City Council Packet - 06/21/2005
r i ('1 i l TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
WORKSHOP MEETING
June 21, 2005
COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE
TELEVISED
1:\Ofs\Donna's\ccpkt2
Agenda Item No. 3, 1
For Agenda of -M tp.
COUNCIL MINUTES
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 21, 2005
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Council President Wilson called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
1.2 Roll Call: Council President Wilson; Councilors Sherwood and
Woodruff. Mayor Dirksen arrived at 7 p.m.
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports: None
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None
Note: The Agenda was reviewed out of order; Agenda Item 4 was considered first.
2. HERITAGE TREE PROGRAM PRESENTATION
Tree Board Members Present: Chair Gillis; Board Members Callan and
Cancelosi.
Chair Gillis reviewed the Heritage Tree Program. The draft program
elements were presented in the Council's packet materials and are on file in
the City Recorder's office.
There was discussion about whether the Program provided incentives for
participation. A Board member advised that "people like to do this."
Incentives are not usually monetary and it is not known if any tax incentives
could be made available. Urban Forester Stine said one incentive might be
that he could offer assistance to owners of Heritage Trees by giving advice
about how to maintain the health of a tree.
Also discussed was how to determine if a tree should be designated as a
Heritage Tree and that the designation should be somewhat selective so the
honor would have value. Trees should be "trees of significance."
Urban Forester Stine advised that the City of Albany provides Heritage Tree
tours. There was a comment that perhaps Tigard could sponsor a Heritage
Home and Tree Tour.
Mayor Dirksen suggested that a permit be required for the removal of any
Heritage Tree.
Consensus of City Council was for preliminary acceptance of the Tree
Board's Heritage Tree Program.
COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 21, 2005 page 1
Public Works Director Koellermeier the next step will be for staff to analyze
financial and legal aspects of the draft Heritage Tree Program and then
return to the City Council with an enacting resolution or ordinance for its
consideration.
3. DISCUSS PENALTIES AS PROVIDED IN TREE PROTECTION SECTION
OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE
Community Development Director Hendryx reviewed this item with the City
Council. During the discussion on penalties for illegal tree removal, the City
Council reviewed mitigation requirements and the current tree protection
provisions.
In response to a question, Urban Forester Stine said most of the damage
that occurs to trees during development construction is accidental. Usually
he finds that an accident has occurred because the construction plans were
not checked. There were differing viewpoints offered during the discussion
as to whether greater fines would provide incentive to be more careful.
Mayor Dirksen said he would support heftier fines. Councilor Wilson said he
believed that communication breakdown was the issue.
Community Development Director Hendryx in response to a statement from
a Tree Board member who suggested fines were not being imposed on
violators, reviewed recent municipal court records where fines or other
consequences had been imposed. Interim City Manager Prosser reviewed
how the Municipal Court Judge addresses violations of the tree code, which
includes consideration of prior history of the violator and whether steps have
been taken to mitigate the damage. If the violation is a repeat offense, then
the maximum fine may be imposed. Also, if collection of the fine becomes a
problem, the matter is turned over to a collection agency.
There was discussion about how a tree's value is assessed. Urban Forester
Stine reviewed the reference resources he uses and acknowledged there is
some subjectivity.
Urban Forester Stine, in response to a question from Councilor Wilson, said
that often a larger tree is not cut down by contractors, which could be
construed as a willful act if the tree is marked as protected. Rather, the tree
might need to be removed because roots are cut or damaged during
construction activity. Councilor Wilson said that "construction is a messy
business" and he did not believe protected trees were usually damaged on
purpose. Councilor Wilson suggested the Tigard Municipal Code be flexible
since errors do occur; he said the code should be workable - not rigid.
Mayor Dirksen commented there would still be a "need to deal with the
consequences of human error."
COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 21, 2005 page 2
Interim City Manager Prosser reviewed the possible options for City Council
consideration:
1. Leave the TMC as is.
2. Increase fines.
3. Refer this matter to the Tree Board for review and
recommendations.
The Tree Board has reviewed this matter and a recommendation will be
scheduled for presentation to the City Council at a future meeting. After
discussion, it was determined that the Tree Board will do some additional
review of the penalties and forward a recommendation to the City Council.
4. PROGRESS REPORT ON HALL BOULEVARD/HIGHWAY 99W
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
City Engineer Duenas introduced this item. Also present were Alex Sander
from Washington County and Wayne Bauer from W&H Pacific. A copy of
the PowerPoint presentation shared with the City Council is on file in the City
Recorder's office. The City Council heard information on the following:
• This is an MSTIP3 Project - one of the last projects to be completed
under this program.
• Existing and projected traffic conditions were reviewed.
• Budget and scheduling information highlights were reviewed.
• Hall Boulevard and 99W are Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) Roads
• Hall Boulevard and 99W are shown as arterial roadways on City and
County transportation plans.
• Traffic study findings were reviewed:
■ 99W weekday average traffic: 47,500 vehicles
■ Hall Boulevard weekday average traffic: 13,000 vehicles
• Reviewed several aerial-view maps:
■ Existing lane and signal locations
■ Existing traffic conditions
■ 2025 no-build traffic operations
■ 2025 mitigate traffic operations
■ Conceptual Phase 1, 2, 3, and 4 Improvements
■ Cost estimates for Phase 1, 2, 3, and 4
Council reviewed in detail the conceptual phases and cost estimates and
cost:benfit ratio. Traffic study findings indicate that currently the Hall
Blvd./99W intersection is over-capacity at the SW Hall Blvd. approaches. To
achieve adequate capacity in 2025, four improvements were recommended:
COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 21, 2005 page 3
Phase 1 North-bound left-turn lane
Phase 2 East-bound through. lane
Phase 3 North-bound through lane
Phase 4 West-bound right-turn lane
There was discussion on the possibility of proceeding now with Phases 1
through 3; however, allocated funding is short by $.5 million. If phases 1-3
can be done now, traffic studies show the intersection would be adequate
until 2020. Phase 4 would extend the functionality of the intersection to
2025; however, Phase 4 would cost an additional $2.3 million.
Next steps:
• Identify possible additional funding.
• County, ODOT and City of Tigard will jointly determine if project is
feasible and should move forward
• If feasible, proceed with preliminary design and public involvement
Council members asked questions to clarify the proposed phases and how
to maximize the cost:benfit ratios. Council members indicated they were
encouraged about the benefits of the proposed project and there was a
suggestion that the Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force look at
how the first three phases might be funded.
5. DISCUSS SOLID WASTE RATES AND PROGRAM CHANGES
Public Works Director Koellermeier introduced this item. Also present was
Consultant Chris Bell, who reviewed a prepared presentation with the City
Council. A copy of this presentation is on file in the City Recorder's office.
Information shared with the City Council included:
• Authority over solid waste programs: ORS - TMC
• Rate-setting and review process
• Review of 2004 rate review process and system performance
• Projections for the current year
• Rate setting process (steps)
• Review of container and drop box charges (commercial rates)
• Proposed cart/residential rates
• Proposed container rates
• Proposed drop box rates
• New programs to consider:
o Residential: cart recycling and weekly yard debris collection
o Commercial program: organic (food) collection
o Administrative: solid waste administration and support
COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 21, 2005 page 4
Public Works Director Koellermeier reviewed profit-margin requirements for
haulers under the current franchise agreement. Financial statements of the
haulers are reviewed annually and the annual rate of return is calculated.
Annual rate of return is calculated to remain between 8% and 12% and any
annual review that falls outside that range automatically triggers a rate
adjustment. This year, the aggregate rate of return was 7.9%. The last
adjustment to rates occurred in January 2002.
There was discussion on the proposed cart recycling program.
Communities using the cart recycling method report an increase in the
amount of recycled materials. The carts will allow the haulers to move to an
automated pick-up system, thereby reducing risk of injury to workers. The
customer may place all recycled materials into one container, except for
glass and motor oil. Once-a-month pick up of glass (separate from other
recyclables) could be provided. Also, the amount of motor oil from
residential customers is small used oil can be recycled by taking the oil to
local oil-change businesses that will recycle it free of charge.
A closed-cart recycling program will mean that papers won't fly away on a
windy day and, on a rainy day, the recycled material will stay dry, which
helps with the processing of the materials collected. Public Works Director
Koellermeier noted a neighboring community reported an increase of 30% of
the collection of recycled materials with the advent of the type of program
being proposed. The industry is moving toward a cart-recycling system.
There was a brief review of the past City Council policy to move away from
commercial customers offsetting the costs for residential customers.
The recommended changes to the solid waste program were:
• Implement the residential cart collection (recycled materials) - to start
January 1, 2007. Rate increase is $0.71 per customer per month
(35 gallon service would increase from $19.65 to $20.36 - 77% of the
Tigard residential base has this level of service)
• Maintain the current level of yard debris service
• Table commercial organic collection for future consideration
• Increase franchise fee from 3% to 4%
Increase in revenue would be approximately $101,000 for additional
Staff support of solid waste and recycling programs and community
enhancement projects. Impact is $0.28 per month for the 35 gallon
Cart customer and $0.92 per month for each yard of container
service.
There was discussion about the current franchise program in Tigard and
whether going out for new proposals should be considered. Consultant Bell
recommended that the City not pursue requests for proposals citing the
COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 21, 2005 page 5
benefits of maintaining the good relationship established with the current
haulers. Public Works Director Koellermeier also noted that what drives up
costs is the capital investment and talked of the benefit of a long-term
relationship with haulers which provides enough time to amortize the cost of
the capital investments.
Consensus of the City Council was to proceed with the staff recommendation,
which will be presented at an upcoming public hearing. (Recorder's Note:
Hearing scheduled for July 12, 2005.)
Mayor Dirksen and Councilor Woodruff requested that during the hearing, staff
present to the public the service improvements to be provided.
6. DISCUSS AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) SECTION
7.40.180 REGARDING HOURS OF WORK FOR CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Community Development Director Hendryx introduced this agenda item. Also
present was Building Official Lampella. City Council and staff discussed the
current permitted hours allowed for construction noise. A chart on construction
noise comparisons allowed by jurisdictions was presented and reviewed by the
City Council. Tigard's restrictions appear to be "in the middle of the road."
After discussion, City Council consensus was for support for an amendment to
the TMC to scale back permitted construction hours: 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., seven
days a week. City Council members were advised that the Homebuilders
Association has indicated concern about an immediate change. The City
Council agreed that the proposed change could wait until the fall to be
implemented.
7. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None
8. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session
at 8:57 p.m. to discuss the employment of a public officer, employee, staff
member or individual agent under ORS 192.660(2)(a).
10. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Woodruff, to adjourn
the meeting at 9:22 p.m.
COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 21, 2005 page 6
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the City Council present:
Mayor Dirksen: Yes
Councilor Sherwood: Yes
Councilor Wilson: Yes
Councilor Woodruff: Yes
~atherirIe D -e_
Attest: Wheatley, Cit ecorder
May", ity of Tiga d
Date: "2 30,g
COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 21, 2005 page 7
F ITY COUNCIL
ETING
005 6:30 p.m. CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
CITY HALL
HALL BLVD
OR 97223
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s).
If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda
item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can
be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager.
Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present
by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard
in any order after 7:30 p.m.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be
scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting.
Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 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 by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-
684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 21, 2005 page 1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 21, 2005
6:30 PM
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
6:35 PM
2. HERITAGE TREE PROGRAM PRESENTATION
a. Staff Report: Public Works Staff and Tree Board Representatives
b. Council Discussion
7:05 PM
3. DISCUSS PENALTIES AS PROVIDED IN TREE PROTECTION SECTION OF THE
DEVELOPMENT CODE
a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff
b. Council Discussion
7:35 PM
4. PROGRESS REPORT ON HALL BOULEVARD/HIGHWAY 99W INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff
b. Council Discussion
8:05 PM
5. DISCUSS SOLID WASTE RATES AND PROGRAM CHANGES
a. Staff Report: Public Works Staff
b. Council Discussion
8:35 PM
6. DISCUSS AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 7.40.180
REGARDING HOURS OF WORK FOR CONSTRUCTION NOISE
a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff
b. Council Discussion
COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 21, 2005 page 2
9:05 PM
7. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
9:10 PM
8. NON AGENDA ITEMS
9:15 PM
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to
discuss the employment of a public officer, employee, staff member or individual
agent under ORS 192.660(2)(a). All discussions are confidential and those
present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media
are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but
must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for
the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive
Sessions are closed to the public.
9:50 PM
10. ADJOURNMENT
Administrative Items:
Council Calendar:
■ June 24 - Volunteer Recognition Event - Tigard Library
Community Room - 6:30 - 8 p.m.
■ June 28 - Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
■ July 4 41 of July Celebration and Holiday - City
Offices Closed
■ July 12 Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
■ July 19 - Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
■ July 26 - Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
I:tadmkathy\ccat20051050021.doc
COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 21, 2005 page 3
AGENDA ITEM # a.
FOR AGENDA OF June 21, 2005
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Heritage Tree Program
PREPARED BY: Matt Stine DEPT HEAD OK All, - CITY MGR OK l'Jl
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
The Tree Board will present a proposed Heritage Tree program to City Council
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Review the proposed Heritage Tree Program and provide direction to staff regarding next steps. Suggested next
steps are referring the proposed program to staff for legal and fmancial analysis.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The proposed Heritage Tree Program was created by the Tigard Tree Board as a method to identify and bring
public awareness to very large and old trees growing within the City's limits. This program will offer incentives to
private landowners who have a heritage tree growing on their property.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do not review the Heritage Tree Program.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Goal: The City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our
community.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Heritage Tree Program guidelines and rules.
FISCAL NOTES
Not known at this time.
t
FOURTH DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION (7/12/04)
Heritage Trees
Sections:
Purpose; Definition
Nomination
Review Process
Protection of Heritage Trees
Recognition of Heritage Trees
Removal of Heritage Tree Designation
Purpose and Definition:
1. The purpose is to foster appreciation and provide for voluntary protection of Heritage Trees
within the Tigard City limits.
2. A "Heritage Tree" is a tree or stand of trees that is of landmark importance due to age, size,
species, horticultural quality or historical importance.
3. "City Property" shall mean City property or public right-of-way under City jurisdiction.
Nomination:
1. Any person may nominate a particular tree or group of trees for "Heritage" status. If the
proposed Heritage Tree is located on property other than City property, the nomination shall
be submitted by the property owner or accompanied by the property owner's written consent.
If the proposed Heritage Tree is located on City property, the nomination shall be submitted
to the City Forester for evaluation. The City Forester and other City designees shall append
his/her recommendation to the nomination.
2. All nominations shall include a photograph of the tree(s) and a narrative explaining why the
tree qualifies for Heritage status.
Review Process:
1. The Tigard Tree Board shall review all Heritage Tree nominations at a public meeting.
Notice of the meeting shall be provided to the nominating applicant, the property owner (if
different than the applicant), the City Forester and the Chair of any recognized neighborhood
association in which the tree is located.
2. The City Forester shall prepare a report for the Tree Board analyzing whether the tree
complies with the requirements for designation.
3. After considering the City Forester's report and any testimony by interested persons, the
Tigard Tree Board shall vote on the nomination. The Board may designate the tree as a
Heritage Tree if the Board determines that the following criteria are met:
a. The tree or stand of trees is of landmark importance due to age, size, species, horticultural
quality or historic importance, and
b. The tree is not irreparably damaged, diseased, hazardous or unsafe, or the applicant is
willing to have the tree treated by an arborist and the treatment will alleviate the damage,
disease or hazard.
4. If the nomination is approved by the Tree Board, it shall be forwarded, with all elements of
the Boards evaluation attached, to the City Council for final evaluation and approval.
5. Following approval of the nomination by the City Council:
a. If the tree is located on private property, the designation shall be complete upon the
FOURTH DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION (7/12/04)
property owner's execution of a covenant running with the land and duly recorded by the
City. The covenant shall describe the subject property, generally describe the location of
the heritage tree, and covenant that the tree is protected as a Heritage Tree by the City of
Tigard and is therefore subject to special protection. The Heritage Tree shall be listed on
the City Heritage Tree Registry.
b. If the tree is located on City Property, the designation shall be complete upon the staff's
listing of the tree on the City Heritage Tree Registry.
Protection of Heritage Trees:
1. Unless the tree qualifies for removal as dead or as a hazard tree, a permit shall be required to
remove a designated Heritage Tree.
2. If an application to remove a Heritage Tree is sought, the applicant shall demonstrate that the
burden imposed on the owner outweighs the public benefit provided by the tree.
Additionally, if the tree is located within the public right-of-way under City jurisdiction, then
the City shall demonstrate that the burden imposed on the City by the continued presence of
the tree outweighs the public benefit provided by the tree. For the purposes of making this
determination, the following tree impacts shall not be considered unreasonable burdens on
the property owner or City:
a. View obstruction,
b. Routine pruning, leaf raking and other maintenance activities, and
c. Infrastructure impacts or tree hazards that can be controlled or avoided by appropriate
pruning or maintenance.
3. Unless there is a permit to remove a dead or hazardous heritage tree the applicant shall be
required to follow the mitigation procedures for the loss of the tree as outlined in the Tigard
Municipal Code, Chapter 18.790.
4. Any person who removes a Heritage Tree without first obtaining a permit to do so shall be
subject to a fine equal to twice the value of the tree as determined by the City Forester with
reference to the current edition of Guide to Plant Appraisal and shall be required to mitigate
for the loss of the tree.
Recognition of Heritage Trees:
1. A Heritage Tree plaque shall be designed and may be furnished by the City to the property
owner of a designated Heritage Tree, or if the tree is on City property, to the City Forester.
The plaque shall be posted at or near the tree and, if feasible, visible from a public right-of-
way.
2. The City shall maintain a list and map of designated Heritage Trees.
Removal of Heritage Trees Designation:
1. A Heritage Tree shall be removed from designation if it dies.
2. To request permission to remove a tree from Heritage designation, the interested party(ies)
shall submit to the City Forester a narrative clearly stating justification for removal. The City
Forester shall review the request, append his/her recommendations to the request and submit
the request and recommendation to the City Council for a final decision.
3. If the Heritage Tree is on private property, and removal from Heritage designation is
approved, the City shall record a document extinguishing the covenant running with the
property.
FOURTH DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION (7/12/04)
4. Once Heritage Tree status is removed, the City shall remove the tree from their list and map,
the tree shall be removed from the Heritage Tree Registry and any plaque associated with the
tree shall be returned to the City Forester.
5. Once Heritage designation is removed, the tree shall be treated as any other tree within the
City limits for purposes of planning, development, removal or care.
AGENDA ITEM # 3
FOR AGENDA OF June 21, 2005
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discuss Penalties as Provided in Tree Protection Section of the Development Code
PREPARED BY: Jim Hendry DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK / ~IVO ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
This is a discussion item on penalties for illegal tree removal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff on possible Code or procedural changes for illegal tree removal.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Trees are an important asset for the community. The City, working with a group of citizens, developed
procedures and standards to encourage tree preservation. The standards recognize that there is a balance
between preservation and development. The Community Development Code establishes the standards for tree
removal, as well as penalties for illegal tree removal.
A question has been raised regarding the City of Tigard's penalties for illegal tree removal. As the City has
developed better information on the impacts of illegal tree removal with the use of the City Arborist, the normal
approach is to seek a compliance agreement for illegally removed trees. An agreement can include fines and
mitigations for illegal tree removal. If issues cannot be resolved by a compliance agreement, the violator is
cited into Municipal Court. At that point, fines are levied and consequences are determined by the judicial
system (see Attachment #1).
Council has requested a review of existing procedures used for tree removal violations and their effectiveness in
limiting illegal removal. Direction may result in Code or procedural changes.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Community Character and Quality of Life; Community Aesthetics Goals #1 - Develop strategies to balance needs
of new and infill development with the need to provide preservation and protection of open space, natural areas,
and other defined aesthetic qualities valued by those who live and work in Tigard.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: May 26, 2005 memo to Council - Tree Violation Fines
FISCAL NOTES
Potential costs and revenues are unknown at this time. The fiscal impact will depend on the nature and type of
any changes the Council may wish to explore.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jim Hendryx IA/
RE: Tree Violation Fines
DATE: May 26, 2005
A question was raised regarding how the City of Tigard tracks tree violations in terms of
fines. As the City has developed better information on the impacts of tree violations
with the use of the City Arborist, the normal approach is to seek a compliance
agreement that includes the following as listed in the tree provision of the Development
Code:
➢ If construction is going on, a stop work order is issued until the compliance
agreement is completed (there are two such cases now under stop work
orders).
➢ Based on the circumstances, a civil penalty of up to $500 is levied.
➢ Require replacement of trees equal to the diameter at breast height (dbh) of
the removal, based on a plan approved by the City Arborist.
➢ Finally, we assess additional penalties representing the estimated value of
any unlawfully removed or damaged trees based on the City Arborist using
the International Society of Arboriculture, Guide for Plant Appraisal.
Should issues not be resolved by a compliance agreement covering the above, we cite
individuals into Municipal Court. At that point, fines are levied and consequences are
determined by the judicial system.
You might note that with almost all cases in code enforcement whether it is signs, trees,
etc., there is usually a reluctance of the offender to face the penalties and resolution
requires multitudes of staff hours over extended periods of time. You might also note
that the Tree Board is recommending that staff time involved be added to the penalty.
That may resolve some costs, but also could lead to more court cases. Within the limits
of what is reasonable, the question arises as to how punitive should the City be for
violations of illegal tree removal. Council direction is requested. Direction may result in
Code or procedural changes.
lACDADMWERREEWIM\General\tree violation memo to Council.doc
000i 0~ d, i569 /ay - '
i f_1 to r(M Cc.tG6Y,
Tree Protection Elements G/@//vim Pre App discussion of needs and requirements
➢ Tree Inventory (trees 6" or greater, location, size, species)
➢ Tree Protection Plan
■ Planting
■ Removal
■ Protection
■ Mitigation Plan (trees >12" - planting or payment)
➢ City Arborist Review and Analysis
➢ Conditions of Approval
➢ Arborist Reports every two weeks prior to plan submittal to City Arborist relating
to Tree Protection Zone and construction
➢ Arborist Inspection
➢ Violations
■ Contact violator
■ Issue Stop Work Order
■ Violator provides Arborist Report of damage
■ City Arborist review
■ Compliance Agreement or Court Citation
- Civil penalty up to $500+
- Value of damage per Arboriculture Plant Approval Guide
- Planting of replacement species
Recent Examples
1. Removal 5 small maple conservation easement
$250 fine + $120 value and replacement 6-1 inch maples plus restoration
of easement
2. Removal 8" maple, topping of others
$500 fine plus $2,841.30 value, plus 6 two inch maples replacement and
management plan
3. Damage to protected 19" fir
$500 fine plus $1,200 value. Re-establishment of tree protection fencing.
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF June 21, 2005
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Progress Report - Hall Boulevard/Hi wa 99W Intersection Improvement Project
PREPARED BY: A. P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ~C
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Progress report by Washington County staff and project consultant on the MSTIP 3 Hall Boulevard/Highway 99W
Intersection Improvement project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council provide input into the process of identifying the components of a project that would
provide both provide significant improvements to the traffic movement through the intersection and conform to the
overall budget established for the project.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Washington County, through its consultant W&H Pacific, has been performing an alternatives analysis during
the past eight months to determine feasible improvements that can be constructed to enhance traffic movement
through the Hall Boulevard/Highway 99W intersection. This project is funded through the County's MSTIP 3
(Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program). A traffic analysis has been completed and the County
and consultant have conceptually diagrammed alternatives that range from minimal improvements sufficient for
the next two years to improvements that provide capacity for the next 15 to 20 years. The improvements that
provide the most capacity greatly exceed the project budget with rights-of-way acquisition a major part of the
expense.
County staff will brief Council on the alternatives that are under consideration and request input from Council
on those project elements that should be included in the project while remaining cognizant of the project budget.
The work that has been done so far is conceptual in nature and has been diagrammed in sufficient detail to
provide a basis for cost comparison of alternatives. Once the project elements are identified and agreed upon,
more detailed work will follow leading to design and construction of the project. The project design is
tentatively scheduled to begin in late summer. Once the rights-of-way needed for the project have been fully
identified, described and appraised, land acquisition will begin. Assuming no major delays occur during this
process, construction is projected to begin in late 2006 at the earliest.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
The improvements proposed for the Hall Blvd/Highway 99W intersection support the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow
goals of Improve Traffic Flow and Improve Traffic Safety.
ATTACHMENT LIST
None
FISCAL NOTES
The County MSTIP 3 budget for this project is approximately $4.9 million. The County is examining project
elements that when implemented would provide significant improvements to the intersection while remaining at
or near the budgeted amount.
is%englgus%ooundl agenda summadesZ.21.05 progress report - hall blvd-highway 99w intersection improvements ais.doc
i
SW Hall Boulevard /Highway 99W Intersection
Proposed Improvement Project
Presentation by Washington County & W&HPacific
To Tigard City Council
June 21, 2005
IVISTIP3 PROJECT • Washington County's Major Streets
Transportation Improvement Program
(MSTIP3) ,approved by County voters in
1995, comprises 27 projects including
construction of improvements at the SW Hall
Boulevard/Highway 99W intersection.
BUDGET AND SCHEDULE
• The project budget is $4.-9 million.
• The project schedule is as follows:
. Design and right-of-way acquisition -
2005-2006
. Construction - 2006-2007
ROADWAYS
• Both SW Hall Boulevard and Highway 99W
are under ODOT jurisdiction.
• Highway 99W is a Statewide highway.
• Both roadways are arterial roadways on City
and County transportation plans.
ROADWAYS (Continued)
• SW Hall Boulevard is shown on the County
transportation plan as part of the Countywide
road system.
• Highway 99W weekday average daily traffic
(ADT) is 47,500 vehicles. SW Hall Boulevard
weekday ADT is 13,000 vehicles.
Existing Lane and Signal Locations
N j -
SAFEWAY
t Y1LiLS i hl?GO' _ iODUM FUA-zWt i, w } '
j 1 HOVE q
3. /3n NN' ,
' t B -
;t L
a s~trERroH~ r F,,
. d
A11 At1EftOatil 7
> a,~yz1
tm 4.b
W&UTO
° rt r k I''
@! `r°t3Jss5tliE'1ROlE1
t P V
r
3
F -F-
I P. M,
BIKE LANE
t 9 BUS STOP
- LEFT-TURN LANE
_ tc"I ~ . - THRU LANE
• - - 05 - RIGHT-TURN LANE
STOP SIGN
3 `S rZi -TRAFFIC SIGNAL
SLOPING STUDY
• Washington County hired the engineering firm
of W&HPacific in late 2004 to conduct a study
to determine the feasibility of constructing
improvements within the project budget that
would provide substantial benefit.
• W&HPacific collected field survey data and
geotechnical data.
i SLOPING STUDY (Continued)
• Subconsultant Kittelson and Associates
performed a traffic analysis.
• County, ODOT and Tigard staff have met
several times and reviewed this information.
TRAFFIC STUDY
• The traffic study analyzed the Hall/99W
intersection, and also looked at intersections
to the east (Highway 99W/Highway 217) and
west (Greenburg Road /Main Street).
• The traffic consultants used the Syncro model
recommended by ODOT.
NOW III
condiV1011s
Traffic
Ex~st'n~
Now
110
a
P
•1 {
{
VML Is
ci)
1
.i
f
02
NjSVtSF
•
• ! g• •i
• ;
• i •
•
• VOLUMS-10-CAP
TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS ~
• Currently, the Hall/99W intersection is over-capacity
at the SW Hall Boulevard approaches.
• To achieve adequate intersection capacity in 2025,
four improvements are recommended:
Northbound left turn lane
Eastbound through lane
Northbound through lane
Westbound right turn lane
old -braffis oper3t"Ons
B~►
2025
,
,
,
,
,
-AISTINGLANE
AEN
• • NCIT'y •
• .
MAX N
BASED 0 -"ON
•
• •
•
ON vj1GVA\N
rat;Ons
e r~
OP
Tray
aced
5 Mvt
2p2
o
,4 LANZ
0111,
~~GEpID
1kc
•
mo\JEME •
MOW" •
SEE) • • •
P, jt4TER •
\JF
•
•
•
• -YSIS
P'NUAL AN
o
TH.Jouc
- 7X
55 LE
L
DO
t
t t
NIB
L'
• t
t t
1
plan
Phasing
ended
pecOmm
c SUMMSrY
Tra~
.
. i
i i
• III i •
• ` i •
a
i
ppro)(Ir'OlaLte year
_ !
,vould
COST ESTIMATE
• To develop right-of-way and construction cost
estimates, W&HPacific developed conceptual
plans based upon the Kittelson traffic study
findings.
9
dl,
AKI
0
f ~ ~ .a~~ ~ ~ ~ 10 t . ~ A~\ a ~.Hy ! 1 i,~~ ~,~I~s
CD
Oi.
TrA
C{i, . ' "~".'''y '~~~l~,i ~ ~ "iii E~ ' m n r r
`!lk t V~♦ t
,~,1, • ~1~ ~ ~~'a'~;~~'~ 1. ?,~.t~`~''? \ 'Sp„y Q S4 ~
-PQ
-VA
(CDD
How
PP 0
-C~ Ka ~ !7'L(-v,;.r:-~:. ~axt".~':.. s.-:-.x:x'-»«". e ~ ' w ' m ✓ ~ + ~O
•ITL~.IW IAASt"1 1 fi b, , ` i ? i; r0
CD
33
at 13
CD
~ ~hd ~m } tit ~ f A ?71
Y- ' 4Et ; ° \ f m;; w .!l\r.. wj. WM j~, i S c n
~I I t
psi: ~ a, .•w~IG+.!"J.,..-,^ 'd1f"~' s \
4 to - 9
`•,ti'` -Sty ~ .il?
L
A m
t ,
m ~,~°s` ONO~ 'tea;` otia
Z. It
~ O ~ c-"~,„ _ aq<`t.F,'M' ~~4r"` ' '.,vq, ...'fix-. ~7~ - , i ~ - ~ ~
-1R►,.M K " . aa. 4
Wire
iddi
CL flarBei
CN
old
a ,...-~ly~ ~ ;C7 ~ ~ " ct ; ,a x °10. fi~tj + Q ' ~e .
*Ao
zoo'
- • 1 a ' T ' ~ ~1 ~'M 11 ~.~"Y^ ~ t'~ a ~.,y •3~ta ~~`t~y
Nil
CL
-IM
IN c
.c ~
\I 7
I,A
all,
` } 0
a ...A ~ ~ ~i`~1,~" < ,may ...r _ ~ . , i
40-
1 i, a 54; x` 2 1
~ a• • ~ ~ ~tf d °'q a Y`~~ 't~ '\~a,,,n ,.r't~ ~ • a CC1+ ~ ~
' ~`rY .i z - • Ji YET'
cl)
- of"
CD
WO
MAY
regja@ lilt: lulk
Sao"
0
.mow+:ar.~•'~^"_ yj T 1
CD
b b b ~Cj y k CD
his CA
sco
' °A \ p c
1 ~ t \Lx ~ oy
nki
y rN•"M ti
NOR
~ (Al
~ ~ ,t.a « ~W '1 , `fix • ; s ~"a d,.r I~
~ it \ti. ~i~~. •~jt''cpS'=~
• • , ~ m 0` apt" a~„'. '
R _ mM"'', a as,,.
AF-
~`C > ~ ~ ~•^°'~~•~'_~'K.' ~'~~.~~~-'-;.,:~'A+:~..~,.et~..:.~.....T~ tea':..`-~_.. 7::...L..:, .i
war-
one
CL
.~Io; Bar el
X„. b{ , y Z "t
ell
t FQ~~~y~It~~{~~ Yq.tt^ l~ .'~y; t a,~\~'r~ ~Y.l~'M `y`a~'•
a j ~ r~;~ ~ ~ ~~v ,p# f `~"t. , na py r~ ~ ld`i.. a Z R ~ t
i, ~ t t CCCC~iiii~~~vv ~ ~ ~ \ \ < ( Y p O ~ t ~ ~V'
C.] ° 4 1 t `~iS~``"°t ~ 'F '2 4 `~~~ta a^^d ',9',..;~~. D°•'
likk
s <
r aka"°. t a. ~i
COST ESTIMATE -PHASE 1
ADD NORTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE
Engineering and Other 600,000
Right-of-Way 110001000
Construction 500,000
Contingency 3007000
Total $21400,000
COST ESTIMATE -PHASE 2
ADD EASTBOUND THROUGH LANE
(Cumulative Total)
Engineering and Other 800,000
Right-of-Way 1)7001000
Construction 800,000
Contingency 600,000
Total $3,900,000
COST ESTIMATE -PHASE 3
ADD NORTHBOUND THROUGH LANE
(Cumulative Total)
Engineering and Other 13100,000
Right-of-Way 233003000
Construction 131001000
Contingency 9003000
Total $53400,000
COST ESTIMATE -PHASE 4
ADD WESTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE
(Cumulative Total)
Engineering and Other 1)2001000
Right-of-Way 470007000
Construction 11300,000
Contingency 11200,000
Total $71700,000
y ESTIMATED COSTS OF IMPROVEMENTS
• Add northbound left turn lane $2.4 million
(Phase 1)
• Add eastbound through lane $3.9 million
(Phase 1 & 2)
• Add northbound through lane $5.4 million
(Phase 1, 2 & 3)
• Add westbound right turn lane $7.7 million
(Phase 1, 2, 3 & 4)
NEXT STEPS
• Identify possible additional funding.
• County, ODOT, Tigard will jointly determine if
the project is feasible and should move
forward.
• If so, proceed with preliminary design and
public involvement.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
RIGHT-OF-WAY
ACQUISITION
PRELIMINARY PROJECT
~ FINAL DESIGN CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING COMPLETION ~
PERMITTING
J
PUBLIC
INVOLVMENT
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF June 21, 2005
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Solid Waste Rates and Program Changes Discussion
PREPARED BY: Dennis Koellermeier DEPT HEAD OK (f~ CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Staff and our consultant have concluded the annual review of our franchised Solid Waste Hauler. Based on this
analysis, staff has concluded that City Council should consider solid waste rate adjustments. In addition, several
new programs are being considered. City Staff and our consultant will present information and answer questions
relating to this topic.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Accept the presentation and direct staff to prepare a revised solid waste rate resolution and conduct a public
hearing.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Solid waste collection is accomplished in Tigard via a franchise system. Tigard has two franchisees, Pride Disposal
and Waste Management. City codes have been enacted that explain the franchise process, the duty of the
franchisees and the responsibilities of the City. City Council has the responsibility to set solid waste collection
rates. Tigard is also governed in this area by Metro, which has regional solid waste management responsibilities
granted it by the state legislature.
Financial statements of the haulers are reviewed annually and the annual rate of return is calculated. Annual rate of
return is targeted to remain between 8% and 12% and any annual review that falls outside that range automatically
triggers a rate adjustment. This year the aggregate rate of return was 7.9%.
The Council is also being presented with recommended changes to the recycling collection program and a proposal
to adjust franchise fees to pay for anticipated recycling mandates and fund programs such as neighborhood
cleanups, right-of-way cleanup and enhancement, etc.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Rate adjustments that affect aggregate profits below 8% are required by City Council Resolution 01-54A
Consideration of new program costs are at the discretion of the City Council.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
Solid Waste Rate Workbook
2005 Solid Waste Rate Report Summary
FISCAL NOTES
One aspect of the proposed rate package could increase annual city franchise revenues by approximately
$101,000 to be used for anticipated expanded recycling programs to be mandated by Metro, neighborhood and
right-of-way cleanups, right-of-way enhancements, etc.
City of Tigard 2004 Rate Review
SOLID WASTE RATE WORKBOOK
• Reported
Return on Reveues
Residential Service Commercial Service Grand
Solid Waste Recycling Yard Debris Solid Waste Recycling Drop Box Totals
Collection & Service Revenues 2,846,468 69,026 6,786 3,027,848 83,085 2,133,275 8,168,488
Direct Costs of Operations 1,289,699 %of revenue 514,775 %of revenue 282,889 %of revenue 1,791,815 %of revenue 379,105 %of revenue 2,134,347 %of revenue 8,392,630
Disposal Expense 563,972 19% 0 0% 31,078 1% 1,053,311 34% 0 0% 1,196,118 56% 2,844,479
Labor Expense 301,070 10% 278,756 10% 126,152 4% 363,329 12% 194,700 6% 467,925 22% 1,731,932
Trick Expense 195,668 7% 116,306 4% 47,031 2% 141,955 5% 78,099 3% 258,798 12% 837,857
Equipment Expense 100,971 3% 48,877 2% 62,988 2% 107,306 3% 56,057 2% 94,599 4% 470,798
Franchise Fees 90,091 3% 1,389 0% 0 0% 88,847 3% 1,728 0% 55,428 3% 237,483
Other Direct Expense 37,827 1% 69,447 2% 15,640 1% 37,067 1% 48,521 2% 61,479 3% 269,981
Indirect Costs of Operations 278,839 201,140 88,528 284,889 116,374 157,862 1,127,232
Management Expense 62,402 2% 45,110 2% 18,982 1% 63,503 2% 25,923 1% 33,611 2% 249,531
Administrative Expense 92,417 3% 66,797 2% 28,268 1% 94,097 3% 38,418 1% 50,096 2% 370,093
Other Overhead Expenses 123,820 4% 89,233 3% 41,278 1% 127,089 4% 52,033 2% 74,155 3% 507,608
Total Cost 1,568,238 715,915 371,417 2,076,504 495,479 2,292,209 7,519,762
Less Unallowable Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Allowable Costs 1,568,238 715,915 371,417 2,076,504 495,479 2,292,209 7,519,762
Franchise income 1,278,228 -646,889 -364,631 951,344 -412,394 -158,934 646,724
Return on revenues 44.91% -937.17% -5373.28% 31.42% -496.35% -7.45% 7.92%
Revenues 2,922,278 3,110,933 2,133,275 8,166,486
%of revenue %of revenue
Direct Costs of Operations 2,087,263 71% 2,170,920 70% 2,134,347 6,392,530
Indirect Costs of Operations 568,307 19% 401,063 13% 157,862 1,127,232
Total Cost 2,655,570 2,571,983 2,292,209 7,519,762
Less Unallowable Costs 0 0% 0 0% 0 0
Allowable Costs 2,655,570 2,571,983 2,292,209 7,519,762
Franchise Income 266,708 538,950 -158,934 646,724
Return on revenues 2003 9.13% 17.32% -7.45% 7.92%
Prepared by Bell and Associates 619/2005
City of Tigard 2004 Rate Review
Adjusted
Return on Reveues
Automated Cart Service Container Service Grand
Solid Waste Recycling Yard Debris Solid Waste Recycling Drop Box Totals
Collection a Service Revenues 2,848,468 69,026 -6,786 3,027,848 83,085 2,145,575 8,178,786
Direct Costs of Operations 1,293,968 %of revenue 502,258 %of revenue 274,303 %of revenue 1,781,327 %of of, 370,824 % of revers 2,116,038 %of revenue 6,337,718
Disposal Expense 593,052 20% 0 0% 36,028 1% 1,053,311 34% 0 0% 1,196,118 56% 2,878,509
Labor Expense 301,070 10% 278,756 10% 126,152 4% 363,329 12% 194,700 6% 467,925 22% 1,731,932
Truck Expense 186,431 8% 114,451 4% 42,173 1% 138,731 4% 76,808 2% 253,539 12% 812,133
Equipment Expense 92,977 3% 48,877 2% 57,864 2% 107,306 3% 56,057 2% 94,599 4% 457,680
Franchise Fees 91,480 3% 0 0% 0 0% 90,575 3% 0 0% 55,428 3% 237,483
Other Direct Expense 28,958 1% 60,174 2% 12,086 0% 28,075 1% 43,259 1% 47,429 2% 219,981
Indirect Costs of Operations 293,993 212,270 92,794 300,193 122,686 165,296 1,187,232
Management Expense 62,402 2% 45,110 2% 18,982 1% 63,503 2% 25,923 1% 33,611 2% 249,531
Administrable Expense 92,417 3% 66,797 2% 28,268 1% 94,097 3% 38,418 1% 50,096 2% 370,093
Other Overhead Expenses 139,174 5% 100,363 3% 45,544 2% 142,593 5% 58,345 2% 81,589 4% 567,608
Total Cost 1,587,961 714,528 367,097 2,081,520 493,510 2,280,334 7,524,950
Less Unallowable Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Allowable Costs 1,587,961 714,528 367,097 2,081,520 493,510 2,280,334 7,524,950
Franchise Income 1,258,505 -645,502 -360,311 948,328 410,425 -134,759 653,836
Return on revenues 44.21% -935.16% -5309.62% 31.25% -493.98% -6.28% 7.99%
Customer Count /Drop Box Pulls 11,052 11,052 11134 815 815 6,523
Revenues 2,922,278 3,110,933 2,145,575 8,178,788
% of revenue % of revenue
Direct Costa of Operations 2,070,529 71% 2,152,151 69% 2,115,038 6,337,718
Indirect Costs of Operations 599,057 20% 422,879 14% 165,296 1,187,232
Total Cost 2,669.586 2,575,030 2,280,334 7,524,950
Less Unallowable Costs 0 0% 0 0% 0 0
Allowable Costs 2,669,586 2,575,030 2,280,334 7,524,950
Franchise Income 252,692 535,903 -134,759 653,836
Return on revenues 2004 8.85% 17.23% -6.28% 7.99%
Return on revenues 2003 8.62% 20.74% -4.52% 10.29%
Prepared by Bell Associates 8!1/2005
City of Tigard
Projected Composite Line Item Expenses
2004 Solid Waste Rate Review
January 1 to December 31, 2004
OCR Adjusted Inflation Inflation Rate Setting DCR Adjusted Inflation Inflation Rate Setting
Une# Line item Description Totals Factor Amount Totals Line# Line item Description Totals Factor Amount Totals
SUMMARY- DIRECT COSTS OF OPERATIONS SUMIl,4RY/NOMCT COSTS
22 Wages - Route Drivers 870,417 3.00326,113 896,53D 57 Management Salaries 197,442 2.94% 5,805 203,247
23 Wages - Utility (Helpers and Other Direct) 59 923 3.Gv l0 1,798 61,721 58 Management Payroll Tax Expense 17,596 2.94% 517 18,113
24 Wages - Mechanic 180,115 3 CCoh 5,403 185,518 ( 59 Management Medical Insurance 24,768 10.12% 2,507 27,275
25 Payroll Tax Expense 220,473 3 CC% 6,614 227,C87 60 Management Pension Plan Expense 9,725 2.94% 286 10,011
26 Medical Insurance 234,997 10.121/o 23,782 258,779 61 Management Other Benefits 0 0 0
27 Pension Plan Expense 131,468 300% 3,944 135,412 62 Administrative Salaries 266,217 2.94% 7,827 274,044
28 Other Benefits 6,238 3.00% 187 6,425 63 Administrative Payroll Tax Expense 28,309 2.94% 832 29,141
29 Training and Worker Safety 28,301 2.94% 832 29,133 64 Administrative Medical Insurance 68,600 10.12% 6,942 75,542
30 Fuel 195,176 2440% 47,623 _ 242,799 j 65 Administrative Pension Plan Expense 8,341 2.94% 245 8,586
31 Repairs & Maintenance - Vehicles 243,978 2.94% 7,173 251,151 66 Administrative Otter Benefits (1,374) 2.94% (40) (1,414)
32 Repairs & Maint. - Containers 8 Carts 62,125 2.94% 1,826 63,951 67 Corporate Overhead Costs 74,890 0 74,890
33 Repairs 8 Maintenance - Other Equipment 16,113 2.94% 474 16,587 68 Office Rent 54,566 2.94% 1,604 56,170
34 Repairs & Maintenance - Yard/Buildings 10,869 2.94% 320 11,189 69 Advertising and Public Education 3,650 0 3,650
35 Depreciation - Vehicles 228,910 0 228,910 70 Contributions 0 0 0
36 Depreciation - Containers & Carts 188,779 0 188,779 71 Professional Fees 78,201 2.94% 2,299 80,500
37 Depreciation - Other Equipment 32,908 0 32,908 72 Training & Worker Safety 1,107 2.94% 33 1,140
38 Depreciation - YardBuildings 25,890 0 25,890 73 Insurance 19,356 2.94% 569 19,925
39 Disposal Fees 2,878,509 5.93% 170,648 3,049,157 74 Telephone 10,225 2.94% 301 10,526
40 Processing Charges 0 0 0 75 Utilities 49,002 2.94% 1,441 50,443
41 Recycling Bins 10,633 0 10,633 76 Property Taxes/Licenses/Fees 52,925 2.94% 1,556 54,481
42 Supplies 58,733 2.94% 1,727 60,460 77 Dues & Subscriptions 9,718 2.94% 286 10,004
43 Yard Rent 118,435 0 118,435 78 Depreciation - Office Building 4,613 0 4,613
44 Vehicle Rent 0 0 0 79 Depreciation - Office Equipment 78,517 0 78,517
45 Other Equi meth Rent 22,102 294% 650 22,752 80 Repairs & Maintenance - Office 8,825 2.94% 259 9,080
81 Cleaning and Maintenance 9,281 2.94% 273 9,554
47 Property Taxes 12,944 294% 381 13,325 82 Equipment Rental 2,462 0 2,462
48 PUC/Licenses/Fees 31,767 0 31,767 83 Office Supplies 24,717 2.94% 727 25,444
49 Franchise Fees 237,483 4.78% 11,343 248,826 84 Postage 8 Freight 23,833 2.94% 701 24,534
50 Surcharges 0 0 0 85 Miscellaneous Expense 19,355 2.94% 569 19,924
51 Interest - Vehicles 56,021 0 56,021 86 Travel/Meals/lodging 8,070 0 8,070
52 Interest - Containers & Carts 37,417 0 37,417 87 Professional Meetings and Seminars 7,573 0 7,573
53 Interest - Other Equipment 28,872 0 28,872 88 Bad Debts 26,722 0 26,722
54 Interest - Yard/Buildings 0 - 0 0 89 Amortization - Route 8 Intangibles 0 0 0
55 Other Operational Expenses 64,787 2.94% 1,905 66,692 90 Amortization - Other 0 0 0
91 Interest - Route 0 0 0
92 Interest - Other 0 0 0
56 TOTAL-SUMMARY DIRECT COS 6,337,718 4.95% 314,015 6,651,735 93 TOTAL -SUMMARYINDIREC 1,187,232 35,537 1,222,765
Solid Waste Recycling & Yard Debris
Driver Wage 3.00% Driver Wage 3.009A
Health Ins 10.12% Health Ins 10.12%
Fuel 24.40%; Fuel 24.40%
Solid Waste Ti Fee 5.75% Yard Debris 20.00%
Inflation 2.94% Inflation 2.94%
Prepared by Bell and Associates 6/7!2005
City of Tigard Projected 2005 Results 2004 Rate Review
Return on Reveues
Automated Cart Service Container Service Drop Box Grand
Solid Waste Recycling Yard Debris Solid Waste Recycling Totals
Increase % Increase % Increase % Increase % Increase % Increase %
from'04 from'04 from '04 from 104 from '04 from 104
Collection 3 Service Revenues 2,902,361 2.0% 62,376 -9.6% 6,786 0.0% 3,027,848 0.0% 83,085 0.0% 2,225,695 3.7% 8,308,151
Direct Costs of Operations 1,350,356 521,490 289,614 1,869,087 386,146 2,236,042 6,651,735
Disposal Expense 627,152 5.7% 0 43.234 20.0% 1,113,876 5.7% 0 1,264,895 5.8% 3,049,157
Labor Expense 312,999 4.0% 290,213 4.1% 131,186 4.0% 377,666 3.9% 202,251 3.9% 486,291 3.9% 1,800,606
Truck Expense 196,027 5.1% 120,663 5.4% 44,948 6.6% 150,022 8.1% 82,956 8.0% 273,968 8.1% 868,584
Equipment Expense 93,646 0.7% 49,433 1.1% 58,121 0.4% 108,793 1.4% 56,853 1.4% 95,511 1.0% 462,357
Franchise Fees 91,480 0.0% 0 0 90.575 0.0% 0 66,771 20.5% 248,826
Other Direct Expense 29,052 0.3% 61,181 1.7% 12,125 0.3% 28,155 0.3% 44,086 1.9% 47,606 0.4% 222,205
Indirect Costs of Operations 302,897 218,704 95,484 309,246 126,382 170,052 1,222,766
Management Expense 64,681 3.7% 46,757 3.7% 19,674 3.6% 65,823 3.7% 26,870 3.7% 34,838 3.7% 258,643
Administrative Expense 96,373 4.3% 69,656 2.4% 29,468 4.2% 98,121 4.3% 40,059 4.3% 52,219 4.2% 385,896
Other Overhead Expenses 141,843 1.9% 102,291 3.5% 46,342 1.8% 145,302 1.9% 59,453 1.9% 82,995 1.7% 578,226
Total Cost 1,653,253 740,194 385,098 2,178,333 512,528 2,405,094 7,874,500
Less Unallowable Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Allowable Costs 1,653,253 740,194 385,098 2,178,333 512,528 2,405,094 7,874,500
Franchise Income 1,249,108 -677,818 -378,312 849,515 -429,443 -179,399 433,651
Return on revenues 43.04°/, 4086.66% -6674.89% 28.06% -516.87% -8.06% 5.22%
Revenues 2,971,523 3,110,933 2,225,695 8,308,151
Increase % Increase %
from '04 from'04
Direct Costs of Operations 2,161,460 4.4% 2,255,233 4.8% 2,235,042 6,651,735
Indirect Costs of Operations 617,085 3.0% 435,628 3.0% 170,052 1,222,765
Total Cost 2,778,545 4.1% 2,690,861 4.5% 2,405,094 7,874,500
Less Unallowable Costs 0 0 0 0
Allowable Costs 2,778,545 2,690,861 2,405,094 7,874,500
Franchise Income 192,978 420,072 -179,399 433,651
2005 Projected Return on Revenues 8.49% 13.50% .8.06% 5.22%
2004 Adjusted Return on Revenues 8.65% 17.23% -6.28% 7.99%
Inflation Assumptions for Line Item Expenses Changes in RevenUe
Debris Residential Revenue
• Driver Wage 3.00% Driver Wage 3.00% PUC 0.00% Reported customers as of Dec 31, 2004 are multiplied
Health Ins 10.12% Health Ins 10.12% Drop Box Tip Fee 0.62% by the reported service to arrive at the projected revenue
Fuel 24.40% Fuel 24.40% Resldentlal Material Sales Revenue
Tip Fee 5.75% Yard Debris Disposal 20.00% Four year average
Liab-Prop Ins 2.94% Liab-Prop Ins 2.94% Drop Box Revenue
Inflation 2.94% Inflation 2.94% Increase is the pass through of the tip fee increase
Prepared by Bell Associates 6/7/2005
City of Tigard 2004 Annual Rate Review
Projected 2005 Results
Return on Reveues with Rate Adjustments for Cart, Container, and Drop Box Services
Automated Cart Service Container Service Drop Box Grand Grand
Solid Waste Recycling Yard Debris Solid Waste Recycling Totals Totals
With Increase
Increase % Increase % Inereass % Increase % Increase % from Increase %
from *04 from V4 from V4 from V4 V4 from'04
Collection & Service Revenues 2,902,381 2.0% 6$376 -9.6% 6,788 0.0% 3,027,848 0.0% 83,085 0.0% 2,225,695 3.7% 8,308,150 8,308,160
Direct Costs of Operations 1,350,355 621,491 289,610 1,869,088 386,147 2,235,042 6,661,733 6,651,733
Disposal Expense 627,152 5.8% 0 43,234 20.0% 1,113,876 5.8% 0 1,264,895 5.7% 3,049,157 3,049,157
Labor Expense 312,999 4.0% 290,213 4.1% 131,185 4.0% 377,666 3.9% 202,252 3.9% 486,291 3.9% 1,800,605 1,800,605
Truck Expense 196,027 5.1% 120,663 5.4% 44,948 6.6% 150,022 8.1% 82,956 8.0% 273,968 8.1% 868,584 868,584
Equipment Expense 93,646 0.7% 49,433 1.1% 58,120 0.4% 108,794 1.4% 56,853 1.4% 95,511 1.0% 462,357 462,357
Other Direct Expense 120,532 316.2% 61,182 1.7% 12,125 0.3% 118,730 322.9% 44,086 1.9% 114,377 141.2% 471,031 471,031
Indirect Costs of Operations 302,898 218,708 95,484 309,248 126,382 170,053 1,222,769 1,222,769
Management Expense 64,682 3.7% 46,758 3.7% 19,675 3.7% 65,823 3.7% 26,870 3.7% 34,838 3.7% 258,646 258,646
Administrative Expense 96,373 4.3% 69,657 2.4% 29,468 4.2% 98,122 4.3% 40,061 4.3% 52,219 4.2% 385,899 385,899
Other Overhead Expenses 141,842 1.9% 102,293 3.5% 46,341 1.7% 145,303 1.9% 59,451 1.9% 82,995 1.7% 578,225 578,225
Total Cost 1,653,252 740,198 385,094 2,178,336 512,529 2,405,095 7,874,503 7,874,503
Less Unallowable Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Allowable Costs 1,653,252 740,198 385,094 2,178,336 512,529 2,405,095 7,874,503 7,874,503
Franchise Income 1,249,109 -677,822 -378,308 849,512 -429,444 -179,400 433,648 433,648
Return on revenues 43.04% -1086.67% -5674.83% 26.06% -516.87% -8.06% 5.22% 5.22%
Customer Count / Oro Box Pulls 11,052 11,052 11,052 815 815 6,523
Average Coat per Service $ 12.47 $ 6.68 f 2.90
44,514
Total Average Rate $ 20.95
Revenues 2,971,523 3,110,933 Composite to 10% 2,225,695 8,308,150 8,765,146
117,058 Total needed to get 10% 139,648
Direct Costs of Operations 2,161,456 2,255,235 2,235,042 6,651,733 6,651,733
Indirect Costs of Operations 617,087 Av. Impact per month 435,629 Av. Impact per month 170,053 1,222,769 1,222,769
Total Cost 2,778,544 $ 0.88 Operating Costs @ 10% 2,690,865 238,992 Annual Yards 2,405,095 7,874,503 7,874,503
Lose Unallowable Coats 0 0 $ 0.58 Inc. per yard 0 0 0
Allowable Costs 2,778,544 2,690,865 $ 3.80 1.5 yd x 1 wk 2,405,095 7,874,503 7,874,503
Franchise Income 192,979 420,068 -179,400 433,646 890,643
2005 Projected Return on Revenues 6.49% 13.50% -6.06% 6.22% 10.18%
2004 Return on Revenues 8.85% 17.23% -6.28% 7.99% 7.99%
Inflation Assumptions for Line Item Expenses Reventie Adjustments
Solid Waste, Resi Recycling & Yard Debris
Driver Wage 3.00% Yard Debris Disposal 20.00% 456,996 Amount neede to get to Composite to 10%
Health Ina 10.12% 117,056 Amount neede to get to residential to 10%
Fuel 24.40% 200,294 Revenue increase alloted for Drop Box
Tip Fee 5.75% 139,646 Amount needed by container to get to 10% composite
Liab-Prop Ins 2.94%
Inflation 2.94%
Prepared by Bell Associates 6r7/2005
City of 'Tigard
Rate Matrix
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Current Every Other
Level of Weekly Yard Weekly Cart Week Cart
Service Debris Recycling Recycling
Current Rate $ 18.75
Add: Inflation Increase $ 0.88 $ 0.88 $ 0.88 $ 0.88
New Program Cost $ 1.41 $ 0.73 $ (0.05);
New Rate: 35 gal svc @ 3% FF $ 19.63 $ 21.04 $ 20.37 $ 19.58
-Franchise-Fee at 4%
Add to the New Rate $ 0.27 $ 0.29 $ 0.28 $ 0.27
New Rate: 35 gal svc @ 4% FF $ 19.90 $ 21.33 $ 20.65 $ 19.85
Franchise Fee at 5%
Add to the New Rate $ 0.55 $ 0.58 $ 0.57 $ 0.55
New Rate: 35 gal svc @ 5% FF $ 20.18 $ 21.62 $ 20.94 $ 20.13
Rate Increase and Franchise Fee Impact of Commercial Container Rates
$ Impact % Impact
1.5 yd collected weekly
Current Rate $ 114.67
Rate Increase @ $0.58 per yard 3.77
New Rate: 1.5yd weekly service 118.44 3.29%
Complete container rate
New Rate: 1.5yd wkly svc @ 4% FF $ 119.62 4.32% schedule and franchise fee
increases on next sheet.
New Rate: 1.5yd wkly svc @ 6% FF $ 120.81 5.35%
Drop Box Rate Increases
Exchange @ 1 hour $ 109
Compactor @ 1 hour and 15 min $ 136
Delivery @ 40 minutes $ 63
Demurrage
20 CuYds Box after 48 hours $ 5
30 CuYds Box after 48 hours $ 7
40 CuYds Box after 48 hours $ 7
Disposal Mark Up 13% or 14% (Markup is dependant on the franchsie fee rate)
'Projected'Increase'in Fracnhsie Fees
Collected by the City of Tigard
Weekly Yard Weekly Rec EOW Rec
Cart Collection Raters -No Change -Debris Carts Cart
Fees at 3% $ 3,512 $ 5,613 $ 3,062 $ (194)
Fees at 4% $ 29,715 $ 37,199 $ 33,797 $ 29,457
Fees at 5% $ 59,430 $ 68,785 $ 64,533 $ 59,107
'With Rate
Container Collection Rates Increase
Fees at 3% $ 4,189
Fees at 4% $ 36,695
Fees at 5% $ 69,201
Based on
Prior Year's
Drop Box Rates Activities
Fees at 3% $ 6,009
Fees at 4% $ 30,269
~ees a 5% $ 54,529
repa by II and Associates 617/2005
City of Tigard
Proposed Cart Solid Waste Collection Rates
Current Proposed
Residential Cart Rates Rate Rate $ Increase % Increase
20 gallon 16.10 16.90 0.80 5.0%
without yard debris 13.85 1455 0.70 5.1%
35 gallon 18.75 19.65 0.90 4.8%
without yard debris 16.45 17.25 0.80 4.9%
60 gallon 29.25 30.70 1.45 X5.0%
90 gallon 35.50 37.25 1.75 4.9%
On Call Service 9.50 9.95 0.45 4.7%
Recycling Only
Bins and Yard Debris 9.96 10.45 0.49 4.9%
Bins only 4.98 5.25 0.27 5.4%
Yard Debris 4.98 5.25 0.27 "5.4%
Commercial Cart Rates
35 gallon 18.75 19.65
60 gallon 29.25 30.70
90 gallon 35.50 37.25
Comparison of Area SW Rates
West Hills
Tigard Lake - Beaverton Sherwood
Oswego Linn County Portland
Container
Size
20 gallon 16.10 15.12 N/A 15.50 15.50 18.06 20.15 * 19.10
32/35 gallon 18.75 18.98 20.34 18.00 18.00 19.65 22.15 * 22.95
60 gallon 29.25 31.14 32.55 29.50 29.50 28.51 29.45 * 27.65
90 gallon 35.50 32.84 35.80 Not 37.00 33.72 36.81 * 31.55
available
Cart/Can Svc Cart Cart Cart Cart Cart Can/Cart Cart Cart
Yard Debris Every other Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Every other Every other Every other
week 60 gal cart 60 gal 60 gal cart 60 gal cart week week week
60 al cart cart 60 al cart 60 al cart 32 al can
Recycling Weekly Weekly 60 Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly
14 gal gallon cart 60 gallon 14 gal 14 gal curby 14 gal curby 14 gal curby 14 gal
curb cart curb curb
Effective Date 1/1/2002 8/12004 7/12004 7/12003 7/12003 7/12004 8/12004 8/12004
-Notes:
* Rate is shown with the $4.00 credit for the monthly recycling participation.
Lake Oswego and West Linn both have residential collection of recyclable materials in carts; West Linn utilizes 95 gallon carts
and.Lake Oswego uses 60 gallon carts.
Prepared by Bell and Associates 6172005
City of Tigard
Container Rate Matrix
Current Rates Current Container Rates
Frequency of Pick Ups per Week
Container Size One Two Three Four Five
1 yard $ 89.71 $ 167.41 $ 241.99 $ 316.59 S 391.37
each additional 57.97 111.65 165.20 218.76 272.44
1.5 yard 114.67 211.04 307.34 403.64 500.03
each additional 80.00 155.29 230.55 305.80 381.10
2 yard 136.73 254.73 372.72 490.71 608.70
each additional 102.08 198.97 295.93 392.88 489.77
3 yard 180.71 342.10 503.39 664.70 826.09
each additional 146.05 286.34 426.60 566.87 707.16
4 yard 224.71 429.50 634.11 838.71 1,043.50
each additional 190.55 373.74 557.31 740.89 924.57
5 yard 268.75 516.75 764.76 1.012.77 1,260.78
each additional 234.09 461.01 687.96 914.93 1,141.85
6 yard 312.51 603.92 895.23 1,186.54 1,477.95
each additional 277.85 548.16 818.42 1,088.71 1,359.02
8 yard 401.34 779.36 1,157.39 1,535.40 1,913.42
each additional 366.69 723.61 1,080.59 1,437.57 1,794.49
Rate Increase @ $0.58 per yard % Increase per container
One Two Three Four Five One Two Three Four Five
1 yard $ 92.22 $ 172.43 $ 249.52 $ 326.64 $ 403.93 2.8% 3.0% 3.1% 3.2% 3.2%
each additional 60.48 116.67 172.73 228.81 285.00 4.3% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6%
1.5 yard 118.44 218.57 318.64 418.71 518.87 3.3% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8%
each additional 83.77 162.82 241.85 320.87 399.94 4.7% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9%
2 yard 141.75 264.78 387.79 510.80 633.81 3.7% 3.9% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1%
each additional 107.10 209.02 311.00 412.97 514.88 4.9% 5.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1%
3yard 188.24 357.17 525.99 694.84 863.76 4.2% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.6%
each additional 153.58 301.41 449.20 597.01 744.83 5.2% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3%
4 yard 234.76 449.59 664.25 878.89 1,093.73 4.5% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8%
each additional 200.60 393.83 587.45 781.07 974.80 5.3% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4%
5yard 281.31 541.86 802.43 1,063.00 1,323.57 4.7% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.0%
each additional 246.65 486.12 725.63 965.16 1,204.64 5.4% 5.4% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5%
6 yard 327.58 634.06 940.44 1,246.81 1,553.29 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.1%
each additional 292.92 578.30 863.63 1,148.98 1,434.36 5.4% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5%
8 yard 421.43 819.54 1,217.66 1,615.76 2,013.88 5.0% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.3%
each additional 386.78 763.79 1,140.86 1,517.93 1,894.95 5.5% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6%
Rate Increase @ $0.58 per yard and Franchise Fee @ 4%, $ Increase per container % Increase per container
One Two Three Four Five One Two Three Four Five
1 yard $ 93.14 $ 174.16 $ 252.02 $ 329.90 $ 407.97 $ 0.92 $ 1.72 $ 2.50 $ 3.27 $ 4.04 3.8% 4.0% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2%
each additional 61.09 117.84 174.46 231.09 287.85 $ 0.60 1.17 1.73 2.29 2.85 5.4% 5.5% 5.6% 5.6% 5.7%
1.5 yard 119.62 220.76 321.83 422.90 524.05 $ 1.18 2.19 3.19 4.19 5.19 4.3% 4.6% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8%
each additional 84.60 164.45 244.27 324.08 403.93 $ 0.84 1.63 2.42 3.21 4.00 5.8% 5.9% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0%
2 yard 143.17 267.42 391.67 515.91 640.15 $ 1.42 2.65 3.88 5.11 6.34 4.7% 5.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.2%
each additional 108.17 211.11 314.11 417.10 520.03 $ 1.07 2.09 3.11 4.13 5.15 6.0% 6.1% 6.1% 6.2% 6.2%
3 yard 190.13 360.74 531.25 701.79 872.40 $ 1.88 3.57 5.26 6.95 8.64 5.2% 5.4% 5.5% 5.6% 5.6%
each additional 155.12 304.42 453.69 602.98 752.28 $ 1.54 3.01 4.49 5.97 7.45 6.2% 6.3% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4%
4 yard 237.10 454.09 670.89 887.68 1,104.67 $ 2.35 4.50 6.64 8.79 10.94 5.5% 5.7% 5.8% 5.8% 5.9%
each additional 202.60 397.77 593.32 788.88 984.55 $ 2.01 3.94 5.87 7.81 9.75 6.3% 6.4% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5%
5 yard 284.12 547.28 810.46 1,073.63 1,336.80 $ 2.81 5.42 8.02 10.63 13.24 5.7% 5.9% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0%
each additional 249.11 490.99 732.89 974.81 1,216.68 $ 2.47 4.86 7.26 9.65 12.05 6.4% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.6%
6 yard 330.85 640.40 949.84 1,259.28 1,568.82 $ 3.28 6.34 9.40 12.47 15.53 5.9% 6.0% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1%
each additional 295.85 584.08 872.26 1,160.47 1,448.71 $ 2.93 5.78 8.64 11.49 14.34 6.5% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6%
8 yard 425.65 827.74 1,229.84 1,631.92 2,034.01 $ 4.21 8.20 12.18 16.16 20.14 6.1% 6.2% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3%
each additional 390.65 771.43 1,152.27 1,533.11 1,913.90 $ 3.87 7.64 11.41 15.18 18.95 6.5% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.7%
Prepared by Bell Associates 6114/2005
City of Tigard
Drop Box Rates
Proposed Rates
Service Rate
Exchange @ I hour $ 109
Compactor @ 1 hour and 15 min $ 136
Delivery @ 40 minutes $ 63
Demurrage remains the same
Current Rates
Comparison of the Current Rates to the Proposed Rates
Single Service
10 CuYds $ 116.05 +Actual disposal cost and franchise fee Current Proposed Increase
20 CuYds $ 116.05 +Actual disposal cost and franchise fee Rate Rate and %
30 CuYds $ 139.87 +Actual disposal cost and franchise fee 20 yard occasional with 3.5 tons of MSW 386.80 396.38 $ 9.58
40 CuYds $ 168.57 +Actual disposal cost and franchise fee Delivery Fee - $ 63.25 2.5%
Exchange Service Haul Fee 116.05 109.05
10 CuYds $ 103.68 +Disposal Fee Box Rent 10.00 10.00
20 CuYds $ 103.68 per CuYd +Disposal Fee Disposal 260.75 214.08
30 CuYds $ 126.89 per CuYd+Disposal Fee
40 CuYds $ 155.29 per CuYd+Disposal Fee 30 yard occasional with 2.5 tons of Dry Waste $ 322.95 $ 380.75 $ 57.81
Compactors Delivery Fee - $ 63.25 17.9%
10 CuYds $ 119.02 +Actual disposal cost and franchise fee Haul Fee 139.87 109.05
20 CuYds $ 124.63 +Actual disposal cost and franchise fee Box Rent 13.20 13.20
30 CuYds $ 164.18 +Actual disposal cost and franchise fee Disposal 169.88 195.26
40 CuYds $ 188.43 +Actual disposal cost and franchise fee
Demurrage $ 5.00 20 CuYds Box after 48 hours 40 yard occasional with 1.5 tons of Dry Waste $ 283.70 $ 302.65 $ 18.96
$ 6.60 30 CuYds Box after 48 hours Delivery Fee - $ 63.25 6.7%
$ 6.60 40 CuYds Box after 48 hours Haul Fee 168.57 109.05
Setting the drop box rate based on three components is the best way to arrive at a cost of service. Box Rent 13.20 13.20
The first step is to determine the cost per hour of drop box service. Once the cost is calculated, then Disposal 101.93 117.16
the average time is used to calculate the service component of the rate. Drop Box service has a 20 yard compactor with 5 tons of MSW $ 497.13 $ 564.47
composite cost of service of $109 per hour. The $109 includes the margin and applicable franchise Haul Fee 124.63 136.31 $ 67.34
and local fees on the haul component. The second component is the demurrage, if applicable for the Disposal 372.50 428.16 13.5%
service. The demurrage rate is based on the size of the container. I recommend using the existing
rates for demurrage. The third component is the disposal fee. The disposal fee is viewed by many as 30 yard compactor with 7 tons of MSW $ 685.68 $ 735.74
a pass through fee, so most jurisdictions do not allow the franchised companies to charge applicable Haul Fee 164.18 136.31 $ 50.06
franchise fees or margin on the disposal costs. What has been done in the past is to predict drop box Disposal 521.50 599.43 7.3%
pulls into the future and set rates based on past activities. Because of the unpredictable nature of the
drop box business, this methodology of rate setting has not proven to be reliable. 40 yard compactor with 8 tons of MSW $ 784A3 $ 821.37
Haul Fee 188.43 136.31 $ 36.94
Reviewing the analysis to the left shows if the haulers collected the margin on disposal, then the Disposal 596.00 685.06 4.7%
reported ROR would have been approximately 2.4%. If they are running very efficient and pulling 20 yard exchange with 2 tons of MSW $ 262.68 $ 290.31
boxes within the time parameters, then 10% could be achieved. Haul Fee 103.68 109.05 $ 27.63
Box Rent 10.00 10.00 10.5°,6
The cost of service rate is made up of three components: 1) haul fee, 2) demurrage (if applicable), 3) Disposal 149.00 171.26
disposal with margin and fees. This is why when a drop box service is rendered in the open markets,
the disposal fees are a little higher than the posted gate rate at the disposal facilities. 30 yard exchange with 3 tons of Dry Waste $ 343.94 $ 356.56
Haul Fee 126.89 109.05 $ 12.62
The current Tigard (Pride Recycling) rate to be accessed to drop box customers would be $65.26 Box Rent 13.20 13.20 3.7%
per ton on wet waste. The tip fee is $74.50, the margin is $8.28, and the franchise fee is $2.48. Disposal 203.85 234.31
The proposed rate a 20 yard one time box dropped for seven days with 4 tons of wet garbage would 40 yard exchange with 6 tons of MSW $ 615A9 $ 636.04
be $63 for the delivery, $25 for demurrage, $119 for the haul fee to be disposed (exchange rate), Haul Fee 155.29 109.05 $ 20.55
and a disposal fee of $341. Total cost for the service and disposal is $548. The current rate is $439. Box Rent 13.20 13.20 3.3%
Disposal 447.00 513.79
Prepared by Bell and Associates 6!7/2005
City of Tigard
Weekly Cart Collection
Key Assumptions
2004 Solid Waste Rate Review
Expenses from January 1 to December 31, 2004 and Inflated over 18 months
DCR Franchised Adjustments Adjustments Final
Linea Line item Description Totals Debit Credit Totals
RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING Collection
Cost per hour Cost Savings Add'I Costs Totals
22 Wages - Route Drivers 144,393 4.40=5 6,353 150,736 17.82 5,828 144,908
23 Wages - Utility (Helpers and Other Direct) 0 4.40% 0 0 - - 0 Truck Costs
24 Wages - Mechanic 27,543 4.401/. 1,212 28,755 3.40 1,112 27,643 hide: 2 Trucks at $200K depreciated over 7 years
25 Payroll Tax Expense 36,059 4.4055 1,587 37,646 4.45 1,456 36,190 MO: 1 Truck at $200K times
26 Medical Insurance 43,505 10.12% 4,403 47,908 5.66 1,852 46,055 $ 77,143 cost per year
27 Pension Plan Expense 20,833 4.401/1 917 21,750 2.57 SO 20,909 Cart Costs
28 Other Benefits 884 4.40% 39 923 0.11 36 887 11,137 Carts to distribute @ $45 each
29 Training and Worker Safety 5,549 4.40% 244 5,793 0.68 (290) 6,083 71,595 cost per year over 7 years
30 Fuel 18,869 24401/. 4,604 23,473 J 3.45 (1,460) 24,933
31 Repairs 8 Maintenance - Vehicles 45,444 4.40% 2,000 47,444 6.97 23,722 23,722 Monthly Cost $ 3,001 with 7% interest
32 Repairs 8 Maint - Containers 8, Carts 3,184 4.40% 141 3,335 0.49 1,657 1,667 Annual Cost $ 36,012
33 Repairs 8 Maintenance - Other Equipment 2,240 4.40% 99 2,339 0.34 (145) 2,484 Trucks $ 108,037
34 Repairs 8 Maintenance - Yard/Buildings 1,812 4.40% 80 1,892 1,892
35 Depreciation - Vehicles 27,632 0 27,632 49,511 77,143 Monthly Cart Costs $0.68 with 7% interest
36 Depreciation - Containers 8 Carts 1,156 0 1,156 70,439 71,595 Monthly Cart Costs $ 0.54 without interest
37 Depreciation - Other Equipment 5,937 0 5,937 7,000 12,937 Annual Cart Cost $ 71,595
38 Depreciation - Yard/Buildings 4,802 0 4,802 4,802
39 Disposal Expense 0 0 0 43,145 (43,145) Total Equipment Cost
40 Processing Charges 0 0 0 11,582 (11,582) rucks $ 756,260 485,780.49
41 Recycling Bins 10,633 0 10,633 8,506 2,127 Carts 631,685
42 Supplies 10,446 4.40% 460 10,906 1.60 (678) 11,584
43 Yard Rent 21,102 0 21,102 21,102 lass 8 Oil Truck (Cost to Retro fit)
44 Vehicle Rent . 0 0 0 0 $35,000 Total Costs
45 Other E ui ment Rent 3,040 4.40% 134 3,174 0.47 (197) 3,371 $7,000 5 year fife
15 1.23 (522) 8,912
47 Property Taxes 1,209 4.40% 53 1,262 0.19 (78) 1,341 Increase In Material Collected
48 PUC/Licenses/Fees 2,467 0.00% 0 2,467 0.36 (153) 2,620 pounds per customer per week
49 Franchise Fees 0 0 0 0 579 Increase in annual tons collected
50 Surcharges 0 0 0 0 $ 11,582 Recycling Material Sales Rev
51 Interest- Vehicles 10,793 0 10,793 1.59 (671) 20,101 31,565 $ 43,145 Disposal Savings
18,646 .41 Cost savings per customer per month
53 Interest - Other Equipment 5,355 0 5,355 0.79 (333) 5,688
54 Interest - YardBuildings 0 0 0 0 Pride Productivity
55 Other Operational Expenses 32,458 4.40% 1,428 33,886 4.98 (2,107) 16,706 52,699 4,160 2 FTEsto collect paper and containers
2,080 1 FTE to collect glass and oil
56 TOTAL - SUMMARY DIRECT COSTS 502,258 24,105 526,363 58.17 93,112 175,526
WM10 Productivity
1,373 .67 FTEs to collect paper and containers
520 .25 FTE to collect glass and oil
Increase (Decrease) in Cost 82,415
Start Up Costs
Margin 9,157 Flyers and Outreach Materials @ $1.50 per customer
Franchise Fee 2,832 $ 16,706
Total Increase for Cart Program 94,404
Approximate Monthly Cost per Customer $ 0.71
Prepared by Bell Associates 6!1/2005
v
City of Tigard 2005 Solid Waste Rate Report Summary
Rate-Making Methodology
Reports
Both licensed haulers submit a detailed financial report to the City in March. The report provides line-item
costs and revenues associated with providing service in Tigard, and combined line item totals for their non-
Tigard operations. The City contracted with a Bell & Associates, a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) with
expertise in solid waste collection operations to assist City staff in reviewing the reports and making adjustments
as needed to the reported costs and revenues based on predictive tests that tie costs and revenues to customer
classes.
Consolidated Report
Once adjustments to costs and revenues are completed, the financial data from each of the haulers is combined
into one report, showing the collection systems total revenues and expenses. From this consolidated report staff
and its contracted CPA calculate the system's return-on-revenue, which provides a measure of the adequacy of
rates. The return-on-revenue is percentage derived from a simple calculation: total revenues minus total
expenses, divided by total revenues.
Return-on-Revenue Targets
Tigard Revised Code (TMC Chapter 11.04) and the City Council's policy establish a return-on-revenue target of
"approximately 10%." This is the target for rate-setting based on the consolidated financial report, rather than
the target for each individual hauler. Applied in practice over the past decade, this has meant that the City
accepts a range in the overall return-on-revenue of between 8% and 12%, and tries to recalibrate the rates when
the return-on-revenue falls below or goes above that range. In principle, the City aims to hit the targeted return-
on-revenue not only for the overall system, but for the three distinct lines-of-service within it: residential,
commercial container, and drop box.
Overall Residential Commercial Drop Box
Projected 2005 Return-on- 5.2% 6.5% 13.5% -8%
Revenue without rate increases
The proposed rate increases would bring the overall system to 10%. The last time rates were adjusted in Tigard
was January 2002. Residential and drop box rates were increased and container rates were decreased. The
change lasted 3 years and eight months. Although no one can predict with certainty the time between rate
adjustments due to economic factors out of the control of the franchised haulers, we are optimistic that the rates
would last at least 18 months given the current programs within the City of Tigard.
Factors Driving Rate Increases
Cost Changes from 2003 to 2005
Last rate increase was January 2002
Hauler wages 8%
Hauler medical costs 27%
Garbage disposal costs 10%
Yard debris processing facility costs 20%
Fuel 64%
Hauler management and administrative costs 8%
Most of the increases above are self-explanatory, but yard debris warrants an explanation.
Yard Debris Processing Facility Costs
Haulers deliver yard debris to private facilities that compost or chip it for retail or wholesale markets. These
facilities charge haulers a per cubic yard fee for the material they receive. This fee has increased dramatically
over the last six months as these facilities begin to make, or put money aside for, major capital investments in
response to Department of Environmental Quality rules that will take effect in 2009. These rules will require
improvements to minimize the facilities' impact on water and air quality.
Proposed Rate Increases
Residential Rates
The proposal would increase rates for the weekly services as follows:
20-gallon cart $0.80 per month 5.0%
35-gallon cart $0.90 per month 4.8%
60-gallon cart $1.45 per month 5.0%
90-gallon cart $1.75 per month 4.9%
Rates for businesses and small multifamily complexes with cart service would increase approximately 5%.
Comparison to Other Jurisdictions
RESIDENTIAL Tigard Washington Portland Beaverton Lake
West Linn
Proposed Count Proposed Oswego
20-gallon $16.90 $18.06 $17.20 $15.50 $15.12 N/A
.35-gallon $19.65 $19.65 $21.30 $18.00 $18.98 $20.34
60-gallon $30.70 $28.51 $26.30 $29.50 $31.14 $32.55
90-gallon $37.25 $33.72 $29.85 $37.00 $32.84 $35.80
Considerations in Comparing Rates
• Tigard's proposed cart rates are at full cost-of-service.
• There are numerous other differences in variables affecting cost, including proximity to transfer
stations, traffic congestion, customer density, union contract terms etc.
Commercial Container Rates
There are 84 service options for commercial containers. This proposal would increase rates by 2.8% for the
smaller generators of waste and up to 5.6% for the larger generators of waste. The increase would range from
$2.51 per month for the lowest level of service (1 yard container collected weekly: estimated weigh is 585
pounds a month) to $100.46 for the highest level (8 yard container collected 5 times a week: estimated weight is
23,400 pounds a month).
Comparison to Other Jurisdictions
COMMERCIAL Tigard Washington Beaverton Clackamas Hillsboro
CONTAINER Proposed County
Select Service Levels
1- and once/week $92.22 $79.68 $83.36 $82.49 $75.15
2-yard twice/week $264.78 $212.64 $250.34 $257.01 $217.00
3-yard three times/week $525.99 $423.85 $501.48 $501.76 $444.71
6-yard twice/week $634.06 $531.35 $607.05 $586.05 $565.88
Comparing container rates to neighboring jurisdictions in the case of Tigard can be misleading if the only basis
is the rate. The average rate of the reported jurisdictions is 10 to 15% lower than the City's proposed rate. The
reason for the disparity is the recycling component of the commercial container rates. Oregon Revised Statue
459A established the precedent followed by most of Oregon's municipalities of not separating recycling
collection costs from solid waste collection costs in the setting of rates'. All Portland metropolitan area
jurisdictions "lump" recycling costs into their respective line of business; commercial or residential.
Tigard has an aggressive commercial program that collects more recoverable materials than any other
jurisdiction in Washington County. The following table compares key measurements of success against the
Cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro.
Commercial Rec clip
Measurement Tigard Beaverton Hillsboro
Reported Container Customers 815 1,108 1,040
Reported Weekly Stops 1,085 1,365 1,402
Collected Materials Tons 9,375 4,945 3,727
Reported Truck Hours 3,979 5,379 6,787
Tons per Truck Hour 2.36 .92 .55
Collected Solid Waste Tons 14,722 21,333 19,862
Ratio of SW to Recycling Tons 1.57 4.31 5.33
Commercial customers expect the haulers in Tigard to provide timely and frequent solid waste and recycling
services. For every ton and a half of collected solid waste, Tigard businesses divert one ton of recoverable
material from the landfill. Over 50% of all commercial customers have recycling collected more than once a
week.
Drop Box Rates
The new methodology results in rate impacts on customers that vary according to the quantity of debris in their
drop boxes. Disposal charges (versus hauling charges) for drop boxes are directly tied to the exact weight of
each load. By contrast, disposal charges for residential and commercial container customers are built into the
rates as averages, since any one customers garbage is mixed with others in a single truck.
Here are the projected impacts of the proposed rates:
Service Type Projected Change in Total Rate
Paid er Haul
Repeat Service Range from 4% decrease to 10% increase
(businesses and multifamily customers that
have on-going service
Repeat Compactor Service Range from 4% decrease to 13% increase
(businesses and large multifamily customers
Occasional Service Range from 6% decrease to 25% increase
one-time use o a drop box)
Comparison to Other jurisdictions
These are difficult comparisons to make because of all the rate scenarios under the new methodology used by
Tigard, but they are representative of common service levels. The rates below include hauling, disposal, rent,
delivery, and fees paid to the jurisdiction.
DROP BOXES Tigard Washington Beaverton Clackamas Hillsboro
Proposed County County
Select Service Levels
30-yard repeat with 4 tons $462 $412 $432 $432 $412
30-yard compactor with 6 tons $650 $588 $692 $585 $588
20-yard single use with 2.5 tons $396 $276 $288 $281 $276
OPTIONS FOR REDUCING RATE INCREASES
There are few options for reducing the amount of the proposed rate increases and none that will have a major
impact. Under the proposed rates, approximately 87% of system costs are attributable to the actual hauler
expenditures associated with providing garbage, recycling and yard debris services: trucks, wages, benefits,
disposal fees etc. These costs are all closely examined by City staff for reasonableness. To reduce them the
City would need to reduce collection services, and arguably the only truly feasible one would be residential
recycling collection. This is illustrated in the chart below.
The other 13% percent of system costs is represented by the haulers' return-on-revenue and City franchise fees.
Reduction impacts are also illustrated in the chart below.
Residential Container Drop Box Impact
Rates Rates Rates
• Significant customer dissatisfaction
• Possible increase in recoverable
Reduce Residential materials thrown away as garbage
Recycling Service $0.75 per • Directly conflicts with Metro's
to Every Other month Regional Solid Waste Management
Week (using the 14 Plan
gallon curbys) • Must obtain a waiver from Oregon
DEQ
• Reduced revenue to hauler
Increases Increases Increases • Conflict with City policy to calibrate
Reduce Return-on- would drop rates at 10% return
Revenue to 9% would drop by 1% to would drop • Residential rates would be decreased by
by 1 /0 1.5% by 1 /o only $0.10 per month.
459A.085 City, county authority to issue collection service franchises; opportunity to recycle; rates. (1) The
Legislative Assembly finds that providing for collection service including but not limited to the collection of recyclable
material as part of the opportunity to recycle is a matter of statewide concern.
(2) The exercise of the authority granted by this section is subject to ORS 221.735 and 459.085 (3).
(3) It is the intent of the Legislative Assembly that a city or county may displace competition with a system of regulated
collection service by issuing franchises which may be exclusive if service areas are allocated. The city or county may
recognize an existing collection service. A city or county may award or renew a franchise for collection service with or
without bids or requests for proposals.
(4) In carrying out the authority granted by this section, a city or county acts for and on behalf of the State of Oregon to
carry out:
(a) The purposes of ORS 459.015;
(b) The requirements of ORS 459.005, 459.015, 459.035, 459.250, 459.992 (1) and (2), 459.995 and 459A.005 to
459A.665;
(c) Waste reduction programs; and
(d) The state solid waste management plan.
(5) After October 15, 1983, a city or a county may continue, extend or renew an existing franchise or grant a new franchise
for collection service. If a city or county, in furtherance of ORS 459.005 to 459.426, 459.705 to 459.790 and 459A.005 to
459A.665, has granted a collection service franchise before October 15, 1983, it may treat the franchise as if adopted under
this section.
(6)(a) If a collection service franchise is continued, extended, renewed or granted on or after October 15, 1983, the
opportunity to recycle shall be provided to a franchise holder's customers no later than July 1, 1986. This subsection does
not apply to that portion of the opportunity to recycle provided at or in connection with a disposal site under ORS 459.250.
(b) The opportunity to recycle may be provided by:
(A) The person holding the franchise;
(B) Another person who provides the opportunity to recycle to the franchise holder's customers; or
(C) A person who is granted a separate franchise from the city or county solely for the purpose of providing the opportunity
to recycle.
(c) In determining who shall provide the opportunity to recycle, a city or county shall first give due consideration to any
person lawfully providing recycling or collection service on June 1, 1983, if the person continues to provide the service
until the date the determination is made and the person has not discontinued the service for a period of 90 days or more
between June 1, 1983, and the date the city or county makes the determination.
(7) In granting a collection service franchise, the city or county may:
(a) Prescribe the quality and character of and rates for collection service and the minimum requirements to guarantee
maintenance of service, determine level of service, select persons to provide collection service and establish a system to pay
for collection service.
(b) Divide the regulated area into service areas, grant franchises to persons for collection service within the service areas
and collect fees from persons holding such franchises.
(8) The rates established under this section shall be just and reasonable and adequate to provide necessary collection
service. The rates established by the city or county shall allow the person holding the franchise to recover any additional
costs of providing the opportunity to recycle at the minimum level required by ORS 459.005, 459.015, 459.035, 459.250,
459.992 (1) and (2), 459.995 and 459A.005 to 459A.665 or at a higher level of recycling required by or permitted by the
city or county. The rates shall also allow the person to recover the costs of education, promotion and notice of the
opportunity to recycle provided by a person holding a franchise.
(9) Instead of providing funding for the opportunity to recycle through rates established pursuant to subsection (8) of this
section, a city or county may provide an alternative method of funding all or part of the opportunity to recycle.
(10) In establishing service areas, the city or county shall consider:
(a) The policies contained in ORS 459.015;
(b) The requirements of ORS 459.250 and 459A.005 to 459A.665;
(c) Any applicable local or regional solid waste management plan approved by the Department of Environmental Quality;
(d) Any applicable waste reduction plan approved by the department; and
(e) The need to conserve energy, increase efficiency, provide the opportunity to recycle, reduce truck traffic and improve
safety.
(11) A city or county may further restrict competition by permitting one or more collection service franchise holders to
cooperate to provide the opportunity to recycle if the city or county finds that such cooperation will:
(a) Improve collection service efficiency;
(b) Guarantee an adequate volume of material to improve the feasibility and effectiveness of recycling;
(c) Increase the stability of recycling markets; or
(d) Encourage joint marketing of materials or joint education and promotion efforts.
(12) The provisions of this section are in addition to and not in lieu of any other authority granted to a city or county. A city
or county's exercise of authority under this section is not intended to create any presumption regarding an activity of the
local government unit not addressed in this section. This section shall not be construed to mean that it is the policy of
Oregon that other local government activities may not be exercised in a manner that supplants or limits economic
competition. (Formerly 459.200; 1993 c.560 §84]
Solid Waste Rate Setting in
the City of Tigard
Presented to the Tigard City Council
Authority over SW Programs
• ORS 459 and ORS 459A
459.017(b) Local government units have the primary
responsibility for planning for solid waste management.
459A.085 City, county authority to issue collection
service franchises; opportunity to recycle; rates.
Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 11.04, Section
11.04.090 codifies how solid waste rates are to be
established and the specific time (June 1) for
implementation.
Rate Setting and Review Process
• A rate review is the critical examination of the financial
and operational report submitted by the contracted
haulers to determine and report the cost of services.
The Established Standard Procedure for the City of Tigard;
• Submission of the annual report to the City by March 1
• Analysis of all the submitted reports
• Selected site visits to review supporting documents
• Adjustments, if necessary, to the cost reports
• Consolidation of the reports
• Reporting of the review results in detail and in summary
2004 Rate Review Process
System Performance
2004 Adjusted 2005 Projected
Return on Revenue Return on Revenue
Cart / 8.65% 6.49%
Residential
Container / 17.23% 13-50%
Commercial
Drop Box -6.28% -8.06%
System 7.99% 5.22%
Composite
Projecting the Current Year
• Upon the posting of adjustments to the detailed Labor 13.00% c
ost reports, the next step Health Insurance 10.12%
is the projection of the
current year results. The Fuel 24.40%
City and haulers rely on a Solid Waste Disposal 5.75%
high level of detail,
therefore, a blanket CPI Yard Debris Disposal 20.00%
adjustment of revenues
and expenses is Property Insurance 2.94%
unacceptable for the Inflation 2.94%
projection.
Rate Setting Process
1. Determine the Cost of Services (Rate
Review process)
2. The revenue requirement for these services
is 10% in the City of Tigard
3. Allocate revenue requirement over the
collection base (carts, containers, or drop
box)
4. Recommendation for rate change submitted
to City Council.
Commercial Rates - Container and
Drop Box Changes
Using the new rate methodology for drop box service I
projected revenue for 2004 to be $65,534. This is an
increase of $200,294 from the reported results.
Because this method of setting drop box rates is
relatively new to the franchised jurisdictions of the Metro
area, there is a risk that it may not generate enough
revenue to return the haulers the contracted margin. I
expect it to bring in more than the projected $65,000;
however, in order to reduce the risk to the haulers if this
methodology doesn't return the projected amount, the
remaining revenue shortfall of approximately $140,000
will be subsidized by container service.
(See page 19 of the Council agenda and the additional hand out for further details)
Proposed Cart /Residential Rates
Rate changes due primarily to Increases in Inflation and Disposal
• The proposal would increase rates for all weekly
services effective August 1, 2005.
• 20-gallon cart: $0.80 per month to $16.90, a 5.0% increase
• 35-gallon cart: $0.90 per month to $19.65, a 4.8% increase
• 60-gallon cart: $1.45 per month to $30.70, a 5.0% increase
• 90-gallon cart: $1.75 per month to $37.25, a 4.9% increase
Proposed Container Rates
• There are 84 service options for commercial
containers. This proposal would increase rates by
2.8% for the smaller generators of waste and up to
5.6% for the larger generators of waste (effective
August 1, 2005). The increase would range from $2.51
per month for the lowest level of service (1 yard
container collected weekly: estimated weigh is 585
pounds a month) to $100.46 for the highest level (8
yard container collected 5 times a week: estimated
weight is 23,400 pounds a month).
Proposed Drop Box Rates
• The new methodology results in Service Type Projected Change in
rate impacts on customers that Total Rate per Haul
vary according to the quantity of Repeat Service Range from 4%
debris in their drop boxes. (business and industrial) decrease to 10%
Disposal charges (versus hauling increase
charges) for drop boxes are
directly tied to the exact weight of Repeat Compactor Range from 4%
each load. By contrast, disposal Service (businesses and decrease to 13%
charges for residential and large multifamily increase
customers)
commercial container customers
are built into the rates as Occasional Service Range from 6%
averages, since any one (one-time use of a drop decrease to 25%
customers garbage is mixed with Box: primarily residential) increase
others in a single truck. Effective
August 1, 2005
New Programs for the Council to
Consider
• Residential Programs
Cart Recycling
Weekly Yard Debris Collection
• Commercial Program
Organic (Food) Collection
• Administrative
Solid Waste Administration and Support
Staff Recommendation of
Proposed Programs
• Implement the Residential Cart Collection
(January 1, 2007 Rollout)
Rate Increase is $0.71 per customer per month
35 gallon service would increase from $19.65 to
$20.36 (77% of the Tigard residential base has this
level of service)
• Maintain the Current Level of Yard Debris Service
• Table Commercial Organic Collection for Future
Consideration
Staff Recommendation of
Proposed Programs
• Increase Franchise Fee from 3% to 4%
Increase in revenue would be approximately $101,000 for additional staff
support of solid waste and recycling programs and community
enhancement projects
Impact is $0.28 per month for the 35 gallon cart customer and $0.92 per
month for each yard of container service
The table below is a comparison of current franchise fee percentages of
neighboring jurisdictions
Washington Hillsboro King Durham Beaverton Lake West Tualatin Portland
County City Oswego Linn
3% 3% 3% 4% 4%Res- 5% 5% 5% 5%
4.5% Com
AGENDA ITEM # (0
FOR AGENDA OF June 21, 2005
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discuss Amending TMC 7.40.180 - Amend Hours of Work for Construction Noise
PREPARED BY: Jim HendM DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should Council amend the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC), Section 7.40.180, to revise the hours allowed for
construction noise?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Provide staff with direction on whether the permitted hours in Section 7.40.180 should be revised or remain as
currently written.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Council has requested a discussion of Tigard Municipal Code Article 7 regarding Prohibition on Excessive Noise.
The exception to noise levels regarding construction and the allowable hours for such noise are found in Chapter 7
of the Tigard Municipal Code, which was last revised in 1990. Construction noise includes those activities
associated with development projects, home construction, and home improvement activities, such as deck
construction, etc. Due to a citizen complaint about excessive construction noise, staff has gathered allowable noise
regulation information from 19 other jurisdictions. The intent is to compare the City of Tigard regulations against
the 19 other jurisdictions to determine whether the City's ordinance is consistent with others.
Positive aspects of limiting construction noise could include being more in line with other jurisdictions and being
responsive to citizen concerns. A negative aspect of limiting construction noise is it still does not address the
fundamental issue that jurisdictions exempt construction activity from noise standards at certain times. During the
hours that construction activities are allowed, the noise is exempt from the noise standards. The hours of operation
do not address this concern. Another negative aspect could be that time limitations apply to homeowners as well as
contractors. A homeowner constructing a deck or fence is subject to the same time limits as contractors.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Keep the existing language found in Chapter 7 of the Tigard Municipal Code.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: TMC Chapter 7.40
Attachment 2: Construction Noise Comparison by Jurisdiction
FISCAL NOTES
There is no budgetary impact.
e
Attachment 1
TIGARD
Chapter 7.40 NUISANCES ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS 7.40.010 Short Title.
7.40.010 Short Title. The ordinance codified in this chapter shall
7.40.020 Definitions. be known as the "nuisance ordinance," and may
7.40.030 Nuisances Designated--Class 1 also be referred to herein as "this chapter." (Ord.
Infraction. 86-20 §4(Exhibit C(1)), 1986).
ARTICLE II. PUBLIC HEALTH 7.40.020 Definitions.
NUISANCES
As used in this chapter:
7.40.040 Nuisances Affecting The Public
Health. A. "Responsible party" means the person
responsible for curing or remedying a nuisance,
ARTICLE III. NUISANCES AFFECTING which includes:
PUBLIC SAFETY.
1. The owner of the property, or the
7.40.050 Noxious Vegetation. owner's manager or agent or other person in
7.40.060 Trees. control of the property on behalf of the owner;
7.40.070 Streets And Sidewalks.
7.40.080 Vehicles Not To Drop Material 2. The person occupying the property,
On Streets. including bailee, lessee, tenant or other person
7.40.090 Greenway Maintenance. having possession;
7.40.100 Open Storage Of Junk.
7.40.110 Attractive Nuisances. 3. The person who is alleged to have
7.40.120 Scattering Rubbish. committed the acts or omissions, created or
allowed the condition to exist, or placed the object
ARTICLE IV. NUISANCES AFFECTING or allowed the object to exist on the property.
THE PUBLIC PEACE (Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit C(2)), 1986).
7.40.130 Prohibition On Excessive 7.40.030 Nuisances Designated--Class I
Noises. Infraction.
7.40.140 Sound Measurement.
7.40.150 Definitions. A. The acts, omissions, conditions or
7.40.160 Noise Limits. objects specifically enumerated in this chapter are
7.40.170 Prohibited Noises. hereby declared to be a public nuisance.
7.40.180 Exceptions.
7.40.190 Maximum Limit For Certain B. In addition to the nuisances specifically
Activities. enumerated within this chapter, every other thing,
7.40.200 Evidence. substance or act which is determined by the
Council to be offensive, injurious or detrimental
ARTICLE VI. VIOLATION--PENALTY to the public health, safety or welfare of the City
is declared to be a nuisance.
7.40.210 Penalty For Chapter Violations.
7-40-1 SE Update: 12101
TIGARD
C. All nuisances shall constitute a Class 1 G. Cesspools. Cesspools or septic tanks
civil infraction and shall be processed according that are in an unsanitary condition or which cause
to the procedures established in Chapter 1.16 of an offensive odor;
this code, Civil Infractions. (Ord. 86-20
§4(Exhibit C(3)), 1986). H. Animals. Animals, including livestock
or buildings for the purpose of maintaining
ARTICLE 11. PUBLIC HEALTH livestock or animals, maintained in such places or
NUISANCES. in such a manner that they are offensive or
annoying to the residents within the immediate
7.40.040 Nuisances Affecting The Public vicinity, or maintaining the premises in such a
Health. manner as to be a breeding place or likely
breeding place for rodents, flies and other pests;
No person shall cause or permit a nuisance
affecting the public health. The following are I. Removal of Carcasses. An animal
nuisances affecting the public health: carcass permitted to remain on public property or
to be exposed on public property for a period of
A. Privies. An open vault or privy time longer than is necessary to remove or dispose
constructed and maintained within the City, of the carcass.
except those constructed or maintained in
connection with construction projects in J. Maintenance on Private Property of a
accordance with the State Health Division Dangerous Building. A "dangerous building" is
regulations; one or more of the following:
B. Debris. Accumulations of debris, 1. A structure that, for the want of
rubbish, manure and other refuse that affect the proper repairs or by reason of age and dilapidated
health of surrounding persons; condition, by reason of poorly installed electrical
wiring or equipment, defective chimney, defective
C. Stagnant Water. Stagnant water which gas connection, defective heating apparatus, or for
affords a breeding place for mosquitoes and other any other cause or reason, is especially liable to
insect pests; fire, and that is so situated or occupied as to
endanger any other building or property or human
D. Water Pollution. Pollution of a body of life;
water, well, spring, stream or drainage ditch by
sewage, industrial wastes, or other substances 2. A structure containing combustible
placed in or near the water in a manner that will or explosive material, rubbish, rags, waste, oils,
cause harmful material to pollute the water; gasoline or flammable substance of any kind,
especially liable to cause fire or danger to the
E. Odor. Any animal, substance or safety of the building, premises, or to human life;
condition on the premises that is in such a state or
condition as to cause an offensive odor detectable 3. A structure that is kept or
at a property line, or that is in an insanitary maintained or is in a filthy or unsanitary
condition; condition, especially liable to cause the spread of
contagious or infectious disease or diseases;
F. Surface Drainage. Drainage of liquid
wastes from private premises; 4. A structure in such weak or
7-40-2 SE Update: 12101
TIGARD
weakened condition, or dilapidated or deteriorated abutting on the property. The owner or
condition as to endanger any person or property responsible party shall cut down or destroy grass,
by reason of probability of partial or entire shrubbery, brush, bushes, weeds or other noxious
collapse. (Ord. 86-39 §1(Exhibit A), 1986; Ord. vegetation as often as needed to prevent them
86-20 §4(Exhibit C(4)), 1986). from becoming unsightly or, in the case of weeds
or other noxious vegetation, from maturing or
ARTICLE III. NUISANCES AFFECTING from going to seed. (Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit
PUBLIC SAFETY. C(5)(1)), 1986).
7.40.050 Noxious Vegetation. 7.40.060 Trees.
A. The term "noxious vegetation" does not A. No owner or responsible party shall
include vegetation that constitutes an agricultural permit tree branches or bushes on the property to
crop, unless that vegetation is a health hazard, a extend into a public street or public sidewalk in a
fire hazard or a traffic hazard, and it is vegetation manner which interferes with street or sidewalk
within the meaning of Subsection B of this traffic. It shall be the duty of an owner or
section. responsible party to keep all tree branches or
bushes on the premises which adjoin the public
B. The term "noxious vegetation" includes: street or public sidewalk, including the adjoining
parking strip, trimmed to a height of not less than
1. Weeds more than ten inches high; eight feet above the sidewalk and not less than ten
feet above the street.
2. Grass more than ten inches high
and not within the exception stated in Subsection B. No owner or responsible party shall
A of this section; allow to stand any dead or decaying tree that is in
danger of falling or otherwise constitutes a hazard
3. Poison oak, poison ivy, or similar to the public or to persons or property on or near
vegetation; the property. (Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit C(5)(2)(a)
and (b)), 1986).
4. Dead trees, dead bushes, stumps
and any other thing likely to cause fire; 7.40.070 Streets And Sidewalks.
5. Blackberry bushes that extend into The owner or responsible party shall keep a
a public thoroughfare or across a property line; public street and/or sidewalk abutting their
property free from earth, rock and other debris
6. Vegetation that is a health hazard; and other objects that may obstruct or render the
street or sidewalk unsafe for its intended use.
7. Vegetation that is a health hazard (Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit C(5)(2)(c)), 1986).
because it impairs the view of a public
thoroughfare or otherwise makes use of the 7.40.080 Vehicles Not To Drop Material
thoroughfare hazardous. On Streets.
C. No owner or responsible party shall The owner or operator of any vehicle
allow noxious vegetation to be on the property or engaged in the transportation of excavation or
in the right-of-way of a public thoroughfare construction materials shall be responsible for
740-3 SE Update: 12101
TIGARD
keeping the public streets and sidewalks free from 7.40.100 Open Storage Of Junk.
such materials, including but not limited to, earth,
rock and other debris that may obstruct or render No person or responsible party shall deposit,
the street or sidewalk unsafe for its intended use. store, maintain or keep on any real property,
(Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit C(5)(2)(d)), 1986). except in a fully enclosed storage facility, building
or garbage receptacle, any of the following:
7.40.090 Greenway Maintenance.
A. An icebox or refrigerator, or similar
A. The owner or responsible party shall be container, which seals essentially airtight, without
responsible for the maintenance of the property, first removing the door;
subject to an easement to the City or to the public
for greenway purposes. Except as otherwise B. Inoperable, partially dismantled
provided by this section and Sections 7.40.050 automobiles, trucks, bus, trailer or other vehicle
through 7.40.120, the standards for maintenance equipment or parts thereof in a state of disrepair,
shall be as follows: for more than ten days as to any one automobile,
truck, bus, trailer or piece of vehicular equipment;
1. The land shall remain in its natural
topographic condition. No private structures, C. Used or dismantled household
culverts, excavations or fills shall be constructed appliances, furniture, other discards or junk, for
within the easement area unless authorized by the more than five days. (Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit
City Engineer based on a finding of need in order C(5)(4)), 1986).
to protect the property or the public health, safety
or welfare. 7.40.110 Attractive Nuisances.
2. No tree over five feet in height A. No owner or responsible party shall
shall be removed unless authorized by the permit on the property:
Planning Director based on a finding that the tree
constitutes a nuisance or a hazard. 1. Unguarded machinery, equipment
or other devices which are attractive, dangerous,
3. Grass shall be kept cut to a height and accessible to children;
not exceeding ten inches, except when some
natural condition prevents cutting. 2. Lumber, logs, building material or
piling placed or stored in a manner so as to be
B. In situations where the approval attractive, dangerous, and accessible to children;
authority establishes different standards or
additional standards, the standards shall be in 3. An open pit, quarry, cistern, or
writing and shall be recorded. No person shall be other excavation without safeguards or barriers to
found in violation of this section of the code prevent such places from being used by children;
unless the person has been given actual or or
constructive notice of the standards prior to the
time the violation occurred. (Ord. 86-20 4. An exposed foundation or portion
§4(Exhibit C(5)(3)), 1986). of foundation, any residue, debris or other
building or structural remains, for more than thirty
days after the destruction, demolition or removal
of any building or portion of the building.
7-40-4 SE Update: 12101
TIGARD
B. This section shall not apply to B. If measurements are made, the person
authorized construction projects with reasonable making those measurements shall have completed
safeguards to prevent injury or death to playing training in the use of the sound level meter, and
children. (Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit C(5)(5)), 1986). shall use measurement procedures consistent with
that training. (Repealed and replaced by Ord. 01-
7.40.120 Scattering Rubbish. 13A, Ord 90-03 § 1(part), 1990).
No person shall deposit upon public or 7.40.150 Definitions.
private property any kind of rubbish, trash, debris,
refuse, or any substance that would mar the As used in this Article:
appearance, create a stench or fire hazard, detract
from the cleanliness or safety of the property, or A. "Noise-sensitive unit" shall include any
would be likely to injure a person, animal, or building or portion of a building containing a
vehicle traveling upon a public way. (Ord. 86-20 residence, place of overnight accommodation,
§4(Exhibit C(5)(6)), 1986). church, day care center, hospital, school, or
nursing care center. For the purpose of this
ARTICLE IV. NUISANCES AFFECTING definition, "residence" and "overnight
THE PUBLIC PEACE accommodation" does not include living/sleeping
quarters of a caretaker or watchperson on
7.40.130 Prohibition On Excessive industrial or commercial property provided by the
Noises. owner or operator of the industrial or commercial
facility.
No person shall make, assist in making,
permit, continue, or permit the continuance of, B. "Plainly audible" means any sound for
any noise within the City of Tigard in violation of which the information content of that sound is
this article. No person shall cause or permit any unambiguously communicated to the listener,
noise to emanate from property under that such as, but not limited to, understandable spoken
person's control in violation of this article. speech, comprehensible musical rhythms or vocal
(Repealed and replaced by Ord. 01-13A, Ord. 96- sounds.
06; Ord. 90-03 § I (part), 1990).
C. "Unnecessarily loud" means any sound
7.40.140 Sound Measurement. that interferes with normal spoken communication
or that disturbs sleep.
A. While sound measurements are not
required for the enforcement of this article, should D. "City Manager" means the City
measurements be made, they shall be made with a Manager or designee. (Repealed and replaced by
sound level meter. The sound level meter: Ord. 01-13A, Ord. 90-03 §51(part), 1990).
1. Shall be an instrument in good 7.40.160 Noise Limits.
operating condition, meeting the requirements of a
Type 1 or Type 11 meter; It is unlawful for any person to produce, or permit
to be produced, sounds which:
2. Shall contain at least an A-
weighted scale, and both fast and slow meter A. When measured at the boundary of or
response capability. within a property on which a noise sensitive unit,
7-40-5 SE Update: 12101
TIGARD
not the source of the sound, is located, exceeds: motorcycle, truck, bus or other vehicle while in
motion, except as a danger signal.
1. Forty dB at any time between nine
p.m. and seven a.m. the following day; or 2. The operation of sound-producing
devices such as, but not limited to, musical
2. Fifty dB at any time between seven instruments, loudspeakers, amplifying devices,
a.m. and nine p.m. the same day; or public address systems, radios, tape recorders
and/or tape players, compact disc players,
B. Is plainly audible at any time between phonographs, television sets and stereo systems,
nine p.m. and seven a.m. the following day within including those installed in or on vehicles.
a noise-sensitive unit which is not the source of
sound; or 3. The operation of any gong or siren
upon any vehicle, other than police, fire or other
C. Is unnecessarily loud within a noise- emergency vehicle, except during sanctioned
sensitive unit which is not the source of the sound. parades.
D. When measured at or within the 4. The use of any automobile,
boundary of or within a property on which no motorcycle or other vehicle so out of repair or in
noise-sensitive unit is located, and the noise such a manner as to create loud or unnecessary
originates from outside the property, if the noise sounds, grating, grinding, rattling or other noise.
level exceeds:
5. The keeping of any animal or bird
1. Sixty dB at any time between nine that creates noise in excess of the levels specified
p.m. and seven a.m. of the following day; or in Section 7.40.160.
2. Seventy-five dB at any other time. 6. The operation of air conditioning or
heating units, heat pumps, refrigeration units,
E. If within a park, street or other public (including those mounted on vehicles) and
place, is unnecessarily loud at a distance of 100 swimming pool or hot tub pumps.
feet. (Repealed and replaced by Ord. 01-13A,
Ord. 90-03 § 1(part), 1990). 7. The erection (including
excavation), demolition, alteration or repair of any
7.40.170 Prohibited Noises. building, except as allowed under Sections
7.40.180.E and 7.40.180.F.
A. The use of exhaust brakes (fake brakes),
except in an emergency, is prohibited at all times 8. The use or creation of amplified
within the City, regardless of noise level. sound in any outdoor facility.
B. Except as provided in Section 7.40.180, 9. Any other action that creates or
the following acts are violations of this chapter if allows sound in excess of the level allowed by
they exceed the noise limits specified in Section Section 7.40.160. (Repealed and replaced by Ord.
7.40.160: 01-13A, Ord. 96-06; Ord. 90-03 § I (part), 1990).
1. The sounding of any horn or signal
device or any other device on any automobile,
7-40-6 SE Update: 12101
TIGARD
7.40.180 Exceptions. H. Sounds caused by air-, electrical- or gas-
driven domestic tools, including, but not limited
The following shall not be considered to, lawn mowers, lawn edgers, radial arm, circular
violations of this article, even if the sound limit and table saws, drills, and/or other similar lawn or
specified in Section 7.40.160 is exceeded: construction tools, but not including tools used for
vehicle repair, during the hours of seven a.m. to
A. Non-amplified sounds created by nine p.m. Monday through Friday and eight a.m.
organized athletic or other group activities, when to nine p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.
such activities are conducted on property
generally used for such purposes, such as I. Sounds caused by chainsaws, when used
stadiums, parks, schools, and athletic fields, for pruning, trimming or cutting of live trees
during normal hours for such events. between the hours of seven a.m. and nine p.m.
Monday through Friday and eight a.m. and nine
B. Sounds caused by emergency work, or p.m. on Saturday and Sunday, and not exceeding
by the ordinary and accepted use of emergency two hours in any twenty-four hour period.
equipment, vehicles and apparatus, regardless of
whether such work is performed by a public or J. Sounds created by community events,
private agency, or upon public or private property. such as parades, public fireworks displays, street
fairs, and festivals that the City Manager or
C. Sounds caused by bona fide use of designee has determined in writing to be
emergency warning devices and alarm systems. community events for the purposes of this section.
The City Manager's decision shall be based on the
D. Sounds regulated by federal law, anticipated number of participants or spectators,
including, but not limited to, sounds caused by the location of the event and other factors the City
railroads or aircraft. Manager determines to be appropriate under the
circumstances.
E. Sounds caused by demolition activities
when performed under a permit issued by K. Sounds made by legal fireworks on the
appropriate governmental authorities and only third of July, Fourth of July, and the Friday and
between the hours of seven a.m. and nine p.m. Saturday during the weekend closest to the Fourth
Monday through Friday and eight a.m. and nine of July of each year, between the hours of seven
p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. a.m. and eleven p.m.
F. Sounds caused by industrial, agricultural L. Sounds made between midnight and
or construction activities during the hours of 12:30 a.m. on January 1 of each year.
seven a.m. to nine p.m. Monday through Friday
and eight a.m. to nine p.m. on Saturday and M. Sounds originating from construction
Sunday. projects for public facilities within rights of way
pursuant to a noise mitigation plan approved by
G. Sounds caused by regular vehicular the City Manager. The noise mitigation plan
traffic upon premises open to the public in must:
compliance with state law. Regular vehicle traffic
does not include a single vehicle that creates noise 1. Map the project noise impacts and
in excess of the standard set forth in Section explain how the impacts will be mitigated;
7.40.160.
7-40-7 SE Update: 12101
TIGARD
2. Provide special consideration and ARTICLE VI. VIOLATION--PENALTY
mitigation efforts for noise sensitive units;
7.40.210 Penalty For Chapter Violations.
3. Outline public notification plans;
A. A violation of this chapter shall
4. Provide a 24-hour telephone constitute a Class 1 civil infraction, which shall be
contact number for information and complaints processed according to the procedures established
about a project. in the civil infractions ordinance, set out at
Chapter 1.16 of this code.
The City Manager may approve a noise
mitigation plan only if the City Manager B. Each violation of a separate provision of
determines that the noise mitigation plan will this chapter shall constitute a separate infraction,
prevent unreasonable noise impacts. (Repealed and each day that a violation of this chapter is
and replaced by Ord. 01-13A, Ord 90-03 §I(part), committed or permitted to continue shall
1990). constitute a separate infraction.
7.40.190 Maximum Limit For Certain C. A finding of a violation of this chapter
Activities. shall not relieve the responsible party of the duty
to abate the violation. The penalties imposed by
Notwithstanding Section 7.40.180, the this section are in addition to and not in lieu of
creation of noise by any activity subject to the any remedies available to the City.
exceptions listed in Sections 7.40.180.E,
7.40.1801, 7.40.180.H, or 7.40.180.1, in excess of D. If a provision of this chapter is violated
85 dB measured on property on which a noise by a firm or corporation, the officer or officers, or
sensitive use is located, for more than 5 minutes in person or persons responsible for the violation
any calendar day shall be a violation. (Repealed shall be subject to the penalties imposed by this
and replaced by Ord. 01-13A, Ord. 99-29; Ord. chapter. (Ord. 99-01; Ord. 90-03 §1(part),
96-06; Ord. 90-03 § I (part), 1990). 1990).0
7.40.200 Evidence.
In any civil infraction action based on a
violation of the limits set forth in Sections
7.40.160.13, 7.40.160.C or 7.40.160.E, the
evidence of at least two persons from different
households, shall be required to establish a
violation. Any Police or Code Enforcement
Officer or other City employee who witnessed the
violation shall be counted as a witness for
purposes of the two witness requirement. The
City may ask an alleged violator to enter into a
voluntary compliance agreement based on a single
complaint or single witness. (Repealed and
replaced by Ord. 01-13A, Ord. 99-29; Ord. 96-06;
Ord. 90-03 § 1(part), 1990).
7-40-8 SE Update: 12101
Attachment 2
Construction Noise Comparisons b Jurisdiction
Mon-Fri Saturday Sunda
Jurisdiction Start Time End Time Start Time End Time Start Time End Time
Beaverton 7:00 AM 7:00 PM 7:00 AM 7:00 PM 7:00 AM 7:00 PM
Bend 7:00 AM 10:00 PM 7:00 AM 10:00 PM 7:00 AM 10:00 PM
Cornelius 7:00 AM 10:00 PM 7:00 AM 10:00 PM Prohibited Prohibited
Eugene 7:00 AM 7:00 PM 7:00 AM 7:00 PM 7:00 AM 7:00 PM
Gresham 7:00 AM 10:00 PM 7:00 AM 10:00 PM 7:00 AM 10:00 PM
Happy Valle 7:00 AM 6:00 PM 9:00 AM 6:00 PM 9:00 AM 6:00 PM
Hillsboro 6:00 AM 9:00 PM 6:00 AM 9:00 PM 6:00 AM 9:00 PM
Lake Oswego 7:00 AM 6:00 PM 8:00 AM 6:00 PM 9:00 AM 6:00 PM
Milwaukie 7:00 AM 7:00 PM 8:00 AM 5:00 PM 8:00 AM 5:00 PM
Newberg 7:00 AM 6:00 PM 7:00 AM 6:00 PM 7:00 AM 6:00 PM
Portland 7:00 AM 6:00 PM 7:00 AM 6:00 PM Prohibited Prohibited
Salem 7:00 AM 10:00 PM 7:00 AM 10:00 PM 7:00 AM 10:00 PM
Sherwood 7:00 AM 10:00 PM 8:00 AM 7:00 PM 8:00 AM 7:00 PM
Redmond 7:00 AM 10:00 PM 7:00 AM 10:00 PM 7:00 AM 10:00 PM
Ti and 7:00 AM 9:00 PM 8:00 AM 9:00 PM 8:00 AM 9:00 PM
Tualatin 7:00 AM 6:00 PM 7:00 AM 6:00 PM 7:00 AM 6:00 PM
Washington Count 7:00 AM 7:00 PM 7:00 AM 7:00 PM Prohibited Prohibited
West Linn 7:00 AM 7:00 PM 9:00 AM 5:00 PM Prohibited Prohibited
Wilsonville *PST 7:00 AM 8:00 PM 9:00 AM 6:00 PM Prohibited Prohibited
Wilsonville *PDT 7:00 AM 9:00 PM 9:00 AM 7:00 PM Prohibited Prohibited
Woodburn 7:00 AM 9:00 PM 7:00 AM 9:00 PM 7:00 AM 9:00 PM
* Separate hours for Standard and Daylight times
Designates no change in regulation for weekend hours