it is difficult to consider CFC and local housing production separately. In addition to the CFC, housing developers can apply for 4% tax credits when they have secured tax-exempt bonds. These projects tend to have less local jurisdiction participation and they do not reach extremely low-income populations because there is not enough direct funding support. There is more information about these 4% tax credits in the following section. A snapshot ofstate funds to the metro area: • The state funds an average of 409 units annually through the CFC • Average annual trust fund award to the area is $884,000 • Average annual value of 9% tax credits is about 19.5 million • Average annual value of OAHTC savings is about $21 million • Average value of 4% tax credits is $22,500,00 awarded to an average of 936 units LOCAL FUNDS Clackamas Coin uses an average of $200,000 of local mental health funds annually to acquire land and construct and rehab group homes serving special needs clients. Examples include: 1) $250,000 for a property that was utilized for a 19-unit HUD 811 (disabled) project, and 2) $450,000 for a property that was developed into a 44-unit facility. L The County has provided HOME and CDBG funds to most tax-credit projects in the County which has enabled the projects to serve a lower -income population which requires more significant subsidies. The County has also used bond financing and urban renewal funds to acquire existing rental properties. Multnomah County Portland - The City of Portland has two sources of local funding: urban renewal and the housing investment fund. 1. Urban Renewal Funds (TIF) have produced an average of 563 units annually across its nine Urban Renewal Areas with average annual funding of $14.3 million. While some projects funded (the Danmoore) serve almost exclusively extremely low-income people, other projects (Museum Place) serve people with a wider range of incomes. Because four of the 10 renewal districts are expiring in the next five years, there will be a significant drop in the annual average production going forward. 2. The Housing Investment Fund (HIF), a $30 million general fund allocation, was created by the Portland City Council in 1996. Since its inception, 2,594 rental units have received HIF funds. Average production over the last five years has been 180 units. There have been no new allocations to this fund although there is a nominal income stream. Because Portland has contributed significant local funding beyond its CDBG and HOME funds, it has been able to underwrite projects for lower-income residents than would have been possible with only 4% tax credits. Specifically, almost half of the 4% tax credit projects awarded to Multnomah County have been leveraged with the City's federal, TIF, and/or HIF resources (16 projects with 2,193 units over the last five years). Gresham - The City of Gresham voters approved the adoption of an Urban Renewal Plan for Rockwood-West Gresham in November 2003. Goal 3 of the Plan is to "Increase the availability of quality housing." This includes "making ownership housing more available in terms of the number of units and their affordability for a range of household incomes, and improving the quality of existing rental housing while preserving affordability." Washington County has been innovative in leveraging conduit revenue bonds, housing authority bonds, private activity bonds, and Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Its Affordable Housing Program averages 250 units annually of new construction or rehab rental housing outside of the production with federal funds. Of the five projects funded so through this program, one has received 9% tax credits and three have received 4% tax credits. Speda! thanks to staff of Beaverton, Washington County, Clackamas County, Gorham, Portland, Oregon Housing and Community Development, and Dpartmtnt of Hooting and Urban Development forpronding information andguidance on this document. Mod Attachment #5 Memorandum From: Janet Byrd To: Regional Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing Resource Development RE: Potential Use of Real Estate Transfer Fees to Fund Affordable Housing Development Date: November 21, 2003 The study "New Funds for Affordable Housing' addresses two funding options available to local governments, tax levies and bond issues. It does not address a third, viable option, Real Estate Transfer Taxes, which have lpng been recognized as a potential source of dedicated funding. Most recently, METRO's Regional Affordable Housing Strategy recommended a RETF as the best funding source to meet the affordable housing needs of the region('). This memo will briefly discuss the uses of real estate transfer taxes in other cities and states, the potential use of real estate transfer taxes in Oregon, and legislative barriers to the use of this tool. Real Estate Transfer Fees Defined Real Estate Transfer Fees are small fees charged at the time of sale or transfer of real estate. Fees are usually a small percentage of the sale value, ranging from .25 to 1.5%, or can be a flat dollar amount on each dollar increment of sale price (e.g. Nebraska charges $1.75 per $1,000 of sale price). Real Estate Transfer Fees capture a small part of the appreciation in property values at the time of sale of a property, when that value is realized. Real Estate Transfer Fees make sense as a permanent financing tool for affordable housing in large part because of this link to the housing market. Revenue Estimates A Real Estate Transfer Fee would make a significant difference in our ability to meet the housing needs of our communities. A small (.5%) statewide fee could raise as much as $50 million a year, depending on the property categories subject to the fee and the structure of any exemptions. Estimates based on 2002 property sales are that a fee of .5% enacted in the Portland metropolitan area would generate $25 to $30 million a year for housing. A fee within the City of Portland would generate $7 to $10 million a year.') This would make a good start towards meeting the needs of the region for affordable housing for a wide range of residents. Structural Options Protect Vulnerable Populations Real Estate Transfer Fees can be designed to be progressive and to protect economically vulnerable populations. Certain sales can be exempted from the fee, for example, homes selling for less than 80% of the median sales price, or homes purchased by first-time homebuyers. Low income seniors selling i1 ieir primar/ residence could also be sheltered from the fee. Real Estate Transfer Fees In Other States Thirty-seven states have a Real Estate Transfer Fee of some sort in place. These fees are also called document recording fees, or document stamp taxes. While many states use them for general revenue or to pay for infrastructure costs associated with development, twelve states use their real estate transfer fees or documentary stamp taxes as dedicated revenue streams for housing trust funds (Z). The Florida Housing t_ig Coalition, ncludes the Florida Association of Realtors and Florida Home ~..I.~...,........_ Builders Association, successfully lobbied 12 years ago for an RETF to fund an ambitious housing trust fund. The trust fund enabling legislation has a complex allocation formula which assures geographic distribution as well as distribution between uses of funds. Advocates can track their success in every county and locality throughout the state of Florida. Business interests continue to work with advocates to keep the program intact. Closer to home, California has local RETFs of .5 % to .7501o, and Washington has a statewide fee of 1.28% plus optional local RETFs of up to .5% additional. Clark County Washington has Real Estate Transfer Fees ranging from 1.28% to 1.78%. Washington state also enacted a document recording fee in 2002 which funds affordable housing statewide. Real Estate Transfer Fees`Chn Stimulate the Market, Create Togs The National Alliance of Homebuilders estimates that the construction of 1,000 single-family homes generates 2,448 jobs in construction and construction-related industries, approximately $79.4 million in wages, and more than $42.5 million in federal, state, and local tax revenues and fees. The construction of 1,000 multifamily homes generates 1,030 jobs in construction and related industries, approximately $33.5 million in wages, and more than $17.8 million in federal, state and local tax revenues and fees. (4). A Real Estate Transfer Fee dedicated to funding affordable housing programs would stimulate the Oregon economy while providing funds to preserve our communities and meet essential needs. Current Real Estate Transfer Fees in Oregon Oregon now has a small statewide document recording fee, imposed at the time of recording of certain kinds of property sales. Fees are limited to $11 per transaction, and the funds are divided between the county assessors and the county general funds. Local real estate transfer fees are pre-empted by the same statute. Washington County has a small (.1%) Real Estate Transfer Tax which pre-dates the preemption provision in Oregon law. This revenue goes into the county's general fund. Real Estate Transfer Fees and the Oregon Legislature Expansion of the document recording fee in Oregon, and the right of local governments to impose their own RETFs, has been a hard fought issue in the Oregon Legislature for many years (see Legislative History). Several elements of the 2003 effort can be highlighted as important components in a future effort. ♦ Local government representation in the effort to lift the preemption should be as broad as possible. The lobbying presence of the City of Ashland in the 2003 session made a significant difference by building support among non-metro area legislators. A strong and workable proposal for the collection and oversight of funds has now been developed. The proposal features local ability to design a program that meets specific community needs while providing state oversight to ensure that statutory goals are met. Accountability and minimal administration costs were included in the proposal as well, to forestall challenges on those grounds. ♦ Coalition building efforts which look beyond the affordable housing community should be prioritized. Legislators began to tie the housing and hunger issues more closely in 2003, and saw housing as a critical support for vulnerable populations facing other service cuts. NOTES: ____ad ACCIo.~d.d_L.1able u.....1., H oust ny., et~te,,,, METRO, PnrHand, Oregon, July 2000, page 71, Chapter 1. Regfio JH M«yT, Five, Recommendations 2. Estimates prepared by Oregon Housing and Community Services Department, May 2003 3. Housing Trust Fund Progress Report 2002 . Housing Trust Fund Project of the Center for Community Change, Frazier Park CA, June 2002. I've also addled Ohio which passed a documentary stamp increase in mid-2003. 4. "Housing: The Key to Economic Recovery", National Alliance of Homebuilders, 2002 >.t Legislative History Real Estate Transfer Fees in Oregon (compiled by Janet Byrd, spring 2003) In 1989 a statewide real estate transfer tax of $20 per document was put in place with the revenue used to fund county assessors' offices. Transactions which were subject to the fee were somewhat limited. This tax had a sunset of July 1, 1998. As part of a negotiated agreement between realtors and the assessors a preemption of local real estate transfer fees was enacted as part of this legislation. The local preemption had a sunset of January 1, 1994. 1997 In 1997 the real estate transfer tax funding assessors had to be re-visited because of the sunset on the 1989 law. Also in 1997, the`Affordable Housing Coalition made a credible push for a statewide real estate transfer fee to be used to fund affordable housing and infrastructure development. HB 3104 was introduced at the request of the Affordable Housing Coalition by Rep. Repine. It would have enacted a statewide Real Estate Transfer Tax. The proceeds would have been distributed among local governments for infrastructure development and affordable housing creation and preservation. The bill began with the support of the Home Builders, Oregon Bankers Association, and others but failed to move through the House. HB 2049 was a proposal by the Department of Revenue to revise the system for funding property tax assessment functions and to ensure that these activities were being adequately performed and funded. Realtors and counties made an agreement at the end of the session which amended HB 2049 and extended the then'current system for one session. The deal also extended the sunset on the preemption of local RETTs to July.1, 2000. Affordable housing advocates were not a party to the negotiations. Post-session, an interim workgroup was convened by the Department of Revenue. Parties included the Association of Oregon Counties; the county assessors; the Oregon Association of Realtors; the Home Builders; the Oregon Bankers Association; Cities; Schools; Special Districts; Associated Oregon Industries. Affordable housing advocates were not included in the Department of Revenue process. 1999 HfB 2139 was a joint effort of assessors, counties, and realtors. This was the product of the interim workgroup described above. The bill decreased the amount of the fee from $20 to $11($10 to assessors, $1 to counties). At the same time, it expanded the definition of transactions on which the fee is charged. This restructuring resulted in an increase in total revenue for county assessor offices. This bill made the preemption of local real estate transfer fees permanent. 2901 In 2001 Oregon HOME, a coalition of Portland Metro-area elected officials and supporters, was formed to promote the creation of a Regional Housing Fund. HB 3400 was introduced and received a hearing in the House Revenue Committee. The Regional Housing Fund concept provided for the creation of the Fund, and assessment of a .75% fee on real estate transfers, upon the vote of approval of two thirds of the governing body formed of representatives of each of the 27 jurisdictions within the urban growth boundary. Two thirds of the revenues were to be reserved for rental housing, one third for homeownership. X003 In the most recent legislative session, the dynamic shifted considerably with the strong advocacy effort in Ashland for the lifting of the pre-emption on the Real Estate Transfer Fee. Strong support emerged in the Senate for a proposal which called for a pilot program in the two communities evidencing strong local support, Ashland and metro Portland. Proponents advocated amendments to Senate Bill 863 which would have created a pilot program, establishing a Real Estate Transfer Fee of up to .5%, with the program to sunset July 1, 2007. Funds were to be channeled through Housing and Community Services - this would insure efficient administration and appropriate uses of funds. Local governments would submit annual plans to OHCS for approval, and then Local Housing Trust Fund revenues would be distributed accordingly, A revenue collection mechanism was proposed which would require that sellers of property in affected counties pay the required fee to the Oregon Department of Revenue and receive a receipt. This receipt would be required for recordation of the sale at the county level. Revenues raised for the Local Affordable Housing Trust Funds would be used for housing, with two kinds of uses allowed. o Rental housing for low income households, which could include flexible programs as well as development (homelessness prevention, etc.). Allowable uses were proposed as: development, acquisition, rehabilitation; preservation and support of housing development for low income rental households, including seniors, people with disabilities, and people earning minimum wage. Homeownership programs for low/moderate income households - soft second mortgages, education, downpayment assistance Oregon (Revised Statutes Section 306.615 Tax on transfer of real property prohibited; exceptions. (1) A city, county, district or other political subdivision or municipal corporation of this state shall not impose, by ordinance or other law, a tax or fee upon the transfer of a fee estate in real property, or measured by the consideration paid or received upon transfer of a fee estate in real property. (2) A tax or fee upon the transfer of a fee estate in real property does not include any fee or charge that becomes due or payable at the time of transfer of a fee estate in real property, unless that fee or charge is imposed upon the right, privilege or act of transferring title to real property. (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any fee established under ORS 203.148. (4) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any tax if the ordinance or other law imposing the tax is in effect and operative on March 31, 1997. (5) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any tax or foe that is imposed upon the transfer of a fee estate in real property if the fee that is imposed under ORS 205.323, for the recording or filing of the instrument conveying the rear property being transferred is less than $11. [1989 c.796 §29; 1997 082 §12; 1999 c.701 §6] Attachment #6 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES REM ti 4, Definition Bond issued by jurisdiction. and repaid Additional local property tax .earmarked Small fee charged at the time of sale or ovsr specified period (usually 10-25 for specific use. (usually 3-7 yp) transfer of real estate. (Also.referred to as rs) from special property document recordin :fee Amount $25 million/year (for 10 years) '$25 million/year for levy duration $25 to $30 million/year ongoing raised ($250 M bond ($25M x 5 yrs = $125M less amt (0.5% fee based on 2002 metro area (estimate) to be paid over 20 yrs) reduced by compression) residential property sales with 151$80,000 exempted) Cost to $37.10 to $41.70/year x10 years median for $742 to $834 total $4.6:37/year;for levy duration $527:50 when property sold (0:25/$1,000 of $185,500 (median assessed value) - $80,000 mcomefamily (0,20 - 0.225/$1;000 of $185,500 median $185,500'median assessed value) _ $105500 x 0.5% estimate assessed value • Rental rehab & new construction e Rental rehab & new construction Allowable Government-owned capital projects • Homeownership • Homeownership only • Rental assistance • Rental assistance uses • Rental operating and maintenance • Rental operating and maintenance Project Government ownership and oversight No restrictions: not-for-profit; for-profit; No restrictions:.not for-profit; for profit; ownership required homeowners; government homeowners;.gove . rnment: Popular vote required (simple majority Popular vote required (simple majority in • State legislative action needed to allow Approval in general elections; double majority general elections; double majority RETF/document fee process otherwise) otherwise) • Local jurisdiction approval and/or popular vote • No deadline for expending funds Subject to Measures 5 and 50 • . 'Links source and use of binds • Not subject to Measures 550 a Money is raised evenly over-dura..ton' a Can be, tailored to minimize impact on Other Cannot be coupled with tax credit . Raises unpredictable amount due to low-income houseboids . considerations financing. compression (Mult, Clack, Wash) • Statutory Pre-emption in.0reSon . • :Raises predictable and guaranteed • Competition against current and:planned ' Ongoing source' amount levies and general funds' • Oregon has $11 document:recording fee • Interest costs • No interest costs:... that goes to counties; Wash. Go. has local 0.1 % real estate transfer fee that goes to eneral fund l SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES Jeduction i Definition Local government's allocation of general funds for a specific amount and . Homeowners could deduct up to $20,000 Owners of two homes could no longer per year in.mortgage interest paid from deduct the interest paid on a second purpose their taxable' income. Curreptly there is no mortgage from their taxable income. maximum: deduction. Amount Varies by local jurisdiction $25 Wyear statewide $12 Wyear statewide raised (based on the FY 2005-06) (based on the FY 2005-06) (estimate) Regional allocation would depend on Regional allocation would depend on how legislation is written. how legislation is written. Cost to Decreases in otherservices and/or No Cost to the median income family No Cost to the median income family median incr aced taxes because the average unless they own a second home. income family Oregon mortgage interest deduction was $8,743 in 2001. (estimate):. Allowable • Rental rehab & new construction No limitation unless stipulated in No limitation unless stipulated in uses o Homeownership legislation. legislation. • Rental Assistance • Rental Operating and maintenance Project No restnctgns not=for profit, for-. No Restrictions: not-for-profit; for-profit; No Restrictions: not for-profit; for-profit; ownership : prafit;`homeowners; government. _ homeowners; government.. homeowners; government.. Approval Local jurisdictions support/approval Revenue measure requiring 3/5 majority Revenue measure requiring 315 majority process approval in the State Legislature. approval in the State Legislature. Other • Subiect to Iyleasures 5 :and 50 • Cap wouldaffect top 135% of Oregon ® Requires a change in the state tax form to considerations Unpredictable due to annual budgeting taxpayers in 2001: separate reporting of first and second home • Local jurisdictions currently facing . BB 3052: was referred to the House mortgage interest deductions. budget cuts Revenue:Cotirriittee in the 2003 session. • Goes to state's General Fund and must • Competition other general fund : A public hearing: was held:and the bill compete with other programs. programs; public:,safety, parks; died in Committee. • No other state targets mortgage interest transportation, social service ..Goes to state's General Fund'and must deduction for additional limitations .:compete withbther programs. according to the National Conference of • 'No other state targets mortgage interest State Legislatures. deduction.for additional limitations according to'the National Conference of State Legislatures: Attachment #7 WHAT ARE ELIGIBLE/PREFERRED ACTIVITIES FOR NEW FUNDS? k~ .it1Y5: s: Mal" t~. ■ Provide housing for low income people including those with Land cost, density, construction type, Rental Preservation disabilities, the elderly, and the homeless; and low income worldng existing unit conditions, income and & Production families 4 population targets (New Construction and ■ Eligible projects include new construction, preservationtrehab, land Availability of HOME, CDBG, 9% or Rehabilitation) acquisition and reprogramming rent structure of existing projects for 4% tax credits , CFC funding and project- greater affordability based Section 8 ■ Projects could include mixed-income and/or mixed-use ■ Financial assistance to low-income working families Income level served ■ Mechanisms could include down payment assistance, interest rate ■ Localized home prices and land cost buy downs, shared appreciation or other subsidized mortgages, or ° Construction type (single- family, Homeownership land trust attached housing, condos) ■ Eligible projects include new construction and existing homes with or without rehab ■ Current interest rates ■ Funding mechanism used ■ Provide emergency, short-term financial help to stabilize families Rent levels Rental Assistance facing temporary economic hardship (school/ neighborhood stability) ° Household income ■ Provide move-in assistance, stabilization funds, and/or long term vouchers ■ Complement to Federal Section 8 programs ■ Building and property maintenance funding to units serving Age of structure extremely low- income families and individuals ■ Unit turnover frequency Rental Operating & ■ Eligible uses include enhanced property management (extra on-site ■ Size of household Maintenance support for tenants with special needs) and funding replacement reserves Population served Administration Oversight of funds to ensure accountability, effective monitoring and Current jurisdiction staff capacity reporting AGENDA ITEM # / FOR AGENDA OF August 17 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Review an d Discussion of Council Groundrules PREPARED BY: Joanne Bengtson DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Review and discuss Council Groundrules as established in Resolution No. 01-47. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the Council review and discuss the existing Council Groundrules to determine whether any modifications are needed at this time. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Charter in Chapter IV, Section 13, notes that the Council shall adopt rules for government of it members and proceedings. Attached is the latest version of the Council Groundrules as outlined in Resolution No. 01-47. Council Reviewed the Groundrules in 2003 and the consensus at that time was that not changes were needed. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Resolution No. 01-47 FISCAL NOTES N/A CTTY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 01- 14q A RESOLUTION REVISING TIM POLICY OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING COUNCIL GROUNDRULES AND AGENDA PROCESS (SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 00-51) WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council periodically reviews Council Gmundrules; and WEREAS, the City Council, on July 10, 2001, directed that changes be made to " Exhibit A' of the City Comcil Groundniles and Agenda Pmcess; and VA EREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to make the changes discussed, which will supersede Resolution No. 00-52. NOW, THE NORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that SECTION 1: The City Council hereby revises the Council Groundrules as described in Exhibit "A" attached. PASSED: 'This day of .2001. Ma or, i40figam) 0WV,t,-At dti Recorder - City of Ti d 0. MWM0UM0N30MCL GR0WDRW.ES J%Y 01= RESOL,UTIONNO. 01 Page 1 EXHIBIT "A" Resolution No, 01 CITY COUNCIL GROUNDRULES AND AGENDA PROCESS The following Information Is intended to assist with preparation for and the conduct of City Council meetings. The City Charter, Article IV, Section 13, contains regulations that govern Council meetings. The Groundruies describe the process followed by Council in scheduling and conducting meetings. Council/Mayor Roles • The Mayor, or In the absence of the Mayor, the Council President, shall be the Presiding Officer at all meetings. The Presiding Officer shall conduct all meetings, preserve order, enforce the rules of the Council and determine the order and length of discussion on any matter before the Council, subject to these rules. The Presiding Officer may move, second, debate and vote and shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a Councilor. The Presiding Officer shall sign all ordinances, resolutions, contracts and other documents, except where authority to sign certain contracts and other documents has been delegated to the City Manager and all documents shall be attested to by the City Recorder. The Mayor shall appoint the committees provided by the Rules of Council. • In all other actions, decisions and other matters relating to the conduct of business of the City, the Mayor or President shall have no more or less authority than any other Council member. For the purposes of this written procedure any reference to the Council (unless otherwise specifically noted to the contrary) will Include the Mayor, President and Council members. Qgnquct of QU Meefinas • Council will most at least once a month. Regularly scheduled meetings shall be on the second, third, and fourth Tuesdays of each month. • The Council meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays are "Business" meetings; the Council meetings on the third Tuesday of the month are "Workshop' meetings unless otherwise designated by the City Council. • Unless specifically noted otherwise, the meetings of Council shall begin at 6:30 p.m. . at the established place of meeting. On the second and fourth Tuesdays the meetings will begin with a Study Session following by the Business meeting. On the third Tuesday, the Workshop meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. • Roll CallNoting Order. The roll shalt be called in alphabetical order by last name. At Pesch succeedino meeting at which a roll call vote Is taken, the council person who voted last during the previous meeting, shall vote first and the Gounci person who 1 voted fist during the Preceding meeting shall vote second and so on in a rotating and that a different Council p person shall vote last during each separate emeeting for the duration of the meeting. • Charter Section 19 provides that 'the concurrence of a majority of the members of the Coundt present and voting, when a quorum of eCo Council fQ fe present, at a : A Council meeting shall be necessary to decide any question Council member who abstains or passes shall be considered present for determining wfiether a quorum exists, but shall not be counted as voting. Therefore, abstentions and 'passes' shall not be counted in the total vote and only votes in favor of or against a measure shall be counted in determining whether a measure receives a majority. • The Chair, or other members if the Chair falls to remember, shall call for a Point of Order at or around 9:30 p.m. to review remaining Items on the agenda with the council. The Council may reset or reschedule those Items, which it feels may not be reached prior to the regular time of adjournment. • The Coundrs goal Is to adjourn prior to 10 p. m. unless extended by majorlcerynsent, consent of all Council members then present If not continued by majority then the meeting shall be adjourned to either the nee scheduled meeting or the meeting shall be continued to a special meeting • Definitions -Meeting Types, Study Sessions and Executive Sessions: > BUSINESS MEETINGS: Business meetings are regular meetings where Council may deliberate toward a final decision on an agenda item including consideration of ordinances, resolutions 8. conducting public hearings. Business meetings are open to the public. The regularly scheduled business meetings are televised. Business meetings are generally scheduled to begin at 7:30 p.m. with a study session preceding the Business Meeting at 6:30 p.m. Study Sessions are a workshop-type of meeting (see definition below) which also provide an opportunity for the Council to review the business Mae" agenda and to ask questions for darification on issues or on process. Study Sessions are open to the public. All Council meetings are open to the public with the exception of Executive Sessions. Executive Sessions can be called under certain circumstances and topics are limited to those defined.by ORS 192.660. The Visitor's Agenda" is a regular feature on the Council Business meetings. This item will be placed near the beginning of ;s the Council Agenda to give citizens and visitors a chance to ter CCouncii an due to staff andfor schedule the topic for a la decide to refer meeting. 2 MMEW, > WORKSHOP MEETING: Workshop meetings are regular meetings where Council reviews and discusses agenda topics with no intent of deliberating toward'a final decision during the meeting. Workshop meetings are not currently scheduled to be televised but are open to the public. Workshop agenda items are generally topics which Council is receiving preliminary information on and providing direction for further staff analysis and information gathering for a later business meeting. Workshop topics may also include discussions with standing boards and committees, as well as other governmental units. Appropriate topics for Workshop meetings include: introduce a Topic. Staff will bring up new items to•determine whether Council wants to entertain further discussion and whether to schedule the topic as an item on a future agenda. - Educational Meetings: Council will review research Information presented by staff, consultants, or task forces - usually as a process check; i.e., is the issue on the fight "track"? - Meet with Individuals from City boards and committees or other jurisdictions to discuss items of common interest (examples; other Councils, the School District, and other officials). - Administrative Updates: Items such as calendar information, scheduling preferences, process checks. > STUDY SESSIONS: Study Sessions precede or follow a Business Meeting or Workshop Meeting. As stated above, they are conducted In a Workshop-type setting to provide an opportunity for Council to review the Business Meeting Agenda and to ask questions for clarification on issues or an process. Information is also shared on items that are time sensitive. During Study Sessions, any Council member may call for a Point of Order whenever he or she wishes to stop the "discussion" because he or she feels that it is more appropriate for the City Council to discuss the matter during the Council meeting. If a Point of Order is raised, the City Council will discuss the Point of Order and determine whether the "discussion" should continue on or be held during the Council meeting. The decision on whether to continue the "discussion" or not shall be determined by the majority consensus of the Council members present If Council discusses a Council Agenda Topic in a Study Session prior to that Council meeting, either the Presiding Officer or City Manager will bristly state at the introduction of the Agenda Toplq the fact tat Council discussed the topic in the Study Session and mention the key points of the discussion. > EXECUTIVE SESSIONS; Meetings conducted by the Council, City Manager, and appropriate staff for deliberation on certain matters in a setting closed to the public. Executive Sessions May be held during a regular, special or emergency meeting after the Presiding Officer has identified the ORS authorization for holding the Executive Session. Among the pe11111"I1GY topl N are employment of a public officer, . deliberations with the persons designated by the Council to carry on labor 3 + n negotiations, deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property transactions, and to consult with legal counsel regarding current Iitgation or litigation likely to be filed. Regarding Interrelationships Between the Cily Council an Its Appoinfed Commissions. Boards o mmitteps (hereinafter referred to as "Boards") • The Council shall follow the Procedure for Recruitment and Appointments to Boards and Committees established in Resolution No. 95-60. • Appointments to any committees not covered by Resolution No. 95.60 shall be made following the procedure provided within the Resolution or Ordinance, which created the committee. • Appointments to intergovernmental committees shall be made by Council Action. • Appointments of Council members to internal City committees as the Council liaison shall be made by the City Council. • It Is Council policy to make known to the public, by notice in the Cityscape, of the occurrence of vacancies on City boards for the purpose of informing persons who may be interested in appointment. • Council will entertain regular representation by persons outside the City on those boards, which provide for such non-city membership. • The Mayor and one Council member will serve on the Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee for the purpose of interviewing and recommending potential board members. Council members will serve on this Committee with the Mayor on a rotated basis for a term of sir months. Terms shall begin January 1 and July 1. -Communications Between City o ncilog CU Manager and Staff • Councilors are encouraged to maintain open communications with the City Manager, both as a group and individually in one-on-one sessions. • Councilors are encouraged to direct inquiries through the City Manager, giving as much information as possible to ensure a thorough response. • In the absence of the City Manager, Councilors are encouraged to contact the Assistant to the City Manager. In the absence of both the City Manager and the Assistant to the City Manager, Councilors are encouraged to contact the Department Head, realizing that the Department Head will discuss any such inquiries with the City Manager. • Contacts below the Department Head are discouraged due to the possible disruption of work, confusion on priorities, and limited scope of response. 4 Cog 11 a^endas an Packet Informant( n_ The City Manager agendas to allow for ( discussion oftplcs while meeting the established 10 p balanced adjournment time. • The City Manager will schedule items allowing time for staff research and the agenda cycle deadlines. • The agenda cycle calls for submittal of Items 10 days in advance of a Council meeting. Add-ons are to be minimized, as well as handouts distributed at the start of meetings, except Executive Sessions. Councilors and staff will prepare in advance of public meetings and Issues should be presented fully in packets. o Council is supportive of the role staff should play in offering professional after recommendations. nnsieernthe ff rreecomis aware of Council's right to mendation public input, the record final and Council deliberation on the matter. Communicatlons Amog • ors Councilors are encouraged to suggest agenda topics at the bench or to contact the City Manager about scheduling an item into the Tentative Agenda. O Add-on Agenda items should be brought up at the start of the meeting and generally considered only If continuing to a later agenda is not appropriate. Requests for legislative action of Coundi may be initiated by an individual Council member during a Council meeting. The City Manager will respond to the request consistent with resources and priorities, or refer the question of scheduling to Council as a whole. Communicati^^s with Commun'Gen e I P lic Councilors and the General Public are reminded of the Agenda cycle and cut-off dates. Administrative staff is available to explain how public issues are handled and how citizen input may be accomplished. C "Official" communication should come through Cibj Hall and be provided by the City Manager. Direct submittal or inquiries to the Council or individual Councilors should be referred to the City Manager or Councilors may ask the City Manager to took Into an Issue. j oMdal "press releases' are encouraged, both to assure accurate reporting and to advise Council and Staff of the official position communicated to the press. Press releases are through the City Manager's ®ffice. 5 Goner-at o Councilors are always Councilors in the eyes of the Administration, never simply private citizens. Thus, Councilors are always treated by Administration as Council members. • Inforrnation that "affects" the Council should go to Council. The City Manager is to decide on "gray areas," but too much information is preferable to too little. Budget cuts or increases are policy dedslons. Budgets will not be cut "piece meal" or "across the board," but rather should be made In service or program areas, giving staff full opportunity to provide data clearly defining the anticipated impact of the action. o It is the policy of the Council that if Councilors are contacted regarding labor relations during labor negotiations or conflict resolution proceedings, then Councilors hove no comment. Councilors and the City Manager agree to report and discuss any contact, which. might affect labor relations with the entire Council in Executive Session. • The Council Groundrulas will be submitted for review by Council each year either in the July or August Workshop Meeting. The Groundrules can be reviewed and revised at any other time in the year when a specific issue or issues are. Identified requiring action prior to the established review period. LMDW. +TW=l==WCU3t1R.ES.M= 6