City Council Packet - 02/13/2007
City of Tigard, Oregon • 13125 SWHall Blvd. • Tigard, OR 97223
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
February 13, 2007
COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED
1:\Ofs\Donna's\Ccpktl
Phone: 503.639.4171 . Fax: 503.684.7297 . www.tigard-or.gov TTY Relay: 503.684.2772
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
Mi.
FEBRUARY 13, 2007 6:30 p.m._
TIGARD CITY HALL
13125 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD, 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
7:3012.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 (IDD - 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 - FEBRUARY 13, 2007 page 1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 13, 2007
6:30 PM
• STUDY SESSION
> Tigard Municipal Code Amendment Discussion regarding Solid Waste Management -
Public Works Staff
> Burnham Street Update - Community Development Staff
> FY 07-08 Council Training - Administration Staff
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss real
property transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(2) (e). 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.
7:30 PM
1. BUSINESS 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
• Council Goals 2007 - Final Draft (See Agenda Item No. 6)
7:35 PM
2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
• Tigard High School Student Envoy Jasmina Disdarevik
• Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication
7:40 PM
3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion
avithout separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate
action. Motion to:
3.1 Approve Council Minutes for January 9, 2007
3.2 Receive and File:
3.2.a November 14, 2006 Minutes of Joint Council Meeting with Lake Oswego
3.2.b January 30, 2007 Fifth Tuesday Meeting Notes
3.2.c Council Calendar
3.2.d Tentative Agenda
COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 13, 2007 page 2
3.3 Approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with Clean Water Services for the
Preparation of a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
3.4 Approve Budget Amendment #12 for Sewer Master Plan Project Additional Funding
RESOLUTION NO. 07-07 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET
AMENDMENT #12 TO THE FY 2006-07 BUDGET TO INCREASE
APPROPRIATIONS IN THE SANITARY SEWER CAPITAL PROJECTS
BUDGET WITHIN THE COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM FOR
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN
PROJECT
3.5 Commend the Members of the Planned Development Code Review Committee for
their Service and to Disband the Committee
RESOLUTION NO. 07-08 - A RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE MEMBERS
OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND
TO DISBAND THE COMMITTEE
3.6 Authorize the Mayor to Renew a West Nile Virus Intergovernmental Agreement with
Washington County
3.7 Authorize the City Manager to sign a Settlement Agreement with the Business
Software Alliance (BSA)
7:45 PM
4. ANNEXATION POLICY DISCUSSION
Staff Report: Community Development Staff
8:45 PM
5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
8:55 PM
6. NON AGENDA ITEMS
7. 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.
9:00 PM
8. ADJOURNMENT
i Aadm\cathy\cca\2007\070213).doc
COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 13, 2007 page 3
Agenda Item No. 3
For Agenda of Mat,
/ o?~D
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes
Date: February 13, 2007
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Place: Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon
Attending: Mayor Craig Dirksen Presiding
Councilor Gretchen Buehner
Councilor Sally Harding
Councilor Sydney Sherwood
Councilor Tom Woodruff
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
Study Session Mayor Dirksen called the Study Session to order at
6:30 p.m.
Study Session -
Discussion of Public Works Director Koellermeier introduced this After discussion, City
Tigard topic. Water Quality Coordinator Hart was in Council consensus was to
Municipal Code attendance as were the following representatives of move forward with the
Amendment Tigard's solid waste franchisees: preparation of an ordinance
for Solid Waste Pride Disposal: for the City Council's
Management Mike Leichner consideration to revised
Lee Kell (attorney) Tigard Municipal Code
Barry Graham Chapter 11.04 regarding
Waste Management: solid waste management
Dave Huber enforcement.
A copy of the staff report is on file in the City
Recorder's office outlining the problems when non-
franchised haulers provide garbage service within
the boundaries of the franchised haulers. At the
request of the franchisees, the proposed code
revisions seek to rectify these problems by giving
Pride Disposal and Waste Management the authority
to take action against non-franchised haulers. Key
points of the revisions proposed to code (TMC
Chapter 11.04) are outlined in the staff report.
Discussion followed among the City Council, staff
and franchisee representatives regarding the
proposed code changes. Below are some of the
Tigard City Council Minutes - February 13, 2007 1
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
highlights of the discussion:
• If the franchisee is allowed to take action in
the Washington County Circuit Court, this
would not be a burden on staff.
• Franchisees would bear full burden of cost
in pursuit of enforcement actions.
• Non-franchised haulers are trying to break
the franchise system; it is generally not a
case of ignorance of the franchise system.
• Discussion of whether it would be possible
to cite violation of the Tigard Municipal
Code to municipal court.
• Discussion of whether or not attorney fees
are awarded to prevailing party.
• The City would receive revenue from fines;
not the franchisee.
• These problems are being experienced in a
number of other jurisdictions.
• Trash pick up by "junk" collectors is a
separate issue.
• Franchisees believe the primary haulers
entering into the franchised area are from
Portland; there are a few from the Eugene
area.
Study Session - City Engineer Duenas presented the information on
Burnham Street this item. A memorandum dated January 31, 2007
Update from City Engineer Duenas to the Mayor and
Council and City Manager Prosser regarding an
update on this project is on file in the City
Recorder's office. Key points are:
• Original cost estimate prepared by OTAK at the
beginning of the project was $3.9 million. The
cost is now projected at $4.9 million for the
reasons outlined in the memo referred to above.
• Funding shortfall is now $3 million. Priorities in
the Community Investment Program (CIP)
budget review will include this project.
• City Manager Prosser said the City Council does
not need to make a decision tonight; rather, this
is being brought to their attention in advance of
the CIP review so they know there will be
tradeoffs to consider when setting priorities.
• Councilor Buehner commented that people are
Tigard City Council Minutes - February 13, 2007 2
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
unhappy about the Walnut Street project which is
not finished and had been the No. 1 project.
• In response to a question from Councilor
Woodruff, City Manager Prosser advised that the
Green Street grant money will not free up dollars
for the Burnham Street project as the grant is for
Main Street. The grant also requires the City to
match with $800,000.
Study Session - Assistant City Manager Newton reviewed
FY 07-08 information distributed to the City Council
Council regarding Council training and budget for 2007 and
Training 2008.
Discussion followed on how to decide to allocate an
amount for the Council's training budget in 2008.
Council members agreed to place $2,500 per
Council member in the proposed budget for training
during next fiscal year ($12,500 total). Council
members discussed that if one Councilor does not
intend to use the $2,500 allocation then he or she
could offer that training money to a fellow
Councilor who would like to attend additional
training.
Council members indicated support for training
proposals for staff and would not want to see any
cuts in this area of the budget.
There was discussion on an upcoming training
session sponsored by the League of Oregon Cities:
Governing 101: Legal Powers and Im'pediments Affecting
Elected Officials. Council members supported
expenditure for the Workshop Fee of $50 so that
Councilor Buehner, as a new City Council member,
could attend.
Study Session: Assistant City Manager Newton distributed samples
Citizen of a proposed Citizen Comment card for City
Comment Council review.
Cards
Executive The Tigard City Council went into Executive
Session Session at 7:06 p.m. to discuss real property
transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(2) (e).
Tigard City Council Minutes - February 13, 2007 3
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
Executive Session concluded at 7:15 p.m.
Administrative The following items were reviewed:
Items o Draft of Tigard City Council Goals 2007 was
distributed. Consensus of City Council was
that this could be distributed as the final draft.
o Council Calendars - February/March: City
Council members were asked to bring
calendars to the first meeting each month to
determine dates to avoid scheduling various
meetings.
o Senator Burdick and Representative Galizio are
scheduled to meet with the City Council on
February 27. City Council agreed to invite
Metro Councilor Carl Hosticka to the February
27 City Council meeting as a separate agenda
item.
o Franchise agreements will be discussed at an
upcoming Metropolitan Area Communications
Commission meeting. There was some
concern by MACC regarding ex parte contact
from franchisees; although this appears to be a
legislative matter (not quasi judicial).
o Councilor Harding referred to the Washington
County Coordinating Committee and priorities
for funding projects. Councilor Harding
advised that Westside Economic Alliance
Executive Director Schlueter appears to be
supportive of projects for this part of the
county.
o Brian Wegener and Alexander Craghead spoke
at a recent JPACT meeting to request support
of the Main Street project.
Study Session concluded at 7:27 p.m.
Business 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the City Council and the
Meeting Local Contract Review Board to Order at 7:35
p.m.
1.2 Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors
Buehner, Harding, Sherwood, and Woodruff.
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports:
Tigard City Council Minutes - February 13, 2007 4
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
None
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items:
None
2. Citizen • Phil Decker, 14540 SW 148`h Place, Tigard, OR
Communication distributed a page of information entitled Bull
Mountain Incorporation, Measure 34-129; How much
real support did it have? A copy of this document is
on file in the City Recorder's office. Mr. Decker
reviewed his interpretation of the statistics he
compiled regarding the recent incorporation
effort.
• John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR
commented on park land acquisition and quoted
a number which he thought was a high estimate
for park property associated with Ash Creek
Estates. He noted his concerns that a quid quo
pro situation existed with the developer. He
asked about receiving more information on this
transaction. City Manager Prosser responded
that this is an ongoing property negotiation and
there is no agreement at this time. This will have
to come before the City Council for approval at a
public meeting. Mr. Frewing noted his concerns
about having the public having the information
available so there is an opportunity to review and
comment. He requested information as soon as
it could be made available.
3. Consent Mayor Dirksen requested Item 3.5 be removed for Motion by Mayor Dirksen,
Agenda separate consideration. seconded by Councilor
Woodruff, to approve the
3.1 Approve Council Minutes for January 9, 2007 Consent Agenda, with Item
3.2 Receive and File: 3.5 removed for separate
3.2.a November 14, 2006 Minutes of joint consideration.
Council Meeting with Lake Oswego
3.2.b January 30, 2007 Fifth Tuesday Meeting The motion was approved by
Notes a unanimous vote of Council
3.2.c Council Calendar present.
3.2.d Tentative Agenda
3.3 Approve an Intergovernmental Agreement Mayor Dirksen Yes
with Clean Water Services for the Preparation Councilor Buehner Yes
of a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Councilor Harding Yes
3.4 Approve Budget Amendment #12 for Sewer Councilor Sherwood Yes
Master Plan Project Additional Funding Councilor Woodruff Yes
Tigard City Council Minutes - February 13, 2007 5
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
RESOLUTION NO. 07-07 - A
RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET
AMENDMENT #12 TO THE FY 2006-07
BUDGET TO INCREASE
APPROPRIATIONS IN THE SANITARY
SEWER CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET
WITHIN THE COMMUNITY
INVESTMENT PROGRAM FOR
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE
SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN
PROJECT
3.5 Removed for separate consideration (see
below):
3.6 Authorize the Mayor to Renew a West Nile
Virus Intergovernmental Agreement with
Washington County
3.7 Authorize the City Manager to sign a
Settlement Agreement with the Business
Software Alliance (BSA)
Motion by Councilor
Council then discussed and considered Item No. 3.5: Sherwood, seconded by
Councilor Woodruff, to
Commend the Members of the Planned Development approve Resolution No. 07-
Code Review Committee for their Service and to 08.
Disband the Committee
The motion was approved by
RESOLUTION NO. 07-08 - A a unanimous vote of Council
RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE Present.
MEMBERS OF THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW Mayor Dirksen Yes
COMMITTEE AND TO DISBAND THE Councilor Buchner Yes
COMMITTEE Councilor Harding Yes
Councilor Sherwood Yes
Mayor Dirksen said he asked for this item to be Councilor Woodruff Yes
considered separately so the City Council could take
the opportunity to thank the members of the
Committee for their hard work in working through
the issues within the Planned Development Code.
The names of the Committee Members were read:
Sue Beilke, Gretchen Buehner, Alice Ellis-Gaut, Ron
Ellis-Gaut, John Frewing, Bill McMonagle, Charles
Schwarz and David Walsh.
Tigard City Council Minutes - February 13, 2007 6
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
4. Annexation Community Development Director Coffee
Policy introduced this agenda topic. Long Range Planning
Discussion Manager Bunch presented the staff report; highlights
are summarized below:
• In January 2006, City Council considered four
annexation policy options and agreed that the
City should have a "reactive" policy that
established a neutral position towards
annexation. To lessen the burden on applicants
Council waived annexation fees.
• 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 the
annexation fees until July 1, 2008.
• Staff recommends Council amend
Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.2.1 pertaining to
annexation and City services. The proposed
changes were outlined in the staff report
submitted to the City Council and are on file in
the City Recorder's office.
• An additional proactive element the City
Council might want to consider includes
phasing in, over a period of five years, the
added amount of city property taxes associated
with annexation.
• No new city was incorporated on Bull
Mountain. Nevertheless, events leading up to
this incorporation effort will likely color
annexation discussions for a long time. Staff
believes the proposed Comprehensive Plan
changes would help stay the course and clear
up ambiguity to make it clear that annexation is
required if City of Tigard services are provided.
• Council might choose a hybrid policy for
annexation from the four policy alternatives:
aggressive, proactive, reactive, or inactive.
• Council viewed an urban planning area analysis
map showing that some unincorporated areas
have essentially developed to an urban density.
• Long Range Planning Manager Bunch reviewed
the following regarding what should be
considered in reaching an annexation policy
decision:
Tigard City Council Minutes - February 13, 2007 7
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
o The long-term benefits /'interest of Tigard
citizens as well as those in the urban growth
boundary including government services that
are high quality and responsive.
o The benefits of being a Tigard citizen.
o Develop positive relationships with property
owners and residents of unincorporated Bull
Mountain and Metzger.
o People should not feel coerced to annex;
however, a full level of urban services should
only be provided to those who are paying
for them.
o Logical City boundaries promote the
provision of cost-efficient urban services.
o Discussions with the County about its role in
providing urban services and its annexation
policy. Discuss annexation regulations with
Metro and the State of Oregon; where
should urban services be provided.
• Council members discussed their views on how
to proceed with setting an annexation policy:
o Councilor Woodruff recalled last year's City
Council discussion and the
proactive/reactive hybrid policy supported
by the Council members at that time. He
supported continuation of this policy, which
is to make the City as attractive as possible
to those who might consider annexation and
to continue to waive annexation fees. He
also supported communicating with
unincorporated citizens the message that
Tigard would like them to become a part of
the City.
o Councilor Sherwood said she has been
contacted by people who want to annex but
were waiting for the annexation policy to be
determined by the Council. She said she
could support a three-year property tax
phase-in rather than the five years proposed
by staff.
o Councilor Buchner indicated she had strong
feelings that unincorporated areas of Bull
Mountain and Metzger should come into the
City of Tigard. She supported the policies as
stated above by Councilor Woodruff and
Councilor Sherwood. In addition she would
Tigard City Council Minutes - February 13, 2007 8
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
support:
■ squaring off city boundaries
■ contacting people who have indicated to
her and Councilor Sherwood of their
interest in annexing to the City of Tigard
■ determining how people who are not
contiguous to the City of Tigard could
annex if they wanted to do so
■ working with other agencies including
Metro and ODOT
■ favoring a hybrid of elements from the
proactive/reactive policy alternatives
(does not support aggressive)
■ questioning the urgency for the
Comprehensive Plan amendments
■ showing leadership and demonstrating
the benefits of becoming a part of the
city
o Mayor Dirksen said he agreed with
statements made by the Council members
above. He noted concerns with "uneven
development": palatial estates adjacent to
high density developments.
He supported a hybrid, which he termed as
"proactive plus." He said he did not
support involuntary annexations with the
possible exceptions of island annexations.
Regardless of any policies adopted by
Council, Mayor Dirksen said he would not
support a "rubber stamp" application of an
annexation policy; rather, he said each
annexation should be considered on its own
merit.
Mayor Dirksen supported continuation of
the annexation fee waiver and a phase-in of
property taxes over a three-year period to
lessen the financial obligation for newly
annexed property owners.
o Non remonstrance agreements should be
reevaluated especially if the Comprehensive
Plan is clarified with regard to annexation in
order to receive City services.
Tigard City Council Minutes - February 13, 2007 9
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
o Mayor Dirksen noted agreement with
previous comments from Councilor
Harding calling for building relationships
with residents in the unincorporated areas.
o Council will revisit the annexation policy in
one year.
City Manager Prosser summarized he heard Council
consensus to:
- Rebuild relationships
- Contact owners of undeveloped properties
to determine if they would like to annex
- Be more aggressive on island annexations
o Councilor Woodruff said he was not yet
convinced that it was a good idea to phase in
property taxes whereby current Tigard
residents would subsidize new residents.
Mayor Dirksen said he thought that a
burden already exists and over time the
subsidy would be reduced. City Manager
Prosser agreed that the phase-in of property
taxes would provide an opportunity to end
the inequity in the third year after
annexation.
Long Range Planning Manager Bunch will draft a
resolution for City Council's review memorializing
an annexation policy based upon the above City
Council comments.
There was discussion on Councilor Buehner's
suggestion to take jurisdiction of Bull Mountain
Road to SW 133' Avenue. The Council members
agreed that this could be discussed as a separate item
from the annexation policy and that the City should
contact Washington County officials. Beef Bend
Road should also be reviewed with regard to
jurisdiction. King City now has jurisdiction to the
centerline of a portion of Beef Bend Road.
> Library In response to a question from Councilor Harding,
Survey City Manager Prosser advised that the library survey
is almost half-waycompleted. He suggested that
Tigard City Council Minutes - February 13, 2007 10
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
next year's survey be modified to ask a question to
determine whether or not a respondent is a Tigard
resident.
Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Motion by Councilor
Sherwood, seconded by
Councilor Buehner, to
adjourn the meeting.
The motion was approved by
a unanimous vote of Council
present.
Mayor Dirksen Yes
Councilor Buehner Yes
Councilor Harding Yes
Councilor Sherwood Yes
Councilor Woodruff Yes
(D ~eat~
Brine Wheatley, City Recorder
Attest:
Mayor, ity of Tigard 1--M gA CA z
Date:
I:\admlcathy\c U007\070213.doc
Tigard City Council Minutes - February 13, 2007 l l
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
February 13, 2007
13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon
6:30 PM
• STUDY SESSION
> Tigard Municipal Code Amendment Discussion regarding Solid Waste Management -
Public Works Staff
> Burnham Street Update - Community Development Staff
> FY 07-08 Council Training - Administration Staff
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss real
property transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(2) (e). 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.
• ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
o Draft of Tigard City Council Goals 2007 is attached. Scheduled for the Non Agenda during the
Business meeting to determine Council consensus of final wording.
o Council Calendars - February/March (Ask City Council to bring calendars to the first meeting
each month to determine dates to avoid for scheduling various meetings.)
o Senator Burdick and Representative Galizio are scheduled to meet with the City Council on
February 27. Schedule Metro Councilor Carl Hosticka on February 27 also?
Council Calendar
February
19 President's Day Holiday - City Hall Closed
20 Council Workshop Meeting
27 Council Business Meeting
Agenda hem # 5-ludW-5e'sS/on
Meeting Date February 13, 2007
COUNC L AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Discussion of Revisions to Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 11.04 Re aiding Solid Waste
Management Enforcement
Prepared By, Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE CovNaL
Discuss revisions to Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 11.04 regarding solid waste management enforcement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Participate in the discussion with staff and representatives from the City's solid waste haulers.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City of Tigard has two franchised solid waste haulers, Pride Disposal Company and Waste Management
Incorporated. Each of these franchisees has exclusive rights to provide garbage service in specific areas of the City.
Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 11.04.020.2.a., states:
No person shall provide service, offer to provide service or advertise for the performance of service without
having obtained a franchise from the City,
Since July 2006, there have been at least four instances when non-franchised haulers have provided garbage service
within the boundaries of the franchised haulers. Typically this has occurred through drop box service. The City's
current practice to address these violations is to document the violation (photos/site visits), notify the outside hauler of
the violation and request the drop box be removed within five days. The City's directives are often disregarded. Since
most drop boxes are filled and removed within five days anyway, the City's action has limited impact and does little to
deter future violations. Staff expects violations to continue. At the request of the franchisees, the proposed code
revisions seek to rectify this problem by giving Pride Disposal and Waste Management the authority to take action
against non-franchised haulers. The revisions have been reviewed by the city attorney.
The revisions to Chapter 11.04 would:
• Allow a franchisee to take action in Washington County Circuit Court against a non-franchised hauler who
provides garbage service within the franchised area.
• Require a non-franchised hauler who provides service within the franchised area to pay the City $500 per
violation in lieu of imposition of the civil penalty.
• Give the City Manager the choice of addressing solid waste franchise violations through the City, or allowing
the franchisee to pursue civil action.
• Indemnify the City for any claims resulting from the franchisee's enforcement actions.
• Waive any City liability for legal fees and other costs incurred by the franchisee while pursuing enforcement
actions.
OnimALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Council could direct staff continue with the existing procedure, though somewhat ineffective and labor intensive,
or could suggest some other means to address the issue.
CnY COUNCnGOALS
None
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Proposed Tigard Municipal Code revisions to Chapter 11.04.170, Enforcement Officers
FYSCALNOTES
There are no direct costs associated with this code change. However, by offering solid waste franchisees a means ~o
address violations directly, staff and city attorney time currently devoted to the issue would be greatly reduced.
Note: Attachment 1
Strikethrough text is deleted,
bold, underlined text is added.
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
this chapter. The rules and regulations shall be 2. A franchisee shall have a cause of
printed or typewritten, and be maintained for action in Washington County Circuit Court
inspection in the office of the City Recorder. All against any person providing service in the
proposed rules and regulations promulgated under Tigard city limits without having a franchise in
the authority of this section, and all amendments violation of Section 11.04.040. The cause of
thereto, shall be immediately forwarded to the action includes any appropriate relief,
franchisee operating under this chapter for including injunctive relief.
response. The franchisee shall have thirty days to
respond in writing to such proposed rules and a. Notice to City Manager. Before a
regulations. If the franchisee has objections or franchisee may commence a civil action, the
revisions to the proposed rules, the franchisee franchisee must provide thirty days written
shall meet and confer with the City Manager notice to the City Manager. The City Manager
regarding the franchisees concerns. If the may elect either to enforce the provisions of
concerns are not resolved through consultation this chapter in accordance with 11.04.170, or
with the City Manager, then the City Manager allow the franchisee to commence a civil action
shall forward the proposed rule, with the in Washington County Circuit Court against
franchisees comments, to the City Council for its the person in violation of Section 11.04.040. If
consideration. The franchisee may request that the City Manager fails to respond to the notice,
the City Council hold a public hearing on a the franchisee may proceed with the civil
proposed rule. The Council may approve the action. A franchisee may not commence a civil
proposed rule as submitted, modify the rule, or action if the City Manager is pursuing
reject the rule. The City Manager shall enact all enforcement actions.
rules by written order. (Ord. 03-08, Ord. 91-36 §1
Exh. A(part), 1991: Ord. 78-64 §14,1978). b. Damages. Any person providing
service in the Tigard city limits without having
11.04.170 Enforcement Offieers. a franchise pursuant to Section 11.04.040 will
be subject to the following damages: lost
1. The City Manager shall enforce the customer revenue to be paid to the franchisee;
provisions of this chapter, and the City's agents, unpaid franchise fees owed to the city pursuant
including police officers and other employees so to Section 11.04.060, which shall be paid to the
designated, may enter affected premises at City of Tigard, liquidated damages in the
reasonable times for the purpose of determining amount of $500 for each violation to be paid to
compliance with the provisions and terms of this the City of Tigard in lieu of imposition of the
chapter. However, no premises shall be entered civil penalty ; and any other legal remedies
without first attempting to obtain the consent of available. The court shall award reasonable
the owner or person in control of the premises if attorney fees to the prevailing party.
other than the owner. If consent cannot be
obtained, the City representative shall secure a c. Violations. For purposes of
search warrant from the City's Municipal Court liquidated damages in subsection b, each
before further attempts to gain entry, and the City incident of service provided without a franchise
shall have recourse to every other remedy shall be a separate violation. Incident of
provided by law to secure entry. (Ord. 03-08, Ord. service means each and every individual act of
91-36 §1 Exh. A(part), 1991: Ord. 78-64 §13, service, as defined by 11.04.030(13), performed
1978). by the violator. For example, providing service
without a franchise by hauling a drop box for a
11-04-16 Code Update: 12103
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
person on six occasions is six violations.
d. Indemnity. The City of Tigard
shall have no liability for the franchisee's
attorney fees and costs incurred for electing to
pursue enforcement under these provisions.
Any franchisee who elects to act under this
provision shall indemnify the City of Tigard in
the event of any claims filed against the city
arising out of the franchisee's enforcement
actions brought under the provisions of this
chapter.
11.04.180 Penalty.
Violation by any person of the provisions of
this chapter, rules adopted pursuant to Section
11.04.160, or of a permit issued pursuant to
Section 11.04.105, shall be deemed a Class 1 civil
infraction and shall be punishable according to the
provisions set forth in Chapter 1.16 of this code.
(Ord. 91-36 §1 Exh. A(part), 1991: Ord. 78-64
§19, 1978).■
11-04-17 Code Update: 12103
- 5
, Agenda Item No-5 ~~n
Meeting of
MEMORANDUM
`ra ~ i '
TO: Mayor and City Councilors
Craig Prosser, City Manager
FROM: Gus Duenas Vlo~
City Engineer
RE: Burnham Street Improvements - Project Update
DATE: January 31, 2007
The Project
The Burnham Street Improvement Project is a major catalyst project in the Tigard
Downtown Improvement Plan. The Comprehensive Downtown Streetscape Project
provided an opportunity to explore various design concepts, street cross-sections,
streetscape elements and green street applications for incorporation into the design of the
project. City Council approved the conceptual layout of Burnham Street in March 2006 and
the City staff negotiated a design fee with OTAK, Inc. to perform the design for the project.
The contract with OTAK was approved in mid July 2006 and the project design began
immediately afterwards.
The approved conceptual layout for Burnham Street will produce an attractive street that can
serve to draw in new development on both sides of the street. It includes a minimum of 12-
foot wide sidewalk widening to 18-foot wide sidewalks in the segment of Burnham Street
west of Ash Avenue towards Main Street. That the street be constructed with full
improvements is essential to the successful redevelopment of the Tigard downtown. Council
did not favor a phased approach to construction and emphasized that the entire street with
full improvements needed to be constructed as one project.
Updated Cost Estimate
The price tag for the full improvements is high, and with the rising labor and materials costs
during the past year is even higher than originally envisioned. The original cost estimate
prepared by OTAK at the beginning of the project was $3,900,000 including 30%
contingencies. The estimate at that time took into account the wide sidewalks (12 feet to 18
feet), high-quality streetscape and landscape elements, green street elements, the addition of
two gateway treatments, a water quality facility, wetland-related issues at the outfall area
adjacent to Fanno Creek and south of Burnham Street near the Stevens Marine property,
and a roundabout that would be constructed at the intersection of Ash Avenue and
Burnham Street. In addition, OTAK's estimate factored in the rapid rise in construction
prices during the past few years. It did not include the design costs, right-of-way acquisition
costs, and construction management of the project to completion.
In November 2006, OTAK submitted drawings and a construction estimate representing the
50% design stage. The original estimate of $3,900,000 prior to commencement of the design
work was escalated to $4,900,000 with 20% contingencies. The quantities have been refined
based on more detailed plans and the unit prices provided by OTAK reflect their experience
with increases in public improvement costs during the past year. The amount set aside for
contingencies has been reduced based on increased knowledge of project design elements as
a result of the design effort to date.
Part of the escalation has been the increase in prices for liquid asphalt and other products
such as concrete and pipe. In addition, contractors at this time are able to be more selective
due to the large number of projects that have been advertised for bids by other public
agencies in Oregon and Washington. The updated estimate therefore represents the current
bidding climate and the unit prices that can be expected if the project were to be advertised
for bids at this time.
It is possible that competition at the time of bidding could result in a bid significantly less
than the estimate. However, we need to be prepared for the worst case scenario based on the
bid prices that are being submitted at this time.
The construction costs present only part of the total project costs on this project. Attached
for your information is a breakdown of the total project cost from beginning to end, starting
with the design costs and estimating costs for land acquisition, construction management
and construction costs for the project.
Total Project Cost
The total overall project cost is approximately $6,300,000. The total funding available from
FY 2006-07 through FY 2008-09 is $5,525,000 leaving a shortfall of approximately $775,000.
One strategy to consider for construction of the project is to have it span two fiscal years so
that we can take advantage of two years of funding revenue. The current status of the
project and the sequence of construction seem to allow for that strategy. Even with that
strategy, the shortfall needs to be covered to allow for the construction contract to be
awarded and the project constructed until completed. The following is the timing for the
project that I believe is the most likely scenario for successful implementation:
Implementation Strategy
• Current status: design 50% complete
• ROW needed identified and described: end of March 2007
• 100% design plans: by August 2007
• Land acquisition period: April 2007 through September 2007
• Advertise for bids: October 2007
• Contract Award: November 2007
• Utility undergrounding period: December 2007 through March 2008
• Road Construction begins: April 2008
• Construction completed: late summer 2008
The right-of-way acquisition and the utility undergrounding control the progress of the
project. A good 6 months is needed to acquire all the property needed and the utility
undergrounding will naturally take 4 to 5 months to be substantially completed giving us the
spring and summer of 2008 to complete the roadwork.
Impact on Other Projects
The dedication of available funding (from the TIF Fund and Gas Tax Fund) to Burnham
Street would significantly delay implementation of some other high-priority projects. The
following are just a few of the projects that would be delayed by the Burnham Street project:
• Walnut Street from 116th Avenue to Tiedeman Avenue. This project is TIF-
eligible, has been planned for years, and is the last segment of Walnut Street yet to
be reconstructed and widened. The design has been completed and most of the
right-of-way needed is in place ready for construction.
• 121St Avenue from Walnut Street to the Whistler's Walk subdivision north of
Gaarde Street. The project design has been completed and right-of-way acquisition
has been initiated.
• Main Street green street retrofit project currently under consideration for funding
through the Metro MTIP process. This is a high-priority project that requires
$500,000 in local matching funds from the Gas Tax Fund. The local match needs
to be provided if this project is funded through the MTIP process. Availability of
gas tax dollars for this project would allow the City to design and construct this
project in the next two to three years, instead of four or five years from now.
• CDBG-funded projects with Gas Tax Fund contribution as local matching. The
need to dedicate Gas Tax Fund dollars to the Burnham Street project will curtail
these sidewalk and half-street widening projects in the next four or five years.
• Commercial Street enhancements from Main Street to Hall Boulevard. This is
another of the streetscape enhancement projects resulting from the Tigard
Downtown Streetscape Plan.
• Realignment of Scoffins Street to form a single intersection with Hunziker Street
and Hall Boulevard. This is an important project that creates a major portal into
the Tigard downtown from Hall Boulevard. Developers reviewing the Tigard
Downtown Improvement Plan stressed the importance of a major entrance into
the downtown from Hall Boulevard.
Funding Options
• To cover the shortfall in the project, a loan from the General Fund to the Gas Tax
Fund or TIF Fund can be considered. This loan would be repaid in the following fiscal
year. This would enable the project to be completed in a timely manner with full
improvements.
• Another option is to issue a revenue bond for the project with repayment from the gas
tax and TIF funds. This would allow the project to be completed by the end of calendar
year 2008. This revenue bond could include funding for some or all of the projects that
would otherwise be delayed by the dedication of funds to the Burnham Street project.
Attachment
c: Tom Coffee, Community Development Director
Bob•Sesnon, Finance Director
Vannie Nguyen, CIP Manager
Lkeng~gusVnemorandumstpmject update - humham street improvements.doc
Burnham Street Improvement Project
Estimated Total Project Cost
Design
OTAK $470,000
Vigil Agrimis (Wetland Services) $50,000
Utility Locates $20,000
Contingencies $60,000
Design Cost $600,000
Right-of-Way Acquisition $600,000
Construction
Street $2,720,000
Storm Drainage $600,000
Sanitary Sewer $40,000
Water $425,000
Undergrounding Utilities $275,000
Total Construction Cost (20% Contingencies) $4,900,000
Construction Management and Inspection $200,000
Total Project Cost $6,3005000
31-Jan-07
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor & Council
FROM: Joanne Bengtson
RE: Council Training and Budget for 2007
DATE: February 7, 2007
I've had some recent questions about the training budget. The issue of course is that the training
budget for City Council is exhausted. Craig suggested that I present the training information to
Council and if there is interest in further training this fiscal year, Council could discuss the
possibility of a budget amendment.
The Oregon Local Leadership Institute (LOC) is presenting Governing 101: Legal Powers and
Impediments Affecting Elected Officials
Day: Friday, April 27, 2007 in Tualatin
Time: 9:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.
Workshop Fee: $50.00
This workshop will cover legal issues, elected official responsibilities and authority, leadership,
information resources, policy development, ethics and land use planning.
✓ What is Home Rule?
✓ How do the Oregon Constitution, my city charter, and the Oregon Statutes affect me as an elected
official?
✓ What authority does my governing body have?
✓ What authority do I have as an elected official?
✓ What is my role with the manager/ administrator and other appointed staff?
✓ What are my responsibilities as an elected official? Can I be held liable for anything?
✓ What are the rules about public meetings, and public records? When can we discuss issues in
executive session?
✓ How do I participate in the development of new policies?
✓ How do I know if my actions are ethical?
✓ What role do I have in Oregon land use planning?
Please let me know if there are any questions or if you need more information.
Thanks!
Agenda Item No.sL`~1 D~
l 6 Councils menu; Meeting of
LOC Annual Conference - Riverhouse Motel and Convention Center
September 27-29, 2007 - Bend, OR
Registration: $295
Mileage $170 (350 miles round trip @.485/mile)
Hotel $225 (3@$68+10% per night -Riverhouse Resort 3075 Hwy 97, Bend 97701)
Per diem 132 (3@$44/day)
$822 per Councilor $4,110 if all 5 Council attend
84th Congress of Cities & Exposition
November 13-17, 2007
New Orleans, Louisiana
Registration: $425
Air: $386
Shuttle $80 (round trip)
Hotel $720 (4@ $159 +13% tax/night- Hampton Inn near convention center)
Per diem 295 (5@ $59/day)
$1,906/person $5,718 if 3 Council attend
NLC Congressional City Conference
March 8-12, 2008
Washington, DC
Registration $410
Air: $560
Shuttle $80 (round trip)
Hotel $1505 (6@$219 +14.5% tax Hilton Washington Towers)
Per diem 384 (6@$64/day)
$2,939/per person $8,817 if 3 Council attend
Oregon Mayors Assn. Conference
August 24, 2007 - Salem, OR- Salem Conference Center
Registration $125
Mileage $39 (80 miles r-t@.485/mile)
Hotel $219 (2@ $99 +10.5% tax/night)
Per diem 132 (3@ $44/day)
$515
National Main Streets Conference
Manb 30- April 2, 2008 - Philadelphia, PA
Registration $350
Shuttle $80
Air $450
Hotel $953 (4@ $209 +14% tax/night)
Per diem 3$ 25 (5@ $64/day)
$2,158 $6,474 if 3 Council attend
The National Main Streets Conference is the only commercial district revitalization educational & networking event that
blends economic development, community revitalization, and historic preservation. this conference was developed to
support those working in the revitalization field and offers training on commercial district revitalization & related topics
including fund raising, organizational development, marketing, business assistance, planning, volunteer recruitment and
visioning.
Agenda Item No. 5L S Q5& Zff)
Meeting of
Tigard City Council Goals 2007
The City Council meets annually to set out its goals for the coming year. For 2007 we have focused
tasks that should be done in 2007 to lay the foundation for progress in the future.
We would also like to acknowledge on-going tasks, programs, and projects that serve and protect
Tigard citizens. These work items are in process and do not require specific Council action.
Examples include: obtaining a permanent and secure water source for the City, greenspace
acquisition, fiscal viability, public safety, and library services.
2007 Council Goals
1. Comprehensive Plan
a. Updating the blueprint for the City
b. Public Input
2. Continue to Support Implementation of the Downtown Plan
a. Pursue funding for projects
b. Prepare for business /developer recruitment
c. Promote Tigard identity
d. Promote community fabric in the downtown
1. Business development
2. Public Square
3. Farmers Market
4. Arts & Culture
3. Aggressively pursue funding to correct traffic congestion within the City
a. Seek funding for 99W improvements
b. Support the 1-5 Connector
c. Support Hwy 217 funding
4. Improve Council/Citizen communications
a. Complete the City Active Neighborhood (CAN) Program
b. Citizen comment card at City Hall/Council meetings
c. Boards & Commissions
1. Develop a regular training program for new members
2. Develop a tracking system for Board & Commission recommendations
3. Appoint Council liaisons to each Board and Commission - Periodically sit in
on meetings
4. Recognize & develop Boards & Commissions as sources for future Council
candidates
5. Staff
1. Periodically attend staff meetings
5. Increase Tigard's involvement with Washington County, Metro, State, ODOT, Tri-Met, and
Federal government
C~ ~r~s Cam COLD ~ O
a 13 J~ 2
Bull Mountain Incorporation, Measure 34 -129
How much real support did it have?
Registered Voters: 5336
Actual Voters: 3997 (75% turnout; county: 70%)
Voters on Incorp. 3621 (10% of actual voters did not vote
on incorporation)
Results by Bull Mtn. Precinct: # 397: Yes (56% Y - 44% N: 12% dill.)
# 410: No (43% Y - 57% N: 14% dill.)
# 414: No (38% Y - 62% N: AIM iff.)
Total Vote on Incorporation: Yes: 48% (1734)
No: 52% (1887)
'Yes' for Incorporation: 32% of Registered Voters
44% of Actual Voters
48% of Voters on Incorporation
Spending: Approx. #125-,000+ (direct and indirect)
'Yes' votes: 1734
Cost per 'Yes' vote: $70/vote
Litigation Cost to City of Tigard: $30,000
Agenda Item No. . a..
Meeting of 'V-e-6. /Z a00 7
or MK[ os Wt
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
November 14, 2006
oxiw?,
Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. on
November 14, 2006, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Turchi, McPeak, Groznik and Graham;
Councilors Peterson and Hoffman were excused; Councilors Elect Jordan,
Johnson, Hennagin
Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City
Recorder; Joel Komarek, City Engineer
Others: Intergovernmental Water Board Commissioners: Patrick Carroll
(representing Durham), Dick Winn (representing King City), Bill Scheiderich
(member at-large); Tigard City Councilors: Mayor Craig Dirksen, Sydney
Sherwood, Sally Harding, Nick Wilson, Tom Woodruff (also Tigard's IWB
representative), Gretchen Buehner, Councilor Elect; Tigard Staff Members:
Craig Prosser, City Manager; Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director; Tim
Ramis, City, Attorney; Consultants: Mark Knudson, Clark Worth
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1 Joint Meeting with the Tigard City Council and the Intergovernmental Water
Board
Mayor Hammerstad provided the introductions. In May 2005 the City of Tigard approached
Lake Oswego because it was interested in having a stable source that would satisfy its long-term
water interests. The policy considerations would be discussed at this meeting, but no decisions
would be made. Each entity hoped to gather information from this meeting and develop an
understanding of complementary needs. Tigard desires to secure a long-term water source, and
Lake Oswego has an apparent surplus of available water from its water rights in the Clackamas
River. Lake Oswego has a high need for infrastructure improvements in the system the cost of
which was considerable. If the costs were shared over a larger base, then the improvements
would be more affordable. Tigard would not have to seek another water provider and would gain
some infrastructure on its own. Lake Oswego needed certainty regarding the access of adequate
water supplies and was responding to recent legislation that required Lake Oswego to use its
water right or lose it in the future.
Mr. Komarek reported that the Cities of Tigard and Lake Oswego entered into an
intergovernmental agreement (IGA) to jointly fund the study effort that began June 2006. The
preliminary findings of that effort were presented at this meeting. When he and Mr.
Koellermeier discussed the scope of work they identified objectives they felt needed to be
addressed. First and foremost it was important to talk about securing long-term supplies for Lake
Oswego and possibly Tigard. The intent was to identify a preferred supply scenario, its
feasibility and costs, and necessary facility improvements and institutional arrangements that
would allow for water to be shared between the two cities.
The Lake Oswego water supply intake was built in the late 1960's and was located about a mile
upstream from the confluence of the Clackamas and Willamette Rivers. The water was pumped
through a 27-inch transmission main under the Willamette to the treatment plant located in West
City Council Minutes Page 1 of 13
November 14, 2006
Linn. The initial size of the plant was approximately 11 mgd. The water was treated to drinking
water standards and pumped through another transmission main to the Waluga Reservoir on the
western edge of the service area. The pipeline from the intake to the treatment plant was about
14,000 feet, and the line from the plant to the reservoir was 20,000 feet. In 1980 the treatment
plant was expanded to its current capacity of 16 mgd. Water was presently supplied to Lake
Oswego residents, a number of special districts located within the urban service boundary (USB),
the City of Tigard, and several small subdivisions located in the City of Portland.
Some of the drivers from Lake Oswego's perspective had to do with a number of infrastructure
improvements needed due to age and demands within the service area. It seemed like an
opportune time to consider a partnership between Lake Oswego and Tigard. Even without such a
partnership the in-City demands were quickly approaching the current treatment capacity, so it
was important to start the planning effort. The major infrastructure was 40 years old and there
were vulnerabilities related to the single pipeline crossing the Willamette. The infrastructure
needs will be costly, so a partnership could ameliorate some of the rate impacts by spreading
those costs over a larger base. HB 3038 presented most entities holding water permits with some
uncertainty as to whether or not they would ultimately be able to develop all the water under
those permits.
Lake Oswego and Tigard have both been members of the Regional Water Providers Consortium
since 1995. That effort recognized the benefits of a regional system of transmission mains and
interconnected water sources for reliability and opportunities to reduce environmental impacts
that certain sources were exhibiting. This was an opportunity to explore regional benefits that
had been discussed at the Consortium for a number of years.
Mr. Koellermeier described the general boundaries of the Intergovernmental Water Board
service area that represented 55,000 people. It was bounded by Hwy 217, the Tualatin River,
Scholls Ferry Road, and the urban growth boundary (UGB). For all practical purposes Tigard
acquired its water on the spot market which was sometimes a tenuous position. The primary
water source at this time was the City of Portland under a ten-year service agreement. That
however did not provide all the water needed by Tigard, so water was purchased from several
other sources to meet peak usage demands. Tigard was a partner in the Joint Water Commission,
but it was structured in such a way that it only allowed the City to access surplus capacity from
the other partners. As those partners grew, the capacity was less available. The group was
working on a major water supply effort with the Hagg Lake Reservoir Complex which was very
expensive and complicated. Tigard would be the farthest customer, and transporting water was
very expensive. Shorter transmission generally was a cost-saving factor for any water provider.
The City of Tigard had enjoyed a wholesale relationship with Lake Oswego, and before 1994
most of the water in the Tigard District was obtained from the Lake Oswego system. A good
share of the infrastructure was designed around that model.
Tigard was involved with aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) which was a technique whereby
the City purchased water during the winter when it was plentiful and injected and stored in wells
for use in the summer. It was not the end all of Tigard's problems, but it was a good stop gap
measure for meeting summer demands. Tigard was one of the founding members with water
rights on the Willamette River. It was the first community that went through the process and
ended up with a charter amendment that required a vote of the people to approve use of
Willamette River water. Wilsonville has been using the Willamette River for three years with
excellent results.
It was important for Tigard to make some decisions. The City was growing while at the same
time water sources were scarce. The City wanted to be involved at the ownership level so there
would be some certainty and to be able to use the financial mechanisms at hand. Ownership
would put part of the financial burden into the SDC structure. Currently Tigard's source issues
had to be 100% rate funded. When Tigard negotiated 10-year increment contracts with Portland
or other large suppliers the rates were structured in such a way as to ease the cost to the retail
City Council Minutes Page 2 of 13
November 14, 2006
customers. Buying water was not a good position to be in because costs were driven up over
time. Finally was the issue of timing. Tigard just signed a 10-year agreement with Portland, so it
would need to decide whether or not to stay with Portland. Although 10 years may seem like a
long time, it takes a long time to develop capital projects.
Mr. Koellermeier reported that Tigard had completed the population and demand forecast,
evaluated the condition and established needs over time, identified multiple alternatives,
identified the permitting and regulating requirements, developed a draft communication plan, and
discussed potential governance options that would allow multiple public agencies to work
together. If directed, staff would work on finalizing the costs of the improvement options,
complete the financial analysis and rate impacts, refine scenarios, costs, and rates for the final
document level, prepare a report, and reconvene this group for further direction. The schedule
was ambitious, and Mr. Koellermeier anticipated having a draft report by the beginning of the
year and reconvening this group in January or February to discuss the options and receive
guidance.
Commissioner Scheiderich asked if Lake Oswego's 38 mgd right were affected by any other
superior rights or in stream flow reservations.
Mr. Komarek replied in stream water rights varied depending upon the time of the year. Half of
the water permit was certificated but it was in its entirety senior to the in stream water right.
There was also a junior permit to the in stream water right. In terms of Western Water Law, the
Appropriation Doctrine, and first in time, first in right says if the permit was senior to the in
stream water right it took precedence in terms of use. The larger 32 mgd right was senior, and
the smaller 6 mgd right was junior.
Commissioner Scheiderich asked how far the water reached by gravity or if was it pumped.
Mr. Komarek replied all of the water was pumped. To reach Tigard from Lake Oswego the
water would be pumped two times to get to the Bonita Station and then once again to get into the
distribution system.
Commissioner Scheiderich asked the status of the other studies including Hagg Lake and the
feasibility study of the pipeline to supply Tualatin Valley Water and Beaverton from Wilsonville.
Mr. Koellermeier responded all these data points would come together in a relatively short
period of time. In the first few months of 2007 all three of those efforts would at least be in a
draft stage. From Tigard's perspective it would need to make some decisions about staying in all
three options or winnow out of some.
Commissioner Carroll asked the vulnerability to the federal government's requiring a certain in
stream flow. Would everyone's water rights be reduced?
Mr. Komarek replied the in stream water right was established for the protection of fish and
other beneficial uses. He was not aware that the Water Resource Department (WRD) had any
plans to seek additional in stream rights. The senior permits would take precedence.
Commissioner Carroll understood endangered species protection would trump all water rights.
Mayor Dirksen asked the size of Lake Oswego's service district.
Mr. Komarek responded the City service area was about 33,000 plus an additional 3,000 to
4,000 customers in areas surrounding the City limits.
Mayor Dirksen understood the 16 mgd treated today was in excess of what was needed based on
Tigard's uses which in the summer peaked at about 13 mgd.
Mr. Komarek replied the City was approaching 88% of its treatment capacity. There was one
peak day last summer of 14 mgd.
City Council Minutes Page 3 of 13
November 14, 2006
Councilor Graham asked if Tigard had based it projections on full development of Bull
Mountain.
Mr. Koellermeier replied Bull Mountain was in the planning area and was a separate chapter of
the master plan.
Mr. Knudson was with Carollo Engineering and had been involved with regional water issues
for more than 20 years. They had looked at what it would take in terms of infrastructure, costs,
and governance as outlined in the scope of work. He discussed the water needs both today and
into the future. The key issue was recognition that a decision needed to be made. Lake Oswego
was in a position of either going it alone or potentially forming some kind of agreement. In the
go it alone scenario Lake Oswego would be faced with making some significant improvements to
its existing system. There were some shortcomings with the current system as it was near the end
of its design life in some cases, so there were deficiencies to be corrected. Additionally, the
system was very close to capacity that could potentially compromise operational reliability. In
the case of the point entity some kind of expansion would be required, so one of the challenges of
this project was how one might go about creating a deal that allowed expansion to occur and
determining the logical degree to which the joint facilities would be expanded to maximize
benefits.
As a first cut, they looked at the service population. It was determined where the entities were in
2005 and where the area would be in 2030 by looking at build out at saturation development. In
most cases saturation was being approached in 2045 taking in just the Lake Oswego retail
customers. Then Stafford and other wholesalers within Lake Oswego's USB were added
excluding Tigard. Right now Lake Oswego was serving 33,000. At build out of both entities the
population would be 146,000.
Councilor Turchi asked if the current zoning was used to estimate build out.
Mr. Knudsen replied it was a saturation of all available land based on the current zoning.
Councilor Turchi understood that if he owned a house in the middle of a subdividable lot that it
would be considered two housing units for the purpose of build out. This assumed that every
piece of property was divided into its smallest buildable unit.
Mr. Knudsen explained there was a range of assumption that went along with that having to do
with the amount of land preserved for open space and things of that nature. Build out was really
a range of numbers, and these figures were what he believed would be the most likely worst case
scenario.
Councilor Turchi noted that Lake Oswego had discussed density at about 1/3 of the actual zone.
He suggested there should be some thought about the need to plan for the actual zone density.
Mr. Knudsen responded the attempt was to offer estimates based on the maximum demand in
the future to ensure supply.
Councilor-elect Buehner asked what kind of relationship the City had with its customers and
could those agreements be terminated.
Mr. Komarek replied the IGAs were for surplus supply. For the most part the entities were on
well supplies and purchased water from Lake Oswego during the summer.
Councilor Groznik stated there were some properties in the City, such as Foothills and
Avamere, that could have a greater population than current zoning. He was not getting worst
case out of this.
Mr. Knudsen understood the concern, but no one could predict the future. The figures reflected
the current situation or what was known and there might be places where density was higher in
the future. They hoped there would be some give and take between the opportunity for
preserving open space that has yet to be designated and that not every acre would be developed to
City Council Minutes Page 4 of 13
November 14, 2006
its maximum capacity. The population projections were translated into water demands. He
looked at what Lake Oswego was currently using and its per capita consumption and did the
same thing for Tigard. That was averaged over the past several years and applied to the
population projections to estimate demand into the future. Numbers were represented down the
last 100,000 mgd. These were projections and forecasts but showed what the overall demands
would be. The numbers to 2030 were based on Metro's population projection, and after that the
build out number was used.
Councilor Turchi asked why Tigard's per capita water consumption was substantially lower
than Lake Oswego's.
Mr. Knudsen thought part of it had to do with density and more multi-family residential. There
was less Greenspace in Tigard, and part of it was likely a lifestyle choice.
Mr. Komarek agreed Tigard had more density and there were lifestyle choices to consider such
as green lawns and open spaces. Water as a commodity seemed cheap.
Mr. Knudsen said it was important to recognize what he said in terms of how the demand
numbers were developed. Recent per capita demand consumption was used in projecting the
future. Those per person consumption rates would be the same into the future, and that may be
an extremely conservative assumption meaning the numbers were likely on the high side in terms
of per capita projections.
Councilor McPeak noted the assumption at build out did not include any change in conservation
efforts. She thought some additional conservation could be assumed but understood this was the
worst case.
Mr. Knudsen replied that was correct. There was a long discussion at the staff level, and the
challenge was that there were a lot of uncertainties beyond just per capita consumption because
of conservation. The other wild card was something like global climate change and how that
would influence the numbers. There was a band of uncertainty with these numbers, but there
needed to be a reference point for planning. Another uncertainty had to do with Lake Oswego
providing service to the Stafford Basin.
Councilor Graham asked if the projections took into account growth in Happy Valley and
Damascus placing additional demands on the Clackamas River.
Mr. Knudsen replied the growth was taken into account in terms of water rights. Lake Oswego
currently had up to 38 mgd of water rights, so that was treated as available capacity to serve
future demands. He had not allocated any demands on these projections for serving those entities
on the east side of the Willamette. They were currently developing these same types of
agreements through the North Clackamas Water Commission that allowed Happy Valley, Sunrise
Water Authority, Gladstone, and Oak Lodge Water to pool their resources and water rights. He
reviewed the four identified scenarios: (1) Lake Oswego does nothing and stays with the current
infrastructure capacity of 16 mgd; (2) Lake Oswego's ultimate build out demand was projected at
24 mgd including the current wholesalers, so the logical scenario would be that Lake Oswego
planned to meet all of its future demands and build the infrastructure accordingly without
Tigard's being in the picture; (3) Lake Oswego had 32 mgd in senior water rights which was
highly valuable and could be used to serve both Lake Oswego and Tigard in a joint supply
scenario; and (4) was the same except the senior water rights of 32 mgd plus the junior water
right of 6 mgd for a total of 38 mgd.
In the do nothing scenario, Lake Oswego would not have to spend a lot of money up front.
However, a lot of the infrastructure was older than 40 years and rapidly approaching the end of
its design life. Some capital costs would be required to address demand issues. Based on those
projections and the growth curves the capacity of the existing infrastructure would be exceeded
within the next three years. Given that there were high operational risks Lake Oswego could be
in a situation that if pumps went out or if systems failed or the pipe broke the City would not be
City Council Minutes Page 5 of 13
November 14, 2006
able to meet the full capacity for some period of time. That was the worst case scenario, but the
City was near redline. Under this scenario, because the water was consumed by Lake Oswego
and its current wholesale customers, there was essentially no reliable capacity available for
Tigard.
In scenario #2 the system would be expanded to 24 mgd which was the ultimate demand of Lake
Oswego and its wholesale customers. Under that scenario Lake Oswego's needs were met with
some surplus capacity available for Tigard. As Lake Oswego grew, the Tigard capacity would be
reduced, but presumably Tigard could be served with available surplus. Given the additional
capacity and built in redundancy the risk of failure would be lower. The bad news was that it
was a small piece relative to what Tigard's demands were, so Tigard would need some other base
supply upon which to draw. Additionally 14 mgd of the existing water right would be left on the
table and was in jeopardy of being lost through the HB 3038 process or some other
environmental considerations. Given the fact that Tigard was looking at another primary supply,
he assumed Tigard would not be an owner in this scenario. There would be no redundancy other
than Lake Oswego's primary supply .on the Clackamas River.
Scenario #3 would capture the full 32 mgd senior water right through a joint Lake
Oswego/Tigard agreement. Now that Tigard would realize a firm supply beyond Lake Oswego's
needs it was assumed Tigard would become an owner or partner in the process. This was
important to the financial modeling that would be discussed next. In the shared ownership
scenario the capital costs for the improvements and the annual operating costs were shared by
both entities and spread over a wider population base. Lake Oswego's demands were met, and
there was a minimum of 8 mgd of firm capacity available for Tigard to meet most of its needs.
He pointed out the Bonita pump station and the Waluga Reservoir where there was a major
interconnect between the two systems that provided some redundancy. In the event that Lake
Oswego lost the Clackamas supply or had diminished capacity for some reason conceivably there
was an opportunity to feed back from the Tigard system into the Lake Oswego system to provide
some backup. That connection existed now at a very limited capacity, and it would have to be
resized for capacity. Theoretically there was redundancy by an existing connection, but it was a
very low capacity and was not configured to operate that way. Under this scenario it would be a
small effort to ensure flow in either direction to meet both communities' needs. There was
redundancy and additional capacity that lowered operational risks. There was still 6 mgd of
junior water rights left on the table. This scenario did not meet all of Tigard's needs into the
future.
Councilor Groznik explained that the water was not being lost; it was going to a different use.
He had some problems with the terminology.
Mr. Knudsen continued with scenario #4 of 38 mgd. This was similar to the previous scenario
and would provide 14 mgd of firm supply to Tigard and meet Lake Oswego's long term demands
of 24 mgd. Tigard would assume an ownership position, and the costs would be shared. The
redundancy improved with the additional capacity between the two systems. All existing water
rights were committed and met all but a very small portion of Tigard's needs. They did not go
beyond that because the water rights did not exist to be able to provide all the water under the
planning scenario to meet both Tigard's and Lake Oswego's ultimate needs.
Councilor-elect Buehner asked if there were any thoughts about the long-term viability of the
water rights.
Mr. Knudsen replied there was some vulnerability as other development occurred in the
Clackamas Basin. A junior water right was conceivably susceptible to curtailment in the future.
Mayor Hammerstad said if every water supplier along the Clackamas River were to use their
senior and junior water rights to their maximum, were their enough water rights to satisfy the in
stream water rights, or would the Water Master step in and curtail that usage by all of the
City Council Minutes Page 6 of 13
November 14, 2006
suppliers? She was curious about the water rights of all the other providers on the Clackamas
and where that put Lake Oswego.
Mr. Knudsen responded the basis of the water rights was first in time. Lake Oswego had a more
senior right than others based on the filing date so was protected. The last person with the last
water right would be the first one asked to curtail. The significance of junior and senior was
based on the filing for the in stream right. The priority would be the senior rights, in stream
rights, with the junior rights being the most vulnerable. They had taken a close look at all the
users and the rights along the Clackamas River. Basically, it looked like the River was fully
allocated which meant that between the existing junior rights, in stream rights, and senior rights
there was no additional water left on the Clackamas River. It all depended on what happened in
any given year with the weather, so potentially junior rights could be impacted by the Water
Master's asking for some curtailment.
Mayor Hammerstad was more concerned about growth in Damascus and Happy Valley. Would
they be in a position of using water rights superior to Lake Oswego's and where would that leave
Lake Oswego?
Mr. Komarek replied Lake Oswego's senior water right was fourth in line from the most senior
rights on the River. South Fork Water Board held the most senior rights, and CRW had one
senior to the in stream right but junior to Lake Oswego's. The sum total of South Fork was about
75 cfs.
Councilor Graham asked with all the concerns and development on the east side if conservation
efforts would be instituted.
Mr. Komarek replied that in order to have access to undeveloped water one had to demonstrate
to WRD that everything to which one had access was being used wisely before further access was
granted. That was part of the Water Management and Conservation Plan requirement. Lake
Oswego had to demonstrate that the 16 mgd was being managed and conserved to the best of the
City's ability before asking for more. The City submitted its extension plan and will provide the
management plan early next year.
Councilor Graham hoped that Lake Oswego users would buy into that program. She asked for
an explanation of Water Master.
Mr. Knudsen said WRD was responsible for management of the state's waters. One of its roles
was to ensure that everyone holding water rights were not taking more than what was allocated
under the permit. The Water Master was responsible for ensuring the law was followed.
Mr. Komarek added that there were District Water Masters who were called upon to adjudicate
the use of water rights under low flow conditions.
Mayor Dirksen heard concerns about new development on the east side that would possibly
curtail of existing water rights. He asked if newer development and the water rights going along
with that would be junior to those already in place. Was it possible that water rights could be
transferred to someone else?
Mr. Knudsen replied generally not. However, some of those entities had senior water rights.
Damascus, Happy Valley, and Sunrise Water Authority did not happen to be any of those entities.
The water rights were still limited to a certain mgd. Just because they were senior did not mean
they could get more. There was really no more water on the Clackamas River.
Councilor Harding asked the unused water rights of the senior holders. What was the capacity
they could tap into?
Mr. Komarek had that data but had not brought it with him. Lake Oswego for example had
more than 50% of its total unused. South Fork Water Board probably had at least 50% of its
authorized use undeveloped.
City Council Minutes Page 7 of 13
November 14, 2006
Councilor-elect Johnson thought the City was working on the assumption that the senior water
rights were secure. How great would the impact need to be to affect Lake Oswego's senior water
right.
Mr. Komarek did not believe that was known at this time. If one looked at it in terms of permits
rather than population, then only so much could be taken from the River. When one talked about
how the Water Master might adjudicate permits on the River, then in a worst case scenario where
everyone was using their permits South Fork would be protected first then Lake Oswego and on
down the line. Those with junior permits would be subject to restrictions because of in stream
rights.
Mr. Prosser heard a lot of interest in getting more information on water rights. There were a
number of technical reports available through the public works departments.
Councilor Groznik asked the ranking of Lake Oswego's junior water right.
Mr. Komarek said the priority date was 1973, and there were a few permit holders on the river
with permits senior to that.
Mr. Koellermeier commented this was an interesting issue, and some of the other entities on the
Clackamas River were actually investing millions of dollars developing their junior rights. They
were betting that by having the infrastructure in place they would be better off when the day
came that there was not enough water for everyone.
Councilor Groznik asked if the sum of the senior water rights and perhaps duty rights equaled
the present flow of the Clackamas River.
Mr. Komarek explained right now total municipal permits on the river totaled between 290 and
300 cfs. About 210 cfs of those permits were senior to the in stream right. Last summer the
municipal permit holders used a total of about 110 cfs on a peak day. If one looked at last year as
an example, one would not say the Clackamas River was over allocated. There was enough
water to support the in stream right plus the municipal diversions. That could vary with the year.
On average the River flow was from 750 cfs to 1,000 cfs. The in stream right went from 400 cfs
part of the year to 640 cfs between September 15 and July 1. Even if more water rights were
allocated they would be potentially worthless except during very high flows.
Mr. Worth said early in the project a cross section of policy makers was interviewed to
determine what information was needed and to identity shared values and principles. In general
the policy makers were interested, open-minded, and hopeful that some solution might be found.
Cost was one of the main issues. Everyone was willing to look at the proposal because it was
evident what motivated the other jurisdictions. They also heard questions about the timing of
public involvement. The results of the stakeholder interviews were fashioned into values and
principles that captured the collective guidance. Mr. Worth reviewed the statements. Secure
Lake Oswego's and Tigard's water future ensuring both communities can meet their long-term
growth needs. Demonstrate cost savings and favorable rates when compared with other supply
options. Retain or obtain ownership interest in long-term drinking water resources. Retain and
perfect Lake Oswego's full Clackamas River water rights. Design the Lake Oswego/Tigard
partnership to offer parity, fairness, balance. Develop redundant water resources for backup and
emergencies. Promote equitable distribution of natural resources throughout the region.
Communicate openly with policy makers and the public education them on the communities'
current water sources, water system assets including water rights, future infrastructure needs, and
various supply options. Nurture cooperation among Lake Oswego, Tigard, and surrounding
communities that is beneficial to drinking water and other public services. Expand Lake
Oswego's and Tigard's leadership in regional water supply decision making.
Councilor-elect Buchner asked what kind of control West Linn had in terms of expanding the
water treatment plant.
City Council Minutes Page 8 of 13
November 14, 2006
Mr. Komarek replied some. improvements were made to the plant about five years ago, and
Lake Oswego had to go through a condition use process. It was in a neighborhood, but the
zoning would allow for an expansion of the plant facility subject to conditional use approval.
Commissioner Scheiderich asked if Lake Oswego had considered other supply options, and the
response was that Lake Oswego was concentrating on its rights on the Clackamas River.
Commissioner Carroll asked if Lake Oswego had ever considered relocating its treatment plant.
Mr. Komarek replied Lake Oswego was asked that question during the last process with West
Linn, and there were some people interested in having the plant go away. No suitable relocation
site had been identified because it was tied to the intake site.
Mr. Knudsen said that was one of the first questions he had asked since it seemed like a viable
concept. Staff took a cursory look and confirmed there was not really another good place. Part
of the expansion envisioned to accommodate those demands could be done on the current plant
site and in the current footprint to minimize the community impact.
Councilor Groznik asked if a conditional use permit were needed if the improvements could be
done in the existing footprint.
Mr. Komarek replied there would be new faculties on site. Lake Oswego owned a little over six
acres, so it looked at least preliminarily that the plant could be expanded to meet the ultimate
treatment capacity of the City's total rights.
Councilor Graham thought the values and principles glaringly did not include conservation.
Councilor Wilson heard two engineers loosely refer to ownership. He understood the water
rights could not be sold; but for Tigard the ownership question was a very high priority. Tigard
had at least four options for water, so the degree of security in that ownership factored very high.
Mr. Koellermeier responded he had not wanted to get hung up on the term `ownership' because
there were different ways to get there. From Tigard's perspective ownership had to do with long-
term security and the ability to use SDCs. That would be addressed during the governance
discussion.
Commissioner Carroll suggested that `equity partner' might be a better term.
Councilor Harding said that while the values and principles were all good, the usage charts
showed that Tigard would not get its total use out of the Clackamas River venture. She found the
breakdown confusing and the charts unclear, partly because Tigard did not have a lot of buildable
land. All of Tigard's needs would not be met by one source.
Mr. Knudsen addressed preliminary results from the technical analysis. Key system
components were the Clackamas River intake, the raw water pipeline, the treatment plant,
finished water pipeline, Waluga Reservoir, and the Bonita pump station. The pump stations
associated with the raw water intake and treatment plant needed to be upgraded. A pump station
would also be needed to get the water into the Tigard system. These would not be new pump
stations, but they could significantly add to the capacity of the existing pump station. He
outlined the intake component needs based on the four scenarios. At the intake in the 16 mgd
scenario #1 some upgrading was required to the physical structure and pump capacity increased.
Overall the structure could accommodate it, and the screen area was large enough to make this
work. In the 24 mgd scenario #2 the pumps would need to be increased, and the pump station
would have to be modified. At 32 mgd it became cheaper to build a new intake than to try to
rehabilitate and modify the existing intake to handle the capacity. Similarly at 38 mgd a new
intake on the Clackamas would be required.
He addressed the 27-inch diameter raw water pipeline that was currently sized to handle 16 mgd.
It could carry more water with additional pressure but at the expense of using more energy. In
the long-term investment it was better to replace the pipeline. At 24 mgd it would need to be
City Council Minutes Page 9 of 13
November 14, 2006
replaced with 36-inch diameter pipe and 42-inch pipe for 32 mgd and 38 mgd. In all of these
cases he assumed the new pipe would take all the capacity of the scenario, and the existing pipe
could be used as a back up.
At 16 mgd the treatment plant was at capacity; however, there were some shortcomings with the
plant. The discharge pumps needed to be upgraded to increase the pumping capacity and
reliability of the pump station. The surge suppression tank needed to be replaced at a large
capital cost in any scenario. Scenarios 2 through 4 generally involved expanding the plant within
the current plant site. He concluded that conventional treatment made the most sense and was
the most cost effective long-term solution. It was possible to get the expanded plant up to 38
mgd on the current six-acre plant site with a fairly compact layout.
The finish water pipe was currently capable of handling the 16 mgd, so no significant
improvements would be required. A lot of the pipe was in good shape and had the capacity to
handle the 24 mgd. There were segments that would need to be paralleled to provide additional
capacity. As the mgd increased there would need to be additional, larger parallel pipes.
Mr. Knudsen addressed the storage facility. Depending upon other storage in the system one
might be able to avoid adding more storage at Waluga. In the 32 and 38 mgd scenarios there
were high flows going to Tigard, so a lot of water was going through this site to the pump station.
A wide spot in the pipe was needed to change the flow rate and run the treatment plant at a fairly
constant rate and provide operational flexibility.
Finally, the Bonita Road pump station under the 16 and 24 mgd scenarios would work because
there was relatively limited capacity going to Tigard. There might be some minor upgrades at
limited capital cost as compared to the 32 and 38 mgd scenarios. In those cases it would be
necessary to replace the pump station likely at its current site because of the hydraulics and
physical layout.
Mr. Knudsen summarized. Each component was run through the different supply scenarios. At
24 mgd to meet Lake Oswego's ultimate demand there were significant system improvements
required. Those were essentially the same system improvements required to be able to expand to
serve Tigard. Going back to the demand projection graphs and given the limitations, one saw at
16 mgd Lake Oswego would go over the line in about 2009, and at the end of the line was the
basis for the 24 mgd scenario. To serve Tigard with a system capacity of 32 mgd, the line was
crossed about 2020. Under the 38 mgd scenario the line would be crossed in about 2035. The
construction time table for the 32 and 3 8 mgd scenarios would be more than three but less than
five years including design.
Mayor Hammerstad asked Mr. Knudsen if he had looked at the capacity of other intakes such
as South Fork which was less than 10 years old. Did they have excess capacity?
Mr. Knudsen said there was additional capacity available at that intake, but the challenge would
be to get it down and across the River. By the time Lake Oswego bought into a share of the
capacity, upgraded the facility to increase available capacity, and built the raw water pipeline to
connect to the existing system the cost would be about the same as building a new intake.
Mayor Hammerstad challenged that Lake Oswego's intake was within a mile of the mouth of
the Clackamas River and downstream from the other intakes and perhaps a wastewater treatment
plant. If Lake Oswego did go in with another intake farther up the River, there might be less
treatment. She would like to know the relationship of cost under the scenarios of building a new
intake versus building the transmission pipes.
Mr. Knudsen would provide information. From an environmental standpoint there was value in
being at the lower end because the water stayed in the River a longer period of time. However,
water taken out above was not available downstream. From an environmental and permitting
standpoint, the state liked it when water was taken out further downstream even though one was
more vulnerable. The next step would be to address the costs of the various scenarios and what
City Council Minutes Page 10 of 13
November 14, 2006
that meant in terms of the aggregate alternatives particularly for Tigard as compared to other
alternatives. Once those were determined the numbers would be crunched into what that meant
in terms of rates. Some assumptions would be made as to how Lake Oswego would be
compensated for existing infrastructure and how costs were shared. These assumptions would be
a starting point for discussions. He would prepare a draft report to share with staff and the policy
makers for direction.
Councilor Wilson said in looking at the graphs from Lake Oswego's eyes going alone with 24
mgd the City would be good for 40 years. Almost was much money would be spent as scenario
#3, but it could be amortized over 40 years. The green option was obsolete almost the day it
opened. He asked if the projections were accurate. He suggested researching the relationship
between lot size and per capita consumption. The per capita projection might actually go down.
Councilor-elect Jordan asked how Stafford build out was considered as one of Lake Oswego's
wholesalers.
Mr. Knudsen replied it was essentially treated, the same as the rest of the service area based on
zoning which resulted in a population of 7,000.
Councilor-elect Jordan asked if the City currently owned property next to the Waluga
Reservoir.
Mr. Knudsen replied that it did.
A participant asked when water rights might conceivably be lost.
Mr. Komarek responded there was no answer at this time. He did not know of a case in which a
municipal water provider relinquished its rights or had been challenged by a third party.
Commissioner Carroll thought the intent of the legislature was to move people in this direction.
There were areas like Tigard that did not have adequate water supplies, and they were trying to
push the `haves' together with the `have nots.'
Councilor Groznik did not see public participation mentioned in the next steps and did not
understand how a policy decision could be formulated by February.
Mr. Worth replied public participation was an open question. Everyone mentioned public
education because of the project's complexity. One of the leading questions was when that
process should begin. One view was that it should wait until there was actually something to tell
the public. Another was that the public education piece should start right away because it was so
complicated. One question was how the policy makers felt about those view, and another was
where the priority should be. He provided a draft public outreach strategy that tried to harness
the suggestions gathered during the interview process.
Councilor Groznik thought the process should have already started because there were groups
in Lake Oswego who were already concerned. The public was already talking about a number of
major infrastructure improvements.
Councilor-elect Buehner was concerned about going public before there was much information.
Councilor-elect Jordan said one of the biggest concerns was that this was an infrastructure
problem for Lake Oswego and Tigard that existed no matter how it was solved. The public
needed to know the problem existed, and it needed to be kept out in the open.
Councilor McPeak commented that the Lake Oswego Council was just coming up to speed.
After the next work shop they might be able to narrow down the options into workable sets of
ideas to handle public discussion more productively.
Mayor Dirksen said in the corporate world when one went to the boss with a problem one
should have a solution. When the public was showed this problem there needed to be some
answers.
City Council Minutes Page 11 of 13
November 14, 2006
Councilor Groznik did not see that as public involvement but rather as public dictation.
Councilor Turchi liked to have time to appreciate the complexity of problems, and he did not
feel had had sufficient time to consider this issue. He was surprised about where Lake Oswego
was in terms of its own capacity and infrastructure needs and felt he needed a greater
understanding. This information needed to be available to the public. The values and principles
looked good, but he had not had the time to really think about them or consider their
ramifications. He did not want to be pushed to a decision too soon and wanted the public to have
a chance to catch up with the Council.
Mr. Worth heard embedded in those comments the need to talk with fellow Councilors and
discuss Lake Oswego's and, Tigard's problems.
Mayor Hammerstad observed this was an example of starting with the recognition of a problem
and working toward a solution. She had been involved in numerous activities in which problems
were identified. People will say they did not know about the problem and ask why they were not
included, but this was just the beginning. There were possibilities and limitations, and she
thought if a public involvement process were started with the existing information that people
would make up their own answers which would be the worst case scenario. Until there was more
information about options and costs and responsibilities she did not think the entities were ready
for public involvement. This was recognition of Lake Oswego's need to protect and perfect its
water rights. Was there a way to do that and solve two entities' challenges? She did not believe
there was enough information right now to take out to the public.
Councilor Groznik thought the public should be asked if conservation was on the table. That
issue had not been addressed. The problem was being attacked with the solution of developing
more water rights.
Mayor Hammerstad replied Lake Oswego was working on its Water Management Conservation
Plan that would identify conservation measures.
Councilor Groznik had not seen anything about that, and the citizens have not been asked. He
felt the City would be making a dramatic mistake if it did not involve the public now with what it
had, and let them own the decision.
Councilor McPeak thought Councilor Groznik had some interesting points. However, it seemed
as if more issues were being added to an already complex problem. She was concerned if other
issues were added, the Council would get nowhere.
Commissioner Winn commented as in many things there was too much information. He looked
for a simple summary of key points to address which to him was the protection of water rights.
Tigard was interested in being part of Lake Oswego's efforts in a mutual way so that Tigard
could have water, have some ownership, and help Lake Oswego get its capacity up. He
recommended a succinct presentation to the citizens.
Councilor Woodruff appreciated the opportunity to meet. This issue was probably more on
Tigard's radar screen because Lake Oswego did not have to worry a lot about its water source.
Lake Oswego had an issue with its infrastructure. This partnership may work if Tigard can get
source and Lake Oswego can get help funding infrastructure improvements. In that case
constituent needs were met in both cities. It had to be a solution for both sides so the public
could see it as a creative possibility that helped everyone. There would be some sticker shock
when people found out how the costs, and they will ask elected officials what they had done to
ameliorate the costs. There was an opportunity to do something that was very useful, but a lot of
work needed to be done by both Councils.
The group commented that this workshop was helpful and recognized that additional work
needed to be done in each of the jurisdictions.
City Council Minutes Page 12 of 13
November 14, 2006
Mayor Hammerstad thanked all parties for their perseverance and felt this was the beginning of
a relationship between the entities that she hoped would result in good decisions for the
constituents. The consultants and engineers presented this complex problem in a way that was
understandable and encouraged future discussions. It was an opportunity to set an example for
cooperative sharing of a limited resource.
Mayor Dirksen felt this problem was being addressed in a timely manner so action could be
taken before 90% capacity was reached. It was clear this was only a first step and that the policy
makers would need to have many more discussions. Some questions were answered while others
were raised. It was clear to him another round table such as this was needed in the near future,
and offered Tigard as the venue.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Christie /s/
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON January 22, 2007
Judie Hammerstad /s/
udie Hammerstad, Mayor
City Council Minutes Page 13 of 13
November 14, 2006
Agenda Item No. 3 a-
Meeting of 3, x 0 0 7
FIFTH TUESDAY MEETING -January 30, 2007
Council: Mayor Craig Dirksen
Councilor Gretchen Buehner
Councilor Sydney Sherwood
Councilor Tom Woodruff
Facilitator: Basil Christopher
Staff: Carol Krager
Citizens: David Noles Betty Fletcher
Bill Hickok Carl Miller
Lynn Hurd Christine Chongway
Susan Hurd Frank U. Chongway
Scott Davenport Warren Krager
Paul Fletcher
Press: My-Thuan Tran, Oregonian
The meeting started at 7:02 p.m. Citizen Facilitator Christopher welcomed everyone
to the meeting and described the Fifth Tuesday meeting process and the role of the
facilitator.
CODE ENFORCEMENT -
David Noles, 10630 SW Park St., Tigard - said he attended the Fifth Tuesday
meeting in May, 2006 expressing concerns about a large structure the neighbor
behind his house built. He thanked Council for working with staff to change the
Code interpretation which had allowed large structures to be built in yards if they
were attached to a house by a breezeway.
Subsequent to Mr. Noles attending the meeting, the Code Compliance Officer noted
code violations on his property, including an RV cover in the setback. He has since
removed this structure but said he wanted the process to be fair. He said he knew of
many such structures in Tigard and wondered why his was the only one that had to
be removed.
On August 25, 2006, Mr. Noles received an e-mail from the Community
Development Director stating that he was going to instruct the City's Code
Compliance Officer to do a survey of the area and see if there were other structures
in setbacks. Mr. Noles e-mailed the City in October asking about the survey and was
told there wasn't any survey and wasn't supposed to be one.
Subsequent a-mails from the Code Compliance Officer to Mr. Noles referred to 10-
12 open cases for structures in setbacks. Mr. Noles requested a copy of that list on
December 20 and again on December 27, 2006. He said he placed calls to the Code
Compliance Officer, the Current Planning Director and the Community
January 30, 2007 Fifth Tuesday Meeting
Development Director but received no response. On January 3, 2007, he e-mailed
the City Manager and received the information the next day.
Mr. Noles distributed a copy of the list to the Council. He noted that on the list
there were 11 property owners notified by the City that their structures must be
removed or brought into compliance, and seven additional property owners whose
notifications were pending. Mr. Noles said he drove around to see the listed
properties, but in driving past these homes, he saw six other instances (not on the
list). He asked, "If you are really going to enforce a setback law you need to enforce
the whole lot." He asked each of the Council members to look in their own
neighborhoods to see how many people had garden sheds that are not five feet from
their back fence or five feet from their side fence. He said, "This is an unenforceable
code and the way the Code Enforcement office is running now, it is just irritating the
citizens." He said some structures had been up for years, were not an eyesore, and
no complaints had been received on them.
Councilor Sherwood asked if there was a safety issue in that the fire department
would not have access. Mr. Notes said he didn't think these structures were a
life/safety issue. Councilor Buchner said the fire department must have room to
carry equipment to the back of a house
Councilor Woodruff said Council heard a proposal from the Community
Development Department last week about an encroachment process to ensure
compliance based on complaints or safety issues. He said in some cases people had
built something that blocked sidewalks or interfered with traffic. He said it was not
his understanding that the City was going to go out and cite people on a drive-
through when there hadn't been any complaints.
Mayor Dirksen said he was aware of most of the e-mails going back and forth. He
said Council's place was not to get involved in individual cases, but to set policy
which would be administered by the City Manager and staff. He said that as the
City gets older, building becomes denser, and people are building on smaller lots,
much closer together. He said this requires a stricter adherence to codes. He said
there was a proposed revocable easement process that would allow people to apply
for an easement that may allow some of these structures.
Councilor Woodruff said he was unaware of any effort to single out Mr. Noles
because he had come forth with these issues. He asked how many in the audience
were present because they were cited. (Most raised their hands.)
Betty Fletcher, 10910 SW Fairhaven, Tigard - said she has a pending citation for an
RV cover in her driveway. She spoke about the issue of not being able to see the
road when backing out of her driveway because the neighbor has two rows of
juniper bushes in their front yard.
Councilor Buchner said that overhanging trees and bushes are also a problem in
other neighborhoods. She said shrubbery can be addressed in the Tree Code update.
January 30, 2007 Fifth Tuesday Meeting
Councilor Sherwood said the Code is on the City's website, and also available at the
Permit Center counter. The audience noted that it is written in " legalese" and hard
to understand. Councilor Sherwood also said the Comprehensive Plan is being
updated.
Warren Krager, 10655 SW Park Street, Tigard - said he is dealing with the boat port
issue now, having gotten a building permit and is in the process of moving it. He
noted that in just a few minutes, he can drive through neighborhoods and see dozens
of these structures. He asked how seriously the City wanted to push this issue?
Councilor Buehner said it depends on what part of the City you live in; in newer
areas this would absolutely not be allowed due to CCR's.
Mayor Dirksen said Council should consider the policy as it now stands and whether
an adjustment needs to be made. He cautioned though, that Council's suggestions to
grandfather older construction may not be allowed, if the City Attorney says there
are conflicts due to State law or case law.
Mayor Dirksen said there is precedent for allowing established construction to go
through the same process as a new building. One option generally offered to people
who built or remodeled something years ago without a building permit (and they are
caught) is to require that they get one now. It will be inspected and if it passes there
is no reason they can't keep their building. He suggested this could be written into a
policy.
Councilor Sherwood suggested discussing this at an upcoming Council Workshop
Meeting. She said staff would be there to answer questions and the public can attend
but not give testimony. She said, "Citizens can get back to Council with feedback on
what they liked and didn't like."
David Noles said he like the proposed revocable easement idea. He also offered a
suggestion to get city-wide compliance in a long-term but reasonable way. He said
this process could be put into place as a property comes on the market to be sold. A
permit and inspection of the home would be required. If any outbuildings,
remodels, sheds, RV covers, etc., are determined to be in setbacks or are found to be
substandard, they would have to be repaired/eliminated at that time. He said if he
was moving and was told he had to move his lawnmower shed, it would not be
much of a problem since he was moving anyway. He said the inspections at time of
sale would generate money to pay for themselves and he knows that staff is having
to take time in their already busy schedules now to check out all these structures.
Councilor Sherwood said, "That is what concerns me. We've got all these things
that we need to be getting done and we've got people out now because we said if
you're going to fix one you have to fix them all."
Councilor Sherwood said Mr. Noles' idea might be a good compromise. Councilor
Buehner said each property would have to be reviewed and documented properly.
January 30, 2007 Fifth Tuesday Meeting
A question was raised about the Cityscape article that said setbacks range 15-30 feet
for the front yard.
Councilor Buchner said there is a strict code for setbacks for garages. She said the
20' garage setback is so a vehicle parked in front of a garage, it cannot extend out
over the sidewalk (or where the sidewalk would be if you had one).
Scott Davenport, 13410 SW Ash Avenue, Tigard - received a notice that said he had
to remove his structure by January 31, 2007. He said he has moved it back 21' from
the street. But according to the aerial photos he was sent, his front porch is also in
violation of the front setback. He asked, "Do I have to tear my house down? Am I
going to get a citation on this?"
Councilor Sherwood said Council would call the City tomorrow and ask for a hold to
be put on this until we can discuss it at a workshop session.
Councilor Buchner said a lot of houses in older parts of the City are within the front
setbacks because road width requirements were different when they were built. She
cited Gaarde and Walnut Streets as examples. She said that sometimes houses end up
in the right-of-way because their street is widened.
Mayor Dirksen mentioned the church on Bonita Road, which has an entrance roof
peak that hangs over the sidewalk. He said that strictly speaking, the porch is not in
compliance with the Code, but because the church was there before the right-of-way
was widened, it was allowed. He said it is possible that the same case might apply to
Mr. Davenport's house.
Councilor Woodruff asked the audience if anyone felt they were on the list not
because there was a complaint or safety issue, but because of a Planning staff drive-
by. Most hands were raised. Bill Hickok said his neighbors on either side of him
were present and they had not complained about each other. Some people said they
heard from Mr. Noles that they were on a list to receive a citation but hadn't yet.
Councilors Woodruff and Sherwood said they didn't realize this was what the City
was doing.
Councilor Sherwood said the Council would check into the reason why Mr. Noles
did not receive an answer right away. Mr. Noles said up until that point the City had
been responsive. Councilor Woodruff said citizens can always send correspondence
directly to Council.
It was asked how follow-up information will be given. Councilor Sherwood said
people will be notified in writing so they have a copy. Mr. Noles' asked, "So
basically, everything is in a holding pattern for now?" Council and Mayor Dirksen
responded that the City Manager would be contacted the next day so staff knows to
put this on hold until Council can discuss potential solutions with staff.
Councilor Sherwood said she liked Mr. Noles' suggestion but cautioned that it must
go through a lot of review, including a legal review. She said she doesn't want
January 30, 2007 Fifth Tuesday Meeting
someone, when faced with removing a structure before they sell their home, to have
to come up with thousands of dollars. Councilor Sherwood said the City would
continue to proactively educate people though the Cityscape. She also suggested
that people be told, "Just because you see something at your neighbor's, don't
assume that you can do the same thing." Councilor Buehner said, "My Neighbor
did it - is not a valid defense." Councilor Sherwood said, "We need to do lot of
education before we make people get their permits, so people understand." She
suggested holding a few Town Halls with staff and Council present to answer
questions.
Councilor Sherwood said, "In your neighborhood, it's an older neighborhood and
you've all done it, and so there are no complaints. But I can guarantee you that if
you went into another neighborhood that is all built up and someone sticks a great
big cover and puts their big RV out there you'd have people in here screaming and
yelling..."
Mr. Noles said that is why he felt it should be left as a complaint-driven process.
Councilor Woodruff asked if everyone who wanted to had spoken. There were no
further comments on the code enforcement issue.
GAX TAX/TRAFFIC -
Councilor Buehner said she had expected people to come to speak about the gas tax.
Councilor Sherwood gave some background on the gas tax saying that the biggest
complaint they hear is about traffic getting through Tigard. She said 99W is a state
highway and the amount of money they have for it keeps dropping. She said Tigard
asked ODOT if they would work with them if Tigard put up money towards solving
some of the traffic issues. She said the county is fixing the Hall Blvd. intersection
which, unless the Greenburg intersection is also worked on, doesn't give the full
impact.
Councilor Sherwood said a citizen task force figured that a 3-cent per gallon tax over
three-five years would help generate between 3.5 -5 million dollars to fix the
intersection on Greenburg Road.
Councilor Buehner said this is a way for people who actually use the road to be
charged as 50% of the traffic on Highway 99 is non-Tigard residents. She said it
would be more fair to have people that use the road help contribute to solving the
problem.
A citizen asked if people wouldn't figure out that they can drive ten miles further
down the road to avoid paying the extra tax? Business owners in Tigard would be
hurt.
Councilor Buehner, who chaired the citizen task force prior to being elected to the
Council, said they listened to the gas station owners who met with them and argued
January 30, 2007 Fifth Tuesday Meeting
that the state should increase their gas tax. She said that the ordinance specifically
states that if the Washington Country or Oregon gas taxes increase, Tigard will
reduce their tax so it is revenue-neutral. She said since nearby cities are all facing the
same issues it is very likely that they will all look at doing this.
Mayor Dirksen noted that Multnomah County already has a 3-cent gas tax..
Councilor Sherwood said she has figured out that this gas tax will add 54 cents each
time she fills her tank, and she can't even buy a cup of coffee for 54 cents. She said
if that extra money put towards improving Highway 99W will help her in the long
run to get home or to her mother's faster, she felt it would be worth it.
Councilor Buchner said that if you drove an average of 12,000 miles per year it
would cost only $15.
A citizen asked if Tigard had to set up some infrastructure to collect this.
Councilor Buchner said the state already has the infrastructure to collect gas taxes
and this is the cheapest collection model, so money is not wasted on administrative
functions. She also noted that by doing both projects at the same time we only tear
the street up one time, and money can be saved on construction costs.
Scott Davenport asked about how to address developers buying a lot, getting rid of
the one house on the lot and then putting up a thousand apartments, which increases
traffic unbelievably.
Councilor Sherwood suggested one way to get involved as a citizen is to come to
discussions on the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Councilor Buchner said the Transportation Task Force is considering adding a city
TIF, or Transportation Impact Fee. She said there is a County TIF but it is not
enough. This would allow the City to start building a fund to start addressing
collector street issues.
Frank Chongway, 11242 SW 81', Tigard - said he lives near the church (at the old
GM Center) which is adding a 1,000 seat auditorium. He said the auditorium traffic
is not going to be allowed access onto Hwy99 which will put thousands more cars
onto their street which is already backed up because of Costco traffic. He said, "We
can't even turn onto Pfaffle Street because because nobody lets us out." He said
one of the engineers for the new office building construction was trying to work with
ODOT to reverse the lights but they weren't receptive. Councilor Buchner asked
Mr. Chongway to write something up and send it to her and she would look into it
further.
January 30, 2007 Fifth Tuesday Meeting
ACTION ITEMS:
• Mayor Dirksen will look into the difficulty Mr. Noles experienced
getting public information.
• Review code compliance with staff related to RV and driveway coverings
(set back requirements). Consider allowing variances unless there is a
safety issue, such as a tree blocking an intersection.
• Mayor Dirksen will notify the City Manager to put a hold
on any actions regarding setback violations until the Council has had a
chance for more discussion in an upcoming Workshop Meeting. Citizens
will be notified by mail of their status.
• Councilor Sherwood suggested discussing this at a Workshop Meeting
which would include planning staff. She said the audience could attend -
not to make comments - but to listen and then let Council know what they
agree or disagree with. A priority will have to be assigned to staff (Which
projects can be dropped so they can work on this one?) They are already
busy working on the downtown plan and comprehensive plan update.
• Councilor Buehner will look into Mr. Chongway's traffic complaint
when she receives his letter.
Councilor Woodruff thanked everyone for coming. The meeting was adjourned at
8:35 p.m.
I/Admin/Carol/FifthTuesday/ 070130
January 30, 2007 Fifth Tuesday Meeting
#w` MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council Agenda Item No. 3- - C
C0~10y For Agenda of February 13, 2007
FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
RE: Three-Month Council Meeting Calendar
DATE: February 5, 2007
Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk
February
13* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
19 Monday President's Day Holiday - City Hall Closed
20* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
27* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
March
13* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
20* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
27* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
April
10* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
17* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall (Tentatively: Joint Meeting with
Intergovernmental Water Board and Lake Oswego City Council)
24* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
30 Monday Budget Committee Meeting - 6:30 pm, Library Community Room
hadmtcity counciM-month calendar tor02-18-07 cc mtg.doc
Agenda Item No. 3 a ,
Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2007 Meeting of ,_TP 13, X00 7
Meeting Date: February 13, 2007 Meeting Date: February 20, 2007 Meeting Date: February 27, 2007
Meeting Type/Time'. Business/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Workshop/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m.
Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall
Greeter: Gus Greeter: Greeter:
Materials Due @ 5: January 30, 2007 Materials Due @ 5: February 6, 2007 Materials Due @ 5: February 13, 2007
Study Session Workshop Agenda Study Session
TMC Amendment Discussion re: Solid Waste Budget Committee - SI - Bob S. - 45 min. CCAC - Annual Report - Phil N. - 30 min.
Management - Dennis - 20 min. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission - Jaywalking Ordinance Discussion - Bill D.- 10 min.
Exec. Sess. - Real Prop. Update - Dennis - 15 min. & Comp Plan Update - Tom C. - 60 min. - SI Graffiti Ordinance Discussion - Bill D.- 10 min.
Burnham Street Update - Gus - 15 min. Joint Meeting with Citizens for Community IGA w/Clean Water Services for Fanno Creek
Involvement - Duane R. - 30 min. - SI Master Plan - Phil N.- 10 min.
Tree Board Revisions to Development Code - Consent Agenda
Ron B. - 30 min. Establish Fanno Creek Park/Public Use Area
Consent Agenda Code Enforcement & Compliance Discussion - Steering Committee - Phil N. - RES
IGA w/Clean Water Services for Sanitary Sewer Tom C., Dick B., Christine D. - 35 min. CCAC- Re-establish member terms
Master Plan preparation - Tom C. - Phil N. - RES
Approve Budget Amend. # 12 for Sewer Master Appoint PRAB members - Dennis K. - RES
Plan Project Additional Funding -Michelle- RES LCRB- Award Contract for Fuel Delivery & Card
Disband Planned Dev. Code Review Comm. Lock Services - Dennis K.
CD - RES IGA w/Clean Water Services for Fanno Creek
IGA w/Wash. Co. re West Nile Virus - Dennis Master Plan - Phil N.
Authorize City Mgr. to sign Settlement Agreement Business Meeting
w/BSA - Loreen M.-RES Chamber of Commerce Rep. - 10 min.
Business Meeting Sunrise Lane LUBA Remand to revise ordinance
THS Student Envoy -10 min. re continued application of Goal 5 in Bull Mt.
Annexation Policy Discussion - Tom C. - 60 min. Community Plan - PHQJ -ORD -Tom C. 30 min.
Consider Tualatin River Bike/Ped Bridge
Naming - Dennis - 10 min. -RES
Review City Encroachment Permit Policy -
Nancy W. - 30 min.
CCDA - Downtown Urban Design - Tom C.-35 min.
Sen. Ginny Burdick and Rep. Larry Galizio -
Legislative Update - Liz N. - 30 min.
Time Avail: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: 70 min. Time Avail: 200 min. - Time Scheduled: 200 min. Time Avail: 135 min. - Time Scheduled 145 min.
Time Left: 65 min. Time Left: 0 min. Time Left: - 10 min.
2/6/2007 1
Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2007
Meeting Date: March 13, 2007 Meeting Date: March 20, 2007 Meeting Date: March 27, 2007
Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Workshop/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m.
Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall
Greeter: Greeter: Greeter:
Materials Due @ 5: February 27, 2007 Materials Due @ 5: March 6, 2007 Materials Due @ 5: March 13, 2007
Study Session Workshop Agenda Study Session
Exec. Session: Pending Litigation re Joint Meeting with the Intergovernmental Review Proposed Paid Time off Policy for
Measure 37 - Tim R. - 20 min. Water Board - Dennis - 30 min. Mgmt. Group Employees - Sandy - 30 min.
Exec. Session: Labor Relations - Sandy -20 min. Joint Meeting with Library Board - Margaret B. -
Discussion of Cross Connection Code Updates 30 min. - SI
Dennis K. - 20 min. GIS Pilot Project - Bob S. - 15 min.
Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda
LCRB - Award Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Test Well Drilling Contract - B. Rager
LCRB - Award Water Building Renovation
Business Meeting Contract - B. Rager
THS Student Envoy - 10 min. Receive and File Annual Solid Waste Financial
Residential Zoning Dist. Regulations Amendment Report - Public Works
Legis. Public Hearing - Tom C. - 30 min.
Amend TMC regarding Solid Waste Mgmt.
Enforcement Officers - Dennis K. 10 min.-ORD Business Meeting
LCRB - Fanno Creek Master Plan Contract - Chamber of Commerce Rep. - 10 min.
Phil. N. - 30 min. Measure 37 Hearings (3) Need RTS
Time Avail: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: 80 min. Time Avail: 200 min. - Time Scheduled: 75 min. Time Avail: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: 10 min.
Time Left: 55 min. Time Left: 125 min. Time Left: 125 min.
2/6/2007 1
Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2007
Meeting Date: April 10, 2007 Meeting Date: April 17, 2007 Meeting Date: April 24, 2007
Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Workshop/6:30 Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:00 p.m.
Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall
Greeter: Greeter: Greeter:
Materials Due @ 5: March 27, 2007 Materials Due @ 5: April 3, 2007 Materials Due @ 5: April 10, 2007
Study Session Workshop Agenda Study Session
Joint Meeting with Intergovernmental Water Executive Session: Labor Negotiations
Board and Lake Oswego City Council to Sandy - 25 min.
discuss Possible Water Partnership - Dennis- Review of Proposed Revisions to City Wide
120 min. - INCLUDES DINNER Personnel Policies - Sandy - 20 min.
(DATE IS TENTATIVE - PLEASE HOLD)
Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda
Enhanced Citizen Participation Update -
Admin. 20 mins. - SI (Can this be moved?)
Business Meeting
THS Student Envoy - 10 min.
TMC Amendment regarding Cross Connection
Control Program Dennis K. - 10 min. - ORD Business Meeting
Measure 37 Hearings (3) Need RTS Chamber of Commerce Rep. - 10 min.
1 st Qtr.Goal Update - Craig P. - 15 min.- SI
Volunteer Program Update - Bob R. - 20 min. - SI
Measure 37 Hearings (3) Need RTS
Time Avail: 135 min. - Time Scheduled: 20 min. Time Avail: 200 min. - Time Scheduled: 140 min. Time Avail. 135 Time Scheduled 45 min.
Time Left: 115 min. Time Left: 60 mins. Time Left 90 min.
2/6/2007 1
Agenda Item # '
Meeting Date February 13, 2007
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title: Approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement with Clean Water Services for the Preparation of a
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
.R-6 r-
Prepared By: G Berry Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall City Council approve and authorize the City Manager to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with Clean Water
Services for the preparation of a City sanitary sewer master plan?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement with Clean Water Services.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
• The purpose of the proposed attached agreement is to prepare a sewer master plan for the City. The agreement
was reviewed by City Council at its January 13, 2007 Study Session.
• The proposed City master plan will recommend rehabilitation, expansion and replacement projects over the next 20
years that will guide the preparation of the 5-year Community Investment Program and identify projects for the
subsequent 15 years. It will be a separate plan prepared by a consultant hired by CWS to update the 2000 Sewer
Master Plan Update, which is the current basin-wide plan.
• The 2000 Sewer Master Plan Update identified nine City sewers with suspected sewer capacity deficiencies. In
addition, City staff has identified three other areas that may also have inadequate capacity. CWS will install flow
monitoring stations at all of these locations and record sewer flows to determine the extent of the capacity
deficiencies.
• The consultant will use the results of the flow monitoring to develop a plan to correct the deficiencies.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Flow monitoring by a private contractor was considered but was found to be more costly.
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
Implementation of the master plan would contribute to meeting the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Growth and Growth
Management goal of "Growth will be managed to protect the character and livability of established areas."
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Proposed Master Plan Intergovernmental Agreement with CWS
FISCAL NOTES
The estimated cost of the master plan is $151,000. This includes $35,000 for Clean Water Services to conduct the
flow monitoring and $116,000 for the consultant to prepare the plan. Funding is through the sewer fund and has
been included in the FY 06-07 and FY 07-08 Community Investment Program.
iAeng\greg\smeA2000 updateVeb 13 07 coundP2-13-07 c iga ais.doc
Attachment 1
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CLEAN WATER SERVICES AND THE CITY OF TIGARD
FOR PREPARATION OF A SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN PROJECT NO. 6174
This Agreement dated , 2006, is between
Clean Water Services (District) a county service district organized under ORS Chapter 451 and
the City of Tigard, Oregon (City) an Oregon municipality.
A. RECITALS
WHEREAS, ORS 190.003 - 190.110 encourages intergovernmental cooperation and
authorizes local governments to delegate to each other authority to perform their respective
functions as necessary.
WHEREAS, City and District intend to jointly undertake the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Update No. 6174 (Project), to update the District Sanitary Sewer Master Plan and create new
sanitary sewer master plans for the cities of Tigard and Hillsboro.
WHEREAS, City and District have agreed that the Project includes, selection of a
consultant, preparation of a scope of services, negotiation of a contract, administration, and
management of the consultant contracts; installation, maintenance, data collection and
management of flow monitors, review of all consultant prepared documents, and preparation of a
final Master Plan Document.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do mutually agree as follows:
B. CITY OBLIGATIONS
City shall:
1. Designate an individual to serve as City Master Plan Project Manager.
2. Review and assist in development of the Scope of Services for the Request for Proposals.
3. Assist in the consultant selection process.
4. Assist in the development of the Scope of Services for the consultant contract.
5. Participate in project meetings with District and consultant.
6. Review and provide timely comments on consultant submittals.
7. Assist District with access to manholes for flow monitoring as needed.
Intergovernmental Agreement
City of Tigard and Clean Water Services
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Project No. 6174
Page 1 of 5
EACapital Prcj=tslPmjents16174 Sani Sewer Master Plen1BOD and Final IGA 12-06\IGA Tigard Mesta Plm.dm
8. Review consultant invoices for "Tigard Master Plan" work as provided by District and
provide feedback or approval to District within 2 weeks.
9. Reimburse District the cost of consultant services associated with the Tigard Master Plan
Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A. Tigard Master Plan work shall not exceed
$116,000 without written consent of City.
10. Reimburse District $35,000 for conducting flow monitoring at 9-12 sites for a period of
time necessary to collect wet weather flow data and dry weather flow data. This time is
estimated to be 7 months. Should the duration differ by more than 2 months from the
estimate, City and District may negotiate a modified cost based upon actual labor costs to
conduct monitoring, and depreciation of monitoring equipment. District will notify City
at least 2 weeks prior to the end of the ninth month if additional monitoring will be
necessary. City shall provide written authorization to continue monitoring beyond nine
months.
C. DISTRICT OBLIGATIONS
District shall:
1. Work with City to prepare a Scope of Services for Tigard Master Plan.
2. Prepare Request for Proposals, advertise, coordinate and administer consultant selection
process.
3. Negotiate contract with selected consultant.
4. Prepare technical scope of work and exhibits for consultant contract.
5. Contract with an engineering consultant for District and City master plan services.
6. Coordinate project meetings with consultant and City.
7. Coordinate review of consultant submittals.
8. Review and process all consultant invoices. District Project Manager shall confirm status
of work with City Master Plan Project Manager prior to processing invoices.
9. Ensure consultant performance of work detailed in consultant contract and described in
Tigard Master Plan Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A.
10. Invoice City on a regular basis as invoices are received from the consultant.
11. Make payments to the consultant.
Intergovernmental Agreement
City of Tigard and Clean Water Services
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Project No. 6174
Page 2 of 5
EACapital Projects\Proje=\6174 Sani Sewer Master Plan\BOD and Final IGA 12.06\IGA Tigard Master Plan.doc
12. Conduct flow monitoring at 9-12 sites within the Tigard local collection system for
verification of modeling and/or calibration of the model as deemed necessary from
modeling and monitoring results. District shall be responsible for installation,
maintenance, and data collection.
13. Invoice City $5000/month for 7 months for flow monitoring activities.
14. Record actual costs of conducting the flow monitoring should it become necessary to
adjust the cost based upon the flow monitoring lasting fewer than 5 months or more than
9 months.
15. Provide City with 2 copies of the final 2006 District Master Plan Update and ten copies of
the City of Tigard 2006 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan.
16. Obtain written approval from City prior to making any contract amendments with the
consultant that would affect the scope of services or the cost for City.
D. GENERAL TERMS
1. Amendment of Agreement
City and District may amend this Agreement from time to time, by mutual written
agreement.
2. Indemnification Clause
Subject to any provision of the Oregon Constitution and ORS 30.260-30.300 and within the
limits set forth in ORS 30.270, each party hereby agrees to protect, defend, hold harmless,
and indemnify the other, its officers, employees and agents of and from any claims,
damages, compensation, suits, actions and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees,
occasioned in whole or in part by the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the indemnitor or
its employees, while in any way engaged in the performance of this Agreement.
3. Resolution of Disputes
If any dispute arising out of this Agreement can not be resolved by the project managers
from each party, the City Manager and District General Manager will attempt to resolve
the issue. If the City Manager and District General Manager are not able to resolve the
dispute, the parties will submit the matter to mediation, each party paying its own costs
and sharing equally in common costs. In the event the dispute is not resolved in
mediation, the parties will submit the matter to arbitration. The decision of the arbitrator
shall be final, binding and conclusive upon the parties and subject to appeal only as
Intergovernmental Agreement
City of Tigard and Clean Water Services
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Project No. 6174
Page 3 of 5
EACapital Prcjects\Pmjccts\6174 Seni Sewer Mesta Plen\BOD and Final IGA 12-06\IGA Tigard Master Plan.dm
otherwise provided by Oregon law.
4. Laws and Regulations City and District agree to abide by all applicable laws and
regulations.
5. Inte ation This document constitutes the entire agreement between the parties on the
subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous written or oral
understandings, representations or communications of every kind on the subject. No
course of dealing between the parties and no usage of trade shall be relevant to
supplement any term used in this Agreement. Acceptance or acquiescence in a course of
performance rendered under this Agreement shall not be relevant to determine the
meaning of this agreement and no waiver by a party of any right under this Agreement
shall prejudice the waiving party's exercise of the right in the future.
6. Attorney Fees If any dispute arises concerning the interpretation or enforcement of this
Agreement, the prevailing party in any such dispute shall be entitled to recover all of its
attorney fees, paralegal fees, costs, disbursements and other expenses from the
nonprevailing party, including without limitation those arising before and at any trial,
arbitration, bankruptcy, or other proceeding and in any appeal.
7. Term of Agreement This Agreement is effective from the date of execution by both
parties until the completion of all obligations created by this Agreement.
8. Termination This Agreement may be terminated only by mutual written agreement of
both parties.
9. Interpretation of Agreement
A. This Agreement shall not be construed for or against any party by reason of the
authorship or alleged authorship of any provision.
B. The paragraph headings contained in this Agreement are for ease of reference only
and shall not be used in constructing or interpreting this Agreement.
10. Severability/Survival If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are held
illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not
be impaired. All provisions concerning the limitation of liability, indemnity and conflicts
of interest shall survive the termination of this Agreement for any cause.
11. Approval Required This Agreement and all amendments shall become effective when
approved by 1) District's General Manager or the General Manager's designee and, when
required by applicable District rules, District's Board of Directors and 2) the City Council
and the City Manager.
Intergovernmental Agreement
City of Tigard and Clean Water Services
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Project No. 6174
Page 4 of 5
EACapital Proj=ts\Projats\6174 Sani Sewer Masts Plan\BOD and Final IGA 12-06\I0A Tigard Master Plan.dx
12. Choice of Law / Venue This Agreement and all rights, obligations and disputes arising
out of the Agreement shall be governed by Oregon law. All disputes and litigation arising
out of this Agreement shall be decided by the state courts in Oregon. Venue for all
disputes and litigation shall be in Washington County, Oregon.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and
year first written above.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON CLEAN WATER SERVICES
By: By:
Craig Prosser, City Manager Bill Gaffi, General Manager
City of Tigard
APPROVED AS TO FORM
District Counsel
Intergovernmental Agreement
City of Tigard and Clean Water Services
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Project No. 6174
Page 5 of 5
EACapital ProjatsTrcjects16174 Sani Seer Mesta Plan1BOD and Final IGA 12-06%IGA Tigard Mesta Plmdac
Exhibit A
City of Tigard
1. Identify Rehabilitation Needs and Maintenance Issues
Objective: The objective of this task is to identify those portions of the Tigard
sewer system that are experiencing capacity, surcharging, significant I/I, and/or
maintenance, problems and are in need of rehabilitation.
Task Descri tp ion
Consultant shall interview City engineering and operations staff and utilize large
scale maps, aerial photographs and maintenance records to identify problem areas
in the collection system. The following topics shall be addressed in the
interviews:
• System condition and performance in sewer lines
• Known hydraulic bottlenecks, overflows, blockages, and other recurring
O&M issues
2. Evaluate Identified Problems
Objective: The objective of this task is evaluate the underlying issues creating the
observed system problems not associated with capacity that were identified in
Task 1.
Task Description
Consultant shall conduct one or more of the following activities to evaluate the
non-capacity items of concern identified in Task 1:
• Review of record drawings
• Review of system age information
• Review of available closed circuit television inspection records.
Consultant may also recommend additional CCTV inspections that appear
to be warranted
Following investigation of deficiencies, consultant shall rank problems by level of
severity and risk based upon anecdotal information and formal documentation.
Deliverables
Technical Memo T-1 - summarizing the findings of the evaluation and
recommended course of action. A system map will be prepared coding priority of
the work and method of rehabilitation. The recommendations will include
modifications to the structural data in the District Hydra model where needed.
3. Conduct Flow Monitoring
Objective: The objective of this task is to conduct flow monitoring in areas that
have been identified as potential over-capacity portions of the system. The flow
monitoring data shall be sufficient to calibrate the Hydra model for the sub-basins
identified.
Intergovernmental Agreement - Exhibit A
City of Tigard and Clean Water Services
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Project No. 6174
Page 1 of 5
Exhibit A
Task Description
A. Flow Monitoring Plan
Consultant will work with District and City staff to develop a Flow Monitoring
Plan. The Plan will include:
• Recommended flow metering locations, selected to measure I/I in areas
affecting the nine sewer reaches with apparent capacity limitations
identified in previous modeling, plus three additional reaches. The sites
selection criteria will also include maximizing coverage of the collection
system and differentiating between various sub-regions.
• Identification of the personnel, roles, schedule, and general procedures for
the monitoring program. This portion of the plan will be developed in
large part by District staff, in consultation with Consultant and City staff
for coordination of resources.
Consultant will attend a metering program kick-off meeting with City and District
staff to review and finalize the Flow Monitoring Plan and schedule, and identify
key team contacts and lines of communication between the metering team and the
city.
B. Site Assessments
Consultant will participate during the initial site field assessments to be conducted
by District staff, and review recommendations of the metering installation team
regarding suitability of the selected sites.
C. Metering Program Coordination
Consultant will coordinate flow monitoring activities and facilitate good
communication throughout the flow monitoring period. This will include
participation in key portions of the field work. We will periodically review the
flow data to monitor the success of the metering program and to assess the nature
of peak flow events captured by the meters. Consultant will meet twice with City
and District staff during the metering period to discuss preliminary results and to
determine when sufficient data has been collected such that the metering program
can be terminated. District will provide flow metering data in spreadsheet format
that has been subjected to quality control review and can be relied upon as an
acceptable representation of flows at the metered locations for the purposes of
model calibration.
4. Refine the District Hydra Model
Objective: The objective of this task is to determine where capacity restrictions
exist based upon modeling and observation of high flows. Where metering results
Intergovernmental Agreement - Exhibit A
City of Tigard and Clean Water Services
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Project No. 6174
Page 2 of 5
Exhibit A
verify a potential for surcharging, the District Hydra model shall be calibrated
using data from flow monitoring in the Tigard Area.
Task Descri tp ion
Consultant shall perform the following tasks to determine where calibration is
necessary and to calibrate the model:
• Process the flow meter and rainfall data into wet and dry season templates
• Determine wet weathendry weather flow ratios under various rainfall
events
• Compare wet-weather flows with modeled wet-weather flow projections
under similar storm condition
• Where wet-weather flows exceed the flows projected by the uncalibrated
model AND the model projects pipe surcharging, calibration of the model
to the metered flows for the given sub-basin shall be conducted.
• Where wet-weather flows do not exceed the flows projected by the
uncalibrated model or the model does not project pipe surcharging, I/I
input parameters shall be adjusted to more closely match the observed
flow rates, but calibration of the model to the metered flows for the given
sub-basin shall not be conducted.
• When calibration is determined to be necessary, the following procedure
shall be followed:
• Revise the dry and wet weather spreadsheet tools to associate sewersheds
with the flow meter.
• Revise the dry-season Defects database for the Hydra model.
• Set up graphing tools for dry-season calibration
• Calibrate to dry-season flows metered during the upcoming dry weather
season.
• Select wet-weather events for calibrating the Tigard system (moderate
antecedent condition).
• Set up graphing tools for wet-weather event calibration.
• Prepare first-cut estimates for UI ratios using a graphical method for each
flow meter.
• Revise the monitor defects summary spreadsheet by adding the flow
meters and estimated parameters.
• Revise wet-weather Defects database.
• Calibrate the Tigard area captured by flow meters to selected storm
events.
• Determine unit I/I rates for existing land use conditions and the 5-year 24-
hour design storm by sewershed.
Deliverables
Technical Memo T-2 presenting flow metering results and determination of which
sub-basins are recommended for calibration„ I/I calibration and recommended
modeling parameters. Updated model input files and results tables.
Intergovernmental Agreement - Exhibit A
City of Tigard and Clean Water Services
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Project No. 6174
Page 3 of 5
Exhibit A
5. Develop Capital Improvement Plan
Objective: The objective of this task is to assess the priority of identified projects
and categorize them near-term or development driven.
Task Description
Consultant shall develop recommended improvements and/or maintenance
activities to address each of the problem areas identified under Tasks 2 and 4.
The analysis will include consideration of replacement vs. rehabilitation with
respect to costs, I/I reduction, and system age or other factors. The cost
estimating methodologies developed for the District Master Plan Update will be
used to estimate costs of proposed improvements. The improvements, along with
those identified in the Hydra model run, shall be listed in a capital improvement
plan and categorized as near-term or development driven.
Each CIP project shall be presented with a project map and project description,
justification and estimated project cost.
Consultant shall develop recommendations for an ongoing assessment and UI
reduction program including flow metering, video inspection, and smoke testing.
Consultant shall present the draft CIP and program recommendations to City staff
for review prior to producing the technical memorandum.
Deliverables
Technical Memo T3 -Five-Year Capital Improvement documenting individual
projects with descriptions, justification, and maps. Digital Mapping files shall be
provided.
6. Prepare Tigard Master Plan
Objective: The objective of this task is to compile the findings of Tigard Tasks 1-
4 documented in Technical Memoranda T-1, T-2 and T-3 as well as data compiled
from the District Master Plan into a comprehensive document that will serve as a
tool and guiding document for the City of Tigard sanitary sewer operations.
Task Description
Consultant shall compile selected District and City technical memoranda,
supplemented with background text in a master plan document. The document
shall reflect review comments on the technical memoranda, and will incorporate,
as appendices, detailed data used to develop the conclusions and
recommendations. Recommended improvement projects will be presented on a
collection system map.
Deliverables
City of Tigard 2006 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan - Consultant shall compile
findings and recommendations for future sanitary sewer conveyance system
improvements. Report shall be divided into logical sections documenting
Intergovernmental Agreement - Exhibit A
City of Tigard and Clean Water Services
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Project No. 6174
Page 4 of 5
Exhibit A
background, process used in developing the plan, assumptions, modeling results,
and recommendations. Appendicies shall include data and technical memo used
to develop the conclusions and recommendations in the report.
Consultant shall produce 5 paper draft copies of the Master Plan for review by the
City and District. Following City and District review, Consultant shall produce
10 final paper copies and an electronic version in pdf format.
Project Management and Quality Control
Consultant shall conduct the activities necessary to produce a quality product while
maintaining good coordination and communication with the District and City. The
project management and quality control activities include:
1) Preparing and maintaining a Project Management Plan addressing project
team organization, roles and responsibilities, schedule, budget, and QA/QC
procedures.
2) Meetings with District Project Manager on a schedule to be determined to
discuss progress and overall direction of the project at key milestones and
decision points.
3) Monitoring project progress by tracking work completed, work remaining,
budget expended, schedule, estimated cost of work remaining, and estimated
cost at completion.
4) Monitoring staff availability and making adjustments as necessary to assure
availability for the Master Plan Update project.
5) Preparing and submitting a monthly narrative report, invoice, and progress
schedule.
6) Preparing and implementing teaming and partnering plans.
7) Identifying responsibilities for review of key work products.
8) Performing quality controls reviews on all project deliverables prior to
submittal to the District and City. Reviewing documents to confirm
approach taken and material developed conforms to the needs of the project.
Checking overall quality of the document, technical accuracy and adherence
to established standards.
Project Management and Quality Control deliverables include:
1) Project management Plan
2) Meeting minutes
3) Periodic schedule updates
4) Monthly Status report with invoices
5) QA/QC Plan including teaming and partnering plans.
Intergovernmental Agreement - Exhibit A
City of Tigard and Clean Water Services
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Project No. 6174
Page 5 of 5
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date February 13, 2007
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title A Resolution Approving Budget Amendment #12 to the FY 2006-07 Budget to Increase
Appropriations in the Sanitary Sewer Fund Capital Projects budget within the Community Investment Program for
Additional Funding for the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Project.
Prepared By: Michelle Wareing Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the City Council approve Budget Amendment #12 to increase appropriations in the Sanitary Sewer Fund Capital
Projects budget for additional funding for the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan project?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Budget Amendment #12.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
At the January 23, 2007 Study Session, Council was briefed on the need to sign an intergovernmental agreement
(IGA) with Clean Water Services (CWS) for preparation of a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. CWS is initiating a review
and update of its current master plan. The review and update of the CWS master plan provides an opportunity for
the City to develop a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan for its sewer collection system as part of that update. This will
allow the City to plan for capacity upgrades in those areas that really need them. The Sewer Master Plan is expected
to provide a schedule of projects that will meet the needs of the City for the next 20 years.
It is estimated that the City's costs for its Sanitary Sewer Master Plan will be about $151,000, which includes $35,000
for CWS to conduct flow monitoring and $116,000 for the consultant to prepare the plan. These costs will be
incurred over two fiscal years, FY 06-07 and FY 07-08. The FY 06-07 Budget includes $50,000 for the Sanitary
Sewer Master Plan. It is estimated that the cost in FY 06-07 will actually be $85,000.
This budget amendment will transfer $35,000 from the Sanitary Sewer Fund contingency to the Sanitary Sewer
Capital Projects budget. The remaining costs will be included in the FY 07-08 Budget.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do not approve Budget Amendment #12. The Sanitary Sewer Capital Projects budget may or may not be
overspent.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
None
ATTACHMENT LIST
Resolution including Attachment A.
FISCAL NOTES
This resolution transfers $35,000 from the Sanitary Sewer Fund Contingency to the Sanitary Sewer Fund Capital
Projects budget for the additional funding for the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan project.
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date FebnLIU 13.2007
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title A resolution to commend the members of the Planned Development Code Review
Committee for their service and to disband the committee.
Prepared By: Sean Farrelly Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Council approve a resolution to commend the members of the Planned Development Code Review
Committee for their many months of service and to disband the committee?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adopting the resolution.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Council established the Planned Development Code Review Committee by resolution in January 2004. The Committee
met over the following two years and made final recommendations to revise the code. These recommendations formed
the basis for Development Code Amendment 2006-00003. This code amendment was adopted by Council by
ordinance on October 24, 2006.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Resolution.
FISCAL NOTES
Not applicable.
\\tig20Vnetpub\tig20\wwwrootkforms\form docskuuncil agenda item summary sheet 07.doc
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date February 13, 2007
COUNCII. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Authorize the Mayor to Renew a West Nile Virus Intergovernmental Agreement with
Washington County
Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
IssuE BEFoRE'I)H E CovNcm
Should the Council authorize the Mayor to renew a West Nile Virus Intergovernmental Agreement with
Washington County?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends renewing the agreement.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SuMMARY
West Nile virus (WNV) was found in Washington County in 2006. The virus is spread by infected mosquitoes and, in
rare cases, can cause serious health issues. The Washington County Department of Health and Human Services and the
City of Tigard have been working together since 2003 and have developed a West Nile Virus Response Plan consisting
of education, testing and treatment.
In urban areas, catch basins often provide a breeding ground for the type of mosquitoes that most commonly carry
WNV. The City has approximately 1,650 sumped catch basins. These catch basins are designed with a small holding
pool or sump where water collects. The sump filters silt and other material from the water, but also creates ideal
conditions for mosquito larvae. The best way to eradicate these larvae is to apply a slow-release insecticide targeted at
the larval life stage of the mosquito. This type of insecticide is known as a larvicide. Based on sampling and monitoring
data from previous years and the effectiveness of the larvicide, Tigard plans to treat sumped catch basins in April and
again in August. Treatments will be performed in City and school district catch basins within Tigard
This intergovernmental agreement (IGA) would enable the City of Tigard and Washington County to continue to worm
together on WNV monitoring and prevention efforts. If approved, the IGA will be in effect until February 1, 2009.
OmERALTFRNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Council could elect not to renew this agreement and could give staff direction on how to proceed with WNV
monitoring and prevention.
CouNm GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
None
A'rTACE IlV NT IJ5r
Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Tigard and Washington County
Attachment A - Statement of Work/Schedule/Payment Terms Outlining City and County Responsibilities
FECAL NOTES
As part of the agreement, Washington County will supply the larvicide to treat Tigard's sumped catch basins. This
represents a cost savings of approximately $5,000. The City will use existing personnel and equipment to perform
the work, which will cost an estimated $15,000 in FY 06/07.
1
TIGARD
City Council Document Transmittal
To:
From:
3
Date:
I'm sending your
Document Type: 0 IGA ❑ Contract
❑ Other J
Document Name: I4 A • r~o a` w r
1 V"; l.2- 1/1 d'0.....5
Approved at the Council Meeting of: J 1 ~C ~-7
Number Copies Included: U k
/your documents have been signed by the Mayor
❑ Your document(s) have been signed by the City Manager
our document(s) requires an additional signature(s)
❑ When all signatures have been obtained, file an original document with City of Tigard
Records
❑ Additional instructions:
I:\ADM\FORMS\CITY COUNCIL DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL.DOC
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into, by and between Washington County, a political subdivision of the State of
Oregon, and the City of Tigard.
WHEREAS ORS 190.010 authorizes the parties to enter into this Agreement for the performance of any or
all functions and activities that a party to the Agreement has authority to perform.
Now, therefore, the parties agree as follows:
1) The effective date is: February 1, 2007, or upon final signature, whichever is later.
The expiration date is: February 1, 2009; unless otherwise amended.
2) The parties agree to the terms and conditions set forth in Attachment A, which is incorporated
herein, and describes the responsibilities of the parties, including compensation, if any.
3) Each party shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws; and rules and regulations on
non-discrimination in employment because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex,
marital status, age, medical condition or handicap.
4) To the extent applicable, the provisions of ORS 279B.220 through ORS 279B.235 and ORS
279C.500 through 279C.870 are incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth.
5) Each party is an independent contractor with regard to each other party(s) and agrees that the
performing party has no control over the work and the manner in which it is performed. No party is
an agent or employee of any other.
6) No party or its employees is entitled to participate in a pension plan, insurance, bonus, or similar
benefits provided by any other party.
7) This Agreement may be terminated, with or without cause and at any time, by a party by providing
(30 if not otherwise marked) days written notice of intent to the other party(s).
8) Modifications to this Agreement are valid only if made in writing and signed by all parties.
9) Subject to the limitations of liability for public bodies set forth in the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS
30.260 to 30.300, and the Oregon Constitution, each party agrees to hold harmless, defend, and
indemnify each other, including its officers,.agents, and employees, against all claims, demands,
actions and suits (including all attorney fees and costs) arising from the indemnitor's performance
of this Agreement where the loss or claim is attributable to the negligent acts or omissions of.that
party.
10) Each party shall give the other immediate written notice of any action or suit filed or any claim
made against that party that may result in litigation in any way related to this Agreement.
PAGE 1 OF 2 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Rev. 10/6/05
11) Each party agrees to maintain insurance levels or self-insurance in accordance with ORS 30.282,
for the duration of this Agreement at levels necessary to protect against public body liability as
specified in ORS 30.270.
12) Each party agrees to comply with all local, state and federal ordinances, statutes, laws and
regulations that are applicable to the services provided under this Agreement.
13) This Agreement is expressly subject to the debt limitation of Oregon Counties set forth in Article
XI, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution, and is contingent upon funds being appropriated
therefor.
14) This writing is intended both as the final expression of the Agreement between the parties with
respect to the included terms and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the
Agreement.
WHEREAS, all the aforementioned is hereby agreed upon by the parties and executed by the duly
authorized signatures below.
Jurisdiction
Signature Date
Printed Name Title
Address: S
WASHINGTON COUNTY:
Signature Date
Printed Name Title
Address:
155 N First
Mail Stop # 5
Hillsboro, OR 97124
PAGE 2 OF 2 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Rev. 10/6/05
ATTACHMENT A
Statement of Work /Schedule/Payment Terms
County's Responsibilities:
1. The County shall coordinate efforts to meet the goals of the State Health Service's West
Nile Virus (WNV) response plan.
2. The County shall coordinate public education related to matters of public health and
human behavior related to vector-borne disease throughout Washington County.
3. The County shall work with state and local health, veterinarian, agricultural, and wildlife
organizations to survey and track human, equine, and avian cases of WNV.
4. The County shall alert those subject to this Intergovernmental Agreement of confirmed
WNV cases.
5. The County shall employ a Mosquito Control Coordinator to design and develop a
sampling program and train City staff on mosquito sampling procedures.
6. The County shall establish a schedule for City staff to submit larval and adult mosquito
samples. The County Mosquito Control Coordinator shall process and track larvae and
adult mosquito samples collected by City staff.
7. The County shall provide larvicide product to the City to treat publicly owned sumped
catch basins under city control.
8. Based on surveillance information collected from the City, the County will identify
habitats based on risk and advise the City on appropriate control measures and control
schedules.
9. The County shall maintain a database of all treated sumped catch basin and aquatic
habitats based on information provided by the City.
10. The County shall maintain a database mapping complaints, surveillance findings and
mosquito control work.
CITY RESPONSIBILITIES
1. The City shall utilize and distribute public education materials provided by the County and
Clean Water Services (CWS), in order to maintain a consistent regional communication
strategy.
2. The City shall actively educate neighborhood associations, community participation
organizations, and other citizen groups, and encourage private property source reduction
efforts and other personal behaviors that will reduce risk of exposure.
3. The City shall report bird and mosquito complaints that it receives to the County.
4. The City shall, in cooperation with CWS, identify locations of storm water facilities and
aquatic features that may produce mosquitoes and provide that information to the County to
integrate with the County's complaint and surveillance information.
5. The City shall provide the county Mosquito Control Coordinator with information for the
County to design, develop and conduct a regional larval and adult mosquito sampling regime
that will include representative catch basins, storm water facilities, and natural wetlands
within the City's existing water quality sampling area throughout the mosquito season
(March through October).
6. The City shall deliver larval and adult mosquito samples to the County Mosquito Control
Coordinator for processing and tracking on the schedule established by the County.
PAGE 1 - ATTACHMENT A I:\PW\C.-il Peckets\2007k021307\WNV ATTACHMENT A-CITIES 2007.,I c
• ATTACHMENT A
Statement of Work /Schedule/Payment Terms
7. The City shall implement mosquito control measures as recommended by the County for
sites under the control of the City.
8. The City shall maintain catch basins and storm water facilities to limit the presence of
standing water and decaying organic debris (particularly dead cattails and grass clippings).
The City shall install habitat features as appropriate to promote amphibian, bird, and
predatory insect (dragonfly) populations that feed on mosquito larva.
9. The City shall treat all publicly owned sumped catch basins with larvicide twice a year, with
each treatment no more than three months apart, between May 1 S` and August 31 S`. The City
will provide the County with monthly reports of areas treated. The weekly report will include
treatment areas, dates and applicator name(s) as well as indicate locations of new catch
basins.
10. The City will implement other mosquito control tasks based on public health risk as
determined by the County. In the event the City is unable to implement mosquito control
tasks in a timely manner the City will notify the County and request assistance.
11. The City will report product treatments to the Oregon Department of Agriculture following
Pesticide Use Reporting System guidelines by January 31S` of the year following the
treatment.
Unless otherwise specified herein, the parties agree that there will be no monetary compensation
paid to the other, that each shall bear their own costs and that reasonable and beneficial
consideration exists to support this agreement.
PAGE 2 - ATTACHMENT A I:\PW\Comcil PKkels\2007\021307\WNV ATTACHMENT A-CITIES 2007.d.
I
Agenda Item # -2.,7
Meeting Date February 13, 2007
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Settlement agreement between the Business Software Alliance and the City of Tigard
Prepared By: Robert Sesnon Dept Head Approval: W City Mgr Approval: CP
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the City Council approve the settlement agreement between the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and the City of
Tigard?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve the settlement agreement.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION- SUMMARY
• The City of Tigard received a letter in mid-August 2006 from the law firm of Donahue Gallagher Woods, LLP,
representing the Business Software Alliance (BSA) stating that they had been advised that the City had installed on its
computers more copies of software from Adobe Systems, Inc. and Autodesk, Inc. than it was licensed to use. The
letter requested that the City conduct an:investigation of this matter.
• In response to the letter, the City proceeded to license a software audit program in order to determine exactly
what programs were installed on city-owned computers. This audit was completed and it was discovered that many of
the programs were old versions of the software and/or were no longer in use.
• Invoices providing proof of purchase of the Adobe Systems and Autodesk products were, to the greatest extent
possible, located and copied. Invoices older than three years had previously been destroyed as part of the City's normal
records retention procedures. Had these invoices been available the City would have been able to provide proof of
purchase for more licenses.
• The invoices were compared against the license counts. Proof of purchase could not be documented for
exacdy 100 Adobe Systems licenses and 9 Autodesk licenses.
• The City's attorney negotiated the attached settlement agreement with BSA that includes updating internal City
procedures for software purchase record keeping, the removal of all unnecessary old versions of software not used by
the City, the purchase of any necessary software licenses, and payment of $75,494 in penalties. The penalty amount was
calculated using 1.25 times the cost of the software, although it could have been as high as 2 times the cost of the
software.
• All unlicensed Adobe Systems and Autodesk programs have been removed from city computers. In some
cases, functionality was still required to create PDF documents (which Adobe Acrobat performed). In these instances a
freeware product was installed to satisfy this need.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
None
ATTACHMENT LIST
Settlement agreement between the Business Software Alliance and the City of Tigard.
FISCAL NOTES
The agreement calls for a settlement payment of $75,493.75 which was calculated as 1.25 times the cost of the
software. This amount will be charged against the Information Technology budget in the Central Services Fund.
\Vig20VnetpubXtig2O%w roolVormsVorm docstcouncil agenda Rem summary sheet 07.doc
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into between the Business
Software Alliance (the "BSA"), and the City of Tigard, a Pmn i< --j Da_~ corporation ("the
City"), as of the date signed by the City (the "Effective Date").
WHEREAS:
A. The BSA is a trade association representing software publishers in the business of
developing and marketing a variety of computer software products. Those software publishers
are Adobe Systems Incorporated (including Macromedia, Inc.), Apple Computer, Inc., Autodesk,
Inc., Avid Technology, Inc., Bentley Systems, Inc., Borland Software Corporation, CNC
Software, Inc., The MathWorks, Inc. McAfee, Inc., Parametric Technology Corporation,
Solidworks Corporation, Sybase, Inc., and UGS Corporation. Software published by these
entities are referred to in this agreement as (the "Computer Software Products");
B. A dispute has arisen regarding the City's alleged unauthorized copying or use of
certain of the Computer Software Products in the course of its business; and
C. The BSA and the City have reached an agreement resolving that dispute and wish
to evidence that agreement in writing.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth
below, the BSA and the City agree as follows:
1. COMPLIANCE
1.1 Certification of Audit Results. The City warrants and represents that the software
audit results provided to the BSA during negotiation of this settlement are a true, accurate and
complete list of all copies of all Computer Software Products that were installed on the City's
computers as of November 3, 2006. The City further warrants and represents that it did not
intentionally remove any software from its computers between August 14, 2006 and November
3, 2006, did not authorize the removal of any software from its computers during that time period
and that it is unaware of any unintentional removal of any software during that time period.
1.2 Certification of Compliance. Not later than thirty (30) days after the Effective
Date, the City shall ensure that all copies of all Computer Software Products installed, used or
operated on its computers are licensed to the City and utilized solely in accordance with their
licenses. Not later than forty-five (45) days after the Effective Date, the City shall deliver to
Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP (`GSA's Attorneys") a certification in the form of Exhibit A
that the obligations of this paragraph have been met.
-1-
1.3 Schedules. The City shall attach to the certification required by Section 1.2 the
following schedules:
a. a list identifying each Computer Software Product that was destroyed
pursuant to Section 1.2, and the number of copies destroyed;
b. a list identifying all Computer Software Products, including version
number, purchased by the City since August 14, 2006, the quantity of
licenses for each Computer Software Product purchased, the dates of the
purchases, and the price paid; and
c. copies of receipts or invoices reflecting proof of each purchase listed in
Section 1.3(b).
1.4 Warranty of Continued Compliance. The City warrants that all copies of
Computer Software Products coming into its possession or under its control in the future will be
licensed to the City and installed and utilized solely in accordance with the Computer Software
Products' respective licenses.
1.5 Software Code of Ethics. City staff shall recommend to City Council adoption of
a revision to Personnel Policy 49.0 to include the language shown in Exhibit B, incorporated by
reference. Within forty-five (45) days of the Effective Date, the City shall administratively adopt
a software policy substantially in the form of Exhibit B. The City shall deliver a copy of the
administratively adopted software personnel policy to the BSA's Attorneys, with a certification
of its administrative adoption. The City shall also provide a certification of the revisions to
Personnel Policy 49.0 if and when adopted by the Council. The policy shall be distributed to all
of the City's employees and/or personnel. The City shall provide a copy of the policy to all new
employees at the commencement of their employment.
1.6 Inspections. For three (3) years following the Effective Date, the City shall
permit the BSA, at the BSA's option and expense, to conduct two (2) inspections per year of the
City's computers at each of the City's offices or locations to confirm the absence of infringing
Computer Software Products. The BSA agrees to provide one (1) week's notice of any such
inspection and to conduct any inspection in a manner designed to minimize any disruption to the
City's business activities. Notice is to be directed to Robert Sesnon, Director of Financial and
Information Services, City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223, telephone
(503) 639-4171, e-mail bobsna,ti arg d-or.gov. In the event the BSA discovers unlicensed
Computer Software Products during an inspection, the City shall reimburse the BSA for the cost
of the inspection. The City agrees that this cost reimbursement shall be separate from and in
addition to any damages or costs for which the City may be liable under the Copyright Act as a
result of any infringement discovered during an inspection.
-2-
2. RESOLUTION OF LIABILITY
2.1 Settlement Pa ice. Upon the City's execution of this Agreement, the City shall
pay to the BSA the sum of Seventy-five Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-three Dollars and
Seventy-five Cents ($75,493.75). This payment shall be in the form of a check payable to the
"Business Software Alliance" and shall be delivered to the BSA's Attorneys with the executed
Agreement. Delivery shall be made by overnight delivery/courier service.
2.2 Release. Through the BSA, Adobe Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation and
Autodesk, Inc., a Delaware corporation, each hereby releases and forever discharges the City, its
officers, directors, employees, shareholders, attorneys and assigns from any and all claims,
demands, causes of action, actions and costs relating to the alleged infringement of the
copyrights in the Computer Software Products listed below due to the installation or use of the
Computer Software Products at the City, occurring before the thirty-first (31st) day following the
Effective Date: Adobe Acrobat® 5.0 software, Adobe® Acrobat® 6.0 Professional software,
Adobe® Illustrator@ 10.0 software, Adobe Illustrator 11.0 software, Adobe® PageMaker® 7.0
software, Adobe PhotoDeluxe® software, Adobe Photoshop 7.0 software, and Autodese
AutoCAD® 2002 software; provided, however, that this release is conditioned on the accuracy of
the representations and the performance of the obligations listed in Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5,
and 2.1 of this Agreement. In no event shall this release extend to any claim that the City has
engaged in the unauthorized sale, transfer, or distribution of any computer software product to
any person or entity not related to the City or that the City has created, transferred or distributed
any derivative work(s) based upon or incorporating any computer software product, or part
thereof.
3. MISCELLANEOUS
3.1 Entire Agreement. This Agreement and its attachments set forth the entire
agreement of the BSA and the City. No amendment may be made to this Agreement unless it is
in writing and signed by both parties.
3.2 Attorney's Fees. In the event that legal action is brought to enforce the terms of
this Agreement, the prevailing party in any such legal action or proceeding shall be entitled, in
addition to any other rights and remedies it may have, to an award of the costs of the action,
including an award of court costs, actual attorney's fees and experts' fees.
3.3 Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal,
or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that provision shall be severed from this
Agreement and the remaining provisions shall continue in full force.
3.4 Binding Agreement. The terms and provisions of this Agreement shall be binding
upon, and shall inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective successors, assigns
and transferees.
-3-
3.5 BSA Warranty. The BSA warrants that it is fully authorized to make this
Agreement on behalf of Adobe Systems, Inc. and Autodesk, Inc. and to bind all of them to the
terms hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the BSA and the City have executed this Agreement as of
the date written below.
CITY OF TIGARD
By:
Name: Cra. i ca Ptrs
Title: 0-I'tj4 42 1-
Date:
BUSINESS SOFTWARE ALLIANCE
By:
Robert W. Holleyman, II
President
Date:
-4-
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE OF
CITY OF TIGARD
I, am the of City of
Tigard ("the City") and am authorized to provide this certificate.
As of 2007, (30 days following the Effective Date of the
Settlement Agreement dated , 2007 between the Business Software Alliance
and the City (the "Agreement")), I hereby certify that:
a. all Computer Software Products installed on the City's computers for which the
City does not have a license have been destroyed;
b. any licenses necessary to ensure that all remaining copies of Computer Software
Products are licensed have been acquired; and
c. all Computer Software Products installed on the City's computers are utilized
solely in accordance with their licenses.
I further certify that attached hereto as Schedule 1 is a list of the Computer Software
Products destroyed as certified in paragraph (a) above; attached hereto as Schedule 2 is a list of
the Computer Software Products purchased by the City since August 14, 2006, the quantity of
the licenses for the Computer Software Product purchased, the dates of the purchases, and the
price paid; and attached hereto as Schedule 3 are copies of receipts or invoices as proof of the
purchases described in Schedule 2.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State/Commonwealth of
and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this day of , 2007, at ,
By:
(Name)
(Title)
SCHEDULE I
Software Product Number Destroyed Date Destroyed
SCHEDULE 2
Software Product Number Purchased Date Purchased Price Paid
SCHEDULE 3
[Copies of receipts or other proof of software purchase(s) attached]
EXHIBIT B
Section 49.0 Electronic Communication - Excerpt
Subsection Laws and Licenses Compliance
Users are required to comply with all software licenses, copyright laws, Oregon Government
Standards and Practices Commission's guidelines, City policies, and state and federal laws when
using the City's computers, sending or receiving e-mail or accessing or downloading information
from the Internet.
Unauthorized duplication of copyrighted computer software violates the law and is contrary the
City's standards of conduct. Employees will not engage in nor make or use unauthorized
software copies under any circumstances. Legally acquired software in sufficient quantities for
all computers will be provided by the City's Information Technology Division to meet the
legitimate software needs for City work. The City and its employees will comply with all license
and purchase terms regulating the use of any software acquired or used.
Because copyright infringement is an unlawful act, the City will maintain strong internal controls
to prevent the making or using of unauthorized software copies. Compliance with software
licenses and copyright laws is required. Failure to comply with these standards shall be grounds
for disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
CITY OF TIGARD
By:
Name:
Title:
Dated: , 2007
Agenda Item No. /
Meeting Date: February 13, 2007
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Annexation Policy Discussion
Prepared By: Ron Bunch Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Review current annexation policy established in January 2006.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt staff s 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
1Vig200netpubUig201wwwrooWwnsVOrm d=ncbuned agenda item summary sheet 07.doc
Attachment 1
MEMORANDUM
TIGARD
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.
Staff's 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.
A~~r~ ex serve: 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 incorporated city 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 Sqike through indicates language to be deleted.
Policy 10.2.1
The City shall not approve the extension of City t4nff services except.
a) WIbere applications for annexation for those properties have been s*bmi#vd to lie approved by
the City; or
iV*fhit"n Ggpinft and s*bmiikd to the GO-,&
c) b) In circumstances where applicable state or and county health agenagencies etas 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.1 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
a
Agenda Item No. 3.1
For Agenda of
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes
Date: January 17, 2006
Time: 6:36 p.m.
Place: Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigatd, 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.
15 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.
• TriMees 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 Jerry Kaunmel; 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-stem 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-term 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
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
occur that will prove to be detrimental.
• There wits 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 o
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
ends 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
Annexation Discussion
2-13-07
■ The City's policy needs to benefit the long term interests of the Citizens of Tigard
as well as those in the urban growth boundary that will need consistent provision
of high quality services and responsive government.
■ Policy should incorporate over time, proactive elements, such as incentives and be
proactive about the benefits of being a Tigard citizen
■ If property owners are interested in annexing, the City should promote itself as a
responsive government that can provide high quality services.
■ The city should develop positive relationships with property owners / residents of
unincorporated Bull Mountain / Metzger in ways that would emphasize the
benefits of being in the City.
■ Choice is an important element of the annexation discussion. People should not
be coerced or feel they are being coerced. On the other hand a full level of urban
services should be provided just to those that pay for them.
■ Having logical City Boundaries is important. This promotes the provision of
cost-efficient urban services
■ There are concerns about the County urbanizing any more unincorporated land.
A three pronged approach is needed - local proactive / relationship based
approach with area property ; discussion with the County about its appropriate
role in providing urban services in unincorporated lands and its annexation
policies; discussion with Metro and the state about annexation and where urban
level services should be provided.
File: Ronannexdiscuss2-13-07