Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 12/16/2008
. • _ ,77 TIG-A R D CITY, COUNCIL WORKSHOP, MEETING December 16, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING WILL btt TELEVISED I \Ofs\Donna's\ccpkt2 Revised 12/12/08 Added Executive Session Meeting at 6:30 pm City of Tigard t Ti and Workshop/Business Meeting - Agenda Tr~Iccli, t5P CY TIGARD CITY COUNCIL & LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) MEETING DATE /TIME: December 16, 2008; 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business/Workshop Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town 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 7:30 P.M. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). CABLE VIEWERS: The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:45 a.m. Friday 10:00 p.m. Monday 6:00 a.m. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 16, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 1 of 4 City of Tigard F- Tigard Workshop/Business Meeting - Agenda FS U 2 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL & LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) MEETING DATE /TIME: December 16, 2008; 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business/Workshop Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM EXECUTIVE SESSION • The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2) (h) and (i) to discuss current litigation or litigation likely to be filed and a performance evaluation of an employee. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media may attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session maybe held for the purpose of taking final action or making a final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:00 PM WORKSHOP MEE TING 1. DISCUSS CITY OF TIGARD'S 20-YEAR FACILITIES PLAN • Staff Report - Public Works Department 7:30 PM 2. DISCUSS WASHINGTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICES (WCCIS) STRATEGIC PLANNING • Staff Report - Library Department _ 7:50 PM 3. STATUS UPDATE ON BARROWS ROAD BRIDGE REPAIR • Staff Report - Community Development Department 8:20 PM 4. DISCUSS URBAN/RURAL RESERVES • Staff Report - Community Development Department 8:50 PM 5. DISCUSS COUNCIL DAIS • Staff Report - Administration Department 9:00 PM 6. DISCUSS TOWN HALL ELECTRONICS • Staff Report - Administration Department TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 16, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of 4 9:10 PM 7. BUSINESSMEE77NG 7.1 Call to Order - City Council, Local Contract Review Board 7.2 Roll Call 7.3 Pledge of Allegiance 7.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 7.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 9:15 PM 8. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Chamber of Commerce Representative • Citizen Communication - Sign Up Sheet • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication 9:25 PM 9. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigad City Cazv4 Loral Coaract ReuewBaa?d & City Center Derelopnor Agtxy) These items are considered mtgim and mry be enacted in orr nation zeitlxxrt soar" &5aasion A nyom mxy n7uest d ut an item he reImud by maim for disassion and separate action Maim to: 9.1 Approve City Council Minutes for October 21 and 28, 2008 9.2 Receive and File: Canvass of Votes for City of Tigard Council Candidates - November 4, 2008 Election 9.3 Authorize the Mayor to Renew the West Nile Virus Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County 9.4 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Washington County, and the City of Tualatin for Maintenance of the Bridgeport Village Improvements - Resolution No. 08- • Qmerrt Agenda - Items Rerrozed for Separate Disarssion These items are cusidererl to le n w6m and Puy be enacted in ore mxion wdiu& separate disarssion A nyom mry west 6o an item be mmzed by nmm for discussion and separate action 9:30 PM 10. CONSIDER AMENDING THE FRANCHSE UTILITY ORDINANCE BY ADDING A PER LINEAR FOOT-BASED FEE (TITLE 15.06 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE) a. Staff Report - Administration Department b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 08- 9:45 PM 11. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD UTILITY FRANCHISE AGREEMENT a. Staff Report - Administration Department b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 08- 9:50 PM 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 13. NON AGENDA ITEMS TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 16, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 3 of 4 14. 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 maybe held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 10:00 PM 15. ADJOURNMENT 1A ADM\ CATHY\ CCA\ 2008\ 081216 bus iness.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 16, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov Page 4 of 4 r City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting In the Matter of the REVISED Notification of the Combination Workshop/Business meeting of the City Council on December 16, 2008, including a Farewell Reception for Council Woodruff and the Cancellation of the December 23, 2008 Business Meeting and December 30, 2008 Fifth Tuesday Meeting STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard I, I d 1' 0 12 kC1 , being first duly swom (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say. That I posted in ➢ Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon ➢ Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon ➢ Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon A copy of said Notification ana copy of said Notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _~day of JYCCerm , 2008. -~yySignature of P ho P rformed Not ication Subscribed and swom (~Md) before me this ?S' " day of , 2008. OFFICIAL SEAL JILL M BYARS ~e":re NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 427990 Signa e of Notary Pul5lic for Oregon MY COMS.tISSiON EXPIRES JUNE 14, 2012 TIGARD QTY COUNCIL TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD OR 97223 NOTICE 1. The December 16, 2008 Tigard City Council Meeting is a combination Workshop and Business Meeting. Prior to the Workshop Meeting there will be a Farewell Reception for Councilor Woodruff at 6:00 PM. The Workshop will begin at 6:30 PM and will be followed by a Business Meeting. 2. The December 23, 2008 Council Meeting is cancelled. 3. The December 30, 2008 Fifth Tuesday Meeting is cancelled. Please forward to: ❑ Newsroom, The Tunes ❑ Leah Weissman, The Times ❑ Listings, The Oregonian ❑ Editor, The Regal Courier For further information, please contact Deputy City Recorder Carol Krager by calling 503-639-4171, ext. 2419. Deputy City Recorder Date: Post: Tigard City Hall Tigard Permit Center Tigard Public Library E REVISED Combination Workshop/ Business Meeting of the Tigard City Council on December 16, 2008 which includes 6:00 pm Farewell Reception for Councilor Woodruff Cancellation of December 23, 2008 Council Meeting and December 30, 2008 Fifth Tuesday Meeting Affidavit of Notification In the Matter of the Notification of the above listed meetings: STATE OF OREGON ) Countyof Washington) ss. City o Tigard ) being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I notified the following people/organizations byfax: ❑ Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) and the following people/organizations bye-mail: ❑ Leah Weissman, The Times (Weissman@commnewspapers.com) ❑ Barbara Sherman, The Regal Courier (Editor@RegalCourier.com) ❑ Listings Department, The Oregonian (Listings@news.oregonian.com) A copy of said Notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of fs , I )2CeY4 6eV_ _,2 0~ . Signature of Person who e orme otification Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this <i*- day of rGJZIV&j:r , 20-0-r OFFICIAL SEAL ure of Notary Pub c for Oregon pon-MuISSION JILL M BYARS Sig az4e~I~Z~ NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO.427990 EXPIRES JUNE 14, 2012 TIGARD CITY COLINQL TIGARD QTY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD OR 97223 NOTICE 1. The December 16, 2008 Tigard City Council Meeting is a combination Workshop and Business Meeting. Prior to the Workshop Meeting there will be a Farewell Reception for Councilor Woodruff at 6:00 PM. The Workshop will begin at 6:30 PM and will be followed by a Business Meeting. 2. The December 23, 2008 Council Meeting is cancelled. 3. The December 30, 2008 Fifth Tuesday Meeting is cancelled. Please forward to: ❑ Newsroom, The Tunes ❑ Leah Weissman, The Tunes ❑ Listings, The Oregonian ❑ Editor, The Regal Courier For further information, please contact Deputy Gty Recorder Carol Krager bycalling 503-639-4171, ext. 2419. Deputy Caty Recorder Date: Post: Tigard City Hall Tigard Permit Center Tigard Public Library TIGARD QTY COUNCIL TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD OR 97223 NOTICE 1. The December 16, 2008 Tigard City Council Meeting is a combination Workshop and Business Meeting. Prior to the Workshop Meeting there will be a Farewell Reception for Councilor Woodruff at 6:00 PM. The Workshop will begin at 6:30 PM and will be followed by a Business Meeting. 2. The December 23, 2008 Council Meeting is cancelled. 3. The December 30, 2008 Fifth Tuesday Meeting is cancelled. Please forward to: ❑ Newsroom, The Times ❑ Leah Weissman, The Times ❑ Listings, The Oregonian ❑ Editor, The Regal Courier For further information, please contact Deputy GtyRecorder Carol Krager by calling 503-639-4171, ext. 2419. -~C Deputy City Recorder Date: L'- 7S .~b Post: Tigard City Hall V Tigard Pennit Center Tigard Public Library TTGARD QTY COUNQL TTGARD QTY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD OR 97223 NOTICE 1. The December 16, 2008 Tigard City Council Meeting is a combination Workshop and Business Meeting. Prior to the Workshop Meeting there will -wo•••.Pbe a Farewell Reception for Councilor Woodruff at 6:00 PM. The Workshop will begin at 6:30 PM and will be followed by a Business Meeting. 2. The December 23, 2008 Council Meeting is cancelled. 3. The December 30, 2008 Fifth Tuesday Meeting is cancelled. Please forward to: ❑ Newsroom, The Tunes ❑ Leah Weissman, The Times ❑ Listings, The Oregonian ❑ Editor, The Regal Courier For further information, please contact Deputy City Recorder Carol Krager by calling 503-639-4171, ext. 2419. Deputy City Recorder Date: Post: Tigard City Hall Tigard Permit Center Tigard Public Library CITY OF TIGARD 100ul 12/08/2008 12:17 FAX 503 639 1471 a~ TX REPORT TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO 0770 CONNECTION TEL 503 546 0724 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID TT NEWSROOM ST. TIME 12/08 12:16 USAGE T 00'40 PGS. SENT 1 RESULT OK .}t, `!L1~/iaT, = ~'S~}:~-f^"•:'[C'N lw.i n;:'.,);1:;~~'~r; .fii7~,; _ t•o':rr: .c •;'•.•~'~•ii..°a ~i• .is'.5.ti { i y t.~ c' x~ ~•r.: ,.%.1 .•t'; Y '•1 ' ti y'.i •L w.~yi i 1rK~,i,',' •I'~ , :cam.;°. Xr•^',ttL:v.•'!r:ti:: ~i•S,'• ''i : arLt: • '.4:fy~ .tcnri.FV,7.u~.!t:.S:.n.>n,-,~!•7;~ NOTICE 1. The December 16,20o8 Tigard City Council Meeting is .a combination 'Workshop and Business Meeting. Prior to the Workshop Meeting there Workshop +•...~be a Farewell Reception for Councilor followed bBusiness Meeti Theng. Wor p will begin at 6:30 PM and will be by 2. The December 23, 2008 Council Meeting is cancelled. 3. The December 30, 2008 Fifth Tuesday Meeting is cancelled. Please forward to: ❑ Newsroom, The 'T'unes f.7 T e.A Weiccman. The TirnPe A ' City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting In the Matter of the Notification of the Combination Workshop/Business meeting of the City Council on December 16, 2008, and the Cancellation of the December 23, 2008 Business Meeting and December 30, 2008 Fifth Tuesday Meeting STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, W CL 0 I O 10 fro. Q( f , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say. That I posted in ➢ Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon ➢ Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon ➢ Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon A copy of said Notification an&a copy of said Notice being hereto attached and by reference made apart hereof, on the 0'8' day of~ , 2008. (4r~ Signature of Perso o Perfo ed Notification Subscribed and swom (ox ^{"d) before me this dayof D<-cunbce- , 2008. OFFICIAL SEAL NOTARY PUBUC ORE" COMMISSION NO, 427990 Sign ture of NotaryPub c for Oregon MY COMI11SSION EXPIRES JUNE 14, 2012 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD aTY HALL 13125 'SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD OR 97223 NOTICE 1. The December 16, 2008 Tigard City Council Meeting is a combination Workshop and Business Meeting. The Workshop will begin at 6:30 PM and will be followed by a Business Meeting. 2. The December 23, 2008 Council Meeting is cancelled. 3. The December 30, 2008 Fifth Tuesday Meeting is cancelled. Please forward to: ❑ Newsroom, The Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) ❑ Newsroom, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061) ❑ Editor, The Regal Courier (Fax No. 503-968-7397) For further information, please contact Deputy City Recorder Carol Krager by calling 503-639-4171, ext. 2419. Deputy City Recorder Date: r Post: Tigard City Hall Tigard Permit Genter Tigard Public Library Combination Workshop/Business Meeting of the Tigard City Council on December 16, 2008 and Cancellation of December 23, 2008 Council Meeting and December 30, 2008 Fifth Tuesday Meeting Affidavit of Notification In the Matter of the Notification of the above listed meetings: STATE OF OREGON ) Countyof Washington) ss. City of Tigard ) I, being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I notified the following people/organizations byfax: ° FAX ;j~rl ch f I~avk- h ❑ Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) and the following people/organizations bye-mail: ❑ Editor, The Regal Courier (Editor@RegaICourier.com) ❑ Listings Department, The Oregonian (Listings@news.oregonian.com A copy of said Notice/ being hereto attached and by reference made apart hereof, on the day of DPC Z ✓~g&--L , 20 D~ Signatu of Person who Performed tification Subscribed and sworn-(8r-affirrned) before me this mdayof 96can 200 -r _ OFFICIAL SEAL JILL M BYARS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Sig ature of Notary Pu lic for Oregon COMMISSION NO. 427990 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 14, 2012 TIGARD aTY CO[JNaL TIGARD QTY HALL ■ 13125 SW HALL BLVD. ■ TIGARD 'OR 97223 TIGARD NOTICE 1. The December 16, 2008 Tigard City Council Meeting is a combination Workshop and Business Meeting. The Workshop will begin at 6:30 PM and will be followed by a Business Meeting. 2. The December 23, 2008 Council Meeting is cancelled. 3. The December 30, 2008 Fifth Tuesday Meeting is cancelled. Please forward to: ❑ Newsroom, The Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) ❑ Newsroom, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061) ❑ Editor, The Regal Courier (Fax No. 503-968-7397) For further information, please contact Deputy City Recorder Carol Krager bycalling 503-639-4171, ext. 2419. Deputy Caty Recorder Date: Post: Tigard City Hall Tigard Permit Center Tigard Public Library TIGARD QTY COUNCIL TIGARD CITY HALL ■ 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD OR 97223 NOTICE 1. The December 16, 2008 Tigard City Council Meeting is a combination Workshop and Business Meeting. The Workshop will begin at 6:30 PM and will be followed by a Business Meeting. 2. The December 23, 2008 Council Meeting is cancelled. 3. The December 30, 2008 Fifth Tuesday Meeting is cancelled. Please forward to: ❑ Newsroom, The Tunes (Fax No. 503-546-0724) ❑ Newsroom, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061) ❑ Editor, The Regal Courier (Fax No. 503-968-7397) For further information, please contact Deputy City Recorder Carol Krager by calling 503-639-4171, ext. 2419. 0-r 16j~- Deputy City Recorder Date: Post: Tigard City Hall Tigard Permit Center Tigard Public Library NOTICE 1. The December 16, 2008 Tigard City Council Meeting is a combination Workshop and Business Meeting. The Workshop will begin at 6:30 PM and will be followed by a Business Meeting. 2. The December 23, 2008 Council Meeting is cancelled. 3. The December 30, 2008 Fifth Tuesday Meeting is cancelled. Please forward to- • Newsroom, The 'Dunes (Fax No. 503-546-0724) ❑ Newsroom, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061) ❑ Editor, The Regal Courier (Fax No. 503-968-7397) For further information, please contact Deputy City Recorder Carol Krager bycalling 503-639-4171, ext. 2419. Deputy City Recorder Date: o;2 tl Post: Tigard CrtyFM Tigard Peanit Center Tigard Public Library xo 11fiSHx T JNHS ' S9d Lt,00 Z H9VSII Ot:60 80/ZT MIL 'ZS QI u0I.L0auu0a ssHHa(tvcns VZL09VSROS in NoIlOHNNOo L9LO om XH/XJ. CIO NIOISSIKSKVHI IHOdax X1 TWA QUY9I1 30 )U10 TLtT 699 805 XVd Ot:60 8007./RO/7.T Carol Krager From: Carol Krager Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 9:43 AM To: 'Editor@theregalcourier.com ; 'Listings@news.oregonian.com'; 'Iweissman@commnewspapers.com' Subject: CHANGES IN DECEMBER COUNCIL MEETINGS Attachments: Carol Krager.vcf; Council Meeting Changes.pdf Attached is a notice listing a change for the December 16, 2008 Tigard City Council Meeting - it is a combination workshop/business meeting, and the cancellation of the Dec. 23, 2008 business meeting and the Dec. 30 Fifth Tuesday meeting. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Cary of Tigard r o Carol Krager Deputy City Recorder 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 718-2419 carolk@tigard-or.gov 1 City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting TIGARD In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance(s) -14 STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, W at + 01 " 010 P Q d e , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) Q g a r -A , which were adopted at the City Council meeting of with a copy(s) of said Ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the / g 11' day of & CO re-,10 ~ )2002- 1. 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Permit Centex, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon G Signature f P who erformed Posting Subscribed an sworn ) before me this I~ day of 20 0. f OFFICIAL SEAT. Si ature of No ary blic for Oregon , JILL MBYARS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 427990 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 14, 2012 I:IedmtcathyVonnslposl ordinance 2000.doc CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.08-,ai- A AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 15.06.100 "RIGHT-OF-WAY USAGE FEE" TO INCLUDE A PER FOOT FEE. WHEREAS, Tigard Municipal Code ("TMC") Chapter 15.06 governs use of the rights-of-way by utility operators, including the fee to be paid for such use; and WHEREAS, TMC section 15.06.100 establishes a right-of-way usage fee calculated as a percentage of gross revenues earned within the City from the sale of utility services to customers within the City; and WHEREAS, the City understands that some utility operators do not earn gross revenues as defined in TMC Chapter 15.06 and thus would owe the City $0 under the existing right-of-way usage fee; and WHEREAS, the intent of the right-of-way usage fee is to ensure that the City receives fair and reasonable compensation for private use of the rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that amending the right-of-way usage fee provisions of the TMC to require payment of the fee that is greater of (1) the gross revenues-based fee currently set forth in TMC 15.06.100, or (2) a per linear foot-based fee of a utility's facilities in the right-of-way will ensure that utility operators with facilities in the right-of-way that do not generate gross revenues as defined in TMC 15.06 will nevertheless pay fair and reasonable compensation for their use of the rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Council should be authorized to establish the fee to be charged per linear foot of facilities in the City's rights-of-way by resolution. Now, therefore, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Section 15.06.100 of the TMC is amended as set forth below. (Strike text is deleted from the Code and underlined text is added to the Code.) 1. All persons using a utility system or facility in the right-of-way to provide service to customers within the City of Tigard shall annually pay a right-of-way usage fee that is the greater o i the applicable percentage of gross revenues set forth in subparagraph 2 of this section 15.06.100 or (ii) the linear foot fee set by Council resolution pursuant to subparagraph 3 of this section 15.06.100 subject to any applicable limitations imposed by federal ORDINANCE NO. 08-D I Page 1 of 2 r and state statutes, including the privilege tax limitations set forth in ORS 221.410 through 221.655. 2. The right-of-way usage fee percentage applicable to each class of utility shall be as follows: Telecommunications: 5.0% Electric: 3.5% Natural Gas: 5.0% Water: 5.0% Sanitary Sewer 5.0% 3. The City Council is hereby authorized to establish by resolution a right-of-way usage fee calculated based on the total linear feet of a utility operator's facilities in the rights-of-way 34. Right-of-way usage fee payments shall be net of any franchise fee payments received by the City, but in no case will be less than $0. 45. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the City, the right-of-way usage fee shall be payable semi-annually on or before March 15 for the six month period ended the previous December 31, and September 15 for the six month period ended the previous June 30. The utility shall pay interest at the rate of nine percent per year for any payment made after the due date. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By U OJA~I Y n ( uAS vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only this at day of December, 2008. ralhVii", w4tc&_I~q" Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this ( (0 " day of December, 200 . Craig ' ksen, Mayor APP OVED AS TO FOR ity Attorney )a.)to .(D~ Date ORDINANCE NO. 08-_;~]-- A Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item No. 3 , 1-d Meeting of Q /rN VQ1LLJ - ~ )00 ~f n - - City of Tigard Tigard Business/Workshop Meeting Minutes TIGARD CITY COUNCIL & LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) MEETING DATE/TIME: December 16, 2008 Business/Workshop Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 7:11:30 PM Mayor Dirksen called the meeting to order. Name Present Absent Mayor Dirksen ✓ Councilor Buehner ✓ Council President Sherwood ✓ Councilor Wilson ✓ Councilor Woodruff ✓ Also Present: Library Director Barnes, Police Chief Dickinson, City Engineer Duenas, Public Works Director Koellermeier, Assistant to the City Manager Mills, Assistant City Manager Newton, City Manager Prosser, City Attorney Ramis, and City Recorder Wheatley 7:11:36 PM WORKSHOP MEE HNG 1. DISCUSS CITY OF TIGARD'S 20-YEAR FACILITIES PLAN Public Works Director Koellermeier introduced Mr. Paul Boundy, LRS Architects. LRS Architects developed the City's 20-Year Facilities Plan 7:12:34 PM Mr. Boundy's presentation is highlighted on PowerPoint slides; a copy of the presentation (Sun rary Report - City of TiganI - Draft - Tuagy Year City Facility Plan) is on f ile in the City Recorder's office. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 WHO Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 1 of 19 7:35:36 PM Councilor Woodruff noted that many of the calculations and assumptions contained in the Plan are based on the population. In 20 years, the Plan anticipates 17,000 additional people. He asked if this was based on infill or annexations? Mr. Boundy responded that the basis for this number was provided by the Planning Division. There is some density occurring; however, it is not a significant amount. Perhaps in twenty years we will be begin to see the higher density with mass transit occurring. The ratio is projected to be lower for the next twenty years than it was in the previous twenty years. Mr. Boundy said they were attempting to be conservative, but not overly conservative. 7:36:50 PM Councilor Buehner questioned, in the short term, if the Police Department was moved to the Public Works Building, would we continue to have Court in the City Hall facility? Mr. Boundy said the thought now is to leave the court in the City Hall building for the short term. The short-term proposal is to address the Police Department's issues with minimal cost. Whether to move the court in the short term needs to be analyzed. Councilor Buehner noted the Town Hall seems to be in use almost all of the time and with the increase in population, it is likely the court will need to increase its hours, and hearings officer proceedings, etc. Mr. Boundy said eventually the court should be relocated and become a specific court facility. Councilor Buehner said this should be evaluated at the same time the City reviews whether to increase the types of cases for the court. 7:39:31 PM Mayor Dirksen asked City Council members to express their general reaction to this draft document; i.e., the timeline, scope and priorities. 7:39:56 PM Councilor Wilson advised he had a concern similar to Councilor Woodruff regarding the population projections. During the 1990's there was a massive amount of growth because land was available. This has now stopped. He said the numbers for the City of Portland for last year showed that it did not grow at all. He questioned whether it is reasonable to project a growth rate of 1.5 percent a year. On the other hand, annexation of Areas 63 and 64 could occur. 7:41:13 PM Councilor Wilson said he had heard the suggestion that the Public Works yard should be moved from the downtown. He agrees that a yard is not consistent with our Downtown Plan. He was disappointed to see the Police Department move to the vacated property with functions that are similar; i.e., evidence storage, vehicle storage/maintenance. He said this area might be better used for private development. Assuming that the Fire Station will remain at its location, he asked if there would not be enough space for the Public Works yard? Mr. Boundy said there is about 13 acres of need and the current site is about 7-1/2 acres. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 Qtyof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of 19 7:42:59 PM Mr. Boundy said the basic space needs projections were not based only on population growth. Councilor Wilson said he would prefer to see City facility space needs be addressed by building vertically, if possible. He asked Police Chief Dickinson if it would be feasible to move some of the police functions, such as evidence storage, with Public Works. Councilor Wilson would like to see the office-oriented functions of the Police Department remain on the current campus. He agreed that the Police Department needs should be of higher priority. 7:44:19 PM Council President Sherwood said she believes in planning for 20 and 30 years. The Plan will cost a lot of money and should be "Plan A." She said we should be practical and develop a "Plan B" to provide options. 7:45:15 PM Councilor Buchner said she is in favor of the Plan. When the City built the current City Hall complex, they went "cheap." It was originally planned to put the infrastructure in place to build a second floor; but, in the effort to keep the cost down, this additional infrastructure was removed. This has made vertical expansion impossible. She is concerned that, as we plan, that we make sure that we do not think "cheap" because in the long run, it will end up being more expensive. Had the City taken the time and spent a little more money in the 80's, we would not be in the limited situation find ourselves. 7:46:35 PM Councilor Buchner said she agrees the Public Works facility and Police vehicle storage and servicing should be moved from the downtown. Police office staff should be close to City Hall. 7:47:21 PM Mayor Dirksen said one of the current goals for the downtown area is to redevelop the Public Works yard to create a catalyst project. The first priority would be to seek a new site for Public Works and this process needs to begin now if this is to be achieved in the next five to ten years. He referred to the population estimates; he agreed with Councilor Wilson that it is difficult to anticipate what will happen in the future. In the last year, Mayor Dirksen has taken part in discussions with Metro regarding what is to be expected for population growth in the next 20 years. Metro is basing most of their decisions on projections that we should anticipate an additional million people in the Portland metropolitan area. In Washington County, this will mean about 400,000 additional people in the next 20 years. Mayor Dirksen said the projections in the Facilities Plan appear to be in keeping with what Metro anticipates will be Tigard's portion of that growth. 7:50:45 PM Councilor Woodruff said we should start educating people since this represents a huge cost. There must be community buy-in as to whether this should be a priority in the short- and long- TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 city of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 3 of 19 run. Council President Sherwood recalled that it took three attempts for voter approval to build the current city hall. She agreed it would take a long education process for buy-in. 7:52:29 PM City Manager Prosser said the proposed Facilities Plan under review tonight is a draft document. It was created because we need to look at city needs holistically so as issues come up, we do not choose a path that cuts off a long-term option. He summarized what he has heard during the City Council discussion: • Look at potential vertical use of space. • Identify options; i.e., Plan A and B • Educate the public with emphasis on the needs for the Police station • To get a Police station, we need to first deal with the Public Works issue and this must be part of the information to get to the public 7:54:02 PM In response to a comment by Councilor Buehner, City Manager Prosser said it has long been the City's plan that the old public works yard would be made available for redevelopment. One of the policy issues the City will need to resolve is whether to place this property on the market to get full-market value or should the property be offered at a lesser value in exchange for the type of development on that parcel that will support and "spark" activity downtown. This will become a significant policy question. 7:54:55 PM Mayer Dirksen added that another option would be to retain the old public works property ownership and enter into a public/private partnership with a developer, which would give the City an opportunity to have a say in what the development will be for a catalyst project to show people what development in the downtown could be like. 7:55:36 PM Mayor Dirksen said it is clear that the first priority will be to move the Public Works facility out of the downtown so the Police Department can be moved. This would be a single process. The rest of the Facilities Plan is good for a placeholder, but as time goes by and things change, the plan will certainly not look as it does now. 7:56:21 PM Public Works Director Koellermeier said he has made note that the Council desires that staff consider more vertical building, develop options, and that the short-term direction is more clear than the long-term. He said staff would consider the above as the final Facilities Plan document is prepared. The Plan will be brought to the City Council for final adoption. Elements of the Plan have been forecast into the five-year financial plan. Cwxd heardAW7da ItemNa 3 at this tier T571•45 PM TIGARD CITY COUNCILACRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov Page 4 of 19~~ 3. STATUS UPDATE ON BARROWS ROAD BRIDGE REPAIR City Engineer Duenas introduced: • Kathy Lehtola, Washington County Director of Land Use and Transportation • Greg Clemmons, Washington County Operations Engineer In July City Council directed staff to move ahead with a cost-sharing arrangement to replace the existing Barrows Bridge, which is in a severely deteriorated condition. This direction was based on the supposition that the replacement structure would carry full traffic loads for a 20-year lifespan. Since then, the County has done more investigations and determined that the replacement bridge would last for only five years. The issues now are whether we should move ahead with the replacement structure, should the City participate, and should the City accept jurisdiction of Barrows Road in conjunction with Beaverton based on those new findings. 7:59:56 PM County Operations Engineer Clemmons reviewed a PowerPoint presentation illustrating the problems with the bridge. A copy of this presentation is filed in the City Recorder's office. The problems were defined for the following, with photographs showing the existing conditions: • Wingwall settlement and erosion • Endwall decay • Piling decay • Offset pile cap 8:04:57 PM County Operations Engineer Clemmons reported on the complications associated with the bridge repair: • Summer Creek requires a high-level of permitting requirements, • Beaver dams are raising the water level, • Barrows is classified as a County local road, which means it is at the lowest priority • Davies Road improvement is the ultimate, long-term solution (this improvement is 10 to 15 years away), • Subgrade soils are extremely weak, • The deck is a monolithic slab, which was nailed in (not considered the best of construction practices). 8:07:55 PM Options: • Repair the existing structure • New permanent bridge ($1-2 million estimate) • New single-lane temporary bridge (5 + years) • New double-lane temporary bridge (5 + years) • Closure TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page S of 19 8:09:56 PM Recommendations: • New double-lane temporary bridge • Longitudinal Glu-Lam bridge (light weight, doesn't require a crane to lift) • Timber footing • Cost - about $150,000 County Operations Engineer Clemmons reviewed how the temporary double-lane bridge would be constructed. The abutment system is the limiting factor with regard to the temporary bridge being viable for about five years. He and City Engineer Duenas reviewed some possible reinforcement solutions that could mean the bridge would last for a longer period. Mayor Dirksen said he feels it necessary that we come up with a solution that will last until the Davies Road realignment is completed. Closure of Barrows Road is not an option. Finding a solution might be more expensive than the current proposed double-lane temporary bridge. He suggested retaining the concept of the three-way partnership among Tigard, Beaverton, and the County with the cost being shared equally. Councilor Wilson agreed with Mayor Dirksen. The City heard from many citizens who were concerned about the closure of Barrows Road. He supported a solution that would last for at least ten years accompanied by encouragement for the Davies Road realignment to be done within these ten years. Mayor Dirksen said even if this solution were to only last for five years with the City's investment of $50,000 and this would translate to a cost of only $10,000 per year. This would probably be worthwhile even if this were all we could do now. In response to a question from Council President Sherwood, County Operations Engineer Clemmons said the bridge would be, closed for three weeks while the repair is done. City Engineer Duenas said five years would buy us enough time to look at improvements to 135`h Avenue and Walnut Street (signalization and widening). Mayor Dirksen said the five years would also give us time to identify a solution. Councilor Wilson referred to impacts to the new intersection at Barrows and Murray along with potential impacts to Albertson's and the cuts-de- sac created on two roads. Councilor Buehner agreed this would become a major traffic issue. Councilor Woodruff said he appreciated the significant work the County and City Engineer have done on this matter. He said it is unfortunate we are still dealing with this since he thinks we have communicated to residents that a solution was selected. People who are directly impacted believe this is being resolved. He agreed with Mayor Dirksen's suggestion to make the fix last a little bit longer, even it costs a little more so we can be true to what we have already told people. In response to a request by Mayor Dirksen, County Director of Land Use and Transportation Lehtola said she believed everyone had entered into the solution to the Barrows Bridge repair in good faith. She reiterated that County Operations Engineer Clemmons feels comfortable that the proposed bridge will last five years and could last for ten years. This will be a temporary fix; TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 6 of 19 Davies Road needs to "go through." She said when she was talking with Mayor Drake about funding through the economic stimulus package; the Davies Road project would not be ready in six months. However, if there were funding available in mid-term (two years), Beaverton might be able to get the Davies Road project funding. County Director of Land Use and Transportation Lehtola agreed that they need to try for the longer-term solutions. In response to a comment by Council President Sherwood, Mayor Dirksen said he would recommend a weight limitation on the bridge so it would extend the life. County Director of Land Use and Transportation Lehtola said trucks are already limited, so that would not be an issue. Councilor Buehner said she was concerned because of the number of years the Murray Extension was delayed, which was at least ten years. She supported planning for a longer-term solution. Mayor Dirksen said he would be talking to officials at the County and City of Beaverton in the near future to see if we could come to an agreement on this matter. Age> Item No 2 uas nzi~ by the City Cmxd at this tip 8:23:03 PM 2. DISCUSS WASHINGTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICES (WCCLS) STRATEGIC PLANNING Library Director Barnes advised this is an information item, which ties in with long-range planning (five to ten years before any action would be taken). The County hired a consulting firm from Kansas City to explore funding options. Recently the city managers and library directors attended a meeting to discuss the options with a goal for stable funding in the future. City Manager Prosser advised one of the reasons behind the study was that the County Cooperative Library System wants to have a roadmap for the future. There are concerns about stable funding. Before Measure 50 a library levy was renewed on a regular basis by County voters. Once Measure 50 passed, this funding was rolled into the County permanent rate. There were operational levies presented to the voters in 2002 and 2004 and both were unsuccessful. In 2006, a four-year operational levy was approved, which will take us through 2010. There is a plan for a renewal levy on the November 2010 ballot. The options presenting in the strategic planning funding represent ways to achieve stable funding. City Manager Prosser explained that at the WCCLS Executive Board workshop four options were identified: 1. Special librarydistrict 2. County service district 3. Alternative tax to replace the local option levy 4. Transfer all libraries to the County as a new Department in the County TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 Ciry of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 1 wwwAigard-or.gov Page 7 of 19 Of the four options, the two that received the most interest were: 1. Researching the creation of a special library district and possibly a separate elected board 2. Creating a County service district and the County Commissioners would be the Board for the service district. These two options would work in terms of achieving stable funding. City Manager Prosser said the future of County services is the larger issue. There is a concern that if we look at forming a special library district or even a County service district, we are starting to split off County services into separate operating entities. What does that say about the future of core County services including those services received by County residents who live within cities? This review is at a very early stage. Staff brought this before the City Council, so the Council is aware that this is moving forward and to raise the larger issue noted above. If the City Council has concerns, staff can bring those issues forward. City Manager Prosser requested City Council direction. 8:28:55 PM Councilor Wilson said he has some concerns. His said that while is aware that the City is part of a cooperative, his perspective has been a little more parochial in that "this is our library, we built the building, it's on our campus." He said he has been to the Beaverton library to attend a meeting; however, he does not recall ever having gone to any of the other libraries. Councilor Wilson said he understands the need for stable funding, but in some ways all of the solutions are far worse than the problem they are attempting to solve. As an example, the report says that Tigard staff was paid higher than the other jurisdictions, so the report advocated raising an extra $2.4 million to operate the libraries as a County function. Councilor Wilson said this "would just be money down the drain." Tigard has worked hard to make its Library a nice facility and he would not want to give up local control. Council President Sherwood said she felt the same way as Councilor Wilson. She compared it to our area's school district, where voters have supported the schools locally. If you place an "equalizer" across the County, then it would possibly take away from our Library. Council President Sherwood said she did not like the comparison of Tigard's Library to other jurisdictions. "What we have... done is what our citizens want. They want the professional staff, they want the hours, they want the building...I was a little disturbed to think that we would be suddenly helping subsidize by using our votes across the County to help other libraries... " She acknowledged the benefits of WCCLS with regard to operating revenues. 8:31:29 I'M Councilor Buehner asked if any thought was given to discussing the possibility of less County control and more local control. CityManager Prosser advised that with the two proposed service district options, they could be structured in a variety of ways. There could be a special service district so it is similar to the Multnomah County Library Service District with all the libraries controlled by a separate elected board. At the opposite, you could probably fit our TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 8 of 19 existing structure or something very similar to it into that special district umbrella. As we discuss this further, City Manager Prosser said Tigard staff would likely argue very strongly for the local control. He said, "What I am hearing loud and clear... is that we would definitely be arguing for local control... " 8:33:14 PM Library Director Barnes said the County Service District is the option where there could be opportunity for a spectrum of how library services are provided. She added that there appeared to be no interest in exploring an alternative tax as another funding source. Library Director Barnes said that they are aware that Tigard residents currently have a higher tax burden for library services than the urban unincorporated areas surrounding the city. Much discussion still needs to take place. Clackamas County just formed a library district; there might be things we could learn from them. 8:35:26 PM City Manager Prosser said he was very surprised about the Board's disinterest in looking at an alternative funding source. From his perspective, if the issue is to obtain stable funding, this should be the first option to consider. During the discussion among his group at the Board meeting, there was concern that an alternative funding source meant a sales tax but City Manager Prosser stated an alternative funding source does not necessarily mean a sales tax - there are other options. 8:36:50 PM Councilor Buehner referred to the option about having the library services entity supervised by the County Commissioners. She said the Commissioners are already busy with their current span of responsibilities and this does not seem to be a preferable path to consider. Library Director Barnes advised that the County Board has jurisdiction over the WCCLS at this time. 8:37:36 PM Councilor Woodruff said that many people in Tigard take pride in their library and he would not want to have anything communicate that this is not considered a City asset and has been transferred to the County. He supports stable funding but he wants to see the Tigard Library Director be accountable to the City Manager who in turn is accountable to the City Council. 8:38:09 PM Councilor Wilson referred to alternative sources of funding and the Counts General Fund money. He noted concern that the County might allocate this money to other uses and shift it to rural areas more than they are doing now. The County acknowledged in their report that cities are "losers in library services." He said to "guard that existing General Fund source." TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 -City of Tigard , 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov Page 9 of 19 8:39:05 PM Mayor Dirksen commented that in Tigard, Tualatin, and Beaverton, the city libraries are closely associated with each City's identity. He speculated that this is also the case with other cities and their relationship with their libraries. He said he was opposed to losing this. He supported finding a stable source of funding encouraging County residents to equally support libraries (which is not currently the case). He acknowledged the issue is complex but eventuallywill need to be resolved. 8:40:34 PM City Council meeting recessed. 8:46:36 PM City Council meeting reconvened. Mayor Dirksen announced that the agenda would be reordered. Agenda Item Nos. 5 and 6 will be heard next. 5. DISCUSS COUNCIL DAIS City Recorder Wheatley presented the staff report regarding reconfiguration of the City Council dais in Town Hall. Two options were explored: • Raise the dais. • Remodel the existing desks by lowering monitors and a privacy facade in the front. This configuration would be done in such a way for better camera angles as well as providing the audience with better visibility of the people seated at the dais. If the dais is raised, one desk would be removed to accommodate ADA requirements for a ramp. In addition, the audio/visual wiring would need work adding another $10,000. Mayor Dirksen said he understood that the reason for raising the dais would be to improve the electronics. He said he was not interested in raising the dais just for the sake of raising it. He said it might not be a bad idea to look at remodeling the desks. Councilor Buehner commented on the amount of wiring under the Mayor's desk and suggested looking at redoing this. Councilor Wilson said lowering the monitors would help the public view the City Council better. However, this is not a high priority compared to improving the electronics. At some point the desks need to be repaired or replaced. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 10 of 19 After discussion, the City Council said if some of the improvements to the desk structure could occur when electronic improvements are done, then this could be considered. However, there is no need for any major remodeling. 6. DISCUSS TOWN HALL ELECTRONICS IT Specialist Myers presented the staff report. If the dais is remodeled, then the wiring would be entirely redone including running all of the wires under the floor. In response to a question from Mayor Dirksen, IT Specialist Myers advised past problems with the system have been less with the system itself and more with the need for training control room operators. With the system upgrade a lot of equipment was added The design engineer has evaluated and adjusted the system's settings several times. Mayor Dirksen asked if the room could be set up so meeting participants could use wireless microphones as a cost-effective alternative. IT Specialist Myers said he did not believe this would be cost effective for the current system, which is "maxed" out with twelve hardwired and four wireless microphones. 8:57:00 PM IT Specialist Myers reviewed the solution planned to address microphones for workshop meetings. There would be a single conduit housing the microphone wires that would run to the center of the room so 12 microphones designed to be used with the system would be activated. Funding is available to do this. 8:58:28 PM In response to Councilor Buehner regarding the life of the current sound system, IT Specialist Myers explained the system was designed to be long lasting and then upgraded as needed by adding pieces to the system Discussion followed on table configuration for workshop meetings. The Council's preference is to have tables set up in the center of the room 9:00:45 PM City Manager Prosser summarized the direction from the City Council. There is to be no reconfiguration or alterations to the dais at this time. Staff is to proceed with the proposal for the single conduit line for wires for the workshop setting and to use 12 microphones designed for the current system. Agenda ItemNa 4 vm heard at this tan,- 9:01:18 PM 4. DISCUSS URBAN/RURAL RESERVES Councilor Buehner advised that Assistant Community Development Director Bunch also had information on this item; she expressed reluctance to discuss this item in much detail now. The next Urban/Rural Reserves Committee meeting is January 8, 2009; therefore, there is no opportunity for a City Council discussion between now and the 8`''. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 Gry of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov 4Page 11 of 19 Councilor Buehner reported on the discussion at the last Urban/Rural Reserves meeting: • Population numbers will not be available until April. This puts the Committee in a bind with regard to good decisions because it will not have sufficient information. • Four jurisdictions presented information on their aspirations. Tigard is on the agenda for the next meeting. Councilor Buehner said she needs to meet with Assistant Community Development Director Bunch to prepare Tigard's presentation. Mayor Dirksen said he spoke to Metro Councilor Hosticka about the population numbers. The population numbers available were the result of a study for a certain point in time and were not intended to be used as the definitive set of numbers for future considerations. Councilor Buehner said this was not how it was presented to the Committee last June. She said we were not asking for a specific number, but for a relative range of numbers. The only numbers that have been released are based on zero expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary and changing the growth patterns from historic to placing the majority of future growth in Multnomah County." She said this does not make sense. 9:05:32 PM Mayor Dirksen said he has heard that different jurisdictions have different feelings about the Urban/Rural Reserves Committee's process. He recommended that Councilor Buehner take the opportunity at the next meeting to express concerns. He said I think you have been encouraged to send an email to all of the members... so your concerns would be considered at the next meeting." He asked Councilor Buehner to look for a consensus or a majority of the Corrunittee members who desire to slow down the process so the elected members of the Committee would have an opportunity to consider options. Mayor Dirksen recommended that the City Council acknowledge to Councilor Buehner that she has their confidence and give her the authority to make such a recommendation. Then, after a vote, the proceedings would continue in accordance with the will of the majority of the Washington County representatives. 9:06:52 PM Councilor Buehner advised that since the last meeting, she has been contacted by a variety of people (business leaders, citizens, CPO leaders) who have stated that they agreed with her concerns and they were upset with the process. Mayor Dirksen said he is also aware that Councilor Buehner's concerns are shared byMetro Councilor Harrington. 9:07:34 PM After discussion, Council members agreed with Mayor Dirksen's to encourage Councilor Buehner to express her concerns and attempt to get agreement of the majority of the Committee. 9:09:12 PM TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tBard-or.gov Page 12 of 19 ➢ Tonight is Community Development Director Coffee's final meeting with the Tigard City Council; he is retiring in January 9, 2009. He thanked the City of Tigard for his time with the City. He said Tigard is in a great position - there is a lot of potential for development of the Downtown, improvements to 99W, and accessing the untapped potential in the Tigard Triangle. He referred to population numbers discussed earlier in the meeting with development of the remaining 600 undeveloped parcels in Tigard along with redevelopment of the Downtown and redevelopment along Hghway99W, he feels the population projections are viable. Mayor Dirksen extended his thanks to Community Development Director Coffee who has done a great job for the City of Tigard. He will be missed. Ron Bunch will become Mr. Coffee's successor as Community Development Director. Council President Sherwood expressed appreciation for Community Development Director Coffee's approach, which instilled confidence among the City Council. Councilor Buehner noted she was on the Planning Commission when Mr. Coffee joined the City of Tigard and his work with the Community Development Department staff was commendable and appreciated. Councilor Wilson said it was not only the skills Mr. Coffee brought to the job, but it was also his temperament. Land use issues are the most controversial matters the City Council deals with and Councilor Wilson said he thought Mr. Coffee diffused many situations that could have been tense. 9:13:03 PM 7. BUSINESS MEETING 7.1 Mayor Dirksen called the meeting to order. ,7.2 Roll Call Name Present Absent Mayor Dirksen ✓ Councilor Buehner ✓ Council President Sherwood ✓ Councilor Wilson ✓ Councilor Woodruff ✓ 7.3 Pledge of Allegiance 7.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 9:13:56 PM Councilor Buehner advised that last week, the Intergovernmental Water Board voted to recommend approval of sales of several properties. This recommendation will be coming to the City Council for consideration in late January. 7.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 9:14:43 PM TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 Cityof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 1 WWW.Eigard-or.gov Page 13 of 19 Mayor Dirksen introduced a Non Agenda Item for Gty Council consideration. Tonight is Councilor Woodruff's last meeting. Mayor Dirksen requested the Gty Council consider a resolution honoring Councilor Woodruff by naming a new pedestrian bridge to be installed over Fanno Creek as the Woodnrff Bn* Mayor Dirksen read the text of the proposed resolution: WHEREAS, the City cf Tigan~ djrrxrgh Resod" No 99-37 (Exhibit A), established a policy on placing rremrials in City park facilities, City oural property and for the narnng q but Urgs and park properties; and WHEREAS, Tom Wox67 ff lxia smed as a Tigard City Qwvlor sinme Febrzeiry 24, 2004 and his seruce will condude Deem-er 31, 2008; and WHEREAS, C unalor Woaln ff errphzized the wporiarxe cf oxnarniration and downstrated this by adzzdy listening to constituents and fellow Cawxzlm, and WHEREAS, Cxrnrilor Wo f sorted as floe City Cam al liaison during the ngtrcrtions q the Tigard/Lake Oswego Water Partnership Intergozernrrprnal A pwn vi and WHEREA S, Caaxilor Waal 4 sewed as the "en= w to dx Tigard Parks and Ramition Beam the MetrTolitan A ira CorTraaications Convrassiorti the iWill nzve R1Wr Water GwlitiN and the Water ComortaM and WHEREA S, Camalor Woo f serzed as the Czwxzl liaison to the a=en's Tig mi Beyond Tanunvw Vision Task Fong and WHEREAS, tle City Camcd deem, it appropriate to honor Cama'lor Woalnes cornribtmon to Tigani and the City Caaacil; and WHEREA S, in 2009 a new pedestrian bridge will be installed ozer Fanno Creek just north cf Tigard Public L ibrary and this brides will w at two se wv& cfFanno Creek Trail; and WHEREAS, a bridge would be a fitting tribiev to Counalor Woa ; f who wits decated to am wu g citizens to their local gmerrm it and working with bis fellow Qun ilms to #r open; nranir& W&uuy awnionwim NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED by the Tigard City Camcd tho.- SE MON 1: The newpadestnan bridge to l- installed ozer Farm Cruz just north cf the Tigard Public L ibrary will be Warred "Woodn ff Bndg , bonor cf Tigard City Camalor Tom Woahuff. SE C770N 2: A plaque denoting "Woxbwff Bridge" will be installed on or rear d x bridge TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 Gt), of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 14 of 19 Motion by Council President Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Buehner, to adopt Resolution No. 08-77. RESOLUTION NO. 08-77 A RESOLUTION NAMING A NEW PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE TO BE INSTALLED OVER FANNO CREEK AS "WOODRUFF BRIDGE," HONORING TIGARD CITY COUNCILOR TOM WOODRUFF The motion was approved by a majority vote of City Council present. Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Buehner Yes Council President Sherwood Yes Councilor Wilson Yes Councilor Woodruff Abstained Council President Sherwood offered words of gratitude for Councilor Woodruff's role in keeping the City Council and the City of Tigard on a steady course, for his valuable input, and for his dedication to the City the last five years. Mayor Dirksen presented Councilor Woodruff with a special copy of the resolution and a certificate stating: In honor and appreciation of Councilor TomWoodruff's seruke to the at zeros of Tigard February 24, 2004 - Decemur 31, 2008 (The above wording is representative of the wording that will be on the plaque near the bridge) 9:20:31 PM Councilor Woodruff made some farewell remarks to the City Council and the citizens of Tigard: It has been 57 numbs since Fw been on Council... that's 170 Czwxd nzetings here in this my room 1 haze sezeral people to thank - I drank Craig Sydney and Nick for sel rang rye to fill the wcarxy that oa nvd in Camcil in March 2004 and then encwaging rye to rum for the position I thank the Tigard zoters for electing rte to a four- year terra beginning in 2005. I thank the City Manager, the Execxttiw teary; and about 350 full- and part titre errployees for their kindxss and resporrsizeness to rte ozer this titre, and their dedication to the City and to their aratizity in inVknenting Council gads and policies. I thank the smres of zolwr&n uho ser w on boards, mrmissions, and advi or y groups - they aduise the Council and do so mach gad cork throughout the City. I am thankful to my bmurtod wife - for her encouraWrent and her understanding of my City Courxg schedule Mast of all I thank the citizens of Tigard for allozarg rte the TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 Ciry of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 15 of 19 honor and the pnulege to haze sm,-d on the City Council It has been a joy and a hun piling experience I wish Marland and the Courxd the lest as they begin a wwyar. I will support the Council in whaterer wry that I can During the time that 1 haze been on Council, I hope that I haze nude a posidw differ in some zay. I know that the ecperierxe has nude a posidw diffemn on rr,- I just appm-iate ewryane so nmb Mayor Dirksen told Councilor Woodruff that it has been a pleasure to have him on the City Council. Mayor Dirksen complimented Councilor Woodruff for being "unflappable" - always a steady hand and a well considered thought. 8. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION • Citizen Communication: None • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication: None 9:23:44 PM Mayor Dirksen reviewed the Consent Agenda: 9. CONSENT AGENDA: 9.1 Approve City Council Minutes for October 21 and 28, 2008 9.2 Receive and File: Canvass of Votes for City of Tigard Council Candidates - November 4, 2008 Election 9.3 Authorize the Mayor to Renew the West Nile Virus Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County 9.4 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Washington County, and the City of Tualatin for Maintenance of the Bridgeport Village Improvements - Resolution No. 08-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE QTY OF TIGARD, OREGON APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (ODOT), WASHINGTON COUNTY, AND THE CITY OF TUALATIN TO ESTABLISH MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE COMPLETED BRIDGEPORT VILLAGE IMPROVEMENTS. Motion by Councilor Wilson, seconded by Council President Sherwood, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of City Council present. Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Buehner Yes Council President Sherwood Yes TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 Cityof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 16 of 19 Councilor Wilson Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes 10. CONSIDER AMENDING THE FRANCI IISE UTILITY ORDINANCE BY ADDING A PER LINEAR FOOT-BASED FEE (TITLE 15.06 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE) Assistant to the CityManager Mills presented the staff report. About two months ago, the City Council adopted a franchise agreement with Qwest Communication. This was a different agreement with regard to the revenue structure. The current Tigard Municipal Code says that the revenue for a franchise agreement is based on a certain percent of gross revenues a company receives because of their business in Tigard. Staff is finding that many telecom providers are putting improvements in the ground but do not provide service in Tigard; it is more of a line that other providers link into. For the City to receive fair and reasonable compensation for utility companies using the rights of way, staff recommends that the City Council amend the Tigard Municipal Code as outlined in the proposed ordinance. In response to a question by Councilor Woodruff, Assistant to the City Manager Mills advised staff does not have information regarding how much additional revenue this might bring to the City. At this time there is one franchise holder under this rate structure and they have not done their development in Tigard. She referred to a recent study conducted by the League of Oregon Cities, which indicated that many cities are adopting similar language to their franchise ordinances because of the new type of telecommunication services. Motion by Councilor Buehner, seconded by Councilor Wilson, to adopt Ordinance No. 08- 21A' . ORDINANCE NO. 08-21A - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 15.06.100 "RIGHT-OF-WAY USAGE FEE" TO INCLUDE A PER FOOT FEE The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of City Council present. Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Buehner Yes Council President Sherwood Yes Councilor Wilson Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes "City Remb's note Orden xe No 08-21 zoos assignxi to an arhmrx8 adtptat pn ly by dx Gry cama d5 this onhmnx yeas assignal the rnnrixr Oninvw Na 08-21A. 9:28:52 PM 11. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD UTILITY FRANCEIISE AGREEMENT TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 Ciry of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 17 of 19 Assistant to the CityManager Mills presented the staff report. The City has never adopted a standard agreement. By adopting a standard agreement, a new ordinance would not be needed each time a new franchise agreement is entered into. The current Tigard Municipal Code allows for a standard utility easement if approved by Council resolution; a proposed resolution was considered by the City Council. Councilor Buehner asked if the proposed resolution would need customization or was it sufficiently generic for future franchisors. Assistant to the City Manager Mills said the standard agreement was written to be broad enough for all utilities; however, it would not cover a franchise for solid waste. If an agreement needs to be amended to fit circumstances for a particular utility, staff would bring the agreement to the City Council to be reviewed and adopted by ordinance. Some companies might want special language required by their legal counsel or corporation. City Manager Prosser advised that when the Code language was originally written to make a standard agreement an option, one of the advantages was that a standard agreement would allow for a fast-track process. However, if the agreement is customized, staff would work with the City Attorney and the utility's attorneys; there would be a more protracted negotiation process, which would include the Council's consideration of an ordinance. Staff would prefer to have everyone on a standard agreement. City Attorney Rarris advised that for decades the approach for franchising has been standardized. Now, we are in a period of rapid change/evolution. It could be that within the next two years other options might need to be considered by the City Council. Mayor Dirksen noted his support of a standard agreement to accommodate a shorter timeline; however, it would not preclude an applicant from negotiating a custom agreement. Motion by Councilor Wilson, seconded by Councilor Woodruff, to adopt Resolution No. 08-79. RESOLUTION No. 08-79 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE STANDARD UTILITY FRANCHISE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TOTIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 15.06.060 The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of City Council present. Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Buehner Yes Council President Sherwood Yes Councilor Wilson Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None. 13. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 Cite of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 18 of 19 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION. Not held. 9:34:51 PM 15. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilor Woodruff, seconded by Council President Sherwood, to adjourn. The motion was approved by a majority vote of City Council present. Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Buehner Yes Council President Sherwood Yes Councilor Wilson No Councilor Woodruff Yes therine eatley, City Recorder Attest: i Mayor, t of Tigard Date: I:\ADM\CATHY\CCM\2008\081216 final.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - December 16, 2008 Ciry of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 19 of 19 Agenda Item # I Meeting Date December 16, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Presentation on Tigard's Draft 20-Year GtyFacilities Plan Prepared By. Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: ~K GryMgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL No action is required. The Council is being asked to participate in a presentation on Tigard's Draft 20-Year Gty Facilities Plan. Paul Boundy, of LRS Architects, and City staff are seeking the Council's input and direction before the final plan is submitted for Council consideration in 2009. STAFF RECOMMENDATION There is no staff recommendation. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY ■ The City hired LRS Architects in the summer of 2007 to develop Tigard's 20-Year City Facilities Plan. ■ The purpose of the 20-Year City Facilities Plan is two-fold: - It identifies future building space needs, life cycles of existing and new facilities, and facility maintenance requirements and costs. - It provides a road map for the City to meet its facilities needs over the next 20 years. ■ The City currently owns, occupies and maintains seven major buildings providing 118,358 square feet of useable space. This space houses city operations and various programs, and accommodates public uses. • The buildings range in age from4 to 56 years, and only two of the seven buildings have life expectancies that exceed the 20-year planning window. ■ Additional factors affecting future planning for City facilities: - Existing Police Department facilities are undersized. - State law requires the Police Department be housed in a seismically hardened building by 2022. - The Public Works Department currently operates out of two separate locations: the Ash Street public works yard and the Public Works Building. The Downtown Urban Renewal Plan calls for a major housing complex to be sited at the public works yard. The Public Works Building is not large enough to allow for the consolidation of the two public works sites, nor would such a consolidation fit with urban renewal plans. ■ LRS Architects estimates an additional 50,000 square feet of office space will be needed for city operations by the year 2028. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None CITY COUNCIL GOALS None ATTACHMENT LIST Staff will distribute Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facilities Plan in the Council's Friday, December 12, 2008 newsletter packet. FISCAL NOTES There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. If the Council adopts the finalized Tigard's 20-Year CityFacilities Plan at a subsequent meeting, plan components will be approved and implemented through the annual budget process. Summary Report City of Tigard Twenty Year City Facility Plan Presented Draft P. • LRS Architects Inc. Twenty Year City Facility Plan What is this Document.? Compilation of existing facility information Compilation • maintenance costs Basis • anning or uture capi expenditures Basis for understanding current and future • • existing Twenty Year City Facility Plan How did we get here? - Verify / Document Existing Conditions - Facility and Space Use - Establish Need - Departmental Interviews - Establish Criteria - Assumptions - Project Future Staff and Space Needs - Prepare Facility Plan Options Establish Costs Twenty Year City Facility Plan What were our goals? - Re-use existing facilities and properties for their full life cycle - Fully utilize existing City of Tigard properties - Provide a realistic road map for development Comply concepts Downtown Improvement Plan and related studies Twenty Year City Facility Plan What were our basic findings? - Public Works should consolidate to a remote location that is appropriate - Further study of Police is required to establish goals for short and long term growth - Senior Center and City Hall / Permit Center Police Station facilities have experienced water intrusion damage and have seismic concerns Pubfl c Works Annex and . ` ' ""t • ; " 2. Public t^dc r4• Building .3. mche Bui,ding .d ;.r Police Station City Administration h. Community t3eve€ooment r 7. Senior Center T T. s' 8. Loucks-Burior, Property 3 " f{'' S&zaltz Property N w a sM • a x' . • . 'r x'+. w'~• rx 're _0. Library y ~a rv y i r 1 • e t f e fR, p$y .w„ W plao cty fact jea'r wfvveOtY Facj~ities i po\jce 121437S 481167 kjbrar~ r 5 f829 SF i •i 4() SF Ilk Wory"s pub\lc i 693 lit i silos Tota\ Twenty Year City Facility Plan 0 Twenty Plus Year Life • Works Building 171958 SF Library 484167 SF Sub-Total 66f M Borderline - Police Facility 11f368 SF - City Hall 10f950 - Permit Center 12f437 SF • Center 89743 SF Sub-Total 43f498 SF 0 Decommission Niche / • Works Annex • • 1.1 Twenty Year City Facility Plan Needs Assessment Assumptions - Population growth at 35% (58% for last 20 yea rs) '46,715 in 11: 1:: 2018 63,042 2028 Staffing ratios will be a variable - High option assumes 0.65 p- 1,000 residents increased • 0.51 to 0.65 in last 20 years) • option assumes ratio drops to 0.57 Twenty Year City Facility Plan 2008 Actual Projected Need - City • 16f369 SF 17f 874 SF • - Station 628 SF 17f 944 SF Comm. Dev. 11f064 SF 13f 300 SF Library 48 167 SF I 782 SF Public Works 17f697 SF 18f 173 SF Senior Center 81743 SF 8,743 sf Total ••i 123f816 Twenty Year City Facility Plan 2028 Projected Needs (By Department) - City Admin - 43% 231375 SF - Police Station - 210% 48,614 SF - Community Dev. - 49% 16,589 SF • • 661162 SF - Public Works - 12% 19,935 SF • • Center - 81% 151864 SF Total 190,539 Twenty Year City Facility Plan 2008 2028 Comparison - Existing Space 118,693 SF - High Need - 417 FTE 190,539 SF SF Low Need 362 1851316 Twenty Year City Facility Plan Master Plan Option - Short Term 1. New Public Works Facility (1-5 years) 2. Relocate Police Station to Public Works Building years) Expand Upgrade 3. Expand City Hall into Police Station (1-5 years) - Seismic Upgrade 4. Expand Community Development in Permit Center (1-5 years) New pmxng 7"m We Ish, a 4✓ Twenty Year City Facility Plan New Public Works Facility 1. Decommission Old Yard and Buildings per Downtown Improvement Plan for development 2. Consolidates Operations at appropriate new site 3. 10 - 12 acre site yet to be selected Twenty Year City Facility Plan Relocate Police to Public Works Building 1. Addresses immediate needs 2. Expansion required to increase office space and locker facilities 3. Major renovation to convert storage bays to police function (storage, holding, training) 4. Fuel station and secure parking exist 5. Central location and proximity to Courts • and training on-site Twenty Year City Facility Plan Expand City Hall into Police Station 1. Addresses 15-20 year space needs 2. Allows leasing or demolition of Niche 3. Moves Risk/HR from Permit Center 4. Allows expansion • Courts increased capacity of lobby 5. Improves lack of conference space Twenty Year City Facility Plan Master Plan Option - Long Term 6. Expand Permit Center (10-15 years) 7. Expand Police Station (15-20 years) i Expand • Branch Library (20 years) 9. Build New City Hall Permit Center (20+ years) 10. Build New Community Center (20 years) g ' .tuw~ M f ~ 4 ~t ~Ay i T p 'nM1 y ? - 4, NO-11 Rz- ran 9, xs cw ~¢m xx x-~vs ~~S,W„a ~w s : f:,.. -y,,,, ' ~j Y„ vgyp+~~ a .I y <J 1 0 ' ( l..L ~'4. 4 t' ~1.0r~ / ~ ' ' ~ , ..3( ,.....;t.ta, -tom. ' ' ~ rr ' ~ . ~''t NN Y ty. `~I' ~ ~ t `Vi'i ri~ ~ ~7i a' ...ter. , rt. x~~ ~d` ~y{, ¢ t a~' z 9 is -nx 4..,.J 4'.sf is YN: cxi A~ _ i yet ,,P p I co Twenty Year City Facility Plan Expand Permit Center 1. Utilize Risk/HR area of Community Development staff 2. Addresses 5 year need by use of entire Permit Center 3. Addresses 15-20 year need with expansion to east or infill of west u rtya rd Twenty Year City Facility Plan Expand Police Station 1. Long term solution 2. No property acquisition 3. Major expansion to include Courts and long term needs. 4. Fuel station and secure parking available 5. ECIC and training • site Try ~"..°Sy ^ ~,e, ~ A NA v 8p ~g.:vri,:,~EYE2F,SCQAH VCIE@x(t~ 8~ b s 5' i ~ i i a t 1S s i ! ?r^ ,r, a c LTF]T',~77T!--- 5 ' oil -7-714 t ~ '"In 44, „ .~x~; mra e-x sx ~x.»xcx .~"a '3h .i `S ^ g^ a r.' Twenty Year City Facility Plan New City Hall on Existing Site 1. Acquire additional property /demolish Niche Building 2. Consolidate Hall and Community Development Services 3. Demolish City Hall / Permit Center 4. Create additional greenway / park 5. Create ""gateway," to Burnham Twenty Year City Facility Plan New Community Center 1. Replace Senior Center with muiti-generational Community Center 2. Optional locations - Existing City Hall property or existing Senior Center property 3. Social services and educational / community functions 4. More property required if a "Recreation"' center Twenty Year City Facility Plan Significant Cost Items 1.5 Years 1. New Public Works Facility - $15,586,000 2. Renovate PW Bldg for Police Facility $11,513,775 3. Optional New Police Facility $25,934,400 4. Expand / Consolidate City Hall $3f35OfOOO (OCOZ) ooo'OSL'ET$ Ajejq~ puedx] (OEOZ) 111 11• - - 41!unwwo:) maN • (+OEOZ) 111 11• -JK) 4!wJad / HeH /x4D maN -E (ocoz) 000'OZE'63 - puedx~] (ozoz) ooz,889,zs JZ)4u@:) 4!wJ@d puedx~ U@q4 - • Jea4 OZ OT swaU 4SOD 4ue:)14!ub'S ueld Al!l!:)eq Al!:) wiea)~ AluamL T'oooard D D rDDD CD / 20-year CORY Facoflftw Nan DRAFT Lrs GQG°3C~G~04LG4g 1 -Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Staffing and Space Needs Projections . . . . . . . . 5 Master Plan Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Project Description and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 -Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Property Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Existing Facilities Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Tigard City Nall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Tigard Permit Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Police Department Building . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Tigard City Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Public Works Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Senior/Community Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Niche Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3 -Needs Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Demographics and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Departmental Staff Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Police Department Analysis by City . . . . . . . . . 32 Needed Areas Projection Tables . . . . . . . . . . . 37 City Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Community Development . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Senior/Community Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4 -Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Concept and Planning Influences. . . . . . . . . . . 55 Development of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Major Steps Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 0-5 Year Illustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 5-10 Year Illustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 10-20 Year Illustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 North Detail Illustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 South Detail Illustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Cost Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 New Public Works Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Police Relocation to Public Works Building 70 New Police Station - Remote Site . . . . . . . . . . 71 Expand / Consolidate City Hall. . . . . . . . . . . 71 Expand / Renovate Permit Center . . . . . . . . . 71 Expand Police Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 New City Hall / Permit Center . . . . . . . . . . . 72 New Community Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Expand Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Capital Budget Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan LRS Architects 1 The following is a synopsis of the data compiled and an overview of the findings of this Twenty-Year Plan. This summary is divided into major categories of Existing Conditions, Projections and Master Planning. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing conditions for the city of Tigard are comprised of seven major buildings. The total available area at the three sites totals 39 acres of total property (including the Fanno Creek Greenway) and 118,358 sf of occupiable space summarized in table 1.A. Fodbly W@ aff@6 R& lf@W LN m= ww@ (60, i3dBOQ Quo City Administration 343,959 sf 35% 120,386 sf 31 1985 10,950 sf Permit Center included above 56 1985 12,437 sf Police Station " included above 94 1985 11,033 sf Library 325,172 sf 30% 97,552 sf 32 2004 48,167 sf Public Works Building 166,911 sf 100% 166,911 sf 65 1989 17,968 sf Public Works Yard 142,432 sf 100% 142,432 sf 7 1970-/- 4,320 sf Niche Building 28,262 sf 100% 28,262 sf 6 1952 3,240 sf Public Works Annex 15,441 sf 100% 15,441 sf 8 1950 1,500 sf Senior/Community Center 678,365 sf 10% 67,836 sf 11 1982 8,743 sf Loucks-Burton Property 22,651 sf 60% 13,591 sf - - - Schaltz Property 48,351 sf 30% 14,505 sf - 19,38 (2,505) 2 Total 1,871,544 sf 666,916 sf 310 118,358 sf (43 Acres) (15 Acres) Table I.A. Current Facility Staff and Area Totals 7 Property area may only be partially developed due to areas identified in the Tigard Local Wet- lands Inventory within the Fanno Creek Greenway. The developable percentage is derived from graphic approximations of CWS Vegetated Corridors and Goals Safe Harbor area overlays. 2 Residential properties acquired 2008 are not included in Total Facility Building Area. The Public Works Yard and Public Works Annex are assumed to be temporary loca- tions based on previous evaluations and have not been included in the detailed facil- ity analysis. The Annex is scheduled for demolition as part of the Burnham Street improvements and the Public Works Yard is scheduled to be decommissioned and the property redeveloped after a new Public Works facility is complete. The Niche Build- ing, a re-used residential structure, is also considered to be temporary, though the property itself is in a prime location for future consideration. Only two of the structures, the Library and Public Works Building, have life expectan- cies that exceed a twenty year planning window without significant renovation. The Permit Center/City Nall/Police Station complex and the Senior/Community Center are structures that could face potentially costly renovation to reach the goals of the twenty year plan. These buildings are primarily wood frame construction and do not meet current seismic requirements and have suffered water infiltration issues. Both of these conditions will require costly mitigation if significant renovation is undertaken. Oregon Revised Statute 455.400 (sec. 3) requires seismic improvements to police sta- tions to be complete before 2022. For purposes of this study, we have assumed that these structures will require replacement within twenty years, though they could be Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 1-Executive Summary LRS Architects 3 l k i i 1 i S 1 F i t Y t tq } n y Y" t left in service longer if it is found to be cost effective to undertake these significant renovations. The existing properties are all located within an area along the perimeter of the Down- town Improvement Plan. The properties are all contiguous and well located for access from downtown and centrally located along Hall Street, a major north-south. route. The Public Works facility is the only city function that does not appear to be complimentary to the area. A 2006 Needs Assessment identified the current location in the Public Works Building as an intermediate solution. The long term solution will relocate the Public Works Department to another area of the City that contains uses more compat- ible with the function of a Public Works Department. STAFFING AND SPACE NEEDS PROJECTIONS Based on surveys, staff interviews and comparisons to similar departments, an ideal space program was developed with staffing projections in five year increments. A sum- mary of the required space recommended for each department is shown in table 1.13. A summary of population and growth projections is provided in table i.C. @ b F.Kbagy X 0 0 0 N@@( ~ 3I City Administration (HR/Risk, IT, Admin, 16,369 sf 17,874 sf 23,375 sf Finance) Community Development 11,064 sf 13,300 sf 16,589 sf Police 15,628 sf 17,944 sf 48,614 sf Public Works 17,697 sf 18,173 sf 19,935 sf Library 48,167 sf 47,782 sf 66,162 sf Senior/Community Center 8,743 sf 8,743 sf 15,864 sf Total 116,648 sf 123,636 sf 190,539 sf Table 1.8. Department Floor Area Needs Projections i Derived from Needed Area Projection Tables in chapter 3 V@C Dff 0 0 0 N@@03 X300513 BOO ~3E3 Population 42,260 46,715 50,350 63,042 Growth Rate 7.78% 34.95% Table I.C. Population Growth Rates Findings indicate an immediate need of 6,988 sf to reach an ideal space utilization for all departments, with a need for 62,452 sf in 20 years. This is growth of 54% from the existing area or 34% from the current need, which closely follows the growth projec- tions. Most of this growth is realized in the Police Department, which provides the most compelling long term need for growth. The Senior/Community Center, when trans- formed to serve a larger demographic as a Community Center, also shows need for growth, though the time line for this growth is flexible. The balance of the departments growth is projected to maintain the same level of service to an increased population. Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 1 -Executive Summary LRS Architects 5 MASTER PLAN OPTIONS After reviewing the existing conditions and considering the remaining expected life of existing facilities and properties, the planning team compared that data with the space needs projections and appropriateness of existing facilities. A single pathway to the master plan is provided in the report, but there are many ways to get to that goal. The master plan incorporates the following key ideas: Minimize acquisition of new property Reuse existing facilities as long as feasible Utilize existing properties by increasing density Maintain a centralized location for City operations and create a Civic Complex Support the objectives of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) One critical assumption used to start the planning process is that Public Works will be moving from an intermediate location to a consolidated location that is more appro- priate for industrial use in support of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. This makes the existing Ash Street Yard available for mixed use or residential development and makes the Public Works Building property available for expansion of other city functions. The key finding of the space needs projections is that the Police Department's current space has not kept pace with growth. This current shortfall drives the need for either a short term intermediate solution or the need for a replacement facility. This report identifies both options for consideration, though the primary focus is on the intermedi- ate solution of siting the Police Department in the Public Works Building. Should funding for a new Police Department facility be made available before Public Works relocates from the Public Works Building, a choice can be made to either retain the favorable location by scheduling to accommodate Public Works relocation, or, to identify and acquire another suitable location. Upon the relocation of Police, the City Hall / Permit Center complex will have ad- equate space for growth to meet the 20 year need with minor renovations. The limita- tion of this complex will be the longevity of the structures as previously noted. This report projects that just inside of the 20 year window, a new City Hall will be required. The Master Plan identifies, with the exception of a new Public Works Yard, that the current properties north and south of SW Burnham Street along Hall Street will be adequate to accommodate City buildings. In addition, the Library property and Senior/ Community Center properties will continue to serve their functions over the 20 years. 6 Overall Master Plan Strategy K@* ZUUD~6 Vw P @M@ mffi)@ ui @ CAM 1 - New Public Works Yard Consolidates all staff; o - 5 years $15,600,000 / Decommission Ash Street Frees up Yard and Annex Yard for other use or sale 2 - Relocate Police to Adequate site and build- 0 - 5 years $8,350,000 Intermediate Facility at ing area. Maintains central Public Works location. Build new sup- port and training areas. 2A - New Police Facility Option to intermediate 0 - 5 years $21,350,000 step if funding source and site is available 3 - Expand City Hall into Renovation will extend 5-10 years $3,339,500 Police Facility life of buildings ($4,065,000 - 2015) 4 - Expand Permit Center If needed, expansion will 10 -15 years $1,815,000 address growth issues ($2,690,000 - 2020) 5 - Expand Police Facility Create permanent offices 15 - 20 years $12,970,546 at Public Works Building staff areas. Reuse support ($26,275,000 - 2030 Site and training area. 6 - Build new City Hall / Replaces aging wood 20 - 25 years $19,050,000 Permit Center structures in lieu of ($38,600,000 - 2030) upgrade. 7 - New Community Cen- Replaces Senior/Commu- 20 - 25 years $7,100,000 ter @a City Hall site nity Center ($14,350,000 - 2030) 8 - Expand Library Provides growth on site 20 - 25 years $2,550,000 ($5,200,000 - 2030) Table 1.D. Master Plan Strategy Timeline Project Description and Goals The City of Tigard Department of Public Works solicited Architectural Services to produce a Twenty Year Plan that provides a cursory assessment of existing facilities, space needs assessment, space programming, conceptual planning and cost estimat- ing. The goal of this Plan is to establish a road map for facility planning for the City of Tigard for the next twenty years. This road map will provide guidance in planning for fiscal spending for acquisition of property, renovation of existing facilities, construction of new buildings and recommendations on efficient and general growth management and projects that will benefit the citizens of the City of Tigard. The following goals were identified during the course of the study: Determine current condition and utilization of existing facilities Determine expectations for replacement facilities Improve the utilization of existing facilities Identify conceptual plan to accommodate future City growth Comply with long term Downtown Improvement Plan Confirm compliance with industry standards for all departments The scope of work following included the analysis of space usage for all employees of the City within the eleven departments: City Administration, Community Development, Engineering, Financial and Information Services, Human Resources, Library, Municipal Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan i -Executive Summary LRS Architects 7 Court, Police, Public Works, Risk and Senior Services. The seven buildings include; City Nall, Police Station, Permit Center, Library, Public Works Building, Niche Building, and Senior/Community Center. PROCESS The Project Team has taken the following steps to achieve the goals of this project: Task 1: Inventory Existing Facilities LRS performed an on-site survey of existing facilities in sufficient detail to assess the present condition and make a reasonable determination of the utilization of each build- ing. The assessment included a cursory evaluation of each building and site, but did not include a detailed analysis of primary building systems including: mechanical, plumbing, fire protection, electrical, security, data, structural, ADA access and architectural sys- tems. The facility assessments are the basis for determining the condition and utiliza- tion of the existing buildings and the existing building components. The City provided life cycle cost expectations for each building and LRS incorporated this information into building assessments. Task 2: Gather user Group Data LRS utilized a survey, distributed by the City to supervisory staff, that was tailored to meet the needs of the Project to verify existing information. In this case, the survey focused primarily on the facility conditions, space configuration, functional adjacencies, space needs and projected growth for each department. Follow-up interviews were held with supervisory staff to confirm the findings in the survey. A concise summary of this information is provided in this document. In several cases drawings were updated with interior department layouts adjusted to reflect current program usage. This was necessary to determine staff and auxiliary space usage and provide accurate future projections. Exterior and off-site storage and parking needs for each department were recorded. Parking counts included fleet vehicles, service vehicles, staff and public vehicles. LRS also conducted a survey of Police Department space utilization from seven similar sized cities in Oregon and Washington. Those findings are summarized in the table 3.G Regional Police Department Analysis. Task 3: Project Future Staff and Space Needs With input from the City and results from the survey, LRS summarized projections of future personnel for each of the Departments. The projections define changes in personnel by type and number in five-year and twenty-year increments through 2028. Historical data was used to supplement the projections and several models for growth were compared and contrasted to reach the final growth projections. LRS determined future space needs based on the staff projections and average square foot space needed per employee. Consideration was given to the use of consis- tent space standards. Future space needs include consideration for specialized equip- ment, storage, conference and meeting room requirements. Task 4: Prepare Master Plan Options LRS provided multiple schemes showing relationships of program requirements, utili- zation of exterior yards, preliminary space and furniture layouts and approximate scope of work required by each option. A rough order of magnitude cost for each option was included and all five schemes have been presented for review and consideration by the 8 City. One scheme has been designated as an Interim Proposed Solution, a solution that can achieve the goals of increasing the efficiency of Public Works with the minimal cost. An Ideal Solution has been identified that will give Public Works a guideline for making long term planning decisions. Task 5: Cost Estimates All cost estimates contained in this report are preliminary in nature and are based on the Consultant's best judgment and understanding of current average construction cost and current projections for future cost escalation. The estimates are provided as a basis for budgeting only and do not reflect actual design or construction conditions. Estimates are divided to reflect typical construction hard costs including contractor's profit and overhead and separate out soft costs such as consultant fees, special inspec- tions, plan reviews, and other regulatory or developmental fees. These soft costs are estimated using industry standards for the 2008 - 2010 window. Land acquisition costs, where noted, are budgetary in nature and do not reflect any actual sites or specific market conditions. Our team would like to thank the City staff and the Executive Council for their in- valuable input and time spent assisting us with this process. Special thanks to Dennis Koellermeier, Nick Nissen and Dan Plaza. Tigard's Draft 20 Year City Facility Plan -Executive Summary LRS Architects 9 2 -KK,OZU9R2 C @n 0 O@ns The purpose of the study is to determine the suitability of each facility for its current occupant and that occupant's long term needs. A central location, as currently exists, is desirable for the different city departments, both for citizen identification and internal city business. The facilities, with the exception of the Library, are all within the Central Business District and the 2007 Urban Renewal/Downtown Plan with close proximity to each other and to other city services such as the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. The Library building is just outside the Urban Renewal boundary, but still located close to the City Nall complex. Property Inventory Properties considered in the property inventory: City Nall Permit Center Police Station Library Public Works Building Niche Building Senior/Community Center The Public Works Yard and Annex are not being considered in detail as part of this study as previous evaluations have determined both to be temporary locations. Existing Facilities Conditions The facilities assessment done for this study is a review of the City of Tigard owned buildings and property within the study group note above. Each facility was appraised as to its existing condition, renovation requirements and remodeling possibilities. The study is limited to information available from earlier construction drawings, discussions with city staff, and on-site walk through observations. The buildings within the study have served the City of Tigard well and in most cases can continue to do so with some modifications and re-arrangement and consolidation of departments, however, a major exception to this is the Police Department. The facil- ity itself is in good condition, however, the Police Department has long outgrown the space. They are extremely over-crowded now and have no expansion possibilities to solve their immediate needs and none to address their future. Public Works is the other department that is in need of a more suitable location for their program functions. Their recent move to the Public Works Building was planned as a short-term temporary location until a suitable site that can accommodate all their requirements can be found and developed. Part of Public Works' department functions are still located at the Public Works Yard on Ash Street as there is insufficient space at the Public Works Building site. Programmatically, the entire department will benefit by relocating to a single location. Long-term use of the Yard is not consistent with the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 2 -Existing Conditions LRS Architects 11 TIGAPD CITY HALL Ui1 f . 4 i i~ A Figure 2.A. Tigard City Nall Use City Administration, Courts, Finance Construction Type Type V-N Fully Sprinklered Single story, wood structure, Synthetic stucco skin with brick base. Property Area 343.959 sf Building Area 10,948 sf Built 1985 Penovations I-IVAC - 2002 Renovations - 2004 Current Property Value $2,828,140 (ratio of overall complex) Life Cycle Expense $33,000 per year average Ten Year Life Cycle $325,000 Twenty Year Life Cycle $693,000 Utility Expense Table 2.A. Tigard City Nall Data Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 2 -Existing Conditions LRS Architects 13 Condition The wood structural system appears to be in good condition however a structural re- port identified deficiencies. Remedial steps were taken as part of a renovation in 2004, but the building was only partially brought up to current codes. A building skin consultant has reviewed the building and recommends removal and replacement with a properly sealed and flashed conventional hard coat stucco system. There is evidence of water infiltration damage to the exterior walls and the potential for mold due to poor original waterproofing and flashing, and ongoing bird damage to the soft EIFS exterior finish. The City has provided regular maintenance on the facility. The renovation in 2004 pro- vided new carpeting and paint in most of the office areas and finishes were replaced in the Council Chambers and Public Lobby. The building mechanical system was upgrad- ed in 2002. Issues The facility has functioned reasonably well for many years as the City Nall. However, the departments housed in City Hall have grown as the City has increased in popula- tion. Currently the space is maximized and there is no room to expand without depart- ment relocation. Due to space limitations, not all the city administration functions can be housed under the same roof at this location. Information Technology, which is a part of the Financial Operations Department, is housed off-site in the Niche Building, which is not suitable due to lack of security features. Risk and Human Resources are located nearby in the Permit Center. Both Risk and HR are crowded in their present location and would ben- efit from additional space. Court services, including traffic court, code compliance and juvenile peer court, are well served by the large Chamber Room. However, the City would like to add a criminal court but is unable to do so as it requires a separate jury room and jury seating within the Courtroom. Criminal court will also add an extra staff person. The court's financial services area is currently extremely crowded with no expansion possibility. At some point in the near future the city attorney needs to be included in the city administra- tion offices. This position is currently being contracted out. Passport issuing is a heavy use and is a relatively new function that does not have an assigned area. This function adds to the congestion in the Public Lobby, which is already used for court, utility billing and as the main waiting room for Council Cham- bers and the Courtroom. Public rest rooms for these functions are only available in the adjacent Police Station. There is a general shortage of conference rooms available to both public and staff. They are heavily scheduled. The building was designed as an open office configuration; it does not have enough private offices. Confidentiality and privacy are a key issue. A lockable room is needed for financial records and the yearly audit. These records are now stored in a hallway. City Administration manages records and archive storage for all city departments. They microfilm many of the records, but are still running out of climate-controlled storage in the City Hall building. Much of the archived information is now being stored off-site at the Public Works Building or in modular buildings. While they will continue to store records off-site, City Administration needs more on-site storage capacity. 14 Conclusions The City Nall building functions well overall and could benefit from expansion of the Public Lobby and the relocation of a department to allow area for additional confer- ence rooms, storage and support areas. The relocation of Police from the adjacent building will resolve most of these issues. As a long term solution, the City Hall is located on the edge of the 2007 Urban Renew- al/Downtown Plan as recommended by that planning document. The Council Chamber is located here and it works well for council meetings. Once the exterior skin is re- placed and seismic upgrades are complete, it will be in reasonable shape and present an attractive image for the community. It may remain in service for 20 years if regular maintenance is continued. However, that would be stretching the life of the original inexpensive construction beyond its serviceable life. It is the recommendation of this plan that a replacement facility be built which can accommodate multiple departments, be expandable and have a service life of at least 50 years. Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 2 -Existing Conditions LRS Architects 15 TIGAPD PERMIT CENTER F 4 .x " r p r Figure 2.B. Tigard Permit Center Use Risk/HP; Community Development; Planning, Engineering and Building Departments Construction Type Type V-N Fully Sprinklered Single story, wood structure, Synthetic stucco skin with brick base. Property Area (Included with City Hall) Building Area 12,495 sf Built 1985 Renovations HVAC - 2004 Renovations - 2004 Expansion and New Roof - 1996 Current Property Value $3,181,66o (ratio of overall complex) Life Cycle Expense $31,400 per year average Ten Year Life Cycle $258,000 Twenty Year Life Cycle $658,830 Utility Expense Table 2.B. Tigard Permit Center Data Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 2 -Existing Conditions LRS Architects 17 Condition The structure of the building is in good condition, though the exterior skin needs complete replacement. It has water infiltration damage and mold due to poor original waterproofing and flashing, and ongoing bird damage to the soft EIFS exterior finish. A building skin consultant has reviewed the building and recommends removal and replacement with a properly sealed and flashed conventional hard coat stucco system. The windows can be re-used or replaced at the same time. The City has provided regu- lar maintenance on the facility. Issues Like City Nall, the Permit Center has functioned many years for the City. It originally served as the City Library until relocating to a new City Library building in 2004 . The facility was remodeled into the Permit Center for the Community Development department. Although the space is becoming quite crowded, it still functions quite well overall. The biggest need is for three to four more private offices. The 2004 remodel focused on an open office layout, but confidentiality and privacy have become a big issue for the department. The other deficiency is in the public waiting area and at the public counter. This space is crowded, uncomfortable, and lacks privacy for business transac- tion. A problem that is not pressing now, but will become so in the near future, is room for expansion and future staff. Expansion is not anticipated to be large, but the current space is crowded with no expansion possibility. Conclusions The Permit Center is located on the edge of the 2007 Urban Renewal / Downtown Plan district. It is located in the same complex as City Nall, which is a preferred loca- tion. Risk and the Human Resources department are located in a portion of the Permit Center building. Programmatically, neither needs to be located here. They serve sepa- rate functions and client base. If they could relocate and free up their space, this would provide the needed expansion area for Community Development. 18 POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING I L y ~ ~ ,J$, • 1~1 ` f ` t• I Ile t I ePe1 f i I , I . a; AL , t~l S ~c~ ~J Figure 2.C. Police department Building Use Police Department Construction Type Type V-N Fully Sprinklered Single story, wood structure, Synthetic stucco skin with brick base. Type V-1 hour at Holding area with 2-hour fire separation at that location Property Area (Included with City Hall) Building Area 11,368 sf (Original 8,200 sf, Expansion 3,168 sf) Built 1985 Renovations Remodel - 1993, 1998 HVAC upgrade, Expansion and New Roof -1998 Current Property Value $2,828,140 (ratio of overall complex) Life Cycle Expense $37,860 per year average Ten Year Life Cycle $313,790 Twenty Year Life Cycle $795,096 Utility Expense Table 2.C. Police Department Building Data Condition Similar to City Hall and the Permit Center, the Police Department's exterior skin needs complete replacement. It has water infiltration damage and mold due to poor original waterproofing and flashing, and ongoing bird damage to the soft EIPS exterior finish. A building skin consultant has reviewed the building and recommends removal and replacement with a properly sealed and flashed conventional hard coat stucco system. The windows can be re-used or replaced at the same time. Other than the building skin damage, the structure is in good condition. The City has provided regular maintenance on the facility. Tigard's Draft 20 Year City Facility Plan 2 -Existing Conditions LRS Architects 19 Issues The exterior skin needs replacement as stated above. While the facility itself is other- wise in good shape, it is no longer adequate for the Police Department's needs. Tem- porary modular units now provide office space for several officer units. Locker rooms are full to capacity with lockers too small to hold all required gear and no place to electrically charge required equipment. There is no proper space for juvenile holding. Evidence processing has overflowed into the corridor. Storage of all kinds (evidence, records, equipment, uniforms) is severely limited. The department is using multiple off-site and rental units for some of the overflow storage. This is difficult and inconvenient for daily operations. Parking is limited and crowded for both fleet and staff needs. The department needs both covered and uncovered exte- rior storage, particularly for evidence, impounded vehicles, traffic management equip- ment, bikes and motorcycles. Conclusion The Police Department Building is located on the edge of the 2007 Urban Renewal / Downtown Plan area and is part of the City Nall complex. This has been a good loca- tion for them and they would prefer to stay within the Downtown area and in particular close to City Nall. However, their current building is entirely too small for their pro- gram needs as it is and has no expansion possibilities. The structure for their present building is not capable of meeting seismic requirements for a second story without extensive structural re-work. The department needs to relocate to a larger site with a larger building or one that can accommodate an addition to meet not only their current program needs, but any future expansion. 20 TIGAPD CITY LIBRARY f t ` e. « s f ~I)~ • 4 4. IN ~s 4 Figure 2.D. Tigard City Library Use Public Library Construction Type Type II Fully Sprinklered Two story, steel structure with masonry exterior cladding. Property Area 325.172 sf Building Area 48,000 sf (22,000 upper, 26,000 lower) Built 2004 Renovations None Insured Property Value $9,837,118 (ratio of overall complex) Life Cycle Expense $61,826 per year average Ten Year Life Cycle $21o,820 Twenty Year Life Cycle $1,299,230 Utility Expense Table 2.D. Tigard City Library Data Condition The Library, one of the city's newer buildings, was built in 2004. The two-story facility is in very good condition with upkeep provided through regular planned maintenance by the City. The interior spaces are open and well laid out with plenty of natural light, numerous study and reading areas, and clearly designated areas for different age groups and interests. The library can accommodate a large number of users comfortably. Some expansion ability was initially planned into the building. As the collection grows the shelving system can also expand to accommodate this growth. There are further de- Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 2 -Existing Conditions LRS Architects 21 velopment options available on this site for future needs, or the library could provide branch outlets as another possibility. The entry lobby has public rest rooms, a comfortable waiting area, and a small snack shop. Spaces have natural light from the large window walls on two sides of the lobby. It is a very welcoming space and can serve as a pre-function or display area for the com- munity room without interfering with the library's daily business. Adjacent to the entry lobby is a large community room, which can be accessed without entering the library. Issues The facility is functioning well for the library and doesn't have any significant problems. Some upgrade for technology will be needed in the next few years, but it's primarily additional outlets for public use. The large community room located in the library and used for community events has a 400-person capacity and parking can be a problem, but only at these occasional special events. Parking on a daily basis and for normal library use is busy, but can be accommodated in the existing lot fine. Conclusions The library is located just outside the 2007 Urban Renewal and Downtown Plan area. As one of the newest city buildings, present and future growth needs are satisfied. An attempt was made to address future technological and electrical needs as this is probably the area that will face the most change. Eventually expansion may be needed, probably not in the next 20-year period. 22 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING I I 7 7 7 7 .y ' Figure 21. Public Works Building Use Public Works, Community Meeting Room Address 8777 SW Burnham Blvd. Construction Type Type V-N Fully Sprinklered One story structural masonry with wood roof structure Property Area 166,911 sf Building Area 9,736 sf: Public Works Building and annex. 7,270 A garage and the fleet repair build- ing. Total: 17,006 sf. Built 1989 Renovations 2007 Current Property Value $1,383,830 (ratio of overall complex) Life Cycle Expense $42,100 per year average Ten Year Life Cycle $303,015 Twenty Year Life Cycle $884364 Utility Expense Table 21. Public Works Building Data Condition The Public Works Building has been well maintained. It was remodeled in 2007 for the Public Works Department. The site has a large secured vehicle yard, a 5-bay garage, and a separate fleet service building. Additional public and staff parking is located at the front of the building. The large garage is partially used for city record storage. There is an underground fueling tank on site. Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 2 -Existing Conditions LRS Architects 23 The site has some building expansion possibilities. However, second floor expansion is not practical, as the building could not meet current seismic requirements for a two- story structure. The public rest rooms off the main lobby were not made ADA acces- sible during the recent remodel. Instead single male and female ADA compliant toilet rooms were provided within the office area. The large auditorium at the front of the building is primarily rented out to community and non-government groups. It does not provide a program need for Public Works. Issues The Public Works Building is a short-term solution for the Public Works Department. This was an attempt to consolidate most, but not all, of the department's operations at one location. Most of the staff was relocated to this site, but it is not adequate for all operations and in particular the Public Works yard. As a result, the department is split into two locations. Conclusions This site is located on the edge of the 2007 Urban PenewaI/Downtown Plan area and is located near City Hall and other city functions. However, Public Works would be bet- ter served at a different location that could accommodate all it's staff and department functions, including enough area for the service yard. The service yard is not an entirely appropriate function within the Downtown Plan. The facility is in good condition and could possibly be remodeled for the Police Department or some other City business. 24 SENIOR/COMMUNITY CENTER r.NA~ r~ f ti~ i.0 + 1 Bata r 1 - t Figure 2.F. Senior/Community Center Use Senior Services, Education, Special Events Construction Type Two-story. Type V-N fully sprinklered wood frame and metal roof. Property Area 678,365 sf Building Area 8,779 sf (3,578 sf upper, 5,201 sf lower) Built 1982 Renovations Elevator - Early 1990's HVAC-2000 Renovation and Expansions - 2008 New Roof - 2008 Current Property Value $1,457,417 Life Cycle Expense $18,015 per year average Ten Year Life Cycle $124,660 Twenty Year Life Cycle $378,325 Utility Expense Table 2.F. Senior/Community Center Data Condition The Senior/Community Center was recently remodeled, including a small library ad- dition, kitchen, new roof and site lighting. Fire sprinklers were added in the 1990's. The building has been maintained by the City and will continue to be on their maintenance schedule. All toilet rooms and the building entries are ADA accessible. The building has an elevator. The kitchen serves daily meals to the elderly and houses the Meals- on-Wheels Program. A garden room addition is planned for the building opening late 2oo8. Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 2 -Existing Conditions LRS Architects 25 Issues The building is set back on a flag lot and has low visibility from the street. The topog- raphy of the site and the two story configuration of the building can provide access issues for building users with mobility problems and are not ideal for a Senior/Commu- nity Center.. The recent remodel/addition has addressed a significant number of access issues and presents a better-defined entry partially resolving these issues. Staff and visitor parking is adequate for the facility, though some mutually beneficial overflow oc- curs between the adjacent church and the Senior/Community Center. Significant water damage was uncovered during the 2007 renovation and the building was re-roofed to prevent further damage. A structural beam was replaced and other areas were dried out before being finished.. Other areas not impacted by the renova- tion were not uncovered and additional water damage may be uncovered in the future. Conclusion The Senior/Community Center is located in the Fanno Creek Greenway and within the 2007 Urban Renewal/Downtown Plan area. This is a desirable location for the facility, though a higher visibility location would be preferable for a more community oriented facility. The library and garden room additions are anticipated to provide ad- ditional program space but is not be adequate for expansion of programs as the facility becomes oriented toward a wider community. Room on this site for future expansion is limited due to the site topography and the planning issues related to the proximity to the Fanno Creek watershed. 26 NICHE BUILDING fstj rn.,r ~ r - G h f.yis vir f 1 ~ I I I I Figure 2.G. Niche Building Use Information Services Location 8720 SW Burnham Construction Type Two-story. Type V-N non-sprinklered wood frame and wood shingle roof. Property Area 28,262 sf Building Area 4,548 sf ( 2,009 sf upper, 2,539 sf lower) Built 1952 Renovations Remodel -1991 Electrical Upgrade - 2003 New Roof -1991 Current Property Value $639,000 (ratio of overall complex) Life Cycle Expense $10,780 per year average Ten Year Life Cycle $77,300 Twenty Year Life Cycle $226,385 Utility Expense Table 2.G. Niche Building Data Condition The Information Technology Department is currently housed in this 2-story wood structure adjacent to the City Hall parking lot and the skateboard park. The building was originally built as a small commercial structure with parking. It has been remodeled and used as city offices for over sixteen years. While the interior spaces are comfort- able, the building itself is not up to the standards of other permanent city facilities. The facility is relatively unsecure and has no fire alarm or fire sprinkler protection. There is Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 2 -Existing Conditions LRS Architects 27 ample space with excess capacity; several unused offices and rooms. The upper level is not wheelchair accessible. The site has 36 parking spaces. Issues The facility is workable, but not entirely suitable for the IT Department. It is isolated from City Nall. Ideally, the IT Department would be located within City Nall near Finance Operations. The Niche Building, which houses a large amount of computer equipment, is alarmed, but cannot be secured to the extent it should be. Lack of secu- rity does not present an exigent situation, but does need addressing in the near future. Conclusions The Niche Building is located within the boundaries of the 2007 Urban Renewal / Downtown Plan. As a City facility it should be viewed as a temporary structure that is nearing the end of its useful life. It has no historic connection and little aesthetic value to recommend it. It has provided needed space for the Information Technology Depart- ment, but has isolated staff in something less than a desirable working environment. If space can be made available in City Nall it is recommended that IT move into that space. The Niche Building can then be demolished and the land put to better use by the City. 28 -Meeds Qndpor Demographics and Growth A Demographic Study for the City of Tigard was conducted using data from Portland State University's Population Research Center. Population figures from 2000 to 2008 show a 1.51% average annual growth rate. This growth figure was used to calculate future population counts for five year increments through 2028 as shown in table 3.A. These figures and percentages were factored into the anticipated staff growth for the different City departments and their divisions. dc@ o a 2?M ~3O~t3 ~O~(3 Population 47,420 50.350 55,088 59,374 63,994 Aggregate Growth 7.78% 16.2% 25.2% 34.9% Table 3.A. Aggregate Growth Rate A Population Study for the City of Tigard, Table 3.13, shows historical population es- timates and the yearly percentage change from the Portland State University's Popu- lation Research Center. The study indicates an aggregate growth rate since 1990 of nearly 62%, or an average of 3.42% per year. The negative change from 2003 to 2004 was due to a data collection error. Accounting for this error, the population change was 1.31%. The average annual growth rate (AAGR), normally used in projecting population increase, is 1.51% during the period from 2000 to 2007. This figure is used to calculate future population counts as shown in the right hand column. Tigard's central location, between the 217,1-5 and 99W corridors with easy access to east, west and downtown of the Portland metropolitan area suggests that it will con- tinue to be a prime location for residential and commercial development. A few areas, such as the Tigard Triangle, have capacity for commercial and residential development, however city boundaries are stable with no expectation of major annexations in the foreseeable future. Population growth is expected to continue, but possibly at a slower rate than the last 20 years. This rate is projected to continue until some major transportation and planning changes, such as potential long term development of light rail along 99W corridor, start to result in increased density. The soon to be completed Westside Express Service may begin to present opportunities for increased density, though no zoning modifications are currently planned as a result of the transit line. Zoning changes may begin within the next twenty years and the resulting population increase will be beyond the plan- ning horizon of this analysis. Figures and percentages shown will be used to estimate anticipated staff growth for Tigard's city departments into the year 2028. Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 3 -Needs Analysis LRS Architects 29 ~r~ 000 o ~ ~r~ 000 o ~c~ao 1990 29,345 2011 49,601 1.51% 1991 30,910 5.01% 2012 50,350 1.51% 1992 31,350 1.42% 2013 51,110 1.51% 1993 32,145 2.54% 2014 51,882 1.51% 1994 33,730 4.93% 2015 52,666 1.51% 1995 35,021 3.83% 1996 35,925 2.58% 2016 53,461 1.51% 1997 36,680 2.10% 2017 54,268 1.51% 1998 37,200 1.42% 2018 55,088 1.51% 1999 38,704 4.049/b 2019 55,919 1.51% 2000 42,260 9.19% 2020 56,764 1.51% 2001 43,040 1.85% 2021 57,621 1.51% 2002 44,070 2.39% 2022 58,491 1.51% 2003 45,130 2.41% 2023 59,374 1.51% 2004 46,300 •1.06% 2005 45,500 1.90% 2024 62,271 1.51% 2025 61,181 1.51% 2006 46,300 1.76% 2007 46,715 0.90% 2026 62,105 1.51% 2008 47,420 1.51% 2027 63,042 1.51% 2009 48,136 1.51% 2028 63,994 1.51% 2010 48,863 1.51% Table 3.8. Population Study for the City of Tigard 30 Departmental Staff Growth In order to project future space needs, two scenarios of staff growth are projected. The first scenario, shown in tables 3.C and 3.D, maintains the current staff to resident ratio per resident. A second scenario, shown in tables 3.E and 3.F is based upon a lower staff per resident need. The comparative analysis of both scenarios confirms that the reduced area required in the second scenario is negligible for planning purposes. It was determined to use the more conservative constant staff ratio scenario to project future space needs. Complete Needed Area Projections listing all staff positions and space needs with projections for years 2013 and 2028 begin on Table 4.1. Staff Count Projection - Constant staff to resident ratio D-o. 000 000 g@0g X30@ ~Qo j o Q Q~d G t O IJQt ioO R@(P J Its- 9@@d Moe l acGCJ Administration 26.5 28 36.5 47 51 55 59 63 Police 47.25 57 72 94 lot tog 118 127 Community Develop- 32 35 50 55.5 6o.5 65 70 75 ment Library 14.5 23 30 46 49 54 58 62 Public Works 27.25 45 64 64 69 75 81 86 Senior/Community 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 Center Total 149.5 191 255.5 304.5 328.5 356 384 410 Population 29,435 35,021 42,260 46,715 50,350 55,088 59,374 63,042 Growth Rate 15.95% 17.13% 9.54% 7.22% 8.60% 7.22% 5.8z% Patio 0.51 0.55 0.60 0.65 o.65 0.65 o.65 0.65 Table 3.C. Staff Level Option One - Constant Staffing Ratio Space Needs Projection - Constant staff to resident ratio Do o- WRoaQ 4?0~3 M@@(iO r o t3 Good ~U a@od Q? r aoocJ Administration 16,369 17,874 19,759 23,375 Police 24,093 30,241 39,427 48,614 Community Development 11,064 13,300 15,061 16,784 Library 48,167 47,782 48,377 66,162 Public Works 17,697 18,173 18,501 19,935 Senior/Community Center 8,743 8,741 8,741 14,78o Total 116,648 123,496 136,716 189,650 Population 46,715 55,088 63,042 City PTE 304.50 356.00 410.00 Staff per loo residents o.65 0.65 o.65 Table 3.D. Staff Level Option One - Constant Staffing Ratio Tigard's Draft 20 Year City Facility Plan 3 -Needs Analysis LRS Architects 31 Staff Count Projection - Decreased staff to resident ratio D o. O~,~OO 5 m N@@@ 0 0 0 3@u 2 o&@ g@ n 303(3 o coo A@k6 o a@@d a@W a@W a@W Administration 26.5 28 36.5 47 49 50 51 52 Police 47.25 57 72 94 100 105 110 115 Community Develop- 32 35 50 55.5 58 59 61 62 ment Library 14.5 23 30 46 49 51 53 55 Public Works 27.25 45 64 64 66 69 72 74 Senior/Community 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 Center Total 149.5 191 255.5 304.5 319 331 346 357 Population 29,435 35,021 42,260 46,715 50,350 55,088 59,374 63,042 Growth Rate 15.95% 17.13% 9.54% 7.22% 8.60% 7.22% 5.82% Ratio 0.51 0.55 o.6o 0.65 0.63 oho 0.58 0.57 Table 3.E. Staff Level Option Two - Slower Growth of Staffing Level Space Needs Projection - Decreased staff to resident ratio D@PWaR@A 20m(nl -0 3"N@W 300UN@W 3013 M @W Administration 16,369 17,874 19,759 23,375 Police 24,935 31,130 38,814 47,497 Community Development 11,064 13,300 14,106 15,137 Library 48,167 47,782 48,377 66,104 Public Works 17,697 18,173 18,410 19,843 Senior/Community Center 8,743 8,741 8,741 14,780 Total 116,648 123.496 134,742 186,736 Population 46,715 55,088 63,042 City PTE 304.50 331-00 357.00 Staff per too residents o.65 o.6o 0.57 Table 3.F. Staff Level Option Two - Slower Growth of Staffing Level Police Department Analysis by City As included in the Public Works Needs Assessment, a detailed comparative analysis of Police Departments by City was conducted for this report using a dozen of cities roughly the size in population of Tigard. Information was collected from each city's Police Department web site and by telephone conversation. The cities analyzed are Albany, Corvallis, and Lake Oswego in Oregon, and Auburn, Kirkland, Olympia, and Redmond in Washington State. Tigard is on the lesser end of city area at 11.71 square miles with a high of 21.2 square miles for Auburn. Population ranges from 36,713 to 49,807 with Tigard's in the middle at 46,715. Median income levels are from $35,000 to $71,000 with Tigard at $52,000. All but one city, Albany, have a jail or holding facilities at the police station. Two, Auburn and Olympia, have larger 25 and 51-bed jails. Six of the eight cities have gym or workout rooms that range from small spaces to larger all city facilities. Five of the eight cities also have a pistol range either on-site (four) or off-site (one). Six police depart- ments rent space for evidence storage. The City of Tigard's station building is 11,368 square feet. This is a similar size to the other city's stations. Two cities do not have square foot data available. However, all the police departments stated are extremely 32 crowded and using auxiliary facilities. Most are in the planning process to move or en- large their facilities. Growth, for this size of city, has escalated to the point that all the police departments are having trouble fitting their staff and program needs into their current facilities. None have expansion room within their facility. The findings of this comparison support the need for action to increase the available area for the Police Department. A focused long term plan for the Department should be undertaken in more detail than this report provides in order to establish program- matic and space goals for the department. A more detailed plan may use this report as a baseline, modifying these findings to further define the master plan. Information provided for Tualatin, Sherwood, Hillsboro, Woodburn and Keizer was provided by the City of Tigard and reflect newly constructed facilities, or facilities cur- rently under construction that are designed and built to serve communities for a dura- tion similar to this analysis. These facilities are more reflective of the space required to reach the operational goals and levels of service which the City of Tigard desires. Regional Police Department Analysis Tigard 2008 46,715 $52,000 75/1.61 85 15,628 166 Tigard 2028 63,042 127/2.01 127 53,975 425 N QAlbany 46,213 $39,000 60/1-3 90 14,900 166 'u Corvallis 49,807 $35,000 54/1-08 82 23,680 289 `a O Lake Oswego 36,713 $71,000 43/1-17 73 11,192 153 Auburn 65,000 $39,000 120/1.85 143 32,000 224 Kirkland 46,476 $60,000 72/1-55 103 20,200 196 Olympia 44,645 $41,000 69/1-55 98 Redmond 48,739 $67,000 84/1.72 120 Tualatin 25,650 $55,760 36/1.40 44 23,000 523 Sherwood 16,115 $62,520 23/1.43 26 17,300 665 3 Hillsboro 88,300 $51,737 113/1.28 151 54,250 359 m Z Woodburn 22,044 $33,720 31/1.41 40 28,000 650 Keizer 34,880 $45,050 39/1.12 46 30,000 652 Table 3.G. Regional Police Department Analysis Note: Albany performed needs assessment 5 years ago. Need 30,000 now & 45,000 in 15 years. Corvallis shares law enforcement building (1976) with Benton County Sherrifs Department. Spaces are mixed by type of services not separated between county & city. • Auburn has new annex to city w/ 15,000 population increase. Added 28 staff. Jail still under City Hall. New Justice Center is part courts, part police station. • Kirkland workout room in City Hall used by all city staff. City Hall: 2-story w/ground level for police & jail, upper floor for City Hall, municipal court (11,300) • Olympia Westside Station: Community Program's unit, no service desk, small workout room for officer use. Pistol range located at auxiliary police training facility City Hall is a 1960's bldg. They are extremely crowded & looking for new site to build station Parking: some private, fenced, no locked gate. • Redmond Parking located at unsecured city garage one block away. Fleet parking in station basement. Small structures (3) on main site. (2) are vehicle bays, (1) processing lab, evidence room and evidence vehicle bay. Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 3 -Needs Analysis LRS Architects 33 • Office Space Standards Office space standards have been utilized in this study for the assignment of square footage for both individual private offices and for workstation sizes. These standards were used to determine currently needed workspace as well as future projected needs. Space standards in any organization are typically utilized to assist in managing space within that organization and to establish parity from one department to another. Work- space standards typically are based on a combination of position classification and job function. Space standards can be applied to both modular furniture and panel systems and to freestanding furniture and individual private offices. Modular systems will typi- cally yield a square footage savings over private offices or freestanding furniture. Both systems and arrangements have been utilized for Tigard. Private office space has been assigned to position classifications requiring security and privacy issues. The City of Tigard has not adopted standard workstation size requirements. However, it does have existing furniture and panel systems. LRS has assigned space standards that are in line with accepted business and government standards. These work well with Tigard's existing furniture and panel systems. The classification assignments have been verified and adjusted with departmental input. The space standards have been used to determine future staff space requirements as well as current needs. Financial Operations - Utility Worker II Community Development - Intern Planner Library - Senior Library Assistant I & II ws.e~ Library - Assistant Technician exoa Public Works - Utility Worker II Volunteer Figure 3.A. (WS48) Workstation - 48 sf Financial Operations - Senior Accounting Assist Engineering - Administration Specialist Police - Background Investigation Court - Administrative Specialist I axa Court - Court Clerk Police - Community Services Officer Office Sys. - Admin Specialist I & II Police - Patrol Officer / Police Officer Police - Property Evidence Community Development - Administrative Assistant Police - Records Specialist Community Development - Admin Specialist I Figure 3.B. (WS64) Workstation - 64 sf • Public Works - Administrative Specialist I & II Community Development - Assistant Planner Public Works - GIS Technician Community Development - Inspector I & II Public Works - Senior Administrative Specialist Community Development - Permit Technician Public Works - Senior Utility Worker Community Development - Plans Examiner 34 Community Development - Senior Plans Examiner City Administration - Graphics/Web Engineering - Administration Assistant City Administration - Volunteer Coordinator ! 1rX1d Engineering - City Surveyor Financial Operations - Payroll Specialist Engineering - Engineering Construction Inspector Financial Operations - Purchasing Specialist Engineering - Engineering Technician Financial Operations - Senior Admin Specialist Engineering - Senior Engineering Technician IT - GIS Coordinator Library - Public Information Coordinator IT - Micro Computer Support Technician Library - Volunteer Coordinator IT - Network Technician Figure 3.C. (WSBo) Workstation - 80 sf Library - Supervisors Community Development - Admin Specialist II Police - Commercial Crimes Officer Community Development - Associate Planner Police - School Resources Community Development - Code Compliance Specialist Public Works - Engineering Technician II Library - Cataloging Librarian Public Works- Urban Forester Community Development - Permits Coordinator Public Works - Water QCP Coordinator Community Development - Bldg. Services Coordinator Public Works - Water WCP/ Vol. Community Development - Senior Bldg. Inspector Senior/Community Center - Activities Coordinator Community Development - Senior Elec.. Inspector Senior/Community Center - Assist Manager/ Kitchen Coordinator Community Development - Senior Plumbing Inspector Senior/Community Center - Clinical Services Coordina- tor Community Development - Management Analyst Financial Operations - Accountant Financial Operations Management Analyst w5xo IT -Computer Support Coordinator laxw IT - Network Administrator Office Systems - Office Services Supervisor Office Systems - Deputy City Recorder Office Systems - Senior Admin Specialist HP -Assistant Risk - Management Analyst Risk - Technician t Community Development - Plans Examiner Supervisor Engineering - Right of Way Administration Library - Confidential Exec Assistant Figure 3.D. (WS100) Workstation - 100 sf Library - Technical Services Coordinator Police - CID Secretary Police - Crime Analyst Police - Sergeant Public Works - Coordinators (Fleet, Facilities) Public Works - Program Development Specialist Public Works - Urban Forester Financial Operations - Accounting Supervisor Financial Operations - Confidential Exec Assist Human Resource - Senior Analyst wsm Community Development - Confidential Exec Assistant V X I Community Development - Inspection Supervisor Engineering - Project Engineer Police - Detective Police - Lieutenant Public Works - Project Engineer Public Works - Supervisors: (Streets, Sanitary, Storm, Water Quality, Water Operations, Parks & Grounds) Figure 3 E. (WS120) Workstation - 1205f Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 3 -Needs Analysis LRS Architects 35 City Administration - Admin Services Manager Courts - Judge Office Sys. - City Recorder L~ Community Development - Assist VXV Community Development - Director Community Development - Building Official Community Development - Planning Manager Community Development - Plan/DT Redev. Manager Engineering - Engineering Library - Circulation Manager Library - Reader's Services Manager Police - Records Supervisor Police - Supervisor Investigations Figure 31. (PO120) Private Office - Supervisors - 120 sf Police - Supervisor Lieutenant Public Works - Confidential Exec Assistant Public Works - Management Analyst Senior/Community Center - Director City Administration - Executive Assist to City Manager Financial Operations - Financial Operations Manager IT- Manager Engineering - Capital Construction & Trans. Engineer Police - Business Manager Police - Confidential Executive Assistant Police - Public Information Officer Police - Youth Program Manager Public Works - Assistant Public Works Director Public Works - Parks & Facilities Manager Figure 3.G. (P0150) Private Office - Managers - 1505f City Administration - Assistant City Manager Financial Operations - Financial Director ieaJ Human Resources - Director 7xo Risk - Assistant to City Manager Community Development - Director Library - Director Police - Assistant Chief Police - Operations Captain Public Works - Director Figure 3.N. (00180) Private Office - Department Neads - 1805f City Administration - City Manager Police - Chief of Police U vca Figure 31 (P0225) Private Office - Administration Officials - 225 sf 36 Needed Areas Projection Tables CITY ADMINISTRATION a 1. Personnel Administration City Manager 1 1 1 PO-255 255 2o8 255 255 255 Assistant City Manager 1 1 1 PO-18o 18o 172 18o 18o 18o Executive Asst. to City Manager 1 1 1 PO-150 150 156 150 150 150 Admin Services Manager 1 1 1 PO-120 120 74 120 120 120 Public Information Officer 0 1 1 PO-120 120 0 0 120 120 Graphic Design / Web 1 1 1 WS-8o 8o 6o 8o 80 80 Volunteer Coordinator 1 1 1 WS-80 8o 52 80 8o 80 Volunteers (3] (4] (6] WS-48 48 103 144 192 288 Sub Total 6 7 7 825 1009 1177 1273 Courts Judge 1 1 2 PO-120 120 56 120 120 240 Administrative Specialist I 1 1 1 WS-64 64 56 64 64 64 Court Clerk 2 3 6 WS-64 64 112 128 192 384 Sub Total 4 5 9 224 312 376 688 Financial / Information Services Financial Director 1 1 1 PO-180 18o 167 180 18o 18o Confidential Executive Assistant 1 1 1 WS-120 100 52 100 100 100 Management Analyst 1 1 1 WS-100 too 0 100 100 100 Financial Operations Manager 1 1 1 PO-150 150 86 150 150 150 Accountant 1 1 2 WS-100 100 59 100 100 200 Accounting Supervisor 1 1 1 WS-120 120 100 120 120 120 Senior Administrative Specialist 2 2 3 WS-8o 80 90 160 160 240 Senior Accounting Assistant 2 2 3 WS-64 64 74 128 128 192 Payroll Specialist 1 1 1 WS-8o 80 55 8o 80 8o Purchasing Specialist 1 1 1 WS-80 80 52 80 80 80 Utility Worker II 2 2 3 WS-48 48 42 96 96 144 Accounting Assistant I & 11 3 3 5 WS-64 64 73 192 192 320 Sub Total 17 17 23 850 1,486 1486 1,906 Information Technology IT Manager 1 1 1 PO-150 150 158 150 150 150 Computer Support Coordinator 1 1 1 WS-100 too 126 100 100 100 Network Administrator 1 1 1 WS-100 too 115 100 100 100 Tigard's Draft 20 Year City Facility Plan 3 -Needs Analysis LRS Architects 37 o O ~ pGdl 1. C} a O Q (O~ O o Cril (SJ (f5 Cft Network Technician 2 2 3 WS-8o 80 200 160 160 240 Computer Support Technician 1 2 2 WS-8o 80 110 80 160 160 Graphic Info Sys. Coordinator 1 1 2 WS-8o 80 116 80 80 160 Sub-Total 7 8 10 825 670 750 910 Office Services Office Services Supervisor 1 1 1 WS-too 100 64 80 100 100 Administrative Specialist I & II 3 3 4 WS-64 64 64 192 192 256 Sub-Total 4 4 5 128 272 292 356 Records City Recorder 1 1 1 PO-120 120 68 120 120 120 Deputy City Recorder 1 1 1 WS-100 too 62 100 100 100 Senior Administrative Specialist 1 1 2 WS-100 100 64 100 100 200 Sub-Total 3 3 4 194 320 320 420 Human Resources Human Resources Director 1 1 1 PO-180 180 162 180 180 180 Senior Human Resources Analyst 2 2 2 WS-120 120 180 240 240 240 Human Resources Assistant 1 2 3 WS-100 100 75 100 200 300 HR Volunteer [t] [2] [2) WS-48 48 12 48 24 96 Sub-Total 4 5 6 429 520 620 816 Risk Management Assistant to City Manager 1 1 1 PO-18o 180 148 180 180 180 Risk Technician 1 1 1 WS-too too 88 100 100 100 Sub-Total 2 2 2 236 280 280 28o Sub-Total Personnel Needs 47 51 66 3,711 4,869 5,301 6,649 2. Auxiliary Space Public Interface & Administration Lobby w/ Public Counter 1 1 1.5 660 66o 66o 990 Staff Rest rooms: Men & Women 2 2 2 312 390 390 390 Conference Room: 6-10 4 5 6 590 590 738 885 Conference Room: 12-24 1 2 3 355 355 710 1065 Staff Lunch & Break Room 1 1 1 355 355 355 355 City Admin Waiting Area 1 1 1 104 104 104 104 HR Waiting Area 1 2 2 78 78 156 156 Sub-Total 2454 2532 3113 3945 Support Services Microfiche Processing & Storage 1 1 1 64 64 64 64 38 0 o UJ o ,moo ~ O p O p 0-*~ c O CJ (a~ CJ IN GJ ~St~j QC~rr~C~ow 14UJ~ a tf a a ~ a Mail Room & Work Room 1 1.5 2 158 158 237 316 Work Room: Copy, Fax, Print 2 2 2.5 130 130 130 163 Acct. Assist. Work Area 1 1 2 67 67 67 134 Vault 1 1.5 2 158 158 237 316 Records Storage Room 1 1.5 2 168 168 252 336 Records File Storage 2 3 4 64 64 96 128 HR Records File Storage 1 1 1.5 100 100 100 150 Courts Admin File Storage 1 1 1.5 60 60 60 90 Tele/Computer Server Room 1 1 1.5 70 70 70 105 Finance Equipment Room 1 1 1 71 71 71 71 Janitor / Mechanical Room 1 1 1 131 131 131 131 Sub-Total 1241 1241 1515 2004 Court Services Town Hall / Chambers 1 1 1 1465 1465 1465 1465 Public Lobby 1 1 1 525 525 525 525 Chambers Storage Room 1 1 1 194 194 194 194 TV Room for City Council 1 1 1 152 152 152 152 Jury Room O 1 1 0 355 355 355 Sub-Total 2336 2691 2691 2691 Information Tech Services Training Room 1 1.5 2 430 430 645 860 Storage Room W/ Racks 1 1.5 2 270 270 405 540 Server Room 1 2.5 3 180 180 450 540 Sub-Total 880 880 1500 1940 Sub-Total Auxiliary Needs 6911 7344 7319 8640 Sub-Totals City Administration 10622 11780 12620 15289 (Inc HR, Risk, IT) Circulation @a 30% 3187 3534 3786 4587 Net Total City Administration 13809 15314 16405 19875 Department Needs 3• Dead Records Storage Off-Site 2560 2560 3000 3500 Total City Administration Building 16369 17874 19405 23375 Needs 4• Exterior Needs: Staff Parking H H Existing parking is barely adequate. Public Parking Inadequate on court days Table 3•14. City Administration Space Needs Projection Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 3 -Needs Analysis LRS Architects 39 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT o ~ o o p C O r C~ p o v o a a 1. Personnel Administration Community Development 1 1 1 PO-180 18o 122 18o 18o 180 Director Confidential Executive As- 1 1 1 WS-loo 100 8o 100 too 100 sistant Management Analyst 1 1 1 WS-80 80 68 80 8o 80 Principal Planner / DT Pede- 1 1 1 PO-120 120 80 120 120 120 velopment Mgr Volunteers [2] [3] [q] WS-48 48 O 96 144 192 Sub-Total 4 4 4 350 576 624 672 Long Range Planning Asst. Community Develop- 1 1 1 PO-120 120 112 120 120 120 ment Director Administrative Specialist II 1 1 2 WS-8o 8o 63 8o 8o 16o Associate Planner 4 4 4 WS-100 100 334 400 400 400 Assistant Planner 1 2 3 WS-8o 8o 62 8o 160 240 Intern Planner [1] [1] [1] WS-48 48 20 48 48 48 Sub-Total 7 8 70 591 728 760 920 Current Planning Planning Manager t 1 1 PO-120 120 117 120 120 120 Administrative Assistant 1 1 2 WS-120 120 100 120 120 240 Associate Planner 2 2 3 WS-8o 80 120 16o 160 240 Associate Planner - Arborist 1 1 1 WS-80 8o 64 8o 80 8o Assistant Planner 1 1 2 WS-64 64 80 64 64 128 Permit Coordinator 1 1 1 WS-8o 8o 80 8o 8o 80 Permit Technician - Planning/ 2 3 3 WS-64 64 134 128 192 192 Engineering Code Compliance Specialist 1 1 1 WS-8o 8o 64 80 80 80 Sub-Total 10 » 14 759 832 896 ttbo Plan Review Plans Examination Supervisor 1 1 1 WS-loo too 85 100 loo loo Senior Plans Examiner 2 2 2 WS-80 80 118 16o 16o 16o Plans Examiner 1 1 2 WS-80 8o 6o 80 80 160 Sub-Total 4 4 5 263 340 340 420 Building 40 7 ~ O ~ GJ O (O~ ~Q ~ ~ O ~ OI CO° uti ~Gu N1G~PiQ~ ~ " ° ° Q u~ NJ NJ ° ~ o Building Official 1 1 1 PO-120 120 93 120 120 120 Administration Specialist 1 1 1 2 WS-64 64 64 64 64 128 Sub-Total 2 2 3 157 184 184 248 Permits Building Division Services 1 1 1 WS-80 80 83 80 80 80 Coordinator Permit Technician - Building 3 3 4 WS-64 64 118 192 192 256 Sub-Total 4 4 5 201 272 272 336 Inspections Inspection Supervisor 1 1 1 WS-100 too 72 100 100 100 Administrative Specialist II 1 1 2 WS-64 64 64 64 64 128 Senior Electrical Inspector 1 1 1 WS-80 80 84 80 80 80 Senior Building Inspector 1 1 1 WS-80 80 64 80 80 80 Senior Plumbing Inspector 1 1 1 WS-8o 80 45 80 80 80 Inspector I & II 4 5 6 WS-64 64 232 256 320 384 Sub-Total 9 10 12 561 660 724 852 Development Engineering Engineering Manager 1 1 1 PO-120 120 122 120 120 120 Senior Engineering Technician 3 3 3 WS-80 80 195 240 240 240 Engineering Technician I 1 1 2 WS-80 80 90 80 80 160 Administrative Assistant O 0.5 1 WS-80 80 0 0 40 80 Sub-Total 5 5.5 7 407 440 480 600 Capital Construction & Transportation Capital Construction & Trans- 1 1 1 PO-150 150 102 150 150 150 portation Engineer Engineering Manager 1 1 1 PO-120 120 102 120 120 120 Administrative Assistant I & II 1.5 2 3 WS-80 80 93 120 160 240 Project Engineer 2 2 2 WS-120 120 176 240 240 240 Rights of Way Administrator 1 1 1 WS-loo too io8 100 100 100 Senior Engineering Technician 2 3 4 WS-80 80 160 160 240 320 Engineering Construction 1 1 2 WS-80 80 65 80 80 160 Inspector City Surveyor 1 1 1 WS-80 80 80 80 80 80 Sub-Total 10.5 12 15 886 1050 1170 1410 Sub-Total Personnel Needs 55.5 60.5 75 4175 5082 5450 6618 2. Auxiliary Space Tigard's Draft 20 Year City Facility Plan 3 -Needs Analysis LRS Architects 41 p C@Mmwft Public Interface & Administration Building Entry Vestibule 1 1 1 345 345 345 345 Lobby w/ Public Counter 1 1.5 2 288 288 432 576 Public Rest rooms (not inc.) - - Staff Rest rooms: Men & 2 2 2 329 329 329 329 Women Conference Room: 4-6 2 2 2 190 190 190 190 Conference Room: 6-10 1 2 2 136 136 272 272 Conference Room: 10-14 2 2 2 390 390 390 390 Staff Lunch & Break Room 1 1 1 28o 280 280 28o Sub-Total 1958 1958 2238 2382 Support Services Front Desk / Admin Work 1 1 1 168 168 168 168 Work Room: Copy, Fax, Print 2 2 2 200 300 300 300 Mail Room: Forms, Docu- inc inc inc inc inc inc inc Work Room - 1 7 0 150 150 150 Vacant Workstations as star- 2 2 2 150 150 150 150 Library - 1 1 0 120 120 120 General Supplies Storage inc inc inc inc inc inc inc Storage - 1 2 0 200 200 400 Records Storage System 2 2 2 312 312 312 312 Telephone / Data Server 1 1 2 70 70 70 140 File Room 1 1 1 343 343 343 343 Plotters 2 1 1 213 300 300 300 Electrical Room 1 1.5 2 70 70 105 140 Janitor / HVAC Room 1 1 1 78 78 78 78 Sub-Total 1604 2261 2296 2601 Sub-Total Auxiliary Needs 3562 4219 4534 4983 Sub-Totals Community Develop- 7737 9301 9984 11601 ment Circulation @ 37% 3327 3999 4293 4988 Net Total Community Develop- 11064 13300 14277 16589 ment Department Needs 3• Dead Records Storage Included with City Administration totals Total Community Development 11064 13300 14277 76589 Building Needs 4. Exterior Needs: Fleet Parking (at Public Works) 14 cars Staff Parking Current parking is barely adequate Table 31 Community Development Space Needs Projection 42 POLICE DEPARTMENT p ~ o a V a 1. Personnel Administration Chief of Police 1 1 1 PO-225 225 156 225 225 225 Assistant Chief 1 1 1 PO-180 18o 131 18o 18o 18o Confidential Exec. Assist 1.5 2 2 PO-150 150 200 225 300 300 Public Information Officer 1 1 1 PO-150 150 117 150 150 150 Business Manager 1 1 1 PO-150 150 117 150 150 150 Operations Captain 1 1 1 PO-18o 18o 133 180 180 18o Youth Program Manager 1 1 1 PO-150 150 130 150 150 150 Sub-Total 7.5 8 8 984 1260 1335 1335 Investigation Services Supervisor - Investigation 2 2 2 PO-120 120 128 240 240 240 Detectives 10 11 13 WS-120 120 350 1200 1320 1560 Background Investigators (4 2 2 3 WS-64 64 37 128 128 192 pt time) CID Secretary 1.5 2 2 WS-loo 100 6o 150 200 200 Crime Analyst 1 1 2 WS-10o loo 46 100 100 200 Sub-Total 16.5 18 22 621 1818 1988 2392 Community & Prevention Services Lieutenant (Inv) 1 1 1 PO-120 120 130 120 120 120 Lieutenant (patrol) 3 3 3 WS-120 120 230 360 360 36o Sergeant (2 staff share 1 7 7 9 WS-100 loo 174 350 700 900 Wkstn) Sergeant Tri-Met 1 1 1 WS-80 8o 64 80 8o 8o Sergeant Commercial Crimes 1 1 1 WS-too too 64 100 100 100 Patrol Officer /Police Officer 38 49 52 WS-64 64 221 841 1045 1109 (3 share) Commercial Crimes Officer 2 2 3 WS-80 8o 128 160 160 240 Officer - Tri-Met 3 3 4 WS-64 64 128 128 192 256 Community Service Officers 2 2 3 WS-64 64 128 128 128 192 School Resource Officer 4 4 6 WS-80 80 165 320 320 480 Reserve Officers (3 share) 1151 [201 [251 WS-64 64 O 320 427 533 Sub-Total 61 73 83 1302 2757 3512 4251 Information & Support Services Records Supervisor 1 1 1 PO-120 120 116 120 120 120 Records Specialists 6 7 10 WS-64 64 380 384 448 640 Tigard's Draft 20Vear City Facility Plan 3 -Needs Analysis LRS Architects 43 o Property / Evidence Clerk 2 2 3 WS-64 64 82 128 128 192 Volunteers, Interns 131 [41 [6j WS-48 48 95 144 192 288 Sub-Total 9 10 14 578 632 696 952 Sub-Total Personnel Needs 94 109 127 3485 6407 7531 8930 2. Auxiliary Space Public Interface & Admin Lobby W/ Public Counter 158 400 400 400 Reception Work Area 64 100 100 150 Public Pest rooms: Men & 312 400 400 600 Women Small Conference Room: 4-6 100 200 200 400 Medium Conference Room: 225 225 450 450 6.10 Large Conference Room: 20-26 O 600 6oo 600 Interview Rooms: Hard 180 180 180 180 Interview Rooms: Soft 93 100 200 200 Juvenile Holding w/ visual O 400 400 400 supervision Interview Stations: adj. to 0 60 60 120 public lobby Sub-Total 1132 2665 2990 3500 Investigation Services Admin Work Area, Copy, Fax 40 80 80 120 Conference Room: 4 staff 0 100 100 100 Conference Room: 6-10 staff 80 225 225 225 Computer Forensics Room 56 200 200 400 Evidence Processing 75 130 260 260 Storage: Evidence 194 400 600 800 Sub-Total 445 1135 1465 1905 Community & Presentation Services Staff Lunch & Break Room 98 400 400 600 Officer Mud Room Entry 0 150 150 150 Officer's Bag Lockers O 200 300 400 Men's Locker Rms: Showers, 668 1500 1500 2250 Toilets Women's Locker Rms: Shwrs, 276 500 500 750 Toilets Exercise/Weight Room: 6-10 0 500 500 750 staff Large Training / Briefing Room: 6oo 6oo 900 1200 30• 44 0 o Q ~ O ~ G:1 o O O ~~~p O Q Q 1~AlU~ D - o - u - "n'~ ~ llff~VV GG~JJ o ~ ~ ~ Pistol Range O 0 O 3200 Sub-Total 1642 3850 4250 9300 Information & Support Services Work Room: Copy, Fax, Print 300 300 300 300 Mail Room: Forms, Documents 65 120 120 120 Storage: Records (Office 142 200 200 300 Supplies) Storage: Ammunition 80 80 80 120 Storage: Weapons 55 100 100 150 Storage: Uniforms (Laundry 0 8o 8o 120 Pickup) Storage: Secured 89 too 100 150 Storage: Electronic Equipment o 100 loo 150 Computer & Phone Server 130 200 250 300 Room Maintenance Room 14 8o 8o 8o Mechanical Room 1o6 200 200 400 Sub Total 981 1560 1610 2190 Courts Court Room 4800 Court Support 2 WS-too too 200 Sub-Total Jail: Temporary Holding Sally port 1 3 3 395 6oo 1185 1185 Booking 1 1 1 80 120 120 120 Mug & Fingerprint t t 1 8o 120 120 120 Single Holding Cell 1 2 2 19 6o 120 120 Multiple Holding Cell: 2.10 1 1 t 85 120 120 120 Toilet & Sink 1 t 1 24 40 40 40 Clean & Shower t t 1 46 6o 6o 6o Janitor 1 1 1 17 40 40 40 Equipment Storage t 1 1 83 150 150 150 Sub-Total 829 1310 1955 1955 Sub-Total Auxiliary Needs 5029 10520 12270 1885o Sub Totals Law Enforcement 8514 11496 19801 32780 Department Circulation (Current sf = 42%, 3574 3449 5940 9834 Projected sf - 30%) L_r I Tigard's Draft 20 Year City Facility Plan 3 -Needs Analysis LRS Architects 45 o CS O o ED C Q Q (off @ a o (iJ G~ Oo (9 Net Total Law Enforcement 12088 14944 25747 42614 Department Needs 3• Storage Evidence Storage 2820 3000 4500 6000 Archived Records Storage 720 720 720 720 Sub-Total 3540 3720 5220 6720 Total Law Enforcement Depart- 15628 17944 30241 48614 ment Building Needs 4• Exterior Needs: Outdoor storage - covered: motorcycles, carts, small equipment Generator room & storage tank 250 250 250 250 _L 1 Covered police vehicle load/ 5 spaces 0 0 1000 1000 unload Outdoor Storage - Uncovered 5000 5000 5000 5000 Fleet and staff parking 18000 18000 21000 24900 Total Exterior Building Needs 23250 23250 27250 31150 Table 3.J. Police Department Space Needs Projection PUBLIC WORKS C9 .o 1% O o a o o p o i. Personnel Administration Public Works Director 1 1 1 PO-180 180 197 180 18o 180 Program Development Specialist 1 1 1 WS-100 100 110 100 100 100 Confidential Executive Assistant 1 1 1 PO-120 120 97 120 120 120 Management Analyst 1 1 1 PO-120 120 98 120 120 120 Assistant PW Director 1 1 1 PO-150 150 197 150 150 150 Senior Administrative Specialist 1 1 2 WS-80 80 70 8o 8o 160 Administrative Specialist II 2 2 3 WS-64 64 134 128 128 192 Project Engineer 1 1 1 WS-120 120 132 120 120 120 GIS Technician 1 1 2 WS-64 64 87 64 64 128 46 UIJ O ~ o ~6 VVW~S~ o d a Parks & Facilities Manager t 1 t PO-150 150 189 150 150 150 Sub Total 11 11 14 1311 1212 1212 1420 Streets Streets Supervisor 1 1 1 WS-120 120 100 120 120 120 Senior Utility Worker 1 1 2 0 0 O O Utility Worker I& II 5 5 6 0 0 O o Sub-Total 7 7 9 100 120 120 120 Sanitary Sewer Wastewater Supervisor 1 1 1 WS-120 120 68 120 120 120 Senior Utility Worker 1 1 2 o O O O Utility Worker I& II ==4 5 O o o O Sub-Total 6 6 8 68 120 120 120 Storm Water Storm Operations Supervisor 1 1 1 WS-120 120 68 120 120 120 Water WCP/Vol.. 1 1 1 WS-8o 80 60 80 80 80 Senior Utility Worker 2 2 2 - 0 O O O Utility Worker I& 11 3 4 5 O O o 0 Sub-Total 7 8 9 128 200 200 200 Water Quality Water Quality Supervisor 1 1 1 WS-120 120 68 120 120 120 Water QCP Coordinator 4 4 4 WS-100 100 283 400 400 400 Senior Utility Worker 1 1 2 o O o 0 Engineering Technician 11 1 2 3 o O O O Sub-Total 7 8 10 351 520 520 520 Water Operations Water Operations Supervisor 1 1 1 WS-120 120 68 120 120 120 Senior Utility Worker 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 Utility Worker I& II 6 7 8 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 8 9 11 68 120 120 120 Fleet Maintenance Fleet Services Coordinator 1 1 1 WS-too 100 80 100 100 100 Mechanic 1 1 2 - O O O O Administrative Specialist II 1 1 1 WS-64 64 60 64 64 64 Sub Total 3 3 4 140 164 164 164 Parks & Grounds Grounds Supervisor 1 1 1 WS-120 120 68 120 120 120 Urban Forester 1 1 1 WS-loo 100 60 loo 100 100 Senior Utility Worker 3 3 4 0 0 0 0 Utility Worker I& II 7 8 10 O o o O Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 3 -Needs Analysis LRS Architects 47 0 0 DcNBQ IV Sub-Total 12 13 16 128 220 220 220 Facility Services Facility Services Coordinator 1 1 1 WS-100 100 68 100 100 100 Senior Building Maintenance 1 1 1 o O O 0 Technician Building Maintenance Techni- 1 2 3 0 0 o O cian II Sub-Total 3 4 5 68 100 100 too Sub-Total Personnel Needs 64 69 86 2362 2776 2776 2984 2. Auxiliary Space Public Interface & Administration Building Lobby t t 1 350 350 350 350 Auditorium t t 1 1500 1500 1500 1500 Auditorium Storage 1 1 1 126 126 126 126 PW Lobby w/ Public Counter 1 1 1 170 170 170 170 Public Rest rooms: Men & 1 t 1 309 309 309 309 Women Conference Room: 6-10 1 1 2 206 206 206 412 Conference Room: 4-6 1 1 1 172 172 172 172 Break Room 1 1 t 398 398 398 398 Sub-Total 3231 3231 3231 3437 Support Services Staff Rest rooms: Men & Women 1 1 1 100 100 100 100 Fax, copy 1 1 1.5 37 37 37 56 Files 1 1 2 55 55 55 110 General Supplies Storage Inc. Inc. Inc. inc inc inc inc Storage Room 1 1 2 130 130 130 [26 o Electrical Room 1 1.5 2 62 62 93 4 Mechanical Room 1 1 1 124 124 124 4 Janitor Room 1 1 1 67 67 67 7 Sub-Total 575 575 6o6 841 Crew Building Crew Room 1 1.5 2 502 502 753 1004 Crew Computer Station 1 1 2 85 85 85 170 Restroom & Lockers: Men 1 1 1 353 353 353 353 Rest room: Women 1 t 2 69 69 69 138 48 Q CJ p q a a ~ ' Laundry & Dry Room 1 1 2 196 196 196 392 Crew Entry / Vending Machines 1 1 1 170 170 170 170 Mech / Sprinkler Room 1 1 1 58 58 58 58 Generator Room 1 1 1 196 196 196 196 Sub-Total 1629 1629 1880 2481 Fleet Repair Building Garage (5 Bays) 1 1 1 4800 4800 4800 4800 Fleet Repair Area 1 1 1 1917 1917 1917 1917 Lockers 1 t 1 128 128 128 128 Lounge 1 t t 100 100 100 100 Lube Shop 1 1 1 128 128 128 128 Mezzanine t t t 519 519 519 519 Sub Total 7592 7592 7592 7592 Sub-Total Auxiliary Needs 13027 13027 13309 14351 Sub Totals Public Works 15389 15803 16085 17335 Circulation @ 15% 2308 2370 2252 2600 Net Total Public Works 17697 18173 18337 19935 Department Needs 3• Storage Dead Records Included with City Administration Total Public Works 17697 18173 18337 19935 Building Needs 4. Exterior Needs: Outdoor Storage - Uncovered: 6 Equipment, Pipes, Sand, Miscel- acres laneous Parking - Staff & City Fleet Cars 170 Parking - Public 42 Table 3.K. Public Works Space Needs Projection LI BPAPY .o o °c a a a a t. Personnel Administration Library Director 1 t 1 PO-18o 180 280 180 180 T180 Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 3 -Needs Analysis LRS Architects 49 0 ° Q q Ll&~~Vw Confidential Executive Assistant 1 1 1 WS-100 100 80 100 100 100 Public Information Coordinator 1 1 1 WS-8o 80 180 80 80 80 Volunteer Coordinator 1 1 1 WS-80 80 134 80 80 80 Sub-Total 4 4 4 674 440 440 440 Adult Services Cataloging Librarian 1 1 1 WS-80 80 80 80 80 80 Readers Services Manager 1 1 1 PO-120 120 138 120 120 120 Adult Services Supervisor 1 1 1 WS-8o 80 80 80 80 80 Senior Librarian - Adult Services 1 1 2 inc o o O Librarian - Adult Services 1 2 3 inc o o O Librarian - Young Adult 4 4 6 inc o O O Sub-Total 9 10 14 298 280 280 280 Youth Services Youth Services Supervisor 1 1 1 WS-80 80 80 80 80 80 Librarian - Youth Services 1 1 2 inc o 0 0 Librarian - Children & Youth 2 2 3 inc o o O Senior Library Assistant - Youth 1 1 2 inc o O O Sub-Total 5 5 8 80 80 80 80 Circulation Circulation Manager 1 1 1 PO-120 120 147 120 120 120 Circulation Supervisor 2 2 2 WS-8o 80 100 80 100 80 Senior Library Asst. - Circulation 1 2 3 inc O o 0 Library Assistant - Circulation 16 16 17 inc o O O Library Aide - Circulation 1 1 3 inc O O o Sub-Total 21 22 26 247 200 220 200 Technical Services Technical Services Coordinator 1 1 1 WS-loo 100 122 100 100 100 Senior Library Asst. - Technician 2 2 3 WS-48 48 96 96 96 144 50 0 Q O P ~I C} ~ O O O Q 1 Senior Library Assistant - III 1 1 2 WS-48 48 48 48 48 96 Library Assistant - Technician 3 4 4 WS-48 48 144 144 192 192 Sub-Total 7 8 10 410 388 436 532 Sub-Total Personnel Needs 46 49 62 1709 1388 1456 1532 2. Auxiliary Space Public Interface & Administration Public Lobby 1 1 1 1474 1474 1474 1474 Community Meeting Room 1 1 1 2958 2958 2958 2958 Comm. Pm Support, toilets 1 1 1 1350 1350 1350 1350 Lobby Cafe & Support 1 1 1 396 396 396 396 Library Lobby 1 1 1 860 860 860 860 Interior Lobby t 1 1 980 980 98o 98o Circulation Desk 1 1 1 745 745 745 745 Public Rest rooms: Men & 2 2 2 1061 1061 1061 1061 Women Conference Room: 18-24 public 1 1 1 506 506 506 5o6 Group Study Rooms 3 3 4 402 402 402 536 Reference Desk 1 1 1 400 400 400 400 Sub-Total 11132 11132 11132 11266 Library Services New Books & AV 1 1 1.80 2290 2290 2290 4122 Language Center 1 1 1.80 149 149 149 268 Children's Area 2 2 3.10 6100 6100 6100 9455 Youth Services Work Area 1 1 1.95 596 596 596 1162 Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 3 -Needs Analysis LRS Architects 51 o O r~ ~ Q O Q O ~ ~ © lt~l ~~~111 o Young Adults 2 2 3.30 2080 2080 2080 3432 Public Computer Stations 2 2.5 5 1520 1520 t9oo 3800 Houghton Reading Room 1 1 1 1180 1180 1180 1180 Oregon History Room 1 1 1 450 450 450 450 Adult Reading Area 1 1 2.50 2090 2090 2090 5225 Adult Open Stacks 2 2 3.30 48oo 4800 4800 7zoo Sub-Total 21255 21255 21635 36284 Support Services Reference Work Room 7 t t 774 774 774 774 Training Room 1 1 1 623 623 623 623 Technical Services 1 t 7 780 780 780 780 Circulation Workroom 1 1 1 1460 1460 1460 1460 Identification t 1 1 58 58 58 58 Staff Break Room 1 1 t 326 326 326 326 Staff Rest rooms: Men & Women 3 3 3 210 210 210 210 Admin Work Area 1 1 1 310 310 310 310 Donations t 1 1 Igo 790 190 190 Storage: 4 4 4 670 670 670 670 Janitor 3 3 3 150 150 150 150 Electrical Room 1 1 1 212 212 212 212 Boiler Room 1 1 1 280 280 280 280 Sub Total 6043 6043 6043 6043 Sub-Total Auxiliary Needs 38430 38430 3881o 53603 Sub-Totals Library 40139 39818 40266 55135 Circulation r7a 20% 8028 7964 8053 11027 Net Total Library Dept. Needs 48167 47782 48319 66162 3.Storage Dead Records Included w/ City Admin as needed Total Library Building Needs 48167 47782 48319 66162 4. Exterior Needs: Book Drop Provided Staff and Public Parking Adequate Table 31. Library Space Needs Projection 52 SENIOR/COMMUNITY CENTER (ED o ° 00 p 1. Personnel Administration Director of Senior/Community 1 1 1 PO- 120 114 120 120 120 Center 120 Assistant Manager / Kitchen t t 1 WS- 80 102 80 80 8o Coordinator 8o Sub-Total 2 2 2 216 200 200 200 Program Services Activities Coordinator 0.5 0.5 2 WS- 80 33 40 40 80 Clinical Services Coordinator 0.5 0.5 1 WS- 80 33 40 40 40 Sub-Total 1 1 1.5 66 8o 80 120 Sub-Total Personnel Needs 3 3 4 282 280 280 320 2. Auxiliary Space Public Interface & Administration Entry Lobby 1 1 1 392 392 392 6o0 Public Pest rooms: Men & 2 2 2 486 486 486 800 Women Admin Work Area t 1 1 113 113 113 250 Petail Area and Counter 1 1 1 215 215 215 400 Storage 1 t 1 8o 8o 8o 200 Hallways, stairs, elevator lobby, - - 86o 86o 86o 86o elevator Sub-Total 2146 2146 2146 3110 Programs Computers 1 1 1 331 331 331 800 Crafts 1 t 1 360 360 360 900 Craft's Storage Closet t 1 1 34 34 34 150 Activity Room 1 1 1 2058 2058 2058 4000 Library 1 1 1 494 494 494 800 Janitor 1 1 1 39 39 39 8o Mach / Elect Room 2 2 2 148 148 148 200 Sub-Total 3464 3464 3464 6930 Dining / Loaves & Fishes Program Dining - Activity Room 1 1 1 1845 1845 1845 2500 Serving 1 1 1 213 213 213 400 Kitchen 1 1 1 351 351 351 80o Pantry 1 1 1 315 315 315 400 Utility Room 1 1 1 127 127 127 200 Sub-Total 2851 2851 2851 4300 Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 3 -Needs Analysis SRS Architects 53 0 0 o p ~ O (Q P ~ C} O y O O Q l5V Sub-Total Auxiliary Needs 8461 8461 8461 14340 Sub-Totals Senior/Community 8743 8741 8741 14780 Center Circulation: included with pro- O o 0 0 grams Net Total Senior/Community 8743 8741 8741 14780 Center Needs 3. Dead Records Storage Not needed by the Senior/Com- munity Center Sub-Total Dead Records Storage O o 0 0 Needs Total Senior/Community Center 8743 8741 8741 14780 Building Needs 4. Exterior Areas Provided: Outdoor Storage - Covered 508 Loading Dock & Ramp 326 Staff & Visitor Parking Current spaces are adequate Total Exterior Areas Provided 834- Parking Table 3.M. Senior and Community Center Needs Projection 54 4 -Mgg hlr Nun Concept and Planning Influences After reviewing the existing conditions and considering the remaining expected life of existing facilities and property, the planning team reviewed these criteria against the space needs projections and appropriateness of existing facilities. A single pathway to the master plan is identified in the report, but there are many ways to get to that goal. The pathway included here incorporates the following key ideas: Reuse existing facilities as long as feasible Maintain a centralized location for City operations and create a Civic Complex Support the objectives of the Tigard Downtown Implementation Plan (TDIP) One critical assumption used to start the planning process is that Public Works will be moving from their intermediate location to a consolidated location that is more appro- priate for the industrial use in support of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. This makes the existing Ash Street Yard available for mixed use or residential development and makes the Public Works Building property available for expansion of other city functions. The Ash Street Yard may require some remediation to address environmen- tal issues and decommissioning prior to being ready for redevelopment. The key finding of the space needs projections is that the Police Department's cur- rent space has not kept pace with the growth of the department. This current shortfall drives the need for either a short term intermediate solution or the need for a replace- ment facility. This report identifies both options for consideration, though we primar- ily focus on the intermediate solution of siting the Police Facility in the Public Works Building. Should funding for a new Police Department facility be made available before Public Works relocates from the Public Works Building, a choice can be made to either retain the favorable location by scheduling to accommodate Public Works relocation, or to identify and acquire another suitable location. Upon the relocation of Police, the City Nall / Permit Center complex will have ad- equate space for growth to meet the 20 year need with minor renovations. The limita- tion of this complex will be the longevity of the structures as previously noted. This report projects that just inside of the 20 year window, a new City Hall will be required. The Master Plan identifies, with the exception of a new Public Works Yard, that the current properties north and south of SW Burnham Street along Hall Street will be adequate to accommodate City buildings. In addition, the Library property and Senior/ Community Center properties will continue to serve their functions over the 20 years. Additional property south of the Greenway may be used as interim steps for develop- ment or community support spaces but do not impact this plan. The only property acquisition will be for the Public Works facility. The parcel should be 10-12 acres in size with either a general or light industrial zoning designation. The Tigard Downtown Implementation Strategy identifies the reconstruction of SW Burnham Street as a high priority catalyst project. The Green Street features recom- mended will fit well with, and be perceived as extensions of the Fanno Creek park urban creek corridor. Further supporting the TDIP recommendation for pedestrian character of SW Burnham Street to increase as one approaches the main Street Plaza. Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 4 -Master Plan LRS Architects 55 The vehicular requirements of the Fire Station, Police and Civic Complex parking will be located at the opposite (west) end of SW Burnham Street. The use of these properties will allow the creation of a connected series of civic facili- ties from the Fire Station at the north end, south to the Police Station and Municipal Court, Community Room, across SW Burnham street to a new City Nall and Permit Center and ultimately end with a new Community Center and an upgraded entrance to Fanno Creek Park. This axial circulation within the Civic complex will result in reduced automobile trips between facilities with associated functions. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation standards along the Civic Complex axis and connections to farther points downtown should be included in a comprehensive design of downtown streetscape improvements. SW Nall Boulevard and Burnham Street intersect at the midpoint of the new Civic Complex axis. This intersection is identified by TDIP as an opportune loca- tion for "'branding' by providing monumentation, or landmarks such as a sustainable design water feature to impart a recognizable identity for Downtown." Tigard's Urban Penewal Plan strategies include leveraging it's own property to meet redevelopment goals. The city will be able to release the Ash Street Yard and Public Works Annex for redevelopment and possibly release or redevelop the Senior/Com- munity Center property if the Community Center is provided at the Permit Center location. Development of Alternatives The following design alternatives deal with the Public Works Department, the Police Department, City Nall, the Permit Center, Human Resources, Risk, the Library, Senior/ Community Center and the City's Information and Technology Department. With the exception of the Library and Senior/Community Center all the City's departments are crowded for space and have essentially reached their maximum capacity. Future programs within existing spaces are not feasible. All the departments are meeting the challenge of space by locating programs to portable modules or rental space. Further studies can provide the City of Tigard with solutions for how to expand, reor- ganize and consolidate spaces within each of their current facilities. Public Works has recently moved to an intermediate location at the Public Works Building and has divided it's operations between the Public Works Building property and the Ash Street Yard. A 2004 Needs Analysis identified the need for a new con- solidated facility away from the SW Burnham Street corridor to replace the outgrown Ash Street Yard. In addition, the Downtown Plan views the Ash Street Yard as a prime parcel for redevelopment due to it's proximity to the downtown core and the Fanno Creek greenway. The use of this parcel as a Public Works yard is generally agreed to not be it's highest and best use. This Master Plan supports the need for Public Works to relocate to a more appropri- ately zoned property to address long term growth issues and to allow the Public Works Building and it's property to support the growth needs of other departments. The City has undertaken a process to identify appropriate properties for the Public Works Yard and is expecting that a site will be identified and purchased by 2010. Public Works Building Site The Public Works Building provides the City with a variety of options for long term use of the property. It's location at the corner of SW Burnham Street and Hall is prominent as a gateway to SW Burnham Street street and is an excellent location for the City to maintain a presence. It is also located directly adjacent the Niche Property which is 56 contiguous to the City Hall / Permit Center / Police site. After Public Works relocates to a new facility, the Public Works Building would be an appropriate location for Police to relocate on a permanent basis. The property has adequate secure parking, a strong visual presence and flexible interior spaces that will allow for a mix of administrative offices, training spaces and storage with minimal renovation. The Public Works Building currently serves as the City's Emergency Operations Center and can easily continue to serve that role as part of the Police facility. Certain functions, such as an enlarged locker room and secure areas will require significant renovation, but can be designed to serve this site for a longer period. The site has property available to support either a intermediate facility with full build out in the future or the construction of a new facility depending on the availability of funding. With proper planning, enough site is available to incorporate a Criminal Courts component either as part of the Police Station or as a renovation to the Public Works Building. A seismic analysis of the Public Works Building will be required so that seismic reha- bilitation may be performed in tandem with scheduled renovations. Oregon Revised Statute (OAR 455.400 (sec. 3)) requires police station and emergency operation center seismic rehabilitation to be completed before the year 2022. Though the Fire Station is under a different jurisdiction, it's adjacency to the Police Station will create a strong image of public safety at this facility. Niche Building and Property The Niche Building has served as an intermediate location for various City depart- ments. HP and Risk were moved from this location to the Permit Center when space became available. IT is currently the lone occupant of the building and should be relocated to be in a more secure location within the City Hall. This former residential property is not appropriate to house City functions on a long term basis and is near- ing the end of its useful life. This property is valuable to the City as it provides the link between the existing City Hall property and the Public Works Building property. Once the building is no longer required, it should be demolished and used to physically link the other City properties. In the short term, the site can provide parking support for adjacent properties. In the long term, the site is adequate to support the construction of a new and more prominent City Hall / Permit Center. City Hall / Permit Center The City Hall/ Permit Center will benefit from the relocation of the Police Depart- ment. This relocation provides almost enough expansion space to accommodate Com- munity Development and City Administration through the next 20 years. The shortfall will come in the Permit Center and can be addressed through a minor expansion if required. The immediate benefit of the Police move will be to consolidate IT from the Niche Building and HP/Risk from the Permit Center into the City Hall. This consolida- tion will provide a more secure environment for the City's servers and IT equipment. Additional conference space and storage area will come available. The consolidation of HP/Risk brings them closer to Administration and releases expansion space and conference rooms for use by the Permit Center. Library The Library, as the City's newest facility, is not facing the same growth problems as seen with the other divisions. The library, constructed in 2004, was designed to accom- modate a certain amount of growth within the building itself, and then to either build an addition along the north side of the existing facility or develop satellite facilities at other community locations. The current library facility is able to handle all of its pro- Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 4 -Master Plan LRS Architects 57 gram needs, and will be able to do so for quite a few years. The site is adequate for a programmed expansion if needed within the 20 year window. Senior/Community Center The Senior/Community Center is in the process of being enlarged and remodeled and should be completed in 2009. Funding is being provided from Community Develop- ment Block Grants, which include requirements time in service, typically up to 20 years. Growth potential over the next 20 years was considered during the building's remodel design phase. A small library and a new building entrance have been added. While the Senior/Community Center is not a large facility it is adequate for staff and program needs now and in the future. The multi-level plan is not ideal for serving the aging population and limits the flexibility of the structure. The role of the Senior/Community Center will change over the next twenty years, with the focus shifting from a senior oriented facility to a multi-generational Community Center. The shift will result in the need for a facility that provides both social services support such as Loaves and Fishes meals and senior classes to include youth diversion programs supported by Law Enforcement, educational classes and community meeting rooms. The roles can change within the existing Senior/Community Center, though the location is not preferable for the population is currently supports and would benefit from a higher level of visibility as the demographic it serves increases. 58 Major Steps Timeline 1- New Public Works Yard Consolidates all staff; 0. 5 years $15,600,000 / Decommission Ash Street Frees up Yard and Annex Yard for other use or sale 2 - Relocate Police to In- Adequate site and build- 0 - 5 years $8,350,000 termediate Facility at Public ing area. Maintains central Works Building location. Build new sup- port and training areas. 2A - New Police Facility Option to intermediate 0 - 5 years $21,350,000 step if funding source and site is available 3 - Expand City Hall into Renovation will extend 5-10 years $3,339,500 Police Facility life of buildings ($4,065,000 - 2015) 4 - Expand Permit Center If needed, expansion will 10 -15 years $1,815,000 address growth issues ($2,690,000 - 2020) 5 - Expand Police Facility Create permanent offices 15 - 20 years $12,970,546 at Public Works Building staff areas. Reuse support ($26,275,000 - 2030 Site and training area. 6 - Build new City Hall / Replaces aging wood 20 - 25 years $19,050,000 Permit Center structures in lieu of ($38,600,000 - 2030) upgrade. 7 - New Community Cen- Replaces Senior/Commu- 20 - 25 years $7,100,000 ter @ City Hall site nity Center ($14,350,000 - 2030) 8 - Expand Library Provides growth on site 20 - 25 years $2,550,000 ($5,200,000 - 2030) Table 4.A. Major Steps Timeline Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 4 -Master Plan LRS Architects 59 rs r, '4... Zs _ - ~ - t•J~t. _ o n3: i9 b' y;q ' xe. 4~_ r„ ii f. t` ~!1: i ~:F_ .i 3~n ..i 'E.i ~i . f } Ar k L 4KtlPoWg - &WrtMr$$g$ 1` laZ ~A • S•? y R0 3P P { 103 20 loyal N f~l Y=^s 3~'w-0 Y'..Y! L"# Y..A fiXd t..+8 a"~ I r .r .,f Pi 'tj { ,p 41 u.. J i , y, 7 a :.fd j ::3, r r, ~ V 41 ~ tv All, t Y' { n' Tr F' i. N p kH. Y y« Z ~ m. A.~ T ~ ~ %,y 'x R a~ , n~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~~~~i a t ~ " f ~ ~ , ~ ~ k 'p ~a4+' P t l ~ ~ t ^i ~ ' :A' ~ C~4T E$ f i t ~ 3. F rxx ra x;u rom xca s::.x a<..: ~ W k X:.':.~,., 'fir r. t~'. e, i + S,._ ~ y: z '~,~atr~cfscsz~~ -cst~>wc~~ e l~ n i p Mid t, l eP t S fr „ a 4 \T" d Cost Information The following project cost information is based upon 2008 - 2010 cost data. For projects beyond the five year window, an escalation factor of 4 % per year has been included. The costs are divided up into land acquisition cost, construction cost and soft costs and should provide a reasonable starting point for budgeting. Land acquisition costs are based on general market rates and are not applicable to any specific site or parcel of land. NEW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY Site Improvements 348,480 sf $6.50 $2,265,120 New Construction - Offices 12,600 sf $150.00 $09o,ooo New Construction - Shops / Sup- 16,300 sf $120.00 $1,956,000 port Decommission Ash Street Property 142,432 sf $4.00 $569,728 Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $6,680,848 Indirect Cost* 60% of Construction Cost $3,666,672 Total Project Cost $10,347,520 Site Acquisition 348,480 sf $8.5o $2,962,o8o Soft Costs" 22% of Construction + $2,276,454 Indirect Cost Total Project Cost 2010 $15,586,054 Table 4.B. New Public Works Facility Project Cost POLICE RELOCATION TO PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING C "PW WA COQ Site Improvements 166,911 sf $3.50 $584089 New Construction 20,745 sf $250.00 $5,186,250 Renovation 9,496 sf $75.00 $712,200 Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $5,898,450 Indirect Cost* 60% of Construction Cost $3,539,070 Subtotal Project Cost $9,437,520 Site Acquisition 348,480 sf $8.50 $1,418,744 Soft Costs** 22% of Construction + $2,076,254 Indirect Cost Total Project Cost 2010 $11,513,774 Table 4.C. Police Relocation to Public Works Building 70 NEW POLICE STATION - REMOTE SITE Qom C~CaQ poQ C~4 Site Improvements 174,240 sf $6.50 $1,132,560 New Construction 48,614 sf $250.00 $12,153,500 Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $13,286,060 Indirect Cost' 60% of Construction Cost $7,971,636 Total Construction Cost $21,257,696 Site Acquisition 174,240 sf $8.50 $1,481,040 Soft Costs- 22% of Construction $4,676,693 Indirect Cost Total Project Cost 2010 $25,934,389 Table 4.1). New Police Station - Remote Site EXPAND / CONSOLIDATE CITY HALL Q~ C~oa4 poo ~B4 ~ Site Improvements 343,959 sf $0.50 $171,980 Renovation 21,983 sf $70.00 $1,538,810 Demolish Niche Building 28,262 sf $4.00 $113,048 Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $1,710,790 Indirect Cost' 60% of Construction Cost $1,026,474 Total Construction Cost $2,737,263 Site Acquisition o $0.00 $0 Soft Costs" 22% of Construction . $602,198 Indirect Cost Total Project Cost $3,339,461 Table 4.E. Expand/ Consolidate City Nall EXPAND / RENOVATE PERMIT CENTER &9@@ C@0 ?w 8A C@O Site Improvements 343,959 sf $0.20 $68,792 Renovation 12,437 sf $15.00 $186,555 New Construction 3,000 sf $225.00 $675,000 Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $930,347 Indirect Cost' 60% of Construction Cost $558,208 Total Construction Cost $1,488,555 Site Acquisition O $0.00 $0 Soft Costs" 22% of Construction « $327,483 Indirect Cost Total Project Cost - 2010 $1,816,037 Total Project Cost - 2020 4% escalation per year $2,688,178 Table 4.F. Expand/ Penova le Permit Center Tigard's Draft 20-Year City Facility Plan 4 -Master Plan LRS Architects 71 EXPAND POLICE FACILITY Quo C@@Q PW 0A boa{? Site Improvements 166,911 sf $2.00 $333,822 Renovation 12,437 sf $25.00 $310,925 New Construction 36,177 sf $250.00 $9,044,250 Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $9,688,997 Indirect Cost' 60% of Construction Cost $5,813,398 Site Acquisition O $0.00 $O Soft Costs" 22% of Construction Cost $3,410,256 Total Project Cost - 2010 $18,912,921 Total Project Cost - 2030 4% escalation per year $41,440,539 Table 4.G. Expand Police Facility NEW CITY HALL / PERMIT CENTER &J@@ C @gd pco BIDE C'm Site Improvements 343,959 sf $1.50 $515,939 New Construction 40,000 sf $225.00 $9,000,000 Demolish Existing Structures 37,450 sf $6.50 $243,425 Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $9,759,364 Indirect Cost' 60% of Construction Cost $5,855,618 Site Acquisition O $0.00 $O Soft Costs" 22% of Construction Cost $3,435,296 Total Project Cost -2010 $19,050,278 Total Project Cost - 2030 4% escalation per year $38,592,368 Table 4.N. New City Poll/ Permit Center NEW COMMUNITY CENTER Qt@ QaQ pw uc116Q CoaQ Site Improvements 65,000 sf $5.00 $325,000 New Construction 15,864 sf $225.00 $3,569,400 Demolish Senior/Community 9,000 sf $15.00 $135,000 Center Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $4,029,400 Indirect Cost' 60% of Construction Cost $2,417,640 Site Acquisition o $0.00 $o Soft Costs" 22% of Construction Cost $1,278,746 Total Project Cost - 2010 $7,091,726 Total Project Cost - 2030 40% escalation per year $14,365,523 Table 4.1. New Community Center 72 EXPAND LIBRARY Qa~o CCa4 PW Lum C@Q Site Improvements 343,959 sf $0.25 $86,ooo New Construction 15,000 sf $225.00 $3,375,000 Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $3,461,000 Indirect Cost' 60% of Construction Cost $2,076,600 Site Acquisition o $0.00 $O Soft Costs- 22% of Construction Cost $742,500 Total Project Cost - 2010 $6,28oloo Total Project Cost - 2030 4% escalation per year $13,760472 Table 4.J. Expand Library Note: " Indirect Cost includes cost incurred by the contractor that are not directly related to construction including profit, overhead, escalation to 2010, contingency and special requirements "Soft Costs include cost incurred by the project at the expense of the Owner including architectural and engineering fees, inspections and testing, due diligence, permitting, furniture, fixtures and equipment and other related costs. Tigard's Draft 20•Year City Facility Plan 4 -Master Plan LRS Architects 73 i ~ CAPITAL BUDGET OUTLINE ~ ~y Ir'`""""""U Jl°JIJIS \,FJL ° o - " o ~1YtiAN IMIoBI~i Q@9d0U@)R (fie ex2t?eaa C~c o e : f e 2008 $258,782 $258,782 2009 $60,487 $2,962,080 $3,022,567 2010 $184,587 $1,418,744 $1,138,227 $2,741,558 $10,347,520 New Public Works 2011 $26,245 $2,687,655 $2,713,900 $5,674,222 Police relocate to Water 2012 $30,071 $301,099 $331,170 $2,737,263 Renovate City Hell 2013 $139,059 $139,059 2014 $37,056 $37,056 2015 $405,329 $405,329 2016 $97,348 $97,348 2017 $160,802 $160,802 2018 $329,210 $329,210 2019 $141,618 $141,618 2020 $361,717 $361,717 2021 $250,398 $250,398 2022 $38,905 $163,741 $202,646 2023 $581,519 $163,741 $745,260! $1,488,555 Expand Permit Center 2024 $97,134 $1,169,475 $1,266,609 2025 $1,458,397 $1,169,475 $2,627,872 $10,631,595 Expand Police 2026 $102,287 $102,287 2027 $218,112 $230,663 $448,775 2028 $349,720 $1,717,648 $2,067,368 $2,096,938 Expand library 2029 $2,357,021 $2,357,021 $15,614,982 New City Hell/ Permit Center 2030 $639,373 $639,373 $5,812,480 New Community Center Table 4.K. Capital Budget Outline The above outline is compiled from anticipated maintenance costs, site acquisition costs and soft project costs. A detailed maintenance schedule and associated costs were provided by the City of Tigard and are attached in the appendix. Tigard's Draft 20 Year City Facility Plan 4 -Master Plan LRS Architects 75 Agenda Item # Meeting Date December 16, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS, Strategic Planning Prepared By. Margaret Barnes Dept Head Approval: I 1 6 City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Review possible future funding options for the library. STAFF RECOMMENDATION This is an informational briefing. Council may wish to provide guidance on how the City should proceed. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY ■ Operational funding for the Tigard Library currently comes from both the City tax rate and from WCCLS. County library revenue is generated by both County property taxes from the County's permanent tax rate and a four-year local option library levy approved in November 2006. ■ Shortcomings with the current funding structure include dependence on an unstable source of funding and uneven distribution of tax burden, especially those living in urban unincorporated areas who pay less than city residents. ■ WCCS commissioned a study of funding options. Four options were presented: A. Special library district - can levy taxes, requires public vote that also establishes a permanent tax rate. Everyone in district pays the same rate for libraryservices. District is governed byfive-person elected board. B. County service district - Board is appointed by county government, which sets policy. Libraries could either continue to operate as a cooperative or they could consolidate and make decisions at a county level. City libraries could continue to operate as city libraries and could fund their library at a higher rate if they wanted more services. C. Alternative tax to replace local option levy- WCCLS would continue to operate as a cooperative, but County would implement an alternative tax unrelated to property taxes. Cities would still pay for some operating costs and capital costs as they do now. D. County library system - Libraries would all become county operated. Funding levels would be determined by the County Commissioners as they do in Multnomah. The first two options received the most attention at a recent meeting of the WCCLS Executive Board and library directors. An outcome of this plan could be transferring our existing county and city function to a special district in one form or another, or transferring a portion of the current system to a district. To date, this potential has not been discussed in the broader context of the future for provision of service by the county or by cities. As development of this plan proceeds, this broader context should be considered. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Maintain current funding structure that relies on city and county property taxes as well as a countywide local option library levy. CITY COUNCIL GOALS ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment A - Report - An Exploration: How should the libraries of Washington County be funded and governed? FISCAL NOTES Property tax costs will vary depending on which method of funding is pursued. Options.A and D: Every taxpayer in the county or the library district would pay the same tax rate. Option B: Cities could continue to provide additional funding if they wanted to provide additional services. Cities would still be responsible for existing local debt payments or leases. Option Q The revenue would not be based on property taxes. An Exploration: How should the libraries of Washington County be funded and governed? Presented to the WCCLS Executive Board & Policy Group November 2008 Consensus -PO Box 10252 Kansas City, MO 64171 'VI www.consensuskc.org 816.531.5078 How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 1 Table of Contents Executive summary 3 Introduction 9 What is the current method of funding and governing libraries? 10 How do WCCLS libraries compare to the state and nation? 13 What are the major benefits and disadvantages of the current model of funding and governance? 19 What may influence how Washington County libraries are structured in the future? 25 State law, 25 Oregon Library Association standards, 25 Tax capacity and tax rates, 30 Salary differences among WCCLS member libraries, 34 Growing population and services to urban unincorporated areas, 37 The difference between libraries' municipal and service populations, 38 What are the major options for new models? 39 Option A: Special district, 41 Option B: County service district, 45 Option C: Alternative tax to replace local option levy, 51 Option D: County library system, 53 A comparison among options, 56 Tax costs for three options, 58 Appendix A: WCCLS 60 Appendix B: Circulation Summary 61 How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 2 Executive Summary An Exploration: How should the libraries of Washington County be funded and governed? There is no one right way to fund and govern America's libraries. Each state and each community does things a little - and sometimes a lot - differently. The important thing is for the model to hit that sweet spot where the benefits to various stakeholders are balanced and maximized. There is agreement within Washington County that, in general, the current system has not yet found the sweet spot. This report offers four options for funding and governing the libraries of Washington County. Each option has distinct advantages and disadvantages, and each comes with tradeoffs. It is up to Washington County leaders to determine which option will, on the whole, best position its libraries to meet the challenges of the future. What is the current method of funding and governing libraries? Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) is a county/city/nonprofit partnership that includes 14 public libraries. It is governed by the Washington County Board of Commissioners, which convenes the Executive Board to advise it. Among others, the Executive Board is composed of chief administrative officers of 11 municipal libraries. It also convenes the Policy Group, which includes the directors of member libraries. The Executive Board deals with funding and long-term governance and funding strategies, while the Policy Group deals with operations and policy implementation. WCCLS will receive a total of about $21.4 million in FY08-09. About two-thirds comes from the Washington County general fund, and about one-third comes from a four-year local option levy, which expires in 2011. In general, county funds pay for WCCLS central services (catalog, publicity, courier, etc.) and for library operations (staff, books, occupancy). County funds cover an average of 65 percent of library revenue. Cities pay for some operations and all capital costs. There is no central body that determines where libraries should be located, their size or what they should provide. This is a concern because the population is growing rapidly and much of that growth is in urban unincorporated areas. Those residents pay the county property tax that funds WCCLS, but don't pay for capital and some operating costs for the libraries they use, an estimated $600,000 shortfall. How do WCCLS libraries compare to the state and the nation? The libraries in Washington County are visited at a level much higher than the national and state averages, but they offer less in the way of materials. ■ On average, WCCLS libraries spend about the same amount per capita as Oregon libraries, but 33 percent more than the national average of $30.11. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 3 ■ Average materials expenditure per capita for WCCLS member libraries of $4.03 is below the state average and almost precisely the national average. At 2. 1, they have fewer book volumes per capita than their state (2.9) or national (2.8) counterparts. ■ Operating expenditures per circulation, which show efficiency, is $2.88, which is slightly above the state average and more than a third less than the national average. Within the county, the range is from $1.79 to $4.84. ■ Residents visit WCCLS member libraries 7.3 percent more often than their Oregon counterparts and 42.6 percent more often than the national average. At 93.6 visits per open hour, the WCCLS library average is well above both the state (43.7) and national (36.6) average. ■ Overall, the county has only 70 percent of the average square feet per capita that one expects to find in U.S. libraries. Only Beaverton and Forest Grove are above the national average. What do WCCLS leaders want from a funding and governance model? In interviews, members of the Executive Board and Policy Group discussed what works and what doesn't in the current system, and what they would like from a new model. The following items were mentioned by more than two persons. What currently works includes: ■ The new Executive Board includes city managers. ■ Libraries receive funds from several sources. ■ The Washington County Board of Commissioners is supportive of libraries. ■ Library leadership collaborates and talks with one another. What people would like to see changed includes: ■ Libraries have stable funding rather than having to rely on the local option levy. ■ The funding formula is changed to assure a base level of services and encourage cooperation. If libraries were able to produce one outcome as a result of this process, people said they would like to see: • Libraries operate as one library district. ■ Libraries have stable funding. ■ Libraries agree on where they are and where they're going. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 4 What may influence how Washington County libraries are structured in the future? When choosing a new method for funding and governing libraries, leaders will need to take several elements into account. They include standards, tax capacity, salary differences, growing population and the difference between libraries' resident and service populations. 1. Oregon Library Association (OLA) standards. The standards are voluntary, for levels of quality that include threshold, adequate or excellent. The county's libraries are significantly below OLA standards for adequate staff, buildings, materials and hours open. For purposes of this report, we propose closing the materials gap by buying enough extra materials in a 10-year period to meet the adequate standard. The 2006-07 materials spending was just short of $2 million, so adding $1,658,662 annually would be a major expense. Staff costs are about $15 million, so the added $1,195,308 for threshold level staffing, while substantial, is less of an impact than the materials changes. The largest cost would, of course, be capital. We calculated 4 percent bonds over 25 years and the standard size building for each community. We used a modest $175 per square food building cost. The total of estimates for meeting standards is more than $8 million. 2. Tax capacity and tax rates. Tax capacity is the property value per resident, and is a rough measure of a community's wealth. If the tax burden for all libraries was spread throughout the county, the tax rate would be $0.72. That would be an increase for unincorporated areas, Cornelius, and Tualatin. It would be the same rate for Sherwood and a decrease for all other communities. Currently, the lowest rate ($0.50) is paid by unincorporated areas. The highest rate (Banks, at $1.18) is more than twice as much. On a tax-per-resident basis, the average tax is $59.42, but the unincorporated/other areas pay $41.14. The highest rate per resident is in Beaverton, with $81.88, and the lowest is in Cornelius, with just $26.42. 3. Salary differences among WCCLS member libraries. There is a wide range in total staff expenditure per employee of 2.5 to 1 between Tigard (high) and Garden Home (low). A consolidated library district would need to "harmonize" staff salaries, and they usually are harmonized at the highest rather than lowest level. To harmonize salaries to the highest level would cost another 16%, or $2.4 million. There is usually some attrition and a case can be paid to pay managers of smaller branches less. 4. Growing population, urban unincorporated areas, and service populations. The county currently adds some 500 new housing units and 1,200 new residents a month. Much of the growth is occurring in unincorporated areas. The more-than 212,000 residents of unincorporated residents can use municipal libraries, for which they don't help pay capital costs or operating costs not covered by County general funds. In addition, people who live in one city may travel to How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 5 another to use its library. The Hillsboro Public Library service population, for example, is almost twice its municipal population. What are the major options for new models? To the public, a library is a library; most people assume that they are all organized pretty much the same way. Increasingly, though, that is not the case. The basic structure for libraries was developed back when people visited libraries on foot or horseback. Those days are long gone and, for many reasons, states and communities are changing how they structure, fund and govern American libraries. The following four options are available within Oregon state law. OPTION A: SPECIAL DISTRICT Special districts are units of government superimposed on the traditional units of government like cities, towns and counties. A special district has the power to levy taxes and issue boundaries. Eighteen public libraries in Oregon use the special district model. Special districts have five-person elected boards. The public votes to establish the special district with a permanent tax rate, which cannot be changed in the future. When a special district is formed, library service becomes countywide service without any distinction between residents of cities and unincorporated areas. Overall policymaking is the responsibility of the board, which also appoints the library director. Library districts have more stable funding than other types of libraries. Because districts operate separately from municipalities, they don't have to compete with city or county services for funding. The library board is entirely responsible for budget decisions. Funds remaining in the account can be rolled forward and used the next year. OPTION B: COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT A county service district has a board appointment by county government, which sets policy. The library could continue to operate as a cooperative with limited county-wide decision making, or it could consolidate and make decisions at a county level. Cities could continue to contribute funds for capital and some operations. Five Oregon counties currently use county service district to provide library services. The Clackamas County Library Service District, passed on November 4, 2008, with 61.18 percent of the vote, established the county service district mainly as a means to move the county out of the business of providing library services directly to the public. While the County will continue to use general funds to pay for its countywide library cooperative, the Library Information Network of Clackamas How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 6 County, it will move control of its three libraries to nearby cities. The service district, with a levy of $0.3974 per $1,000, will serve mainly as a funding source, with all funds going towards library services. The municipal libraries in the county will continue to operate as municipal libraries, and cities can pay more for libraries if they want a higher level of service. The Corvalis-Benton County Public Library is somewhat different in that all library employees are City of Corvalis employees. The local communities are responsible for the construction and maintenance of the library branches located in their communities. OPTION C: ALTERNATIVE TAX TO REPLACE LOCAL OPTION LEVY This option assumes that WCCLS would continue to operate as a cooperative with its current governance and decision-making structure. The only difference would be that the County would implement an alternative tax or taxes, not connected to property, that would replace the nearly $8 million per year raised by the local option levy. This option also assumes that the alternative tax or taxes would not pay for costs currently borne by municipalities, such as capital costs and some operating costs. Possible sources of tax revenue include some sources that are used elsewhere but rarely or never in Oregon. They include: utility user tax; income tax; sales tax; impact fees, a special tax on new developments; court penalties, etc., that currently fund law libraries; and excise taxes and fees, such as a construction excise tax. OPTION D: COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM The library would become a department of Washington County government, with the level of funding for operations and buildings decided by the county board of commissioners. In this model, the board of commissioners governs the library and, as in Multnomah County, the commissioners would appoint citizens to a library advisory board to oversee library operations. Four Oregon libraries use this model. Nationwide, the most typical type of consolidated library is the county library system. Library legislation in 39 states includes county option as part of library law. County libraries, like municipal libraries, must compete for funding with other government departments, and experience shows that when funding is cut and quality suffers, more affluent communities may choose to opt out of the system. Tax costs for three of the four options The current estimated actual combined tax for communities in Washington County is almost $30 million. But it would cost at least another $8 million to get libraries to the adequate Oregon Library Association standards. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 7 ■ For Options A & D, a special district or a county library system, every taxpayer in the county would pay the same rate, $0.72 without the added funds to meet standards, and $0.91 to meet standards. ■ In Option B, a county service district, cities could continue to pay extra funds for some services. Cities would be left with their current local debt payments and leases. ■ Option C is not included because the revenue source would not be property-tax based, so the tax rates would be irrelevant. We have left the cost of a special district and county library system the same as the current cooperative structure. Some may find this surprising, assuming that the elimination of administrative overhead like multiple bookkeeping, ordering, etc., would result in lower total costs. The actual results of a change in governance and funding cannot be predicted, of course, but there are several factors that make cost savings unlikely. They include wage harmonization and the need to provide a base level of service throughout the county in terms of staffing, building size, and collections. While consolidation would result in some efficiencies, it would not cost less than the current system. Presented to WCCLS in November 2008 by Consensus, a nonprofit consulting firm based in Kansas City, Missouri. For more information, go to www.consensuskc.org. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? g Introduction There is no one right way to fund and govern America's libraries. Each state and each community does things a little - and sometimes a lot - differently. The important thing is for the model to hit that sweet spot where the benefits to various stakeholders are balanced and maximized. There is agreement within Washington County that, in general, the current system has not yet found the sweet spot. This report does not attempt to persuade Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS), its member libraries or patrons that there is one right way to fund and govern their libraries. The Consensus consulting team offers four options, and the final choice ultimately belongs to the local community. Each option has distinct advantages and disadvantages. Each comes with tradeoffs. It is up to Washington County leaders to determine which option will, on the whole, best position its libraries to meet the challenges of the future and, where there are tradeoffs, to find ways to navigate them. What we have attempted to do here is to provide clear and complete information that will help Washington County leaders make the right choice for their community. This report includes the following information: ■ the current situation and its major benefits and disadvantages, ■ how local libraries compare with the national and state averages, ■ what changes people say they want to see in a new funding and governance model, and ■ elements influencing the future of Washington County libraries, such as state law, Oregon Library Association standards, tax capacity, growing population, differences between municipal and service populations and salary differences. In total, the process will identify options for funding and governance, and will work with the local community to create a 10-year strategic plan for library services in Washington County. This report marks the second step in a six-step process. Here's what to expect: ■ The first step in this process was devoted to conducting research, including stakeholder interviews. ■ The second step will conclude with a three-hour meeting with members of the WCCLS Executive Board and Policy Group, during which leaders will discuss the options and decide which one or two hold the most promise. ■ Third, Consensus will produce a report on trends that can be expected to affect local libraries over the course of the next decade. ■ Fourth, over two weeks, Consensus will meet with stakeholders and the public in 14 small-group interviews, supplemented by a deliberative online poll. The public involvement will identify a broad vision for the county's libraries, as well as specific goals and objectives to be reached. ■ Fifth, the Executive Board and Policy Group will determine their preferred funding and governance method, mission and vision statements and goals and objectives. ■ The last phase is a report that includes the ten-year strategic plan. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 9 What is the current method of funding and governing libraries in Washington County? This section provides an overview of the current system, data about the inputs and outputs it produces, and its major benefits and disadvantages as identified by stakeholders. It also includes a picture of what stakeholders want from a new structure of funding and governing Washington County libraries. WCCLS possesses some excellent historical documents. This report will not duplicate them. Instead, because this process is intended to consider the present and future, we will leave the past for another day. This provides a snapshot of the current structure. Governance of WCCLS WCCLS is a county/city/nonprofit partnership that includes 14 public libraries. (While WCCLS cooperates with other libraries in the area, because it does not govern or fund them, we won't deal with them here.) WCCLS is governed by the Washington County Board of Commissioners. • WCCLS convenes an Executive Board to advise it and the Board of County Commissioners on matters pertaining to "funding for countywide services, distribution of financial resources by WCCLS for the provision of countywide public library services, and long-term governance and funding strategies." The Executive Board includes the chief administrative officers of 11 member libraries, the county administrator, and a representative from the one county-owned library. • WCCLS also convenes the Policy Group, which includes 11 library directors, a representative from the county-owned library, and a representative from one of two special libraries. The Policy Group deals with operations and policy implementation. WCCLS has three roles: to provide funding for public libraries, to provide central support services, and to provide outreach to special populations, including the homebound, Spanish-speaking, children, jail inmates, and West Slope residents. Central support services include things like a website, reference, interlibrary borrowing, catalog, publicity and courier service. Public libraries that belong to WCCLS agree to treat all qualified borrowers the same, and they provide services such as reciprocal borrowing and participation in WCCLS activities. Funding of WCCLS and member libraries Two entities receive funds for library services in Washington County. The first is WCCLS and the second is the member libraries. In general, WCCLS serves the member libraries, while the libraries serve the public. In general, county funds pay for WCCLS central services and for library operations (staff, books, occupancy), while cities are responsible for capital costs. Cities and non-profit contractors also help pay operating costs for their libraries, although at very different levels. WCCLS will receive a total of about $21.4 million in FY08-09. About two-thirds of WCCLS funding - $14.068 million - comes from the Washington County general fund. Most general fund revenue comes from a county-wide property tax. About one-third of WCCLS funding - $7.069 million - comes from a four-year, $28 million local option levy approved in November 2006, which expires in 2011. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 10 WCCLS keeps a portion of those funds so that it can provide centralized services to member libraries. WCCLS distributes the great majority of funds it receives (about 80 percent) to member libraries. The number of member libraries is determined mainly by the number of cities that want to form a municipal library. City government is responsible for the physical plant and, generally, some support for operations. There is no central body that determines where libraries should be located, their size or what they should provide. • Cities with existing libraries have the autonomy to expand or build new libraries whenever they see fit. When they do this, it leads to higher operating costs for the county's libraries because new or bigger libraries require more staff, books, etc. Since 1996, twelve libraries have remodeled, expanded or built new buildings (11 since 2000). Only the library in Cornelius has not remodeled or expanded since 2000. • Cities that don't yet have libraries can choose to build new ones. They don't need permission from WCCLS, but if they meet basic criteria to become members of WCCLS, the county then must share tax dollars with them. Two cities have created libraries since 2005, and one, North Plains, has met the criteria to join WCCLS. County tax dollars don't cover all of a library's operating expenses. On average, they cover about 65 percent of library revenue. The total varies widely, though, from county funds providing 93 percent of revenue for Garden Home Community Library to 50 percent of Cornelius Public Library to 12 percent of North Plains Public Library. The rest of a library's revenue may come from city general funds, fines and fees, and local fundraising. Washington County funding as a percentage of library revenues 2007-08 Public Libraries: Operating Revenues Revenue from WCCLS % of Revenue from WCCLS Banks $157,183 $98,994 63.0% Beaverton $6,232,273 $3,803,315 61.0% Cedar Mill $2,771,068 $2,417,134 87.2% Cornelius $236,276 $117,670 49.8% Forest Grove $768,214 $612,949 79.8% Garden Home $338,156 $313,162 92.6% Hillsboro Libraries $6,836,666 $3,597,699 52.6% North Plains $92,888 $51,000 54.9% Sherwood $840,611 $595,309 70.8% Tigard $3,486,674 $2,196,844 63.0% Tualatin $1,417,079 $1,135,616 80.1% West Sloe $624,489 $543,110 87.0% Total $23,801,577 $15,482,802 65.0% How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 1 1 In the most recent satisfaction survey, a scientific telephone survey of a random sample of 550 households, 72 percent said the library had done either an excellent or good job of handling taxpayer resources. The survey was conducted in 2008 by Riley Research Associates. Two major complications 1. The population of Washington County is growing rapidly. It has grown 58 percent since 1990. Library circulation has increased even faster than the population has grown: 127 percent since 1990. Rapid population growth has increased demand for all sorts of county services, not just libraries, according to the county strategic plan, County 2020. County government is expected to provide services at a level more normally provided by cities, but restrictions placed on traditional county funding sources make that difficult. 2. Urban unincorporated areas receive more library services than they pay for. According to "Service Incidence Study: Analysis of the Geographic Distribution of Washington County Expenditures and Revenues," overall, urban unincorporated areas pay about 4.9 percent more than the value of county services they receive, while rural areas receive 4.6 percent more services than they pay for and incorporated areas come out about even. But that is not the case for WCCLS. The report found that WCCLS was one of the few services where urban unincorporated areas received more services than they paid for, in this case more than $600,000 worth. The difference is made up by incorporated ($400,000) and rural ($200,000) areas. Almost all libraries in Washington County are located within municipal boundaries, so residents of urban unincorporated areas have few options other than city libraries. The study was released in 2007 by the Washington County auditor and prepared by Public Knowledge LLC. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 12 How do WCCLS libraries compare to the state and nation? Data provide a picture of WCCLS and member libraries that are visited at a level much higher than the national and state averages, but which offer less in the way of materials. In terms of expenditures, WCCLS libraries come in at about the Oregon average and significantly lower than the national average. Note that the data for this section come from reports for fiscal 2005, which is necessary in order to get national comparisons. For WCCLS and its member libraries, 2005 was a "funding reduction" year, following the failure of the 2002 levy. The last two columns indicate the percentage that WCCLS is over (under) state or national averages. WCCLS, Oregon Libraries and U.S. Libraries Compared, 2005 Values WCCLS Oregon Rest of U.S. OR US Libraries Libraries Population 472,600 2,747,340 282,359,95 Expenditure per capita $40.11 $40.2 $30.11 -0.4% 33.2% Percent budget 10.0% 12.3% 13.3% -18.5% -24.3% To materials Materials expenditure $4.03 $4.96 $3.9 -18.8% 0.8% per capita FTE staff per -3.0% 5.3% 1000 population 0.5 0.5 0. Periodicals per -20.9% -15.5% 1000 residents 5.4 6.8 6.4 Volumes per capita 21 2.9 2 -28.4% -25.7% Expenditure per circulation $2.88 $2.75 $4.3 5.0% -33.5% Visits per capita 6.6 6.1 4. 7.3% 42.6% Collection turnover 6.7 5.0 2. 32.5% 169.4% Circulation per FTE staff ° ° hour 13.3 13.6 7. -2.1 / 90.0 / Average of circulation ° ° per capita 13.9 14.6 6. -5.1 / 100.2 / Reference per capita 0.9 0.9 1.1 -1.9% -15.6% Circulation per hour 198. 104. 55.3 89.3% 258.7% Visits per hour 93.6 43.7 36.6 114.1% 155.6% Circulation per visit 2.1 2.4 1. -11.6°/ How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 13 WCCLS Member Library Detail - Based on Federal Data, 2005 Values Banks Beaverton Cedar Mill Cornelius Forest Garden Hillsboro Sherwood Tigard Tualatin Grove Home Population 4,834 109,872 46,903 11,85 26,46 5,925 151,184 17,33 62,96 24,26 Expenditure $17.1 $43.0 $41.93 $18.2 $25.41 $31.41 $31.58 $29.7 $29.1 $41.9 per capita Percent Budget 200/ 10% 10% 9% 11% 15% 911% 14% 18% to materials Materials Expenditure $3.44 $4.43 $4.10 $1.5 $2.88 $4.69 $2.77 $3.14 $3.99 $7.5 Per capita FTE staff per 1000 0.40 0.48 0.66 0.3 0.40 0.78 0.36 0.5 0.46 0.6 population Periodicals per 1000 residents 16.1 4. 6.8 4. 8.0 9.1 4.4 6. 4.1 8. Volumes per Capita 4.1 2. 1 1. 3.5 2.6 1.6 1. 1.5 2. Expenditure er circulation $2.06 $2.69 $1.79 $4.8 $2.5 $1.29 $2.79 $2.31 $2.8 $2.71 Visits per capita 5. 7.0 9.5 3. 8.2 11.4 4.5 10.9 4.3 11.1 Collection turnover 2. 7.4 7.3 2. 2.8 9.3 7.1 9. 6.8 7. Circulation per FTE Staff Hour 9. 16.1 17.1 6.1 12.0 15.0 14.9 11.9 10.8 11. Average of Circulation per 8 16.0 23.4 3. 9.9 24.4 11.3 12.9 10.4 15. Capita Reference per capita 0. 1.3 0.8 0. 0.6 1.0 0.6 0. 1.0 1. Circulation per hour 22.1 491. 374.5 19.4 92. 59.1 334.9 74.3 214.0 113. Visits per hour 13.3 214.6 151. 18.1 76.8 27.8 131.7 63.1 88.3 81. Circulation per visit 1. 2.3 2.5 1.1 1. 2.1 2.5 1. 2.4 1. * Following Oregon State Library and national reporting guidelines, West Slope Library is not reported separately, but as a branch of WCCLS, so it does not show up in this analysis. Likewise, both of Hillsboro's libraries are reported together. On average, WCCLS libraries spend about the same amount per capita as Oregon libraries, but that figure is 33 percent higher than the national average of $30.11. It is surprising to find that a relatively How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 14 affluent suburban area is at just the state average, and a cause for concern that several libraries in the county pull in so much less revenue than the state average revenue. Expenditure per capita, 2005 Library Amount Banks $17.1 Beaverton $43.08 Cedar Mill $41.93 Cornelius $18.23 Forest Grove $25.41 Garden Home $31.41 Hillsboro $31.58 Sherwood $29.79 Tigard $29.1 Tualatin $41.90 WCCLS Average $40.11 Oregon Libraries Average $40.25 Rest of U.S. Libraries Average $30.11 The WCCLS funding formula places a great deal of importance on circulation. It is a bit surprising, therefore, to find that the average materials expenditure per capita for WCCLS member libraries is below the state average and almost precisely the national average. Among the WCCLS member libraries, there is quite a variation. Materials expenditures per capita run from $1.59 to $7.56. Materials expenditure per capita, 2005 Library Amount Banks $3.44 Beaverton $4.43 Cedar Mill $4.10 Cornelius $1.59 Forest Grove $2.88 Garden Home $4.69 Hillsboro $2.77 Sherwood $3.14 Tigard $3.9 Tualatin $7.56 WCCLSAverage $4.03 Oregon Libraries Average $4.9 Rest of U.S Libraries Average $3.99 How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 15 WCCLS libraries have fewer book volumes per capita than either their state or national counterparts. Only Banks and Cedar Mill have more volumes per capita than the national average. All other libraries are well below the average. Volumes per capita, 2005 Library Amount Banks 4.1 Beaverton 2.2 Cedar Mill 3.2 Cornelius 1.7 Forest Grove 3.5 Garden Home 2.6 Hillsboro 1.6 Sherwood 1.3 Tigard 1.5 Tualatin 2.0 WCCLS Average 2.1 Oregon Libraries Average 2.9 Rest of U.S. Libraries Average 2.8 Operating expenditures per circulation are one way to judge the efficiency of a library. WCCLS member libraries average $2.88 per circulation, which is very close to the state average and more than a third less than the national average. Within the county, the range is three to one (from $1.79 to $4.84), which is low by comparison with other measures such as materials expenditures per capita. Expenditure per circulation, 2005 Library Amount Banks $2.06 Beaverton $2.69 Cedar Mill $1.79 Cornelius $4.84 Forest Grove $2.57 Garden Home $1.29 Hillsboro $2.79 Sherwood $2.31 Tigard $2.8 Tualatin $2.71 WCCLSAverage $2.88 Oregon Libraries Average $2.75 Rest of U.S. Libraries Average $4.34 How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 16 Residents visit WCCLS member libraries 7.3 percent more often than their Oregon counterparts and 42.6 percent more often than the national average. The rate of visits by library ranges from 3.5 to 11.4, with an average of 6.6. Visits per capita, 2005 Library Amount Banks 5.0 Beaverton 7.0 Cedar Mill 9.5 Cornelius 3.5 Forest Grove 8.2 Garden Home 11.4 Hillsboro 4.5 Sherwood 10.9 Tigard 4.3 Tualatin 11.1 WCCLS Average 6.6 Oregon Libraries Average 6.1 Rest of U. S. Libraries Average 4.6 At 13.9, WCCLS nearly matches Oregon's pace for circulation per capita. That figure is twice the average national rate. The range within the county is quite dramatic, going from 3.8 in Cornelius to 24.4 in Garden Home. Average of circulation per capita, 2005 Library Amount Banks 8.3 Beaverton 16.0 Cedar Mill 23.4 Cornelius 3.8 Forest Grove 9.9 Garden Home 24.4 Hillsboro 11.3 Sherwood 12.9 Tigard 10.4 Tualatin 15.4 WCCLS Average 13.9 Oregon Libraries Average 14.6 Rest of U.S. Libraries Average 6.9 How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 17 At 93.6 visits per open hour, the WCCLS library average is well above both state and national averages. More visits per hour are to be expected in libraries with larger populations, as can be seen in the results for Beaverton and Hillsboro, but Cedar Mill at 151.2 visits per hour is noteworthy. Visits per hour, 2005 Library Amount Banks 13.3 Beaverton 214.6 Cedar Mill 151.2 Cornelius 18.1 Forest Grove 76.8 Garden Home 27.8 Hillsboro 131.7 Sherwood 63.1 Tigard 88.3 Tualatin 81.3 WCCLSAverage 93.6 Oregon Libraries Average 43.7 Rest of U.S. Libraries Average 36.6 Overall, the county has only 70 percent of the average square feet per capita that one expects to find in U.S. libraries. Bear in mind that the average includes libraries that are well under and over the indicated square footage per capita. Only Beaverton and Forest Grove are above the national average. Pop. WCCLS Square U.S. Average Library as Library Category Square Feet Population Feet per Capita Square Feet % National per Capita Average Hillsboro c) 100k 33,663 143,576 0.23 0.49 48% Beaverton c) 100k 67,000 108,681 0.6 0.49 126% Tigard d) 50k 13,000 61,808 0.21 0.58 36% Cedar Mill e) 25k 24,368 46,585 0.5 0.66 80% Forest Grove e) 25k 24,700 25,818 0.96 0.66 146% Tualatin t)10k 8,505 23,649 0.36 0.76 48% Sherwood fl 10k 3,500 16,945 0.21 0.76 27% CCLS - W. Slope 1)10k 6,000 13,665 0.44 0.76 58% Cornelius 10k 2,500 11,628 0.21 0.76 28% Garden Home g) 5k 930 5,891 0.16 0.91 17% Banks h) 2.5k 3,000 4,804 0.6 1.0 58% Totals 187,166 463,050 0.40 0.58 70 How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 18 What are the major benefits and disadvantages of the current model of funding and governance? The current structure for funding and governing libraries offers distinct benefits and disadvantages, according to individuals interviewed by Consensus and our own analysis. Interviewees included six members of the Executive Board, seven of the Policy Group, the WCCLS director and State Librarian Jim Scheppke. It's important to keep in mind that some positive and negative aspects of library services have nothing to do with the structure. Instead, they may involve coincidence, personalities, or societal trends. We have included only positive or negative characteristics that are pretty clearly a result of the structure. Most of the benefits and disadvantages below were mentioned by interview subjects. Keep in mind that, depending, one person's "benefit" may be another person's "disadvantage." A few benefits and disadvantages were added based on historical materials and the Consensus team's observations. The items are listed in no particular order. Benefits - current method Disadvantages - current method Libraries receive funds from several sources, Funding is a roller coaster. The local option levy , which provides some stability. expires every four years and voters can choose . not to renew. All libraries have a secure "floor" of funding Libraries must put a lot of time and money into from the county general fund getting local option levies passed every four . years. Libraries have the autonomy to design services There is no countywide authority or method for for their unique communities. siting new libraries. Libraries have the autonomy to choose local There are unequal levels of library service control, even if it reduces efficiency. throughout the county and no countywide method for correcting the problem. The county includes different types of libraries, City governments are not required to pay not just public libraries. anything for libraries. Every resident has access to every library. Residents in unincorporated areas pay nothing . towards capital costs. Everyone shares in the costs of library Cities must build libraries large enough to operations. accommodate the unincorporated residents in How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 19 their service area, but unincorporated areas don't help pay for the buildings. Libraries share, which saves money and allows WCCLS competes for funding against other for specialized collections. county services. Having city managers on the executive board Municipal libraries compete for funds against connects libraries with decision-makers. other city services. The circulation-based funding formula means Having non-city managers on the executive board provide different points of view. that libraries compete for operating funds from . WCCLS. The cooperative structure encourages libraries to Decision-making is multi-layered, labor- come to agreement on the important things. intensive and slow. Efficiency is not required and often takes a back If you live in an unincorporated area, you don't seat to local control. Libraries buy and catalogue have to help pay for capital costs. books independently and miss out on economies of scale. Even very small libraries have a place at the Library staff members receive different pay for table. similar work. WCCLS provides central services more Larger libraries don't have a voice efficiently than libraries could on their own. commensurate with the size of their populations. Every four years, citizens choose whether to fund a local option levy. This allows citizens to Almost all funds come from the property tax, choose which services they will support at what which is capped. level. There is sometimes tension between WCCLS and member libraries regarding who serves whom. Because so much area is unincorporated, the county has to provide services usually provided by cities. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 20 What do people want from a funding and governance model? Part of each Consensus interview with Executive Board and Policy Group members dealt with how libraries in Washington County should be funded and governed, and those responses are provided here. The remainder of the interviews dealt with strategic planning and will be used later in this project. Similar responses are grouped together. Any ideas that were mentioned more than once are included in the chart. "Mentions" shows how many Executive Board (EB) and Policy Group (PG) members mentioned that idea. The "EB" grouping includes the WCCLS director and the state librarian, so as to avoid being able to identify the comments of either one. Question: If libraries were able to produce one outcome as a result of this process, what would be most valuable to you? Idea Quotes Mentions "There is a real disparity among the type of library services in the county. To the extent that one common system ...would create opportunities in areas that are underserved, that would work." "There are so many efficiencies to be achieved by consolidation into a district or special district." Libraries operate as 2-EB It would allow libraries to share staff, technology and one library district. 2-PG purchasing, and would reduce competition for circulation. "It would also make a more efficient decision-making process." "The (co-op) arrangement no longer seems to fit our current needs... We need a library district of some sort. It would free us from funding problems with cities... and provide stable funding." "I'm worried that I'll still be picking up the newspaper in 20 years, and WCCLS has some new crisis and if we don't fund it library hours will be cut in half." Libraries have stable 3-PG "What Clackamas County is doing is worth watching, voting funding. 2-EB to form a county service district with a locked-in tax. Washington County could still be federated and do this and it wouldn't have to cost voters more." Libraries agree on "The first thing to do is to decide what level of quality they are aiming for...Are they going for greatness or pretty where they are and 4-EB " where they're going. good?" "Our Our circulation numbers continue to increase and there's a How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 21 danger in that. We can get too comfortable. How do we anticipate the next change?" "I would be delighted if we could agree on what we're moving towards together." Library funding features less Change the funding formula to reduce the importance of 1-EB competition and more circulation. 1-PG equality. Outcomes mentioned by one person included: • Libraries develop relationships with their communities. • Libraries are the most-loved and essential service for all county residents. • Libraries provide consistently delivered excellent service. Question: What works well in terms of how WCCLS and member libraries are currently funded and governed? Idea Quotes Mentions "The new structure makes library services higher on the The new Executive radar for city managers." Board includes city "I give the city managers credit. The reality was it wasn't 4-EB working well before we changed the governance 1-PG managers. agreement.... The city managers and the county administrator are not afraid of making decisions." Libraries receive "If the levy fails, it's not everything. There are still some permanent county funds and city funds." funds from several 3-EB "The combined city/county funding package has worked, but sources. it's not beyond baling wire and duct tape by much." Washington County "The Board of Commissioners has been unwavering in its government is support ...They continue to give us a percentage increase 1-EB supportive. every year of 4 percent, which no other department gets. 2-PG . That gives us a lot of stability." Leadership "We come to solutions, no matter the minor disputes along collaborates and talks the way." 3-EB together. "I like how everyone has their own library and yet How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 22 cooperates with common agreement on standards and some policies." Libraries have autonomy to design "We can share and are not all required to have exactly the 2-PG services for their same collection." unique communities. The current funding "After all the iterations, I think the current (formula) is formula is okay. working pretty well ...I also agree with the person who said 2-PG . we can't stand to talk about it again." City leaders support "There are no cities for which I worry that the city council 2-EB their libraries. will close the library." Other aspects of funding and governance that are working well, mentioned by one person, include: • All libraries have a secure "floor" of funding. • The executive board includes some non-city managers, who can provide a different perspective. • The county includes diverse types of libraries. • There is cooperation between the county and the cities. • WCCLS works well and is being asked to do more. • The cooperative structure makes it possible to serve rural areas. • Voters passed the most recent levy. Question: What changes would you like to see in how WCCLS and member libraries are funded and governed? Idea Quotes Mentions "The only way to get away from local option levies is to create something new, a new special district or city." "If the levy had failed, I would have recommended that we raise $1.5 million a year through a $2-a-month utility fee." Libraries have stable "Clackamas County is voting on a district that is exactly like EB-3 funding. what we could do in Washington County ...It seems perfect, PG-2 exactly what we would want." "Stable funding would do a great deal to alleviate some of the politics." "When there's a levy, libraries have to put a lot of time and effort into it." Change the formula to reward something other than The funding formula circulation, to assure a base level of services, and to 1-EB is changed. encourage cooperation. 4-PG "Competition for funding undermines the spirit of How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 23 cooperation." "We're supposed to be a cooperative but we're competitive. I've always thought this was weird." "Those communities that have substandard service, bring them up to the base level before rewarding performance... We need to raise the floor." "You have 200,000 people who may not view library service Eve one as an issue because they can go to a city that has a library to rypays use it. equitably for library "My council is talking to me about trying to charge an out- EB-2 services. of-city rate ...to reflect the different level of support. That makes me real nervous, to be honest." "It's too bad that when WCCLS was started in the 1970s that it didn't require equitable support from each of the cities in Cities are required to the cooperative." EB-2 pay a certain amount "There is no requirement that a municipality has to pay a certain percentage in order to be eligible for county funds, and cities can withdraw their funding at will." "Policies end up being one-size-fits-all or we spend a lot of time and effort serving the smaller libraries while the larger Larger libraries have libraries have to take care of themselves. We need to...make sure everyone gets something out of the deal." EB-2 a larger voice. "I'm not sure I would give Banks the same vote at the table that Hillsboro or Beaverton has...I would consolidate the small libraries into one seat on the board." "More people live in unincorporated areas than in any city, There is a plan for and there are many gaps in service to them." EB-1 siting and funding The plan for siting could include a mechanism for funding PG I future libraries. the capital costs that share the expenses incurred because non-residents can use any library. Other changes in funding and governance, suggested by one person each, include: • Make sure any new library funding model is not based on the property tax, so that it doesn't cause compression. • Continue to be able to customize service to each community, even if going to a county system. • Use electronic methods to reduce the time needed to participate in WCCLS activities. • Make faster decisions rather than hash over things that someone could just decide. • Provide a stronger voice for small libraries, whose representatives may be less comfortable speaking up. • Provide more funding and authority for WCCLS Central Services. • Libraries explore fund development through endowment funding and foundations. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 24 What may influence how Washington County libraries are structured in the future? When choosing a new method for funding and governing Washington County libraries, local leaders will need to take several elements into account. These elements set parameters within which libraries must operate, explain the conditions facing the entire county, or show the possible consequences of a major change in funding or governance. State law "Oregon public libraries have had a rich and varied history. Even before Oregon officially attained statehood, Oregonians demonstrated their desire for public libraries. We have since advanced from having a few small subscription libraries in the 1800s to today having hundreds of public, school, academic, special, and tribal libraries, ranging from the huge to the tiny. " (Oregon State Library, Oregon Library Laws History, http://www.oregon.gov/OSL/LD/resources/laws/history.shtml) Essentially, the options for establishing public libraries in Oregon were set in place very early and revised in limited ways over the years to remove early limitations based on city and county population size. The first legislation passed in 1901, H.B. 2, authorized incorporated cities to levy taxes to create public libraries or to contract with an association that already managed a library. The most recent revision to those laws came in 1971 with S.B. 21, which redefined "public library." The law eliminated the requirement that public libraries be free, which had been in effect since the original 1901 laws; revised petition requirements for establishing a public library; required that every public library have a separate governing board, unless otherwise established at its creation; required that public libraries submit annual reports to the State Library and altered wording of statutes to refer to "local government units." Oregon law also allows for special districts and county service districts. While both can and have been used for providing library services, neither originated as a method specifically for providing library services. More detail on special districts and county service districts is provided in the next chapter, where those options are discussed. Oregon Library Association standards The Oregon Library Association has standards for staffing, hours open, book collection and square feet of library building. Some standards are pass/fail, such as for building size, while other standards are for libraries of threshold, adequate or excellent quality. The standards are voluntary and there is no consequence for not meeting them, unlike some states where failure to meet state standards can mean a loss of funding or favorable tax treatment. For details see: http://www.olaweb.org/mc/page.do?sitePageld=63898 The standards can help Washington County clarify the level of quality it wants for its libraries. How good is good enough? What does excellence look like and how much does it cost? For the most part, Washington County libraries compare unfavorably to the Oregon standards, although some libraries hold up better than others. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 25 Staffing Only Cedar Mill and Tigard meet OLA standards for excellence in staffing levels. At current salary rates the aggregate cost of getting to excellent staffing levels would be more than $3.6 million. The actual costs would probably be somewhat less since the administrative tier at each library would not gain as much as would the ranks of line and clerical staff. Nevertheless, the cost to bring the libraries as a whole to an excellent level in a consolidated library system would be considerable. Even bringing libraries to an adequate level would cost $1.2 million in additional personnel costs annually. Hillsboro would account for about half of this while Banks, Cornelius, North Plains, Sherwood and West Slope would all need additional staffing for an adequate level by Oregon Library Association standards. Staffing Shortfall from Oregon Library Standards for "Adequate." 2006-07 OLA Actual Staff Staff Library Pop. Adequate Level Shortfall Expend per Cost FTE Banks 5,040 2.5 2. 0. $35,519 $18,825 Beaverton 116,923 46. 51. $62,86 $ Cedar Mill 49,735 24, 38. $41,88 $ Cornelius 12,589 6.3 2. 3. $49,899 $174,64 Forest Grove 28,135 14.1 10. 3. $61,668 $239,88 Garden Home 6,275 3.1 5. $26,90 $ Hillsboro 157,571 64. 55. 9.1 $63,570 $576,58 North Plains 2,899 1.5 1.1 0. $28,596 $9,151 Sherwood 19,563 9.8 7. 2. $62,129 $147,86 Tigard 65,196 26.1 34. $66,52 $ Tualatin 25,020 12. 16. $54,18 $ West Slope 11,639 5.8 5.3 0.5 $59,065 $28,351 Outreach/Courier N N 8. $ dmn/Auto/Ref N NA 14. $0 Total 500,585 217. 252. 20. $1,195,30 Buildings Only Forest Grove meets the Oregon standard for building size, although Sherwood is very close. (There is just one standard for this element, not three.) The remaining libraries in the county range from as little as 29 percent of needed space (Hillsboro) to 82 percent (North Plains). In total, the county's libraries provide just 55 percent of the needed space, according to OLA standards for the current population. The shortfall does not include the anticipated future needs of a population that is growing rapidly. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 26 Building shortfall from Oregon standards, 2006-07 Square Feet Square Feet Percent of Library Population per capita by per capita needed standard actual building space Banks 5,040 0.76 0.60 78% Beaverton 116,923 0.92 0.57 63% Cedar Mill 49,735 0.76 0.49 64% Cornelius 12,589 0.76 0.24 32% Forest Grove 28,135 0.76 0.88 115% Garden Home 6,275 0.76 0.30 39% Hillsboro (all) 157,571 0.84 0.24 29% North Plains 2,899 1.05 0.86 82% Sherwood 19,563 0.76 0.74 97% Tigard 65,196 1.16 0.74 64% Tualatin 25,020 0.76 0.29 38% West Slope 11,639 0.76 0.53 69% Outreach N Total 500,585 0.87 0.48 55% With just over half the building space needed, WCCLS member libraries have a significant shortfall in buildings. At a conservative $175 per square foot, they have a collective $40 million shortfall. Communities should be budgeting for buildings worth $83 million in Column G but are actually maintaining far less than that in building stock. B C D E F G Value of current Value of Estimated total Library, 2006-07 Standard Actual buildings at standard Current actual cost of current square feet Square feet $175 square foot buildings at debt building needs $175 per (Greater of E or F) Banks 3,840 3,00 $525,000 $672,07 $672,07 Beaverton 107,023 67,00 $11,725,000 $18,729,030 $21,895,000 $21,895,000 Cedar Mill 37,809 24,36 $4,264,400 $6,616,50 $6,616,50 Cornelius 9,578 3,02 $529,375 $1,676,08 $1,676,08 Forest Grove 21,393 24,70 $4,322,500 $3,743,705 $6,000,000 $6,000,00 Garden Home 4,779 1,86 $325,500 $836,32 $245,364 $836,32 Hillsboro (all) 131,818 38,00 $6,650,000 $23,068,20 $13,200,000 $23,068,20 North Plains 3,050 2,50 $437,500 $533,75 $533,75 Sherwood 14,878 14,40 $2,520,000 $2,603,62 $2,603,62 How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 27 ----------r Tigard 75,470 48,000 $8,400,000 $13,207,17 $13,000,000 $13,207,17 Tualatin 19,025 7,30 $1,277,500 $3,329,41 $4,500,000 $4,500,000 West Slope 8,856 6,14 $1,074,850 $1,549,73 $1,549,73 Outreach NA 1,622 $283,850 $ otal 437,518 241,917 $42,335,475 $76,565,62 $58,840,364 $83,158,48 Using the standard square feet needed and $175 per square foot, the county's libraries should be budgeting for more than $76 million worth of buildings. At 4.5 percent interest and a 25-year amortization period, that would require $129 million over the next 25 years of a total of $5.6 million annually. Estimated total cost Principal and Annual of current interest at 4.5% amount Library, 2006-07 building needs and 25-yr needed amortization Banks $672,07 $1,133,092 $45,324 Beaverton $21,895,000 $36,918,238 $1,476,73 Cedar Mill $6,616,50 $11,156,415 $446,25 Cornelius $1,676,08 $2,826,133 $113,04 Forest Grove $6,000,000 $10,116,895 $404,67 Garden Home $836,32 $1,410,169 $56,407 Hillsboro all $23,068,20 $38,896,435 $1,555,85 North Plains $533,75 $899,98 $35,999 Sherwood $2,603,629 $4,390,10 $175,60 Tigard $13,207,17 $22,269,265 $890,771 Tualatin $4,500,000 $7,587,67 $303,50 West Sloe $1,549,73 $2,613,088 $104,52 Outreach so, I Total $83,158,480 $140,217,490 $5,608,70 Collections Only Banks, Cedar Mills and West Slope meet the Oregon threshold for adequacy for collection size. At $35 per volume, the aggregate shortfall is almost $12 million. Collections compared to Oregon standards for "Adequate," 2006-07 Library Population OLA Adequate Actual Shortfall At $35 per Level Volume Banks 5,040 15,120 25,886 $0 Beaverton 116,923 350,769 284,860 65,909 $2,306,815 Cedar Mill 49,735 149,205 206,89 $0 Cornelius 12,589 37,76 24,599 13,168 $460,88 Forest Grove 28,135 84,405 101,152 $0 How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 28 Garden Home 6,275 18,825 19,14 $0 Hillsboro (all) 157,571 472,713 286,715 185,998 $6,509,93 North Plains 2,899 8,69 13,44 $0 Sherwood 19,563 58,689 36,33 22,359 $782,56 Tigard 65,196 195,588 151,556 44,03 $1,541,12 Tualatin 25,020 75,060 66,38 8,677 $303,69 West Slope 11,639 34,91 50,04 $ Outreach N N 8,89 $0 $0 otal 500,585 1,501,755 1,275,89 340,143 $11,905,005 Hours open None of the libraries in the county meet the Oregon standard for excellence for open hours. Only three meet the standard for adequate hours. Libraries are, collectively, 69 hours per week short of adequate and 235 hours per week short of excellent. Open hours have increased at many libraries since these figures were compiled. Hours open compared to Oregon standards, 2006-07 Library Adequate Excellent Actual Short of Short of Adequate Excellent Banks 45 6 31 14 29 Beaverton 60 7 58 2 1 Cedar Mill 60 7 6 13 Cornelius 55 7 3 1 3 Forest Grove 60 7 4 16 31 Garden Home 45 6 54 8 Hillsboro all 60 7 5 6 21 North Plains 35 5 3 1 16 Sherwood 55 7 5 3 18 Tigard 60 7 5 5 20 Tualatin 60 7 65, 1 West Sloe 55 7 5 3 18 Outreach N N N otal 650 83 595 6 235 Annual costs to reach Oregon adequate standards The table below calculates the annual costs of meeting the shortfalls from Oregon adequate standards. Hours open are not included because it is more difficult to judge the cost of additional hours. If the staffing shortfalls are met, the added hours may cost no more than extra utilities and changing staff schedules. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 29 For purposes of this report we propose closing the materials gap by buying (at $35 each) enough extra materials in a 10-year period to meet the adequate standards. The costs are substantial. The 2006-07 materials spending was just short of $2 million, so adding $1,658,662 annually would be a major expense. Staff costs are about $15 million, so the added $1,195,308 for basic level staffing, while substantial, is less an impact than the materials changes. The largest cost would, of course, be capital. We calculated 4% bonds over 25 years and the standard size building for each community. We also used a very modest $175 per square foot building cost. The sum total of estimates for meeting standards is more than $8 million. Please note that the standards calculations are based on assigned populations and that WCCLS is in the process of reviewing the process. Calculations for Extra Funds Needed for Standards Library Fix materials Staff Shortfall Capital Needed Total Shortfalls Shortfall at cost at 4% and 25 yr $35/volume and amortization bond over 10 yrs at 4% Banks $18,825 $45,324 $64,149 Beaverton $321,397 $0 $1,263,198 $1,584,594 Cornelius $64,212 $174,645 $113,045 $351,902 Forest Grove $0 $239,888 $252,498 $492,385 Hillsboro $906,995 $576,583 $1,555,857 $3,039,435 North Plains $0 $9,151 $35,999 $45,150 Sherwood $109,031 $147,866 $175,604 $432,501 Tigard $214,716 $0 $890,771 $1,105,487 Tualatin $42,312 $0 $224,555 $266,868 Unincorporated & Other $0 $28,351 $607,187 $635,538 Totals $1,658,662 $1,195,308 $5,164,038 $8,018,009 Tax capacity and tax rates Tax capacity is the property value per resident. It is a rough measure of the property tax wealth of a community and therefore a rough measure of the ability to pay property taxes. One reason that tax capacity matters is because it affects how taxed people feel. A high tax rate in a community with low tax capacity will raise fewer taxes than a lower tax rate in a community with higher tax capacity. For example, a community with $10 million in assessed value can raise as twice much money with the same mill rate as a community with $50 million in assessed value. While people in a wealthier community may choose to pay more for their libraries per capita, it may actually reflect a much smaller tax bite than a smaller per-capita amount in the poorer community next door. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 30 Library 2007 Assessed Municipal Tax Value Population Capacity Banks $91,067,84 1,435 $63,46 Beaverton $6,879,131,40 84,270 $81,63 Cornelius $464,200,44 10,785 $43,041 Forest Grove $1,050,957,09 20,380 $51,56 Hillsboro $7,449,889,84 84,445 $88,22 North Plains $132,501,88 1,755 $75,50 Sherwood $1,173,180,06 16,115 $72,801 Tigard $4,569,131,52 46,300 $98,68 Tualatin $2,202,345,585 22,585 $97,514 Library cities subtotal $24,012,405,68 288,070 $83,35 Unincorporated and other $17,342,935,56 212,515 $81,60 Totals $41,355,341,25 $500,585 $82,61 This table illustrates the picture for the 2007-08 taxes and spending for libraries in WCCLS. The purpose of the table is to compare current tax rates in the library communities and unincorporated areas. Note that the libraries in Cedar Mill, Garden Home and West Slope are combined here because they are all subject to the county tax rate and this is the only way to show them. Although the tax rate yield for 2007-08 is listed as a total of $20,274,541, some of that amount will be uncollected due to tax delinquencies. Not all libraries have current debt payments, leases or other capital expenses. The numbers are estimates only and not the final revenues for any municipality. The table excludes other revenue sources, such as state, federal, fines, fees, and so forth. The tax revenue table tells us that the tax rate per thousand of assessed value varies by community. The lowest rate ($0.50) is paid by the unincorporated areas and non-library communities. The highest rate (Banks' $1.18) is more than twice as much. One way to look at that is to say that if you physically moved a house from an unincorporated area to a lot in Banks, the library tax on the house would more than double. Even moving the house to Cornelius at $0.61 would cost the property tax payer a 22% library tax premium. If the tax burden for all libraries was spread throughout the county, the rate would be $0.72. That would be an increase for the unincorporated areas, Cornelius, and Tualatin. It would be the same rate for Sherwood, and a decrease for all other communities. Tax Revenue for Libraries Library Oct. 2007 AV Combined City Revenue Debt Total City Tax County Tax (Estimated Payments Revenue, Rate Rate Yield from 2006- and Leases County Tax 2007-08 07) and Capital Banks $91,067,844 $44,646 $4,386 $58,047 $107,079 $1.18 Beaverton $6,879,131,400 $3,372,508 $1,651,182 $1,876,478 $6,900,168 $1.00 How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 31 Cornelius $464,200,448 $227,575 $57,372 $0 $284,947 $0.61 Forest Grove $1,050,957,097 $515,234 $279,212 $160,000 $954,446 $0.91 Hillsboro $7,449,889,842 $3,652,324 $2,782,841 $310,000 $6,745,165 $0.91 North Plains $132,501,884 $64,959 $63,401 $0 $128,360 $0.97 Sherwood $1,173,180,060 $575,154 $265,230 $0 $840,384 $0.72 Tigard $4,569,131,529 $2,240,026 $1,268,917 $0 $3,508,943 $0.77 Tualatin $2,202,345,585 $1,079,704 $456,704 $0 $1,536,408 $0.70 Unincorporated & Other $17,342,935,563 $8,502,410 $0 $238,000 $8,740,410 $0.50 Totals $41,355,341,252 $20,274,541 $6,829,245 $2,642,525 $29,746,311 $0.72 The table below indicates the tax expenditures for the tax revenues in the table above. Note that the grand totals for revenues and expenditures are the same; $29,746,311. The table indicates the WCCLS public library payments and then the value of Central Support Services as estimated by WCCLS. City revenues and debt payments are listed as in the previous table. Actual total spending will differ, of course. Some of the County levy will be lost to uncollected taxes, WCCLS will retain some revenue because of the need to retain reserves on a fixed rate levy, and libraries will carryover revenue or use reserves for some spending, and so on. Nevertheless, the two tables allow us to get a rough idea of how about $30 million is collected and expended for library services in Washington County. Tax Expenditures for Libraries Library Public Value of City Revenue Debt Total Expended Library Central Supt (Estimated Payments and with Value of Payment 2007-08 from 2006- Leases Support 2007-08 Estimated 07) Services Banks $98,994 $101,912 $4,386 $58,047 $263,339 Beaverton $3,723,315 $617,593 $1,651,182 $1,876,478 $7,868,568 Cornelius $117,670 $92,868 $57,372 $0 $267,910 Forest Grove $612,949 $212,456 $279,212 $160,000 $1,264,617 Hillsboro $3,597,699 $542,450 $2,782,841 $310,000 $7,232,990 North Plains $51,890 $73,922 $63,401 $0 $189,213 Sherwood $595,309 $150,420 $265,230 $0 $1,010, 59 Tigard $2,196,844 $434,135 $1,268,917 $0 $3,899,896 Tualatin $1,135,616 $170,897 $456,704 $0 $1,763,217 Unincorporated & Other $3,266,569 $2,481,034 $0 $238,000 $5,985,603 Totals $15,396,855 $4,877,686 $6,829,245 $2,642,525 $29,746,311 The table below summarizes the data from the two previous tables. It demonstrates effective tax transfers by municipality. What that means is that library communities and the unincorporated/other areas are taxed at a given rate but their libraries expend, either directly or through the WCCLS shared services, more (or less) than their communities are taxed. The difference is an effective tax transfer. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 32 Keep in mind that the tax expenditures include WCCLS central support and capital expenditures for some of the communities. Tax Revenues and Expenditures Summarized Library Tax Effective Tax Revenues Tax Expenditures Transfers Banks $107,079 $138,473 $245,552 Beaverton $6,900,168 $813,248 $7,713,416 Cornelius $284,947 $153,166 $438,113 Forest Grove $954,446 $386,193 $1,340,639 Hillsboro $6,745,165 $1,047,308 $7,792,473 North Plains $128,360 $62,411 $190,771 Sherwood $840,384 $480,499 $1,320,883 Tigard $3,508,943 $1,362,062 $4,871,005 Tualatin $1,536,408 $849,809 $2,386,217 Unincorporated & Other $8,740,410 $5,293,168 $3,447,241 Totals $29,746,311 $0 $29,746,311 The table below puts data for Washington County library services into perspective. Consider: ■ On a tax-per-resident basis, the average tax is $59.42, but the unincorporated/other areas pay $41.13. The highest rate per resident is to be found in Beaverton with $81.88, almost twice that rate. The lowest rate may be found in Cornelius, with just $26.42. ■ On a tax-per-resident-circulation (items borrowed from any library) basis, the countywide average is $3.83 but the range is from as little as $2.57 in the unincorporated/other areas to as high as $7.10 in North Plains. ■ On the basis of the tax per $1,000 of assessed value, the average is $0.72 but the unincorporated/other areas pay just $0.50 while Banks pays $1.18 and all other library communities pay at least $0.11 per $1,000 more. ■ On a library spending per circulation basis, the $3.83 average rate can be compared to a high of $6.78 in North Plains to lows of $3.46 and $3.03 in Sherwood and the unincorporated areas. Why are the data relevant? When considering library funding and governance options, it is critical to look at the current impact that library taxes have on municipalities. Any change will have a substantial impact on the current distribution of taxes, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse from the taxpayer standpoint. And, it must be said, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse from the library user perspective. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 33 Mill Rates, Per Capita Rates and Per Circulation Rates Library Oct. 2007 AV Tax Resident Municipal Library Tax per Tax per Tax per Library Revenues Circulation Pop. Circulation Res. Res. $1,000 Exp. per Circ. Circ. Banks $91,067,844 $107,079 25,207 1,435 46,548 $74.62 $4.25 $1.18 $5.66 Beaverton $6,879,131,400 $6,900,168 1,414,401 84,270 1,886,000 $81.88 $4.88 $1.00 $4.17 Cornelius $464,200,448 $284,947 86,927 10,785 57,361 $26.42 $3.28 $0.61 $4.67 Forest Grove $1,050,957,097 $954,446 221,121 20,380 276,198 $46.83 $4.32 $0.91 $4.58 Hillsboro $7,449,889,842 $6,745,165 1,145,603 84,445 1,820,055 $79.88 $5.89 $0.91 $3.97 North Plains $132,501,884 $128,360 18,090 1,755 27,902 $73.14 $7.10 $0.97 $6.78 Sherwood $1,173,180,060 $840,384 289,266 16,115 291,775 $52.15 $2.91 $0.72 $3.46 Ti and $4,569,131,529 $3,508,943 835,455 46,300 1,030,168 $75.79 $4.20 $0.77 $3.79 Tualatin $2,202,345,585 $1,536,408 324,599 22,585 353,781 $68.03 $4.73 $0.70 $4.98 Unincorporated & Other $17,342,935,563 $8,740,410 3,403,770 212,515 1,974,651 $41.13 $2.57 $0.50 $3.03 Totals $41,355,341,252 $29,746,311 7,764,439 500,585 7,764,439 $59.42 $3.83 $0.72 $3.83 Salary differences among WCCLS member libraries There is a wide range in total staff expenditure per employee, a range of 2.5 to 1 between Tigard (high) and Garden Home (low). This is significant for consideration of consolidated levies because wages would need to be "harmonized" and they usually get harmonized to the highest rather than the lowest common denominator. Salary costs for WCCLS and member libraries, 2006-07 Library Salaries and Employee Total staff Total paid Staff wages benefits expenditure staff expend. per FTE Banks Public Libra $52,836 $17,846 $70,682 2.0 $35,519 Beaverton City Libra $2,107,234 $1,130,218 $3,237,452 51.5 $62,863 Cedar Mill Community Libra $1,284,354 $307,396 $1,591,750 38.0 $41,888 Cornelius Public Libra $117,270 $21,947 $139,217 2.8 $49,899 Forest Grove City Libra $473,083 $154,695 $627,778 10.2 $61,668 Garden Home Community Libra $137,116 $10,877 $147,993 5.5 $26,908 Hillsboro Public Libra $2,549,956 $980,105 $3,530,061 55.5 $63,570 How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 34 North Plains Public Libra $28,607 $3,706 $32,313 1.1 $28,596 Sherwood Public Libra $330,554 $129,198 $459,752 7.4 $62,129 Tigard Public Libra $1,703,989 $570,991 $2,274,980 34.2 $66,520 Tualatin Public Libra $651,931 $243,273 $895,204 16.5 $54,189 West Sloe & WCCLS $1,362,991 $567,851 $1,930,842 28.2 $68,542 Totals $10,799,921 $4,138,103 $14,938,024 252.9 $59,065 To harmonize the salary structure to the highest common denominator would add $2.4 million to the payroll costs, or 16%. Over $1 million would go to Cedar Mill employees. In most consolidations, there is some attrition in total administrative costs. Furthermore, a case could easily be made for paying managers of smaller branches less than those of larger branches, but all the variances would still require either a large infusion of salary dollars or a significant cut in the total workforce. Salary differences from WCCLS member libraries, 2006-07 Library Total Current At WCCLS Change Percent staff Rate of Change expenditure $68,542 Banks Public Libra $70,682 $136,400 $65,718 93% Beaverton City Libra $3,237,452 $3,529,938 $292,486 9% Cedar Mill Community Libra $1,591,750 $2,604,615 $1,012,865 64% Cornelius Public Libra $139,217 $191,234 $52,017 37% Forest Grove City Libra $627,778 $697,763 $69,985 11% Garden Home Community Libra $147,993 $376,984 $228,991 155% Hillsboro Public Libra $3,530,061 $3,806,165 $276,104 8% North Plains Public Libra $32,313 $77,453 $45,140 140% Sherwood Public Libra $459,752 $507,214 $47,462 10% Tigard Public Libra $2,274,980 $2,344,153 $69,173 3% Tualatin Public Libra $895,204 $1,132,322 $237,118 26% West Sloe & WCCLS $1,930,842 $1,930,842 $0 Totals $14,938,024 $17,335,082 $2,397,058 16% The state library data below shows pay rates for each of the positions. That allows for a comparison of the costs for salaries for these positions. The data will be used later in this report in constructing alternative funding scenarios. The data show how many staff members there are per position and what they make, not what should be the case. Library Director Assistant Department Senior Entry- Library Library Other Total paid Director Head Librarian level Assistant Clerk staff Librarian Banks 1.0 1.6 2.6 Beaverton 10 3.0 3.0 11.0 8.3 26.7 10 54.0 Cedar Mill 1.0 7.0 6.4 2.8 19.0 5.3 1.6 43.1 Now should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 35 Cornelius 0 .8 1.0 2.4 4.2 Forest Grove 1.0 2.0 1.5 0.8 2.0 4.0 11.3 Garden Home 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 5.0 Hillsboro 1.0 1.0 2.0 10.0 7.3 15.6 37.3 74.1 North Plains 0.5 0.7 0.2 1.4 Sherwood 10 2.0 1.0 2.4 1.0 7.4 Tigard 1.0 3.0 3.0 10.1 5.5 11.0 2.0 7.3 40.9 Tualatin 10 2.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 16.0 WCCLSM. 3.0 3.0 4.0 9.6 1.1 32.6 Sloe 1.0 1.0 9.9 Totals 11,3 5.0 24.0 39.0 32.3 75.0 86.9 20.0 292.5 Banks $32,926 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,865 $0 $97,791 Beaverton $91,094 $0 $188,978 $186,638 $480,251 $497,635 $863,353 $2,307,950 Cedar Mill $78,676 $0 $402,438 $349,307 $117,121 $1,065,064 $153,068 $76,428 $2,242,102 Cornelius $43,594 $0 $0 $0 $0 $65,302 $60,927 $169,823 Forest Grove $70,512 $0 $105,581 $73,070 $27,986 $105,269 $127,504 $509,922 Garden Home $52,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,492 $86,492 Hillsboro $91,520 $85,280 $137,280 $582,400 $286,520 $861,250 $1,239,680 $3,283,930 North Plains $23,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,864 $30,264 Sherwood $65,655 $0 $0 $57,450 $0 $110,448 $21,902 $255,455 Tigard $86,507 $0 $0 $579,191 $238,066 $653,796 $68,286 $354,433 $1,980,279 Tualatin $70,304 $0 $123,510 $231,379 $0 $158,496 $143,104 $726,794 WCCLSM. $100,880 $69,680 $174,720 $174,720 $183,040 $618,363 $42,682 $521,980 $1,886,065 Slope Totals $807,069 $154,960 $1,132,508 $2,234,155 $1,332,985 $4,200,487 $2,754,999 $959,704 $13,576,867 The state data already provide some staffing numbers. The numbers illustrate some possible discrepancies for any merger or consolidation. There are large variations in librarians as a percent of the total and large variations in total staff per service population. "Librarians" are defined as people with their master's of library science degree. Countywide, the average shows librarians being 34 percent of total staffing, but the range is from 22 percent to 54 percent. Staffing per 1,000 population is 0.51 on average, but ranges from 0.22 to 0.88, figures that might show the need for staff re-allocations in a consolidated operation. Library, 2006-07 Librarians Other Total Other Librarian FTE per with librarians librarians paid % total 1,000 ALA/MLS staff service pop. Eaveftn nks Public Libra - 0.8 0.8 1.2 42% 0.39 City Libra 14.8 - 14.8 36.7 29% 0.44 How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 36 Cedar Mill Community Libra 11.4 1.3 12.7 25.3 33% 0.76 Cornelius Public Libra 0.8 - 0.8 2.0 27% 0.22 Forest Grove City Libra 2.3 0.8 3.1 7.1 30% 0.36 Garden Home Community Libra 2.0 - 2.0 3.5 36% 0.88 Hillsboro Public Libra 14.3 4.0 18.3 37.3 33% 0.35 North Plains Public Libra 0.3 - 0.3 0.9 22% 0.39 Sherwood Public Libra 4.0 - 4.0 3.4 54% 0.38 Tigard Public Libra 13.0 - 13.0 21.2 38% 0.52 Tualatin Public Libra 6.0 - 6.0 10.5 36% 0.66 West Sloe & WCCLS 10.8 0.8 11.6 16.6 41% 2.42 Totals 79.5 7.6 87.2 165.7 34% 0.51 Growing population and services to urban unincorporated areas Washington County has grown dramatically in the last half-century, and expects to continue rapid growth well into the future. Data from the Urbanization Forum show that the county has grown from about 61,000 residents in 1950 to more than 511,000 in 2007. Another 400,000 new residents are expected in the next 25 years, a growth rate of 80 percent. In the last two years, fully 20 percent of Oregon's total population growth has occurred in Washington County, which adds some 500 new housing units and 1,200 new residents a month. The County and city governments, and service districts, formed the Urbanization Forum to identify the best way to accommodate and plan for growth, and the appropriate roles for cities, service districts and county government in providing services to residents of urban, unincorporated Washington County. The unincorporated areas currently receive services from a combination of the County, the Sheriff and the service districts. The Urbanization Forum held a series of events in April of 2008 that looked at the options for providing services in the rapidly growing unincorporated areas of the County. Forum members included representatives from the County, the cities and the current special districts. Participants were asked to analyze the various options available for governing and funding services in the county's unincorporated areas. The analysis included the trade-offs and consequences of the different options. Forum members listed the current method for providing urban services in unincorporated as the Status Quo model - multiple cities, urban services provided in unincorporated areas by county or special districts and specials districts serving some city residents. Other models presented along with advantages and disadvantages were: 1. All urban services provided by special districts, dissolve cities and ask the county to deliver core services (jail, justice system, public health etc. only). This may cause other special districts to form (i.e. library district). 2. All urban services provided by Washington County, dissolve cities and special districts. Alternatively the urban portion of the county might incorporate as one very large city. 3. All urban services provided by cities, dissolve special districts and offer no enhanced urban services outside of city boundaries. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 37 The difference between libraries' municipal and service populations One area of tension for libraries in Washington County is the difference between their municipal populations and their service populations. A quick explanation: 1. Any resident of Washington County can use any library in the county. 2. Every resident of Washington County pays taxes to the county. Those taxes are used to subsidize operations of all WCCLS member libraries. 3. For the municipal libraries, though, only residents of that municipality pay for whatever operating expenses are not covered by the county general funds and for capital expenses such as new buildings or renovations. 4. A municipal library's service population may include many more people than live in that city because people from surrounding areas use that library. This means that city residents pay more than non-resident users for their library services because they subsidize some operating costs and all capital expenses. Non-residents who use the library don't pay those costs. It also means that the library may hire more staff members, build a bigger building or buy more books to meet the demand from non-residents. 5. Some of a library's non-resident users are people who live in the urban unincorporated areas. Some non-resident users live in other cities that have municipal libraries, and they pay taxes toward their home libraries' operating and capital expenses. The following chart shows the difference between the municipal population and the service population for WCCLS member libraries. Oregon requires the allocation of population for reporting purposes. WCCLS does the allocation based on municipal population and the populations in the surrounding areas from Census data. These figures represent the 2006-07 service population. WCCLS is currently reviewing the population allocation method, with support from Civic Technologies. Library, 2006-07 Municipal Population Service Population Transfer Population Banks Public Library 1,43 3,605 5,040 Beaverton City Library 84,27 32,653 116,923 Cedar Mill Community Library 49,735 49,73 Cornelius Public Library 10,78 1,804 12,58 Forest Grove City Library 20,380 7,755 28,13 Garden Home Community Library 6,275 6,275 Hillsboro Public Library 84,44 73,126 157,571 North Plains Public Library 1,755 1,144 2,899 Sherwood Public Library 16,11 3,448 19,56 Tigard Public Library 46,300 18,896 65,196 Tualatin Public Library 22,58 2,435 25,020 West Slope 11,639 11,63 Unincorporated and other 212,515 (212,515) Totals 500,585 0 500,585 How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 38 What are the major options for new models? To the public, a library is a library; most people assume that they are all organized pretty much the same way. Increasingly, though, that is not the case. The basic structure for libraries was developed back when people visited on foot or horseback. Those days are long gone, of course, and the advent of cars is just one of the many developments that have changed the way we structure, fund and govern American libraries. In the beginning, there were municipal libraries. Today, while about 80 percent of all libraries nationwide are still municipal libraries, they serve only about one-third of the population. These libraries are typically supported through the general funds of their municipalities. The funding, structure and governance of municipal libraries tend to be very similar from state to state. Where we find great differences is in the systems that overlay some municipal libraries, such as cooperatives, and in the structures of the other 20 percent of libraries, which may be organized in a variety of ways under a range of state laws. Consolidated libraries are at the far end of a continuum that began to be created when librarians held their first conference in 1853. Up until then, cooperation among libraries was informal and very limited in scope. In 1853, though, librarians proposed and began work on a national union catalog. Cooperation remained informal through the end of World War II. In the 1950s, public libraries began to incorporate into "systems" or cooperatives. These efforts got a push from the passage of the federal Library Services Act in 1956, which required planning at the state level and emphasized rural library development. The 1964 Library Services and Construction Act added funding for construction and for urban libraries. Then, in 1966, the federal government added Title III, Interlibrary Cooperation, to the Act. Title III "established a mechanism to include state, school, college and university, public and special libraries in networks which could be local, regional, state or interstate in configuration." The intent was to use limited funds efficiently. Since then, several states have moved to establish library cooperatives or federations, either multi-type or limited to public libraries. Most are voluntary, membership-based systems designed to achieve economies of scale and improve services to library users. Cooperative or federated systems like WCCLS do not provide services directly to the library users (for the most part). Instead, their services are provided to the independent libraries within their geographic boundaries. One article on library cooperatives noted that this can cause difficulties. "The tradition of local control and local decision making ...is a key element that challenges cooperative organizations and cooperative decision making. The tension that is created in supporting local needs and expanding and offering wider services will remain a challenge and generate more philosophical, practical, and pragmatic challenges...." At the next spot on the continuum are libraries that have consolidated their funding and governance and that provide services directly to library patrons. Like municipal libraries, they are one administrative entity. What separates them from municipal libraries is the unit of service. These unified libraries take in at least one county and most or all of the municipalities within it. They may be consolidated county libraries that are operated by county government, multi jurisdictional libraries How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 39 established through various means including joint powers agreements, or special library districts that have taxing authority and function as their own governmental unit. Consensus has researched governance and funding options that are possible within current state law as well as options that have been used in other states that could fit into the structure of Oregon law, and outlined four options below. As an aside, library service to unincorporated areas when there is no countywide library system under the structure of county government is not unique to Oregon. A quick search of Google on this topic produced 113,000 hits. Some of the states included in those hits were Texas, Illinois, Washington, California, Florida, Missouri as well as Oregon. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 40 Option A: Special district A special district is a library district organized under ORS 357.216 to 357.286. According to The Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago © 2005 Chicago Historical Society, "Special districts are units of government superimposed on the traditional units (municipalities, townships, and counties). As independent governments, they may have the power to levy taxes and issue bonds. The boundaries of special districts may cut across the boundaries of other districts and local governments." The ability for Oregon libraries to establish a special library district resulted from legislation passed in 1981 that was modeled on the special district law already on the books. Both this option and Option B: County Library District existed in the law without special focus on libraries. The 1981 law provided the focus for libraries. A special district has a five-person elected board. The option for how this board is established, whether elected as a whole or by district, is determined as part of establishment legislation. The tax rate, which is a permanent rate, is set as part of the vote. When a special library district is formed, library service becomes countywide service without any distinction between residents of cities and unincorporated areas. Overall policy making for the system becomes the role of the elected governing board, which is also responsible for appointing the library director, employing and paying staff. The special district is the most popular option for Oregon library systems that choose to provide library service across a county, without being part of the county government. Library districts have more stable funding than other types of libraries. Because the districts operate separately from municipalities, they don't have to compete with city or county services for funding. The library board is entirely responsible for budget decisions. Funds remaining in the account can be rolled forward and used the next year. Most non-district libraries must spend all funds that year or risk receiving fewer dollars from their governments the next year. A review by Tom Hennen of libraries nationwide found that special district libraries on average spend significantly more per resident than municipal libraries do - more than 25 percent in 2000. ("Are Wider Library Units Wiser?" in American Libraries. June/July 2002, pg. 65+). Some or most of those additional funds may pay for services for which municipal libraries are not charged. For example, municipalities rarely charge municipal libraries for indirect costs for maintenance, accounting, payroll services, etc., which library districts must handle themselves. He found that there is less variation between spending for library materials such as books than there is for total spending when comparing library districts and municipal libraries. In Washington County, most WCCLS member libraries reimburse their cities for the cost of indirect support services. WCCLS reimburses the county for those indirect costs, as well. This fiscal year it was assessed more than $146,000 for indirect costs, including $37,000 for the West Slope Library, according to WCCLS Director Eva Calcagno. Oregon libraries using this model 18 public libraries use the special district model. They include: ■ Agness Community Library District ■ Baker County Public Library How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 41 ■ Chetco Community Library District ■ Lincoln County Library District ■ Clatskanie Library District ■ Oregon Trail Library District ■ Curry Public Library District ■ Port Orford Public Library ■ Deschutes Public Library System ■ Scappoose Library District ■ Fern Ridge Library District ■ Silver Falls Library District ■ Jefferson County Library ■ Siuslaw Public Library District ■ Lake County Library District ■ Umatilla County Special Library ■ Lane Library District District ■ Langois Public Library Deschutes Public Library Deschutes Public Library was organized in 1998 following a vote of county residents to create a library district. Prior to this, the library operated as a department of the county. The library consists of five branches located in Bend, La Pine, Redmond, Sisters, and the Sunriver area. The library board consists of five elected members who represent the five communities served by the library district. The district encompasses the entire county; support and services are countywide. "Considered one of the fastest growing areas in Oregon, the library serves a population of approximately 140,000 people. The library's bookmobile service, The Book Buggy, serves the rural communities within the county and focuses primarily on children and parenting materials. The library's homebound service provides delivery to county residents confined to their homes. Circulation throughout the library service area has increased dramatically during the last three years. More than 1.6 million items were circulated this past year." (www.dpls.lib.or.us/about the library) Deschutes uses a policy governance model that is sometimes referred to as the "Carver" model. This model is characterized by a clear delegation of duties and accountability between the board and the library director. The board is responsible for setting the direction of the library district while the library director is responsible for "getting there." The director is authorized to work with staff to design and implement programs that achieve the Board's results, so long as the library operates within the constraints of the executive limitations. Libraries in other states with similar models: Some variation of library districts exists in 18 other states. States with the largest percentage of all public libraries as special districts include Kentucky, Illinois, Delaware, Idaho and Colorado; and other states with substantial proportions of library districts are Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and Washington. The exact definition of a library district, how it is formed and governed depends on the laws of the individual states. New York State, for example, uses the district model with several variations; school district public libraries and special legislative district public libraries are the most common types of public library districts. However, "As defined by the New York State Education Department, a public library district is a public library which has a process that requires: (a) public election of its trustees; (b) the library to secure 60 percent or more of its operating revenue through a public budget vote; and (c) the library to ensure financial accountability by presenting annually to appropriate funding agencies, and the public, a written budget which would enable the library to meet or exceed the minimum standards... and How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 42 to carry out its long-range plan of service." (New York State Library/Division of Library Development website, http://www.nysi.nysed.gov/libdev/libs/pltypes.htm) A 2003 report from the Colorado State Library noted that library districts were thriving while other types of public libraries were seeing major budget cuts. By the end of 2002, the average library district collected nearly $18 per capita more than non-district libraries, with library districts receiving 67 percent more funding than those of other types. Illinois law allows for either municipal libraries or library districts. Library districts may include area from more than one local governmental unit and outlying unincorporated areas. In 2005, for the first time, a community located within an Illinois library district could withdraw from that district. In order to separate from the library district, the city or town must first receive the consent of the library district board and complete several steps, including the establishment of a new municipal library by ordinance or referendum. At the end of the process, city residents no longer have access to the libraries in the rest of the library district. Benefits Disadvantages One voice for policy and decision making. More decisions made at county rather than . municipal level. Elected library board with accountability to all No financial commitment to library services by residents of the county. individual municipalities. Stable funding source with potential for increased Perception that strong loyalty by library patrons annual revenue based on the increased population and city residents to their library will disappear. size. Eliminates the need to vote and the cost of Potential loss of funding from individual donors elections for funding renewal every few years. who support their municipal library. Centralized decisions for library services and Loss of municipal-level control in determining operations based on the needs of the entire county. building location, design, and level of services offered. Support for library services paid by all residents Creating districts for popular services like libraries through an equitable formula. can leave fewer public funds for less-attractive . government functions. Citizens pay the same tax rate and directly decide Citizens would need to vote to establish the district, how much to spend on libraries. and may view the district as "another level of . government" or as a tax increase. Removal of competition and resentment present in Must pay for services previously provided for free current model. by municipalities. Equitable pay for staff across all libraries based on The district is funded using the property tax. position, level of education, and responsibility. Economies of scale for all operations and for The tax rate is set as a permanent rate with no administration and governance. option for increasing it in the future. Differences in service area and reciprocal Other sources for funding would need to be added How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 43 borrowing no longer an issue within the county. at a future date should the rate not generate enough revenue to operate the district or address future service needs. Releases municipalities from responsibility of paying for some operations and all capital expenses. Skillful management can push decision-making down to its most "local" level. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 44 Option B: County Service District A county service district is organized under ORS chapter 451. A county service district has a board appointed by county government. The library could continue to operate as a cooperative with limited county-wide decision making, or it could consolidate and make decisions at a county level. Cities would continue to contribute funds for capital and some operations. Policy making would be handled by a board appointed by County Commissioners. The Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District The best-known local example of a county service district relates to law enforcement. The Washington County Sheriff's Department utilizes an Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District to fund services in the unincorporated areas. According to information provided as part of a renewal vote, "Voters established the Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District (ESPD) in 1987 to provide an enhanced level of police response for residents of the urban area of Washington County outside of cities. With funding from a local option levy, the Washington County Sheriffs Office has provided these law enforcement services focused inside the urban unincorporated area." The Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District is funded by two property taxes in addition to funds provided as part of the County's general operating budget: ■ A permanent tax rate (64 cents per $1,000 assessed value) funds approximately 60% of District services. ■ A five-year, voter-approved levy (averaging 63 cents per $1,000 assessed value). This option does require regular renewal of the levy funding but the voting cycle at five years is broader than the local options levy currently used by WCCLS. Note that the sheriff's department is similar to WCCLS in that it receives funding from the County as well as from the levy. Unlike WCCLS, it also has a foundation. If we take into consideration that the individual cities provide their own policing and the excise tax provides that service to the unincorporated areas, the comparison between the two units is even stronger. Two library systems organized as special districts, Fern Ridge and Lincoln County, also use this dual taxing structure for funding. Proposed Clackamas County Library Service District On November 4, Clackamas County voters approved a library service district by 61.18 percent to 38.82 percent. The Clackamas County Board of County Commissioners proposed the county service district to the city libraries in part as a means to move the county out of the business of providing library services directly to the public. At the time, the County operated three library branches. The County paid, and will continue to pay, for the Library Information Network of Clackamas County (LINCC), a countywide library cooperative formed in the 1970s and similar to WCCLS. LINCC provides centralized services such as book transfers, central computing and network staffing. The service district will serve mainly as a funding source, and all of those funds will go to provide library services. The levy is $0.3974 (about 39 cents) per $1,000 of assessed property tax calculation, or about $82 per year for the average homeowner. That figure was chosen to allow all libraries to meet the Oregon How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 45 Library Association standard for "threshold" libraries. Currently, at least five are below the threshold level. Residents of some other communities have paid more for libraries, which reach higher standards of excellence, and they can continue to do so. The county-wide tax will provide a stable floor below which no library will fall. The district will collect the funds and distribute them to the municipal libraries, which will continue to operate as municipal libraries. Clackamas County will transfer the operation of its three library branches to nearby cities. With the funds saved from running county branches, the County will provide each municipal library with a one-time payment of about $1 million to be used for any purpose other than operations. The Clackamas County Commissioners will also serve as the library district board of directors. Historically, libraries have received most of their funds from the Clackamas County general fund (the LINCC serial levy was rolled into the County's general fund tax base by Measure 50, similar to WCCLS). The County has recently taken a hit with the loss of $12 million in federal funding in 2007. That, coupled with challenges of tax limitations, led the County Commissioners to decide to eliminate funding for three County-operated libraries in 2009, and to gradually eliminate County contributions to city libraries between now and 2014. The vote was complicated by the fact that federal timber funds were restored in the financial bailout bill passed by Congress in October 2008. While all those funds will disappear in five years, some in the county were concerned that citizens will use the restored funds as a reason to vote no on the library service district. The city councils chose to form a service district rather than a special district because they didn't want to hand governance over to a different elected board, and because they wanted to use the existing county infrastructure to operate and manage the district, according to Steve Wheeler, deputy county administrator, and Joanna Rood, LINCC manager. Wheeler said that the process of getting the service district to the ballot was time-consuming with a lot of back-and-forth among the cities and libraries. Oregon libraries using this model There are currently four libraries structured as county service districts. They include: ■ Coos County Library Service District ■ Benton County Library Service District ■ Klamath County Library ■ Wasco County Library District Corvalis- Benton County Public Library The Corvalis-Benton County Library has been a county service district since 1994. Library service is based on a fifty year old intergovernmental agreement between the city of Corvalis and the County to provide library services. The establishment of the county district replaced funding previously provided by the County. The County Board of Commissioners provides the governance structure. An appointed Advisory Board advisory to City provides structure for the operations and policies. Five members are appointed by the County, five by the mayor of Corvalis. In addition, the county board and the city council each has a member who serves as a liaison. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 46 The system pays for salaries and employee costs. Library employees are all City of Corvalis employees. The local communities are responsible for the construction and maintenance of the library branches located in their communities. The services district pays for costs of extension services, outreach and a portion for the operation of the Corvalis Central Library. The City of Corvalis general fund covers the rest of the dollars needed to operate the Central Library. In general this structure works well since most of the county population resides within the Corvalis city limits. The service district was planned on the current model that existed in 1994, with branch services at a minimal level. (Information provided by Carolyn Rawles-Heiser, library director.) Libraries in other states with similar models The library as county service district is unique to Oregon. However, an Oregon county service district library can be structured as a cooperative or as a consolidated county-wide library. If it is structured as a cooperative, it has the same basic characteristics as other cooperatives. (To complicate matters, while WCCLS is called a cooperative, it actually has the central administrative unit that provides services to member libraries, which is a characteristic of a federated system. For simplicity's sake, we'll use both terms interchangeably.) Wisconsin - Milwaukee County Federated Library System The Milwaukee County Federated Library System (MCFLS) is an umbrella agency primarily funded by the State of Wisconsin and administered by a seven-member board appointed by the Milwaukee county executive. It is a membership organization composed of the 15 administratively autonomous and fiscally independent public libraries in Milwaukee County. (All but one of the 16 municipalities in the county has a library.) Milwaukee County government is the trustee of MCFLS state aid payments and provides fiscal oversight. Libraries help pay for some services, such as county-wide computer services, while other services, like delivery trucks and continuing education, are provided free of charge by MCFLS using state funds. Within MCFLS, each member library pays for itself and any county resident can use any library free of charge. As is often the case in these situations, reciprocal borrowing has been a major issue. (Because all county residents help underwrite operations of WCCLS member libraries, the financial impact of reciprocal borrowing is dampened somewhat, although some libraries do complain of costs to serve non-resident users.) In 2004, four suburbs threatened to leave the federated library system because of the cost of reciprocal borrowing. This was the first such split in the 30-year history of the state's federated library systems. The problem was that Milwaukee residents used the nicer libraries in nearby suburban areas, but the city only reimbursed $.57 of the estimated $1.60-$2.35 cost per item for reciprocal borrowing. Milwaukee County is one of just two federated library systems in the U.S. in which member libraries bill one another for reciprocal borrowing. New York - Buffalo and Erie County Public Library In 1953, three existing libraries were merged by New York State special legislation to become the Buffalo and Erie County Public Library (B&ECPL). Responsibility for operations was transferred to Erie County How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 47 government, which owns the Buffalo library building, the system's central library. It does not own the urban branch library buildings or those of the separate county libraries, some with their own branches, that contract with Erie County for service. The system includes a total of 37 libraries and is one of four federated library systems in the State of New York. (Until a budget crisis in 2005-2006, the system included 52 libraries, more per capita than any other community in North America. Until the financial crisis made it absolutely inevitable, the community had been resistant to consolidation.) The City of Buffalo is responsible for the urban branch library buildings and each suburban or rural municipality within Erie County is responsible for the library buildings within its boundaries. Each of the county libraries also has its own governing board appointed by its municipality, a system that the (B&ECPL) library director said makes governance more complicated but also builds a strong base of support for libraries. The operating costs for all of the libraries are paid for by the county. All the libraries throughout the county operate under the same contracts, and all staff members get paid the same due to civil service and union regulations. The one major area of inequity is the library buildings. Library buildings in Buffalo, with its low tax capacity, are not in as good condition as the library buildings in the suburbs, which are newer and well-maintained. Benefits Disadvantages Depending on the funding sources selected, it could provide relatively stable funding with the potential Local option for funding of buildings, including for increased annual revenue based on the location and design of library buildings, remains. increased population size. It could eliminate the need to use the local option No provision for locating or funding buildings in levy, which must be voted on every few years. the unincorporated areas. Depending, it may provide centralized policy If cities can choose to pay more for excellent setting for library services and operations, like libraries, people from surrounding communities WCCLS does currently. may flock to them, which can lead to imbalanced use patterns and resentment. Loyalty within each city for its library would not be Less efficient than having more centralized threatened. operations and decision making. Would provide a floor of funding for all libraries, including those in poorer communities. Would allow communities to spend more on their libraries, if they wanted to do so. Residents of unincorporated areas would be included in the tax. Local option for funding, location and design of library buildings remains. Can use the existing county infrastructure to manage the district. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 48 Oregon Library Districts, special and county service There are presently 22 library districts in Oregon providing public library service -18 special library districts and four county service districts. All 22 districts are funded through voter-approved permanent tax rates. The following map shows the location of each of Oregon's library districts. The boundaries shown, however, may not be exact (particularly for the smaller districts and districts in Jefferson and Morrow counties). Specific information about each district is provided below the map, corresponding to the numbers on the map. 1 5 2 22 4 District is organized as 3 El a consolidated county library system. 17 19 6 District is organized as 8 ® a federated county 15 16 library system. 0 21 8 ■ Independent library district with branch 14 libraries. ■ Independent library 13 district with one 1 1 library facility. 10 20 9 Name of District Population Year District Permanent Tax Imposed And County of District Formed Type Tax Rate in 2005-06 1. Clatskanie Library District (Columbia) 5,974 1985 Special 0.29 $125,448 2. Scappoose Library District (Columbia) 9,915 1986 Special 0.25 $177,754 3. Silver Falls Library District (Marion) 17,465 1994 Special 0.57 $487,580 4. Oregon Trail Library District (Morrow) 9,862 1992 Special 0.25 $225,595 5. Umatilla County Special Library District 57,370 1986 Special 0.37 $1,105,681 6. Baker County Public Library 16,500 1986 Special 0.53 *$817,721 How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 49 7. Lake County Library District 7,505 1990 Special 0.45 $191,446 8. Deschutes Public Library System 143,490 1998 Special 0.55 $7,240,526 9. Chetco Community Public Library (Curry) 12,944 1982 Special 0.43 $534,652 10. Curry Public Library District (Curry) 4,799 1982 Special 0.66 $301,554 11. Port Orford Public Library (Curry) 2,259 1982 Special 0.50 $90,962 12. Agness Community Library District (Curry) 125 1992 Special 0.66 $14,250 13. Langlois Public Library (Curry) 739 1982 Special 0.77 $53,505 14. Coos County Library Service District 62,695 1992 County Service 0.73 $2,529,432 15. Siuslaw Public Library District (Lane) 16,597 1984 Special 0.52 **$749,672 16. Fern Ridge Library District (Lane) 10,947 1994 Special 0.38 ***$360,637 17. Lincoln County Library District 22,550 1988 Special 0.25 ***$948,004 18. Benton County Library Service District 82,835 1994 County Service 0.39 $2,005,855 19. Jefferson County Library 16,633 2000 Special 0.43 $429,273 20. Klamath County Library 65,055 2000 County Service 0.49 $1,882,627 21. Lane Library District 7,406 2004 Special 0.59 $244,932 22. Wasco County Library District 22,955 2006 County Service 0.66 n/a *Includes permanent rate levy, local option levy and bond levy. **Includes permanent rate levy and bond levy. ***Includes permanent rate levy and local option levy. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 50 Option C: Alternative tax to replace local option levy This option assumes that WCCLS would continue to operate as a cooperative with its current governance and decision-making structure. The only difference would be that the County would implement an alternative tax or taxes, not connected to property, that would replace the nearly $8 million per year raised by the local option levy. While WCCLS could certainly consolidate and move to one board and a central administration, simply replacing the local option levy wouldn't push in that direction. This option assumes that the alternative tax or taxes would only replace the $8 million in funds currently raised through the local option levy each year, not the nearly $15 million from the County general fund. Local leaders expressed strong appreciation for the support they receive from the Washington County Board of Commissioners, but great unhappiness with the instability of the local option levy. Clearly, the most urgent need is for a source of funding that doesn't require a new campaign and new vote every few years. The option also assumes that the alternative tax or taxes would not pay for costs currently borne by municipalities, such as capital costs and some operating costs. It is beyond the scope of this study to recommend the specific tax or taxes that, together, would provide $8 million annually. Identifying an alternative tax or taxes will require deep knowledge of state and local laws governing taxes and more time than is available in this study. The possible sources of tax dollars include some that are used elsewhere but rarely or never in Oregon. Possible sources would include: ■ utility user tax; ■ income tax; ■ sales tax; ■ impact fees, a special tax on new developments that is often used to fund schools and roads could be developed to fund library services to the unincorporated areas that would be experiencing rapid growth in housing construction; ■ court penalties, fine and fees to fund additional libraries along with the county law library (Oregon law libraries are funded with a percentage of the civil court case filing fees); ■ excise taxes and fees, such as a construction excise tax. Oregon libraries using this model: This option is not currently used for funding any libraries in Oregon. Libraries in other states with similar models: ■ Alameda County Public Library in California funds unincorporated areas of the county with a utility user tax they share with the county sheriff and community development agency. The tax is only paid by residents of the unincorporated areas. ■ Library services in Ohio are funded via the state income tax. ■ Wisconsin uses court penalties to fund school libraries How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 51 Benefits Disadvantages Possibility for abuilt-in formula for increasing It would solve the problem of needing to vote for a funding based on population growth new levy every few years, but would produce no . additional benefits, such as efficiency. While funding from the County general fund is Tax would be paid by all county residents. currently stable, that could change with new commissioners or a troubled economy. Eliminates the need to vote for a levy every few The new tax might require voter approval, and years. voters might see it as an extra burden. Eliminates the compression caused by use of the There are a limited number of taxing methods and opportunities. Libraries could be opposed by other property tax. entities needing tax dollars. Depending on the taxing and governance structure chosen, the new tax could also pay for capital costs. If the main problem is the need for stable funding, this would solve the problem without requiring any other changes. Maintains local control over operations, collections, and buildings. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 52 Option D: County Library System The library system would become a department of Washington County government, with the level of funding for operations and buildings decided by the county board of commissioners. In this model the board of commissioners governs the library and, as in Multnomah County, the commissioners would appoint citizens to a library advisory board to oversee library operations. Oregon Libraries using this model: ■ Multnomah County (funding enhanced with an Optional Tax Levy) ■ Jackson County (now by contract with an outside library service provider) ■ Douglas County ■ Josephine County (closed for the last year due to loss of federal timber payments; may reopen with some renewed timber funds and local non-profit fundraising) Multnomah County Library Multnomah County Library is the oldest public library west of the Mississippi, with a history that dates to 1864. It is also the largest public library in the state serving nearly one-fifth of the state's population. Originally established as a subscription library, the library became a tax-supported city library in 1902 and began providing service countywide in 1903. The library association maintained control of the library buildings and collections until 1990, when they transferred ownership to the people of Multnomah County to be governed by the county board of commissioners. An appointed advisory board oversees library operations. (http://www.muitcolib.orwabout/) In addition to funding from the County operating funds, the library system is also supported by an optional tax levy that must be renewed every five years. The current rate of funding is approximately 1/3 from the County, 2/3 from the tax levy with some additional funds from fines and fees, grants, and gifts from the library foundation. Libraries in other states with similar models: The most typical type of consolidated library is the county library system. Library legislation in 39 states includes the county governance option as part of library law. California and Florida are among the states that use county library systems most. Two lessons from their experience deal with funding. The first lesson is that county libraries are no safer from loss of funding than municipal libraries because they compete for funds rather than possessing their own taxing authority. The second lesson is that, when funding is cut and quality suffers, more affluent communities may choose to opt out of the county system. California The county boards of supervisors establish and maintain free public libraries and appoint county librarians. The libraries may be a special district or a general fund department of county government. Some counties have consolidated systems that include both city and county libraries. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 53 The Contra Costa Library System came close to losing its largest single financial contributor in 1998, when the Concord City Council voted unanimously to begin negotiating terms to withdraw from the underfunded systems. Concord officials complained that the city gave more than it got for its tax dollars. In fact, of the $1 million in tax dollars provided by Concord, about $320,000 went to libraries in less-affluent or more rural areas. The county library had tried and failed three times over six years to pass library tax measures, which required a two-thirds majority and the loss to Contra Costa would have been devastating. In 2000, though, Concord, the county and a local university partners on a new library downtown, which ended Concord's threats to secede. The Riverside County Library System chose to outsource operation of the 25-branch system when the state of California cut its budget by a third in 1996. It entered into an agreement with Library Systems and Services, the first of its kind nationwide, through which the private company managed and staffed the public library, with the county retaining ownership of buildings and collections. In 1998, some communities threatened to secede and two communities pulled out of the county system to open independent libraries. The Santa Clara County Library survived a 1993 funding crisis by creating a new governance structure. The library lost about 40 percent of its revenue when the California legislature appropriated property taxes from cities and counties to pay for its obligations to schools. The county librarian brought together city managers and city councils to look for alternatives, meeting with city managers every week for 13 months. Every city chose to stay with the county library system. The team developed a joint powers authority to govern the library, which, along with an annual assessment, was approved by 68 percent of voters. The new jurisdiction is governed by 11 elected officials and includes nine of the 15 cities in the county and all of the incorporated areas. Each of the eight community libraries has a director and a citizen library commission that is appointed by the city. The county library pays the leases and maintains the library buildings, most of which are owned by the cities. Florida When the State of Florida created its State Aid to Libraries grant program in 1961, it identified counties as the political subdivisions most suited to provide library services. At that time, 43 percent of Floridians lived in unincorporated areas; the percentage had grown to 51 percent by 1999. According to a 2002 report prepared by the state, all 67 Florida counties participate in the program and receive state aid. The grant formulas are based mainly on how much the local community pays to provide library service. The state supports three types of library structures: consolidated county public library; county public library cooperative; and multi-county library cooperative. Consolidated county public libraries have a governing body designated by one or more participating local governments to directly administer all library services, with individual library outlets operated as branches of the county library. There are no independent municipal libraries within the county library administrative structure. This system is often used in counties that have one incorporated area and many unincorporated areas. If a county choose to create a consolidated library system, an existing municipal library can either turn over its library to the county or it can continue to operate independently. Because all county residents are taxed to pay for the county library, residents of municipalities with their own independent libraries pay twice for library service, as is the case in Broward County. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 54 County public library cooperatives are operated or coordinated by one governing body that administers or coordinates the common services for libraries operated by the participating local governments. The director has no direct control or authority over the member municipal libraries and instead coordinates annual service plans, long-range plans, coordinated budgets, etc. A multicounty library system is similar to a county library cooperative, with more counties involved. Benefits Disadvantages Library system is supported equally by all citizens Library would be in competition with other county of the county. departments for funding. The county assumes responsibility for the Loss of local autonomy, as municipal libraries construction and maintenance of buildings. become branches in a county system. Resolves issues about library service in Perception that strong loyalty by library patrons unincorporated areas. and city residents to their municipal library will . disappear. Centralized decisions for library services and Individual cities no longer required to contribute operations based on the needs of the entire county. financially to their libraries. Many sources of funding replaced by one major Need to vote and cost of levy elections eliminated. source of funding, which can leave libraries vulnerable. Equitable pay for staff members across all libraries. Property tax would still be used to fund libraries, which maintains problem of compression. Achieves economies of scale and maximum efficiency. Skillful management can push decision-making down to the most "local" level. Builds on strong support that libraries have received from the County. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 55 A comparison among the options The following comparison is a thumbnail sketch of the distinctions among the four options. Keep in mind that Option B: County Service District could be structured either as a cooperative or as a consolidated county-wide library. X--this is definitely a characteristic; (x)=it may be a characteristic, depending. Characteristic Option A: Option B: Option C: Option D: Special Service Alt. to levy County The library has taxing authority. X The library board is elected. X The library board is or is appointed by X X the County Commissioners. Decision-making is conducted at the county level. X (x) X Municipal libraries continue to (x) X function within a cooperative. The library system owns and maintains X (x) X library buildings. Libraries compete with county or city X X departments for base levels of funding. Everyone pays the same rate for base X X X level of services. A municipality can choose to spend X X more on its library. The library can keep funds remaining X at the end of the year. Debt financing: General obligation bonds and certificates of participation X X X are available to the district as a governmental unit. The vote to form the district may set a X X permanent property tax rate. County or city governments provide administrative support. Libraries may X X X be expected to pay for that support. Governing body at county level X (x) X determines where to site new libraries. Employees would be transferred to the district under ORS 236.610. X (x) How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 56 Employees would be county x employees. Municipalities determine whether to (x) X build new libraries. Citizens directly determine how much x X (x) to spend on libraries. Citizens would need to vote on a new X X tax. (x) Inequalities in size of service area are x (x) X no longer a problem. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 57 Tax costs for three options The table below summarizes the property tax impact that the options in this report would have on each community. Option C is not included because the revenue source would not be property-tax based, so the tax rates listed here would be irrelevant. The table lists the current estimated actual combined tax for communities as $29,746,311. But based on the tables on the Oregon Library Standards, we estimate that at least another $8,018,009 should be spent to get libraries to minimum standards. As the table demonstrates, there is presently a wide range of tax rates. In Options A & D, a special district or county library system, every taxpayer in the county would pay at the same rate, $0.72 without the added funds to meet standards, and $0.91 to meet standards. In Option B, a county service district, cities could continue to pay extra funds for some services. In the example below, cities are left with current local debt payments and leases. This allows for an illustration of the continued variations in tax rates possible in Option B. The compiled costs for the extra amounts needed for standards may be found in the next table. Tax Costs for Various Options Library Type Combined City Revenue Local Debt Combined Tax Tax rate Extra needed Combined Tax Tax rate County Tax Rate (Estimated from Payments and for Standards for Full Yield 2007-08 2006-07) Leases Standards Banks Status Quo $44,646 $4,386 $58,047 $107,079 1.18 $64,149 $171,228 1.88 Beaverton Status Quo $3,372,508 $1,651,182 $1,876,478 $6,900,168 1.00 $1,584,594 $8,484,762 1.23 Cornelius Status Quo $227,575 $57,372 $0 $284,947 0.61 $351,902 $636,850 1.37 Forest Grove Status Quo $515,234 $279,212 $160,000 $954,446 0.91 $492,385 $1,446,831 1.38 Hillsboro Status Quo $3,652,324 $2,782,841 $310,000 $6,745,165 0.91 $3,039,435 $9,784,600 1.31 North Plains Status Quo $64,959 $63,401 $0 $128,360 0.97 $45,150 $173,510 1.31 Sherwood Status Quo $575,154 $265,230 $0 $840,384 0.72 $432,501 $1,272,885 1.08 Tigard Status Quo $2,240,026 $1,268,917 $0 $3,508,943 0.77 $1,105,487 $4,614,430 1.01 Tualatin Status Quo $1,079,704 $456,704 $0 $1,536,408 0.70 $266,868 $1,803,276 0.82 Uninco /Other Status Quo $8,502,410 $0 $238,000 $8,740,410 0.50 $635,538 $9,375,948 0.54 Totals Status Quo $20,274,541 $6,829,245 $2,642,525 $29,746,311 0.72 $8,018,009 $37,764,320 0.91 Banks Options AM $65,504 $65,504 0.72 $17,656 $83,160 0.91 Beaverton Options A&D $4,948,062 $4,948,062 0.72 $1,333,732 $6,281,794 0.91 Cornelius Options AM $333,893 $333,893 0.72 $90,000 $423,892 0.91 Forest Grove Options A&D $755,939 $755,939 0.72 $203,760 $959,699 0.91 Hillsboro OptionsA&D $5,358,600 $5,358,600 0.72 $1,444,391 $6,802,991 0.91 North Plains OptionsA&D $95,307 $95,307 0.72 $25,690 $120,996 0.91 Sherwood OptionsA&D $843,852 $843,852 0.72 $227,457 $1,071,309 0.91 Tigard OptionsA&D $3,286,512 $3,286,512 0.72 $885,867 $4,172,379 0.91 Tualatin OptionsA&D $1,584,116 $1,584,116 0.72 $426,993 $2,011,109 0.91 Uninco /Other OptionsA&D $12,474,528 $12,474,528 0.72 $3,362,463 $15,836,991 0.91 Totals OptionsA&D $29,746,311 $29,746,311 0.72 $8,018,009 $37,764,320 0.91 Banks Option B $59,685 $58,047 $117,732 1.29 17,656 $135,388 1.49 Beaverton Option B $4,508,499 $1,876,478 $6,384,977 0.93 1,333,732 $7,718,709 1.12 Cornelius Option B $304,231 $0 $304,231 0.66 90,000 $394,231 0.85 Forest Grove Option B $688,784 $160,000 $848,784 0.81 203,760 $1,052,545 1.00 Hillsboro Option B $4,882,567 $310,000 $5,192,567 0.70 1,444,391 $6,636,958 59 How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 58 North Plains Option B $86,840 $0 $86,840 0.66 25,690 $112,530 0.85 Sherwood Option B $768,888 $0 $768,888 0.66 227,457 $996,345 0.85 Tigard Option B $2,994,553 $0 $2,994,553 0.66 885,867 $3,880,420 0.85 Tualatin Option B $1,443,390 $0 $1,443,390 0.66 426,993 $1,870,383 0.85 Uninoo /Other Option B $11,366,348 $238,000 $11,604,348 0.67 3,362,463 $14,966,811 0.86 Totals Option B $27,103,786 $0 $2,642,525 $29,746,311 0.72 $8,018,009 $37,764,320 0.91 Some will question why we have left the cost of a special district and county library established under Oregon law the same as for the current cooperative structure. The assumption of many is that the administrative overhead of having multiple bookkeeping, ordering, board reporting, etc., would result in lower total costs when they are eliminated. The actual results of a change in governance and funding cannot be predicted, of course, but there are several factors that must be considered. Currently there are 13 separate administrative staffs reporting to 13 boards. Operations like book ordering, payroll, and accounting are duplicated and could be consolidated in a special district or county library. But, as the tables included in this report demonstrate, wage harmonization would likely to overwhelm the savings to be obtained from administrative efficiencies. It is unlikely that wages would be harmonized (or made equal for similar responsibilities) at the lowest level, and much more likely that they would be harmonized at the highest or at least the average level. Furthermore, a special district or county library would likely want to equalize other aspects of library services and bring them more in line with best practices. A special district or county library would likely want to deploy at least the minimum staffing levels indicated in the Oregon Library Association standards. That would result in the addition of 20 FTE staff members, approximately a 9 percent increase in staffing levels. A consolidated library would need to address the book collection and building size issues that WCCLS member libraries currently face. Libraries in the county are collectively deficient for book volumes at about 340,000 volumes. That means that libraries in the county have 85 percent of the volumes they should have, and filling the gap would cost $1.2 million. As for buildings, libraries in the county have just half of what the Oregon standards call for in terms of square feet per capita, and just 70 percent of the average for libraries in the nation. That shortfall would need to be remedied in a county library or special district, which would cost nearly $6 million, about twice what the libraries are currently investing for buildings. All in all, libraries in the county would require significant investment in buildings, staffing and collections. While consolidation would result in some increased efficiencies, it would not produce an overall cost savings. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 59 Appendix A: WCCLS WCCLS Executive Board: Christine Fore, Banks (resigned) Sara Jo Chaplen, Hillsboro Stephanie Jones, Banks Don Otterman, North Plains Mayor Rob Drake, Beaverton Jim Patterson, Sherwood Peter Leonard, Cedar Mill Craig Prosser, Tigard David Waffle, Cornelius Sherilyn Lombos, Tualatin Michael Sykes, Forest Grove Becky Clark, West Slope Robert Goetz, Garden Home Robert Davis, Washington County WCCLS Policy Group: Denise Holmes, Banks Mike Smith, Hillsboro Ed House, Beaverton Aaron Schmidt, North Plains Peter Leonard, Cedar Mill Pam North, Sherwood Rita Rivera, Cedar Mill Margaret Barnes, Tigard Karen Hill, Cornelius Abigail Elder, Tualatin Colleen Winters, Forest Grove Veronica Eden, West Slope Cooky Abrams, Garden Home Eva Calcagno, WCCLS manager WCCLS staff: Karen Crawford, Administration and Courier Barbara O'Neill, Reference and Interlibrary Loan Stephanie Lind, Outreach and Youth Services Sylvia Lee, Automation Jodi Nielsen, Publicity and Promotions Thanks to others who provided information for this report: Jim Scheppke, State Librarian Steve Wheeler, Clackamas County Joanna Rood, Library Information Network of Clackamas County The Consensus team: Therese Bigelow Mary Jo Draper Tom Hennen Martha Kropf Jennifer Wilding For more information about Consensus, go to www.consensuskc.org. How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 60 1 Appendix B: Circulation Summary How to read this table: Read across to see the items circulated to residents of a community. For instance, Banks residents borrowed 15,245 items from the Banks library, another 905 from Beaverton and so on through the unincorporated area (includes Cedar Mill, Garden Home, and West Slope libraries), for a total of 25,207 items borrowed by Banks residents. Read down to see the use at a given library. Banks lent 15,245 items to its own residents, 192 to Beaverton, and so on through the unincorporated areas, for at total of 46,548. These numbers matter because they illustrate the patterns of lending and borrowing in the county is not perfectly reciprocal. Imbalances lead to friction between libraries that are lenders as opposed to borrowers. Circulation Summary Library Banks Beaverton Forest Hillsboro North Tigard Tualatin Total Library Library Comehu Grove Plains Sherwoo Unincorp s d orated Banks residents 15,245 905 276 3,957 4,423 68 9 129 1 194 25,207 Beaverton residents 192 1,042,197 485 1,127 97,387 393 3,851 68,602 6,934 193,233 1,414,401 Cornelius residents 146 1,553 39 333 19,595 24,223 332 254 371 205 915 86,927 Forest Grove residents 987 3,087 5,880 184,162 24,692 81 30 328 148 1,726 221,121 Hillsboro residents 411 40,208 7,383 6,953 1,061,811 1,264 1,110 4,663 883 20,917 1,145,603 North Plains residents - 169 2 40 4,953 12,725 - 137 - 64 18,090 Sherwood residents 6 4,364 334 246 2,459 8 246,732 19,700 14,299 1,118 289,266 Tigard residents 12 87,854 105 340 6,215 46 6,924 702,077 18,962 12,920 835,455 Tualatin residents 1 6 376 6 19 934 - 5,160 30,903 279,936 1,264 324,599 Wash Co unincorporated residents 29,548 699,287 3,557 59,759 592,958 12,985 27,705 203,258 32,413 1 742 300 3,403,770 Totals 46,548 1,886,000 57,361 276,198 1,820,055 27,902 291,775 1,030,168 r353,781 1,974,651 7,764,439 Circulation Summary 2 This table illustrates the variations in use experienced by libraries in the county. Crossover lending is lending by a library to residents of another library community. Just 33% of Banks' circulation is to its home residents, the rest being to residents of other communities in the county. Banks residents borrowed a lot fewer items from other libraries (9,962) than the library lent (31,303). Compare to Sherwood, where 85% of the library's business is to its own residents, and lending to other communities (45,034) is almost perfectly matched by the borrowing Sherwood residents do elsewhere (42,534). Compare further to the unincorporated areas where 88% of the lending is to residents. But, libraries lent 232,351 items to residents of other communities while residents borrowed 1,661,470 items. If the amount in the last row is below 100% the library is a net lender. If it is above 100% the library is a net borrower. The final row indicates a rough measure of the impact of How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 61 neighbors on a library. Cornelius and the unincorporated areas have residents that borrow more than their libraries can provide. Cornelius residents borrowed 86,927 items but the library lent out just 57,361 items. The score is 152%. Banks is most affected by other residents at 54% while Sherwood is almost ideal at 99% and the unincorporated areas borrow 172%. Library Banks Beaverton Forest Hillsboro North Tigard Tualatin Total Library Library Corneliu Grove Plains Sherwoo Unincorporat s d ed Home lending 15,245 1,042,197 39,333 184 162 1,061,811 12,725 246,732 702,077 279,936 1,742,300 5,326,518 Crossover Lending 31,303 843,803 18,028 92,036 758,244 15,177 45,043 328,091 73,844 232,351 2,437,920 Crossover Borrowing (9,962) (372,204) (47,594) (36,959) (83,792) (5,365) (42,534) (133,378) (44,663) (1,661,470) (2,437,920) Resident Borrowing 25,207 1,414,401 86,927 221,121 1,145,603 18,090 289,266 835,455 324,599 3,403,770 7,764,439 Library Lending 46,548 1,886,000 57,361 276,198 1,820,055 27,902 291,775 1,030,168 353,781 1,974,651 7,764,439 Home lending % Library lending 33% 55% 69% 67% 58% 46% 85% 68% 79% 88% 69% Crossover lending % library lending 67% 45% 31% 33% 42% 54% 15% 32% 21% 12% 31% Crossover Borrowing % libr lending -21% -20% -83% -13% -5% -19% -15% -13% -13% -84% -31% Resident borrowing % library lending 54% 75% 152% 80% 63% 65% 99% 81% 92% 172% 100% How should Washington County libraries be funded and governed? 62 I Agenda Item # 3 Meeting Date December 16, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title: Barrows Road Bridge Repair Status Update Prepared By: A. P. Duenas Dept Head Okay City Mgr Okay 1 I. ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Discussion of the proposed bridge repair and transfer of jurisdiction for Barrows Road based on a 5-year anticipated life span for the bridge repair, as reported by Washington County based on the latest on-site investigation results. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council discuss the issues created by the most current investigation and provide direction to staff on the course of action to pursue based on the latest information available. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Background • The Barrows Road Bridge is in a severely deteriorated condition, has been posted with a 5-ton weight limit, and is inspected weekly for signs of failure. • Washington County originally planned to close the bridge, but after public input proposed that it be repaired instead. The repair work proposed at that time would install a new glulam superstructure with footings on both sides. The existing hollow piles would be retained to resist lateral loads. This proposed repair would allow the bridge to function without limitations for at least the next 20 to 30 years. • Washington County further proposed that the estimated cost of the repair work be split three ways among the County, the City of Beaverton and the City of Tigard, and that the two cities assume joint responsibility for the road and the bridge after repairs are completed. • Both the City of Tigard and the City of Beaverton were receptive to the proposal by Washington County. City Council, at its meeting on July 8, 2008, gave approval for the City to participate in funding the repair work proposed by Washington County pledging $50,000 as the maximum share for the repair work. Following the repair, the City would enter into an agreement with Washington County and the City of Beaverton to accept joint jurisdiction (Beaverton and the City) of the street east of the Walnut Street intersection all the way to Scholls Ferry Road. On-site Investigation Report Subsequent to the decision to repair the bridge, Washington County staff conducted soil and structural evaluations of the existing conditions at the bridge site and then concluded that the repair work would last for only 5 years. The existing soils and the pile conditions are such that no guarantees could be made beyond that 5-year estimate. Current Issues Because of this significant change in anticipated life span of the replacement structure, Washington County has requested the cities of Tigard and Beaverton to re-evaluate the decision to repair the bridge and keep Barrows Road open to traffic. Among the current factors to be considered are: • Is the $50,000 in repair work that would require either closure or possibly replacement with a new bridge in 5 years a wise investment? The current piles are hollow and are expected to last about 5 years. • The road and bridge are currently under County jurisdiction. If the cities accept joint responsibility for the street segment between Walnut Street and Scholls Ferry Road, the future problem would be the responsibility of both cities to resolve with no financial participation by the County. • Should the City propose a new bridge knowing that the long-term plan calls for Barrows Road to be realigned to intersect Scholls Ferry Road at Davies Road? The County estimates the cost of a new bridge that meets all current environmental and traffic standards and requirements to be $2 million. It is not yet clear whether a smaller scoped replacement would be possible. City staff is investigating this possibility. More information will be provided to Council at its December 16 meeting. • Should the original plan to close the bridge and remove the signal system at Barrows and Scholls be resurrected? This would require improvements to the 135`'' Avenue/Walnut Street intersection. These issues will be discussed with Council and Council direction will be requested on the course of action to pursue. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None COUNCIL GOALS "Pursue opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in Tigard." ATTACHMENT LIST None FISCAL NOTES The City's share of the proposed repair work is capped at $50,000. The repair work is estimated to last 5 years after which time, the piles would have deteriorated to the point where closure would be required. A new bridge may have to be designed to meet current flood elevations, would most likely require a higher bridge with a much larger bridge opening to pass the design flood, and is estimated to cost $2.0 million in 2008 dollars. is\eng\gus\council agenda summaries\2008\12-16-08 barrows road bridge repair update ais.doc I R bt ✓ SYf.3G' M~ v t ( I• r. v ~....„,nA n. F$~ p t v Mrr t ~ H W w t.. t"µ~m F . ~ ~ ~ ~ f "r. r Pf.. ~ .:.51 Y•Di w : Problem Definitions • Wingwall settlement and erosion • Endwall decay • Piling decay • Offset pile cap fit. ~ .xY,~i'v ~ ,YD"''"~^ 4 aA°•1. '%4w.Jkv0. w kmad. a, W g4 y ~ a gJiY' y~ i ~ r to ro ~rrokr2g ' u 'pfit y yv - 2 w .a ' e,~', e4 ~~p Ja N t p ~ .r a 7 ~ c a y d r ~ x, "a -~rct < ~h da`t, ?t`a:9 r ' rod's . $ rx}~^P.'"~a .~'~N~"~i',ia'~y'~'~" ~ • • w~ ~ q~j'„ , ~ a ~ ` t ~ e r A o , Wingwall Erosion and Settlement Pile Cap Nail Lam Deck End Wall --WF; Piling Water Surface IV Ground Line at End Wall Wing Wall Settlement and Erosion MM " 'S' N Y x 1 Y.l Y ii )4 x Al a "w ~ ~ e F y R° ~~y ,h ~<E Pt 1 .i 'r Ifi{R gdf~2Fff(i lY'd ~ ~ / n 4 i Wingwall repaired, w ..y.^4+a.. ,r. w nM wrNW'a, 1f. ':~wx.`~u+WVrvy ..ter ne.!pY~mW4Wm 'm^'. wi...it^.tlwg~ - rvr .may ~y i it ..Wd* ,1' F ' N . w.~, ~ y f amiP„i ~ A' v fb'uR' ~ } .,W y Y 2 a y ~ wa v S w e , v x Est s sa ~ Irv, v r Endwall Decay ESawdust indicates ant infestation 1 t ".a rp o-s z w4 W% M1 "NSF W, M Y . $a r p at" L 9 *nM fi" ~M1 a a b Y y, W yid, n ' e Piling Decay 4'Rl~ „ fib R x ~ ~ n RY ~ Y ~ wP~ tA`R i~ 5b ANA, ~r. { f" ~ "~T'r ~ a ~ ! + ` f r z r3w'", uy r' 4:: s,. yYw.+,d~r~¢e; s° ry~w,,a"~',^ttF ^w ✓ i s`~v r x M,` „ .,•P, r+2' ~ p S Y r.tf .f t ;9§r 4 „ w:n A ~ alb µ ~ 1••''1 W" " M 4 "Mp x $~y f . t Y Aa;' rn,~ ~ 3' ppt~~ ~ 1fl,~ x .r v., Y. S N, Ealing Decay . 1 ~ Ya krS' ^4 ~ ^l > ew* b, n.r n. 9'Ir> , ,n oK Y I f Y l~ x wya . m9 , Nu v' j7 " ! c' Sn•rr A Filing Decay i 90. ~ Y `Fw*!'p)n',.*. ~.y Y l 4 t ~ p N ) a 3 > m Qy~n ~ M t X) " s r } t'r ~~p ; `N t tk T lo-: y ¢ 4 a ° a m'I ~4iY n x d f tt '.1 a3'~ 3~3'' ~ "Y~ 4:I ~2 ~Yrd 'S• 'k'• JR. Vx,~ 4 Offset File Cap Timber Deck (AC Not Shown) Offset Cap Piling Spacer Block End Wall Bridge Side View Showing Offset Pile Cap Complications • Summer Creek is classified as an essential salmonid habitat (ESH) stream. • Critters downstream plugging creek • Barrows is classified as county local road • Davis Improvement is long term solution • Extremely weak subgrade soils (~350 psf) • Deck is a monolithic "slab" Options Considered • Repair Existing • New Permanent Bridge • New Single Lane Temporary Bridge • New Double Lane Temporary Bridge • Closure 1dY P~yX,9.:'..,9 ^4.p ~~r ~~r.~4, ',t :t`,~` 9, rQ a - b- .p A ,gam S re. 4:•u .d A'-rY ;fit ~ ~ ~ :w"~' r, ~s~)t Ml ~v Typical Repair o Piling Decay Simple "dry" ti o interior bent Recommendation • New Double Lane Temporary Bridge • Longitudinal Glu-Larn Bridge • Timber Footing • Cost = $150,000 u O O ~06L 7" A/C WEARING SURFACE 2"X 14" NAIL LAMINATED DECK w °g x ~wa0a D (j) F <Ozw- W cr a e o~i-Oa JNZ ~O ~y s'b 10"X10" CAP pr AA 2 Z O Z a o v - 18" DIA. PILES 4"X12" BULKHEAD o 5 EACH SIDE o co EXISTING BRIDGE a ° a W H a O p a U z REMOVE ASPHALT AND LAMINATED DECK O~ KEEP PILES AND PILE CAPS - - o Z Z 0 z OZz V ° O Z 0cn W o X~ Wm DEMOLITION PLAN .c- u- O O I-- QS t. LLJ z cl) a - e f Q°Zwe 3" A/C WEARING SURFACE NEW 10 3/4" GLULAM BEAMS w a a < 6 AT 52" WIDE 4X12 TIMBER ° 1-- FOOTING (TYP.) OJNt v s'b NOTES: 6" OF 3/4"-0 - GUARDRAIL NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. BASE ROCK o - PILE DEPTH UNKNOWN. - DESIGNED FOR 5 YEAR LIFE SPAN. UNDISTURBED E GROUND o~ Z co NEW BRIDGE rna W ~ 6 Z aU 0 26' rn v r 8"X8" TIMBER 10 3/4" X 52" X 27' W a GLULAM BEAMS ( co z 0 ~o u uii u u u u n U tl II it if II II II it 11 ~ w~z o fl u i i i u i n co Z u ~ - - - - Oa - - - - - - - - 5' ii L1J ii 5 LAG BOLTS CONNECTING if GLULAMS TO FOOTING q 30' EACH SIDE C0 FOUNDATION PLAN VIEW SOIL ANCHOR C zN 4 FOUNDATION PROFILE ul) W- ~ . Agenda Item # 41 Meeting Date December 16, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title City Council Direction on the Washington County Urban and Rural Reserve Planning Process Prepared By. Ron Bunch Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should City Council have its Cites representative to the Washington County (WA Co) Urban Reserve Coordinating Committee (RCQ express its concerns that the County's Urban and Rural Reserve planning process does not foster deliberative and consensus-based decision-making? If so, should the City's representative propose to the RCC that it schedule this matter for discussion to determine if process changes are needed to ensure the Committee can make informed and deliberative policy decisions? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Move to adopt a motion authorizing Councilor Buehner to present the City's concerns to the ROC KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Councilor Buehner, Tigard's representative to the Washington County Urban Reserve Coordinating Committee (ROC), presented concerns at Council's November 18, 2008 work session that the process used to determine the location and extent of future Urban and Rural reserve study areas does not provide adequate opportunity for ROC members to make informed, consensus-based, policy decisions. For example: 1) The RCC is having to rush its decisions. The project timeframe does not allow adequate consideration of tradeoffs and consequences of designating certain urban reserve study areas; 2) There is inadequate opportunity for deliberation of broad policy issues such as the proposed designation of urban reserve study areas on lands previously identified as "foundation lands"; and 3) More discussion is needed by RCC members, especially those from cities, to incorporate their growth management aspirations into the process of designating urban and rural reserves. Attachment 1 presents examples of "talking points" which maybe used to present the City's concerns to the RC(_' OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not express concerns or propose changes to the County's Urban and Rural Reserve Planning Process. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS Urbanization: Goal 14.3: "Promote Tigard citizens' interests in urban growth boundary expansion and other regional and state growth management decisions." C\Documents and Settings\cathy\Local Settings\TemporaryIntemet Files\Content.Outlook\34UFNTLM\12-16-08 AIS Council Direction on WA Co RCCPlanning Process.doc 1 ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Memo dated 12/5/08 Re: Urban and Rural Reserve process "Talking Points." FISCAL NOTES N/A I: \LRPLN \Council Materials\2008\12-16-08 AIS Council Direction on WA Co RCC Planning Process.doc 2 ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of the Tigard City Council FROM: Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director fl~6_ RE: Proposed Talking Points Washington County Urban and Rural Reserve Planning Process/Protocol DATE: December 5, 2008 Introduction At its November 18, 2008 meeting the Tigard City Council heard concerns from Councilor Buehner, that 1) the Urban and Rural Reserve planning process does not support the Urban and Rural Reserve Coordinating Committee in making informed and consensus-based decisions, and 2) that the process needs to be changed to allow this to occur. Staff was requested to develop "talking points" for Council to consider using to express to the Washington County and the Reserve Coordinating Committee its concerns about the Urban and Rural Reserves Planning Process. The purpose is to ensure that RCC members can make reasoned policy decisions that represent their constituencies. In addition to Councilor Buehner's concerns and recommendations, Staff has also included some of its own observations to assist Council in its consideration of this matter. Background / Discussion Decisions on important policy and political issues should not be forced by the County's project schedule. The designation of future urban and rural reserves will have a profound impact on the quality of life and prosperity of the region and it is important to not rush to decisions without a thorough policy and consensus-based discussion by those that will be affected. There are no requirements in state law (SB1011, 2007) or state administrative rules (OAR 660-027- 0005) that require completion of the urban and rural reserve process by fall of 2009. Decision-making on these important policy and political issues should not be forced by the current schedule. Would it be better to rely on one more cycle of Metro's five-year UGB expansion process rather make rushed decisions that would have permanent consequences? The RCC should have the opportunity to engage in a broader discussion of policy issues, trade-offs and consequences. As an example, the RCC was presented with proposed urban reserve study areas; however, the study areas also included the same lands that were designated as l:\I..RPLN\Council 14atcrials\2008\12-16-08 NITACH 1 Council Direction on WA CO RCC Planning Proccss.doc 1 "foundation" agricultural lands. The RCC needs to have adequate time and information to discuss the consequences, trade-offs, and policy implications of such actions, and evaluate alternatives. The RCC should also be involved in the project's key methodologies and data assumptions. For example, Washington County staff's proposal to establish rating criteria to apply to the designation of future urban and rural reserves is an example of a method that requires RCC input. These kinds of issues should not be decided unilaterally by staff or any one political entity. The urban and rural reserve designation process must demonstrate consistency with recent state law, LCDC Administrative Rules, and also consider relevant Metro planning projects. In order for the Washington County rural and urban reserve process to be credible, the methodologies and options presented to the RCC must demonstrate how they are consistent with the requirements of applicable legislation and administrative rules. Also, Metro's "Project Timeline" identifies the need to have input from Metro's "Investment and Transportation Tracks" which include the Regional Transportation Plan, Regional Infrastructure Analysis, Community Aspirations, Metro Great Communities, etc. These are important decision-making criteria and policy considerations that the RCC must have access to. Is Washington County's reserve planning project a sub-regional or regional effort. There are concerns that Washington County has a sub-regional planning perspective rather than one that considers the whole region. If the County and some of its jurisdictions have different needs or aspirations than others in the region, or even in the same county, then these matters need to be on the table and debated openly. Conclusion The RCC membership should have an opportunity to discuss whether these concerns are widely shared, and if there is a need for an Urban and Rural Reserve planning "process check." 1:\L,RPLN\Council Materials\2008\12-16-08 XITACH 1 Council Direction on WA CO RCC Planning Process.doc 2 Agenda Item # E Meeting Date December 16, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Discuss Council Dais and Upgrades or Reconstruction Prepared By. Liz NevAon/C. Wheatley Dept Head Approval: C , Gry Mgr Approval: _ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Discuss Council dais upgrades information from staff. After a decision is reached about whether improvements or upgrades should be made to the City Council dais, staff will propose options for improving the electronic audio in the Town Hall. A discussion on the electronic audio system is scheduled immediately following this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Discuss staff's findings regarding costs to upgrade or reconstruct the Council dais. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY At the direction of City Council, Administration and Public Works staff investigated the possibility of redoing the Council dais taking into consideration television broadcasting of meetings and to create better visibility of decision makers seated at the dais by those attending Council meetings. Staff explored two options to upgrade or reconstruct the dais and obtained a rough estimate from a wood specialties professional, described as follows: 1. Raised Dais - The room configuration would allow for a 4- to 6-inch platform for the dais, which would allow for a ramp to be used when needed for ADA requirements. We would lose one computer desk due to a curved design to keep the designed configuration within the confines of the back angled wall in Town Hall. The total cost for this option was proposed as $19,250. The scope of work includes: • Manufacture and install council desk, raised platform, and presentation desk. • Council desk be in a radius configuration... materials to be red oak and plastic laminate. 2. Upgrades to Dais - This option includes a remodel and surface repairs on each desk unit to provide a way to recess. the computers and construct a higher privacy panel. Staff asked for a quote on this type of a remodel to accommodate the camera and live audience views of people seated at the dais. The higher privacy panel would be constructed to match the existing desks and wells installed so the computer monitors would drop down a few inches (allowing room to access the buttons on the front of the monitors). The total cost for this option was proposed as $17,500. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Explore other configurations the City Council might identify. CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Rabe Wood Specialties, Inc. proposal for improvements to the Council dais, which includes a raised platform and presentation desk $19,250. 2. Rabe Wood Specialties, Inc. proposal for improvements to refurbish existing Council desk $17,500 FISCAL NOTES This is not a budgeted item. Funding will need to be identified. I:\Citywide\Council Packets\Packet '08\081216\Council Dais AIS.doc FIOV-24-2008 oe:42A FROM:RAGE WOOD SPEC.INC. (503)472-7525 TO:1503664ee40 P.1 Attachment 1 m Q AMILZ T703 D 911CDAIl.'I 29, HqC. Since 1973 3220 Dayton Bypass P.O. Box 157 Lafayette, Oregon 97127-0157 (503) 064-2758 * Fax (503) 472-7525 November 23, 2008 Revised Bid - City of Tigard Attention: Nick Nissen Proposal to manufacture and install Council Desk with raised platform and presentation desk. Council desk to be radiused as per initial drawing. Estimate based on use of red oak wood construction and plastic laminate top (color TBD). Total Estimated Cost: $19,250.00 (More than 30 days has passed since original bid was submitted in August. Revised bid reflects our additional cost for manufacturing, shipping, and handling.) Accepted by: Date: Estimate is good for 30 days from receipt and based on original design reviewed and measurements. NOU-24-2008 oe:42A FROM:RABE WOOD SPEC.INC. C503)472-7525 T0:1503684ee40 P.2 Attachment 2 D D- TICA j~u ~1~ Ecc `c'~J- '1'ifu.Ym .stC1Gat\V:.t11 s, I11ic. slnve 9s1-3 3220 Dayten Bypass P.O. Box 157 Ufeyette, Oregon 97127-0157 (503) 864-2755"c Fnx (503) 472-7_i25 November 23, 2003 Bid - City of Tigard Attention: Nick Nissen Job Description: Refurbish existing council desk. o Raise front up T and re-veneer and finish entire fronts to match existing color. Repair and re-finish as needed. o Cut hole in each desk and manufacture and install box below level of existing top to allow computer monitors to sit lower. Each desk (7 total) modified per conversation with Nick Nissen 11 /05/03) Scope of work will require removal of each desk piece from city facility. Each piece will then be modified at Rabe Wood Specialties facility and returned and reinstalled. Minimum time frame will be 14 working days. Time frame may be modified due to delays by city facility management scheduling. Total Estimated Cost: $ 17,500.00 Accepted by: Date: Estimate is good for 30 days from receipt. Agenda Item No.: 6 Meeting of: December 16, 2008 City Council packet information for DISCUSS TOWN HALL ELECTRONICS will be available and forwarded to the City Council on Friday, December 12, 2008 delivered 'n la I I a Cou.A L hoc Agenda Item No. 5 Meeting of 1Q, Ito OS City of Tigard Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder Re: Council Dais Upgrades Date: Council Dais Upgrades - AV Integration City Council received in its December 16, 2008, meeting packet an agenda item summary outlining the physical upgrades to the Council dais. Two options were explored by staff. One option was to remodel and repair the existing desks, which was estimated at $17,500. The other option was to raise the dais. If the City Council chooses this option, AV system modification will be required. Attached is an integration proposal from Delta AV quoting $10,242.70 for this work Therefore, the total cost for the raised dais is broken down as follows: !q B _ Manufacture and installation: $1;500:0II AV Modifications: 10,242.70 Total $27, 0 aGl f 4qo, `70 Fiscal Notes: This is not a budgeted item. Funding will need to be identified. Attachment: Proposal from Delta AV I:\Gtywide\Counci1 Packets\Packet '08\081216\memo av for raised council dais.doc Delta a- AV INTEGRATION PROPOSAL TO: Christopher Myers City of Tigard RE: City Council Chambers Dias AV System Upgrades Quote # J01-0904-2 DATE: December 11, 2008 The following is our pricing for the modification to the AV Systems in the City Council Chambers Dias as noted in a site visit with City of Tigard staff. Our price includes the necessary materials, installation, commissioning, calibration, engineering, documentation, training and Warranty as specified in the above noted documents or as clarified in the Notes and Conditions. Our work will include provision and installation of all related materials as specified for complete systems. Description of project: The existing monitors, microphones and related audio and video cabling will be removed prior to the demolition of the existing dias and reinstalled after the fabrication of the new Dias. It is assumed that proper access will be created by others during the construction process to allow the installation of cables. Process with include testing of the system after the installation of the cabling and equipment. The equipment compliment, i.e. microphones monitors etc. will not be altered. Scope of work includes: • Remove and reinstall microphone cabling to support the existing Dias mics. • Remove and replace monitor video connection cabling. • Remove and replace the computer video and audio connection cabling • Not included are power, and data cabling. Demo or installation. Delta AV Systems has qualified technicians to support the installation, commissioning and warranty processes. Thank you for the opportunity to quote on this project. Feel free to call or email questions. :UZO ``t Int6rrlErtlO:r?I JJ:d'v. S!ABP. kiOF; Milwaukee. ("'R P2 50 3.780.373,31 iBl 51)3 7ff; 38"')3 1:1' YN! v doll<V'V. ccol oelta V BILL OF MATERIALS AND COST Item Part # Qty. UM MFG Number Description S/Price Ext S/Price 1.00 AUDIO Monitor Cables and 1.01 1 ea Batch Misc Connections $ 3,219.81 $ 3,219.81 Microphone Cables & 1.02 1 ea Batch Misc Connections $ 643.96 $ 643.96 Remove and Reinstall 1.03 1 ea Batch Misc Equipment $ - $ - SUBTOTAL $ 3,863.77 TOTAL EQUIPMENT $ 3,863.77 TOTAL LABOR $ 6,036.34 TOTAL INCEDENTALS $ 342.59 TOTAL $ 10,242.70 Notes & Conditions: 1. No electrical 110 VAC work to support the AV System is included in the price quoted 2. No saw cutting, core drilling and installation of an additional conduit path is included. 3. No carpentry, painting, drywall or patching work is included. 4. Any necessary conduits and cable paths to be installed by others 5. It is assumed that the rooms can be scheduled as one trip for the Demo and one trip for the rough installation and at least three consecutive days for the final installation and connection of the materials & devices. 6. If the quote number J01-0904-1 (microphone panel & snake installation) is executed at the same time, a $1,500 deduction can be applied to this quote. 7. Quote is good for 30 days. Thank You. DELTA AV SYSTEMS Jeff Overbo Senior Designer Page 2 4040 SE I111wna tic)nal wd8y ;iui#e E_ 10(i iv<ilwaute pc3 972?2 50A. 786.'3,7'3;3 ,al 'if'13 ?86.3803 ia, `Nw-A?.dell.. AVco 11 DP j 1 V%" d 12-112- CoUnc; l h,GWSk0tV , . Agenda Item # 6 Meeting Date December 16, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Town Hall Electronic Equipment Prepared By. Christopher Myers/IT Dept Head Approval: >>t City Mgr Approval: 7Z ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Consider installation of a "single microphone snake" in the Town Hall for better microphone access for workshop-style meetings. This design will allow for easier and faster set up of workshop-style meetings where microphones are required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to proceed with the proposed AV upgrade installation to improve the audio system for workshop-style meetings in the Town Hall. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • Attached is the AV Integration Proposal for a new microphone connection as well as 7 new gooseneck microphones so there will be 13 hard-wired microphones available for workshop-style meetings. • The new installation, consisting of one cable, will allow easier and faster set up of workshop-style meetings where microphones are necessary. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Delta AV Integration Proposal FISCAL NOTES The quote for this installation is $7,308.04. Funding is available in the IT Division budget because savings were realized when servers were upgraded to provide increased storage capacity instead of installing a Storage Area Network. I:\Citywide\Councd Packets\Packet '08\081216\Webteam\Council Agenda_Item Summary Town hall microphones.docx Delta An AV INTEGRATION PROPOSAL TO: Christopher Myers City of Tigard RE: City Council Chambers Dias AV System Upgrades Quote # J01-0904-1 DATE: December 8, 2008 The following is our pricing for the modification to the AV Systems in the City Council Chambers Dias as noted in a site visit with City of Tigard staff. Our price includes the necessary materials, installation, commissioning, calibration, engineering, documentation, training and Warranty as specified in the above noted documents or as clarified in the Notes and Conditions. Our work will include provision and installation of all related materials as specified for complete systems. Scope of work includes: • Install new microphone connection system with connection panel in the front wall of the room near the AV equipment closet. • Provision of a 20' long microphone snake that will connect into the connection panel. • Provision of 13 custom 20' microphone cables with 3 pin male XLR connectors on one end and 5 pin female4 XLR connectors on the other end. • Completed system allows existing microphones to be reconnected in center of the room with new microphone snake system. • 7 new gooseneck microphones and a wireless microphone transmitter and lavalier microphone will also be provided. Delta AV Systems has qualified technicians to support the installation, commissioning and warranty processes. Thank you for the opportunity to quote on this project. Feel free to call or email questions :040 SE. Inte•rrniUnnal Way, Suits E 106 PvVw-mikie, OR 91,122,2' uti 5,03 7863..",,803 lax Aww dc4 ap& col n oelta A BILL OF MATERIALS AND COST Ttl Part Item # Qty. UM Manufacturer Number Description S/Price Ext S/Price 1.00 AUDIO 1.01 1 ea FSR WB-4G-6 6" Deep Back Box $ 91.25 $ 91.25 1.02 1 ea FSR WB-4G-C Wallbox Cover $ 166.59 $ 166.59 1.03 1 ea TBD Custom Custom Panel $ 128.79 $ 128.79 5 pin to 3 pin Ar 1.04 13 ea Custom 25' Cables $ 19.32 $ 251.16 Mic Cables and 1.05 1 ea Batch Misc connectors $ 257.59 $ 257.59 1.06 1 ea Whirlwind W5 20' Mass To Fan Out $ 531.91 $ 531.91 30' Panel Mount To 1.07 1 ea Whirlwind W5 Blunt Cut $ 341.30 $ 341.30 1.08 7 ea Audio Technica U857QL Gooneck Microphones $ 213.80 $ 1,496.60 Microphone 1.09 1 ea Audio Technica ATWT310 Transmitter $ 197.05 $ 197.05 1.10 1 ea Audio Technica AT831 CW Lavalier Microphone $ 105.61 $ 105.61 SUBTOTAL $ 3,567.85 TOTAL EQUIPMENT $ 3,567.85 TOTAL LABOR $ 3,451.67 TOTAL INCEDENTALS $ 288.52 TOTAL DIAS AUDIO RELOCATION & MODIFICATION $ 7,308.04 Notes & Conditions: 1. No carpentry, painting, drywall or patching work is included. 2. Terms are net 30 days. 3. Quote is good for 30 days. Thank You. DELTA AV SYSTEMS Jeff Overbo Senior Designer Page 2 tC=t0 F irate. national way, ;wile i. 10-5 Milwaiikie, OF? 97222 50 786 ;i'3 i tel W1 786.3803 tat wws deltaIN com Woodruff Bridge Coming to Fanno Creek Greenway Spring 2009 In honor and appreciation of Councilor Tom Woodruyfs service to the citizens of Tigard February 24, 2004 - December 31, 2008 a TIGARD Mayor Craig Dirksen Date Agenda Item # q, Meeting Date December 16, 2008 COUNOL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Receive and File: Canvass of Votes for City of Tigard Council Candidates - November 4 2008 Election c Prepared By. Cathy Wheatley ` Dept Head Approval City Mgr Approval ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND KEY FACTS Receive and File the official City Council election results for the November 4, 2008, election. STAFF RECOMMENDATION N/A - Informational item only regarding the official results for the November 4, 2008, election. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • When the City Recorder canvasses the votes as required by the Washington County Elections Division, a copy is filed with the City Council at a Council meeting to officially "receive and file" the information. • As detailed in the attached Abstract of Votes the following people were elected to serve four -year terms as City Councilors beginning January 1, 2009: City Councilor. Marland H. Henderson City Councilor: Nick Wilson OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED I N/A COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Washington County Elections Division Abstract of Votes FISCAL NOTES The City is not charged for expenses associated with a general election (ORS 254.046). I:\Gtywide\Council Packets\Packet '08\081216\Canvass of Votes AIS - November 04 election.doc WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON November 24, 2008 City Recorder City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 97223 Enclosed you will find a copy of the Abstract of Votes for City of Tigard relating to the election held on November 4, 2008. In accordance with ORS 255.295, please canvass the votes and notify the Washington County Elections Division within thirty (30) days of receipt by signing and returning the bottom portion of this letter to: Washington County Elections Division 3700 SW Murray Blvd. Suite 101 Beaverton OR 97005 Thank you very much. Sincerely, kej o-r-i8l na Mickie Kawai Elections Manager MK/tk 0 have canvassed the votes for City of Tigard, relating to the election on November 4, 2008. By signing this canvass letter, I concur with the final results. A THORIZING SIGNATURE DATE Department of Assessment & Taxation, Elections Division 3700 SW Murrray Blvd. Suite 101 Beaverton OR 97005 Phone: 503/846-5800 Fax: 503/846-5810 NUMBERED KEY CANVASS Washington County General Election RUN DATE:11/21/08 12:56 PM November 4, 2008 REPORT-EL52 PAGE 0079 VOTES PERCENT VOTES PERCENT City of Tigard Council Vote For 2 01 = Marland H Henderson 8,232 33.68 04 = WRITE-IN 234 .96 02 = Nick Wilson 10,602 43.38 05 = OVER VOTES 8 03 = Jeremy T Vermilyea 5,371 21.98 06 = UNDER VOTES 21,810 01 02 03 04 05 06 0400 400 WASHINGTON SQUARE 775 1031 506 29 0 2321 0402 402 TIGARD/WALNUT ST 342 416 206 17 0 823 0403 403 TIGARD/GAARDE ST 1209 1588 896 30 0 3117 0404 404 FOWLER SCHOOL 837 1038 518 11 2 2024 0405 405 TWALITY SCHOOL 1268 1660 802 47 0 3306 0406 406 TIGARD CITY HALL 1061 1200 589 36 0 2364 0408 408 SUMMERFIELD 1371 1884 996 37 2 3854 0409 409 SUMMERLAKE-WEST 717 972 470 12 4 2135 0416 416 SUMMERLAKE-EAST 519 640 287 11 0 1495 0454 454 BULL MT SPLIT 129 169 100 4 0 356 0455 455 S TIGARD/PACIFIC HWY 4 4 1 0 0 15 of COA14f NUMBERED KEY CANVASS Washington County General Election RUN DATE:11/21/08 12:56 PM November 4, 2008 REPORT-EL52 PAGE 0001 TOTAL PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT 01 = REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL 273.237 04 = VOTER TURNOUT TOTAL 87.21 02 = BALLOTS CAST TOTAL 238,284 05 = VOTER TURNOUT BLANK .01 03 = BALLOTS CAST BLANK 29 01 02 03 04 05 .0301 301 RURAL NW COUNTY 2072 1843.. 0 . . . . .00 0302 302 KINNAMAN 2079 1752 1 . . . . .05 0303 303 WITCH HAZEL 332 297 0 . . . . .00 0304 304 BUTTERNUT 2742 2330 0 . . . . .00 0305 305 BANKS 847. 721 0 . . . . .00 0306 306 TANASBOURNE 644 553 0 . . . . .00 0307 307 WILLOW CREEK 1899 1617 1 . . . . .05 0308 308 BLOOMING FERN HILL 477 475 0 . . . . .00 0309 309 HAWTHORNE FARMS 4045 3572 1 . . . . .02 0310 310 DILLEY 1337 1163 0 . . . . .00 0311 311 LAURELWOOD 635 528 0 . . . . .00 0312 312 HAGG LAKE 727 646 0 . . . . .00 0313 313 HILLSBORO-UNINCORP' 263 235. 0 . . . . .00 0314 314 GLENCOE 762 689 0 . . . . .00 0315 315 HELVETIA 664 606 1 . . . . .15 0316 316 PUMPKIN RIDGE 946 847 0 . . . . .00 0317 317 VERBOORT 404 358. 0 . . . . .00 0318 318 MINTER BRIDGE 3103 2636 2 . . . . .06 0319 319 QUATAMA STREET 1129 940 1 . . . . .09 0320 320 HAZELDALE 2581 2160 0 . . . . .00 0321 321 GASTON 298 239 0 . . . . .00 0322 322 JACKTOWN 224 194 0 . . . . .00 0323 323 INDIAN HILLS 3357 2747 0 . . . . .00 0324 324 CHERRY GROVE 436 371 0 . . . . .00 0325 325 HILLSBORO-ISLANDS 3 . 3 0 . . . . .00 0326 326 RURAL BANKS 1369 1225 0 . . . . .00 0327 327 BROWN MIDDLE SCHOOL 3045 2584 1 . . . . .03 0328 328 FARMINGTON VIEW 1319 1125. 0 . . . . .00 0329 329 CENTURY SCHOOL 3500 2976 1 . . . . .03 0330 330 NORTH PLAINS 1131. 980 0 . . . . .00 0331 331 PORTLAND/BARNES 4 . 4 0 . . . . .00 0332 332 ORENCO STATION 2544 2206 1 . . . . .04 0333 333 JOHN OLSEN 4767 3757. 0 . . . . .00 0334 334 DIXIE MOUNTAIN 104. 99 0 . . . . .00 0335 335 JACKSON SCHOOL 3922 3503 0 . . . . .00 0336 336 FAIRGROUNDS 2557 2155 0 . . . . .00 0337 337 WALNUT ST 3547 2888 0 . . . . .00 0338 338 CORNELIUS 3969 3203 0 . . . . .00 0339 339 FOREST GROVE-EAST 1810 1406 0 . . . . .00 0340 340 FOREST GROVE 2573 2229 0 . . . . .00 0341 341 CORNELIUS-SCHEFFLIN 312 285 0 . . . . .00 0342 342 DAVID HILL RD 119 109 0 . . . . .00 0343 343 MOOBERRY 3707 3236 0 . . . . .00 0344 344 HILLSBORO CENTRAL 3428 2809 1 . . . . .03 0345 345 W/HILLSBORO UNINCORP 75 61 0 . . . . .00 0346 346 CORNELIUS/TUAL RIVER 236 212 0 . . . . .00 0347 347 FG/TUALATIN RIVER 36 31 0 . . . . .00 0348 348 LAKE OSWEGO 130 113 0 . . . . .00 0349 349 DIVISION STREET 2346 2029 0 . . . . .00 0350 350 FIR GROVE 4137 3577 1 . . . . .02 0351 351 ALOHA PARK 2274 1803 0 . . . . .00 0352 352 BEAVERTON-CENTER 765 604 0 . . . . .00 0353 353 WALKER ROAD-SOUTH 1681 1460 0 . . . . .00 0354 354 CHEHALEM SCHOOL 3695 3315 0 . . . . .00 0355 355 MEADOW PARK 3002 2607. .'0 . . . . .00 NUMBERED KEY CANVASS Washington County General Election RUN DATE:11/21/08 12:56 PM November 4, 2008 REPORT-EL52 PAGE 0002 TOTAL PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT 01 = REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL 273.237 04 = VOTER TURNOUT TOTAL 87.21 02 = BALLOTS CAST TOTAL 238.284 - 05 = VOTER TURNOUT BLANK .01 03 = BALLOTS CAST BLANK 29 (CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) 01 02 03 04 05 0356 356 ALOHA-WEST 1871 1553 0 . . . . .00 0357 357 HERITAGE PARK 1523 1266 0 . . . . .00 0358 358 SEMINOLE ESTATES 728 656 0 . . . . .00 0359 359 WATERHOUSE 4579 3949 0 . . . . .00 0360 360 PHEASANT LANE 2684 2321 0 . . . . .00 0361 361 MILLIKAN 1692 1399 0 . . . . .00 0362 362 CEDAR HILLS 3519 3175 0 . . . . .00 0363 363 BARNES RD 3052 2733 0 . . . . .00 0364 364 MCDANIEL RD 4062 3711 1 . . . . .02 0365 365 LEAHY RD 3550 3292 2 . . . . .06 0366 366 WEST TUALATIN VIEW 1755 1541 0 . . . . .00 0367 367 THOMPSON RD 3422 3036 0 . . . . .00 0368 368 SOMERSET 3909 3439 0 . . . . .00 0369 369 COLUMBIA AVE 1815 1574 0 . . . . .00 0370 370 ROCK CREEK 2201 1956 0 . . . . .00 0371 371 OAK HILLS 2195 1956 0 . . . . .00 0372 372 RIDGEWOOD SCHOOL 1748 1600 1 . . . . .06 0373 373 CORNELIUS PASS 368 340 0 . . . . .00 0374 374 JACOBSON RD 6 . 6 0 . . . . .00 0375 375 PORTLAND CITY 274 252 0 . . . . .00 0376 376 WESTVIEW 1931 1710 0 . . . . .00 0377 377 BETHANY EAST 2844 2572 0 . . . . .00 0378 378 CANYON LN 1094 1004 0 . . . . .00 0379 379 FALL BLVD 3465 3008 1 . . . . .03 0380 380 HIGHLAND PARK 2276 2052 0 . . . . .00 0381 381 BEAVERTON/CENTER ST 2094 1803 1 . . . . .05 0382 382 GREENWAY 3029 2578 0 . . . . .00 0383 383 BEAVERTON-HILLSDALE 1352 1220 1 . . . . .07 0384 384 GARDEN HOME 2285 2088 1 . . . . .04 0385 385 PORTLAND GOLF CLUB 2904 2633 1 . . . . .03 0386 386 RALEIGH PARK 3398 3121 1 . . . . .03 0387 387 SUNSET CORRIDOR 696 609 0 . . . . .00 0388 388 WHITFORD 205 170 0 . . . . .00 0389 389 SEXTON MOUNTAIN 3711 3302 0 . . . . .00 0390 390 SOUTHRIDGE 3688 3207 0 . . . . .00 0391 391 PORTLAND CITY 323 288 0 . . . . .00 0392 392 PORTLAND CITY COM 2 234 199 0 . . . . .00 0393 393 MONTCLAIR 600 558 0 . . . . .00 0394 394 CORNELIUS EAST 60 49 0 . . . . .00 0395 395 MURRAY HILL 2528 2197 0 . . . . .00 0396 396 DURHAM 747. 660 0 . . . . .00 0397 397 BULL MOUNTAIN 2635 2376 0 . . . . .00 0398 398 COOPER MOUNTAIN 773 710 0 . . . . .00 0399 399 METZGER 2103 1850 1 . . . . .05 0400 400 WASHINGTON SQUARE 2699 2331 0 . . . . .00 0401 401 MAYO STREET 1705 1548 0 . . . . .00 0402 402 TIGARD/WALNUT ST 1006 902 0 . . . . .00 0403 403 TIGARD/GAARDE ST 3795 3420 0 . . . . .00 0404 404 FOWLER SCHOOL 2524 2215 0 . . . . .00 0405 405 TWALITY SCHOOL 4018 3542 0 . . . . .00 0406 406 TIGARD CITY HALL 3107 2625 1 . . . . .03 0407 407 NORTH BARNES 804 726 0 . . . . .00 0408 408 SUMMERFIELD 4511 4072 0 . . . . .00 0409 409 SUMMERLAKE-WEST 2478 2155 ..0 . . . . .00 0410 410 BEEF BEND RD 1870 1678 1 . . . . .05 0411 411 SCHOLLS HEIGHTS 2362 1992 0 . . . . .00 NUMBERED KEY CANVASS Washington County General Election RUN DATE:11/21/08 12:56 PM November 4, 2008 REPORT-EL52 PAGE 0003 TOTAL PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT 01 = REGISTERED VOTERS . TOTAL 273,237 04 = VOTER TURNOUT TOTAL 87.21 02 = BALLOTS CAST TOTAL 238,284 05 = VOTER TURNOUT BLANK .01 03 = BALLOTS CAST BLANK 29 (CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) 01 02 03 04 05 0412 412 COOPER MT SCHOOL 1931 1734 0 . . . . .00 0413 413 FISCHER/PACIFIC HWY 526 437. 0 . . . . .00 0414 414 BARROWS RD 1302 1137 0 . . . . .00 0415 415 BEEF BEND/131ST 418 392 0 . . . . .00 0416 416 SUMMERLAKE-EAST 1654 1476 0 . . . . .00 0417 417 ELDORADO 1322 1156 0 . . . . .00 0418 418 HART ROAD 406 358 0 . . . . .00 0419 419 KING CITY 1668 1560 0 . . . . .00 0420 420 TUALATIN CITY 3208 2868 0 . . . . .00 0421 421 TRI-CITIES 22 24 0 . . . . .00 0422 422 FG NORTH/UNINCORP 124 107 0 . . . . .00 0423 423 TUALATIN-NORTH 2839 2444 1 . . . . .04 0424 424 CENTRAL SHERWOOD CITY 3940 3492 1 . . . . .03 0425 425 SHERWOOD•UNINCORP 673 600 0 . . . . .00 0426 426 GRONER 304 275 0 . . . . .00 0427 427 SCHOLLS 1327 1211 0 . . . . .00 0428 428 TUALATIN-WEST 1296 1108 0 . . . . .00 0429 429 MILLER HILL 1873 1587 0 . . . . .00 0430 430 BALD PEAK 446 396 0 . . . . .00 0431 431 MOUNTAIN HOME 1536 1407 . 0 . . . . .00 OF CO M M/SS 0432 432 WILSONVILLE 259 . 224 . . 0 . . . . .00 ~D 0433 433 ED BYROM SCHOOL 2237 2009 . . 0 . . . . .00 0434 434 ERROL HASSELL 3358 2904 . . 1 . . . . .03 0435 435 SE SHERWOOD CITY 3513 3138 . . 1 . . . . .03 ` 0436 436 TUALATIN CITY 1796 1658 . . 0 . . . . .00 0437 437 HAZELBROOK 53 50 . . 0 . . . . .00 0438 438 SE COUNTY 486 433 . . 0 . . . . .00;x'• 0439 439 PCC 244 . 213 . . 0 . . . . .00 0440 440 HILLSBORO-SOUTH 850 . 731 . . 0 . . . . .00 C 0441 441 PORTLAND CITY SOUTH 70 . 61 . . 0 . . . . .00 0442 442 KEMMER RD 895 . 792 . . 0 . . . . .00 0443 443 MCEWAN RD 2 . . 2 . . 0 . . . . .00 0444 444 SPRINGVILLE 2252 1949 . . 0 . . . . .00 0445 445 SCHOLLS HTS N 639 . 539 . . 0 . . . . .00 0446 446 LOMBARD 1186 1028 . . 0 . . . . .00 0447 447 BETHANY WEST 2246 1988 . . 0 . . . . .00 C {EQ TO 8E A TRIO: Ai Gi~~~sk~A.~. 0448 448 CEDAR HILLS 425 . 347 . . 0 . . .00 06MOT copy OP "H_ 0449 449 CANYON/217 65 . 46 . . 0 . . . . .009 l\ Ia C 0450 450 COOPER MTN-BEAVERTON 0 . . 0 . . 0 . . . . . . 0451 451 GRABHORN 653 . 554 . . 0 . . . . .00 WASHINGTON COU J1 0452 452 JOHNSON/185TH 2748 2246 . 0 . . . . .00 EL.EG NS Drr '1'>;~3y 0453 453 BASELINE/185TH 31 . 26 . 0 . . . . .00 0454 454 BULL MT SPLIT 453 . 379 . 0 . . . . .00 0455 455 S TIGARD/PACIFIC HWY 12 . 12 . 0 . . . . .00 0456 456 FOREST GROVE-NORTH 53 . 47 . 0 . . . . .00 0457 457 NW SHERWOOD CITY 1859 1660 . 0 . . . . .00 0458 458 FOREST GROVE-WEST 2437 2191 . 0 . . . . .00 0459 459 FOREST GROVE-SOUTH 2683 2250 . 0 . .00 Agenda Item # Meeting Date December 16, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title: Authorize the Mayor to Renew the West Nile Virus Intergovernmental Agreement with Washin on Coun City Mgr Approval: Prepared By: Dennis Koellertneier Dept Head Approval: 5 to, ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council authorize the Mayor to renew the West Nile Virus Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends renewing the agreement. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY ■ The City of Tigard and Washington County Department of Health and Human Services have been working together on a West Nile Virus (WNV) response plan since 2003. The plan focuses on education, sampling and treatment. ■ Since the plans inception, WNV has been documented in two dead crows: one found in Hillsboro in 2006, and one found in Beaverton in 2007. These birds were most likely infected by mosquitoes, the primary carrier of WNV. ■ In rare cases it is possible for mosquitoes to infect humans. Such infections can result in severe health problems. ■ In urban areas, sumped catch basins provide the perfect breeding ground for the type of mosquitoes that carry WNV. These catch basins are designed with a small holding pool or sump where water collects. The sump serves to filter out silt, but the resulting stagnant water also creates a place for mosquitoes to breed. ■ In these circumstances, the most effective method of controlling mosquitoes is to apply a slow-release insecticide called a larvicide. Larvicide interrupts the mosquito's life cycle and prevents larvae from maturing into adults. ■ Based on past sampling and monitoring data and the effectiveness of the larvicide, Tigard plans to treat approximately 2,300 City and school district sumped catch basins twice a year beginning in May. ■ This intergovernmental agreement will enable the City of Tigard and Washington County to continue to work cooperatively on WNV monitoring and prevention efforts. The county will furnish the City with the necessary larvicide free of charge, a cost savings of approximately $15,470. ■ If approved, the agreement will be in effect until February 2011. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The City Council could elect not to renew this agreement and could give staff direction on how to proceed with WNV monitoring and prevention. CITY COUNCIL GOALS None ATTACHMENT LIST Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Tigard and Washington County Attachment A - Statement of Work/Schedule/Payment Terms/ Outlining City and County Responsibilities FISCAL NOTES As part of the agreement, Washington County will continue to supply the larvicide to treat Tigard's sumped catch basins. This represents a cost savings of approximately $15,470 per year. The City will use in-house staff and equipment to perform the work. 1 • • INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into, by and between Washington County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, and 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: 01/01/09, or upon final signature, whichever is later. The expiration date is: 01/01/11; 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. cil, 'T -N ~,"d - Juris fiction Signature Date Cr'cU [fir !'s -JY1 Q~j v~ Printed N me Title Address: 13 I aS s~ti ~ N a E( 611) ~ . . - J a " Q k- g7aa-~) WASHINGTON COUNTY: Signature Date Printed Name Title Address: Mail Stop # Hillsboro, OR 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). PAGE 1 - ATTACHMENT A CADaatm®ts and Settings\hrianwU=al Settings\Temporary Internet Film\Contml.outlook\oSYAFu48\ATTACHMENT A-CITIESAm ATTACHMENT A Statement of Work /Schedule/Payment Terms 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. 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 on a schedule agreed upon with the Washington County Mosquito Coordinator. The City will provide the County with monthly reports of areas treated. 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 31 st 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 C:\Documen s and Seni pk.1hy\L-1 Sen ngff-pomry Imemet Files'Comem.Omlook\34URI IPLM~ATTACHMENT CITIES.d. Agenda Item # G Meeting Date December 16, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title: Resolution Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement for Maintenance of the Bridgeport Village Im rovements Prepared By: A. P. Due a Dept Head Okay J 1 City Mgr Okay ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall Council pass a resolution approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation), Washington County, and the City of Tualatin to establish maintenance responsibilities for the construction improvements completed under the Bridgeport Village Project? STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council pass the resolution approving the attached IGA and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement documents. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • The Bridgeport Village Improvements have been completed. The street improvements within the Bridgeport project included work in four jurisdictions: Washington County, the City of Tualatin, the City of Tigard, and ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). • Now that the improvements are completed, an IGA (Intergovernmental Agreement) is needed to clearly delineate maintenance responsibilities for the improved segments of roadway for each of the jurisdictions. • The parties to the IGA are ODOT, Washington County, the City of Tualatin and the City of Tigard. • The proposed IGA (Construction Management/Maintenance Agreement) obligates the City to maintain the portions of the project within the City limits. These involve 72"d Avenue and the signal system on that street at the entrance to the North Park and Ride lot. 72nd Avenue within the City Limits is within City rights-of- way and is under City jurisdiction. The IGA formalizes the obligations for all the jurisdictions involved in the project to ensure that each jurisdiction clearly understands and agrees with the maintenance responsibilities outlined for the improvements that have been completed. • The IGA outlines each jurisdiction's obligations and includes maps cross-hatched to clearly indicate areas of responsibility for each. City staff and the City Attorney have reviewed the IGA and agree with the obligations outlined in the IGA. • The attached resolution approves the IGA and authorizes the City Manager to sign the agreement documents. • The City of Tualatin and Washington County have signed the agreement. The City of Tigard is the last remaining jurisdiction to approve the IGA before it goes to ODOT for signature. Once all signatures have been obtained, the City will receive a signed original. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None COUNCIL GOALS "Pursue opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in Tigard." ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution Approving the IGA with the "Construction Management/Maintenance Agreement" attached as Exhibit A. FISCAL NOTES Because the signal system and road improvements have just been completed, there will be no initial maintenance costs associated with the signal and the improved sections of roadway within the City. However, the City will pay energy costs for the signal system (typically $75 to $100 monthly) and over time will need to keep up the routine maintenance on the street to ensure that the street remains in good condition. is\eng\gus\council agenda summaries\2008\12-16-08 resolution approving an intergovernmental agreement for maintenance of the bridgeport village improvements ais.doc Agenda Item # to Meeting Date December 16, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Amend Franchise Utility Ordinance by Adding a Per Linear Foot-Based Fee Title 15.06 of the Ij d Mungi al Code Prepared By: Loreen Mills Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval.. ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council amend Title 15.06 of the Tigard Municipal Code ('MM) by adding a per linear foot-based fee for the utility's facilities in the right-of-way? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approving the attached ordinance adding a per linear foot-based franchise fee. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • Utility providers are now constructing facilities in the right-of-way but are not providing "service" resulting in gross revenues on which to base a franchise fee. • The intent of the right-of-way usage fee is to ensure that the City receives fair and reasonable compensation for private use of the rights-of-way. • City Council recently adopted a franchise ordinance with a new telecommunications utility provider allowing franchise fee payment based on either(1) a percentage of gross revenues as Title 15.06 of the TMC requires or (2) a per linear foot-based fee, whichever is greater. • Adoption of both rate options in TMC 15.06 will ensure utility providers pay fair and reasonable compensation for their use of the rights-of-way in Tigard. • As background in a recent League of Oregon Cities Utility and Franchise Fee Survey it was found that some cities now charge a per foot fee for access to rights-of-way for companies that have facilities in the right-of- way that do not provide telecom services within the community. • The per foot fee will be set by the Fees and Charges resolution which is updated in June as part of the budget process. In the interim, the City Manager can establish a fee which will be $2.72 per linear foot. • All utility companies are required to obtain permits, including payment of permit fees for all work in the public rights-of-way. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not approve the addition of a per linear foot-based fee. In this case, the City would need to develop new code language to govern the use of public rights-of-way by public utilities that don't earn gross revenues on their facilities in Tigard. CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Ordinance amending TMC 15.06 by adding a per linear foot-based fee. FISCAL NOTES New utility providers will come into Tigard where the per linear foot-based fee may be utilized. This new fee option will allow all utility providers using the rights-of-way in Tigard to pay fair & reasonable compensation for work in Tigard's rights-of-way. Agenda Item # I I Meeting Date December 16, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Approve Standard Utility Franchise Agreement Form Prepared By. Loreen Mills Dept Head Approval: (ecr CityMgr Approval: C ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve a standard utility franchise agreement as identified in Title 15.06 of the Tigard Municipal Code (114p? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approving the attached resolution approving a standard utility franchise agreement form KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • The TMC 15.06.060 allows utility providers to sign a standard utility franchise agreement which Council would approve byresolution. A utility provider can also choose to negotiate a separate utility franchise agreement with the City which requires Council adoption by ordinance. In order to provide a standard utility franchise agreement to utility providers, the Council must approve a standard agreement form • The agreement before Council for approval is substantially the same as the Qwest Communications franchise agreement which was adopted by council on 9/23/08. • The City Attorney has approved this agreement as to form OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not approve the standard agreement. In this case, the City would need to negotiate separate franchise agreements with each utility provider. CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution and standard utility franchise agreement. FISCAL NOTES • Approving a standard agreement form will allow savings of staff time and attorney fees which are required when negotiating a separate agreement with each utility provider.