Loading...
City Council Minutes - 07/16/2002 Agenda Item No. , Meeting of . ./ ; COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 16, 2002 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Mayor Griffith called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. 1.2 Council Present: Mayor Griffith; Councilors Moore, Patton and Scheckla 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items Assistant to the City Manager Liz Newton called to Council's attention the invitation to the Potso Dog Park grand opening to be held on Saturday, July 20, 2002, 11 a.m. The park is located behind Coe Manufacturing Company at 7930 SW Hunziker Road in Tigard. 2. UPDATE ON WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER FINANCING STRATEGY AND PROGRAM Community Development Director Jim Hendryx introduced this agenda item and reviewed a chart showing the timeline for implementation. A copy of the timeline was submitted in the City Council packet material and is on file in the City Recorder's office. Planning Manager Barbara Shields reviewed a chart outlining "Washington Square Regional Center Available Funds and Major Policy Questions." A copy of this chart is on file in the City Recorder's office. Ms. Shields also reviewed the "Steps to take to fill the gap," which included evaluating existing fees, look at potential new fees, and to consider urban renewal. Associate Planner Julia Hajduk reviewed a PowerPoint slide presentation. This presentation on the financing strategy update is on file in the City Recorder's office. Mayor Griffith asked about another major shopping center at the Durham Quarry that is being planned in the Tigard/Tualatin area. He questioned whether there would be COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — July 16, 2002 page 1 any obligation for similar planning as is being done for the Washington Square area. Mr. Hendryx said that, for the most part, the developer would be responsible for this development. Transportation impact fees might be allocated to adjacent roads for the Durham quarry site; however, it is not considered a Metro regional center. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Hendryx advised that the City of Tigard took the lead on the Washington Square Regional Center project. Washington County and Beaverton have an obligation to go through a public process, with the ultimate decision to be made by Metro on whether the compliance for capacity and elements of the functional plan have been met. Council discussion was held throughout the presentation. It was suggested that, while it will be next spring before Washington County and Beaverton holds their hearings on the Center, it would be best for Tigard to keep moving forward developing a financing strategy plan. In August, the City Attorney will conduct a training session for the City Council on urban renewal. Council direction was requested and given as follows: • Do we continue to develop partnerships and take coordination lead to fund the Regional Center Plan? Council consensus was to continue. • General support for financing strategy. Council concurred with the general strategy presented by staff. Some reservations were expressed about urban renewal and this will be reviewed further with the City Attorney in August. Consensus was it was far too early to make any decisions. Staff will bring back a general strategy of what work needs to be accomplished with Beaverton and Washington County and a work program will be developed. • Should we begin looking at existing fees to determine if fees are adequate? The consensus of Council on this question was "yes." New ideas may be generated during the review of the existing fees. Mr. Hendryx said the next steps would include a review of urban renewal at the August workshop meeting. In the coming months, staff will work with Beaverton and Washington County on the funding review. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — July 16, 2002 page 2 In response to a request from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Hendryx said he would share information with the Council on Washington County's review as it is submitted to the Tigard staff. 3. UPDATE ON THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE City Engineer Gus Duenas introduced this agenda item. Also attending were Bev Froude and Paul Owen, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force. Mr. Duenas reviewed the process. So far, input had been gathered from three businesses: PacTrust, Washington Square and Fred Meyer. PacTrust understood the need for maintenance of the City streets and fully supported the implementation of the street maintenance fee. Mr. Jack Reardon of Washington Square properties also understood the need for maintenance of the street infrastructure, but was concerned about the fees. Mr. Reardon felt residents should bear a greater portion with a corresponding reduction on the businesses. As property manager for Washington Square, he could not support fees that would be passed on to the tenants. Representatives of Fred Meyer would prefer this type of fee be addressed on a statewide basis. There are four elements to Tigard's proposed street maintenance fee: 1. Street maintenance 2. Street lights/traffic signals 3. Collector right-of-way maintenance 4. Sidewalk maintenance Mr. Duenas said staff would continue to seek input from the business community. There was a brief Council discussion on other jurisdictions that have either implemented or were considering a street maintenance fee, including Tualatin, Eugene, Wilsonville, and Clackamas County. Ms. Froude said it was interesting to visit with the businesses and to hear their viewpoints. Many of the main roads to these businesses are state highways. Mr. Duenas advised that other cities that have adopted this type of fee have done so by Council action. Staff will also review whether "pass by" trips should be a factor in how the fees are formulated. "Pass by" trips are those not necessarily generated by a business, rather customers stop to purchase gas or fast food on their way to another destination. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — July 16, 2002 page 3 Presently Tigard's proposed maintenance fee would be $2.25 to $2.30 per month. Monthly fees in other jurisdictions range from $1.42 to more than $5. Council discussed that the street maintenance fee could serve to meet the needs of what the gas tax was intended to do. Also, through better street maintenance more expensive capital improvement projects could be delayed. Paul Hunt, citizen from the Summerfield community, asked to comment. Mr. Hunt advised he was offering his opinion as an individual and not as a representative of the Summerfield Civic Association. (A written copy of Mr. Hunt's remarks is on file with the City Recorder.) Mr. Hunt prefaced his comments on the street maintenance program by complimenting the efforts and the strategies employed that resulted in a positive vote on the May library bond measure. He also noted his appreciation for the upgrades to Cook Park including the Bishop Scheckla Pavilion, the Tupling Butterfly Garden, and the children's play area. Mr. Hunt noted the following concerns about the proposed street maintenance fee: 1. He said it appears that the Council decision on a street maintenance fee was delayed until after the May election where voters were asked to consider the library bond measure. He said this type of action does not build trust and confidence in the City and Council. 2. He objected to what he called a "user's fee," when the fee charged will not benefit all the ratepayers equally. Mayor Griffith thanked Mr. Hunt for his comments and noted there will be a public hearing held on the matter. Council consensus was to proceed with a public hearing on August 27. Staff will propose that the fee, if approved, would not be implemented until January 1, 2003. The Task Force recommended that the City Council proceed with all four elements of the street maintenance fee. 4. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None 5. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Not held. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — July 16, 2002 page 4 7. ADJOURNMENT: 8:04 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Reco der � yor, C f Date: - 1:\ADM\CATHY\CCM\020716.DOC COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — July 16, 2002 page 5