The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 03/19/2013 11 1111 , • City of Tigard Tigard Business /Workshop Meeting — Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: March 19, 2013 - 6:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Times noted are estimated. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503 - 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503 - 684 -2772 (IDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503 - 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684 -2772 (1'DD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: http:/ /www.tvctv.org/ government - programming /government- meetings /tigard Workshop meetings are cablecast on Tualatin Valley Community TV as follows: Replay Schedule for Tigard City Council Workshop Meetings - Channel 28 • Every Sunday at 7 a.m. • Every Monday at 1 p.m. • Every Wednesday at 2 p.m. • Every Thursday at 12 p.m. • Every Friday at 3 p.m. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA IN i • City of f Tigard Tigard Business /Workshop Meeting —Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: March 19, 2013 - 6:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 1. BUSINESS MEETING A. Call to Order - City Council B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Council Communications & Liaison Reports E. Call to Council and Staff for Non - Agenda Items 2. PROCLAIM APRIL 1 -6, 2013, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK 3. PROCLAIM MARCH 21, 2013, BRAVE (BREAST RESTORATION ADVOCACY VICTORY EDUCTION) DAY 4. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council) These items are considered routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: • CONSIDER WAIVING SIGN PERMIT FEES FOR TIGARD YOUTH FOOTBALL 5. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION GRANTING EXEMPTION FROM PROPERTY TAXES UNDER TMC 3.50 FOR FIVE NON - PROFIT LOW -INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS 6:40 p.m. estimated time WORKSHOP MEETING 6. REVIEW THE ANNUAL SOLID WASTE AGGREGATE FINANCIAL REPORT AND DISCUSS SOLID WASTE RATE AND FRANCHISE FEE INCREASES 6:50 p.m. estimated time 7. DISCUSSION ON SOCIAL GAMING 7:05 p.m. estimated time 8. RECEIVE TIGARD TRIANGLE PLAN UPDATE 7:50 p.m. estimated time 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 8:10 p.m. estimated time 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss real property transactions under ORS 192.660(2) (e). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 8:20 p.m. estimated time 11. ADJOURNMENT 8:45 p.m. estimated time AIS -1206 2. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 03/19/2013 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Proclaim National Community Development Week Prepared For: Joanne Bengtson Submitted By: Joanne Bengtson, City Management Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Proclamation Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Should the Mayor issue a proclamation in support of Community Development week? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Issue the proclamation. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Tigard supports the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and over the years has benefited from its contributions towards much - needed community improvement projects for the Tigard Senior Center and other infrastructure projects. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Tigard has shown its support for National Community Development Week (April 1 -6, 2013) by issuing an annual proclamation for many years. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Information: none Attachments National Community Development Week Proclamation ` ��,7 „ A , .1 * s y • 1 • Y v. 4 it 4 . r • 0 � H • (/ re 1 7 a,,, City of Tigard '*ii National Community Development Week April 1 — 6, 2013 v WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program was enacted into 1 law by President Gerald Ford, as the centerpiece of the Housing and Community -^ ! Development Act of 1974; and WHEREAS, the CDBG program has successfully demonstrated its ability to help our r •i community provide affordable housing, much - needed public services for economically, .fi��: -, mentally or physically disadvantaged residents, construction /renovation of community 4 , gathering places and reconstruction of city owned infrastructure and completion of - y neighborhood improvements including major sewer, drainage and street projects; and ° ''; WHEREAS, the CDBG program has considerable flexibility to allow communities to carry out ,f s activities that are tailored to their unique affordable housing and neighborhood revitalization J needs; and x , , ,�, WHEREAS, since 1979, the CDBG program has strengthened Tigard's partnership with �' federal, state and local governments and the businesses and nonprofit sector which carry out 'Y.- Nit ' activities that improve the lives and neighborhoods of low and moderate income families; and ' r..' WHEREAS, since the programs' inception, our community has received a total of $3,464,055 :: in CDBG funds and $3,612,537 in HOME funds to provide housing rehabilitation and `F.' revitalization of community facilities and shelters; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard urges Congress and the Administration to recognize the c *_ ` ' outstanding work accomplished with this funding and support both programs with -- ::• C '. increased funding in FY2014; rk NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, John L. Cook, Mayor of the City of Tigard, , Oregon, do hereby proclaim the week of April 1 -6, 2013 as Y V4u NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK � ' i n T ard, Ore on and urge all residents to join in recognizing the important role the ` /r s' Community Development Block Grant & HOME Programs play in serving our community. ■ t „ x Dated this day of , 2013. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the °l City of Tigard to be affixed. kit , „ p„ F.. John L. Cook, Mayor ., ��” ., City of Tigard Attest: City Recorder n AIS -1215 3 Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 03/19/2013 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Proclaim March 21, 2013, as BRAVE (Breast Restoration Advocacy Victory Education) Day Prepared For: Joanne Bengtson Submitted By: Joanne Bengtson, City Management Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Special Meeting Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Should Mayor Cook proclaim March 21 as Breast Restoration Advocacy Victory Education Day in Tigard? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY It is estimated that only 16 percent of breast cancer patients who undergo mastectomy or lumpectomy know that the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act (WHCRA) of 1998 states that if insurance companies pay for mastectomy then by law they must pay for reconstruction to the affected breast and for surgery to make the other breast match. There is no statute of limitations on how long a breast cancer patient has to pursue and complete reconstruction following their cancer surgery. In an effort to raise awareness of women's rights, Dr. Emily Hu and Dr. Elisa Burgess from Legacy Meridian Park Medical Center requested that Mayor Cook consider proclaiming March 21, 2013 to be BRAVE Day in the City of Tigard. In conjunction, a BRAVE Day awareness event will be held at Legacy Meridian Park Medical Center on March 21 from 5:00pm - 7:00pm for community members to learn more about breast reconstruction rights and breast health. OTHER ALTERNATIVES COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the first time this proclamation has been considered. Attachments BRAVE Day Proclamation y4/ :1 ill: i ,. 4 ' 111 (-2 r 4, C t , 7, `.., 110S A ' ' 4 (+1 , /t, Cite of Tigard 4 BRAVE Day v „ ti $Y (Breast Restoration Advocacy Victory Education) ' ' WHEREAS: Approximately 1 in 8 women in the United States will develop breast �`{ ., .4 cancer within her lifetime; and 1 ,,,....-- -. WHEREAS: Breast surgery for treatment of cancer often results in disfigurement that has a significant impact on a woman's self- esteem and well- being; and FY „ WHEREAS: Restoring a breast is an integral part of breast cancer treatment and is of l # I paramount importance in a woman's recovery; and WHEREAS: The Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act (WHCRA) requires group 1'1 z . health plans, insurance companies and health maintenance organizations (HMOs) offering mastectomy coverage to provide women with a notice of these rights when ! they enroll in the health plan; and .4, WHEREAS: Most members of the medical community and community at- large ; :"'" '< advocate that all women with a new diagnosis of breast cancer deserve to know th 1 these rights exist so that they can make educated and thoughtful decisions regarding . ?; , treatment options; and ' WHEREAS: Preparing a comprehensive breast treatment plan prior to implementing I . „it any treatment modalities has an impact on the overall well -being of a patient. rte ';' s, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that I, John L. Cook, Mayor of the City of �� ,1 ifik t" Tigard, Oregon, do hereby proclaim March 21, 2013 as, " 4 • Breast Restoration Advocacy Victory Education Day -, E , in Tigard, Oregon and encourage people throughout the city to learn more about breast reconstruction rights and breast health. 1 4f Dated this day of , 2013 a, i fi x, i 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Tigard to be affixed. , s ca Vii. q John L. Cook, Mayor ;, City of Tigard i:" Attest: lc 4 u._ City Recorder --s , -• _ Y i AIS -1205 4 Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 03/19/2013 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Consider Waiving Sign Permit Fees for Tigard Youth Football Prepared For: Liz Lutz Submitted By: Liz Lutz, Financial and Information Services Consent Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Agenda Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Does the Tigard City Council find benefit to the community of waiving the temporary sign permit fees for Tigard Youth Football to hang seven banners, outweighs the $378 financial hardship to the city? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Consider Resolution waiving $378 of permit fees for Tigard Youth Football. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY On February 15, 2013, Dawn Rachele Holman from Tigard Youth Football e- mailed the city to request a waiver of permit fees charged to hang seven banners (text of email is attached). According to the Master Fees and Charges Schedule, Temporary Sign Permits are $54 per sign. Dawn Rachele is requesting the city waive fees for seven signs totaling a $378 fee waiver. TMC 3.32.070 authorizes council to waive fees for non - profits. The text of the TMC is as follows: "3.32.070 Exemptions. The City Council is authorized to waive or exempt the fee or charge imposed upon an application or for the use of City facilities and services, if a nonprofit organization requests such a waiver in writing and the Council determines that community benefit from the proposed activity outweighs the financial burden on the City. The waiver or exemption shall not excuse the nonprofit organization from compliance with other requirements of this code." Tigard Youth Football is a qualifying non - profit. They have made their request to waive fees in writing. If council determines that the benefit to the community outweighs the loss of $378 in permit fees, then council is authorized to waive the fees. OTHER ALTERNATIVES City Council could deny the request. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Tigard citizens are involved in the community and participate effectively. DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION On February 28, 2012 the City Council passed Resolution 12 -07A, granting a waiver for the Tigard Youth Football for five signs, for a total of $260. We received an additional request to waive the fees for two additional signs on March 20, 2012. Fiscal Impact Cost: NA Budgeted (yes or no): NA Where Budgeted (department /program): NA Additional Fiscal Notes: Waiving the fees will reduce City of Tigard General Fund revenues by $378. Attachments Proposed Resolution Fee Waiver Request February 13, 2013 Toby LaFrance Director of Finance & IS City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. LaFrance and the Tigard City Council, Tigard Youth Football (TYF) is a non- profit organization that allows children in grades 3 -8 the opportunity to play full-pad tackle football and learn 1 essential life skills such as working + t c Y^f together as a team to achieve a , 5 t ° �� common goal and dealing with it Llay . } 0- adversity. We also teach kids to • exhibit excellent sportsmanship and to r N be proud of being a Tigard Tiger! As evidenced by the photo to the right, we also strongly support Breast Cancer Awareness Month during the month of October — one of the few programs to . do so in the Tualatin Valley Youth Football League. Each year, in order to promote participation in TYF, we place registration signs throughout our community. Last year, TYF was awarded exemption from these fees, which allowed the program to provide scholarships to families that can't afford to pay or to buy newer, safer equipment. We are requesting a waiver of the fees associated with posting signs in public places as outlined in TMC 3.32.070. TYF greatly appreciates the Council's consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Dawn Rachele Holman Events Coordinator Tigard Youth Football AIS -1191 5. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 03/19/2013 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Consider a Resolution Granting Exemption from Property Taxes under TMC 3.50 for Five Non -Profit Low - Income Housing Projects Prepared For: Liz Lutz Submitted By: Liz Lutz, Financial and Information Services Council Business Meeting - Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Main Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall five low- income housing projects owned and operated by Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) and one project owned by Hawthorne Urban Development LLC be exempted from City of Tigard property taxation for 2013? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends approval of this resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Tigard Municipal Code 3.50 allows certain organizations providing low- income housing to be exempted from Tigard property taxation upon application by March 1 of each year and a demonstration of compliance with certain criteria listed in the Code. Community Partners for Affordable Housing owns and operates Greenburg Oaks, located at 11875 SW 91st Avenue in Tigard. They also own Village at Washington Square at 11157 -11163 SW Hall Blvd in Tigard, the Knoll at Tigard, 12291 SW Knoll Drive, and a single family house located at 9330 SW Tangela Court in Tigard. Hawthorne Urban Development LLC owns and operates Hawthorne Villa at 7705 SW Pfaffle St. These projects are operated as low- income housing and meet all criteria listed in the Tigard Municipal Code. Community Partners for Affordable Housing submitted four applications for exemption from 2013 property taxes on February 21, 2013, and Hawthorne Urban Development submitted their application on February 25, 2013, which is within the March 1 deadline. These applications were reviewed by staff in the city's Community Development Department and staff determined that the requested tax exemptions are consistent with the applicable Tigard Municipal Code and also the adopted City Housing Policy. The attached resolution gives consent from the City of Tigard for this tax abatement. Under State law, Community Partners for Affordable Housing must receive similar approval from jurisdictions accounting for 51% (or more) of the total property taxes to be levied on these properties. This organization will also make application to the other taxing units. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Do not approve this tax exemption. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS NA DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION NA Fiscal Impact Cost: $42,047 Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where Budgeted (department /program): General Fund Additional Fiscal Notes: The cost of $42,047 is the amount of Property Tax that Tigard will not collect next year by granting the exemption. Attached to the AIS is a table showing the properties and their estimated values and the impact to Tigard. Attachments Council Resolution Greenburg Oaks Tangela Knoll at Tigard Village at Washington Square Hawthorne Villa Fiscal Impact Staff Report -CPAH Staff Report Hawthorne Villa COMMUNITY PARTNERS ,�- . . . 44 W in FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INC. ANIL i PO Box 23206 • Tigard OR 97281 -3206 • Te1:503- 293 -4038 • Fax:503- 293 -4039 • www.cpahinc.org • info @cpahinc.org 0 2 - 21 13A10:51 RCVD City of Tigard Application for Tax Abatement February 20,2013 Greenburg Oaks (formerly Villa La Paz) Apartments 11 875 SW 91st Avenue, Tigard A. Property Description B. Project's Charitable Purpose C. Certification of Resident Income Levels ID How Tax Exemption Will Benefit Residents E. Tax Exempt Status F. Verification of Information G. IRS Letter commitment to 40 years of affordability for those at 50 and 60% of median income guarantees that these apartments will be affordable effectively for the life of the buildings. CPAH maintains active partnerships with the Tigard Police Department, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Tigard Libraries, and the Tigard School District to enhance the safety and quality of life for residents and to be sure that our programs are well- coordinated with other community resources. Partnerships with Community Action, Good Neighbor Center, Luke -Dorf, HopeSpring, Neighborhood House, Lifeworks NW and other organizations to provide information and referral as well as emergency services like food boxes and rent and utility assistance. Coordination agreements with these agencies enhances ongoing case management and has provided a fresh start to many families facing significant barriers to moving from homelessness to permanent housing. Several families each year are being reunited with their children as a result of receiving a housing opportunity at Greenburg Oaks. Three of the apartments are reserved for low income families with at least one member in active recovery from alcohol or drug addiction. The Community Center at Greenburg Oaks is the focal point for support, skill building, and community building activities offered by CPAH through its resident services program which includes after- school and summer youth programs as well as the annual winter coat distribution and holiday event. CPAH's on -site computer learning center is used by youth for homework, research, e-mail, and educational games; and by adults for job search activities and Internet access. The Tigard Library has twice obtained grant resources to purchase children's material for our on- site library. CPAH offers a variety of adult services as well. These include classes in support of parenting skills, budgeting and other financial literacy skills, and nutritional shopping and cooking. The Community Center is also host to a number of general community activities including rent readiness courses, HopeSpring parenting classes, financial literacy classes, parenting safety skills and budget and nutrition classes. The Community Center hosts weekly meetings for AA, NA, and Alanon groups. Food distributions are also held in the Community Center for both the residents at Greenburg Oaks and others in the Tigard community. C. Certification of Resident income Levels Resident income levels are verified upon application for tenancy and are recertified each year. CPAH has covenants with the state and with Washington County to use the property exclusively for low income rentals for a period of at least 40 years. These covenants require that all households have earnings at or below 60% of the area median income. Some units are restricted to households earning at or below 50 %. Compliance with these covenants is monitored by the State of Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services and by theWashington County Office of Community Development. We certify that all apartments in this property are targeted to and remain affordable to households earning at or below 60% of the Area Median Income. D. How Tax Exemption Will Benefit Residents 100% of the property tax exemption is a direct subsidy for the residents. Every dollar reduction in operating costs is passed on as a reduction in the scheduled rents. Some costs, such as the cost of operating our youth programs, must be funded from outside sources mostly through fund raising. Without property tax abatement, we would have to shift some of our fundraising efforts from developing sources for these programs and use them instead to cover basic operations. APPLICATION FOR TAX ABATEMENT PAGE 3 OF 4 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY DISTRICT DIRECTOR P. O. BOX 2508 CINCINNATI, OH 45201 Date: Employer Identification Number: !i 93- 1155559 AFAR r 1 W4 DLN: 17053030720009 COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE • Contact Person: HOUSING • THOMAS E o'BRXEN ID# 31187 PO BOX 23206 Contact Telephone Number: TIGARD, OR 97281 -3206 (877) 829 -5500 Our Letter Dated: February 1995 Addendum Applies: {? No • Dear Applicant: • • I This modifies our letter of the above date in which we stated that you would be treated as an organization that is not a private foundation until the expiration of your advance ruling period. Your exempt status under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) is still in effect. Based on the information you submitted, we have determined that you are not a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Code because you are an . organization of the type described in section 509(a) (1) and 170(b) (1•) (A) (vi)'. Grantors and contributors may rely on this determination unless the Internal Revenue Service publishes notice to the contrary. However, if you lose your section 509(a)(1) status, a grantor or contributor may not"rely on this determination if he or she was in part responsible for, or was aware of, the act or failure to•act, or the substantial or material change•on the.part of the organization, that resulted in your loss of such status, or if he•or she acquired knowledge that the Internal Revenue Service had given notice that you would no longer be classified as aysection 509(a)(11 organization. • If we have indicated in the heading of this letter that an addendum applies, the addendum enclosed is an integral part of this letter. Because this letter could help resolve any questions about.your private foundation status, please keep it in your permanent records. If you have any questions, please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown above. Sincerely yours, 6 A.,a District Director Letter 1050 (DO /CG) COMMUNITY PARTNERS . ,i bwe. Witt FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INC. MIX a PO B ox 23206 • Tigard OR 97281 -3206 • Te1:503.968.2724 • Fax:503.598.8923 • www.cpahinc.org • info@opahInc.org City of Tigard 02- 21- 13A1 RCVD Application for Tax Abatement February 20, 2013 Tangela Single Family Rental Home 9330 SW Tangela A. Property Description B. Project's Charitable Purpose C. Certification of Resident Income Levels D. How Tax Exemption Will Benefit Residents E. Tax Exempt Status F. Verification of Information G. IRS Letter C. Certification of Resident Income Levels Resident income level is verified upon application, and must be less than 60% of the area's median income. Income is recertified annually. We certify that all residents served by this property earned at or below 60% of the AML D. How Tax Exemption Will Benefit Residents 100% of the property tax exemption is passed on as a direct subsidy for the residents. Every dollar reduction in operating costs results in a reduction in the scheduled rents. Some costs, such as the cost of operating our youth programs, must be funded from outside sources. Without property tax abatement, we would have to shift some of our fundraising efforts from developing sources for these programs and use them instead to cover basic operations. It can be argued that using property tax revenues to subsidize well managed affordable housing units results in a net savings of public resources. Fewer and less -severe police calls, healthier students, and stably housed social service consumers, all provide a direct reduction in the demand for government funded services. E. Tax Exempt Status CPAH is direct owner of the Tangela property and is a nonprofit 501(cX3) organization. Our operations are audited annually to, among other things, confirm that we are in compliance with our charitable status and with requirements of the County grant and Washington Mutual loan documents. Verification of Information I hereby certify that the information in this application for tax abatement is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. Income Property Management Company performs day - to-day management of the property and is responsible for certifying income levels of each resident for compliance with program guidelines. A 2_0 t3. Sheila I . ( aw -Fink, Executive Director Date APPLICATION FOR TAX ABATEMENT PAGE 3 OF 3 6 • INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DEPARTMENT OED THE TREASURY DISTRICT DIRECTOR • P. O. BOX 2508 CINCINNATI, OR 45201 Date: Employer Identification Numbers 93- 1155559 MAR i 9 DLN: • COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE Contact 3PPerson:: HOUSING THOMAS E O' BRIEN ID# 31187 PO BOX 23206 Contact Telephone Number: TIGARD, OR 97281 -3206 (877) 829 -5500 Our Letter Dated: • February 1995 Addendum Applies :' No Dear Applicant: This modifies our letter of the above date in which we stated that you would be treated as an organization that is not a private foundation until the . expiration of your advance ruling period. i Your exempt status under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) is still in effect. Based on the information you submitted, we have determined that you are not a private • foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Code because you are an . organization of the type described in section 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). Grantors and contributors may rely on this determination unless the Internal Revenue Service publishes notice to the contrary. However, if You lose your section 509(a)(1) status, a grantor or contributor may not'rely on . this determination if he or she was in part responsible for, or was aware of, the act or failure to'act, or the substantial or material change'on the.part of • the organization. that resulted in your loss of such status, or if he she acquired knowledge that the Internal Revenue Service had given notice that you would no longer be classified as a.•section 509(a)(1) organization. • If we have indicated in the heading of this letter that an addendum applies, the addendum enclosed is an integral part of this letter. Because this letter could help resolve any questions about.your private foundation status, please keep it in your permanent records. If you have any questions, •please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown above. Sincerely yours, 1 2LV J • District Director • • Letter 1050 (DD /CG) City of Tigard Applicat for Tax Abatement Febivary20, 2013 The Knoll @ Tigard J2-21-13 A10:51 R C V IJ 12291 SW Knoll Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 A. Property Description B. Project's Charitable Purpose C. Certification of Resident Income Levels D. How Tax Exemption Will Benefit Residents E. Tax Exempt Status F. Verification of Information G. IRS Letter PAGE 1 OF 3 D. How Tax Exemption Will Benefit Residents The property tax exemption is a direct savings for the residents, allowing for reduced operating costs which results in affordable reduced rents for the seniors at The Knoll. For both the initial development, and long term operations of the project, full tax abatement is essential. The project pro forma allowed for the construction of The Knoll which meets all City and State design requirements along with affordable rents for our seniors. The Knoll includes financing through Washington County HOME and CDBG funds, State of Oregon Trust Fund and Tax Credits. JP Morgan Chase is the private lender with Enterprise Neighborhood Partners as the investor (under the tax credit program). Tax abatement was critical in meeting lender and investor requirements while keeping rents affordable for The Knoll @ Tigard. Tax abatement is a direct benefit to senior residents who will pay lower rents. Tax abatement is key to the long -term sustainability of the project operating with affordable rents for seniors. E. Tax Exempt Status CPAH, an Oregon non - profit, is the general partner of The Knoll @ Tigard Limited Partnership, a single asset entity. CPAH's IRS Determination Letter is attached. CPAH undergoes full audit of its books annually, as will The Knoll @ Tigard. Mark Schwing of Markusen & Schwing in Beaverton currently provides audit services for CPAH and CPAH's single asset properties. The State of Oregon Housing and Community Services Department and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development both will inspect and audit the project annually. The tax credit investor (Limited Partner) also monitors and inspects the project. F. Verification of Information As CPAH's executive director, I hereby certify that the information in this application for tax abatement is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. Income Property Management acts as the property management agent providing the day - to-day management of the property and is responsible for certifying income levels of each resident for compliance with program guidelines. . Sheila Greenlaw Fink, CPAH Executive Director Date: 'Z /2..of r 3 PAGE 3 OF 3 • • y INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE • DEPARTMENT OF THE TRFsA,S'URY DISTRICT DIRECTOR P. 0. BOX 2508 • . CINCINNATI, OE 45201 • • f Date: Employer Identification Number: 93- 1155559 MR ) DLN: COMKUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE Contact3Persou�: HOUSING THOMAS E O'BRIEN ID# 31187 PO BOX 23206 Contact Telephone Number: TIGARD, OR 97281 -3206 (877) 829 -5500 Our Letter Dated: • • ' • February 1995 Addendum Applies: No • • Dear Applicant: • This modifies our letter of the above date in which we stated that you • would be heated as an organization that is not a private foundation until the . expiration of your advance ruling period. Your exempt status under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as an Organization described in section 501(c)(3) is still in effect. Based on the : information you submitted, we have determined that you are not a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Code because you are an organization of the type described in section 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)'. Grantors and contributors may rely on this determination unless the Internal Revenue Service publishes notice to the contrary. However, if you lose your section 509(a)(1.) status, a grantor or contributor may not rely on • this determination if he or she was in part responsible for, or was aware of the act or failure to' act, or the substantial or material change 'on the .part of the organization. that resulted in your. loss of such status, or if he•or she' acquired knowledge that the Internal Revenue Service had given notice that you .would no longer be classified as q..section 509(a)(1) organization. • If we have indicated in:the heading of this letter that an addendum applies, the addendum enclosed is an integral part of this letter. Because this letter could help resolve any questions about.your private foundation status, please keep it in your permanent records. If you have any questions, /lease contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown above. Sincerely yours, • (f 146e e rfli A11 District Director • • Letter 1050 (Do /CG) • COMMUNITY PARTNERS ;, 111.1104 FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INC. 40 PO Box 23206 • Tigard OR 97281 -3206 • Tei :503:293 -4038 • Fax :503 - 293 -4039• www.cpahinc.org • infa@cpahinc.org City of Tigard 02 21- 13A10:51 Fzcvo Appication forTax Abatement February 20, 2013 Village at Washington Square 11157 -11163 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard A. Property Description B. Project's Charitable Purpose C. Certification of Resident Income Levels D. How Tax Exemption Will Benefit Residents E. Tax Exempt Status F. Verification of Information G. IRS Letter second highest concentration of children under 9 of the eight census tracts in Tigard. While this area represents 9% of Tigard's population, it is home to nearly 16% of the city's minority households. C. Certification of Resident Income Levels Resident income levels are verified upon application for tenancy. Residents may remain in their units as long as they income qualify at entry. Rents are well below the market for the area. We certify that all apartments in this project are targeted to and remain affordable to households earning at or below 60% of the AMI. Compliance with income restriction requirements is audited annually by the State of Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services, Washington County Office of Community Development, and by our limited partner investor, Key Bank. D. How Tax Exemption Will Benefit Residents 100% of the property tax exemption is a direct subsidy for the residents. Every dollar reduction in operating costs is passed on as a reduction in the scheduled rents. Some costs, such as the cost of operating our youth programs, must_be funded from outside sources. Without property tax abatement, we would have to shift some of our fundraising efforts from developing sources for these programs and use them instead to cover basic operations. It can be argued that using property tax revenues to subsidize well managed affordable housing units results in a net savings of public resources. Fewer and less- severe police calls, healthier students, and stably housed social service consumers, all provide a direct reduction in the demand for government funded services. E. Tax Exempt Status CPAII is the general partner of the Village at Washington Square Limited Partnership, a single entity asset. CPAH's IRS Determination Letter is attached. CPAH undergoes full audit of its books annually, as does the Village at Washington Square. The State of Oregon Housing and Community Services Department and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development review the project and resident files annually. F. Verification of Information I hereby certify that the information in this application for tax abatement is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. Income Property Management Company performs day - to-day management of the property and is responsible for certifying income levels of each resident for compliance with program guidelines. 2 • t3 Sheila aw -Fink, Executive Director Date APPLICATION FOR TAX ABATEMENT PAGE 3 OF 3 • INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DISTRICT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY P. O. BOX 2508 CINCINNATI, OH 45201 • Date: Employer Identification Number: 93- 1155559 Ha DLN: 17053030720009 COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE Contact Person: HOUSING THOMAS E O'BRIEN fl* 31187 PO BOX 23206 Contact Telephone Numbers TIGARD, OR 97281 -3206 (877) 829 -5500 Our Letter Dated: February 1995 Addendum Applies: No • Dear Applicant: — • This modifies our letter of the above date in which we stated that you would be treated as an organization that is not a private foundation until the • expiration of your advance ruling period. Your exempt status under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as as organization described in section 501(c)(3) is still in effect. Based on the - information you submitted, we have determined that you are not a private • foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Code because you are an . organization of the type described in section 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)'. Grantors and contributors may rely on this determination unless the Internal Revenue Service publishes notice to the contrary. However, if you lose your section 509(a)(1) status, a grantor or contributor may not rely on . this determination if be or she was in part responsible for, or was aware of, the act or failure to' act, or the substantial or material change 'on the .part of ' the organization that resulted in your . loss of such status, or if he•or she acquired knowledge that the Internal Revenue Service had given notice that you would no longer be classified as A: section 509(a)(1) organization. If we have indicated in the heading of this letter that an addendum applies, the addendum enclosed is an integral part of this letter. Because this letter could help resolve any questions about.your private foundation status, please keep it in your permanent records. If you have any questions, please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown above. • Sincerely yours, District Director • • Letter 1050 (DO /Ca) Cascade 13221 SW 68th Parkway, Suite 310 Portland OR 97223 ;• Y 0 Management, Inc. p 503 682 7788 I f 503 682 5656 I "MD 711 February 22, 2013 Toby LaFrance, Finance Director City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 SENT VIA EMAIL ELECTRONIC PDF to: lizbeth@tigard-or.gov Dear Toby LaFrance: Please find the attached application for tax abatement for Hawthorne Villa Apartments, located at 7705 SW Pfeifle St. in Tigard. Enclosed in this packet is the application itself and attachments including ownership and lease documents, Oregon Housing and Community Services Project Restrictions and evidence of the 501(c)3 designation for the non - profit partner Accessible Living, Inc. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Dave Bachman President and CEO Consultant and Management Agent to Hawthorne Villa Cc: Liz Lutz at lizbeth @tgard- or.gov — City of Tigard Marissa Daniels Cascade Management, Inc., does not discriminate nn the basis of handicapped status in the admission ® or access to or treatment or employment in, its 1L nroerarnc and arlivirlec. Thn Cnnnnlienre Mier, It ACCESSIBLE LIVING INC. 6160 SW Main Avenue Beaverton Oregon, 97008 City of Tigard Aolication for Tax Abatement February 15, 2013 Hawthorne Villa Apartments Address here: A. Property Description B. Projects Charitable Purpose C. Certification of Residents Income Levels D. How Tax Exemption Will Benefit Residents E. Tax Exempt Status F. Verification of Information G. Attachments (List) A. Property Description Hawthorne Villa Apartments, (Tax account # R282429, is located at 7705 SW Pfaffle St, Tigard OR 97223 just off of Pacific Highway in Tigard Oregon. The site sits on 4.76 acres and provides 119 units of affordable housing for low- income residents of Tigard. The property includes 8 apartment buildings and a house that contains the manager's unit and office. The property has 30 studios, 84 -1 bedroom and 5 - 2 bedroom units. The project was purchased by Hawthorne Urban Development LLC in September of 2011 for the purpose of maintaining affordability of Hawthorne Villa, Improving its' accommodations to a sustainable and thriving community and re- establishing resident service activities through a non - profit partnership. The project has received private financing totaling $2.45 million. An additional $1,008,300 of additional financing is secured to complete project renovations. This is based on the Owner's commitment to deliver quality affordable housing in the City of Tigard. Over $445,000 of renovations are complete to the project exterior and the project is currently 40% complete on $563,300 on project interior unit improvements. No tenant relocation has been necessary or is planned to complete the improvements. Hawthorne Exterior Improvements (Completed) —Total $445,000 Siding repaired all buildings Painting all buildings All Buildings Re- Roofed Asphalt Paving Parking Lot Landscape Improvements for entire site Deck /Railing replacements and improvements New Fencing Renovated Existing Office Building Hawthorne Interior Improvements (40% complete) Units - 119 Fully renovate 5 interior units (Completed) Interior Water Meter @ $750 per units $ 88,500 Replace appliances $ 118,000 interior painting @ $600 per units $ 70,800 Replace interior carpet and vinyl @1200 $ 141,600 Replace interior in exterior door $1200 per unit $ 94,400 Contingency $ 50,000 The project is close to transportation and retail. Employment proximity is also excellent to many entry level service jobs, including many stores, banks or restaurants along Pacific Highway in Tigard. Many of the existing residents at Hawthorne Villa work within walking distance of the property. Legal Description: See Attached as part of Oregon Affordable Housing Commitment Documents GENERAL INFORMATION Name: Hawthorne Villa Apartments Property Type: Multi - Family (Garden /Low Rise) LIHTC Apartments Address: 7705 SW Pfaffle Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Assessor's Parcel #: R282429 Census Tract No.: 306.00 Site Description: USABLE AREA EXCESS AREA SURPLUS AREA GROSS AREA SF ACRES SF ACRES SF ACRES SF ACRES 207,346 4.76 0 0.00 0 0.00 207,346 4.76 Zoning: Medium - Density Residential (R -12) Improvement Description: No. of Total Buildings: 9 (8 one and two -story apartment buildings and 1 single - family home that is used as a leasing office and manager's unit). Number of Units: 118 Amenities: Laundry rooms, storage units, and leasing office. Several landscaped courtyards on the property. The property has 30 studios, 84 -1 bedroom and 5 - 2 bedroom units. B. Project's Charitable Purpose Accessible Living Inc.'s mission is to provide low- cost housing which meets the specialized needs of seniors and disabled persons and their families and to promote the public's awareness of the plight of disabled persons to obtain low - cost accessible housing. ALI's involvement in Hawthorne Villa will be to provide support to residents in obtaining and retaining affordable housing through the delivery of resident services. ALI will work to identify the needs of Hawthorne Villa residents and work with the residents and property management to support residents in connecting with community programs and services to address those needs, including access to emergency services such as local food programs, utility assistance, eviction prevention and services for individuals and families struggling with addiction, mental health issues and other disabilities. ALI has developed and will continue to develop partnerships with organizations such as the Oregon Food Bank, Luke- Dorf (draft MOU already established), Lifeworks NW, Community Action, Hope Spring, and other community organizations to provide resource and referral. Where appropriate ALI will develop MOU's and release of information with residents, property management and community partners to better coordinate services and housing and to avoid tenant eviction. All will partner with Housing Independence, a non - profit service provider for individuals with specia needs including seniors, individuals with physical and developmental disabilities, veterans and other underserved special needs populations that may need support in obtaining and retaining housing. The project has developed a current budget and commitment of $30,000 per year to sustain service delivery to residents. The services budget and delivery will be the sole and direct responsibility of ALI. C. Certification of Resident Income Levels Resident income levels are verified upon application. Hawthorne Villa currently has an extended use agreement with Oregon Housing and Community Services that will restrict the property be exclusively used for low income rentals until January 1, 2025. These covenants require that all households have earnings at or below 60% of the area median income. Currently the property income demographics demonstrate the need for continued affordability and a service commitment. We certify that all apartments in this property are currently rented to and will remain affordable to households earning at or below 60% of the area median income until January 1, 2025. D. How tax exemption will benefit residents 100% of the property tax exemption is a direct subsidy that benefits residents. Every dollar in tax reduction is passed on in scheduled rents and in the delivery of resident services programs. Without this funding Hawthorne Villa would not be able to retain its current affordability (below the 60% restriction). The tax exemption also allows for a $30,000 per year services budget to offer much needed services that supports residents in obtaining and retaining their housing, including connecting them with emergency services for eviction prevention. It can be argued that using property tax revenues to subsidize well managed affordable housing unit's results in a net savings of public resources. Fewer and less- severe police calls, healthier residents and stably housed social service consumers, all provide a direct reduction in the demand for government funded services. E. Tax exempt status Hawthorne Urband Development is the Owner (Landlord) who has entered into a lease agreement with Hawthorne Villa General Partnership (Tenant). All is a General Partner to Hawthorne Villa General Partnership who is responsible for day to day operation of the project. Hawthorne Villa General Partnership has a leasehold interest in Hawthorne Villa through the lease (attached). F. Verification of Information I hereby certify that the information for this tax abatement application is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. Cascade Property Management performs the day to day management of the property and is responsible for certifying income levels of each resident for compliance with program guidelines. K n Voiss, Executive Director Date Accessible Living, Inc. General Partner of Tenant (Hawthorne Villa GP) G. Attachments OHCS Low Income Housing Commitments and Assignment Lease to Hawthorne Villa General Partnership Hawthorne Villa General Partnership Agreement Accessible Living Inc, 501c(3) evidence AIS- Fiscal Impact of Tax Abatement Property Estimated City of Tigard City of Tigard Total Tax Rate Total Market Tax Rate Property Tax Property Value* (Including Bond Impact Tax Impact Levy) (Estimated) Village at $1,749,890 $2.9659/$1,000 $5,190 $16.5961 /$1,000 $29,041 Washington Square Single Family $201,500 $2.9659/$1,000 $568 $16.5961/$1,000 $3,344 Home — 9330 SW Tangela Ct. Greenburg $4,583,650 $2.9659/$1,000 $13,595 $16.5961 /$1,000 $76,071 Oaks The Knoll @ $3,063,260 $2.9659/$1,000 $9,085 $16.5961/$1,000 $50,838 Tigard Hawthorne $4,588,410 $2.9659/$1,000 $13,609 $16.5961/$1,000 $76,150 Villa Total Impact $42,047 $235,444 * Because these properties have been exempted from property taxation in the past, Washington County does not show a current assessed value. These figures are an updated market value. II I City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: Toby LaFrance, Finance and Information Services Director From: Marissa Daniels, Associate Planner Re: CPAH 2013 Applications for Tax Exemption Date: February 28, 2013 The Tigard -based Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) has submitted separate applications for low- income housing tax exemptions for each of the four properties it owns and manages inside the city. The four include the 26 -unit Village at Washington Square, the 84 -unit Greenburg Oaks, the 48 -unit Knoll at Tigard senior housing project, and a four- bedroom single family house located two blocks from the Greenburg Oaks units at 9330 SW Tangela Court. TMC 3.50.020, "Nonprofit corporation low income housing; exempt criteria," provides standards for considering exemption requests. Whether and how the CPAH applications meet each of these standards is detailed below. 1. The property is owned or being purchased by a corporation that is exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c) (3) or (4) of the Internal Revenue Code... A copy of an Internal Revenue Service letter, dated March 11, 1999, verifies that CPAH qualifies as a 501(c) organization. 2. Upon liquidation, the assets of the corporation are required to be applied first in payment of all outstanding obligations, and the balance remaining, in cash and in kind, to be distributed to corporations exempt from taxation and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes or to the State of Oregon. The list of submittal requirements under TMC 3.50.040 does not include any reference to information on asset liquidation, and the CPAH applications do not contain any such information. The director, Sheila Greenlaw -Fink, verbally has confirmed to staff that the organization's incorporation papers do, indeed, include a provision of this kind. 3. The property is occupied by low income persons. The TMC defines low income as household income at or below 60% of area median. According to the CPAH submittals, in the case of all four of its projects, tenant income is verified upon application and is re- certified on an annual basis. Household income at, or below, 60% of median is the cut -off for continued eligibility. Within each of its applications, CPAH certifies that all residents served by the four properties in question earn at, or below, the 60% level. 4. The property or portion of the property receiving the exemption is actually and exclusively used for the purposes described in Section 501 (c) (3) or (4) of the Internal Revenue Code .. . The applications certify that all the property is exclusively used for the intended purposes. 5. The exemption has been approved as provided in Section 3.50.050 This criterion relates to the required city process for handling exemption requests. Section 3.50.050 states the city will determine eligibility for exemption (as is detailed in this report) and send notice of the determination to the County Assessor. Conclusion: CPAH -owned properties have qualified for tax exemption every year since 1996. According to the applications submitted for FY 13/14 exemption, no changes in circumstances have occurred that would disqualify the non -profit housing provider from continuing to receive the exemption. The "Affordable Housing Program," adopted in September 2002 as "a complete and official statement of the City's overall affordable housing program," includes tax exemption as one of the city's strategies for facilitating affordable housing in the community. The exemption's purpose is to allow the operators of low - income housing to decrease annual operating expenses, thereby allowing them to serve lower - income households. According to the CPAH applications, if granted, 100% of the property tax exemptions would continue to be passed on as a direct subsidy for its residents. Therefore, granting the exemptions to CPAH would be consistent with the applicable TMC standards and also with adopted city housing policies. 1111 e City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: Toby LaFrance, Finance and Information Services Director From: Marissa Daniels, Associate Planner Re: Hawthorne Villa 2013 Applications for Tax Exemption Date: February 28, 2013 The Beaverton -based Accessible Living Inc. (ALI) has submitted an application for a city low - income housing tax exemption for the 119 -unit Hawthorne Villa, located at 7705 SW Pfaff le Street in the incorporated Metzger area. TMC 3.50.020, "Nonprofit corporation low income housing; exempt criteria," provides standards for considering exemption requests. Whether and how the ALI application meets each of these standards is detailed below. 1. The property is owned or being purchased by a corporation that is exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c) (3) or (4) of the Internal Revenue Code .. . Accessible Living Inc., as part of Hawthorne Villa General Partnership, asserts their eligibility for the exemption under TMC section 3.50.020(B) which reads: B. For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, a corporation that has only a leasehold interest in property is deemed to be a purchaser of that property if: 1. The corporation is obligated under the terms of the lease to pay the ad valorem taxes on the real and personal property used in this activity on that property; or 2. The rent payable by the corporation has been established to reflect the savings resulting from the exemption from taxation. The ALI application reads in Section E: Tax Exempt Status that "Hawthorne Urban Development is the Owner (Landlord) who has entered into a lease agreement with Hawthorne Villa General Partnership (Tenant)... Hawthorne Villa General Partnership has a leasehold interest in Hawthorne Villa through the lease (attached)." As evidenced in the lease submitted by ALI, Hawthorne Villa General Partnership qualifies for the exemption under section (2) above. According to Section 4.1.1 of the lease, "the parties agree to Base Rent based on the Gross Rent less Tennant Expenses and agree that the tax savings resulting from the exemption are reflected in the Base Rent in light of the Rent Gap." ALI has applied for the tax exemption under TMC Section 3.50.020(C) which reads: C. A partnership shall be treated the same as a corporation to which this section applies if the corporation is: 1. A general partner of the partnership; and 2. Responsible for the day to day operation of the property that is the subject of the exemption (Ord. 96 -34). The ALI application asserts in Section E: Tax Exempt Status that "ALI is a General Partner to Hawthorne Villa General Partnership who is responsible for day to day operation of the project." A copy of an Internal Revenue Service letter, dated February 24, 1993, verifies that ALI qualifies as a 501(c) organization. 2. Upon liquidation, the assets of the corporation are required to be applied first in payment of all outstanding obligations, and the balance remaining, in cash and in kind, to be distributed to corporations exempt from taxation and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes or to the State of Oregon. The list of submittal requirements under TMC 3.50.040 does not include any reference to information on asset liquidation, and the ALI application does not contain any such information. The director, Karen Voiss, verbally has confirmed to staff that the organization's incorporation papers do, indeed, include a provision of this kind. 3. The property is occupied by low income persons. The TMC defines low income as household income at or below 60% of area median. According to the ALI application, tenant income is verified upon application. Hawthorne Villa has an extended use agreement with Oregon Housing and Community Services restricting the property to exclusive use for low income rentals until January 1, 2025. ALI certifies that all apartments in this property are currently rented to and will remain affordable to households earning at or below 60% of the area median income until January 1, 2025. 4. The property or portion of the property receiving the exemption is actually and exclusively used for the purposes described in Section 501 (c) (3) or (4) of the Internal Revenue Code .. . The applications certify that all the property is exclusively used for the intended purposes. 5. The exemption has been approved as provided in Section 3.50.050 This criterion relates to the required city process for handling exemption requests. Section 3.50.050 states the city will determine eligibility for exemption (as is detailed in this report) and send notice of the determination to the County Assessor. Conclusion: This is the second year that ALI, as a general partner in Hawthorne Villa General Partnership, has applied to the city for a tax exemption. This site previously received city tax exemption through Tualatin Valley Housing Partners (TVHP) until 2010 when the property reverted to bank ownership and no longer qualified for the exemption. The current request appears to meet all of the qualifying criteria established in TMC 3.50.020. The "Affordable Housing Program," adopted in September 2002 as "a complete and official statement of the City's overall affordable housing program," includes tax exemption as one of the city's strategies for facilitating affordable housing in the community. The exemption's purpose is to allow the operators of low- income housing to decrease annual operating expenses, thereby allowing them to serve lower - income households. According to ALI's application, if the exemption is granted, 100% will be passed on as a direct subsidy for its residents. Therefore, granting the exemptions to ALI would be consistent with the applicable TMC standards, and also with adopted city housing policies. In addition, ALI's application states that the tax exemption allows for a $30,000 per year services budget. ALI estimates that these onsite services will result in a net savings of public resources, including a decreased demand for police, fire and other government funded services. This assertion is consistent with best practices within the affordable housing arena. AIS -1185 6 • Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 03/19/2013 Length (in minutes): 15 Minutes Agenda Title: Review the Annual Solid Waste Aggregate Financial Report and Discuss Solid Waste Rate and Franchise Fee Increases Prepared For: Michelle Wright Submitted By: Greer Gaston, Public Works Council Workshop Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Mtg. Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE The council is asked to: • Review 2012 Annual Solid Waste Aggregate Financial Report. • Discuss solid waste rate and franchise fee increases. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST No action is requested at this meeting; the council will be asked to formally consider rate and franchise fee increases at a future meeting. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard has two franchised solid waste haulers, Pride Disposal Company and Waste Management Incorporated. Every March these haulers provide the city with financial reports for the preceding calendar year as required by Tigard Municipal Code 11.04.090. Staff then reviews the reports in accordance with the Annual Haulers' Financial Report Review Procedure found in Resolution No. 01 -54 -A (attached). This resolution: • Sets an aggregate target profit rate of 10 percent annually for the solid waste haulers. • Automatically triggers a solid waste rate adjustment when the aggregate profit rate falls below 8 percent or exceeds 12 percent. The aggregate profit rate for 2012 was 4.22 percent. Since the aggregate profit rate falls below 8 percent, rates will need to be increased. The Tigard Municipal Code and Resolution No. 01 -54 -A dictate that rates are based on a cost of service model. The city retained Bell & Associates, an accounting firm with expertise in the solid waste industry, to review the cost of service by customer class. The review is attached as the 2012 Reported Results General Recommendations for Solid Waste Rate Increases; it identified some interclass subsidies. Namely, commercial customers are subsidizing drop boxes and residential customers as follows: Line of Business I Residential I Commercial II Drop Box I Composite Revenue II 3,626,880 II 3,373,056 I 2,256,750 I 9,256,686 Expense I 3,484,198 I 3,076,002 I 2,305,427 I 8,865,627 I Income I 142,682 II 297,054 I - 48,677 II 391,059 I Operating Margin II 3.93% II 8.81% II - 2.16% II 4.22% Bell & Associates is in the process of developing a rate increase proposal based on the cost of service model. General recommendations for solid waste rate increases are included in the attached review, entitled2012 Reported Results General Recommendations for Solid Waste Rate Increases. Solid waste rates were last increased in 2006. In addition, during Budget Committee meetings to approve the current fiscal year 2012 -2013 budget, the committee reviewed franchise fees. The Budget Committee instructed staff to bring a franchise fee increase of 1 percent to council the next time solid waste rates are adjusted. The increase would bring the fee up to 5 percent, creating equity by setting all franchise fees at the same 5- percent level. During Budget Committee discussions, it was estimated that the franchise fee increase will generate an estimated $90,000 annually. The increased fee will be factored in to the proposed rate adjustments. Chris Bell, from Bell and Associates, and representatives from Pride Disposal and Waste Management will attend this meeting. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Not applicable COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Not applicable DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION The council receives the solid waste financial report every year. Fiscal Impact Cost: n/a Budgeted (yes or no): n/a Where Budgeted (department /program): n/a Additional Fiscal Notes: During Budget Committee meetings to approve the current fiscal year 2012 -2013 budget, the committee reviewed franchise fees. The Budget Committee instructed staff to bring a franchise fee increase of 1 percent to council the next time solid waste rates are adjusted. The increase would bring the fee up to 5 percent, creating equity by setting all franchise fees at the same 5- percent level. During Budget Committee discussions, it was estimated that the franchise fee increase will generate an estimated $90,000 annually. The increased fee will be factored in to the proposed rate adjustments. Attachments 2012 Annual Solid Waste Arezate Financial Report 2012 Results Review & General Recommendations for Solid Waste Rate Increases Resolution No. 01 -54-A City of Tigard Franchised Solid Waste Haulers Financial Reports For Year ended December 31 2012 (Aggregate Report) 1 Calendar Year i 12 c Labor Hours Indirect Cost Total Indirect Costs $1,341,120 Drop Boxes Operating Revenue S2,256,750 Operating Costs S2,333,048 7,719 5274,754 Net Income ($76,298) - 3.38% Can /Cart Services Operating Revenue Residential $3,337,876 Multi- Family $14,071 Commercial S140,066 Operating Costs S1,967,395 7,659 $275,426 Net Income $4524,618 43.66% Container Services Operating Revenue Residential S42,170 Multi - Family S704,050 Commercial S2,523,298 Operating Costs S2,378,280 7,160 S257,274 Net Income $894238 27.26% Recycling Services Operating Revenue Residential S1,055 Multi - Family SO Commercial SO Bin /Cart Recycling 591,772 Container Recycling S96,909 Operating Costs 51,696,563 11,641 S425,564 Net Income (1,504827) - 798.61% Yard Debris Operating Revenue 535,411 Operating Costs $503,739 3,044 $108,102 Net Income ($468,328) - 1323% 8,879,025 8,865,627 $13,398 Consolidated Net Income S364,403 Other Revenue 13,258 Other Costs (526) Adjustment to Allowable Costs 13,924 Grand Total Net Income 094059 Total Revenues $9,254686 8,902,850 S1,341,120 Profit Percentage 41225% Bell & Associates 2012 Reported Results & General Recommendations for Solid Waste Rate Increases The reported results from collection operations during the calendar year 2012 show a composite return of 4.22% for all services. The following table is a summary of the results by service: Line of Business Residential Commercial Drop Box Composite Revenue 3,626,880 3,373,056 2,256,750 9,256,686 Expense 3,484,198 3,076,002 2,305,427 8,865,627 Income 142,682 297,054 - 48,677 391,059 Operating Margin 3.93% 8.81% -2.16% 4.22% While there is further analysis to be completed on these figures, the above amounts will not change significantly. Additional costs such as increases in disposal fees, labor, and capital purchases that will be incurred in 2013 and beyond will be incorporated into the rates and presented to the Council in the future. It is assumed the City will continue the policy of setting the rates for each line of business at the cost of service. The two areas of concern are residential service where the reported result is 3.93% and drop box service is - 2.16 %. Residential rates were last adjusted in January 2006 when the City implemented the commingled roll cart recycling program. Assuming no changes to the current collection system, the estimated increased for residential service will range from $3.00 to $3.50 (15% to 17 %) per customer per month. This increase includes the additional 1% increase in franchise fees. While this is a significant amount, consider the following increases incurred by the hauler since 2006: Expense 2006 Cost 2012 Cost $ Increase % Increase Driver Wage per Hour $20.22 $24.52 $4.30 21.3% Health Ins. per Month $739 $1,223 $484 65.5% Diesel Fuel per Gallon $2.16 $3.20 $1.04 48.1% SW Disposal per Ton $74.20 $97.52 $23.32 31.4% Automated Collection Truck $202,000 $300,000 $98,000 48.5% The US Bureau of Labor has calculated the CPI increase at 14.4% from 2006 to 2012 for the Portland -Salem area. One approach that may be of interest to the City Council is to consider setting residential collection rates on a service delivery approach. This is the current method used to assess the collection services in King City. The rate is calculated on the base level of services currently being delivered rather than on the size of the garbage cart. The charge for garbage would be comprised of two components: the fixed cost and the disposal. The fixed costs would be included in the monthly service fee and the disposal cost would be charged on a per gallon basis when the cart is set out for collection. This method encourages residents to divert more materials to the recycling cart. In addition, it doesn't penalize customers that have large families who generate more than 32 gallons of waste a week. Drop box service will require an increase. The modified approach will be set on the average time required to provide these services. The significant change will be the consideration of the additional time required to service roll -off compactors. Commercial rates will increase slightly when recalibrated to the allowable margin. The topic for Council discussion will be commercial food waste collection and the impact on collection rates and operations. The reported costs for each line of business are detailed on the following spreadsheet for Council review. City of Tigard Solid Waste and Recycling Rate Review Reported 2012 Return on Revenues Residential Service Commercial Service Grand Solid Waste Recycling Yard Debris Solid Waste Recycling Drop Box Totals Collection & Service Revenues 3,498,642 92,827 35,411 3,278,147 96,909 2,256,750 9,256,686 % of direct % of direct % of direct % of direct % of direct % of direct Direct Costs of Operations 1,891,970 costs 796,691 costs 395,836 costs 2,121,006 coats 474,308 costs 2,058,293 costs 7,537,904 Disposal Expense 748,850 44% 10,277 1% 73,918 19% 1,194,370 56% 1,532 0% 1,238,714 60% 3,267,659 Labor Expense 398,876 23% 369,809 46% 163,8138 41% 427,493 20% 251,537 53% 398,706 19% 2,008,229 Truck Expense 283,784 17% 243,025 31% 102,827 28% 227,727 11% 154,504 33% 240,081 12% 1.251,928 EqugmentExpense 61,817 4% 45,049 6% 34,346 9% 93,089 4% 29,605 6% 44,420 2% 308,526 Franchise Fees 141,678 8% 2,269 0% 0 0% 130,841 8% 2,714 1% 64,955 4% 362,257 Other Direct Expense 58,965 3% 126,262 16% 20,739 5% 47,888 2% 34,216 7% 53,437 3% 341,305 % of GSA % of GSA % of GSA % of GSA % of GSA % of GSA Indirect Costs of Operations 254,241 costs 261,992 costs 83,459 coats 321,997 costa 158,493 costs 247,015 costs 1,327,197 Management Expense 51,924 20% 55,259 21% 18,174 22% 85828 20% 33,740 21% 50,447 20% 275,184 Administrative Expense 73,692 29% 78,595 30% 28,087 31% 92,941 29% 48,110 30% 71,470 29% 390,875 Other Overhead Expenses 128,825 51% 128,144 49% 39,218 47% 169,430 51% 76,643 48% 125,098 51% 661.158 Total Cost 1,946,211 1,058,683 479,095 2.443,003 632,801 2,305,308 8,865,101 Less Unallowable Costs - 111 -88 -10 -155 -43 -119 -526 Allowable Costs 1,946,322 1,058,771 479,105 2,443,158 632,844 2,305,427 8,865,827 Franchise Income 1,552,320 - 965,944 -443,894 832,989 - 535,935 48,677 391,059 Return on revenues 44.37% - 1040.99% - 1252.98% 25.43% - 553.03% -2.16% 4.22% Revenues 3,826,880 3,373,056 2,256,750 9,258,686 %of %of revenue revenue Direct Costs of Operations 2,884,297 80% 2,595,314 77% 2,058,293 7,537,904 Indirect Costs of Operations 599,692 17% 480,490 14% 247,015 1,327,197 Tel Cost 3,483,989 3,075,804 2,305,308 8,865,101 Less Unallowable Costs -209 0% -198 0% -119 -526 Allowable Costs 3,484,198 3,076,002 2,305,427 8,885,627 Franchise Income 142,682 297,054 46677 391,059 Return on revenues 2012 3.93% 8.81% -2.16% 4.22% 3/6/2013 Prepared by Bell Associates 10:21 AM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 01 -5 - A- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FORMALIZING COUNCIL POLICIES AFFECTING SOLID WASTE RATE ACTIONS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 96-03 WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council desires td manage solid waste rates in a manner which is consistent with the Solid Waste Management Ordinance (TMC 11.04); and WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Industry and recycling programs and markets continue to rapidly change; and WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Industry is being forced to change by multiple court challenges region -wide which question continuing the past rate practice of commercial rates subsidizing the residential service rates; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council wishes to update its established policies for solid waste management to insure rates that are just, fair, reasonable and adequate to provide ongoing necessary service to the public; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council desires to rescind Resolution No. 96 -03 and adopt updated policies to meet the challenges faced in providing solid waste services for the citizens of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby rescinds Resolution No. 96 -03 in its entirety. SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council will use the following policy when it reviews any changes to the solid waste rates in an effort to reduce the commercial subsidy of residential service rates and move to rates that are based on cost of service over a period of time: SERVICE -TYPE RATE SUBSIDY POLICY It is the desire of the Tigard City Council to eventually have solid waste rates be profitahle by each service type (i.e., cart, container, drop box). Since there currently exists a commercial (container) subsidy of the residential (cart) rates and drop box rates, a phased -in reduction of the subsidy is anticipated within the next seven years. The subsidy will be reduced at increments acceptable to the City Council. SECTION 3: The Finance Director, or designee, will use the following policy when computing the solid waste haulers' rate of return: OPERATING MARGIN/RATE OF RETURN POLICY The Operating Margin, or rate of return, will be calculated on the before tax net profit as a percentage of gross revenue. The "profit rate" review will be based on the aggregate pre -tax net income as a percentage of the aggregate gross revenues of the franchised haulers. The City Council shall consider an adjustment during rate review proceedings to provide a ten percent (10 %) margin in the aggregate. RESOLUTION NO. 01-14 -A— Page 1 Loreen \t:\CITYWIDE\RISK_MOT\Solid Waste\Council Action ltems\Conncil Solid Waste Policies Res.doc SECTION 4: ANNUAL HAULERS' +F NANCIAL REPORT REVIEW PROCEDURE The Finance Director, ur designee, will review the solid waste haulers' annual financial reports and gather any clarifications deemed necessary from the haulers or their designated representatives each year. After being satisfied that the reports are complete and properly filled out in accordance with the instructions provided, the Finance Director, or designee, will determine the "profit rate" by the aggregate pre -tax net income of the haulers as a pefcentage of aggregate gross revenues. The Finance Director, or designee, will then report the results to the City Manager, the Mayor and City Council. If the aggregate profit rate falls below eight percent (8 %) the City Council shall consider an adjustment to provide a ten percent (10 %) margin. If the aggregate profit rate exceeds twelve percent (12 %), the City Council shall consider an adjustment downward to provide a ten percent (10 %) margin. EFFECTIVE DATE: This resolution will be effective on and after October 1, 2001. PASSED: This day o 2001. 14 0 !•I M yor ity o ATI EST: • l City Recorder - City of Tig; d RESOLUTION NO. 01 -,,54 A Page 2 LoreenU:1C1TYWIDE1RJSK_MGSolId Waste\Council Action Itcros\Council Solid Waste Policies Res.doc Potential Rate FOR e w / 9 a Mai , (DATE OF MEETING) City of Tigard Solid Waste and Recycling Rate Comparison Residential Tigard Hillsboro Beaverton Wash Cty $ Increase New Tigard % • 20 gal $ 17.80 $ 18.65 $ 18.00 $ 20.10 $ 2.70 ($ 20.50 15% 35 gal $ 20.60 $ 22.35 $ 21.00 $ 21.88 $ 2.70 $ 23.30 13% 60 gal $ 31.75 $ 32.20 $ 34.00 $ 31.75 $ 2.70 $ 34.45 9% 90 gal $ 38.35 $ 41.90 $ 40.00 $ 37.54 $ 2.70 $ 41.05 7% On call $ 10.85 $ 11.65 $ 10.75 $ 9.24 $ 2.70 $ 11.53 6% Commercial Tigard Hillsboro Beaverton Wash Cty $ Increase New Tigard 1 yard $ 93.14 $ 79.40 $ 85.53 $ 84.56 $ 7.45 $ 100.59 8% 1.5 yard $ 119.62 103.71 $ 113.10 $ 106.14 $ 9.57 $ 129.19 8% 2 yard $ 143.17 128.08 $ 136.20 $ 127.78 $ 11.45 $ 154.62 8% 3 yard $ 190.13 176.63 $ 182.22 $ 170.82 $ 15.21 $ 205.34 8% 4 yard $ 237.10 225.29 $ 228.27 $ 214.00 $ 18.97 $ 256.07 8% 6 yard $ 330.85 321.94 $ 320.21 $ 299.62 $ 26.47 $ 357.32 8% 8 yard $ 425.65 420.67 $ 413.06 $ 387.55 $ 34.05 $ 459.70 8% Drop Box Tigard Hillsboro Beaverton Wash Cty $ Increase New Tigard % • 10 CuYds $ 109.00 $ 127.00 $ 117.00 $ 147.00 $ 31.00 $ 140.00 28% 20 CuYds $ 109.00 $ 127.00 $ 117.00 $ 147.00 $ 31.00 $ 140.00 28% 30 CuYds $ 109.00 $ 137.00 $ 132.00 $ 175.00 $ 31.00 $ 140.00 28% 40 CuYds $ 109.00 $ 157.00 $ 132.00 $ 175.00 $ 31.00 $ 140.00 28% All Compactors $ 109.00 $ 160.00 $ 157.00 $ 224.00 $ 31.00 $ 140.00 28% Delivery $ 63.00 $ - $ 58.00 $ 60.00 $ 7.00 $ 70.00 11% Mileage $ - $ 3.00 $ - $ 2.69 $ 3.00 $ 3.00 Bold rows are the most popular level of service for the particular line of business AIS -1083 7 Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 03/19/2013 Length (in minutes): 45 Minutes Agenda Title: Discussion on Social Gaming Prepared For: Kent Wyatt Submitted By: Kent Wyatt, City Management Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Workshop Mtg. Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Should the City of Tigard allow social gaming? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST After workshop discussion, provide staff direction on whether Council wishes to allow or disallow social gaming in the City of Tigard. This matter will then be scheduled for a regular meeting for Council action. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY State statute (ORS 167.121) allows cities to determine whether or not to allow social gaming. A "social game" is one in which all the money wagered is returned to the players in form of prizes. The City received a request from the owner of the New King's Buffet on Pacific Highway to allow social gaming. At the September 18, 2012 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to provide further information about social gaming in Tigard and sample ordinances to allow and disallow social gaming. Social gaming has been occurring in Tigard and at least two restaurants continue to offer social gaming on a regular basis. Social gaming activity in Tigard and surrounding jurisdictions, according to the Tigard police, has not led to complaints, any increase in criminal activity or other safety issues. An informal poll of Tigard businesses (see attachment #1) indicates businesses are indifferent on whether Council should pass a social gaming ordinance. The Tigard Police Department requests clarification by Council as to whether they wish to allow or disallow social gaming in town. If Council chooses to allow social gaming, the Tigard Police Department believes the attached ordinance (attachment #2) will allow for transparency with respect to existing social gaming activities, enforcement being complaint driven, and enable the City to have adequate regulation to assure that the activities are conducted in a fashion consistent with public health and safety. The police staff time required to enforce this ordinance is minimal and can be managed with existing staff. The draft ordinance allowing social gaming is modeled after the City of Hillsboro social gaming ordinance which was approved in 2011 and has served the community and businesses well. Tigard considered the City of Portland social gaming ordinance as a model but found that Tigard would require additional staff to enforce such an ordinance. If Council chooses to prohibit social gaming, the Tigard Police Department believes the attached ordinance (attachment #3) will provide clear direction to stop social gaming in Tigard and enforce any future social gaming activity. • Tigard businesses that may be impacted by a social gaming ordinance were notified of Council's discussion tonight. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council may direct to revise the ordinance allowing social gaming to be more or less restrictive. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION September 18, 2012 - Council Workshop Attachments Social Gaming Activity in Tigard Draft Ordinance Allowing Social Gaming Draft Ordinance Disallowing Social Gamine MEMORANDUM TIGARD TO: Assistant Chief deSully • FROM: Sergeant McDonald 447 DATE: 10/10/2012 RE: Social Gaming; Current Activities Recently I have had the opportunity to attempt to determine the number of businesses in Tigard currently involved in Social Gaming, typically the game played is Poker. From what I have been able to determine there appear to be at least 4 businesses who currently host space for Social Gaming. This ranges from games played on a regular basis to infrequent, special events. In checking into this I attempted to also determine what the prize structure was for these games. In doing so it appears that none of the businesses obtain a "house cut" meaning none of them get any of the money from the gaming directly. In at least one case the business does provide prizes in the form of food credits or logo clothing for the winners of the games. It also appears that in the case of that business they use their employees to run the games. It does not appear that money is used to buy chips at face value for the games. In some cases there is a nominal "buy in" fee, usually around $10. This fee appears to go, at least partially, to a company used to run the games at some of the businesses. In at least one case it is used as the prize money and is divided among the top finishers in the games. In terms of the relationship with Oregon Lottery all of the locations surveyed in the original survey (08/01/2012, attached) have lottery at some level. In that initial survey I was told by at least one business they would not bring in social gaming because they did not want to risk the loss of revenue or the relationship they had with the Oregon Lottery. It still appears there would be very few businesses change their current practices of social gaming should an ordinance be enacted that allowed it. The main reason for this is that the cost to run the games outweighs the profits gained. M • MEMORANDUM TIGARD TO: Assistant Chief de Sully FROM: Sergeant McDonald `L/C O pp DATE: 08/01/2012 RE: Social Gaming Informal Survey Over the past week and a half I have had the opportunity to make physical contact with 11 different businesses in the City which would fit the model of providing a place for social gaming. Of these businesses all of them have current liquor licenses with OLCC, serve beer wine and /or spirits and provide areas in their business where, at least at certain times, there are no minors allowed. Most, if not all, are also current Oregon Lottery dealers. Businesses surveyed were: Bounty Hunter 11445 SW Pacific Hwy Gators 11475 SW Pacific Hwy Richards Deli 11945 SW Pacific Hwy Blitz Sports Pub 10935 SW 68th Pkwy. John Barleycorns 14610 SW Sequoia Parkway Keystone Cafe 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry JB O'Brien's 11555 SW Durham Rd Bull Mt Bar and Grill13727 SW Pacific Hwy Home Turf 13500 SW Pacific Hwy Tigardville Station 12370 SW Main St Carmichael's 12740 SW Pacific Hwy Of the 11 businesses surveyed none of them were against the idea of the Council passing an ordinance. Most of them, 8, said they were indifferent to the idea. Of those, they who offered told me, they had in the past tried having poker games but it was a money losing venture for them. They explained that when the games are held they would have to pay a company to come put the game on and the patrons that come for the games don't buy anything. They drink water or soda and buy no food. I had managers at Bull Mt Bar and Grill, Home turf, Tigardville Station, Gators, Keystone Cafe, and Blitz tell me that they would not likely bring it back even if there were a new code in place. Some of the businesses also said they would choose to not have social gaming because of the possible impact on their Oregon Lottery earnings. Richard's and Bull Mt Bar and Grill said they would not want to jeopardize that relationship for poker games. There are at least two businesses who confirmed they currently host games. Bounty Hunter, who uses a company to administer the games and Carmichael's who uses their own staff to run it. Only one business suggested one of the reasons they have chosen not to do it and would not in the future was because of concern for the type of clientele it may bring in. At Gator's they prefer to advertise in small ways and use word of mouth and try to stay away from the activities that may bring a bad element to the bar. One business owner, Pete Louw, of Tigardville Station offered to discuss the issue further if we would like and even offered to speak to Council if needed. His opinion was mainly neutral but added he would not be likely to add it if an ordinance were passed. All in all the response from those surveyed was generally positive. None of the businesses were against the idea of passing an ordinance. During my conversations with the managers and owners I explained the main reason for the contact. I explained the current law and that they would be notified if the approach from the Police Department changes from current practice. From the survey it does not appear that there are that many b»sinesses engaged in the practice as they do not find it profitable and it certainly does not appear that would change should we pass an ordinance. C°.00 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 13- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT SUBCHAPTER AUTHORIZING SOCIAL GAMING, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. WHEREAS, currently the Tigard Municipal Code does not contain provisions relating to the regulation of "social gaming "; and WHEREAS, ORS 167.121 allows cities to authorize the playing or conducting of a social game in a private business, private club, or place of public accommodation; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Police Department requests clarification from the City Council on whether they wish to authorize social games in Tigard; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to amend the Tigard Municipal Code to include a new chapter to set forth terms, rules, regulations, and responsibilities of involved parties, authorizing social games. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Tigard Municipal Code is hereby amended to include and incorporate a new Chapter 5.22 Social Games, attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective from and after thirty (30) days following its passage and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 2013. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: Approved by Tigard City Council this day of , 2013. John L. Cook, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date EXHIBIT "A" Chapter 5.22 - SOCIAL GAMES Sections: 5.22.010 Definitions 5.22.020 Social Games — Authorization and Conditions 5.22.030 Responsibilities of Owner and Person in Charge 5.22.040 Inspection of Social Games Premises 5.22.050 Notice of Social Games Required 5.22.060 License; License Fee; Civil Penalties 5.22.070 Appeal Process for License Denial 5.22.080 Appeal Process for Assessment of Fine 5.22.010 Definitions As used in this chapter, A. CHIEF OF POLICE or CHIEF means the chief of the Tigard police department or designee. B. SOCIAL GAME means a game, other than a lottery, between players in a private business, private club or place of public accommodation where no house player, house bank or house odds exist and there is no house income from the operation of the social game. 5.22.020 Social Games — Authorization and Conditions Social games as defined in Section 5.22.010 of this chapter are allowed only when each of the following conditions is met: A. The owner of the business where social games are being played holds a current, valid license to play social games issued by the City; B. No house player, house bank, or house odds exist; C. There is no house income from the operation of a social game; D. The social game cannot be observed from a public right of way; E. Persons under 21 years of age are not permitted in the room or enclosure where the social game takes place; F. The room or enclosure where the social game takes place is open to free and immediate access by any police officer. Doors leading into the social game room must remain unlocked during all hours of operation; G. No owner or "principal managing employee ", as described in more detail below, shall participate in any social game on the premises; H. A charge for consumer goods sold on the premises to an individual playing a social game must not be higher or lower than the price charged to a non - participant in the social game; I. No owner or principal managing employee may accept any payment, fee, service or gratuity from a social game participant as consideration for participation in the social game on the premises; J. No owner or principal managing employee may charge a rental or lease fee for the use of the social game; K. At no point in time may a social game be conducted without an owner or principal managing employee present; L. No membership fee or cover fee may be charged for participation in the social game; and M. All social gaming activities and the business where social gaming is permitted must comply with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. 5.22.030 Responsibilities of Owner and Person in Charge An owner or person in charge of a business where social gaming is permitted shall: A. Clearly designate the areas set aside for social gaming. B. Designate an agent or employee to act as person in charge of a social gaming premise whenever social games are being played. An owner shall be strictly liable for any violation of this chapter which occurs when no person in charge is present at the social gaming premises. C. Be strictly liable for any violation of the provisions of this chapter by a person in charge, agent, employee or designate. D. Limit hours of operation of social gaming activities on the premises to those hours during which the primary business is open. E. Limit social gaming activities exceeding 25% (Twenty -five percent) of the floor area of the premises to no more than one day per week. For purposes of this provision, "floor area" means gross floor area excluding areas such as restrooms, hallways, mechanical spaces, elevators, stairwells and loading docks. F. Not allow social gaming activities on the premises unless the private business, private club or place of public accommodation meets all applicable requirements of the Tigard Municipal Code and has been legally established and in existence for at least six months. 5.22.040 Inspection of Social Games Premises All persons who authorize social games on premises owned or managed pursuant to this Chapter shall permit entry to premises to any member of the Police Department, upon presentation of official identification, for the limited purpose of inspecting the premises and any activities, records, or devices involved in such games to ensure compliance with Tigard Municipal Code. 5.22.050 Notice of Social Games Required Where social games are conducted, each owner or person in charge of the premises shall continuously and conspicuously post notice that is clearly readable and in letters at least one inch high that such games must be conducted in accordance with the conditions set forth in Section 5.22.020 which shall be listed in their entirety. The form and content of the notice required pursuant to this section shall be as approved by the chief to assure uniformity of notices in establishments allowing social gaming. 5.22.060 License; License Fee; Civil Penalties Application for an annual social gaming license shall be made to the Police Chief. The Chief may assess a license fee of One Hundred ($100) dollars per year. The social gaming license fee is due in full every January 1st. If a business applies for a social gaming license at any time on or after July 1st, the fee for such license shall be equal to one -half the license fee. The Chief may assess a fine for operating without a license of Five Hundred ($500) dollars for the first violation for each year, and a subsequent violation will result in a fine of One Thousand ($1,000) dollars. Violations for all other offenses of this subchapter are One Hundred ($100) for the first offense each calendar year; Two Hundred Fifty ($250) for the second offense; Five Hundred ($500) for the third offense and One Thousand ($1,000) for all additional violations during the same calendar year. 5.22.070 Appeal Process for License Denial In the event the Chief of Police denies an applicant a social gaming license, the Chief of Police shall first notify the applicant in writing of his intent to deny the license within three (3) working days of receipt of the application. The notification shall include the reason(s) for the denial and a date and time within the next five (5) working days to hear the applicant's appeal, if any. The applicant shall have the right to be heard and to present witnesses and evidence purporting to refute the reasons given by the Chief of Police for a denial. The hearing shall be administrative in nature and held before the Chief of Police. Rules of evidence shall not apply. Upon completion of the hearing, the Chief of Police shall make finding and shall mail the final decision to the applicant within three (3) working days of the hearing date. 5.22.080 Appeal Process for Assessment of Fine In the event the Chief of Police assesses a business owner with a fine, the Chief of Police shall notify the business owner in writing of the fine assessment. The notification shall include the reason(s) for the fine assessment and a date and time within the next five (5) working days to hear the business owner's appeal, if any. The business owner shall have the right to be heard and to present witnesses and evidence purporting to refute the reasons given by the Chief of Police for a denial. The hearing shall be administrative in nature and held before the Chief of Police. Rules of evidence shall not apply. Upon completion of the hearing, the Chief of Police shall make finding and shall mail the final decision to the business owner within three (3) working days of the hearing date. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 13- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT SUBCHAPTER DISALLOWING SOCIAL GAMING, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. WHEREAS, currently the Tigard Municipal Code does not contain provisions relating to the regulation of "social gaming "; and WHEREAS, ORS 167.121 allows cities to authorize the playing or conducting of a social game in a private business, private club, or place of public accommodation; and WHEREAS, there is currently confusion as to whether social gaming is allowed; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Police Department requests clarification from the City Council on whether they wish to prohibit social games in Tigard and impose civil penalties; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to amend the Tigard Municipal Code to include a new chapter to prohibit social games, and adding civil penalties. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Tigard Municipal Code is hereby amended to include and incorporate a new Chapter 5.22 Social Games, attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective from and after thirty (30) days following its passage and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 2013. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: Approved by Tigard City Council this day of , 2013. John L. Cook, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date Exhibit "A" Chapter 5.22 - SOCIAL GAMES Sections: 5.22.010 Definitions 5.22.020 Social Gaines — Prohibition 5.22.060 Civil Penalties 5.22.010 Definitions As used in this chapter, A. CHIEF OF POLICE or CHIEF means the chief of the Tigard police department or designee. B. SOCIAL GAME means a game, other than a lottery, between players in a private business, private club or place of public accommodation where no house player, house bank or house odds exist and there is no house income from the operation of the social game. 5.22.020 Social Games — Prohibition Social games as defined in ORS 167.117 are prohibited in the City of Tigard. 5.22.060 Civil Penalties The chief may assess civil penalties for any violation of the provisions of Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 5.22 in an amount of Five Hundred ($500) dollars for the first violation and One Thousand ($1,000) dollars for each additional violation. Cathy Wheatley (DATE E OF MF.F,TTN( ) r.e1, !T-ern From: Councilmail Councilmail J Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:55 AM To: Gretchen Buehner; Marc Woodard; Marland Henderson; Joanne Bengtson; Marty Wine; Liz Newton; John Cook; Jason Snider; Council Email Dump Subject: FW: Oregon AG's Opinion on Social Gaming Attachments: Oregon AG Opinion.pdf From: Kent Wyatt Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:54:49 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Councilmail Councilmail Cc: Loreen Mills; Alan Orr; Jim de Sully; Marty Wine Subject: Oregon AG's Opinion on Social Gaming Good morning. Please find attached the Oregon attorney general's opinion from 2010 on social gaming. The opinion interprets several key definitions and clarifies whether certain games qualify as social games. Whether to allow social gaming in Tigard will be discussed at the Council meeting on Tuesday. Let me know if you have follow up questions. Kent Kent Wyatt IN Senior Management Analyst i DIRECT 503.718.2809 EMAIL kentw@tigard-or.gov wE6 www.tigard- or.gov City of Tigard I curt MANAGEMENT 13125 SW Hall Boulevard. Tigard, OR 97223 DISCLAIMER: E -mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E -mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." JOHN R. KROGER A MARY H. WILLIAMS 'I t Attorney General ;hr.?' Deputy Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GENERAL COUNSEL DIVISION January 22, 2010 Lieutenant Glenn Chastain Oregon State Lottery/Security Division 500 Airport Road SE Salem, OR 97301 Re: Opinion Request OP- 2010 -1 Dear Lieutenant Chastain: Gambling is unlawful in Oregon unless the legislature specifically authorizes it. See ORS 167.122 (participating in unlawful gambling as a player is a Class A misdemeanor); ORS 167.127 (promoting or profiting from unlawful gambling is a Class C felony); ORS 167.117(24) ( "unlawful" means "not specifically authorized by law "). For these purposes, gambling does not include "social games." ORS 167.117(7)(c). To qualify as a "social game," a game must be "between players" and must not have any "house player," "house bank," "house odds," or "house income." ORS 167.117(21). But the legislature did not define any of those terms except "player." This raises questions as to whether certain games qualify as social games. You ask us to interpret several key terms in the definition to clarify the circumstances in which a game will meet the criteria for the social -game exception. Below, we set out your specific questions and our short answers, followed by a discussion. QUESTIONS AND SHORT ANSWERS As used in ORS 167.117(21)'s definition of "social games," what do the following mean: Question 1: The requirement that the "game" be "between players ?" The requirement that a social game be "between players" means that any person betting in a social game must qualify as a "player" under ORS 167.117(16). Question 2: "House ?" As used in the definition of "social games," "house" means: (1) all private businesses, private clubs, and places of public accommodation where social games occur, including their owners, managers and employees; and, (2) any person who operates what would otherwise be a social game for profit rather than for social purposes. "Operates" for those purposes includes any action described in ORS 167.117(18) that materially aids the game. 1162 Court Street NE, Salem, OR 97301 -4096 Telephone: (503) 947 -4540 Fax: (503) 378 -3784 TTY: (800) 735 -2900 www.doj.state.or.us Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 2 Question 3: The prohibition on a "house player ?" The prohibition on a "house player" means that the house may not in any circumstance bet in a social game. Question 4: The prohibition on a "house bank ?" We interpret the prohibition on a "house bank" to mean that the house may not act as a banker in a social game by having any involvement in the financial aspects of the game, including selling, keeping, and redeeming chips even if the house makes no profit from doing so. Question 5: The prohibition of "house odds ?" We interpret this prohibition to mean that the house may not have any advantage in a social game or establish the ratio between the amount of a bet and the payoff amount. Question 6: The prohibition of "house income ?" This prohibition means that the house may not make any money directly from operation of the game or from its participants. Businesses where social games occur may not charge for participation in the game, a rental fee for the room, table, or equipment or otherwise extract money from social game participants. Those businesses may make money from selling food and drink to social game players on the same terms that they sell those goods to all other patrons. Even if an establishment sells food and drink on the same terms to all patrons, if it charges inflated prices in relation to other similar establishments and its only patrons are social game players that may be evidence that the establishment is in fact making income from operation of social games. SOCIAL GAME DEFINITION ORS 167.117(7) defines the term "gambling" for purposes of the gambling offense statutes, ORS 167.108 to 167.164, and excludes "social games from that definition: "Gambling" means that a person stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. Gambling does not include: * ** (c) Social games. (Emphasis added.) Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 3 "Social game" is defined by ORS 167.117(21) to mean: (a) A game, other than a lottery, between players in a private home where no house player, house bank or house odds exist and there is no house income from the operation of the social game; and, (b) If authorized pursuant to ORS 167.121, a game, other than a lottery, between players in a private business, private club or place of public accommodation where no house player, house bank or house odds exist and there is no house income from the operation of the social game. ORS 167.121 permits cities and counties to authorize social games in private businesses, private clubs or places of public accommodation. The requirements for social games are the same in those places and private homes. You ask us to clarify the requirement that the game be "between players" and the prohibitions on "house" activity. "BETWEEN PLAYERS" REQUIREMENT 1. Statutory interpretation In interpreting the phrase "between players" (as well as the other terms about which you inquire), we follow the statutory interpretation method set out by the Oregon Supreme Court in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610, 859 P2d 1143 (1993), and subsequently refined in State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171 -172, 206 P3d 1042 (2009). The first step is an examination of the statute's text and context. PGE, 317 Or at 610 -11. In doing so, we apply statutory and judicial rules for reading the text and context, including giving terms of common usage their plain meanings. Id. The second step is to consider legislative history where it appears useful to the analysis of the statute. Gaines, 346 Or at 171 -172. The third and final step is resort to general maxims of statutory construction to aid in resolving any uncertainty as to the legislature's intent that remains "after examining text, context, and legislative history." Id. 2. Defined a. "Between" While the statutory definition of "social games" was initially enacted in 1973 and amended in 1974 (as discussed at length later in this opinion), the "between players" statutory language predates that definition and was enacted in 1971. When we consider the plain meaning of a statute's text under the interpretational method described in PGE and Gaines, we are directed to consult dictionaries in existence around the time of the enactment of the statute. See, e.g., State v. Perry, 336 Or 49, 53, 77 P3d 313 (2003). Accordingly, we consult the 1961 edition of WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (UNABRIDGED), but note that the pertinent definitions in the 1961 edition are identical to those in the most current edition published in 2002. Beginning with "between," the most apt plain meaning is "involving the Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 4 reciprocal action of: involving as participants: jointly engaging <the job was completed between the two of them> <two years of quiet talks between the three >." WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY at 209 (unabridged 1961). As the examples illustrate, "between" implies exclusivity; accordingly "between players" means between players only. b. "Player" ORS 167.117(16) defines "player" to mean: [A] person who engages in any form of gambling solely as a contestant or bettor, without receiving or becoming entitled to receive any profit therefrom other than personal gambling winnings, and without otherwise rendering any material assistance to the establishment, conduct or operation of the particular gambling activity. A person who gambles at a social game of chance on equal terms with the other participants therein is a person who does not otherwise render material assistance to the establishment, conduct or operation thereof by performing, without fee or remuneration, acts directed toward the arrangement or facilitation of the game, such as inviting persons to play, permitting the use of premises therefor and supplying cards or other equipment used therein. A person who engages in bookmaking is not a player. (1) Conundrum posed by "gambling" requirement The first requirement for a "player" is that the person must engage in gambling — that is stake or risk something of value upon the outcome of the game in return for the chance to receive something of value if they win. The requirement that a "player" must "gamble" creates a recurring conundrum in interpreting the term "social game." Namely, ORS 167.117(7)(c) excludes "social games" from the definition of "gambling," so a person who plays in a social game does not engage in "gambling." But ORS 167.117(21) defines "social game" as a game "between players," and ORS 167.117(16) defines "player" to require that a player engage in "gambling." In short, no game could ever qualify as a "social game" under those definitions, because no one who plays in a social game is a "player," but social games must be "between players." 2 ' The obvious solution is to interpret "gambling," as used in ORS 167.117(16)'s definition of "player" to mean "gambling," as defined in ORS 167.117(7), omitting the exclusion for social games contained in subsection (7)(c). It might be argued that such an interpretation requires us to omit words that have been inserted in the definition of "gambling" in violation of the rule that we refrain from doing just that. See ORS 174.010 (in construing statute, judges should not "omit what has been inserted "). But ORS 167.117 provides that its definitions apply "[a]s used in ORS 167.108 to 167.164" "unless the context requires otherwise." (Emphasis added.) The context here requires us to adopt a modified definition of "gambling" for the purposes of the social game definition. Also, we must adopt a construction that gives effect to all provisions of a statute, if possible. ORS 174.010 ( "where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all "). Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 5 We conclude that, for purposes of ORS 167.117(21)'s definition of "social game," the legislature likely intended "gambling," as used in ORS 167.117(16)'s definition of "player" to mean gambling as defined by ORS 167.117(7), excluding the social game exception in subsection (7)(c). Applying that definition, a "player" in a social game must stake or risk something of value upon the outcome of the contest, i.e., bet, in the game. A "player" must engage in gambling "solely as a contestant or bettor" That means, first, that the person may not receive or become entitled to receive "any profit therefrom other than personal gambling winnings." That requirement distinguishes a "player" from one who "profits from unlawful gambling," which is defined as when: * * * a person, acting other than solely as a player, accepts or receives money or other property pursuant to an agreement or understanding with another person whereby the person participates or is to participate in the proceeds of unlawful gambling. ORS 167.117(17) (emphasis added). (2) No material assistance The second requirement for a person to engage in gambling "solely as a contestant or bettor" is that the person not "render[] any material assistance to the establishment, conduct or operation of the particular gambling activity." That requirement distinguishes a player from a person who "promotes unlawful gambling," which is defined as: * * * a person, acting other than solely as a player, engages in conduct that materially aids any form of unlawful gambling. Conduct of this nature includes, but is not limited to, conduct directed toward the creation or establishment of the particular game, contest, scheme, device or activity involved, toward the acquisition or maintenance of premises, paraphernalia, equipment or apparatus therefor, toward the solicitation or inducement of persons to participate therein, toward the conduct of the playing phases thereof, toward the arrangement of any of its financial or recording phases or toward any other phase of its operation. A person promotes unlawful gambling if, having control or right of control over premises being used with the knowledge of the person for purposes of unlawful gambling, the person permits the unlawful gambling to occur or continue or makes no effort to prevent its occurrence or continuation. ORS 167.117(18) (emphasis added). A "person who gambles at a social game of chance on equal terms with the other participants" does not "render material assistance" by arranging or facilitating the game, such as by "inviting persons to play, permitting the use of [their] premises," or "supplying cards or other equipment" to be used in the game as long as they do so for free. The requirement that such Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 6 persons gamble in the game on equal terms means that they must gamble on the same or like terms as other players and have no advantage. WEBSTER'S at 766 (defining "equal" to mean "of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another or others : LIKE * * * like, as great as, or the same as another or others in degree, worth, quality, nature, ability, or status * * * like, as great, or the same for each member of a group or class[.] "). If the gambler who arranges or facilitates the game does not gamble on equal terms as the other players, the person is not a "player," but instead a promoter, and the game does not qualify as a social game. The same result occurs if the person receives any fee or remuneration for arranging or facilitating the game. 3. "Between players" applied a. Dealers who do not gamble in the game We next apply the "between players" requirement to various scenarios that we are informed may arise, beginning with the situation where a person deals cards but does not gamble in the game. Such a dealer is not a "player" because he does not gamble in the game as players must. The question is whether the requirement that the "game" be "between players" precludes a non - player dealer in a social game, or stated alternatively, may only players deal in a social game? As discussed above, "between" means "involving the reciprocal action of: involving as participants[.]" WEBSTER'S at 209 (emphasis added). Thus, the question becomes whether being "involved" in the "game" means playing in the game as a contestant or bettor, or whether it also includes performing acts that materially assist the game. We conclude that the legislature likely intended the former. The legislature did not define "game." The pertinent ordinary definition is "a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules in which the participants play in direct opposition to each other, each side striving to win and to keep the other side from doing so -- see GAME OF CHANCE." WEBSTER'S at 933. A "game of chance" is one where "chance rather than skill determines the outcome." Id. We glean from that definition that participating or being involved in a social "game" means "play[ing] in direct opposition," i.e., taking part in the competition as a contestant or bettor. By contrast, in ORS 167.117(18) the legislature described acts that materially aid the game, including "conducting the playing phases of the game," which would include dealing the cards. The legislature expressly allows private businesses, private clubs, and places of public accommodation to materially aid social games by providing their premises (and presumably' the tables and equipment as well) if cities or counties authorize it. ; ,But, at the same time, as we will discuss below, the legislature prohibited the persons connected with those places from being players. Thus, the legislature distinguished between playing in the game and materially aiding the game, and intended to allow non - players to facilitate the game at least in some ways. For that reason, it appears from the text and context that the legislature intended the "between players" requirement to ensure that only the contestants and bettors in social games meet the requirements of ORS 167.117(16). We consulted legislative history for guidance and found none to alter our conclusion based on the text and context. Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 7 Consequently, if a group of friends gathers to play and one does not want to bet in the game, but offers to deal the cards, the game would qualify as a social game if all other requirements are met. But as discussed further below, such a dealer may not receive a tip or any fee, due to language in the definitions of "player" and "social games" (i.e., the "house" prohibitions) that forbid anyone from dealing cards for a fee or remuneration. b. Bankrolled players A second issue arising from the "between players" requirement is whether a social game may have a player who is not betting their own money but is "bankrolled" (who plays with capital supplied in whole or part by someone else who shares any winnings). We addressed that issue in a previous opinion and concluded that a social game may not have any bankrolled players; we adhere to that conclusion. 38 Op Atty Gen 1455, 1457 -1460 (1977). Although not expressly stated in the prior opinion, the conclusion rests implicitly — at least in part — on the rationale that only the people who play in the social game may stand to win or lose any money from the game. To qualify as a "player" a person must engage in gambling (risk something of value) solely as a contestant or bettor without receiving or becoming entitled to receive any profit other than "personal" gambling winnings. "Personal" means "of or relating to a particular person." WEBSTER'S at 1686 (emphasis added). There is no question that the "particular person" referred to in the definition of player is the contestant or bettor, not a third party. A bankrolled player does not risk his or her own funds (at least to the extent of the "bankroll "). Moreover, the presence of a bankrolled player makes the game take on a professional, rather than social, flavor. 38 Op Atty Gen at 1457 -60. c. Fee or advantage by person arranging or facilitating game Finally, the "between players" requirements makes clear that if a person who gambles in a social game receives any fee or remuneration for arranging or facilitating a game, the game is not a social game because the person would no longer qualify "solely as a player," and the game would not be "between players." Similarly, if one who arranges or facilitates the game has some advantage in the game, he or she is not playing on equal terms with other players, and the game is not social. We interpret "facilitating" the game to include dealing the cards. The "player" definition exempts from prosecution for materially assisting unlawful gambling (i.e., promoting) persons who perform "acts directed toward the arrangement or facilitation of the game" if they gamble in social games on equal terms with other players and receive no fee or remuneration for facilitating or arranging the game. Although dealing the cards is not one of the listed examples of arranging or facilitating the game, as discussed above, "conduct[ing] the playing phases" is listed as an act that "materially aids unlawful gambling" under ORS 167.117(18), and dealing the cards is part of conducting the playing phase of the game. Consequently, a person who gambles in a social game and also deals the cards must not have any advantage in the game or receive any fee or remuneration for dealing. This means that for games like blackjack where the dealer has an inherent advantage, no player may hold the deal; rather the deal must rotate. It is not enough for Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 8 the dealer to offer the deal to other players, who then may decline to accept it. If the deal in a game like blackjack does not in fact rotate, the game is not a social game. HOUSE PROHIBITIONS 1. House a. Text and context We turn now to the prohibitions on "house" involvement in a social game. Specifically, a social game must have no "house player," "house bank," "house odds," or "house income from operation of the social game." Because all of those prohibitions are on "house" activity, we begin our analysis with the meaning of "house." Two rules for construing statutory text and context are particularly pertinent here. First, we assume that when the legislature uses the same word in related statutory provisions enacted as part of the same law, it intends the word to have the same meaning in all provisions. Tharp v. PSRB, 338 Or 413, 422 -23, 110 P3d 103 (2005). Where, as here, the legislature used the same word repeatedly in the same provision, that assumption is particularly strong. Second, we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage and should adopt a construction, if possible, that gives effect to all provisions. ORS 174.010 ( "where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all "). See, e.g., State v. Connally, 339 Or 583, 593, 125 P3d 1254 (2005) (stating rule against surplusage). Several of the "house" prohibitions established in ORS 167.117(21) potentially overlap and the latter rule guides us to adopt a construction that gives each some independent meaning if possible. "House" has three plain meanings in the gambling context: (1) "the operators of a gambling game "; (2) "the management of a gambling establishment "; and, (3) "a gambling establishment: CASINO." WEBSTER'S at 1096. Beginning with "operators of a gambling game," the most relevant definition of "operator" is "a person that actively operates a business * * * whether as owner, lessor, or employee." WEBSTER'S at 1581 (emphasis added). The relevant definition of "operate" is "to manage and to put or keep in operation whether with personal effort or not[.]" Id. "Business" means "a [usually] commercial or mercantile activity customarily engaged in as a means of livelihood and typically involving some independence of judgment and power of decision" as well as "a place where such an enterprise is carried on [.1" Id. at 302. The relevant definition of "commercial" is "from the point of view of profit : having profit as the primary aim." Id. at 456. In sum, "house" in the sense of an "operator of a gambling game," means a person who manages, puts, or keeps in operation a gambling game as a means of livelihood with profit as the primary aim. The second and third potential meanings of "house" are a "gambling establishment" and "the management of a gambling establishment." The former encompasses the latter as "establishment" means "a more or less fixed and usually sizable place of business or residence together with all the things that are an essential part of it (grounds, furniture, fixtures, retinue, employees)." WEBSTER'S at 778 (emphasis added). Another potential meaning of "house" in Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 9 this context is a "gambling house," which is "a place where gambling is carried on or allowed as a business[.]" WEBSTER'S at 932. Obviously all of those definitions are closely related, differing only in whether they refer to the personnel of a gambling establishment, the place itself, or both. "House" in the sense of "operator of a gambling game," differs from those definitions in that the "house" is not tied to any particular place, but includes any person who operates a game for profit. It is not readily apparent whether the legislature intended "house" to encompass all of those plain meaning senses or not. The context suggests that none of those definitions are completely satisfactory. Specifically, ORS 167.117(21) expressly prohibits the "house" from receiving any income from operating a social game, but in all relevant definitions, a "house" operates the game for profit. In other words, ORS 167.117(21)'s requirement that the "house" not receive any income from operating a social game effectively prevents there from being a "house" — as Webster's would define it — in a social game. The legislature may have intended "house" to mean any private business, private club or place of public accommodation where a social game occurs even if the place makes no income from the game. That interpretation would stretch the plain meaning of "house" to include any business where social games occur, rather than only places that operate gambling games as a business. It is true that those places operate for a profit and, if they allow social games, do so from a profit motive (e.g., the sale of food and drink) even if they derive no income directly from the game. Although that interpretation solves the problem of reconciling the definition of "house" with the prohibition on "house" income, it gives no effect to the "house" prohibitions that apply to games in private homes pursuant to ORS 167.117(21)(a). Alternatively, the legislature may have intended "house" very broadly to include any place where a social game occurs, including a private home. Although that interpretation gives effect to the house prohibitions in ORS 167.117(21)(a), it creates other problems. First, that definition does not fall within any of the plain meanings. Second, subsection (a) prohibits a "house player" in games in private homes and interpreting "house" to include any place where a social game occurs to mean that the person who invited friends into his or her home to play a "social game" could not play. That interpretation would conflict with the definition of "player" which, understandably, recognizes that a person who hosts a social game in his or her home may play. Finally, the legislature may have intended "house" to include any business establishment where a social game occurs (including the owners, managers and employees of the place) and any person who operates a game for profit rather than for social purposes. That interpretation gives effect to the house prohibitions, both in business establishments and private homes, and reconciles the prohibition on a house player in a private home and the definition of "player" because only a person who sought to make a profit in a private home would be prohibited from playing. But that definition continues to have a rather nonsensical application to the house income prohibition, because that prohibition would literally mean that anyone who operates a game for profit cannot make any income from operating the game. No potential definition of "house" that gives effect to all prohibitions remedies that problem. Because the legislature's Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 10 intended meaning of "house" is ambiguous after examining the text and context, and the legislative history may help us understand the intended meaning of "house," we consult that history. b. Legislative history The "social game" exception (but not the statutory definition of the term) first appeared in Oregon law in 1971. In 1970, the Criminal Law Revision Commission drafted a proposed criminal code for Oregon, accompanied by an explanatory commentary, both of which it submitted to the 1971 legislature. Article 30 of the proposed code concerned gambling offenses and was adopted by the legislature. Or Laws 1971, ch 743, §§ 263 -265. Sections 264 and 265 criminalized promoting or profiting from unlawful gambling; participating as a player was not unlawful under those provisions. Id. at §§ 264 and 265. Article 30 did not exempt social games from the definition of "gambling "; rather the definition of "player" — which was important at the time to describe behavior that would not be subject to criminal sanction — contained a social games exception that provided then, as now, that a person who gambles on equal terms in social games does not promote gambling by arranging or facilitating the game for free. Or Laws 1971, ch 743, § 263(7). The commission explained the social game exception in its commentary on Article 30: The underlying purposes of the sections [264 and 265] are to get at the professional who exploits the popular urge to gamble. The individual citizen who places a bet is not criminal * * *. Neither are friendly social games criminal under the draft and a person does not promote gambling if he merely invites friends in for a game and provides cards or other paraphernalia. This results from the definition of "player" in § 263(7) * * *. The Michigan revisers neatly state the case for excluding the friendly social game: "Private consensual games are generally accepted as socially if not legally proper, and there is no point in preserving the fiction that they are undesirable." Id. at 257 (quoting Michigan Revised Criminal Code at 465 (emphasis in original)). Criminal Law Revision Commission, Proposed Oregon Criminal Code, Final Draft and Report, Article 30, § 263(7) (1970) (emphasis added). Therefore, in 1971, the social game exception appeared to be confined to games in "private" homes, and only players could "invite friends in" for a game without subjecting themselves to criminal sanction. The social game exception did not expressly allow social games in public places like card rooms. At the next legislative session in 1973, representatives of hotel, restaurant, and bar workers' unions, as well as representatives of private clubs, asked the legislature to amend the gambling laws to allow social games in business establishments. They informed the legislature that card rooms had been shut down due to the 1971 legislation and those closures had caused unemployment among waitresses, bartenders, card room attendants, and workers who made the Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 11 food and beverages sold in card rooms. See, e.g., Minutes, Senate and Federal Affairs Committee (SB 803), May 10, 1973, at 5 -6. Some opposed the amendment, arguing that allowing social games in public places would encourage professional gambling. Id. at 6. But John Runstein, the president of a private social club, testified that "[c]ard room owners thin[k] that if these social games are permitted on their premises and a reasonable service charge is required for the use of the premises and for the labor involved of not more than 25% of the total income of the overall operation of the complete premises, that anything like professional gambling would be eliminated." Id. at 5. The legislature agreed. It retained the "social game" language in the definition of player, amended the gambling laws to exclude social games from the definition of "gambling," and provided the following definition of "social games," which allowed social games in public places: [a social game is] a game, other than a lottery, between players in a private home or private business, private club or in a place of public accommodation where no house player, house bank, or house odds exist and the gross income from the operation of the social game does not exceed 25 percent of the gross income of the private business, private club or public accommodation. Or Laws 1973, ch 788, § 1 (emphasis added) 4 That definition was somewhat ambiguous about whether the "house" prohibitions applied to games in private homes or only to business establishments. The income limitation, at least, expressly applied only to private businesses, private clubs, and places of public accommodation. The legislature did not discuss whether the prohibitions applied to games in private homes. Nor did it discuss the meaning of "house." But when the legislature first used the term "house," public places expressly could make income from operating a social game as long as that income was a small percentage of their overall business. Thus, in 1973, "house" could have referred to a place that operates a social game for profit. The reason given for limiting the income that those places derived from social games was to prevent professional gambling in Oregon. Unfortunately, that purpose was not achieved. In the 1974 special legislative session, House Speaker Eymann told the House Rules Committee that the 1973 legislation had allowed large stakes professional gambling to take place in Oregon and that the Attorney General had received numerous requests for corrective legislation. Minutes, House Rules Committee (LC 283), February 7, 1974 at 7; Minutes, House Rules Committee (LC 283), February 11, 1974 at 5; and Minutes, House Committee on Judiciary Special Session (LC 283), February 11, 1974 at 2. Phil Roberts, representing the District Attorneys Association, stated that enforcement of the 1973 legislation's income limitations had been difficult "because of the various ways a house may collect money, such as charging to enter an establishment or charging an amount per hour for use of a table. Accounting of funds collected in such ways would be almost impossible." Id, at 3. Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 12 Legislative Counsel Rich Gatti testified that to remedy professional gambling and enforcement problems that "the broad definition" of social games had caused, he and the Attorney General's office had drafted a bill that deleted the provision allowing social games in public places and the corresponding income limitations on those places. Id. In subsequent hearings, legislators voiced their support for allowing social games in businesses as well as private homes for the limited purpose of allowing people to play a social game of cards in a warm place where food was served. See, e.g., House Judiciary Committee Minutes HB 3327 Hearing (HB 3327), February 18, 1974 at 3 (statements of Senator Keith Burns and Representative Grace Peck to that effect). Pat Randall, Representing the Oregon AFL -CIO, favored allowing only playing rummy and pinochle in taverns, as those games had been happening in bars in Oregon for many years. Minutes, House Judiciary Committee Special Session (HB 3327), February 20, 1974 at 1. The minutes from that meeting reflect the following remarks by Representative Paulus: [T]he last session of the legislature had amended the gambling law specifically to take care of the problem in the Portland area where the district attorney had raided and closed down all card games. The law as enacted by the 1973 regular session, she said, was doing exactly what the opponents of the measure had predicted — bringing big time, professional gambling into Oregon. The thrust of that amendment, as advanced by its proponents, was to allow exactly the type of gambling Mr. Randall was advocating, and the result was that in order to allow a few individuals to play a game of cards in the warmth of a tavern, the law had permitted organized, professional gambling to come into Oregon, which was not the intent of the legislature. The current problem had been forced upon the local governments by the action of the legislature, and she believed it was the responsibility of the legislature to undo the harm that had been done. Id. at 2. Although various amendments were proposed, at the end of the day the legislature "undid the harm" caused by the 1973 legislation by continuing to allow social games in business establishments, but by amending the social game exception to prohibit the "house" from receiving g,n' income from operation of a social game. Or Laws 1974 (spec sess), ch 7, § 1(now codified as ORS 167.117(21)). The amendment also expressly applies the "house" prohibitions to games in private homes. In sum, the legislature never discussed what it intended "house" or any of the house prohibitions to mean, except the prohibition on house income. But its discussion of that prohibition reflects a clear intention to apply the prohibition to private businesses, private clubs, and places of public accommodation. Thus, the Assembly considered those places to be the "house." And even though the legislature's discussions focused solely on games in those places, it, expressly applied the same prohibitions to games in private homes. It appears, then, that the legislature intended a broader definition of "house" than merely the business establishments where social games may occur. Finally, the history demonstrates that the legislature intended the prohibition on "house income" to prevent professional gambling and to make the gambling laws Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 13 easier to enforce. It is evident that these were primary considerations in defining social games. Accordingly, we keep those purposes in mind when interpreting the house prohibitions. Based on the text, context, and legislative history, we interpret "house" to include: (1) all private businesses, private clubs, and places of public accommodation where social games occur, including their owners and personnel; and (2) any one who operates a social game for profit rather than for social purposes. "Operates" for those purposes would include any action that materially aids the game as described in ORS 167.117(18). 2. "House income from operation of the social game" Having interpreted "house," we now examine the prohibitions on "house" activity in a social game, beginning with the prohibition on "house income from operation of the social game." The plain meaning of "income" is "a gain or recurrent benefit." WEBSTER'S at 1143. Hence, the house may not receive any gain or benefit from the operation of a game. In a 1974 opinion, this office opined that: no "house income" * * * mean[s] precisely that: counties and cities cannot, by ordinance, authorize an establishment to charge for the privilege of holding or participating in a social game. Whatever benefit the business derives must be a consequence of the mere existence of the game, not revenue specifically exacted from the game or its participants. So construed, the Act prohibits not only a [$1.00 per hour per player fee to defray expenses of the operation of the social game] but also, inter alia, the raising of prices charged for some or all of the establishment's regular services in a manner to coincide with the hours during which social games are permitted on the premises. Attorney General opinion letter dated April 17, 1974 to Honorable Robert Elliott. That interpretation accords with the plain language, context, and legislative history of the provision. In addition, since anyone who attempts to operate a social game for profit is the "house," the prohibition on house income effectively prevents anyone at any place from making any income from operation of a social game. 3. "House player" The prohibition on a "house player" prevents the house from gambling in a social game. Again, "player" means: A person who engages in any form of gambling solely as a contestant or bettor, without receiving or becoming entitled to receive any profit therefrom other than personal gambling winnings, and without otherwise rendering any material assistance to the establishment, conduct or operation of the particular gambling activity. A person who gambles at a social game of chance on equal terms with the other participants therein is a person who does not otherwise render material assistance to the establishment, conduct or operation thereof by performing, Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 14 without fee or remuneration, acts directed toward the arrangement or facilitation of the game, such as inviting persons to play, permitting the use of premises therefore and supplying cards or other equipment. ORS 167.117(16). Assuming, however unlikely, that the house could ever qualify solely as a player, it is expressly prohibited from doing so. Thus, in addition to being prevented from making any income from operation of a social game, the house is prohibited from betting and becoming entitled to receive gambling winnings from competing in the game. That prohibition prevents games where players bet against the house from qualifying as social games. For example, a bar, restaurant, hotel, private club, or any person who attempts to operate a game for profit could not supply a dealer in a blackjack game, because the house would be competing to receive gambling winnings. More broadly, the prohibition on a house player prevents the house from betting in any social game, even games where players bet against each other, rather than the house, because the house may never compete for gambling winnings. 4. "House bank" Next, a social game may have no "house bank." Webster's contains several definitions of "bank" that specifically apply in the gambling context: (1) "GAMBLING HOUSE" [which, as discussed above, is a place where gambling is carried on or allowed as a business]; (2) "a person or persons conducting a gambling house or game; specif: DEALER "; (3) "the sum of money in certain gambling games (as chemin de fer) that is deposited or stated by the dealer as a fund from which to pay his losses "; and, (4) "the whole supply of chips available for purchase and use by players in a game played with chips (as poker)." WEBSTER'S at 172. In addition, the verb "bank" in the gambling context means "to act as banker for (as a gambling game)." Id. And, "banker" in the gambling context has three meanings: (1) "the player who keeps, sells, and redeems the supply of chips used in a game — compare BANK (referring to the meaning of the whole supply of chips available for purchase and use by players in a game played with chips (as poker) "; (2) "the person who agrees to cover the bets of all players up to a certain limit established as the bank "; and, (3) "a dealer (as in blackjack) or a gambling house or its representative against whom all bets must be placed." Id. The most natural meaning of "house bank" in this context is the house acting as the banker for a game. Some prohibitions on activities that the house might do as the banker are duplicative of other prohibitions. For example, the house player prohibition prevents the house from competing in a social game, thus, bets may not be placed against a house dealer. And covering bets or selling chips to the extent that the house would make a profit from doing so is precluded by the prohibition on house income. But we construe the house bank prohibition to go further and to preclude the house from having any involvement in the financial aspects of a social game, even if the house makes no profit from its involvement. This construction gives the house bank prohibition some independent meaning. For example,hc house could not keep, sell or redeem chips in a social game, even if the house makes no profit from doing go. On the other hand, the house does not appear to be prohibited from simply supplying chips that the players Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 15 themselves sell, keep and redeem. That interpretation gives effect to the legislative purpose for the prohibitions — ease of enforcement and preventing professional gambling — while still recognizing that the house may provide equipment for a game if it handles no money and does so free of charge. 5. "House odds" Finally, no "house odds" may exist in a social game. Potentially pertinent defmitions of "odds" are: (1) the "amount of difference by which one thing exceeds or falls short of another: amount in excess or defect "; (2) the "difference favoring one of two opposed things : balance of advantage or weight of opposition "; (3) "the probability that one thing is so rather than another or that one thing will happen rather than another : balance of probability : greater likelihood CHANCES "; (4) "the ratio existing between the amount to be paid off for a winning bet and the amount of the bet placed <the horse was running at odds of 6 to I." WEBSTER'S at 1563. No context or legislative history clarifies which meaning the legislature intended. Nor could we find any definition of "house odds" in the texts that we consulted on gambling law. Again, our guiding rule is to give this provision some independent meaning, if possible, that is not subsumed by the other prohibitions. To give "house odds" independent effect, we interpret it to preclude the house from having any involvement in establishing the ratio between the pay off for a winning bet and the amount of the bet placed even when it has no money at stake in the game. For example, this prohibition would preclude the house from setting odds governing pay -out for a bet between players or awarding a prize or gift certificate to the winner of a game. CONCLUSION We summarize our conclusions as follows: Private businesses, private clubs or places of public accommodation that allow social games and their personnel may not: (a) derive any income from the game (including charging cover, usage or rental charges for the place or equipment), or extract any money directly from the participants other than for the sale of food and drink on the same terms as all other patrons (even if an establishment sells food and drink on the same terms to all patrons, if it charges inflated prices in relation to other similar establishments and its only patrons are social game players that may be evidence that the establishment is in fact making income from operation of social games); (b) compete or bet in the game; (c) act as "banker," by being involved in the financial aspects of a social game, including selling, keeping and redeeming chips even if it makes no profit from doing so; or (d) have any advantage or set the ratio between the payout and bet amount; • Anyone who attempts to operate a social game for profit — no matter where — will be deemed to be the "house" and subject to the same prohibitions; Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 16 • A person who invites friends in for a social game in the person's home may bet in the game as long as the person is not operating the game for profit and may arrange the game and provide the necessary equipment as long as the person receives no fee or remuneration for doing so and plays on equal terms with the other players; • Any social game players who deal in a game where the dealer has an inherent advantage, such as blackjack, must pass the deal and receive no fee or remuneration for dealing; and, • All persons who bet in a social game must stand to gain only their own personal gambling winnings and no other profit from the game. Sincerely, David Leith Chief Counsel General Counsel Division AEA: JTM: mcg/ 1311273 -v3 t � ORS 167.121 provides that "[c]ounties and cities may, by ordinance, authorize the playing or conducting of a social game in a private business, private club or in a place of public accommodation. Such ordinances may provide for regulation or licensing of the social games authorized." 21 Obv if no participants in a game are betting, the game does not meet the general definition of "gambling" and requires no legislative exemption or authorization to be lawful. 3/ We also recognize that we have answered this question differently before. See Letter of Advice dated September 17, 1982, to Polk County District Attorney Doug Dawson (OP -5409) at 3 -4 (rejecting that notion that a "dealer does not participate because he handles the cards, supervises and * * * inevitably works for tips "); Letter of Advice dated April 14, 1983, to Senator Fred Heard (OP -5460) at 5 (concluding that providing a role for anyone other than "players" — in that case dealers — "takes the activity out of the social gaming exception "). Those opinions were issued prior to PGE and Gaines and did not examine the issue using their methodology. To the extent that the opinions are inconsistent with this opinion, we overrule them. 41 Changes in statutory text over time are considered part of the context of the statute. Krieger v. Just, 319 Or 328, 336, 876 P2d 754 (1994). We discuss the change in statutory text in our discussion of legislative history, because the statutory change alone does not eliminate ambiguity and it makes more sense to do so. s/ Several gambling websites do discuss "house odds." A typical website explains "house odds" this way: Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 17 A casino earns money by paying winners at "house odds." This is an amount that is slightly less than the true odds of winning the contest. Let's say we're flipping a coin and the bet is one dollar. The true odds of winning are 1 to 1, but the house odds might be 0.95 to 1. In other words, a loss to the casino costs $1, but the casino will only pay 95 cents when a player wins. That's the house edge. Sometimes professional gamblers can use strategy to shift the edge away from the casino, but in most situations the casino has an advantage. t. , ,‘: 1. Whatever clarity that definition provides, the courts are unlikely to rely on gambling website definitions. And, since the house may not bet at all in the game under the prohibition on "house player" that definition gives no independent meaning to the prohibition on "house odds." 6/ The house cannot gamble in a social game, nor may it pay off winning bets. Consequently, the prohibitions on a house player and house bank effectively preclude the house from having any advantage in a social game. House odds must mean something more than simply having an advantage in a game or it adds nothing to those prohibitions. AIS -1183 8. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 03/19/2013 Length (in minutes): 20 Minutes Agenda Title: Tigard Triangle Plan Update Submitted By: Cheryl Caines, Community Development Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Workshop Mtg. Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Update City Council about Tigard Triangle TGM grant project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Receive information about the progress of the Tigard Triangle TGM grant project. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Project Update The city was awarded a Transportation Growth Management grant from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in October 2012. A statement of work (SOW) that outlines the project tasks has been finalized for the Tigard Triangle Strategic Redevelopment Plan. The SOW builds upon the concept plan developed through the Tigard High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan (Attachment 1). Work will be focused on developing a preferred land use and transportation /infrastructure option for the Town Center /Main Street (blue) area of the Triangle and adopting the necessary policy and regulations to support its development. The SOW will involve the tasks outlined in Attachment 3. As shown on the attached timeline (Attachment 2), the next step is to select a consultant for the work. Consultants are contracted through ODOT and are selected from a list of pre- qualified consultant teams. Staff and the ODOT grant manager will review packets submitted for the proposal to make the decision. How will the City Council be involved? Staff will provide project updates to the Council throughout the process. City Council will review the preferred plan and implementation measures (including amendments to policies, codes, standards) developed in Task 6. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Not applicable. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS 2012 City Council Goals 1. Take the Next Step on Major Projects b.Implement the Comprehensive Plan through code revisions, including ii. Contribute to the SW Corridor Plan by adopting Tigard's land use policies and designations and identifying priorities for high- capacity transit (HCT) station location alternatives by mid -2012. 1. Determine the economic development opportunities, development plan, city policies and regulations needed to position the Tigard Triangle as an HCT station location. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION The document Tigard Triangle - A Path Forward was presented to City Council in August 2012. This was prior to the announcement of the TGM grant award. The document outlined two paths to prepare High Capacity Transit ready development in the Trigangle with and without the TGM grant. • Attachments HCT Tigard Triangle Concept Project Timeline Statement of Work Summary AgendaQuick©2005 - 2013 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved 4 STATION TYPOLOGY TRIANGLE "' , ; '' ' � 4 . ' �` " 44 AA.- 4 a , �` Proposed Station Types •.. 6• . - , ° _ 'r , 4 , . - — :,...'„� " " ' - ) , ) Town Center/ Employments . x i gin " l Main Street Retail s ,�� '` . ' ''* 4 fSW PINE ST,.,� • - - J{. t w� , , ... ° ","' Transit a Transit IIII Corridor Neighborhood '°" Q0.' ` ' ' ' Proposed Connections (New and Improved) t, a' _ Local Multimodal Street , . . , ' aria` t+ . 4, �y>v I '- ° e i i i i i i ee ee Bike /Ped Route er4 ! • ti .a Proposed Amenities (Not Located) J '+- Conceptual Park/Open • ,,,. r Space Facilities ' ' -- i Conceptual Bike /Ped Amenities ,SW ATLANTA ST ,y - '- +y'' p � J • ' 14'. VV. , , .. _' Commuter Rail Railroads ° ; :. i 4 Rivers and Water Bodies ti. • I mi _ � l.. - ' s� ' Moe y d y , _ - "Study Area Boundary fl • a r Parks, Open Space • ' • SW DARTMOUTH ST �� " ' _ - ` v.� { and Natural Resources '' _. Ov.A. ° � ! ;. 4 ._ Ii.,.. . A �'� i D 1,000 2,000 Feet • a �y •, pa i r • a ( w . a it -� CONCEPT : - Pk. ...,.. 40 , _ 3 I — a Aj. "A PLAN I t. a e y.; � 4 ACTIVITY COMMUNITY GETTING CENTER CHARACTER AROUND The Tigard Triangle concept shows the The Tigard Triangle Preferred Concept This potential station community is center of intensity east of 72nd Avenue, seeks to blend smaller -scale retail, defined by some of the most highly building on the existing pattern of smaller restaurants and housing to complement traveled roads in the state, which can blocks for a walkable, town center feel. the current employment center, especially create major barriers for getting into This area would have a growing mix in the northeast part of Tigard Triangle. and out of Tigard Triangle. Freeway of retail, employment and residential Increased housing options would also be crossings are expensive, so it's important activities. allowed northwest of OR 99W- Pacific that any new crossing meets multiple Highway. transportation needs. The concept includes a new multimodal facility crossing OR 217 to connect Tigard Triangle with Downtown Tigard. Tigard Triangle Project Timeline , _ January 31 April 4 June /July 2013 July 2013 Draft Scope of Work February 28 September 2014 Consultant Selection SW Corridor Shared Triangle Project to Salem for Final Final Scope of Work Complete Investment Strategy Begins Project Complete Review Attachment 3 Tigard Triangle Strategic Redevelopment Plan Statement of Work Summary Task 1: Public Involvement and Interagency Coordination (June /July 2013) Implement a public Involvement plan that includes Citizen and Technical Advisory Committee meetings and public open houses that will happen throughout the process. Task 2: Existing Conditions Consultant will prepare an existing conditions report that looks at physical conditions, market informaiton, previous planning efforts, current city policies such as Transportation System Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Community Development Code. Task 3: Needs /Opportunities /Constraints and Tools Analysis Analysis of the information gathered in Task 2 to determine opportunities for improved transportation and constraints for redeveloment of the Tigard Triangle. The consultant will identify tools to overcome these constraints (including funding options) and develop criteria to evaluate the land use and transportation options developed in Task 4. Task 4: Options Development The consultant will develop land use and transportation redevelopment options for the study area considering objectives, opportunities, constraints and public input. Task 5: Options Evaluation and Refinement Evaluation of the land use and transportation options developed in Task 4, including costs for needed infrastructure. Task 6: Final Preferred Plan and Report (August /September 2014) The consultant will develop a preferred option, prepare adoptable regulatory implementation measures (zoning designation, development standards, "floating" zoning requirements, site design requirements, street layout and cross sections and development phasing and incentives, etc.) necessary to implement the preferred option, and complete a report that identifies next steps and issues for further refinement. V\./1 1 Z /A /1V11/ it LL 1L 1�11L FOR 711 / 9 X0/3 III _ • City ofTigard (DATE OF MEETING) Tigard Town Hall - Draft Agenda �,eh�`z 1 ' < <m moo' /0 f TIGARD g Ara)/ --A -en d4. /7 MEETING DATE Tuesday, April 30, 2013 TIME: 6:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: O'Reilly Center at St. Anthony's - 9905 SW McKenzie St., Tigard I9( \I ( off Hu 99W) 6:30 — 7:15 p.m. Meet and Greet • Mayor makes brief opening remarks; welcome, introduce councilors, reviews format. - Staff at door to greet later arrivals • Participants may visit with individual councilors at tables on any issue. - Each table has maps (zoning, aerial and streets/ transportation) staff contact information, and comment cards. 7:15 — 8:00 p.m. Tigard Connects • Mayor gathers all participants together, brief introduction of presenters • Brief presentation of HCT study (5 minutes, no more than 10) • Pose HCT topic preference question to the group - Example: What should primag consideration be for choosing an alternative? 8:00 — 8:30 p.m. Open Mike Participants meet as one group and the floor is open for any comments or questions. 8:30 Adjourn