City Council Packet - 01/16/2007
V
TIGARD CITY C 61L
wQ~ OP MEETING
January 16, 2007
COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE
TELEVISED
I:WfsWOnna'skcPM2
ft Revised 1 / 12/07 - Added Administrative Items; See Agenda Item No. 9
OUNCIL
EETING
FTIGARD
6:30 p.m.
HALL MD
BLVD -
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
7:3012.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 Dea~.
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA -JANUARY 16, 2007 page 1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
JANUARY 16, 2007
6:30 PM
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items:
2. ANNEXATION POLICY DISCUSSION
Staff Report: Community Development Department
3. JAYWALKING ORDINANCE DISCUSSION
Staff Report: Police Department
4. GRAFFITI ORDINANCE DISCUSSION
Staff Report: Police Department
5. AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS DISCUSSION
Staff Report: Police Department
6. GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM PROJECT AND PRESENTATION OF
THE CRIME ANALYSIS APPLICATION
Staff Report: Financial and Information Services Department
7. ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUEST FOR PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Staff Report: Community Development Department
8. IDENTIFY TOPICS FOR AGENDA FOR THE JOINT MEETING WITH TIGARD-
TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT TO BE HELD JANUARY 29, 2007
Staff Introduction: Administration Department
9. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
• Review and finalize draft of the Council goals.
• Select date for team building meeting with Joe Hertzberg
• Review list of potential City Council training opportunities
• Mayor's calendar
COUNCIL AGENDA -JANUARY 16, 2007 page 2
10. NON AGENDA ITEMS
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an
Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced
identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may
disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend
Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(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.
12. ADJOURNMENT
i:tad m\cathy\cca12007W70116p.doe
COUNCIL AGENDA -JANUARY 16, 2007 page 3
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date January 16, 2007
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Tide Annexation Policy Discussion
Prepared B}- Ron Bunch Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: 02
1,6
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Review current annexation policy established in January 2006.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt staffs recommendation to continue the current policy with possible modifications, and initiate amendment to a
key Comprehensive Plan Policy to remove ambiguity to ensure annexation is mandated when City services are required.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
At a January 17, 2006 workshop, Council considered four annexation policy options and agreed that the City should
have a "reactive" policy that established neutral position towards annexation. The City neither promotes nor is negative
towards annexation. Applications are processed when they are received.
The Bull Mountain annexation/incorporation issue will have effects on local annexation matters for the foreseeable
future and aggressive or overtly proactive annexation approaches could be counter-productive.
The City will be updating its Comprehensive Plan Policies pertaining to urbanization. Future discussion of annexation
issues is recommended when this work is completed. However, a key Plan Policy (10.2.1) is so ambiguous that it has
caused problems and is recommended for amendment in the near future.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The same four policy alternatives were considered as were in January 2006. They are aggressive, proactive, reactive
and inactive approaches. Due to the status of the Bull Mountain annexation issue, the reactive or neutral position is
recommended over the aggressive and proactive options. The inactive approach is also not recommended. Council
did not consider this a valid option in 2006. There is the potential for negative consequences if the City is not
involved in planning and service decisions within its Urban Services Area.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Clarify City's Position on the Provision of Urban Services to Unincorporated Areas and in the Best Interests of the
Citizens of the Tigard.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Staffs January 5, 2007 memorandum
Attachment 2: January 3, 2006 Staff memorandum to Mayor Dirksen and City Council regarding "City of Tigard
Annexation Policy"
Attachment 3: January 17, 2006 City Council workshop minutes on "City of Tigard Annexation Policy"
FISCAL NOTES
Not Applicable
\\tig20\inetpub\tig20%-root\forms\form docs\council agenda item summary sheet 07.doc
Attachment 1
MEMORANDUM
A
TO: Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ron Bunch, Long Range Planning Manager
RE: January 5, 2007
DATE: City of Tigard Annexation Policy
INTRODUCTION
On January 17, 2006 Council held a work-session on annexation policy issues. At this
meeting Council considered four policy alternatives: aggressive, proactive, reactive, or
inactive approaches towards annexation. Council decided that the "reactive" approach was
best.
Pursuant to this direction, the City has neither been negative towards annexation nor
promoted it. Rather it has processed annexation applications as they have occurred.
However, to lessen the burden on applicants, Council waived annexation fees for the period
July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2008.
This workshop meeting is a follow-up to last year's decision. Council has the opportunity to
discuss whether it should affirm or change its annexation policy.
This memorandum presents policy alternatives in the same format as was done in January
2006. Council's options are not limited to the four alternatives. It may decide that current
circumstances require a hybrid approach combining elements of two or more options.
Staffs January 17, 2006 memo to City Council provided an in-depth evaluation of the legal
framework of annexation; City policy framework and a description of options. For
Council's reference, the memo is attached along with minutes of its January 17, 2006
meeting
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION - 2007 ANNEXATION POLICY
Policy Alternatives Previously Considered
At its January 2006 discussion, Council considered the following four annexation policy
alternatives.
Aggr~ e,P ssive: Develop a strategic plan to annex all of the City's Urban Service Area including
Planning Areas 63 and 64.
This alternative called for developing a strategic plan that mapped out annexation of all of
Tigard's Urban Service Area. It would have aggressively invited property owners to
participate and drawn annexation boundaries to include lands necessary to achieve the plan's
goals. This would have included using cherry stem annexations along key roads to annex
non-contiguous parcels. Also involuntary annexation would have been used for all parcels
that would not participate when invited. This strategy would also have sought annexation of
unincorporated islands within the City.
Proactive: Actively seek property owners who wish to annex.
This option would have actively invited property owners to annex to the City. It would have
also involved the use of involuntary annexation, when permitted by state law, for all parcels
whose owners declined to participate in an annexation action. Involuntary annexation would
also have been used to annex unincorporated islands inside the City.
Reactive: Respond to property owner or elector interest.
A stated above, this is the City's current practice. The City responds to requests for
annexation, and observes its policy that if development needs City services, then annexation
must occur or a waiver of remonstrance must be signed and filed with Washington County.
Inactive: No further annexation of Tigard's Urban Service Area.
This alternative would have halted the City's annexation of territory and no City services
would have been extended beyond the City limits. Other service providers would have had
responsibility to serve lands within Tigard's Urban Service Area.
Annexation Policy Options for 2007
The incidents preceding the Bull Mountain incorporation ballot measure and its subsequent
failure were the most significant annexation events in 2006. This issue and its various effects
will color the annexation discussion for some time to come. For example, the Bull Mountain
episode resulted in termination of the City / County Urban Services Intergovernmental
Agreement (USIGA) whereby Washington County is now responsible for providing
development review and building inspection services in the Bull Mountain Urban Services
Area.
However, since there is not an incorporates in the area, the prospect for annexation has
not changed. Simply put, if new or existing development needs City services it must annex to
the City. Furthermore, the City's Urban Planning Area Agreement does not prevent these or
other lands from annexing. It still states that the City and County will be supportive of
annexation of the area.
The controversy brought about by the Bull Mountain Incorporation issue seems to counter
either an aggressive or an overtly proactive annexation policy. Also, it is staff's opinion that
the City's Comprehensive Planning effort needs to address policy issues related to the urban
services and urban planning areas before a major policy change is considered. Staff
recommends that additional discussion of annexation policy occur when updated
Comprehensive Plan Urbanization goals, policies and action measures are brought forward.
In other words, an ongoing discussion of annexation issues and policies is needed as events
occur and circumstances change.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1
Staff recommends Council's current policy of reacting to annexation requests when they
occur be continued for another 12 months along with continuing the waiver of annexation
fees until 7-01-08. Council may wish to add on some proactive elements such as an
incentive of phasing in, over a period of five years, the added amount of City property taxes
associated with annexation. If wished, staff will further investigate this and other proactive
alternatives.
Recommendation 2
Staff also recommends that Council amend Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.2.1. pertaining to
annexation and City services. The policy has caused problems because:
• It is not explicit regarding the obligation of property owners to annex in order to
receive City services. Staff's opinion is that the policy can be interpreted that an
application for annexation is all that is needed to get City services;
• Legal precedent does not allow a city to condition annexation on the receipt of
another entity's services. For example, the City cannot require annexation if sewer
service is provided by Clean Water Services, and
• There is uncertainty whether waivers of remonstrance to annex can actually be
enforced.
Staff also recommends some minor edits to further clarify the intent of the policy.
Therefore the policy is proposed to be amended as follows. Bold indicates new language
and indicates language to be deleted.
Policy 10.2.1
The City shall not approve the extension of City services except.-
a) Where applications for annexation for those properties have been approved by
the City; or
b) In circumstances where applicable state er and county health agen agencies has have declared
a potential or imminent health ha.Zard.
In the future, there may be more recommendations for policy changes. These will be
forthcoming as the work progresses on the Comprehensive Plan.
Attachments:
January 3, 2006 Staff memorandum to Mayor Dirksen and City Council regarding "City of
Tigard Annexation Policy"
January 17, 2006 City Council workshop minutes on "City of Tigard Annexation Policy
File: Annex memol-16-07 final doc
Attachment 2
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Mayor Dirksen and City Council
FROM: Tom Coffee, Community Development Director
Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner
DATE: January 3, 2006
SUBJECT: City Of Tigard Annexation Policy
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to address the City's limited annexation policy and to propose
options for the Council to consider to facilitate implementation of the City's urbanization goal.
This paper looks briefly at the legal framework of annexation and summarizes the City's current
policies and practices. A discussion of the issues follows with options proposed for how the City
might proceed.
As the City urbanizes and expands into its Urban Services Area, annexation is used to
incorporate territory into the City to ensure the efficient provision of municipal services and to
incorporate urbanizing lands into the City's political and civic life. The City's annexation policy
is included within the Urbanization goal of its Comprehensive Plan, which is mandated by State
Statute. The Urbanization goal provides a framework within which all development activities are
coordinated. The goal attempts to integrate and balance available land resources in terms of the
needs expressed by other goals, namely, Housing, Economy, Public Facilities and Services,
Natural Features and Open Space, and Transportation.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
State Law (ORS 195 and 222)
ORS 195 provides for annexation plans for large unincorporated areas which must be approved
by a majority of the voters in the areas to be annexed and the city annexing the area. ORS 222
provides for annexations without a vote through consent agreements from those within the area
to be annexed when contiguous to a city boundary.
Annexations without a vote, include: a) island annexation when territory is surrounded by the
corporate boundaries of the city; consent of the affected property owners is not required; b)
consents of all of the owners of land in the territory and not less than 50 percent of the electors;
c) consents of owners of the majority of the territory within the area to be annexed and a majority
of electors (double majority); d) consents of more than half of the owners of land in the territory,
who also own more than half of the land in the contiguous territory, representing more than half
of the assessed value (triple majority).
2005 Legislative Changes to State Law
The 2005 Legislature made a number of changes to State Annexation Law in response to
property owner concern over the authority of cities to annex territory. Annexation by Annexation
Plans now clearly require a majority vote of both residents of the city and the residents within the
territory to be annexed. The so called "Nike" bill only applies to specific industrial properties
that meet specific criteria (does not affect City of Tigard where the unannexed portions of the
city contain only land designated residential). In addition, the legislature took away a city's
ability to veto the incorporation of territory within three miles of city boundaries.
Written Consents to Annex
The procedures for annexing without a vote include obtaining: a) written consent to annex by a
willing property owner, which is non transferable and valid for one year; or, b) written consent to
annex by a willing property owner by contract in exchange for provision of services, which is
binding on future property owners and good for a year (unless separate agreement waives the
year limitation).
When property owners contiguous to the city boundary apply for annexations, simple consents
are sufficient. When property owners apply for development of property within the Urban
Services Area, but which is not contiguous to the current city boundary, contracts and waivers
are used to ensure annexation at some point in the future when the city boundary becomes
contiguous (see attached 12-13-05 Ramis/Crew Annexation Consents Memo). These consents
are made to fulfill the intent of the City's urbanization goal. The attached letter from Legislative
Counsel to Representative Jerry Krummel, dated December 15, 2005, points out that these
written consents are a legitimate form of annexation (paragraph 2, page 3).
EXISTING CITY POLICY
The City's policies on annexation are found in the Comprehensive Plan and are implemented
through the Tigard Development Code and ordinances approving several Intergovernmental
Agreements. These IGAs are primarily between the City and Washington County, but also
include Metro and a number of area service provider districts.
Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan (attached) includes the findings, policies and
implementation strategies that address a variety of topics related to urbanization, including
annexation. The annexation policies describe the process which satisfies the need for efficient,
orderly and logical urbanization within the geographical limits of Tigard's Urban Service Area
(attached map). These policies, summarized below, include 1) the conditions for annexation, 2)
extension of services outside the City limits, and 3) annexation of land outside of the urban
growth boundary. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted by ordinance and is the law of the City
just as other laws of the municipal code.
In Policy 10. 1, prior to annexation, the city must demonstrate that there are adequate water,
sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire protection services to serve the territory to be annexed
2
and that the annexation will not significantly reduce the level of services available to developed
and undeveloped land within the city of Tigard. In addition, the City must find that the
annexation eliminates an island or will not create an irregular boundary, the police department
has commented, the land is located within the Tigard urban planning area and is contiguous to
the city boundary, and the annexation can be accommodated by the listed services.
In Policy 10.2, the city shall not approve the extension of city or CWS sewer lines except: a)
where applications for annexation for those properties have been submitted to the city; b) where
a nonremonstrance agreement to annex those properties has been signed and recorded with
Washington County and submitted to the city; or c) where the applicable state or county health
agency has declared that there is a potential or imminent health hazard.
In Policy 10.3, the city shall consider annexation requests outside the Tigard urban planning area
and within the urban growth boundary consistent with policies 10.1 and 10.2 and amendment of
the agreement between the city and the county. The city shall discourage expansion of the Tigard
urban planning area in a manner which would result in an irregular planning area and inefficient
provision of public facilities and services.
Tigard Development Code
The TDC implements the policies in the Comprehensive Plan, stipulating a Type IV approval
process and approval criteria that a) require services and facilities are available to the area with
sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area, and b) that the applicable
comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied.
Intergovernmental Agreements
A series of IGAs from the mid-eighties between the City and Washington County have set the
management terms for the unincorporated territory within Tigard's UGB regarding provision of
urban services and the transfer of service provision upon annexation. The most recent of these
agreements, the Urban Planning Area Agreement (7/8/04), identifies the Tigard Urban Service
Area (TUSA) and a process for coordinating comprehensive planning and development. Section
III.C.I Annexations, states:
The county and city recognize the City as the ultimate service provider of
the urban services specified in the Tigard Urban Services Agreement. The
County also recognizes the City as the ultimate local governance provider
to all the territory in the TUSA, including unincorporated properties. So
that all properties within the TUSA will be served by the City, the County
and City will be supportive of annexations to the City.
Section III.C.3 states:
Annexations to the City shall not be limited to an annexation plan
and the City and County recognize the right of the City and property
owners to annex properties using the other provisions provided by the
Oregon Revised Statutes.
3
Administrative Policy
Currently, the City does not initiate annexations, but processes requests for annexation by
developers and property owners pursuant to the provisions in the Tigard Development Code.
However, the City's administrative policy includes sending a letter solicitation to owners in the
vicinity of a proposed annexation to join in the annexation. The intent of the solicitation is to
create a uniform boundary by including adjacent properties within the proposal to create a more
efficient urban services area boundary. The City encourages participation by offering to waive
the annexation application fee, which is currently $2,302. The City also advises that if an owner
chooses not to participate, but a majority of the surrounding neighbors do choose to do so, their
property may involuntarily be annexed by double or triple majority. Involuntary annexation has
rarely, if ever, occurred.
ANNEXATION POLICY OPTIONS
The City does not have an annexation plan to guide the timing and location of annexation of
Tigard's Urban Service Area as called for in the City's Urban Service Agreement (11-26-02).
The Comprehensive Plan policies provide for, but do not facilitate annexation. Therefore, the
City is currently reactive to annexation proposals by developers and landowners. As a result the
City is unable to predictably assume its role as the urban service provider within its Urban
Service Area.
The following four options lay out a graduated approach to annexation for the Council to
consider. The options range from the City annexing all of its Urban Service Area to declaring
that it will not annex any more territory beyond specified limits (see attached Prospective
Annexation Map). Underlying these options is the legal justification cited above for the City to
annex all of its Urban Service Area.
Aggressive: Develop a strategic plan to annex all of the City's Urban Service Area including
Planning Areas 63 and 64.
Develop a strategic plan that maps out annexation of all of Tigard's Urban Service Area. As
now, rely on consents to annex and waivers of remonstrance for proposed developments.
However, be aggressive with the invitations to participate by drawing the rational boundary to
include parcels necessary to achieve the annexation goal. If necessary, use cherry stem
annexations along key roads to include non contiguous properties. Use involuntary annexation,
as allowed, for all parcels that do not participate on invitation. Annex all seven unincorporated
islands within the City boundary comprised of 74 lots and totaling 42.4 acres (see attached
December 2005 Issue of League of Oregon Cities Local Focus, pages 27/28).
Proactive: Actively seek property owners who wish to annex.
As now, rely on consents to annex and waivers of remonstrance for proposed developments.
However, be proactive with the invitations to participate by drawing the rational service
boundary to include a larger territory. Use involuntary annexation, as allowed, for all parcels that
do not participate on invitation. Annex all islands.
4
Reactive: Respond to property owner or elector interest.
As now, rely on consents to annex and waivers of remonstrance for proposed developments.
Continue invitations to participate and include those consenting to annexation. To the extent
annexation occurs, urban services would be provided to those seeking them. Only approximately
212 acres have been added since 2000 using the current policy.
Inactive: No further annexation of Tigard's Urban Service Area.
The area would continue to be served by existing service provider districts. The City would
concede the Urban Service Area to other interests and revoke its urban service agreements with
the County. The City could focus on developing a sustainable community with an enhanced
quality of life within its current boundaries.
APPENDICIES
December 15, 2005, Letter from Legislative Counsel to Representative Jerry Krummel
Chapter 10, Urbanization, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
December 2005, Local Focus (LOC), Island Annexations Lawful Under Equal Protection Clause
Exhibits: maps showing Annexation History and Prospective Annexation policy options
5
Attachment 3
Agenda Item No. 3,1
For Agenda of - ars, to
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes
Date: January 17, 2006
Time: 6:36 p.m.
Place: Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon
Attending: Mayor Craig Dirksen Presiding
Councilor Sally Harding
Councilor Sydney Sherwood
Councilor Nick Wilson
Councilor Tom Woodruff
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
Workshop 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the City Council and the
Meeting Local Contract Review Board to Order at 6:36
p.m.
1.2 Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors
Harding, Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff.
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports:
Councilor Sherwood announced that some
public facilities projects will be funded by the
Community Development Block Grant program
Requests for funding from this program far
exceeded the amount available. She advised that
the Garrett Street sidewalk will be funded.
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
An Executive Session was held at the end of the
meeting.
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 1
January 17, 2006
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
• A review of TdMees proposed station design could be expanded later.
option. Tigard contributions to
• A review of the recommendation of the design as station funding will need to
originally proposed by the Downtown Task be available the latter part of
Force. 2007.
• TriMet now scaling back to a lower-cost
prefabricated station structure to realign
estimated costs and budget. As time goes by,
costs escalate, which impacts what can be done
with the available funding.
• Review of aesthetics and available budget.
• Review of commuter rail passenger comfort:
benches, windscreens for protection from
weather, and length of wait between trains.
• TriMet's shelter design is basically a "cover."
• Disappointment expressed with the reduction
from the original design proposed by the
Downtown Task Force.
• The station is the initial project to improve the
downtown, so it is important to set the tone and
demonstrate the types of improvements desired.
• Discussed projected commuter rail ridership.
• Viewpoint expressed that the shelter design will
not keep people from riding the commuter rail;
keep the station functional and fund less costly
aesthetic improvements.
• Of the $150,000 currently allocated for the
downtown, $75,000 has been earmarked by the
City for the station.
4. Annexation The following staff members participated in this
Policy discussion with the City Council: Interim
Community Development Director Coffee,
Planning Manager Bewersdorff, and Associate
Planner Pagenstecher.
Discussion highlights included the following:
• Overview of annexation background with
previous stance by Washington County that cities
should provide urban services and that the City
of Tigard would expand into its urban service
area.
• Factors affecting annexation:
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 5
January 17, 2006
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
o Comprehensive Plan
o Intergovernmental agreements with
Washington County
o State law
o City of Tigard Development Code
o Consents to annexation
o Current administrative policy
o Bull Mountain annexation vote in 2004.
• Referenced two letters received from State
Representative Jerzy E-ru mel; evaluation is
needed.
• Reviewed options of City Council (see January 3,
2006 memorandum from Interim Community
Development Director Coffee and Associate
Planner Pagenstecher regarding City of Tigard
annexation policy). Options were for the City of
Tigard to be 1) aggressive, 2) proactive, 3)
reactive, or 4) inactive.
• Areas in unincorporated county that are already
developed have no incentives to annex.
• The City of Tigard currently annexes in the
"reactive" mode; if the City continues this policy,
it is unlikely the City's boundaries will ever
extend to the urban services boundary.
• If the City chooses a proactive policy, State law
allows the City to annex islands. Initiating island
annexations has not been the practice of the City.
• An aggressive annexation policy, including
cherry-stein annexations is not politically
palatable-
• A suggestion was made that the City consider its
boundaries to be essentially set.
• The Comprehensive Plan update is now
underway. Boundaries will be a consideration.
• An observation was made that it is a struggle to
quantify the alternatives for annexation options.
If a new City is formed on Bull Mountain - a real
City that is self-sustaining with services such as a
library and parks - there would be less concern.
Also unknown is whether the new City would
extend to the urban growth boundary.
• There are positives for each of the annexation
policy options. In the long-tear view, the
question is which is the correct decision? There
was concern expressed that development might
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 6
January 17, 2006
enda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
occur that will prove to be detrimental.
• There wks no support expressed for cherry-stem
annexations (aggressive policy) in order to
facilitate potential annexation of areas 63 and 64.
• The proactive annexation policy appears to be
beneficial in that it would bring undeveloped
parcels into the City.
• A decision should be made about the City's
planning area relating to the Comprehensive Plan
update. It was suggested that the City plan for
undeveloped areas so if these areas come into the
City, the planning would be done.
• Density requirements in the urban growth
boundary would be no different whether the
property is in or out of the City. If the property
was located in the City, density could be
transferred to the downtown or the Washington
Square areas.
• There was mention of a policy decision that
would be needed on property owned outside the
City (Cache Creek property). Options would
include: 1) keep the area as an extra-territorial
park, 2) sell the property, 3) give the property to
another city.
• It was noted that the Tigard constituency does
not appear to support aggressive or even
proactive annexations. Tigard citizens appear to
be more in favor with what the City is doing
now,.which is a reactive policy (wait for parcels
to ask to be annexed).
• Interim Community Development Director
Coffee suggested a systematic review of the City's
boundary.
• Mayor Dirksen said he supports double or triple
majority annexations.
• Councilor Woodruff supported the democratic
process of annexing those properties where
property owners have indicated they want to
come into the City.
• Councilor Harding suggested the City take a time
out and let others explore their options. If a
property owner asks to be annexed and if the
property is contiguous to the current City
boundaries, then she would support the
annexation request.
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 7
January 17, 2006
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
• The Comprehensive Plan, Washington County
intergovernmental agreements, and the Bull
Mountain Community Plan all indicate that the
City of Tigard should be the ultimate service
provider for the urban services area.
• There was a suggestion that it might be time to
.review the Washington County
intergovernmental agreements. In response to
the discussion, City Manager Prosser advised the
funds received by the City from the County
cover the costs of the services provided by the
City as outlined in the intergovernmental
agreements.
• It was suggested that the City Council would
know more in about a year, once it is known
whether a new city will be formed on Bull
Mountain.
• Councilor Wilson pointed out that the vision
established 30 years ago regarding urban services
does not appear to have any possibility of
working.
• Interim Community Development Director
Coffee suggested that Goal 14 will be addressed
during the Comprehensive Plan review; the
"mechanisms" have not happened. Tigard's area
of interest may be redefined. The current
practice for annexation will continue.
• The City Council talked of annexation incentives.
There was no support at this time to offer a
phase-in of taxes; however, the City Council
might consider waiving the fee for annexation.
Meeting recessed: 9:26 p.m.
Meeting reconvened: 9:35 p.m.
5. Mayor and Assistant to the City Manager Newton reviewed
Council Budget with the City Council the preliminary Mayor and
Council FY 06-07 Budget request as prepared by
Administration Department staff.
There was discussion about the majority of the Staff will prepare a cost
League of Oregon Cities dues being shown as an allocation model for League
expenditure in the Council's budget. of Oregon Cities dues.
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 8
January 17, 2006
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date January 16, 2007
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Tide Follow-Up Presentation to Council by the Chief on proposed jaywalking Ordinance.
b~fi~b
Prepared By: Chief Bill Dickinson Dept Head Approval: ; City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
A new jaywalking ordinance was offered for Council consideration at the November 28, 2006, City Council meeting.
Council directed staff to revisit several issues in the proposed ordinance. Staff is returning with a revised version for
Council consideration and discussion.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council consider placing this ordinance on a fixture Council business meeting agenda.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The discussion with Council will be to review the recommendations and amendments stemming from Council
comments during the November 28 h, 2006 workshop meeting.
Staff reduced the distance for compulsory use of a crosswalk and established a clearly defined rule for citizens to follow
when not within 100 feet of a crosswalk The purpose of the ordinance is to enhance safety through the reduction of
car vs. pedestrian accidents.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Redraft the proposed ordinance subject to further Council revisions.
Do not consider passing a jaywalking Ordinance.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
None.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment A: Draft Jaywalking Ordinance.
Attachment B: ORS 801.220
FISCAL NOTES
There is no cost associated with this presentation.
kWp2wnetpub\tig2O\wwwrootVommsVom docAoouncil agenda dm summary sheet 07.doc
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 07-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW
SECTION 10.32.235 REGARDING USE OF CROSSWALKS QAYWALKING)
WHEREAS, Tigard has experienced collisions involving pedestrians and vehicles as well as injuries
resulting from those collisions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that guidelines for. pedestrians crossing public roadways are
necessary for increased public safety and to reduce the number of collisions involving pedestrians and
vehicles;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Tigard Municipal Code is amended by adding a new Section 10.32.235 to read as
follows:
10.32.235 USE OF CROSSWALKS QAYWALKING)
1. No pedestrian may cross the street or roadway other than within a crosswalk
if they are within 100 feet of a crosswalk.
2. A Pedestrian shall cross a street or roadway at a right angle unless crossing
within a crosswalk.
3. For purposes of this section, "crosswalk" has the same meaning as found in
Oregon Revised Statutes.
4. A violation of any provision of this section is a Class D violation
notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter.
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature
by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by
number and title only, this day of , 2007.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
ORDINANCE No. 07-
Page 1
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of )2007.
Craig Dirksen, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
ORDINANCE No. 07-
Page 2
ATTACHMENT B
ORS 801.220
801.220 "Crosswalk." "Crosswalk" means any portion of a roadway at an
intersection or elsewhere that is distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or
other markings on the surface of the roadway that conform in design to the standards
established for crosswalks under ORS 810.200. Whenever marked crosswalks have been
indicated, such crosswalks and no other shall be deemed lawful across such roadway at
that intersection. Where no marked crosswalk exists, a crosswalk is that portion of the
roadway described in the following:
(1) Where sidewalks, shoulders or a combination thereof exists, a crosswalk is the
portion of a roadway at an intersection, not more than 20 feet in width as measured from
the prolongation of the lateral line of the roadway toward the prolongation of the adjacent
property line, that is included within:
(a) The connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks, shoulders or a combination
thereof on opposite sides of the street or highway measured from the curbs or, in the
absence of curbs, from the edges of the traveled roadway; or
(b) The prolongation of the lateral lines of a sidewalk, shoulder or both, to the
sidewalk or shoulder on the opposite side of the street, if the prolongation would meet
such sidewalk or shoulder.
(2) If there is neither sidewalk nor shoulder, a crosswalk is the portion of the roadway
at an intersection, measuring not less than six feet in width, that would be included within
the prolongation of the lateral lines of the sidewalk, shoulder or both on the opposite side
of the street or highway if there were a sidewalk. [1983 c.338 §36]
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date January 16, 2007
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Presentation to Council by the Chief on a proposed Graffiti Ordinance.
Prepared By. Chief Bill Dickinson Dept Head Approval: 14,3'n o City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Recent citizen complaints about the increased incidence of graffiti in Tigard prompted Council to direct staff to bring
the issue and possible solution forward for discussion.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council review statistical and anecdotal information regarding the graffiti problem in Tigard.
Staff will present two recommended ordinances employed by neighboring jurisdictions for Council consideration. Both
are effective ordinances; however, staff leans towards recommending a hybrid model of the two.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The discussion with Council will determine whether or not to initiate a new ordinance to give police a tool to deal with
the negative impact of graffiti crimes.
Information will be presented regarding the increased rates of graffiti in Tigard, including the incidence of gang graffiti,
as well as an increase in hate crime graffiti that has been associated with some of our recent incidents.
The proposed ordinance is intended to provide a procedure for removal of graffiti from buildings, walls and other
structures in order to reduce social and economic deterioration within the City and to promote public safety and health.
Material presented for review includes the City of Portland's Chapter 14B.80 (Graffiti Nuisance Property) and Tualatin's
Municipal Code, Chapter 6-10 governing graffiti. These two examples offer both soft and hard line approaches toward
addressing the removal of graffiti from private property. Although both models can be effective, staff recommends a
hybrid model which first encourages compliance but ultimately gives us an effective tool for gaining compliance by
property owners.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
• Adopt City of Portland Ordinance
• Adopt City of Tualatin Ordinance.
• Take no action.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
None.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment A: Copy of language used in the City of Portland Municipal Code regarding graffiti.
Attachment B: Copy of Chapter 6-10 of the Tualatin Municipal Code..
Attachment C: Proposed hybrid ordinance.
FISCAL NOTES
No cost associated with this presentation.
\Wp20YnetpubWp20\~tVonnsVonn do s\awna1 agenda ttem summary sheet 07.doc
Page 1 of 5
ATTACHMENT A
Chapter 1413.80 Graffiti Nuisance Property
14B.80.010 Declaration of Purpose.
A. It is the purpose and intent of this ordinance to provide for a procedure for removal of graffiti from
buildings, walls and other structures in order to reduce social deterioration within the City and to
promote public safety and health.
B. The Manager may adopt procedures, forms, and written policies for administering and implementing
the provisions of this Chapter.
14B.80.020 Graffiti Nuisance Property.
A. Any property, building or structure within the City of Portland which becomes a graffiti nuisance
property is in violation of this Chapter and is subject to its remedies.
B. Any person who permits property under their control to become a graffiti nuisance property shall be
in violation of this Chapter and subject to its remedies.
14B.80.030 Definitions.
For the purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
A. Graffiti: Any unauthorized markings of paint, ink, chalk, dye or other similar substance which is
visible from premises open to the public, and that have been placed upon any real or personal property
such as buildings, fences, structures, or the unauthorized etching or scratching of such described
surfaces where the markings are visible from premises open to the public, such as public rights of way
or other publicly owned property.
B. Manager: The Graffiti Abatement Manager is the City official, or designated representative, who is
responsible for the administration of the Graffiti Nuisance Abatement program under this Chapter. In
accordance with adopted procedures, the Manager may appoint such officers, employees and agents as
shall be authorized and necessary to enforce the provisions of this Chapter.
C. Graffiti Nuisance Property: Property upon which graffiti has been placed and such graffiti has been
permitted to remain for more than ten (10) days after the property owner of record has been issued
written notification pursuant to Section 1413.80.040 B.
D. Occupant: Any person or sublessee, successor or assignee who has control over property.
E. Owner: Any person, agent, firm or corporation having a legal or equitable interest in a property and
includes but is not limited to:
1. A mortgagor in possession in whom is vested all or part of the legal title to the property or all or
part of the beneficial ownership and a right to present use and enjoyment of the premises; or
2. An occupant who has control over the property/premises.
F. Permit: Knowingly to suffer, allow, or acquiesce by any failure, refusal or neglect to abate.
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?cce 28580_print=1&c=28580 12/8/2006
Page 2 of 5
G. Property: Any real or personal property and that which is affixed incidental or appurtenant to real
property but not limited to any premises, house, building, fence, structure or any separate part thereof,
whether permanent or not.
H. Unauthorized: Without the consent of the owner or the occupant.
14B.80.040 Procedures.
(Amended by Ordinance No. 178352, effective May 28, 2004.)
A. Required Graffiti Removal. The owner or occupant of any property in the City shall remove any
graffiti from such property within ten (10) days of the graffiti's appearance.
B. Notification
1. Whenever the Manager determines that graffiti exists on any structure in the City of Portland,
the Manager may issue an abatement notice.
2. The Manager shall cause the notice to be served upon the property owner and any occupant.
The owner or occupant shall have ten (10) days after the date of service of the notice in which to
remove the graffiti. The Graffiti Abatement Manager shall have the sole discretion to grant the
property owner the option of giving the City written permission to enter on the property and
remove the graffiti.
3. Service shall be accomplished by addressing the notice to the owner and occupant and sending
it by personal service, registered.mail or certified mail. Service on the occupant may also be
accomplished by posting the notice in a clearly visible location on the subject property.
4. If graffiti is not removed or written permission is not given to the City to remove the graffiti,
the costs of removal may be assessed to the owner and will become a lien on the affected
property. For each instance of graffiti abatement, the Manager shall keep an accurate account of
all expenses incurred, including an overhead charge of 25 percent for program administration and
a civil penalty of $250 for each abatement. In the event that the measures taken are deemed by the
Code Hearings Officer to be appropriate, the cost for the same may be made as an assessment lien
upon the property.
C. Appeal
1. Within ten (10) days of the receipt of the notice, the property owner or occupant may appeal the
notice from the Manager to the Code Hearings Officer of the City of Portland, as set out in
Chapter 22.10 of this Code.
2. Upon receipt of the appeal request, the Code Hearings Officer shall set the matter for hearing
within ten (10) business days. If the Code Hearings Officer finds the property to be a Graffiti
Nuisance Property, and the owner or responsible party has been given notice in accordance with
Subsection B. above, the Code Hearings Officer shall specify when and under what conditions the
graffiti shall be abated.
D. Removal of Graffiti
1. The Manager may summarily abate any graffiti on any utilitypoles and cabinets, on exterior
walls and fences immediately abutting public streets or property, or on any public property,
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?cce_28580_print=1 &c=28580 12/8/2006
Page 3 of 5
including but not limited to traffic signs and lights.
2. Whenever the Manager has reasonable cause to believe that there exists upon any building or
structure any graffiti requiring abatement under this Chapter, the Manager may enter upon the
graffiti nuisance property at all reasonable times to perform any duty imposed on the Manager
under this Chapter, and to enforce the provisions of this Chapter. Upon the failure to comply with
the notice of abatement by the designated compliance date, and if the property owner or occupant
has not appealed the notice as provided under Subsection C., the following steps may be taken if
the graffiti nuisance property is plainly enclosed to create privacy and prevent access by
unauthorized persons:
a. If the graffiti nuisance property is occupied, the Manager shall first present proper
credentials and demand entry to cause the graffiti to be abated. If entry is refused, the
Manager may attempt to secure entry by any legal means.
b. If the graffiti nuisance property is unoccupied, the Manager shall first make a reasonable
attempt to locate the owner or occupant and demand entry. Such demand may be included
in the initial notice sent to the owner or occupant under Subsection B. above. If entry is
refused, the Manager may attempt to secure entry by any legal means.
(1) If the Manager has first obtained an administrative search warrant to secure entry
onto the graffiti nuisance property to abate the graffiti, no owner or occupant shall
refuse, fail or neglect, after proper request, to promptly permit entry by the Manager
to abate the graffiti.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any owner or occupant to refuse to permit entry by the
Manager to abate graffiti under this Chapter after an administrative search warrant
has been obtained. Any violation of this Subsection is punishable upon conviction by
a fine of not more than $500 and a jail sentence of up to six months.
c. If the graffiti is not removed and abated, or cause shown, as specified above, the Manager
may cause the graffiti to be removed and abated upon issuance of an Administrative Search
warrant.
(1) Graffiti Abatement. If the graffiti is not removed and abated, or cause shown, as
specified above, the Manager may cause the graffiti to be removed and abated.
(2) Warrants. The Manager may request any Circuit Court judge to issue a graffiti
abatement warrant whenever entry onto private property is necessary to remove and
abate any graffiti.
(3) Grounds for Issuance of Graffiti Abatement Warrants; Affidavit.
(a) Affidavit. A graffiti abatement warrant shall be issued only upon cause,
supported by affidavit, particularly describing: the applicant's status in applying
for the warrant; the ordinance or regulation requiring or authorizing the
removal and abatement of the graffiti; the building or property to be entered;
the basis upon which cause exists to remove or abate the graffiti, and a
statement of the graffiti to be removed or abated.
(b) Cause. Cause shall be deemed to exist if there is reasonable belief that a
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cf n?cce_28580_print=1&c=28580 12/8/2006
Page 4 of 5
graffiti violation exists, as defined in this Chapter, with respect to the
designated property, and that the property owner has been given notice and an
opportunity to abate the graffiti, and has not responded in a timely fashion.
(4) Procedure for Issuance of a Graffiti Abatement Warrant.
(a) Examination. Before issuing a graffiti abatement warrant, the judge may
examine the applicant and any other witness under oath and shall be satisfied of
the existence of grounds for granting such application.
(b) Issuance. If the judge is satisfied that cause for the removal and abatement
of any graffiti nuisance exists and that the other requirements for granting the
application are satisfied, the judge shall issue the graffiti abatement warrant,
particularly describing the person or persons authorized to execute the warrant,
the property to be entered, and a statement of the general types and estimated
quantity of the items to be removed or conditions abated. The warrant shall
contain a direction that it be executed on any day of the week between the
hours of 8:00 am. and 6:00 p.m., or where the judge has specially determined
upon a showing that it cannot be effectively executed between those hours, that
it be executed at any additional or other time of the day or night.
(c) Police Assistance. In issuing a graffiti abatement warrant, the judge may
authorize any peace officer, as defined in Oregon Revised Statutes, to enter the
described property to remove any person or obstacle and to assist the
representative of the bureau in any way necessary to enter the property and,
remove and abate the graffiti.
(5) Execution of Graffiti Abatement Warrants.
(a) Occupied Property. Except as provided in 14B.80.040 D.2., in executing a
graffiti abatement warrant, the person authorized to execute the warrant shall,
before entry into the occupied premises, make a reasonable effort to present the
person's credentials, authority and purpose to an occupant or person in
possession of the property designated in the warrant and show the occupant or
person in possession of the property the warrant or a copy thereof upon request.
A copy of the warrant shall be left with the occupant or the person in
possession.
(b) Unoccupied Property. In executing a graffiti abatement warrant on
unoccupied property, the person authorized to execute the warrant need not
inform anyone of the person's authority and purpose, as prescribed in
14B.80.040 D.2.c.(5)(a), but may promptly enter the designated property if it is
at the time unoccupied or not in the possession of any person or at the time
reasonably believed to be in such condition. In such case a copy of the graffiti
abatement warrant shall be conspicuously posted on the property.
(c) Return. A graffiti abatement warrant must be executed within 10 working
days of its issue and returned to the judge by whom it was issued within 10
working days from its date of execution. After the expiration of the time
prescribed by this subsection, the warrant unless executed is void.
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?cce 28580_print=l&c=28580 12/8/2006
Page 5 of 5
E. Graffiti Abatement Consent Forms.
1. The Manager shall develop consent forms allowing the Manager to enter onto property to abate
the graffiti without prior notice from the Manager. The Manager shall make these consent forms
available to the public.
2. Property owners and occupants may request and sign consent forms for allowing graffiti
abatement. The Graffiti Abatement Manager shall renew the consent forms at least biannually.
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?cce 28580_print=1&c=28580 12/8/2006
ATTACHMENT B
Tualatin Municipal Code 6-10-010
Chapter 6-10
Graffiti
Sections: (9) "Manager" means the Tualatin City Manager
6-10-010 Definitions. or the manager's designee who is responsible for
6-10-020 Graffiti Prohibited. the administration of the graffiti nuisance abatement
6-10-030 Possession of Graffiti Implement program under this chapter.
Prohibited. (10) "Occupant" means any person, tenant, sub-
6-10-040 Other Violations. lessee, successor or assignee that has control over
6-10-050 Community Service. property-
6-10-060 Graffiti Removal; Notice and (11) "Owner" means any person, agent, firm or
Procedures. corporation having a legal or equitable interest in a
6-10-070 Emergency Clause. property and includes but not limited to a mortgagor
in possession, an occupant, or a person, agent, firm
6-10-010 Definitions. or corporation that owns or exercises control over
(1) "Abate" means to remove graffiti from the items of property, such as utility poles, drop boxes,
public'view. postal collection boxes, and other types of contain-
(2) "Aerosol paint container" means any aerosol ers.
container adapted or made for spraying paint. (12) "Permit" means to knowingly allow, suffer,
(3) "Etching device" means a glass cutter, awl or acquiesce by a failure, refusal or neglect to abate.
any device capable of scratching or etching the sur- (13) "Premises open to the public" means all
face of any structure or personal property. public spaces, including but not limited to streets,
(4) "Felt tip marker" means an indelible marker alleys, sidewalks, parks, rights of way and public
or similar implement with a tip which, at its broad- open space, and private property onto which the
est width, is greater than one-fourth inch. public is regularly invited or permitted to enter for
(5). "Graffiti" means any inscription, word, fig- any purpose.
ure, or design that is marked etched, scratched, (14) "Property" means any real or personal
drawn, or painted on any surface with paint, ink, property, including but not limited to items affixed
chalk, dye or other similar substance, regardless of or appurtenant to real property or premises, house,
content, which is visible from premises open to the building, fence, or structure, and items of machin-
public, such as public rights of way or other pub- ery, drop boxes, waste containers, utility poles and
ljcly-owned property, and that has been placed upon vaults, and post office collection boxes.
any real or personal property, such as buildings, (15) "Responsible party" means an owner, an
fences, and structures, without authorization from entity or person acting as an agent for an owner by
the owner or responsible party. agreement, that has authority over the property or is
(6) "Graffiti implement" means an aerosol paint responsible for the property's maintenance or man-
container, a felt tip marker, an etching device, or a agement. There may be more than one party re-
graffiti stick. sponsible for a particular property.
(7) "Graffiti nuisance property" means a prop- (16) "Unauthorized" means without consent of
erty upon which graffiti has been placed and such the owner, occupant or responsible party.
graffiti has been permitted to remain for more than [ord. 1205-06, March 13, 2006]
seven days after the property owner of record or oc-
cupant has been issued written notification. 6-10-020 Graffiti Prohibited.
(8) ".`Graffiti stick" means a device containing a (1) It is unlawful and a violation of this chapter
solid form of paint, chalk, wax, epoxy, or other for any person to place or put by any means, any
similar substance capable of being applied to a sur- drawing, inscription, figure, symbol, mark, or any
face by pressure, and upon application, leaving a type of commonly known graffiti on any public or
mark at least one-fourth of an inch wide. private property without the consent of the owner of
6-10 - 1 (Revised 3/2006)
6-10-030 Tualatin Municipal Code
the premises on which the property is located, or stances exist that would preclude such service.
upon natural surfaces such as rocks, trees or any Reasonable effort shall be made to require the vio-
surface whatsoever. It is unlawful and a violation lator to perform a type of community service that is
of this chapter for any person to solicit or command reasonably expected to have the most rehabilitative
another person to apply graffiti or aid or abet an- effect on the person, preferably community service
other person in applying graffiti. that constitutes in significant part the removal of
(2) A violation of subsection (1) of this section graffiti.
is a violation punishable by a maximum fine not to [Ord. 1205-06, March 13, 20061
exceed three hundred sixty dollars. Each wall or
object upon which graffiti is placed constitutes a 6-10-060 Graffiti Removal; Notice and
separate violation. Each day on which a violation Procedures.
occurs or continues is a separate violation. (1) The owner or occupant of any property
[Ord. 1205-06, March 13.20061 within the City of Tualatin shall remove any graffiti
from that property within seven days of the graf-
6-10-030 Possession of Graffiti Implement fiti's appearance.
Prohibited. (2) Whenever the Manager determines that graf-
(1) No person may possess, with the intent to fiti exists on any property in the City, the Manager
unlawfully apply graffiti on any real or personal may issue an abatement notice. The owner or oc-
property of another, any graffiti implement. cupant shall have seven days after the date of ser-
(2) Unlawful possession of a graffiti implement vice of the notice to remove the graffiti.
is a violation of this chapter punishable by a maxi- (3) The notice shall be served by addressing the
mum fine not to exceed ninety dollars. Each day on notice to the owner and occupant and delivering it
which a violation occurs is a separate violation. by personal service or by mailing it as certified
(3) In addition to issuing a citation, a graffiti im- mail. Service may also be accomplished by posting
plement used or possessed in violation of this sec- the notice in a clearly visible location on the subject
tion may be immediately seized and impounded by property.
the police department. The court, upon disposition (4) If the person who was served the notice is
of the issued citation, shall determine whether the unable to remove, or cause to remove, the graffiti
instrument shall be returned to the defendant or within the seven-day period due to a hardship, he or
deemed to be contraband subject to destruction un- she may apply to the Manager for an extension of
der Oregon law. time in which to remove the graffiti. For purposes
[ord. 1205-06, March 13, 2006] of this subsection, "hardship" includes but is not
limited to serious illness or disability, extremely in-
6-10-040 Other Violations. clement weather that temporarily prevents removal
(1) Any property located in the City of Tualatin of the graffiti, or other extraordinary circumstance.
that becomes a graffiti nuisance property is in viola- (5) If graffiti is not removed within seven days
tion of this chapter and is subject to its remedies. after serving notice on the owner and occupant, the
(2) Every responsible party who permits a prop- Manager may cause a citation to be issued to the
erty to become a graffiti nuisance property is in vio- owner or occupant or both requiring the person to
lation of this chapter and subject to its remedies. appear in Tualatin Municipal Court.
[ord. 1205-06, March 13, 20061 (6) Failure to remove graffiti as required by this
section is a violation punishable by a fine of up to
6-10-050 Community Service. one hundred fifty dollars. Each day the graffiti re-
In lieu of a portion of any fine that may be mains after the notice is sent constitutes a separate
imposed under TMC 6-10-020 and 6-10-030, the offense.
court shall order the violator to perform community
service, unless the court finds that special circum-
(Revised 3/2006) 6-10 - 2
Tualatin Municipal Code 6-10-070
(7) The City Manager may adopt rules and pro-
cedures to implement this chapter.
[Ord. 1205-06, March 13, 2006]
6-10-070 Emergency Clause. [ord. 1205-06 §7, March
13,2006]
6-10 - 3 (Revised 3/2006)
ATTACHMENT C
Graffiti Ordinance
Definitions
1) "Abate" means to remove graffiti from the public view.
2) "Graffiti" means any inscription, word, figure, or design that is marked, etched,
scratched, drawn or painted on any surface with paint, ink, chalk, dye, other
similar substance or placement of stickers or appliques, regardless of content,
which is visible from premises open to the public, such as public right of ways or
other publicly-owned property, and that has been placed upon any real or personal
property, such as buildings, fences, and structures, without authorization from the
owner or responsible party.
3) "Graffiti nuisance property" means a property upon which graffiti has been placed
and such graffiti has been permitted to remain for more than 14 days after the
property owner of record or occupant has been issued written notification.
4) "Manager" means the Tigard City Manager or the manager's designee who is
responsible for the administration of the graffiti nuisance abatement program
under this chapter.
5) "Occupant" means any person, tenant, sublessee, successor or assignee that has
control over property.
6) "Owner" means any person, agent, firm or corporation having a legal or equitable
interest in a property and includes but not limited to a mortgagor in possession, an
occupant, or a person, agent, firm or corporation that owns or exercises control
over items of property such as utility poles, drop boxes, postal collection boxes,
and other types of containers.
7) "Permit" means to knowingly allow, suffer, or acquiesce by any failure, refusal,
or neglect to abate.
8) "Premises open to the public" means all public spaces, including but not limited
to streets, alleys, sidewalks, parks, rights of way and public open space, and
private property onto which the public is regularly invited or permitted to enter
for any purpose.
9) "Property" means any real or personal property, including but not limited to items
affixed or appurtenant to real property or premises, house, building, fence or
structure and items of machinery, drop boxes, waste containers, utility poles and
vaults, and post office collection boxes.
10) "Responsible party" means an owner, an entity or person acting as an agent for an
owner by agreement, that has authority over the property or is responsible for the
property's maintenance or management. There may be more than one party
responsible for a particular property.
11) "Unauthorized" means without consent of the owner, occupant or responsible
party-
Graffiti Nuisance Property
1) Any property location in the City of Tigard that becomes a graffiti nuisance
property is in violation of this chapter and is subject to its remedies.
2) Every responsible party who permits a property to become a graffiti nuisance
property is in violation of this chapter and subject to its remedies.
Graffiti Removal; Notice and Procedures
1) The owner or occupant of any property within the City of Tigard shall remove any
graffiti from that property within 14 days of the graffiti's appearance.
2) Whenever the Manager determines that graffiti exists on any property in the City,
the Manager may issue an abatement notice. The owner or occupant shall have
14 days after the date of service of the notice to remove the graffiti.
3) The notice shall be served by addressing the notice to the owner or occupant and
delivering it by personal service or by mailing it as certified mail. Service may
also be accomplished by posting the notice in a clearly visible location on the
subject property.
4) If the person who was served the notice is unable to remove, or cause to remove,
the graffiti within the seven-day period due to a hardship, he or she may apply to
the Manager for an extension of time in which to remove the graffiti. For
purposes of this subsection, "hardship" includes but is not limited to serious
illness or disability, extremely inclement weather that temporarily prevents
removal of the graffiti, or other extraordinary circumstance.
5) If the graffiti is not removed within 14 days after serving notice on the owner or
occupant, the Manager may cause a citation to be issued to the owner or occupant
or both requiring the person to appear in Tigard Municipal Court.
6) Failure to remove the graffiti as required by this section is a violation punishable
by a fine of up to one hundred dollars. Each day the graffiti remains after the
notice is sent constitutes a separate offense.
7) The City Manager may adopt rules and procedures to implement this chapter.
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date 01/16/07
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title After School Programs
Prepared By: Sheryl Huiras Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Review and discuss the City's involvement in the current after-school programs
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Police Department staff recommends that the City implement its own after school programs and discontinue its
partnership with PAL (Police Activity League), effective for the 07/08 City budget and the Tigard-Tualatin school year.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Since 2004 Tigard Police Department has been involved with PAL to provide after school programs to middle school
students. The purpose of this program is to provide a safe and structured environment for students. This is a free
program for the students, which runs from 3:30-6:00, Monday through Thursday. In FY 2005/2006 and FY
2006/2007 the City contributed $10,000 each year to PAL to help provide these programs.
There have been several incidents where PAL has not followed through with anticipated service delivery. Examples
include failure to provide required sports and activity equipment and staff; failure to provide an advertised field trip paid
by the schools; failure to provide background checks or minimal training to PAL staff; etc. This level of after school
youth programming does not meet TPD Youth Services expectations. Staff is recommending discontinuing Tigard's
relationship with PAL in favor of direct provision of services. This recommendation is based on its involvement in and
observations of the effectiveness of the current program. It is the opinion of Staff that implementation of after school
programs provided by the City would:
• Provide our community's youth an improved and more structured program
• Provide a program that makes more effective use of City funds
• Improve our partnership and communication with the Tigard-Tualatin School District
• Increase youth participation in after school programs
During the discussion with the City Council on this agenda item, Police Department staff will provide City Council with
additional information on the program offered by PAL and how a City program would be planned, implemented,
monitored and evaluated for effectiveness.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
• Discontinue after school programs
• Continue fiscal support of PAL without City staff support
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
One of the City's goals is to connect the council with the students and schools. This promotes the goal to improve
communication and relationships with Tigard youth. Implementation of the City's own after school programs will
advance achievement of the City's goal.
ATTACHMENT LIST
none
FISCAL NOTES
This year the City contributed $10,000 to PAL. The staff would like the Council to consider creating our own after
school programs for next years budget. Two grant applications have been submitted which would provide funds to
supplement the City's current contribution to the after school program.
\\tlg20\inetpubktig2M\ w.root\fomsVorm dots\muncil agenda item summary sheet 07.doc
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date January 16, 2007
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Update on the geographical information system project and presentation of the crime
analysis application
Prepared By: Robert Sesnon Dept Head Approval: L1s City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Construction of a city-wide geographical information system (GIS) has been underway for several months and phase I
of the initial pilot project has now been completed. This project allows a user to look up an address or location and
view various crime information surrounding this location. This application will be of use to the City's police
department during the investigation of crimes, as well as be made available soon to the public from the City's website.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
No action is necessary
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The current state of the City's geographical information system may be characterized as departmentalized, seriously
outdated, and inadequate to meet the informational needs of the City. Consequently, a GIS Coordinator was hired in
the spring of 2006 and tasked with the coordination and construction of a city-wide GIS. This work has been underway
for several months and it is anticipated that the project will be completed within the next 24 months. One of the first
fruits of this effort is a crime locator/analyzer application that enables the user to look up an address or location and
view certain crime information surrounding this location. Phase I of this pilot project is now complete and is available
for use by city staff. Phase II, to be completed by March 2007, will make this application available to citizens and others
from the City's website.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
The GIS system will provide tools to be used by staff in support of several of the City Council goals, including the
revision of the City of Tigard comprehensive plan, implementation of the downtown plan, and improvements to the
99W corridor.
ATTACHMENT LIST
None.
FISCAL NOTES
None
\Vig20VnetpubMig20\w rootUOrtns\fom docs\council agenda hem summary street 07.doc
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date January 16, 2007
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Additional Funding Request for Pavement Management Services
Prepared By: A.P. Due Dept Head Okay City Mgr Okay C
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Council direction will be requested on whether or not to proceed with a budget amendment to provide supplemental
funding for pavement management services needed to establish a new 5-year street maintenance plan and re-evaluate
the current Street Maintenance Fee rates based on that new plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That Council approve the request to move ahead with a budget amendment and direct staff to prepare the amendment
and submit it for Council consideration at the January 23, 2007 Council meeting.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Ordinance No. 03-10 establishing the Street Maintenance Fee requires re-evaluation of the current fee rates after three
full years of collections. Before the fee rates can be re-evaluated, the street condition ratings must be updated so that a
new 5-year street maintenance plan can be developed based on those ratings.
The budgeted amount of $30,000 in the FY 2006-07 operating budget is insufficient to provide the full range of services
needed to allow for the establishment of the new 5-year street maintenance plan. The responses to the RFP (Request
for Proposals) were for full services envisioned with the potential for additional services needed before the end of FY
2006-07. The $81,800 proposal by IMS included anticipated fees from Hansen for their portion of the work. The
Stantec proposal of $74,043 did not include those fees, which are expected to be $5,000 or more. The two proposals are
basically equivalent in cost. The evaluation of the two proposals is currently ongoing and consultant selection is
expected to be completed by the third week of January 2007. A supplemental amount of $70,000 is requested to allow
for award of a contract for the pavement management services and to provide for any additional services that may be
needed during the remainder of FY 2006-07.
The re-evaluation of the Street Maintenance Fee rates must be completed during the next few months. If Council
approves the request for additional funding for those services, a budget amendment will be prepared for Council
consideration at the January 23, 2007 Council meeting. The additional funding will provide the means to update the
street condition ratings, establish a new 5-year street maintenance plan, and re-evaluate the Street Maintenance Fee rates
in a timely manner for incorporation into the FY 2007-08 budget formulation process.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do not submit the budget amendment to provide the supplemental funding.
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
Timely maintenance of the public street infrastructure meets the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goal of Improve Traffic Safety.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Memorandum from the City Engineer to the Community Development Department Director dated January 4, 2007
explaining the need for the supplemental funding.
FISCAL NOTES
The FY 2006-07 Community Development Department budget includes $30,000 for pavement management services
needed to update the street condition ratings, establish a new 5-year street maintenance plan, and subsequently re-
evaluate the current Street Maintenance Fee charges as required by Ordinance No. 03-10. Based on the full scope of
services developed in consultation with firms that provide those services, that budgeted amount needs to be
supplemented with an additional $70,000 to contract for those services and to provide a contingency amount for
additional services that may be required during the remainder of FY 2006-07. The additional work will be paid for by
Street Maintenance Fee and Gas Tax revenues. A budget amendment will be forthcoming to allocate the necessary
funds.
i:tenglgustcouncil agenda summaries%1-16-07 additional funding request for pavement management services ais.dm
41
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Coffee
Community Development Department Director
FROM: Gus Duenas*A-1
City Engineer
RE: Request for Additional Funding
Pavement Management Services
DATE: January 4, 2007
The Street Maintenance Fee was established by Ordinance No. 03-10 in November 2003 and
collections began in April 2004. The ordinance establishing the fee requires re-evaluation of the fee
after three full years of collections. This re-evaluation must be completed during the next few
months. It requires updating of the street condition ratings and establishment of a new 5-year
maintenance plan, which will be used to determine the new residential and non-residential charges.
The decision was made a couple of years ago to convert the current Pavement Management
software to the Hansen System. This would allow the Community Development staff to share
information with Public Works staff already using various modules in that system. We purchased the
Hansen Pavement Management Module in FY 2005-06, but were not able to activate it until the
servers were upgraded to run the entire Hansen system adequately. The amount of $30,000 is
included in the FY 2006-07 Capital Construction and Transportation Division budget for pavement
management services via consultant to update the street condition ratings and to train staff in the
use of the Pavement Management Module.
During discussions with consultants in the preparation of the scope of work for the RFP (Request
for Proposals), we found out that there is a lot more involved than updating of the ratings and
training. The initial setup prior to the physical inspections, the data entry and conversion, the
uploading of the data to Hansen, the certification of the data by Hansen, the creation of the reports
needed, and any other services required after the training is completed are all necessary to ensure
that the system is operational and able to be used by the City staff. Included in the overall costs are
the fees that Hansen charges for their part of the process. So that the product can be complete as
possible, we included digital photo acquisition in the RFP scope as part of the street rating updates
to provide visual documentation of street segments.
The costs for those services are significant and were not anticipated during the budget formulation
for this fiscal year. The work is best performed by consultants that are fully familiar with the Hansen
System and are able to closely coordinate the data preparation, conversion, and upload so that it can
be certified by Hansen. We, as City staff, do not want to assume responsibility for part of the scope
since we are not conversant with the process necessary to produce a fully operational system. The
scope of work developed for the RFP therefore reflects the full services needed to establish the new
system, to certify the data with Hansen, to ensure that the reports are the ones desired, and to fully
train staff in the use of the software.
There were two proposals (IMS and Stantec) submitted in response to the RFP, both from firms
that have performed this type of work successfully. Attached are the fee schedules from each firm
showing the tasks to be performed and the compensation involved. The $81,800 proposal by IMS
included anticipated fees from Hansen for their portion of the work. The Stantec proposal of $74,043
did not include those certification fees, which are expected to be $5,000 or more. As a result, the two
firms are basically equivalent in terms of fee proposal. Any services beyond the scope shown in the
attachments would be at additional cost.
To ensure that sufficient funding is available during FY 2006-07, I request that the budgeted amount
of $30,000 be increased to $100,000 to award the contract and provide a contingency amount for
any additional services that may be needed as the contract is executed. This would require an
additional amount of $70,000 to supplement the budgeted amount.
I have discussed the need for this additional funding with Michelle Wareing of the Finance
Department. This memorandum provides the justification she needs to begin the process for
providing the supplemental amount.
The consultant selection committee is in the process of evaluating the proposals and will make a
selection within the next two weeks. The consultant selected and awarded the contract would be
able to complete the street rating work during any period that provides several days of relatively dry
weather. We would like to move ahead quickly with this work so that establishment of the new 5-
year maintenance plan and the re-evaluation of the fee can be completed and the new charges
incorporated into the City's budget formulation process for FY 2007-08.
Attachments
c: Vannie Nguyen, CIP Manager
Marco Cabanillas, Project Engineer
hengVus~memorandumstadditional funding for pavement management seMces.doo
4.0 COMPENSATION
4.1 FEE BASIS AND DELIVERABLES
The fee schedule presented herein is based on the IMS work plan and deliverables. A summary of
the deliverables is as follows:
Task 1.0 - Project Initiation
• A technical memorandum outlining the approved project scope, deliverables and schedule.
• A technical memorandum defining the limits of the survey program and QA/QC procedures.
• A street inventory containing all existing streets to be surveyed plus identification of the
location of new streets to be added to the surveys and database(s).
• One site meeting is planned for the project kick off meeting and confirming the scope of work.
Task 2.0 - Field Surveys
• A technical memorandum documenting the results of the project calibrations.
• Pavement surface distress data collection of 145 centerline miles of roadway. IMS will two
pass test all roadways greater than 3 lanes bringing the adjusted mileage to 180 test miles.
Updating the streets inventory and sectional attributes, including ownership.
Collection of GPS and digital image data.
• The following project meetings are planned:
2 - meetings with the RST crew chief, one prior to the surveys and one at the completion of
the surveys to review the data collection coverage.
Task 3:0 - Data Management
• System configuration of the Hansen V8 PMS.
• Pavement condition data loaded into the City's software application.
• Exceptions reports for inventory, length and attributes.
• Digital images, and GIS linkage data as ordered.
• Software training for users of the Hansen application.
• Report & Analysis.
• The following project meetings are planned:
2 - trip for software training meetings.
,i
i
M.~ 7i~urd 2006 page 27
<
4.2 SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY
In accordance with the RFP, the IMS work plan and fee schedule are based on the City providing the
following information and services:
• Provision of GIS topology covering the survey area.
• Participation in the review of traffic volumes, unit rates and strategies.
• Access to the client sites and Hansen applications for implementation and loading.
• Provision of street width information if required.
Participation in the software training
FEE SCHEDULE
The project will be completed using a combination of unit rate and lump sum based activities.
Activities than can be physically measured - such as miles of road surveyed, will be completed on a
unit rate basis. This will ensure each agency is only charged for the actual miles surveyed and
approved. The spreadsheet presented on the following page is based on the IMS work plan and
deliverables. It represents a realistic budget to complete the work, and we are confident we can i
maintain an on-time, on-budget approach to the assignment.
Task Activity Quaint Units Unit Rate Total
A. Data Acquisition
Project Initiation 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00
Network Referencing 180 MI $10.00 $1,800.00
Distress Protocols 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00
Mobilization 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00
Pavement Data Collection 180 MI $100.00 $18,000.00
B. Digital Photo Acquisition
Digital Images 180 MI $12.00 $2,160.00
C. Data Evaluation
Data QA/QC, Format, and Processing 160 MI $20.00 $3,600.00
GIS Linkage 180 MI $18.00 $3,240,00
D. Data Entry
IMS to Hansen Segment Based Condition Data Entry 8 Da $1,500.00 $12,000.00
PMS Data Conversion Certification 3 Da $1,500.00 $4,500.00
E. System Configuration
System PMS Configuration 10 Da $1,500.00 $15,000.00
F. Detailed Final Report
Report 8 Analysis Development 8 Da $1,500.00 $12,000.00
G. Staff Training
I
On-site Training for Hansen PMS 5 Da $1,500.00 $7,500.00
Eskel Porter Out Of Pocket Expenses (Billed As Incurred) 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Project Total: $81,800.00
I
! The budget proposed is a not-to-exceed fee schedule that includes direct expenses from Eskel Porter and
[MS. The IMS direct expenses are built into the proposed fees and Eskel Porter direct expenses are listed at j
the bottom of the fee schedule.
I
I
'I
1'rgurcd 2006 page 28
I
1
1
RFP FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD
' PAVEMENT DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION SERVICES
OCTOBER 27, 2006
1 =
I WORK PLAN TASKS
I
Task 1: Project Initiation
1 To review the City's goals and objectives, and develop an implementation plan
I for the Hansen Street and Pavement Management Modules
1 ■ Attend project initiation meeting at the City
I Finalize contract, develop work plan, including scope of work, budget,
schedule, deliverables, and quality control/quality assurance issues
I Finalize the data collection requirements in terms of distress types and
I summarization of results
1 Schedule for the various tasks involved in the implementation
■ Information/data to be provided by the City
1 Availability of City staff to finalize the data collection requirements
1 Project implementation plan
1
I Task 2: Pavement Data Collection and System Data Gathering
1 To assemble all required data elements for proper implementation of the Hansen
Street and Pavement Management Modules
I ■ Review available City data sources
I "Gap Analysis" on data sources and recommendations for further data
collection needs or standardize interim default values
■ GIS linkage to road segmentation
I Surface Distress, Roughness, and optional ROW digital Image data
collection
1
■ Availability of existing GIS centerline with linkage to Hansen Street Database
■ Availability of other required data elements, including: road functional
I classifications, traffic (AADT values), geometric information, pavement
structure, maintenance/rehabilitation alternatives, and unit rates
I Identify other primary data sources
Upload files for the Hansen system OBS SC and OBS IRI
i
i
Page 17
Stantec
RFP FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD
PAVEMENT DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION SERVICES
OCTOBER 27, 2006
ra~
Task 3: System Configuration
b- . .
To develop decision trees, identify suitable deterioration models, and Hansen
s stem setups that will provide realistic Pavement Management system outputs
• Develop pavement deterioration models based on pavement type, structural
composition, and anticipated and predicted traffic considerations
• Consult with City on maintenance and rehabilitation strategies, including
types, unit rates, timing, benefits, and life expectancy
■ Definition of levels of service for various road classes
• Develop Rehabilitation Decision Trees
• Establish various budget scenarios
• Availability of staff for meetings
■ City staff to provide input and acceptance of system configuration
Fully configured Pavement Management system ready to accept and analyze
pavement condition data
Task 4: Hansen Upload
. .
_ To upload all pavement source data including pavement condition and street
se ment attribute data collected during Task 2
■ Obtain copy of City's Hansen database
■ Document conversion methodology and receive certification form Hansen
■ Create required SQL scripts to populate the collected data into the Hansen
Database
• Run scripts against a "test" database at client site and verify results
■ Final data conversion to production database
• Copy of the City's Hansen database
• Hansen certification of upload process
• Successful upload of data
Hansen database fully populated with pavement condition and other data
sources collected during this project
Page 18 v~
Stantec
I
I
D
RFP FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD
' PAVEMENT DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION SERVICES
' OCTOBER 27, 2006 WTask 5: Staff Training
To ensure that the City is self-sufficient in running and maintaining the Hansen
software
City staff understand the concepts and results of the Hansen outputs in order to
generate programs and resent the information to other City staff and Council
• 2-day on-site Hansen training and system review session with selected City
staff
■ 2-day on-site Pavement Condition training with selected City staff
I • Availability of staff for training
I Errors in core Hansen software functionality
Fully trained and self-sufficient staff equipped to maintain the Hansen
s stem
1
I
Task 6: Final Report
I
' To provide the City with a document that identifies the current and predicted
future pavement conditions, outlines the City's rehabilitation needs and
programs, and summarizes budgetary impacts on the City's road network
' performance over a 10-year period
• Modifications to system configuration if required
• Consult with City to determine report format and deliverables
• Assemble and document all Hansen analyses
• Review and finalize report with the City
■ Third party reporting software (i.e. Crystal Reports) available for use at and
by the City
■ City staff availability to review and "sign-off" on report
Comprehensive report on the Hansen implementation and findings (2
copies)
Page 19
Stantec
I
RFP FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD
I PAVEMENT DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION SERVICES d
OCTOBER 27, 2006
4QC~3GJ~3DD
COMPENSATION
The following table outlines our fees to provide the services as defined in our proposal and
do not include any applicable Federal, State, and Local taxes.
Note: The fees do not include any Hansen Certification Fees if required. Any such fees will
be negotiated with Hansen based on the current status and requirements of the Hansen
system at the time of upload. It is recommended that the City participate in any such
negotiations to limit the potential costs back to the City.
Estimated Hours Estimated Not to
Services Description PM Advisor Engineer Analyst Survey Admin Total Hours Expenses Exceed Fee
A Data Aquisition 37.5 15 24 150 3 229.5 $5,000 $23,303
B Optional Digital Photo Aquisition 4 3 24 30 61 $1,500 $6,219
C Data Evaluation 4 32 36 $500 $3,564
D Data Entry/Upload""" 37.5 37.5 24 99 $2,000 $12,208
E System Configuration 67.5 8 75.5 $2,000 $10,505
F Final Report 37.5 12 49.5 $500 $5,957
G Staff Training 37.5 37.5 75 $4,000 $12,288
Sub Total 625.5 $15,500 $74,043
Does not include Hansen Certification Fee if required Grand Total $74,043
Rate Table - $ /Hour
Project Manager $126
Senior Advisor $126
Project Engineer $95
Data Analyst $80
Survey Technician $67
Administration $61
Page 20
Stantec