Loading...
City Council Packet - 08/18/2015 IS • City of Tigard Tigard Business/Workshop Meeting—Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DATE AND TIME: August 18,2015 - 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 (MD -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 (1DD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: http://live.tigard-or.gov Workshop meetings are cablecast on Tualatin Valley Community TV as follows: Replay Schedule for Tigard City Council Workshop Meetings-Channel 28 'Every Sunday at 12 a.m. 'Every Monday at 1 p.m. •Every Thursday at 12 p.m. •Every Friday at 10:30 a.m. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA 1,1 Cite of Tigard TIGARD Tigard Business/Workshop Meeting—Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL& CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DATE AND TIME: August 18,2015 - 6:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 6:30 PM 1. BUSINESS,WORKSHOP AND CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING 1. Call to Order- City Council&City Center Development Agency 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. 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: 6:35 p.m. estimated time A. APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: •April 28,2015 *June 23,2015 *July 21,2015 B. CONSIDER RESOLUTION TO APPOINT MEMBERS AND ALTERNATE MEMBERS TO THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD C. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH CLEAN WATER SERVICES REGARDING EROSION CONTROL SERVICES 3. CONSIDER RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICES LEVY 6:40 p.m.estimated time 4. CONSIDER RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY LEVY RENEWAL 6:45 p.m. estimated time 5. RECEIVE BRIEFING ON EARLY MARIJUANA SALES IN TIGARD 6:50 p.m.estimated time 6. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON THE TIGARD TRIANGLE 7:10 p.m.estimated time 7. PRESENTATION ON TIGARD STREET HERITAGE TRAIL CONCEPT 7:50 p.m. estimated time 8. DISCUSSION ON SAXONY PROPERTY REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 8:15 p.m. estimated time 9. ANNUAL POLICE DEPARTMENT TEMPORARY HOLDING FACILITY TOUR AND INSPECTION 8:40 p.m.estimated time 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order,the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute.All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions,as provided by ORS 192.660(4),but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision.Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 12. ADJOURNMENT 9:00 p.m. estimated time ,, City of Tigard ■ Tigard City Council Meeting Agenda TIGARD August 18, 2015 F. CITY COUNCIL Administrative Items: Materials for Council Training with Lenny Borer on August 31, 4-6 p.m. at Fanno Creek House The PowerPoint for Agenda Item No. 8,Discussion on Saxony Property Redevelopment Study is attached. Council Calendar August 4 Tuesday City Center Development Agency Meeting—Cancelled Due to National Night Out 11* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 18* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 25* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 31 Monday Council Training—4-6 p.m.,Fanno Creek House September 1 Tuesday City Center Development Agency Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 8* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 15* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 22* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall October 6 Tuesday City Center Development Agency Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 13* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 16 Friday Council Tailgate at Tigard High School, Details TBA 20* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 27* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk(*). AIS-2314 2.A. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 08/18/2015 Length (in minutes):Consent Item Agenda Title: Approve City Council Meeting Minutes Submitted By: Carol Krager,Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Approve City Council meeting minutes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve minutes as submitted. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached council minutes are submitted for City Council approval: •April 28,2015 •June 23,2015 •July 21,2015 OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/,1 Attachments April 28,2015 Draft Council Minutes June 23,2015 Draft Council Minutes July 21,2015 Draft Council Minutes ,, City of Tigard . . Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes TIGARD April 28, 2015 STUDY SESSION 6:30 p.m. Council present: Council President Snider,Councilor Woodard, Councilor Henderson,Councilor Goodhouse. Absent: Mayor Cook Council President Snider called the Study Session to order. He noted that the Executive Session scheduled for the Study Session was cancelled. A. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS Councilor Henderson will give a liaison report at the next meeting on homelessness. Council President Snider updated council on the Lake Oswego Tigard Water Partnership and said there have been some technical challenges at one of the small underway 99E tunneling projects using technology that would not require an open trench but ran into trouble and they are working around that this week. He said he and Mayor Cook have been involved in discussions with councilors from other cities and this will be shared at a later date. B. REVIEW SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE FEE AUDIT AND POTENTIAL TMC CHANGES Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance said representatives from Tigard's two waste haulers,Waste Management and Pride Disposal were present. They have been working with staff over the past six months,discussing potential solid waste fee process changes. Tigard's Municipal Code states that there is an expected profit margin for waste haulers of 8-12 percent,with a target profit margin of 10 percent when setting rates. The rate haulers report at the end of the calendar year so a determination can be made if they fall within that range.At the end of 2013 the city conducted a rate review because the aggregate report fell beneath that range and new fees were set. But there is a problem with the timing as the haulers report at the end of the calendar year, the review is done and this is reported to council. By the time new fees are set it is halfway through the next calendar year. So in the last six months of the year that included a rate change the haulers again fell below the 8 percent range.The city and the haulers disagreed about whether there should be a rate adjustment. The city took the standpoint that there were only six months for the fees to take effect so the target may not necessarily be met and the haulers felt that the city should do something. Staff has been meeting with the haulers in an attempt to rectify this problem. In the meantime another year has passed. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 1 of 22 This aggregate financial report for 2014 shows a profit rate of 7.6 percent. Since it does not fall within the target,a rate adjustment is needed. Based on cost escalators provided by the haulers, staff is recommending a 7 percent increase to provide rates that will produce an expected profit of 9 percent for the last six months in 2015 and 10 percent in 2016. Recommended code changes to Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 11.04 include setting the index to adjust fees on January 1 of each year,stating that a cost of service study will be conducted at least every five years,and in the years where a cost of service study is completed,and the rates take effect in the middle of a calendar year,the report should set expected profit for that year that takes into account the fact that the new fees were only in effect for part of the year. Other changes include updating the hauler names listed in the TMC. Councilor Woodard asked how capital costs affect the aggregate rate of return. Mr. LaFrance said haulers amortize the value of their assets as part of their annual costs. Council President Snider said this was discussed 18 months ago during a discussion about replacing a number of trucks with those powered by natural gas. The haulers said the natural gas trucks cost$25,000-$30,000 more than a diesel truck. Fuel cost savings average$800 a month per truck. They produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and are quieter for drivers and also for neighborhoods. Councilor Henderson asked what has eroded profits and Mr.Jeffries replied one factor is the recycled material value. They used to receive revenue for it but are now paying to process this material. This is driven by the economy in China and India and the demand for these materials is reduced.Another change is the cost to recycle green waste, or yard debris. Processing facilities have to upgrade to higher environmental standards. Mr. Leichner added that Metro fees and labor contracts are also a factor. Council President Snider expressed concerns about what happens to the profits when the recycling market improves. Mr. LaFrance said if the haulers'profits increase so they are outside these bounds that too would trigger a rate reopener. He said the intent of setting an index would be that"we are not chasing those cycle" as much. He said he did not know if recycling cost forecasts are a component of the index. The city council was favorable to bringing these changes to the TMC and Master Fees and Charges and to a business meeting for consideration. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: City Manager Wine discussed the council travel budget. Travel increased to $7,000 for council and the mayor's travel rose to$12,600. Discussion was held on whether this amount is adequate for the mayor's travel. Ms. Wine said$10,000 was budgeted for next year's Youth Advisory trip,which is enough to send two youths and one chaperone to Washington DC for a conference. The next fifth Tuesday occurs in June and City Manager Wine will be discussing options for some form of council engagement with the community. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of 22 eAssistant City Manager Newton mentioned that Google Fiber wishes to meet with the city on May 14 to talk about a possible franchise. Other cities besides Portland,which already has a franchise agreement with Google, have also been contacted. Attending the meeting for Tigard will be Assistant City Manager Newton,Assistant to the City Manager Mills and city attorneys. City Manager Wine updated council on Comcast negotiations and said the franchise agreement must have unanimous approval from all Metropolitan Area Communication Commission (MACC) cities and Hillsboro has some issues with the agreement. If Hillsboro votes no, the cities may have to move into a formal process with Comcast. 1. BUSINESS MEETING A. Council President Snider called the City Council and Local Contract Review Board meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. B. City Recorder Krager called the roll. Present Absent Councilor Goodhouse x Councilor Henderson (Left the meeting after the Study Session.) x Council President Snider x Councilor Woodard x Mayor Cook C. Council President Snider asked everyone to stand and join him in the pledge of allegiance. D. Council President Snider asked council and staff for non agenda items. There were none. 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication—City Manager Wine said there was none. B. Citizen Communication—No one signed up to speak. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council and Local Contract Review Board) Motion to: A. Approve City Council Minutes: • March 10,2015 • March 24,2015 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 3 of 22 B. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT REGARDING REVISED FUNDING FOR THE PACIFIC HIGHWAY/GAARDE STREET/McDONALD STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Councilor Goodhouse moved for approval of the Consent Agenda and Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Yes No Councilor Goodhouse x Councilor Henderson (Absent) Council President Snider x Councilor Woodard x Mayor Cook (Absent) 4. CONSIDER HEAL CITY CAMPAIGN RESOLUTION laHuman Resources Director Bennett gave the staff report on joining the healthy eating and active living (HEAL) City campaign which is before council by resolution. She said HEAL is a project between the Oregon Public Health Institute and the League of Oregon Cities and is funded by Kaiser Permanente. The HEAL campaign encourages cities to create policies and expand options for every person to have affordable and convenient access to wholesome foods,encourage and provide access to physical activity and build a culture of wellness within a municipal employee group.The main three components include education about health and recognition that the status quo represents an ongoing risk to children, alternatives,resources and technical assistance. If council approves Tigard joining the campaign, the city will become one of 25 cities in Oregon actively working to improve public health.Tigard already enjoys several policies promoting healthy living in our community, from the strategic plan to the Tigard Farmers Market.There are four levels and based on initial review Tigard will come in at a level three and will aspire to attain a level four within the first year of being a campaign participant. Staff encourages council to adopt the resolution. Councilor Woodard asked why the LOC chose this organization among several that do similar things. He said any program like this only benefits a city and said he is favorable of the program. He said AARP has a very similar program and they have done an assessment of Tigard finding the city is a contender to being a part of their age-friendly communities program. Councilor Goodhouse asked if there was any reason the city could not to join multiple programs. City Manager Wine said Councilor Woodard and Mayor Cook have asked staff to investigate what is involved with the AARP plan and Councilor Goodhouse mentioned learning about the Let's Move program so staff is also looking into it. Councilor Woodard said he agreed with Councilor Goodhouse's recommendation to consider the Let's Move program as it will benefit Tigard's youth. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 4 of 22 Councilor Goodhouse moved for approval of Resolution No. 15-14. Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. City Recorder Krager read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 15—14-A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH THE CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMITMENT TO HEALTHY LIVING FOR THE COMMUNITY The motion passed unanimously. Yes No Councilor Goodhouse x Councilor Henderson (Absent) Council President Snider x Councilor Woodard x Mayor Cook (Absent) 5. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING ON STORM WATER,PARKS,AND TRANSPORTATION SDCs AND FEES a. Council President Snider opened the public hearing. El b. Hearing Procedures —Council President Snider said any person wishing to comment on this matter shall be given the opportunity to do so. c. Staff Report—Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance,River Terrace Project Manager Shanks and FCS Consultant Todd Chase were present. Mr. LaFrance said this is the tenth time staff and the consultants have been before council in the past year to discuss the process to create a Tigard Transportation System Development Charge (SDC) and update Tigard's Parks SDC. This has been part of a citywide process and also part of the River Terrace process. He said extensive meetings have been held with the residential development community in relation to River Terrace. Mr.LaFrance said there are two hearings for the SDCs and this first hearing is a discussion about changes to the Tigard Municipal Code and SDC methodology adoption.A second hearing will be held to consider adopting the actual fees derived from this methodology. He said staff proposes that the one-time Parks SDCs which are paid as development occurs be adopted as shown in the council packet. Mr. LaFrance said staff will be recommending changes to transportation SDCs after having further discussion with the residential development community. Much time and thought was put into the residential transportation system development charges and as a result, a discount was provided on that fee. Council gave direction to discount the fee which resulted in about a 70 percent discount. Staff did not have the same level of discussion with the nonresidential development community and there was initially no discount provided to their projects.The proposal in council's packet does not offer a discount.After concerns were raised by the commercial development community, staff is recommending an alternate proposal that will discount the nonresidential Transportation SDCs equal to what residential TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 5 of 22 would receive, or about 70 percent. This increases by five percent the total unfunded city transportation projects over the next 20 years. Another option will also be discussed. This keeps an equal discount,but reduces nonresidential SDCs and raises residential SDCs in order to maintain the same level of non- funded projects for the next 20 years. Other options for council consideration include postponing the nonresidential SDC effective date. The rationale is that the city had extensive discussions with the residential developers but while the outreach to nonresidential developers met legal requirements,it was not at the same level as residential. This delay would help nonresidential developers work these new changes into their plans. In response to a question from Council President Snider, Mr. LaFrance said they are recommending postponing no longer than one year. A third consideration is that council asked staff to propose a discount for smaller residential housing. The rate consultant feels this is defensible. The Home Builders Association argues that by changing the fee to be based upon the square footage of a home, the city is going away from impacts to the system and closer to a tax. No other city has done it this way so there is no case law. Because of Council's risk tolerance to becoming case law for the State, staff is recommending going back to the standard of single-family,multi-family and nonresidential classifications. Mr.LaFrance showed a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is in the packet for this meeting. For Parks and Transportation SDCs there is a reimbursement portion and an improvement portion which is the bulk of the SDC. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) discounts were discussed. Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance said it is development in the downtown area. If a development comes in that is near mass transit and would require people to have no more than one car then they are putting fewer trips on the road so would be eligible for a discount. Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance showed a slide of all the SDCs for Tigard, including sewer, storm water, water, transportation, parks and Washington County's transportation development tax (1'DT). Option B-1 was the option in council's packet. Tigard is priced in the middle of the list of local municipalities. On a citywide basis for a single-family detached home the SDCs would be a little less than $34,000 and in River Terrace the same home would be a little less than $40,000. Mr. LaFrance mentioned that in North Bethany there is a Washington County Service District which will appear on a homeowner's property tax bill and will help pay for road construction. It is similar to an SDC in that it goes towards the same purpose, but it is paid differently. An SDC is paid by the developer but this charge is paid annually by the homeowner. Mr.LaFrance said council asked for commercial development Transportation SDC information expressed through two examples,a small coffee shop and an office complex. Option B-2—Coffee shop example.A citywide commercial developer would pay a discounted amount in the same amount as provided to residential. So in this example, the citywide commercial development would be charged$121,000 rather than $197,000,bringing TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 6 of 22 it closer to the North Bethany area cost. In River Terrace,the same development would pay $122,000 instead of$211,000. This is the scenario staff is recommending. Option B-3 has a slightly smaller discount enabling the city to keep the unfunded project list to$420,000,000. He showed a similar slide for a 40,000 square foot office complex example. Stakeholder input was received and staff has represented that input through the recommended SDCs. The last slide showed a side-by-side comparison for single-family residential,multi-family residential and commercial development. Option B-1 is the version in the council packet and has no discount for nonresidential development. Option B-2 is staff's recommendation (residential SDC is unchanged and nonresidential SDC is discounted an equal amount. Unfunded project costs go up five percent). Option B-3 has an increase in residential SDCs to make up for a shortfall created by the commercial discount.This scenario keeps the unfunded project cost the same. The rationale for staff recommending Option B-2 is that there has been an extensive and cooperative exchange of information between staff,council,the community and the developers on the residential SDCs. Staff felt having a five percent impact on the unfunded project list was not as big of an impact as Option B-3 would be on residential customers. Staff is also asking for a potential delay for commercial SDCs that is later than July 1,2015 but no later than July 1,2016. d. II Public Testimony—City Attorney Ramis said this is a legislative enactment by council and not subject to land use limitations. Proponents - No one signed up to speak. Opponents - John Kloor, Government Relations Coordinator for the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland,read a statement,a copy of which has been entered into the record. He spoke on behalf of the more than 1,400 members of the Home Builders Association and said he was here to express concerns with the city's proposed Parks and Transportation SDC charges methodologies. He said he wanted to be clear that they support SDCs as a way of helping fund needed infrastructure. They also understand that a new area such as River Terrace has additional needs that will require extra costs. With that said, they also have a general concern with how much SDCs are rising and their impact on housing affordability. SDCs are now the second highest building cost after land in the price of most homes. SDCs are not the only way new development can pay for needed costs but they have a significant impact on home prices,affordability and mortgage debt. He requested that council consider these overall impacts and also review their specific concerns. In addition to the general concerns with housing affordability they also want to raise specific concerns related to the proposal before council. >They would very much appreciate having more time to review these with city staff before council votes on the proposed methodology and increases. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 7 of 22 1. Parks SDC projected cost: They appreciate that a lot of work has gone into these numbers. However,the Parks SDC plan appears to contain very high estimates for some of the capital improvements needed that may be overinflating the total costs and that is impacting the proposed SDCs.They would appreciate an opportunity to review these costs in more detail. 2. Transportation SDC Impact: In North Bethany they have utilized a county service district which helps pay for the infrastructure improvements and reduces the amount put on housing through a Transportation SDC. They strongly urge Tigard to use a similar approach. Adding the proposed SDC to the existing Washington County Transportation Development Tax would create a total charge to new housing of over$16,000 for transportation. Over the life of a mortgage that would add$40,000-$50,000 in debt to a homeowner. 3. On the Transportation SDC scaling to home size,no jurisdiction to date in Oregon bases Transportation SDCs off of the square footage of the home. State statute requires than an SDC must be directly related to the impact a new home has on the transportation system. The widely used and accepted practice is to base impact,using data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and their trip generation manual which only distinguishes trip use between multi-family and single-family homes. The fact that ITE has never been able to show a nexus between single-family home size and trip usage is telling. As is the fact that the consultants the city hired had to compile a new source from a couple of anecdotal surveys.They believe this violates ORS 223.299,which states that an SDC must have a nexus to increased usage. There is no accepted standard that shows a smaller or larger home has a lesser or greater impact on a transportation system. They appreciate this approach is being explored for affordability issues of smaller homes. However, there are other ways to accomplish this goal and they will willingly work with the city to explore some of these alternatives. 4. SDC Discounts:The FCS report states that there are discounts off of the maximum allowed SDCs for both transportation and parks. These discounts acknowledge that using the full SDC could unduly burden housing affordability and that there are other ways new users can pay for added infrastructure, e.g.,bonds,utility fees,grants and credits. They support this approach but are unable to determine the discounts from the report information. They would like the opportunity to review this further with staff to better understand what is being recommended. 5. On the effective date,the draft ordinance before council has this drastic fee increase becoming effective in a little over two months,July 1,2015.They believe strongly that any increase should have a longer lead time and be phased in so that residential development projects currently in process to begin the permitting process won't be unnecessarily burdened by additional costs that could not have been foreseen when pro forma analyses and financing were finalized. Mr. Kloor said they realize a lot of work has gone into the proposed methodology reports and appreciate the many concerns they typically have with new methodologies that have been factored by staff and FCS Group into this work. He said they do not believe their TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 8 of 22 concerns will lead to significant delays in review but in light of these concerns they ask that council grant a two-week continuance in order to allow for additional review and potential revised recommendations. He thanked council for their consideration. ® Council President Snider asked about point No. 2 and said when considering that the ultimate responsibility for paying for transportation is most probably the owner of the property,how does it differ to pay on annual property taxes instead of having it lumped into an SDC. Mr. Kloor said he would make the argument that on the mortgage tax through the North Bethany county service district they are not paying an interest rate. He asked how it is different in the ultimate total cost whether they are paying annually or it is lumped into an SDC. Council President Snider commented that having to finance it makes it more expensive and Mr. Kloor said that it correct. ® Councilor Goodhouse asked about Item No. 3 and what were the other ways to accomplish the goal of affordable housing. Mr. Kloor said housing affordability is a larger policy issue that they would need time to discuss with their staff as well as with the city and they would welcome that opportunity. He said the City of Portland provides SDC waivers for certain homes built that meet lower income buying standards. Incentives include accelerated permitting and other incentives to encourage the development of affordable housing. Councilor Goodhouse said he hears from developers that it is difficult to build lower priced homes because of the high SDCs and he thought if they were lower on lower prices homes it would encourage more to be built. Mr. Kloor said,"Perhaps, but with the cost of land in our region being the significantly most expensive cost in a home price, I think that lowering the SDCs slightly to encourage smaller development remains to be seen.At the end of the day it would depend on whether that penciled for developers." ® Kelly Hossaini,attorney with Miller Nash said she was representing the Tigard-Tualatin School District, She mentioned that TTSD Chief Financial Officer David Moore and TTSD Board Member Maureen Wolf were also present. Ms. Hossaini said TTSD is concerned about the nonresidential portion of the Transportation SDCs because that is what they would pay when building a new school. When they received the information they ran scenarios to determine how it might affect the district's ability to provide new school facilities and were shocked. The proposed City of Tigard Transportation SDC for a new 600-student elementary school outside of River Terrace would be$1.2 million. Adding that to the county's Transportation Development Tax would increase the Transportation SDCs for a new elementary school to over$1.4 million. She said she attached a table to her written testimony showing the cost of an elementary school built in different Portland metropolitan jurisdictions. She said the Portland Transportation SDC would be about$203,000, compared to$1.4 million. In Sherwood,which is one of the few cities in Washington County that has a city Transportation SDC,the SDC for a new school would only be$289,000 for a 600-student elementary school. She heard that last year Sherwood reduced their Transportation SDCs by 50 percent and that original SDC was far less than what is proposed here. She suggested that staff do some research on this. Part of the reason it was reduced was because of the economic impact it was having in the city. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 9 of 22 Ms. Hossaini said that a 600-student elementary school built in River Terrace would have Transportation SDCs of$1.6 million in River Terrace. The table she prepared shows that in North Bethany,which is comparable to River Terrace,it would be $408,000. She said it was hard to overestimate the impact this SDC would have on the district's ability to provide needed school facilities. She said what may not be obvious is that this fee will put the brakes on economic development efforts in the city,which in turn will harm the district because it depends on a healthy tax base to fund local option levies. Local option levies allow the district to fund a full school year and will do so in this biennium when other school districts in Washington County are expecting to cut their school years. Ms. Hossaini said staff has given council the option of reducing the Transportation SDCs for nonresidential uses. She said it is their understanding that the proposed SDC for residential development has always assumed a discount. A discount for nonresidential development is helpful but what the district would ask is that staff take some additional time to consider the nonresidential Transportation SDC. She said it does not seem that stakeholders in the community who will be most affected by it have had time to review it. The school district only learned this evening what the details of the discount might be. She said they also ask that the city give their economic development team time to vet this with the development community so it can be implemented with the least impact on its economic development goals. This might include a delay,a phase-in,a reduction,or all of those things. David Moore,Chief Financial Officer for Tigard-Tualatin School District said an additional impact of$1 million could impact overall construction cost by 1-2 percent. This represents one-two fewer classrooms to serve students. He said the District has true concern about the economic impact in the Tigard community with these SDCs. TTSD is one of the few districts in the metro area that did not reduce school days during the recession.A good part of this was due to the local option levy that supplemented insufficient state funding. He requested more time to vet the nonresidential SDCs with city staff. He said there was a lot of outreach to the residential developers and the district,as a nonresidential partner did not get that opportunity. They need this to vet the impact on the district. He said at a minimum,they are asking for that outreach or at least consideration of the discounted level SDCs for the school district. I3Council Goodhouse said the numbers the district is using do not take into account the crrepdit for the SDCs. ®Michael Marino, Senior Vice President at NAI -Norris Beggs&Simpson, said he is an industrial real estate broker and has been working closely with the City of Tigard and its economic development staff on the Fred Fields site on Hunziker and Wall Streets. He commented that he is excited about the project. The proposed Transportation and Park SDCs are concerning. After hearing staffs recommendation to council he is concerned that the nonresidential side has not had enough input on this or enough time to vet their concerns on the proposed schedule. He said it would be healthy to include the nonresidential community in these discussions. It sounds like the residential side got their fair due. The Fred Fields site is an important project to the City of Tigard and will bring TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 10 of 22 well-paying jobs, strong employment and in turn will hopefully assist those with the jobs purchase homes in River Terrace. Mr. Merino said heaping on increased SDC fees in addition to the Washington County SDC fees seems counterproductive to the entire development process. He said further discussion, especially on the nonresidential side should take place and he asked council to delay and not adopt the fees proposed by staff. He mentioned that the developer on the Fields project, Trammel Crow,was present. He closed by saying the economy has gotten better but the real estate market has not improved enough for rental rates to support the developer paying the proposed SDCs. ® Steve Wells,Trammel Crow Co., 1300 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 3050,Portland,OR, said they are the contract purchaser for 18 acres of Fields property slated for industrial development and have been working with Tigard's Economic Development Manager Purdy. He said he was excited about the Enterprise Zone put in place to help make development a reality on the industrial site. He said he wished he could say the discount on the SDCs is great but even with a 70 percent discount,Washington County is by far the most expensive place to develop office and industrial property in terms of the TDT and parks fees. It is very difficult in Washington County to cover the extra cost of the county's TDT. Depending on the type of development,industrial or office, the TDT in Washington County is two to four times what it is in Multnomah County, Clackamas County or Portland. Adding 60 percent on top of that makes it three to six times more. He gave examples of square footage costs. General office space is $3.64 per foot in Portland, $4.30 in Clackamas County and$13.00 in Tigard. A medical building in Portland is $9.57,in Clackamas around$14.00 and$42.00 in Tigard. Light industrial costs $2.25 in Portland,$2.70 in Clackamas and even with the discount would cost$8-$9 a foot in Tigard. To be$5-$6 more than any other part in town, on a$70-$80 project,is a big deal for the development community. He said costs are rising faster than values currently and the project next year will be difficult. He said they expect to come in for project permits next summer but if these SDCs are in place,even at the discounted rate,there will be a significant burden on this prospective project in Tigard. III Clayton Hering, 1708 SW Highland Road,Portland, OR 97221,testified on three things: 1. The city says it wants jobs. He has been before council several times working through the process with city staff,who have been quite cooperative. But tonight we are talking about a public policy that could significantly hurt the potential to create those jobs. Capital is very efficient. It will go where it will get the best return.The significant increase puts Tigard in a disadvantaged position and will slow down economic development for both industrial and multi-family. 2. He is Board Chairman for Norris Beggs Simpson and has been in the industry for 43 years and Tigard has a reputation for being difficult to work with simply because of attitudes and public policy;but this is almost criminal. Council needs to understand that development takes 18,24,or 36 months to put together. There was nothing like this on the table when they signed a contract with the city. Now they are under contract but the TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 11 of 22 proposal is to implement this July 1. This is unfair. The rules of the game have changed. Development does not move that fast. 3. Listen to people practicing in the market,not just consultants. In observing 40 brokers operating all over the market,he sees that this particular SDC proposal is bad for job creation,bad for economic development and bad for attracting housing. He added that there is big talk now about affordable housing. But the city comes along and adds another cost. This will kill the opportunity to do affordable housing with this SDC proposed for nonresidential. He said he had a lot of confidence with this council and is working well with staff but this felt like a hit in the face. He said he was hopeful that this could be resolved. Neutral testimony- ia Fred Gast,Polygon Northwest, 109 East 13th Street,Vancouver,WA 98660,said he had planned specifically to speak about parks but wanted to weigh in on other information presented by staff. He said they are supportive of Option B-2. He spoke about how parks are integral and they are significant supporters of parks in any community they develop. He said he was all for vibrant,active,amenity filled parks that will attract people to a neighborhood. Ultimately,people are attracted to a neighborhood first and then a house. His main concern was with the cost estimates used to create the backdrop for the parks fees themselves. He noted they worked with staff on the Transportation SDCs and were able to reconcile what their cost experience was with staff estimates. In doing so, they discovered many areas where costs were overstated. They were able to work out concerns with staff and ended up with numbers somewhere in between. They would like a similar opportunity with parks. He asked if council had received correspondence from Jim Lang,which gave a real-world example of a recently built park. He asked for time to ensure that the numbers are in keeping with actual experience. He said as a developer with significant holdings in River Terrace,Polygon will be building many of these parks and they do not want to pay an inflated fee on top of what it costs to build. He commented that they were excited to get started in River Terrace and from their point of view it has been a very beneficial and positive experience working with the city. Council President Snider noted Mr. Gast had spoken before council in the past and had been positive about the process,the level of input and staff responsiveness. He asked if the city fell short regarding Parks SDCs. Mr. Gast replied that it had not been long ago when they saw what the SDC would be for parks and figured the impact of the fee. He said there was not as much visibility. Council President Snider asked if he thought there was an opportunity to partner further on this and Mr. Gast replied, "Absolutely." El Michael Robinson, 1120 NW Couch Street,Portland, OR 97209, said he represented West Hills Development. He said Mr. Dan Grimberg was also present and in the audience. He said he agreed with those asking for a continuance and believed additional time is warranted. He said city staff has been very good to work with through the River Terrace process and there should be more opportunity to address issues raised on the residential side. He referred to a letter sent to Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance today and reiterated three points from it. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 12 of 22 1. They agree with the staff recommendation to eliminate the scaled fee proposal for single-family dwellings. 2. They are concerned about cost estimates for transportation improvements and want additional time to discuss this with staff. 3. The city's SDC program should consider the upcoming county MSTIP bond program. They have high confidence that it will be enacted this year and it may pay for some of the arterials in River Terrace. He thanked council for their time and hoped they will grant a short continuance to discuss these issues with staff. ®Jamie Stasny, 17933 NW Evergreen Parkway,Beaverton, OR 97006, spoke on behalf of Metropolitan Land Group. She echoed testimony given by others that the Transportation SDC is too onerous on the development community. They encourage further analysis on the project cost estimates. They have always proposed that the city consider a similar approach as North Bethany where a county service district is being used. This changes the way the financial picture looks and the burden is not up front on the developer but can be paid over time by the resident. She said the Parks SDC is excessive and has increased significantly since they first saw the draft last week. There has not been a lot of time to review the project cost list. They request a continuance of this hearing to allow time to coordinate with staff and resolve issues. Canine Arendes,9524 SW North Dakota Street,Tigard, 97223, said a lot has been heard from the development community but we have not heard a lot from the park users or Tigard transportation system users. She said she was not speaking for or against the SDCs but when the issue came up a few months ago it was noted that many communities are struggling with paying for their infrastructure improvements. In areas of green fields development like North Bethany and Cooper Mountain there are increases but some other communities that are not doing this yet. Tigard may be on the forefront of potential push for municipalities to find funding solutions to pay for the costs of providing services to our citizens. We should not be surprised that there is some shock about this. However,we are hearing from the development community that they want to take some time to think about these things a little. Time is money for these folks and if they are expressing a need to look at the issue shat is something we should be considering. She added that construction costs are rising,not just for buildings,but also for roads. We need to find a sustainable way to fund those. ® Robert Van Vlack 15585 SW 109th Tigard, OR,asked, "If the developers are not going to pay the cost of the upgrade in the infrastructure,who does? It would be residents of the city of Tigard paying to build up the infrastructure. How does that work?" Council President Snider said that is an excellent question and one he intends to ask during the council discussion. Mr. Van Vlack said he lives in a 55 and older community of 1,700 residents in Summerfield. Most are on a fixed income and he would rather not see the burden dumped on them,but would like development to pay their way when coming into a community. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES —APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 13 of 22 e. Council questions. Councilor Woodard asked how something like the Bethany service district could be applied. Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance said the concept was considered but staff found that as an incorporated city Tigard cannot do that. Consultant Chase said their service district includes a$1.25 levy per thousand assessed value,primarily used for transportation improvements and capital projects. That lowered the burden of the SDC requirements but an average homeowner would pay$430 a year,which is not insignificant. Cities have the option for a voter-approved levy for a special area, such as River Terrace. Councilor Goodhouse said if less gets paid by developers the cost could spill over to Tigard citizens on their utility bills. Mr.LaFrance said if the city collects less through SDCs, fewer projects on the 20-year list will be completed. This could mean more congested roads or it could mean that improvements will be paid by current and future residents and not by developers putting in the roads or paying SDCs. IRCouncil President Snider noted that a few people testified about the Parks SDCs being too high or not accurate. He asked if staff felt this would benefit from a process similar to what was done for Transportation SDCs. Mr. LaFrance said yes,that could be done but questioned how much of an impact it would have on the SDC. He said however, direction from council is that River Terrace development happens this summer so we need to act quickly. Council President Snider asked for a definition of"quickly." Mr. LaFrance said staff desires to have this on a council business meeting agenda in May. He said there is not enough time to put in the same level of effort that was done for Transportation SDCs because there was more lead time. He said staff could meet and look for efficiencies but he wanted to set up the expectation in advance that they may not be able to have the same level of effort. Councilor Woodard expressed concerns about the nonresidential SDC impact on schools, small businesses and economic development. He asked if there was any better discount scenario for schools. He said there is$420 million in projects that need to be done in 20 years but maybe the city does not complete the entire list. He acknowledged that was just moving things down the road. He suggested there be at least some review on the Parks and Transportation SDCs. Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance responded that a lot of effort went into transportation SDCs and they could work even further which might make staff more uncomfortable and developers less uncomfortable but he thought they had struck that balance already on the project costs. He noted that project costs form the backbone of what can be charged for SDCs. He said from a staff standpoint,"That ship has sailed."Mr. LaFrance said there could be discussions on Parks SDCs within a two-week period. Council President Snider said he had the utmost confidence that the developer group in the audience would participate. Councilor Woodard said he was not as concerned with the Parks SDC but thought the Transportation total was high. Council President Snider said the only place for movement was to fund less and do fewer projects in the future. Councilor Woodard commented on TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 14 of 22 the short time period to review the nonresidential SDCs. Mr. LaFrance said there is complete recognition that there was not the same level of conversation on nonresidential and staff is recommending the same discount level as residential. If council, from a policy standpoint,wants to envision a scenario where nonresidential is given a different discount, staff can delay adoption and implementation. But if council feels there is equity, further discussion would not bear much fruit for council. Council President Snider said they are looking at funding a basic elementary school that has SDCs costing 3-4 times what they would be in most jurisdictions and the district did not have time to review updated numbers. He did not like this process. Councilor Woodard said he wanted nonresidential developers to have a separate discussion. Councilor Goodhouse asked Consultant Chase how the figures were arrived at for the smaller homes. Consultant Chase said the IT publishes a trip generation that not only takes into account dwelling units but also takes into account people in the dwelling unit,but they do not publish a rate based on the square feet of a detached home. He took the Metro trip information from models which showed that as the number of people per dwelling increases, trips increase.The National Association of Home Builders has studies that indicate the average number of people per dwelling unit per square feet in a detached home. They correlated three options: three or fewer bedroom homes,homes with three bedrooms or more and then five bedroom homes. Builders said they would like to build more cottage homes but do not want to be charged the same as an estate house. Councilor Goodhouse asked about other options to encourage builders to build affordable homes. Consultant Chase said this option is that it is revenue neutral. Fee waivers were another option which would be a decision to undercharge and subsidize that type of housing. Senior Planner Shanks clarified the timeline, saying the goal for River Terrace implementation,was to get things moving this summer. Staff thought it advisable to get the infrastructure financing in place as soon as possible,with July 1 as a good target date. Code amendments adopted in February allow developers to start applications but compliance is delayed as SDCs are not locked into place until a developer pulls a building permit. Although this is months away,the longer the fees are hanging out there unresolved the more uncomfortable it is for the developers and for the city. July 1 is not a magical date if council wants staff to spend more time on this, as long as that particular development community is comfortable with the fees unresolved. She said she is hearing from them tonight that they would like more time. CJ Council President Snider asked the City Attorney about the letter from the Home Builders Association, specifically the allegation that one of the methodologies used violates ORS 223.299. City Attorney Ramis said he has not had time to study the letter. He asked if the letter pertained to charging a sliding scale for size and square footage of a house and said in his experience that was an untested methodology. He said he did not know of any litigation experience that would support using it. The statute is written in general terms so in the end it will be a question of whether or not the city can justify,based upon actual data, the use of that particular methodology. He did not think it was prohibited by the statute but the question is whether we can meet the burden of proof demonstrating that it is supported by TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES — APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 15 of 22 the evidence. Council President Snider said more people live in a bigger house and more people generate more trips;it intuitively makes sense. City Attorney Ramis said the test of the methodology is the circuit court proceeding and the question will be whether or not we have in our existing record the data that would support that methodology. Council President Snider asked staff if they believe we do. Consultant Chase responded that ideally there would be three ways to demonstrate this opposed to one,and more diligence on cities that have adopted a similar approach. City Attorney Ramis said, "But again,the question is,is the data in the record now?That will be the test." Consultant Chase said this policy is revenue neutral. Council President Snider asked if the Stakeholder Working Group and others offering feedback favored this. Senior Planner Shanks replied that among letters received before this hearing, one developer did not support the tiered approach to housing;two did not like it and did not think it was legal and the other two were silent. Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance said it was a policy suggested by council at the last workshop. Councilor Woodard said he was favorable towards affordable housing but thought there were other ways to get it developed. He expressed discomfort with the potential legal risk and did not want the city to be a case study in litigation. Council President Snider agreed and said he had a lack of confidence in this approach. lI Council President Snider asked for comments on the MSTIP as a funding source. Mr. LaFrance said it fits in well with our funding strategy and would not impact the proposal before council tonight. He said the MSTIP deals with Roy Rogers Road which is a county Transportation Development Tax funded project in the methodology. It does not impact citywide or River Terrace SDCs. Consultant Chase said they are only including a small portion of Roy Rogers Road in their methodology. It is a much bigger project than the City of Tigard would do so two thirds of the cost is not there. Mr. LaFrance said there is a strong likelihood that the county will help expand Roy Rogers Road. Council President Snider asked for a revised figure on what the Transportation SDC was for the 600 student school with the current discount. Mr.LaFrance said the city portion would go from$1.2 million to around$400,000. Consultant Chase said including the county's TDT it would bring it to$600,000. He added that when developing a new school in Portland they are building around roads and infrastructure that is most likely already there. It might be cheaper to pay the impact fees in River Terrace than to build roads. But if you build the roads,you will get credits for a good proportion of that. In response to a question from Councilor Goodhouse, Consultant Chase said the TDT was capped as a policy choice and jurisdictions in Washington County are beginning to look at nonresidential rates and be competitive in the market but still charge a nonresidential use for its impact on roads. Councilor Goodhouse reiterated that if the city offers too much of a discount the residents of Tigard will need to pick up the rest on a utility bill or elsewhere. Consultant Chase said another strategy to consider is a non-remonstrance clause in development agreements so a local improvement district (LID) can be formed if needed to fund a gap in a project required to serve development in the future. Happy Valley and other TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 16 of 22 areas have done this. Council does not have to decide everything tonight. It can be revisited every five years. Council President Snider asked for comments on statements by developers that the Fields property is going to be 2-4 to 3-6 times more expensive in commercial or industrial development than Multnomah or Clackamas County. Mr. LaFrance said staff has not done a comparison on areas other than Washington County. Consultant Chase said Tigard is at the high end of the region in nonresidential development. He suggested there might be certain types of nonresidential development that the city might want to incentivize more than others, such as family-wage jobs versus service jobs. Policy decisions on incentives can be held later. Councilor Woodard asked for Economic Development Director Purdy's input on this but Mr. Purdy indicated he had none at this time. f. Staff recommendation: Mr. LaFrance said the staff recommendation is to adopt the Parks SDCs as put before the council and adopt Option B-2 for Transportation SDCs with an implementation date for nonresidential Transportation SDCs of not later than July 1, 2016. g. Council President Snider closed the public hearing. He asked for council discussion and consideration. h. Council Discussion and Consideration: Ordinance No. 15-08 Councilor Woodard moved for adoption of Ordinance No. 15-08,look at nonresidential at a later time. Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance repeated that the staff recommendation is to approve the Parks SDC methodology as is in front of council, unchanged. The staff recommendation on Transportation SDCs is to adopt Option B-2, nonresidential SDCs discounted as the same rate as residential.Additionally, to accommodate the time for nonresidential commercial developers time to incorporate new fees into their work,the nonresidential SDC has a delayed implementation date one year later than residential. In response to a question from Councilor Woodard,Mr.LaFrance confirmed council can always amend the fees at a later date. Council President Snider asked where Option B-2 leaves the issue of housing size and Mr. LaFrance said it goes back to the standard single- family,multi-family and nonresidential classifications without the small home discount and additional charge for larger homes. Councilor Woodard said he wanted more discussion on using the same discount rate for nonresidential. Councilor Goodhouse noted that if a delayed implementation date of July 2016 is selected,council could go back and amend it. Council President Snider said an important process step was missed with commercial development. While he welcomed the developers present at the meeting it is quite another thing to have a public body identify issues whose main interest is educating our children. He expressed concern and said he TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 17 of 22 wanted more of an opportunity to review nonresidential impacts. The school's needs align with the concerns of the developers, particularly on the nonresidential side. Councilor Woodard moved for approval of Ordinance No. 15-08 per recommendation of staff less the nonresidential portion so SDC methodology can be reviewed. Mr. LaFrance asked if he meant nonresidential for Parks or for Transportation SDCs. Councilor Woodard said just for Transportation SDCs for nonresidential. City Manager Wine said the staff recommendation includes Option B-2. There was no second for the motion. Council President Snider commented that with feedback received on the Parks methodology and because cost concerns were identified by a developer that has generally been supportive, the city should take time to review this. He recommended the review happen rapidly,within two weeks. He said he is supportive of moving ahead with Option B2,minus nonresidential and with a July 1, 2015 implementation date. He said Parks SDCs altogether need more review. City Manager Wine said there could be time allotted in the May workshop to continue the discussion. Councilor Goodhouse moved to adopt Ordinance No. 15-08,with Option B, minus parks and nonresidential SDCs. Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. Council President Snider clarified that the option Councilor Goodhouse meant was, "B-2." Council President Snider asked City Recorder Krager to repeat the motion: ORDINANCE NO.15-08—AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 95-28 AND 93-33 IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING A METHODOLOGY AND OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND REPLACING TMC 3.24, RECOMMENDING OPTION B-2,WITHOUT PARKS AND WITHOUT NONRESIDENTIAL SDCs City Recorder Krager conducted a roll call vote: Yes No Councilor Goodhouse x Councilor Henderson (absent) Council President Snider x Councilor Woodard x Mayor Cook (absent) Council President Snider announced that Ordinance No. 15-08 was adopted by a unanimous vote of City Council present. 6. AMEND MASTER FEES AND CHARGES FOR PARKS AND TRANSPORTATION TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 18 of 22 a. Council President Snider opened the public hearing. b. Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance gave the staff report and said council just adopted the methodology for part of the transportation SDCs and this resolution will amend the fees and charges schedule. He suggested that the motion reflect the actions taken by council in the prior hearing so it would only be for amending the residential Transportation SDC commensurate with Option B-2. This resolution also authorizes the City Manager to approve and amend the policy guidelines related to implementing the SDCs. c. Public Testimony: Council President Snider asked if anyone wanted to speak. Michael Robinson,representing West Hills Development, 1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor,Portland,OR,97208, said that because of council's action to adopt the residential portion of the Transportation SDCs in the prior hearing,West Hills Development needs to go on the record as opposing the adoption of the master fees and charges for Transportation. He said they need to do this to preserve their right to appeal. They appreciate their relationship with city staff, the Planning Commission and with Council but this is a standing matter. They do not know whether or not they will appeal. He said they would have preferred to have been given a slight delay for additional time to talk about the Transportation SDCs but they appreciate the council's position. Jon Kloor,representing the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, 15555 SW Bangy Road,Lake Oswego, OR 97035, said similar to what Mr. Robinson stated,in order to preserve their right to appeal,he is on the record to oppose,based on council's previous decision to adopt the residential Transportation SDC methodology without allowing a postponement of two weeks. Michael Robinson,representing West Hills Development, 1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor,Portland,OR,97208, said he wanted to incorporate their testimony,including written testimony dated today from the prior hearing into the testimony from this hearing as well. d. Council Consideration and discussion. Councilor Woodard moved for approval of Resolution No. 15-15 with staff amendments. Mr.LaFrance said staff recommendation is to adopt the resolution and the master fees and charges schedule commensurate with the decisions made in the prior hearing,that would be to adopt the Transportation SDCs for residential development,commensurate with Option B-2 from the prior hearing. e. Council President Snider closed the public hearing and said the motion to approve the resolution needs to occur after the hearing is closed. Councilor Woodard moved to approve Resolution No. 15-15 with what he said prior. Councilor Goodhouse seconded the motion. City Recorder Kroger read the resolution. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 19 of 22 RESOLUTION NO. 15-15—A RESOLUTION ADOPTING RESIDENTIAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AS STATED IN OPTION B-2,WHICH AMENDS RESOLUTION NO. 14-31 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE AND AMEND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE PROCEDURES GUIDE Yes No Councilor Goodhouse x Councilor Henderson (absent) Council President Snider x Councilor Woodard x Mayor Cook (absent) Council President Snider announced that Resolution No. 15-15 was approved by a unanimous vote of City Council present. 7. BRIEFING ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP)PROJECTS Till be rescheduled. Fl 8. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD—UPCOMING CONTRACT DISCUSSION— DOWNTOWN ENTRYWAY MONUMENTS Public Contracts Manager Barrett gave the staff report on this item. The contract is for walls and monuments for gateway art installation at two locations at the south and north end of Main Street at Highway 99W. Staff will bring to council at a future meeting a recommendation to approve a contract. The improvements include 237 linear feet of wall with natural stone facing,'Welcome to Downtown Tigard" signage, seating,artwork base, electrical and water utilities. He said this project will implement the Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan. The prominence of the gateway will attract new visitors to downtown and assist in place making for the downtown and the city.The Tigard Downtown Alliance and others have identified art as an important part of the downtown. The city contracted with Koch Landscape Architecture for the design and issued a request for bids to build it on March 23. Three bids were received. The bids included Alternate 1 which was to build the two monuments concurrently,Alternate 2 which was to build the south gateway followed by the north gateway 12-18 months later. Upon the bid opening staff found the lead contactor had both the low base bid and the low Alternate 1 bid. Staff will bring a recommendation to council in a few weeks to approve a $349,000 contract for the base bid and Alternate 1 —building the bases concurrently. Council President Snider verified that the discussion is on the site preparation and building of the wall and monument. Redevelopment Project Manager Family said part of the artist's contract is to install the artwork. Councilor Woodard asked about budget figures listed on the agenda item summary fiscal notes. Redevelopment Project Manager Farrelly clarified that there was $675,000 in the CCDA tax increment financing budget for property purchase but that will likely be paid for by park bond funds, so that money is free to be used for another purpose. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES —APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 20 of 22 Councilor Woodard said gateways are important and there is a lot invested in the artwork. He said the city needs to brand the downtown and this will be a perfect segue into the heart of the city. He said he is in favor of Alternate 1 (concurrent building) and Council President Snider agreed. Councilor Goodhouse commented about the amount and said there are many other needs in the city. Council President Snider said the key is what this does to further activate the downtown and send a clear signal that downtown Tigard is a new and exciting place to be. Council President Snider requested that staff be prepared for a discussion of the artwork color and the relative value of the art by the community. Redevelopment Project Manager Farrelly said the CCAC Public Art Sub-committee worked on this for many months and member Valerie Otani is here to discuss the process. CCAC Public Art Subcommittee member Valerie Otani said Council President Snider brought up some good points. She said everyone has opinions on public art and there will be controversy. She showed a slide of the elk statue in downtown Portland. When it was installed the Elks organization was very critical of the design. A Calder sculpture in Grand Rapids was reviled. Yet after a while this became their brand and the sculpture now appears on their logo flag. She showed slides of other artwork in cities and said everyone has comments early on but then there is a period of adjustment. She noted that the original Tigard sculpture was a brown,bronze color but this did not meet visibility requirements. Red and yellow colors did not work because they matched the nearby commercial businesses. The artist came up with a pink color which will stand out against the nearby green trees. She noted that any color selection will appear lighter when flooded with sunlight. The colors will change in different weather and lighting.The artist created faceted petals specifically to create light and shadows. Council President Snider said there was criticism of the former design and he has recently heard criticism about the current design. In response to a comment by Councilor Goodhouse asking why the city cannot pay for increased library hours but can afford to install art,Councilor Woodard said he recognized Councilor Goodhouse's frustration but the city cannot mix funds; they are in different pots of money. He noted the difficulty of communicating this to citizens. Council President Snider said another important distinction is that this is a one-time installation expense rather than an ongoing operating expense. Public Contracts Manager Barrett said this contract will come before council on May 26. Council President Snider requested that Assistant City Manager Newton discuss this with Councilor Henderson and Mayor Cook so that any bid award questions get worked through with staff prior to the May 26 meeting. 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS None. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None held. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 21 of 22 11. ADJOURNMENT At 10:10 p.m. Councilor Goodhouse motioned to adjourn. Councilor Woodard seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Yes No Councilor Goodhouse x Councilor Henderson (absent) Council President Snider x Councilor Woodard x Mayor Cook (absent) City Recorder Carol A. Krager Attest: Mayor John L. Cook Date: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -APRIL 28, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 22 of 22 City of Tigard • Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes TIGARD June 23, 2015 STUDY SESSION—6:30 p.m. Council Present: Mayor Cook,Councilor Henderson and Councilor Woodard Council Absent: Council President Snider and Councilor Goodhouse Staff Present: City Manager Wine,Assistant City Manager Newton,Public Works Director Rager,City Engineer Faha,Public Works Manager Martin,City Attorney Ramis and City Recorder Krager. A. Council Liaison Reports Mayor Cook reported on the US Mayor's Conference held in San Francisco. Policy recommendations and priorities include keeping the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)program fully funded and new transportation funding. Speaker Salman Khan profiled his educational company that features free teaching and training videos and Mayor Cook said this showed potential for use in the library. B. Update on the North Dakota Street Bridge City Engineer Faha introduced OBEC Consultant Jason Kelly. She discussed the problems with the bridge, citizen responses and options. She said staff was surprised to receive the ODOT letter recommending a three-ton weight limit. Since that could easily be exceeded by a large truck, city staff chose to close it immediately for safety reasons. Bridge engineering firm OBEC was hired to help the city explore options for the North Dakota Street bridge and also inspect and report on the Tigard Street bridge. A temporary solution will enable the bridge to reopen within six weeks. This will involve jacking up the bridge,replacing timbers and adding a walkway. OBEC is assisting the city with an STIP grant that could pay as much as 90 percent of the costs. City Engineer Faha said most citizen comments asked for the bridge to open and many wanted pedestrian improvements. Some requested an additional crossing from North Dakota to Tigard Street. She commented that neighborhood drivers are not finding alternative routes. Tigard's code requires two ingresses and egresses for neighborhoods for emergency access and this closure did not support that. The cost is $2.6 million for the complete fix and less than$80,000 for the interim solution. The grant being sought is for the long-term solution. City Manager Wine said this is council's notice that staff will be applying for the grant. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JUNE 23, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 1 of 5 Mayor Cook asked OBEC Engineer Kelly about the condition of the Tigard Street bridge. Mr. Kelly said it is in better shape than the North Dakota bridge but could worsen within five years. Councilor Henderson said he could not support any solution that does not include a walkway,the need for which has been apparent for many years. He said regarding the long-range plan,it is a bad bridge in a bad location and having two railroad crossings so close together is a violation. He noted that he tested the bridge pilings with an icepick a few years ago and discovered issues with it then. Public Works Director Rager replied that there was a disconnect between ODOT's inspection process and follow through. A previous inspection report had some indicators that showed rot. He said the city is taking more of a long-term view of all bridges and is developing a bridge master plan. EXECUTIVE SESSION At 7:14 p.m. Mayor Cook announced that the Tigard City Council was entering into Executive Session to discuss real property negotiations under ORS 192.660(2)(e).The Executive Session ended at 7:27 p.m. STUDY SESSION CONTINUED:Administrative Items - 1. City Manager Wine asked council if either August 31 or September 2 would work for a training session with Lenny Borer. He had been asked to return in six-eight months and check in about communication styles and how things are going. She asked them to let her know which possible date will work for them. 2. City Manager Wine said that Mr. Grove from the Home Builders Association requested a meeting to discuss citywide SDCs and asked for a delay in implementation. She is unsure what the next step will be. Staff is already meeting with non-residential developers. She said staff wants to know if there is a desire from council to revisit their actions. It is unknown if the concerns raised by the Home Builders are just for the River Terrace portion of the Transportation SDCs or if they will appeal council's decision. City Attorney Ramis said they have 60 days (from April 28)which makes June 29 the deadline for an appeal. Their appeal can only raise what they brought up during the SDC hearing and the judge can only look at the written record. Councilor Henderson asked when council approved the SDC rates. City Manager Wine said the master fees and charges were adopted when the budget was adopted. Councilor Henderson asked for a copy of the resolution and the master fees and charges schedule. IR 1. BUSINESS MEETING A. At 7:39 p.m. Mayor Cook called the meeting of the City Council to order. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JUNE 23, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of 5 B. City Recorder Krager called the roll: Present Absent Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ■ Councilor Henderson ✓ C. Mayor Cook asked everyone to stand and join him in the Pledge of Allegiance D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items—None. 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication— None. B. Citizen Communication—Sign up Sheet. Reid Iford, 11575 SW Pacific Highway, Suite 151,Tigard, Oregon 97223,read a letter from 40-50 downtown businesses asking council to support building a YMCA at the Burnham Street location. The letter has been added to the packet for this meeting. He said they want the 25,000 monthly trips and the parking lot to help them with the horrible parking problem in the downtown. He gave some history of his involvement with issues in Tigard and said his first project was working on the annexation of Washington Square into Tigard. He said businesses do not understand why it is taking so long to get the YCMA onto the November 2015 ballot. He referred to the recent survey and said it was the largest positive response the YMCA has received in the nation. He said the majority of the downtown businesses support this and the council has a mandate from the Tigard businesses and voters. He said, "Please put this on the ballot for the November election." 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council) - A. Approve Minutes for: • May 19, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes B. Approve the Tigard Senior Center Lease Renewal from 2015-2020 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JUNE 23, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 3 of 5 C. Approve a Resolution Adopting Updated Tigard Youth Advisory Council Bylaws RESOLUTION NO. 15-33-A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDED BYLAWS OF THE TIGARD YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, SUPERSEDING BYLAWS ADOPTED IN RESOLUTION NO. 14-45 Councilor Woodard moved and Councilor Henderson seconded a motion to approve the Consent Agenda.The motion passed unanimously. Yes No Council President Snider (absent) Councilor Woodard ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse (absent) Councilor Henderson ✓ 4. CONSIDER APPROVING A RENEWAL OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH METRO FOR ILLEGAL DUMPING INVESTIGATION SERVICES Chief Orr gave the staff report and requested a renewal of an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) for one police detective to enforce Metro code within the Metro area,including illegal dumping regulations. The city receives monthly reimbursement for pay and benefits plus a 10 percent administrative fee for one officer for a total of$154,000 in the next fiscal year. Mayor Cook asked if the police find much illegal dumping in the Tigard area. Chief Orr responded that they have. Councilor Woodard asked what types of items are the most prevelant and Chief Orr said contractors are using dumpsites outside the Metro area because it is cheaper than following construction debris disposal regulations. Contractors are required to use Metro area landfills in order to dump their debris and some go out of the area. Councilor Henderson asked how they catch those dumping illegally and Chief Orr said they use surveillance and investigate dumped debris. In response to a question from Councilor Woodard on fines,Chief Orr said he did not know what the base fine is but repeat offenders are fined more for illegal dumping. Councilor Woodard moved for approval of the IGA with Metro and Councilor Henderson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Yes No Council President Snider (absent) Councilor Woodard ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse (absent) Councilor Henderson ✓ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JUNE 23, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 4 of 5 5. NON AGENDA ITEMS—None. 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION At 7:48 p.m. Mayor Cook announced that the Tigard City Council was entering into Executive Session to discuss exempt public records under ORS 192.660(2)(f). He said the City Council would adjourn from Red Rock Creek Conference Room at the conclusion of the Executive Session. The Executive Session ended at 9:02 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT At 9:03 p.m. Councilor Henderson moved for adjournment. The motion was seconded by Councilor Woodard and passed unanimously. Yes No Council President Snider (absent) Councilor Woodard ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse (absent) Councilor Henderson ✓ Carol A. Krager, City Recorder Attest: John L. Cook, Mayor Date TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JUNE 23, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 5 of 5 • City of Tigard Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes TIGARD July 21, 2015 1. WORKSHOP MEETING A. Mayor Cook called the City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. B. Deputy City Recorder Alley called the roll: Name Present Absent Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ C. Mayor Cook led the Pledge of Allegiance. D. Mayor Cook asked Council and Staff for any Non-Agenda Items.None stated. 2. UPDATE ON THE SW CORRIDOR PLANNING PROGRESS Community Development Director Asher introduced TriMet Representative Unsworth and Metro Representative Bihn who presented the item,accompanied by a PowerPoint,highlighting key components of the SW Corridor Planning and public transit. Mr.Bihn reported the reason jurisdictions look at high capacity transit(HCT)is for reliability and reduction in travel time on the I-5 corridor.It was found that in free flow traffic it takes about 14 minutes to travel between Portland State University and downtown Tualatin and in congested times it takes 58 minutes.HCT would take 30 minutes no matter how the traffic flows. HCT or light rail transit (LRT)provides some relief in auto congestion but the study shows a significant increase in the number of people utilizing transit from 1,510 to 3,640. This increase is contributed to people choosing to ride HCT instead of driving and others who avoided 1-5,due to not being able to get through, now driving on I-5 because they can.Models show a SW Corridor line would carry 24 percent of I-5 commuters south of downtown in 2015. Mr.Bihn outlined the steering committee's changes to the SW Corridor original plan as: • Removed Marquam Hill-Hillsdale tunnel(light rail) • Removed Hillsdale Loop options for bus rapid transit(BRT) and light rail • Advanced PCC via Capitol Highway BRT • Rescheduled decisions on PCC via cut-and-cover tunnel(light rail)until 10-2015 • Approved technical modifications for minor tweaks Council President Snider asked if things were removed due to not being financially viable. Mr. Unsworth said when TriMet and Metro talked to Seattle counterparts it was discovered it would take four years to construct the tunnel, which is a concern. Marquam Hill is located next to institutes where constructing 240 feet below ground presented real risks. Pushing$1.2 million, the steering committee felt there was a better way to serve the community for less money and asked for other areas to be investigated. Mr.Bihn added that the tunnels would have missed the recommended serving points in the studies done by Tigard,Portland and Tualatin. Mr. Bihn pointed out the cost versus ridership analysis is shown in the PowerPoint. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-JULY 21,2015 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 972231503-639-41711 www.tigard-or.gov l Page 1 of 4 Mayor Cook stated Washington County Commissioner Rogers asked PCC what they were going to do to come to the table and help. Mr. Unsworth said that was correct and PCC hired a consultant to help them figure that out. Some options being explored are to move their public health schools to the Sylvania campus and asking for information about where the patrons are coming from.TriMet knows community college ridership goes up significantly during a recession. About 35 percent of the students take classes at other campuses,creating a lot of travel between the campuses.There are a lot of things in the mix and TriMet is trying to better understand the travel patterns of their students,to get smarter about where and how best to serve them and the cost benefits. Mr.Bihn outlined the HCT iterations to be installed within the triangle and downtown districts.Mr. Unsworth said an effort is being made to connect downtown Portland,PCC,Tigard/Tualatin and the two important stations in the triangle and downtown Tigard.Ash Avenue iteration seems to be the most favorable as it has the most stations,no loops and fast travel time. Concern is funding with the gap needing to be filled by state or regional funding. Mr.Asher added the assumption is that 50 percent is going to have to be raised by the whole region. Mr.Bihn stated these alignments would include pedestrian and bikeways improvements as part of this plan is enhancements to local bus service to line 78,72 and 37.There are planned public engagements in Tigard at the Tigard Farmer's Market in September or October,a public comment period in November and the steering committees decision in December. Final design and construction will be 2021-2025. Mayor Cook thanked Mr. Bihn and Mr. Unsworth for their presentation and looked forward to the public outreach and engagement. 3. UPDATE ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN Senior Management Analyst Wyatt reported a recent visitor to Tigard heard of our strategic plan and reflected on the plan saying"Tigard has a lot of moxi in having that plan."This is a good description of what she saw while she was here and where the plan is headed. Tonight is an update on the four goal areas and what has been accomplished in each area. • Goal 1: Walking and Connecting o Some of the most noticeable are the Lighter,Quicker, Cheaper Projects of which six involve sidewalk connections and an overlook bench in the Tigard Triangle.Wayfinding signs are upcoming. o The Tigard Bike Patrol has been implemented,sending officers on bicycles into the trails to patrol and ensure safety. o A community walks program called Tigard Walks was developed solely by a staff member.These walks are coordinated alongside ongoing events such as the art walk and one around the Downtown Street Festival.The routes she has coordinated have been plugging into the city's GIS as recommended walks.We have also asked the citizens and staff for their favorite walks around Tigard. o The North Dakota street bridge improvements and adding the pedestrian walkway are underway. • Goal 2: Growing and Planning o The city submitted a free walk friendly assessment to Walk Friendly Communities and received a ten page report with eight solid ideas on how to improve Tigard's walkability.They were impressed with the wayfinding signs,sidewalks completed and planned and the pedestrian access under bridges to other parts of the community. o Hired a Safe Routes to School(SRTS) coordinator to build on the framework and improve connectivity to Tigard schools. o Walkability expert Jeff Speck visited and spoke about challenges and opportunities in creating a more walkable city this is accessible to view online. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—JULY 21,2015 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 2 of 4 • Goal 3: Engaging and Communicating o The city is trying hard to have a more engaging presence through social media and the website.The numbers of followers are increasing showing people are coming more to us as a reference and source of information for Tigard happenings. o Ice cream socials are held in the neighborhoods and various locations throughout the city where ice cream is handed out and staff gets the opportunity to receive feedback from community members. • Goal 4: Financing and Sustaining o Staff released an interactive app on the website today called Open Budget Portal.This is intended to get the budget out to the citizens and is a good step in transparency and communicating the budget in a better way. o The state has promised$1.5 million to the city for the Hunziker industrial core project. Mr.Wyatt concluded by stating the city will be represented at a number of events like the Farmer's Market,the August 16 walking tour of downtown and the September 25 Downtown Fair where community input will be solicited. The Strategic Plan webpage is updated every Monday to keep people informed of the latest events. Councilor Henderson asked how the councilors could support the Goal 4 statement of funding the vision while maintaining core services. He suggested a solution of creating a separate strategic plan budget. He expressed concern to how extensive the project seems and ensuring other revenue options like grants are pursued to implement the plan. Mr.Wyatt said support of the Goal 4 is done by approval of the budget by the council and support by the budget committee. Mr.Wyatt assured the council other funding sources have been pursued and obtained as in the example of the SRTS program coordinator and the Hunziker industrial core project.Partnerships with other agencies are currently being established as well. Mayor Cook thanked staff for the presentation and looked forward to hearing about future progress. 4. UPDATE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Economic Development Manager Purdy presented the staff report highlighting: • There have been business roundtables held every quarter with the last having the best attendance.The next will be a tour of Curtis Wright/Williams Controls on October 13 at noon. Curtis Wright/Williams Controls has a lean manufacturing production system in place which will be beneficial for other manufacturers to see. The roundtable participants have grown to a wider base of business leaders being able to provide good information on improving their businesses. • Staff continues to do work on connections and business recruitments with Business Oregon through the Grow Oregon program.Every week or two one comes up and Tigard may fit the criteria of half of those. Twice now a CEO has come to Tigard to look at property.The challenge is having the availability of property to meet their precise requirements at the exact moment they need it.The CEO of Stow Away 2 has been accepted into the Grow Oregon program. • Another adventure in the works is the creation of Tigard's Table which brings food entrepreneurs together. The entrepreneurs range from Super Fresh Farming Group to Custom Quality Distribution whom distributes all the Starbucks coffee products for the state. We have an interesting mix in the food chain from producer, shared kitchen spaces and distributers. • The latest business visits have been to Sunset Labs who create little boxes inside other devices to test carbon in the air;Okonite who distribute huge copper coils;Amatek who distributes medical coiling;Coiltron producer of small copper coils;Charter Mechanical known for the HVAC production systems,channels and devices companies use to send air,water and chemicals through devices;and Sunbelt-Turret Steel who takes steel cylinders and chops them up for component pieces.There is a very productive economy in Tigard. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—JULY 21,2015 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of 4 • Roger Machinery and Gerber Legendary Blades are on board with the enterprise zone. Custom Quality Distribution is looking into making application. In order to qualify,a company has to invest in equipment and people proving they will increase both by 10 percent,so this is a good deal for the city and community. Three businesses in the first year is very good. • $1.5 million has been committed to the city from the state's lottery program for redevelopment on the Hunziker Industrial Core Area Project.Additional$2.7 million in federal funding will be pursued with an application submitted to the US Department of Commerce Economic Development Agency in September. Mayor Cook added the funding will be used on infrastructure development to make the connection from Tech Center Drive so Wall Street can connect all the way through. Councilor Woodard asked if there was much interaction with the Chamber of Commerce. Mr.Purdy said the most common interaction with the Chamber is every Tuesday at the Downtown Tigard Alliance where great input on downtown revitalization has been received.There is an opportunity to partner with the Chamber and Mercy Corp NW focusing on business development.Mercy Corp NW approached the city and asked if firms in Tigard would be interested,so the Chamber Director and Mr.Purdy will sit down to see if there are firms that would benefit from the Mercy Corp NW Program. Councilor Woodard asked what the odds were of getting the federal funding for the Hunziker site.Mr.Purdy answered it is better odds to get the federal funding than getting the state funding because the state was a harder ask. Mayor Cook thanked Mr. Purdy for his presentation and the council looks forward to hearing updates more frequently in the future. 5. NON AGENDA ITEMS-None 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Cook called the executive session to order at 7:43 p.m. to consult with legal counsel regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed under ORS 192-660(2)(h) held in the Red Rock Creek Conference Room. Mayor Cook closed the executive session at 8:07 p.m. The meeting reconvened in Town Hall where the council heard the Update on Economic Development. 8. ADJOURNMENT At 8:57 p.m. Councilor Snider motioned to adjourn the meeting. Councilor Goodhouse seconded the motion.The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of City Council present. Name Yes No Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Norma I.Alley,Deputy City Recorder Attest: Mayor,City of Tigard Date: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-JULY 21, 2015 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 972231503-639-41711 www.tigard-or.gov Page 4 of 4 AIS-2307 2.B. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 08/18/2015 Length (in minutes):5 Minutes Agenda Title: Resolution to Appoint Members and Alternate Members to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board Prepared For: Steve Martin,Public Works Submitted By: Steve Martin, Public Works Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting- Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Shall council adopt a resolution to appoint Wayne Gross and David Brown as members of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board(PRAB),and Timothy Pepper and Sara Darland as alternate members? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the council adopts the resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY In May,staff solicited applications to fill positions on the PRAB that were open due to terms expiring. Six applications were received,three from people currently serving in some capacity on the PRAB,and three from citizens who responded to the advertisement in Cityscape. Appointments were set up as soon as Mayor Cook and Councilor Woodard were available to interview the applicants. One applicant withdrew the day of the interviews,and five people were interviewed for the open positions. The panel recommended David Brown and Wayne Gross be appointed to a full term in the positions they had previously held,and that Timothy Pepper be appointed to fill the alternate position that he held previously. Sara Darland was recommended to fill the other open alternate position. This will be the second term for David Brown and the first full term for Wayne Gross. It is the second time Tim Pepper has filled an alternate spot,and it will be the first time for Sara Darland to serve on a city board. A short bio on each of the recommended applicants is attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The council could choose not to adopt the resolution. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS The PRAB is an official board appointed by the Tigard City Council to make recommendations to the council and staff on matters pertaining to parks and recreation. The PRAB also serves as the official board for reviewing non-conforming tree issues in Tigard. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the first time this resolution has come before the council. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Information: There is no direct fiscal impact for appointing PRAB members. The PRAB does make recommendations to council and staff concerning parks and recreation that have fiscal impacts. Attachments Resolution 2015 PRAB Bios ■ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION TO APPOINT WAYNE GROSS AND DAVID BROWN TO FOUR-YEAR TERMS AS MEMBERS OF THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD (PRAB), AND APPOINT TIMOTHY PEPPER AND SARA DARLAND TO ONE-YEAR TERMS AS ALTERNATE MEMBERS. WHEREAS,Wayne Gross and David Brown have served as members of the PRAB, and Timothy Pepper has served as an alternate member;all of which are interested in continuing on the PRAB;and WHEREAS,Sara Darland expressed interest via application to serve on the PRAB;and WHEREAS, the mayor's interview panel interviewed Wayne Gross, David Brown,Timothy Pepper, and Sara Darland,and recommended them for positions on the PRAB. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Wayne Gross and David Brown are hereby appointed to four-year terms as voting members of the PRAB,and Timothy Pepper and Sara Darland are hereby appointed to one-year terms as alternate members of the PRAB. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2015. Mayor-City of Tigard A'1"1'EST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 15- Page 1 2015 PRAB Applicant Short Bios Recommended PRAB Voting Members David Brown Dave has served one four-year term on the PRAB and this will be his second term. In January 2015, Dave was elected as the chair of the PRAB. He has lived in Tigard for 20 years, and has been a manager, as well as a member on the board of the Tigard Little League. Dave has a degree in business and is a CPA. Wayne Gross Wayne served one year of an unexpired term on the PRAB — this will be his first full term. Wayne has lived in Tigard for six years, and served on the Tigard Tree Board before it was disbanded. Wayne has degrees in parks and recreation, and public administration, and he has worked more than 40 years in the field of parks and recreation. He is currently the director of the Hillsboro Park and Recreation Department. Recommended PRAB Alternate Members Timothy Pepper Tim has been a Tigard resident for 11 years, and has already served one year as an alternate on the PRAB. Tim has been an active volunteer at Bull Mountain Park, including building several new trails. He is a board member of the Beaverton Farmer's Market, and has volunteered with youth soccer and lacrosse, as well as LEGO robotics. He works as a software engineer and has degrees in computer engineering and computer science. Sara Darland Sara has lived in Tigard for three years and this will be her first term as an alternate on the PRAB. She previously volunteered with Pongo — a pet food bank in NE Portland. Sara has a degree in chemical engineering and works as a chemical engineer for Nike, Inc. AIS-2302 2.C. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 08/18/2015 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Authorize the City Manager to Sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with Clean Water Services Regarding Erosion Control Services Prepared For: Lori Faha Submitted By: Greer Gaston, Public Works Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting- Main Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the council authorize the city manager to sign an intergovernmental agreement(IGA)with Clean Water Services (CWS) regarding erosion control services? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends authorizing the IGA. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department is requesting this intergovernmental agreement (IGA) to contract erosion control inspection services with Clean Water Services (CWS). Erosion control permitting,inspections and enforcement are mandated by CWS and federal and state environmental regulations and permits. The agreement will free up the time of an engineering technician currently performing the erosion control inspections to help with the workload for development review and public facility inspections. This increased workload is primarily from the pace of new development applications in River Terrace and other areas of the city. The agreement requires CWS to invoice the city monthly for actual erosion control inspection services provided. The agreement will take effect with council approval and will renew annually. The agreement can be terminated prior to February 1 of any year,with termination effective the following July 1. The proposed agreement has been reviewed and approved by the city attorney. It should also be noted that the City of Tualatin plans to renew its agreement with CWS for the same services. CWS staff noted that providing these services to both cities will be more cost-effective than just serving one of the cities. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The council could propose changes to the agreement or could decide not to approve the agreement. Should the council decide not to approve the agreement, the city will continue to perform erosion control inspections,but will continue to struggle with the current workload mentioned previously. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS None DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION The council was briefed on this agreement at its July 28,2015,study session. Fiscal Impact Cost: $50,000-$80,000 Budgeted (yes or no): No Where Budgeted (department/program): Engr Additional Fiscal Notes: The city anticipates annual costs under this IGA to be between$50,000 and$80,000,paid to CWS. In the past two fiscal years,the city has collected$28,000 and$34,000 in fees to support Tigard staff that previously provided this service. Tigard is unsure of what the city's costs are to provide the service. The city will pay only for the services provided by CWS. The IGA is renewed automatically annually, for up to 10 years. The city or CWS can annually elect to terminate the agreement prior to February 1,effective the following July 1. The services under this IGA are offset with the city's Erosion Control Inspection Fee. In fiscal year 2014-15,roughly$34,000 in fees were collected. It is anticipated this will increase once River Terrace development starts in earnest,but so may the costs. The city will conduct a review of the IGA after six months and will use that opportunity to also assess if the revenue generated is sufficient to cover costs. Based on the review,staff may propose adjustments to the current fees. Council will be briefed at that time on the findings. Attachments CWS EC IGA INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR EROSION CONTROL INSPECTION THIS AGREEMENT dated 2015, is between CLEAN WATER SERVICES(District) and CITY OF TIGARD (City). RECITALS 1. ORS 190.003—190.110 encourages intergovernmental cooperation and authorizes local governments to delegate to each other authority to perform their respective functions as necessary. 2. To optimize City staff resources and implementation of the Erosion Control Inspection Program (Program), City would like the District to administer the Program within City's jurisdiction and District has agreed to do so. 3. District and City are parties to an Intergovernmental Agreement dated January 25, 2005 as amended on June 14, 2005, March 17, 2006,July 1, 2008 and July 1, 2009 (collectively, Operating IGA). To the extent the Operating IGA and this Agreement conflict regarding erosion control inspection issues,this Agreement shall control. AGREEMENT A. SCOPE OF WORK The Scope of Work is set forth in Exhibit A to this Agreement. The City Engineer and District's General Manager or designee may modify Exhibit A by mutual agreement. B. DISTRICT OBLIGATIONS District agrees to: 1. Provide a monthly written summary of erosion control inspection work accomplished within the City pursuant to this Agreement. The report will be delivered to the City no later than the 20th of each month showing performance for the preceding month. 2. Invoice the City through this Agreement for services performed. The invoiced amount will include hourly personnel costs and expenses, as shown on Exhibit B to this Agreement. The invoice will be delivered to the City no later than the 20th of each month. The City Engineer and District's General Manager or designee may modify Exhibit B by mutual agreement prior to April 30th for services performed in the upcoming fiscal year. Page 1—Intergovernmental Agreement for Erosion Control Inspection City of Tigard C. CITY OBLIGATIONS City agrees to: 1. Withhold approval of all "foundation" building inspections until receiving District's written approval of the erosion control techniques being in place. 2. Cooperate with District in its enforcement efforts. This Agreement does not limit City's ability to pursue enforcement actions independent of the District. In addition, City may continue enforcement actions already under way as of the date of this Agreement. 3. Promptly inform District of any erosion control violations City becomes aware of. 4. Provide a list of active Erosion Control permits that have been issued as of the date of this Agreement. 5. Reimburse the District,for work performed pursuant to this Agreement, within 30 days of receipt of the invoice. D. GENERAL TERMS 1. Laws and Regulations. City and District agree to abide by all applicable laws and regulations. 2. Term of this Agreement. This Agreement will take effect July 1, 2015 and will automatically renew annually for a period of ten years. The Agreement may be terminated upon written notice by either party prior to February 1 of any year with the termination being effective the following July 1. 3. Amendment of Agreement. City and District may amend this Agreement from time to time, by mutual written agreement. 4. Integration. This document constitutes the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous written or oral understandings, representations or communications of every kind on the subject. No course of dealing between the parties and no usage of trade shall be relevant to supplement any term used in this Agreement. Acceptance or acquiescence in a course of performance rendered under this Agreement shall not be relevant to determine the meaning of this Agreement and no waiver by a party of any right under this Agreement shall prejudice the waiving party's exercise of the right in the future. 5. Indemnification. Within the limits of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, codified at ORS 30.260 through 30.300, each of the parties shall indemnify and defend the other and their officers, employees, agents, and representatives from and against all claims, demands, penalties, and causes of action of any kind or character relating to or arising from this Agreement (including the cost of defense thereof, including attorney fees) in favor of any person on account of Page 2—Intergovernmental Agreement for Erosion Control Inspection City of Tigard personal injury, death,damage to property, or violation of law, which arises out of, or results from, the negligent or other legally culpable acts or omissions of the indemnitor, its employees, agents, contractors or representatives. 6. Resolution of Disputes. If any dispute out of this Agreement cannot be resolved by the project managers from each party,the City Manager and District's General Manager will attempt to resolve the issue. If the City Manager and District's General Manager are not able to resolve the dispute,the parties will submit the matter to mediation, each party paying its own costs and sharing equally in common costs. If the dispute is not resolved in mediation,the parties will submit the matter to arbitration. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final, binding and conclusive upon the parties and subject to appeal only as otherwise provided in Oregon law. 7. Interpretation of Agreement. A. This Agreement shall not be construed for or against any party by reason of the authorship or alleged authorship of any provision. B. The paragraph headings contained in this Agreement are for ease of reference only and shall not be used in construing or interpreting this Agreement. 8. Severability/Survival. If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are held illegal, invalid or unenforceable,the enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be impaired. 9. Choice of Law/Venue. This Agreement and all rights, obligations and disputes arising out of the Agreement shall be governed by Oregon law. All disputes and litigation arising out of this Agreement shall be decided by the state courts in Oregon. Venue for all disputes and litigation shall be in Washington County, Oregon. CLEAN WATER SERVICES CITY OF TIGARD By: By: General Manager City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM Attest: By: District Counsel City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM By: City Attorney Page 3—Intergovernmental Agreement for Erosion Control Inspection City of Tigard Page 4—Intergovernmental Agreement for Erosion Control Inspection City of Tigard EXHIBIT A Scope of Work I. District shall: Assume primary responsibility for managing the Program as defined in District Resolution and Order 07-20 Design and Construction Standards, as amended from time to time, and NPDES stormwater permits relating to construction activities. This shall include timely inspection of properties to determine compliance with erosion control rules and regulations, enforcement to correct violations,and review of erosion plan revisions. II. City shall: Collect erosion control fees in accordance with the District's schedule of Rates and Charges or as otherwise determined by the City,review the erosion control plans submitted with the development or building proposal, issue erosion control permits,and promptly forward approved plans and permits to the District. Page 5—Intergovernmental Agreement for Erosion Control Inspection City of Tigard EXHIBIT B The District will charge City the following personnel costs and expenses for work performed pursuant to this Agreement: Personnel Costs(per hour) 1. Inspector staff(senior) $ $63.69 2. Inspector staff(associate) $ $43.13 3. Permit technician $ $36.28 4. Program manager $ $81.88 Expenses 1. Vehicle usage(per mile) $ $0.46 2. Other expenses at cost with prior approval of City Page 6—Intergovernmental Agreement for Erosion Control Inspection City of Tigard AIS-2317 3. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 08/18/2015 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Consider Resolution Supporting Resolution 34-235,Library Replacement Levy Submitted By: Carol Krager,Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Resolution Workshop Mtg. Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Will the Tigard City Council take a position in support or opposition of the Washington County Cooperative Library Services Local Option Replacement Levy? STAFF RECOMMENDATION /ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends that the City Council discuss and decide whether to take a position on the proposed measure. If the Council opts to support the measure,a draft resolution of support is attached to this Agenda Item Summary. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY' The five-year local option replacement levy for countywide library services will be presented to voters at the November 3,2015 General Election.Washington County has produced informational materials about the proposed levy that is attached to this Agenda Item Summary. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The City Council may elect to take no position,or may choose to oppose the levy. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS,POLICIES,MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION n/a Attachments WA County WCCLS Information Resolution 0 Washington County • Cooperative Library Services DRAFT Proposal for a Five-Year Local Option L Washington County, Oregon November 3, 2015 Election --vow II Ai• • k ..,�.. ,, ' sew op 12 , j�a x4 3.:`!.�4''r,Y .. FY2016-17 th rou•h 202Q-21 - e.,--- . ,\ • ' ill • :I^Y_ . _,_ - 0- 1 t l .p.� ; L a t--( 410, • _A Washington County Cooperative Library Services Submitted by Sherilyn Lombos, Chair,WCCLS Executive Board 5/12/2015 Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Overview of Levy Proposal 2 History and Importance of Library Levy 3 Proposed Levy Schedule 4 Levy Context and Justification 5 Current Levy Plays Key Role in Financing Countywide Library Services 5 Where do library dollars come from? 5 Where do library dollars go? 5 Public Library Operations 6 Central Support and Outreach Services that link libraries together 7 How is library use changing? 8 The 2015 Proposed Levy: How will funds be used? 10 Key Levy Elements and Assumptions 12 Levy Development and Assumptions 12 WCCLS Levy Budget Summary—Proposed Levy 13 Proposed Expenditures Detail 14 Taxpayer Impacts 15 Wage Executive Summary Overview of Levy Proposal This document provides background information for the Washington County Cooperative Library Services' (WCCLS) replacement levy proposal to the Board of Commissioners on May 12, 2015.The proposal is for a five-year local option levy to support countywide library services for FY2016-17 through FY2020-21.The proposed levy would replace the current levy of$0.17 per$1000 of assessed value with a new rate of$0.22 per$1000 of assessed value. The current local option levy(passed on 2010) expires June 30, 2016. That levy was passed by voters with an approval rate of 66%, provides approximately 1/3 of WCCLS funding, and will generate an estimated net amount of$41.6 million dollars over the five-year term. The current levy supplements County General Fund support for WCCLS; levy resources provide approximately 33% of support and General Fund resources provide 66%,with 1%from miscellaneous sources.About 80%of WCCLS resources are distributed to member libraries to support operations including open hours, staffing, purchase of materials, and programming to serve all County residents. The remaining resources fund Central Support and Outreach Services that link member libraries together. This includes the infrastructure for the shared library catalog, Internet and Wi-Fi access at member libraries, subscriptions for e-books and research databases, daily Courier deliveries between libraries, early literacy training and support, and coordinated resources for annual summer reading programs. WCCLS also provides outreach services for homebound residents, Spanish-speaking residents and multi-lingual groups, children in care and the Jail library. The current levy was a maintenance levy. It continued the same rate as the levy approved in 2006, and the goal was to maintain countywide services. Yet,WCCLS and its member libraries were still able to implement service improvements in the last few years. Using budget savings and reserves, WCCLS was able to fund a system wide conversion from barcode tracking of books and other materials to RFID (Radio Frequency Identification)tracking which reduced staff handling and sped up processing. Funds were also directed to the purchase of e-books and e-audiobooks in order to address growing patron demand for new reading formats. Hillsboro expanded its main library on Brookwood Parkway in 2013 and completely remodeled the Shute Park branch in 2014. Banks Public Library expanded in 2012. Beaverton expanded its Murray Scholls Branch in 2015. Based on research, analysis and discussions with library stakeholders over the course of the last year, analysis of voter polling conducted in January 2015, and assessment of the current economic climate, the WCCLS Executive Board unanimously recommends to the Board of Commissioners that a levy at the rate of$0.22, an increase of five cents over the current rate, be placed on the November 3, 2015 ballot to cover the five year period of FY2016-17 through FY2020-21. If passed by voters,this would be the first increase in countywide library funding approved since 2006. If approved,the levy would cost the average property owner an additional $14 in the first year. In addition,the WCCLS Executive Board 21 recommends that County Counsel be directed to prepare necessary ballot materials. Board of Commissioner meeting dates pertaining to formal discussion of this proposal are scheduled for May 19 and June 2, 2015. The proposal is estimated to levy a total gross amount of$69.2 million with an estimated first-year amount levied of$12.7 million. (Actual levy amounts collected are estimated at 96% of those totals.) For a resident owning an average-priced Washington County home (est. $255,000 in FY2016-17),the tax impact equates to a first-year annual cost of approximately$56 or$4.68 per month. Goals for the proposed levy are: • Maintain hours and services at the current 15 libraries and branches, and avoid cuts in service • Maintain current Central Support and Outreach Services that link libraries together • Support children's reading programs that average over 280,000 child visits per year including summer reading programs and literacy programs for preschoolers so more children enter school ready to learn • Fund reading and learning supports for children including online homework and tutoring services designed to improve school success • Fund the purchase of books and materials that users of all libraries have access to • Provide operational support for expanded or additional library outlets that are planned during the levy cycle to better serve county residents(including Aloha, Cornelius, Bethany and Hillsboro). The chart below compares the current, expiring levy to the proposed levy. Note that when comparing the current levy to the proposed levy the estimated amounts include not only the proposed increase in the levy rate, but also reflected the cumulative effect of annual increases in countywide assessed values (estimated average increase of 3.75%per year between FY11-12 and FY15-16). Current Levy Proposed Levy Change Total est. amount levied (gross) $ 43,728,265 $ 69,208,466 $ 25,480,201 Est. 1st year levy amount(FY11-12 to FY16-17) $ 8,170,451 $ 12,739,019 $ 4,568,568 Cost per$1000/Assessed Value $ 0.17 $ 0.22 $ 0.05 Est. cost per avg home (FY15-16 to FY16-17) $ 41.75 $ 56.19 $ 14.44 Monthly cost per avg home $ 3.48 $ 4.68 $ 1.20 History and Importance of Library Levy Since the first WCCLS supplemental library levy in FY2007-08, levy funds have been a critical component in stabilizing and maintaining countywide library services and allowing the WCCLS system to grow and evolve to meet the literacy, educational, informational and entertainment needs of Washington County. County funding provides an average of 64%of the operating funds for WCCLS member libraries, and covers all of the central support and outreach costs. The current levy provides one-third of WCCLS funds so continued levy funding is essential to maintaining services for the future. 31 This cooperative partnership between the County, nine cities and two non-profit organizations is a unique and successful model for library service in Oregon. Service decisions are made based on whether it is more economical or more efficient to provide the service centrally or at the local library level. Central coordination and funding for shared services allows member libraries to focus on providing high quality direct patron service. Use of Washington County's public libraries,as measured by checkouts, outpaced growth in County population for many years. This was particularly true during the recession when many residents turned to the library for resume, interview and job-seeking help, using library computers to search and apply for jobs, using library online tools to prepare for college entrance exams or civil service tests, and as a source of free family entertainment. In recent years, library use has leveled off, but WCCLS member libraries continue to serve about 265,000 active, registered patrons who visit their libraries nearly 4 million times per year, checking out nearly 13 million items annually. The public library system plays a critical role in the early literacy development of our youngest residents. Libraries provide free access to age-appropriate books and other materials and offer training and programs to help parents and care providers to incorporate literacy techniques into their daily routines. This means more children enter school ready to read and ready to learn. Last fiscal year, library-provided programs for children had over 280,000 child visits. The intent of the proposed levy is to maintain and strategically implement services to meet patron needs through 2021, by: • Maintaining patron access to basic library services • Increasing efficiencies in service delivery • Increasing e-content access and options • Improving reading and learning support for children and youth. These initiatives are described in greater detail later in this report. Proposed Levy Schedule May 2014 WCCLS Policy Group presented levy priorities to the WCCLS Executive Board; Aloha Community Library applied for membership in WCCLS upon levy passage Sept 2014 WCCLS Executive Board began discussion of levy priorities and funding needs Jan 2015 Voter survey conducted Feb 2015 Draft levy recommendations presented to WCCLS Executive Board April 2015 WCCLS Executive Board approval of levy proposal May 12, 2015 Transmittal of levy proposal to Board of Commissioners in worksession May 19, 2015 Board review/approval of proposal; direct County Counsel to draft ballot materials June 2, 2015 Board reviews/approves Ballot Title and Explanatory Statement Aug 14, 2015 Measure filing deadline Nov. 3, 2015 Election Day 41 Levy Context and Justification Current Levy Plays Key Role in Financing Countywide Library Services Where do library dollars come from? The current levy accounts for 33%of WCCLS revenue,the County's General Fund Transfer accounts for 66%and the remaining 1% is miscellaneous income.The General Fund Transfer represents the vestigial WCCLS serial levy that was rolled into the County's Permanent Rate in 1998 by the passage of Ballot Measure 50.The levy rate for WCCLS at that time was$0.36 per$1000 of assessed value,or 16%of the County's permanent tax rate. Since 1998 the Board of Commissioners has allocated General Fund resources annually to WCCLS with increases that approximate the annual increases in assessed value. Levy funds have augmented the General Fund support, beginning with the first local option levy in FY2007-08, and represent a significant portion of countywide library funding.The General Fund Transfer in FY2014-15 is$17,186,601, and the levy collections total is$8,669,352. Current Levy Funding Sources - Cooperative Library Services .1r) •General Fund Transfer- 66% •Local Option Levy(incl delinquent taxes)-33% Other income- 1% Where do library dollars go? As defined by the County's Strategic Plan,WCCLS has three functions. First,WCCLS is the primary funding source for public library operations. Second, WCCLS provides central support services that link libraries together and support countywide service, and third, WCCLS provides outreach to special populations. The operating expenditures for WCCLS are allocated accordingly to public library operations and Central Support and Outreach. In addition, WCCLS maintains a reserve fund (to cover expenses between the beginning of the fiscal year and when taxes are collected),and an Information Systems Reserve Fund. In FY2014-15, $20,517,883 will be distributed via Inter-Governmental Agreement to 12 library providers (operating 15 library outlets)to support public library operations.This is 79%of total expenditures. An 51 estimated $5,329,619 will be spent this year for Central Support and Outreach services (Administration, Automation, Reference/Adult Services, Courier, and Outreach/Youth Services). Approximately$5.5 million is held in reserve. WCCLS Operating Budget FY2014-15 •Public Library Payments- 79% •WCCLS Administration-3% WCCLS Automation - 10% •WCCLS Reference/Adult Services-3% •WCCLS Courier- 2% WCCLS Outreach/Youth Services-3% Public Library Operations Public library service for all county residents is provided through a partnership of the County, nine cities and two non-profit organizations via Inter-Governmental Agreement.They are: • Banks Public Library • Beaverton City Library—Main Library o Beaverton—Murray Scholls Branch • Cedar Mill Community Library—Main Library o Cedar Mill -- Bethany Branch • Cornelius Public Library • Forest Grove City Library • Garden Home Community Library • Hillsboro Public Library—Main Library o Hillsboro—Shute Park Branch • North Plains Public Library • Sherwood Public Library • Tigard Public Library • Tualatin Public Library • West Slope Community Library(the only County operated library outlet) 61 Currently an average of 64%of the annual operating expenditures of these libraries comes from WCCLS. The remainder is from local support(city or organization support, fund-raising, grants, fines & fees,etc.), which varies from one library to the next, depending upon local resources and priorities. Capital costs, such as building bonds related to buying and constructing facilities represent an additional, significant local investment in libraries and are borne at the local level, not through WCCLS funds. Member libraries use WCCLS funds for staffing to maintain open hours,the purchase of books and other materials, providing programming for all ages, and to cover normal operating expenses such as computer purchases, utilities,janitorial services and facility maintenance. Some use WCCLS funds to support lease payments. Central Support and Outreach Services that link libraries together WCCLS centrally provides services that link libraries together to facilitate countywide sharing of library resources and to benefit member libraries. These services provide the basic infrastructure for the cooperative system, and strategically deploy services when it is more efficient or economical to do so centrally. These include: • The shared library catalog and the www.wccls.org website (system hardware, software and telecommunications network for all member libraries, robust Internet access for staff and public, cataloging and database control, purchase and maintenance of some library security equipment, 7 day/week staff support) • Daily Courier deliveries between libraries to fill patron requests and return materials to their home libraries (nearly 7.2 million items per year) • Purchase of subscriptions to e-resources including e-books,e-audiobooks, and research databases that are available to all users through the wccls.org website • Coordination and support for youth programming including the annual Summer Reading Program that reaches an estimated 22%of Washington County children, and early literacy materials,training and outreach to parents and child care providers • Participation and leadership in the Washington County Early Learning Hub to improve the early literacy skills of at-risk children to improve reading and school success • Outreach services to special populations including mail delivery to residents who are homebound and rotating collections for residential care facilities, outreach to Spanish speaking residents with a focus on children and families, and collection support for the Jail Inmate Library • Interlibrary Borrowing agreements to expand access for Washington County residents including mediated Interlibrary Borrowing from libraries across the country/world, and direct patron borrowing agreements with four Metro-area library systems (the MIX Agreement), and most other public and academic libraries in Oregon (Oregon Library Passport Program) • Central coordination of and strategic planning for countywide services, coordinating the annual storytelling festival, and procurement of community sponsorships and partnerships (over$1.3 million in sponsorships for advertising and incentives for the Summer Reading Program in 2014) • Publicity and public education regarding library services through traditional,electronic and social media outlets. 71 During the current levy cycle WCCLS has had no increase in Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staffing, but we have reallocated staffing resources to meet changing program needs. How is library use changing? Since the passage of the current levy in November 2010, libraries have seen many changes in patron desired services and evolving options for providing services and information to patrons. One of the goals of the current levy was to support people who were looking for work. During the recession, libraries saw increases in library visits and Internet use as residents used free library resources to search and apply for jobs.This included both skilled and professional workers who were in employment transitions, as well as unemployed people with limited job skills. At both ends of this spectrum were people who had not applied for a job for many years, and who had never had to do so electronically. Library-provided electronic resources, educational programs and training were focused on helping residents retool resumes and interviewing skills, research educational options to learn new trades,find scholarships and grants, write business plans, and more. While employment levels have improved recently,this continues to be an important service for our communities. In addition to job resources, libraries see increasing numbers of residents who need access to government services and forms that are now primarily provided via the Internet: tax forms, health insurance and Medicare information and sign-ups, Social Security, Housing and other services. Balancing public access with personal privacy is a growing concern. Libraries have long focused on service to children in order to develop life-long readers, and support for children's programs is a key goal of the current levy. In addition to providing free access to over 650,000 children's books and other materials,WCCLS member libraries offer over 6,000 programs per year for children birth through elementary school, in English and other languages. Our member libraries are uniquely poised to support the literacy development of young residents and to help their parents be good first teachers. In recent years, state and national attention has focused on the importance of early literacy for preschoolers as a way to prepare children to enter school ready to read and ready to learn. Along with school districts and other agencies, WCCLS has been an integral player in local planning to improve coordination and deployment of early literacy training and outreach targeting the highest-need children and families in our communities. In 2015 WCCLS is initiating a program to deliver reading materials and provide training for home-based child care providers to increase early literacy exposure for children in care. This program focuses on high-need areas, and these services will be offered in both English and Spanish.This is an opportunity to extend service outside library buildings and to share our expertise with community partners. Oregon educational funding changes over the last decade have led to the elimination of most school- based librarians in Washington County school districts, as funds have been redirected to classroom-only activities.This creates a dilemma for public libraries as we want to continue to support the educational needs of our school children, but we cannot replace the full benefit of in-school library instruction and curriculum-specific collections. Recent efforts by WCCLS member libraries have been directed to working with school district administrations to brainstorm ways that public libraries and schools can work together to address this issue. 81 Use of traditional library collections of print and media resources has leveled off in recent years. Comparisons between 2011 and 2014 show that total circulation of print materials remains about the same,while circulation of music CD's has declined 41%, and circulation of DVD's has declined 17%. In contrast, circulation of e-books and e-audiobooks has increased 189%. In addition to e-book downloads, libraries are circulating pre-loaded e-book readers to patrons who do not have their own devices. WCCLS has offered downloadable e-books since 2010 and in September 2014 added a second e-book vendor option through the wccls.org website. In the last two fiscal years member libraries have directed funds to increase the central purchase of e-books in response to such tremendous patron demand. E- books can be downloaded to e-readers,tablets, laptops, and even smart phones. We expect that this mobile trend will continue to grow in the coming years, and we plan to increase and expand e-resources in the coming years. Library collections are also diversifying in terms of language to better meet the needs of the increasingly diverse population in Washington County.WCCLS and member libraries have invested especially in Spanish language materials, staffing and programming for children and adults, all to serve the Latino community. WCCLS provided funding for two librarians to attend a large international book exposition in Guadalajara, Mexico in 2014 to purchase Spanish language books on behalf of member libraries. While member libraries have always offered weekly programs for children (babies,toddlers, preschoolers and school-aged children),they continue to increase the number of programs offered for teens and adults.The WCCLS Long Range Plan describes the public library as the community's front porch—a place where people meet,welcome each other, share stories and information,or spend time together in a relaxed,welcoming environment. As such, programs for adults run the gamut from town hall meetings to book talks to music performances to hobby and craft sessions. Hillsboro Public Library has taken this one step further and offers a collection of cake pans for checkout and provides weekly times for the public to print their designs using 3-D printers. Cedar Mill Library circulates media- recording kits and offers workshops on how to program Finch robots.Support for the creative process through maker spaces and resources will continue to grow. In addition to needing adequate space for programming, libraries have seen growth in the use of library spaces for group meetings or study sessions,for tutors to work with students in a safe public space,and for entrepreneurs who use library resources to support their business development. WCCLS has expanded its use of social media since we first began using Facebook to connect with patrons in 2009. We maintain both English and Spanish Facebook accounts and use Twitter, Pinterest, SoundCloud and YouTube at this time. Member libraries also connect with patrons through social media accounts of their own. In 2013 WCCLS initiated Library Snapshots,an email newsletter that is sent quarterly to over 140,000 patrons. Our use and integration of new media options will continue to grow as we look for innovative ways to share information with patrons and develop online reading communities,either as external communities, or as an extension of services integrated into WCCLS resources such as reading recommendations and book reviews embedded in the catalog. 91 Page The 2015 Proposed Levy: How will funds be used? The proposed levy will focus on maintaining core library services and strategically implementing services to meet patron needs through 2021.The WCCLS Executive Board is proposing a five-year, fixed rate levy of$0.22 per$1000 of Assessed Value to replace the current$0.17 levy.The proposal includes the following assumptions: Resources: • Estimated $69,208,466 to be levied over the term (estimated $65,941,120 to be collected) • Estimated 96%tax collection rate • Estimated 4%to 4.25%annual increases in countywide Assessed Value • Assumes annual increases in transfers from the County General Fund will continue to mirror increases in Assessed Value • Maintain a fund balance (contingency) of 10-15%of annual expenditures, including an Information Systems Replacement Fund Expenditures: • On an annual basis, WCCLS Executive Board will review anticipated resources and recommend appropriate expenditure levels for the annual budget process including Central Support and Outreach services and funds to be distributed to public library providers. • Funds for public library operations will be distributed as outlined in the Public Library Services Agreement which will be revised and updated after the November 2015 election to take effect July 1, 2016, at the beginning of the new levy cycle. • On an annual basis, expenditures will not typically exceed revenues in order to maintain adequate reserves; there will be flexibility on an annual basis to adjust for specific needs and changes. Planning for the proposed levy began in 2013.The WCCLS Policy Group (library directors) explored changes necessary to support countywide library services through the levy term and folded them into four priority areas.These were presented to the Executive Board and included in the levy proposal. • Maintain patron access to core library services: o Maintain hours and services at the current 15 member libraries and branches—assure adequate funding to provide consistent and essential core services at all libraries and avoid cuts in service, including maintaining open hours, purchasing books and materials for our diverse population, providing programming for all ages, and responding to changing technology. o Plan for operating funds for known library additions or expansions during the term of the levy—this includes the addition of the Aloha Community Library as a new member, expanded replacement facilities in Cornelius and Bethany, and two possible new library outlets in Hillsboro. o Maintaining Central Support and Outreach programs that link libraries together and provide necessary infrastructure for the Cooperative. This includes an additional 1.0 FTE 10 I in the Automation program to address network and IT support for member libraries budgeted in FY18-19. • Increase efficiencies in service delivery: o Develop a program to centrally purchase and process high-demand popular adult fiction titles for member libraries to streamline the acquisition process, reduce redundant processes and staff handling of materials,and ultimately get materials to patrons faster. o Expand or relocate the Courier warehouse space to accommodate a modest amount of remote storage for member libraries, and purchase and implement Automated Materials Handling(AMH)technology for Courier sorting(add approximately 10,000 sq. ft.total). This will allow libraries to allocate more space for people and programs and retain access to materials that would otherwise be withdrawn due to a lack of space; Courier staff will be able to sort materials with AMH and potentially relieve some tasks currently performed at local libraries. • Increase e-content access and options: o Plan adequate funds to purchase e-books and e-audiobooks to meet patron demand to reduce wait times for downloadable titles and provide broader and deeper collection options to mirror traditional collections.This includes an additional 1.0 FTE in the Reference/Adult Services program to manage the development of electronic collections, budgeted in FY16-17. o Plan for emerging e-content options such as streaming media,and e-magazines to provide patrons with multi-media content on mobile platforms. We must be able to respond more nimbly as the marketplace evolves and provide adequate training for library staff to support patron adoption of new services. • Improve reading and learning supports for children and youth: o Add online tutoring services for school-aged children to improve student access to homework support and library resources. Improve access to public library materials by schools,teachers and students to increase educational outcomes. This includes an additional 1.0 FTE in Youth Services Outreach to develop stronger connections with schools and districts budgeted in FY17-18. o Expand literacy training--provide state certified basic and advanced early literacy training for child care providers, parents and library staff so that more children in care have access to reading materials and activities at child care sites and libraries, and more children will enter kindergarten ready to read and ready to learn. o Expand training about technology and use by young children—provide training for parents so they are better informed about using technology with/by young children and assure that library staff are adequately skilled to answer questions related to technology and young children. 11IPage Key Levy Elements and Assumptions Levy Development and Assumptions As can be seen in the following tables, a number of factors are taken into consideration as the local option levy proposal was developed.The goal is to provide long-term financial sustainability, provide flexibility to respond to fiscal and programmatic changes, and sustain high-quality public library services for all county residents. WCCLS follows assumptions for Assessed Value, annual value increases,tax collection rates, delinquent taxes, interest rates, etc. as directed by Washington County Finance and as used for the General Fund and other County levy projections. • The ending fund balance for WCCLS as of the end of FY2015-16(the end of the expiring levy) is used to estimate the beginning fund balance for the new levy cycle; an estimated $5.2 million. • An estimate of taxes to be generated by the new local option levy ($0.17 cent current levy+ $0.05 cent additional) are calculated based on annual increases in Assessed Value of 4% in FY2016-17 and FY2017-18, and the 4.25%thereafter with an estimated first year tax collection rate of 96%. • Delinquent tax collections are estimated at 1%of the current property taxes collected; interest earnings are estimated at 1%of General Fund Transfer and current property taxes collected in FY2016-17, and then at 1.25%annually thereafter. • General Fund Transfers are estimated to increase 4% in FY2016-17 and FY2017-18, and 4.25% annually thereafter, mirroring estimated increases in Assessed Value. • Departmental revenue is projected to increase 2%annually and is used for program-related projects. • The Public Library Funding Pool for current member libraries will be adjusted approximately 9.7%from FY2015-16 to FY2016-17, and then will increase 3%annually thereafter, assuming that County Assessed Value(and therefore WCCLS revenue) increases at least 3%. The first-year adjustment is designed to address three things: an annual increase of 3%for the first year of the new levy cycle, a recovery of lost buying power during the current levy cycle when annual increases averaged 2.49% (at least 0.5% below County-calculated cost of living increases) and to provide a one-time adjustment in recognition of service changes that occurred during the current levy cycle in order to support maintenance of services in the new levy cycle. • If County Assessed Value increases more than 3%,the additional funds will go into a second pool to be used to support operations of new or expanded public libraries as they come online, and to serve as a flexible fund for projects and services that evolve over the course of the levy cycle. • Central Support and Outreach funding includes 3%annual increases in costs for maintenance of current services, plus increased funds associated with the addition of service enhancements recommended for inclusion in this levy cycle. 12 I W — n n r to r ro Propased Levy Cycle CO Current Levi IProisnerl l,vv% a, Isdal FY16-17 Ill 7.18 FYI8-19 FYI9-20 1120-21 liil.d CM rD Resources R LA Beginning Balance' S 5,145,476 S 5,245,815 5 5,409,770 5 5,025,205 $ 4,906,514 S 5,179,794 S 5,245,815 C General Fund Transfer(varies w/AV) S 82,985,958 S 18,662,311 S 19,408,804 5 20,233,678 S 21,093,609 S 21,990,087 $ 101,388,489 E Current Property Taxes-17 cent levy S 41,603519 S 9,358,185 S 9,732,513 5 10,146,144 S 10,577,356 $ 11,026,893 S 50,841,091 y Additional Levy Taxes-5 cents $ 2,779,422 15 2,890,599 $ 3,013,450 5 3,141,521 $ 3,275,036 $ 15,100029 q Delinquent Taxes(est 1%of collected) 5 443,468 S 121,376 $ 126,231 S 131,596 5 137,189 $ 143,019 $ 659,411 1 Interest Earnings S 229,707 5 121.3 - 76 S 157,789 5 164,495 $ 171,486 S 178,774 $ 793,920 'C Departmental Revenue 5 412,549 S 90,289 S 92,095 5 93,937 S 95,816 $ 97,732 5 469,870 0 'C Total Revenues S 125.672,201 S 31,132,960 S 32,408,031 S 33,783,300 S 35,216.977 S 36,711.542 S 169,252,810 0 vi Total Resources r$ 130,817,677 $ 36,378,775 $ 37,817,801 $ 38,808,504 $ 40,123,491 $ 41,891,337 $195,019,907 a Expenditure s E''' Public Library Support incl Aloha(PISA) 5 99,387,731 S 23.298,017 S 24.034,657 S 24.791,897 S 25,535.354 S 26,301 $ 123,961,038 rD New libraries/services&flex project funds S 684,557 S 607,999 S 935,319 S 1,253,166 S 1,292,694 S 1,434 $ 5,523.242 Central Supt/Outreach+Recom Additions S 24,207.860 S 7.062.990 S 7,822,620 S 7,856,928 S 8,115,649 S 8,383, $ 39,241,484 Total Expenditures $ 125,577,198 $ 30,969,005 $ 32,792,596 $ 33,901,990 $ 34,943,696 $ 36,118,477 $168,725,765 Ending Balance ' $ 5,240,479 $ 5,409,770 $ 5,025,205 $ 4,906,14 $ 5,179,794 $ 5,772,860 $ 5,772,860 %of operating expenses 15% 13% 13% 13% 148', 'Total Resources only includes first year Beginning Balance;Ending Balance also includes Information System;replacement funds Proposed Expenditures Detail FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 Description Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total-Levy Note Public Library $23,298,017 $24,034,657 $24,791,897 $25,535,354 $26,301,114 $123,961,038 Maintains current Operations,+ member library Aloha Library operational funding,adds Aloha Library,incl.small innovation grant fund Funds for new $607,999 $935,319 $1,253,166 $1,292,694 $1,434,065 $5,523,242 Includes funds to support or expanded operations at new or library outlets expanded library outlets, &services, service expansions,funds projects to be for emerging technology determined and e-content and media annually reosurces Maintain $7,062,990 $7,822,620 $7,856,928 $8,115,649 $8,383,298 $39,241,484 Maintains Central Support Central &Outreach services,+ Support& additions for address Outreach priority areas:high services+ demand popular titles, strategic expanded courier service warehouse/storage,e- enhancements books/e-audiobooks, tutoring supports, increased school access, student support,3 FTE $168,725,765 Total 14 Taxpayer Impacts Below is a comparison of taxpayer impacts for the current versus the proposed levy based on estimates of Countywide Assessed Values and average-priced home values in Washington County. Annual AV Gross Amount Current Levy Countywide Assessed Value Levy Rate Growth Levied 2011-12 Actual $48,061,478,403 $8,170,451 $0.17 2012-13 Actual $49,184,385,718 2.34% $8,361,346 $0.17 2013-14 Actual $50,975,829,129 3.64% $8,665,891 $0.17 2014-15 Actual $53,325,861,950 4.61% $9,065,397 $0.17 2015-16 Estimate $55,677,532,462 4.41% $9,465,181 $0.17 Five Yr Average $51,445,017,532 3.75% $8,745,653 $0.17 Impact of Current Levy for Average Home Avg Home Assessed Value Annual Cost Per Month 2011-12 Actual $214,362 $36.44 $3.04 2012-13 Actual $220,644 $37.51 $3.13 2013-14 Actual $228,700 $38.88 $3.24 2014-15 Actual $236,139 $40.14 $3.35 2015-16 Estimate $245,585 $41.75 $3.48 Five Yr Average $229,086 $38.94 $3.25 Annual AV Gross Amount Proposed Levy Countywide Assessed Value Levy Rate Growth Levied 2016-17 Estimate $57,904,633,760 4.00% $12,739,019 $0.22 2017-18 Estimate $60,220,819,111 4.00% $13,248,580 $0.22 2018-19 Estimate $62,780,203,923 4.25% $13,811,645 $0.22 2019-20 Estimate $65,448,362,590 4.25% $14,398,640 $0.22 2020-21 Estimate $68,229,918,000 4.25% $15,010,582 $0.22 Five Yr Average $62,916,787,477 4.15% $13,841,693 $0.22 Impact of Proposed Levy for Average Home Avg Home Assessed Value Annual Cost Per Month 2016-17 Estimate $255,408 $56.19 $4.68 2017-18 Estimate $265,624 $58.44 $4.87 2018-19 Estimate $276,913 $60.92 $5.08 2019-20 Estimate $288,682 $63.51 $5.29 2020-21 Estimate $300,951 $66.21 $5.52 Five Yr Average $277,516 $61.05 $5.09 Current Levy Cost for Average Home Compared to Proposed Levy Cost Change Annual Cost Per Month Current Levy Average Cost $38.94 $3.25 Proposed Levy Average Cost $61.05 $5.09 Change $22.11 $1.84 Note: Changes in dollar amounts when comparing current and proposed levies include not only the increase in tax rate, but increases in countywide Assessed Value over time (FY2011-12 to FY2020-21). 15 CITY OF TIGARD,OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE WASHINGTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICES LOCAL OPTION REPLACEMENT LEVY—MEASURE 34-235 WHEREAS,The Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) Levy was created in 1976 to serve all the residents of Washington County;and WHEREAS,the Levy is one funding source that has stabilized and maintained countywide library services,and allowed the WCCLS system to grow and evolve to meet the literacy,educational, informational and entertainment needs of Washington County;and WHEREAS,today's Levy,together with local funding,provides all the residents of Washington County with public library operations,reading programs for children,material and book purchases, resources for job-seekers,and central support and outreach services that link libraries together;and WHEREAS,all citizens benefit from the cooperative services provided by WCCLS in all the library locations throughout the county,and these benefits will continue with the replacement of this levy; and WHEREAS,the passage of the Washington County Library Replacement Levy will ensure an increase in the number of libraries and branches,maintain and increase open library,and continue vital services to families and children; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby proclaims its support of the passage of Washington County Cooperative Library Services Local Option Levy, a five-year local option replacement levy for countywide library services,to be presented to voters at the November 3,2015 General Election. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2015. Mayor- City of Tigard A'11'EST: City Recorder—City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 15- Page 1 AIS-2318 4. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 08/18/2015 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Consider Resolution Supporting Resolution 34-236,Public Safety Levy Renewal Submitted By: Carol Krager,Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Resolution Workshop Mtg. Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Will the Tigard City Council take a position in support or opposition of the renewal of local option levy for Countywide Public Safety Services? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends that the City Council discuss and decide whether to take a position on the proposed measure. If the Council opts to support the measure,a draft resolution of support is attached to this Agenda Item Summary. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The five-year levy to maintain public safety services will be presented to voters at the November 3,2015 General Election.Washington County has produced informational materials about the proposed levy that is attached to this Agenda Item Summary. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The City Council may choose to take no position,or could choose to oppose the levy. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS,POLICIES,MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION n/a Attachments WA County Public Safety Levy Information Public Safety Levy Resolution • WASHINGTON COUNTY ../111111% OREGON Proposal for a Five-Year Public Safety Local Option L Washington County, Oregon November 3,2015 Election • I ItIP;' 4 \*.* 1114t , . 0: 41 41114.: FY2016-17 through FY20 40. B - `fit � r Submitted by Robert P. Davis, County Administrator 5/12/2015 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 OVERVIEW 4 IMPORTANCE OF LEVY RENEWAL 5 LEVY RENEWAL 2015 CALENDAR 7 LEVY DOCUMENT HIGHLIGHTS 7 LEVY CONTEXT AND JUSTIFICATION 8 LEVY PLAYS A KEY ROLE IN FINANCING JUSTICE SYSTEM SERVICES 8 Where Do Overall Justice System Program Dollars Go? 8 What Programs Receive Funding from the Public Safety Levy? 8 Where Do Justice System Dollars Come From? 10 SPECIFIC LEVY PROGRAM BENEFITS 10 Sheriff's Office-Jail 10 Sheriff's Office-Law Enforcement Services 11 District Attorney, Corrections and Juvenile Services 11 Other Service Areas: 911 Center Equipment, Emergency Housing and Court Facilities 11 THE COUNTY'S DUAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ROLE 11 MAINTENANCE OF JUSTICE SYSTEM BALANCE 13 GROWTH IMPACTS ON THE JUSTICE SYSTEM 13 KEY LEVY ELEMENTS&ASSUMPTIONS 15 LEVY BUDGET SUMMARY 15 APPROACH TO LEVY DEVELOPMENT&ASSUMPTIONS 15 PROPOSED PERMANENT POSITION INFORMATION 18 Calculation of Employee Benefits 18 Proposed Permanent Positions--Summary by Program 19 TAXPAYER IMPACTS 20 BUDGET SUMMARIES 21 LOCAL OPTION LEVY ADMINISTRATION 21 Overview 21 Levy Administration(Tax Revenue, Interest Earnings and Contingency) 21 Emergency Shelter Services 21 911 Center Equipment 22 Public Outreach 22 SHERIFF'S OFFICE 23 Overview 23 2IPat e Sheriff's Office Administration 23 Sheriff's Office Law Enforcement 24 Sheriff's Office Jail 25 DISTRICT ATTORNEY .26 Overview 26 JUVENILE SERVICES 27 Overview 27 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS 28 Overview 28 APPENDIX A—LEVY BUDGET DETAIL 29 3IPagc Executive Summary Overview The purpose of this document is to provide the Board with information to begin to renew the Public Safety Local Option Levy for the five year period of FY 2016-17 through FY 2020-21. The current Public Safety Levy (Measure 34-179)was approved by the Washington County Board of Commissioners in May of 2010. The measure was subsequently authorized by voters in November of 2010 with 67% voting "Yes." It contains a fixed five-year property tax levy rate of$.42 cents per $1,000 of assessed value that was estimated to generate a total of $109.1 million over the five-year period from fiscal year 2011-12 through FY 2015-16 including an estimated first-year levy of approximately $20.4 million. For a Washington County resident owning an average-priced home ($214,362 in 2011-12), Measure 34-179 had a first-year estimated yearly cost of about$90.03 or$7.50 per month. The current levy has been providing funding for 133 public safety and justice positions (132 positions for FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13 and one(1)additional position added in FY 2013-14).These positions represent approximately 16%of the County's total criminal justice system workforce in FY 2014-15. On the revenue side, the current levy represents about 14% of the County's total criminal justice system funding for FY 2014-15. The current levy will expire on June 30, 2016. Accordingly, I am recommending that the Board establish November 3, 2015, as the election date to renew the five year levy for the FY 2016-17 through FY 2020-21 time period. It is also my recommendation that the new levy maintain the current tax rate of $.42 cents per $1,000 of assessed value and that County Counsel be directed to prepare the necessary ballot title. Additionally, Board meeting dates pertaining to formal consideration of this proposal are scheduled for May 19th and June 2nd of 2015. In summary, the proposed levy is estimated to total $135.5 million with an estimated first-year levy amount of $24.2 million. It provides funding to increase staffing to 152 positions and maintain public safety service levels. For a resident owning an average-priced Washington County home ($255,408 estimated for 2016-17), this tax impact equates to a first- year annual cost of approximately$107.27 or$8.94 per month (see following chart). Proposed Levy Total 5 year estimated levy amount $135,484,730 Estimated 1st year levy amount $24,236,502 Cost per 1,000/AV $0.42 Estimated 1st year cost per average home $107.27 Monthly cost per average home $8.94 By way of comparison,the chart below compares the current(expiring) levy to the proposed levy. 4I I' ave Current Levy Proposed Levy Change Total estimated levy amount $109,140,255 $135,484,730 $26,344,475 Estimated 1st year levy amount $20,352,625 $24,236,502 $3,883,877 Cost per 1,000/AV $0.42 $0.42 $0.00 Estimated 1st year cost per average home $90.34 $107.27 $16.93 Monthly cost per average home $7.53 $8.94 $1.41 An overview of the annual resource versus annual expenditure relationship is provided below. The estimated dollar amounts generated by the fixed tax rate for both levy periods are highlighted on the pink line and reflect annual levy increases averaging about 4% per year over both levy periods. Expenditures for both levy periods are reflected on the blue line which displays average annual increases of about 3.1% over the ten years spanning both levy periods. In short, the current tax rate of $.42 cents per $1,000 of assessed value will accommodate the maintenance of existing and new staff and service levels through FY 2020-21 if all assumptions used to calculate revenues and expenditures materialize as planned (See"Key Levy Elements"section). Annual Levy Amounts vs.Expendtitures Current Levy Plan Proposed Levy Plan 35,000,000 30,000,000 —a—sea.Ftmd boil 25,000,000 20,000,000 ♦ 1111".".----♦ - cal - • Tax Len(received rot Ti 15,000,000 Irrludwrg set) 10,000,000 5,000,000 Expenditures 0 , FY 13- FY 14- FY 15- FY 16- FY 17- FY 18- FY 19- FY 20- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Fiscal Year History and Importance of Levy Renewal Since the first Public Safety Levy in FY 2001-02, the levy has made a critical contribution to the restoration of criminal justice system service levels that had eroded significantly prior to the levy's initial passage in 20001. In simple terms, the levy provides vital and basic justice-system-capacity that would otherwise be sorely missed if not funded. These services provide substantial community benefits with prime examples that include: special multi-agency enforcement teams; combating the ongoing gang problem; timely prosecution of criminals and resolution of cases for victims; maintenance of effective juvenile prevention programs; keeping dangerous offenders incarcerated; and supervising and treating those offenders when placed on probation or parole. 1 The Public Safety Local Option Levy has experienced four distinct funding phases: 1) Public Safety Levy I was approved by voters for the FY 2001-02 through 2005-06 time period; 2) due to failure of a renewal measure in 2004,there was no levy funding for FY 2006-07 and programs were maintained by an interim "bridge plan"supported by public safety expenditure reductions, levy fund reserves,temporary loans and County General Fund savings from reductions in General Fund public safety programs; 3) Levy II was authorized by voters for FY 2007-08 through 2010-11; and 4) Levy III was approved for the FY 2011-12 through 2015-16 time period. 5IPagc The current levy is a significant contributor of financial support to the County's two-tiered role as both a partner law enforcement agency among our cities and, as mandated provider of basic justice system services not provided by cities (inmate incarceration, criminal prosecution, probation and post-prison supervision,juvenile supervision, etc.). These basic justice system services provide for essential "criminal justice system infrastructure" that operates as an adjunct to all city and County law enforcement efforts. A strong County criminal justice system infrastructure provides the credibility for the system's capacity to follow-through with offenders long after the initial law enforcement arrest is made. Specifically, it is the availability of incarceration space when needed; timely and effective prosecution; and, effective post-incarceration supervision and treatment (probation/parole) that bolsters the overall effectiveness of a well-functioning criminal justice system. In FY 2014-15,the levy supports approximately 16%of the County's total criminal justice system workforce. Levy-supported County justice services, as mentioned above, are relied upon heavily by city and County law enforcement agencies and contribute significantly to the maintenance of balance in the delivery of justice system programs. For example, an increase in the number of frontline officers in cities and the County without corresponding capacity for incarceration, prosecution and post-jail/prison supervision would create an imbalance in the system that ultimately leads to more crimes and arrests if follow-up capacity is not adequate. There has been no let-up in the demands placed on the justice system by growth in County population, by increases in law enforcement assets deployed by law enforcement agencies, and by unfunded mandates from our federal and state partners (i.e., Prison Rape Elimination Act policies from the federal government, or the state transferring administration of child support administration to Washington County). Accordingly, the intent of this effort is to seek renewal of the funding necessary to continue these important service levels that were established by the current levy, and to preserve the attendant level of justice system capacity made possible by existing levy funds. It is essentially a status-quo proposal. 6IFage Levy Renewal 2015 Calendar Jan. 15th Criminal justice system manager's review(transmittal) Feb. 20th Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) review(transmittal) Feb. 25th Discuss proposal with city managers (transmittal) Mar. 19th Criminal justice system manager's final approval Mar. 20th PSCC stakeholder final approval May. 12th Board of Commissioners work session (transmittal) May 19th Board review/approval of proposal--directs County Counsel to draft ballot title Jun. 2nd Board review/approval of ballot title Aug. 14th Measure filing deadline Nov. 3rd Election Levy Document Highlights All of the above issues are addressed in more detail in the following pages. To this end, the remaining sections of this document contain an expanded version of the above rationale for levy continuation. Included are sections that expand on the discussion of the levy's justification (see "Levy Context and Justification"); a detailed section regarding how the levy was developed, what assumptions were utilized and taxpayer impacts (see "Key Levy Elements and Assumptions"); summaries of departmental budgets (see "Budget Summaries"), and, "Appendix A" that provides underlying levy budget line-item details. 7IPage Levy Context and Justification Levy Plays a Key Role in Financing Justice System Services Where Do Overall Justice System Program Dollars Go? In fiscal year 2014-15, the total operating budget for County-provided criminal justice programs and services totals approximately$153.3 million dollars and supports 854 public safety and justice personnel. The public safety levy currently funds 133 (16%) of this total public safety and justice workforce (854 positions). The following chart provides an overview of how the County's $153.3 million-dollar public safety and justice budget is distributed among its major program/service areas: Countywide Justice System Operating Budgets FY 2014-15 Support Services Emergency Services Victim's Services 7.7% 0.9% 2.7% Court Services 3.3% Law Enforcement 39.0% Juvenile Services a s 3.9% ,#h* Parole,Probation, Superv. 6.7% Prosecution 6.8% Incarceration Services 29.1% 8 IPagc What Programs Receive Funding from the Public Safety Levy? Levy funds are targeted primarily at augmenting existing County criminal justice programs funded by the County's General Fund and state-funded programs.The following programs are recipients of levy funding: • Sheriff's Office: Executive Administration • Sheriff's Office: Training • Sheriff's Office: Research Planning&Crime Analysis • Sheriff's Office: Patrol Operations • Sheriff's Office: Investigations • Sheriff's Office: Records • Sheriff's Office:Crime Prey. & Public Information • Sheriff's Office: Civil • Sheriff's Office: Jail Housing • District Attorney:Child Support Enforcement • District Attorney: Prosecution Services • District Attorney:Victim Assistance • Juvenile: Basic Services • Juvenile: Prevention • Juvenile: Homeless Runaway Youth Services • Community Corrections: Program Services • Community Corrections: Parole/Probation Services • Community Corrections: CCC Housing • Community Corrections: Drug Court Services • Emergency Housing(Shelter)Services • 911 Center Equipment 9IPage Where Do Justice System Dollars Come From? Funding for Washington County's justice-system programs and services is supported by the following financing sources. In the overall scheme of public safety and justice financing in Washington County, approximately fourteen cents of every dollar spent on programs and services come from the current levy. The County General Fund is primarily comprised of property taxes and other discretionary revenues that are generally targeted at programs providing countywide benefits. Funding for the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District is dedicated to enhancement of patrol capacity in the county's urban unincorporated area. State funding mainly provides support for juvenile prevention programs and community corrections (parole and probation supervision). As can be seen below, the current levy provides a significant and important level of support for justice programs in the county. Funding Sources-County Criminal Justice System FY 2014-15 State and Other Funding Sources County General 20% Fund 48% Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District Public Safety 16% Levy 16% Specific Levy Program Benefits Significant portions of the current and proposed levies are for service restoration across several vital programs—many of which are of benefit to both our cities and urban unincorporated areas. Levy funding is included for the following programs and services: Sheriff's Office-Jail • Maintains jail at full capacity for holding dangerous offenders in 572 County jail beds by funding the operating expenses for one (1) 56-bed pod (10% of total jail bed space). The jail receives and processes offenders from every police jurisdiction in Washington County. • Provides jail prisoner transport services to the County's city police departments which allows city police agencies to operate more efficiently. 10IPagc • Maintains present capacity for civil enforcement—the serving of legal court orders and warrants countywide that assist victims of domestic violence,apprehends criminals at-large and enhances child support orders. Sheriff's Office-Law Enforcement Services • Maintains levels of sworn officer and civilian support to investigations, scientific evidence gathering and records services that makes for more efficient use of existing investigative and patrol officer resources. Many of our municipal police jurisdictions work cooperatively with the County's investigations and records service areas on joint investigations and crime intervention efforts.To this end,the proposed levy will maintain availability of resources to our city partners for county-wide law enforcement services(i.e.gang team, mental health response team, drug team, etc.). • Retain base County patrol and investigations at .54 officers per 1,000 residents (close to the historic service level that has been in place since 1986). District Attorney, Corrections and Juvenile Services • In the District Attorney's Office, the levy supports the prosecution of criminals by maintaining current caseload sizes and service levels in the Criminal Prosecution, Child Support Enforcement and Victim Assistance programs. These programs receive and process cases referred from every police jurisdiction in Washington County. • For Community Corrections, the levy includes funding for supervising offenders on Probation/Parole caseloads and maintains the Community Corrections Center at full capacity (215 beds) by providing for the operating costs of 24 beds (11% of total center bed space). As with the District Attorney's Office, the original source of the cases for Community Corrections is all Washington County and city law enforcement-referring agencies. • In the Juvenile Department, levy funds are earmarked for supervision of juvenile offenders by maintaining prevention programs, critical counselor (probation and prevention) caseloads and juvenile incarceration and close supervision capacity. Cases are referred to the Juvenile Department from countywide sources. Other Service Areas: 911 Center Equipment, Emergency Housing and Court Facilities • Current and proposed levy funds are provided for information technology building component upgrades and modernization of certain pieces of the countywide emergency communications system (911) used by all police, fire and medical agencies in the County. • Funding is also included to continue the public safety initiative supporting the County's emergency shelter services. This includes the Domestic Violence Resource Center, Community Action and Good Neighbor Center emergency shelter facilities, the Family Promise of Washington County (support services for emergency shelter clients), and, through Juvenile Services grant funding,the Boys&Girls Aid Society Safe Place for juveniles. The County's Dual Justice System Role The local criminal justice system in Washington County is an integrated system of services comprised of city, state and County criminal justice agencies. This network includes a wide array of prevention programs that strive to keep problems from progressing through the system. 11l1) age However, more serious problems begin when an arrest and/or a call for service at the 911 center is forwarded to the appropriate law enforcement agency. From this point, offenders may face a pre-trial stay in the County Jail or be released pending court action, then prosecution through the courts and the District Attorney's Office, receive further disposition in the form of either a prison or local jail sentence or probation, and then finally, post-incarceration supervision by the Community Corrections Department. A separate County-juvenile justice system closely parallels the adult system components as described above. Within this justice system network, each agency fulfills a variety of unique inter-related (and inter-dependent) roles. For its part in the system,the County plays a dual role: 1. Provider of a network of justice system infrastructure services to support and follow-through on the efforts of all law enforcement agencies 2. Law enforcement services Accordingly,the County is legally and fiscally responsible for a significant portion of the network's overall array of programs and services that are utilized by all police agencies in the county.These two roles are explained in more detail below. 1) In its primary role, the county delivers a balanced countywide network of justice system services. Examples of the key services in this network include: - A 572-bed jail (administered by the Sheriff's Office) - A 215-bed Community Corrections Center(Community Corrections) - Court facilities/services(County Support Services and the Sheriff's Office) - Criminal prosecution (District Attorney) - Probation and post-prison supervision of offenders(Community Corrections) - Juvenile court services--including incarceration (Juvenile Department) - Emergency management (911 Center, Emergency Medical Services and Sheriff's Office) - Civil enforcement (Sheriff's Office) - Child support enforcement(District Attorney) - Victim assistance programs(all departments),and - A myriad of prevention services provided across a wide spectrum of programs In short, upon arrest by either a city or County officer,a suspected offender's journey through this integrated justice system has merely begun—with a significant portion of the service and financial responsibility for services resting squarely on the shoulders of County government(see"maintaining balance" on following pages). 2) In its second major role, the Sheriff's Office provides law enforcement services. These services represent "traditional" county-law-enforcement service levels not unlike the historic and typical County service levels provided by most counties across the nation. These services provide downstream benefits for city residents who travel outside their city limits, and serve as a buffer to criminal activity when crimes are committed across jurisdictional boundaries. Benefits are also provided to cities when municipal police departments require mutual aid assistance and when requiring specialized assistance with forensics, special weapons and tactics (SWAT Teams), K-9 teams, integrated drug enforcement efforts,gang enforcement, and other specialty services. 12IPagc The traditional service level for countywide law enforcement services has been approximately .54 officers-per-1,000 residents of the unincorporated area—a level well below most city police departments in the County. 2 Maintenance of Justice System Balance During the planning discussion for the original public safety levy (in 2000), significant emphasis was placed on the countywide network of justice system services as "an integrated system of programs and services." This perspective of the justice system is a view that highlights the importance of inter-relationships in the system and how changes in the system can affect the balance of the system's remaining components. For example, it may not make sense to deploy additional officers (who make more arrests and bring more offenders into the system) if the remaining components of the system cannot process them effectively (by housing them in jail, conducting prosecutions, supervising offenders after sentences are served,etc.). Funding changes, growth or other impacts experienced anywhere along this service continuum can create profound "ripple-effects" upon other components in the system and profoundly alter its balance. These changes can include increases in population growth (which means more demand for services); changes in the deployment of resources made by individual agencies or by shifts in major funding sources such as the County General Fund; and by current shifts in state funding levels or other funding-source changes. As stated earlier, examples of such changes might include our city or County police agencies adding new officers and/or increasing their efforts to arrest and detain criminals. If this happens, the County could experience significant increases in demand for services from the courts, the jail, the DA's Office, or our juvenile and corrections programs. Other examples include the advent of voter-imposed or state mandates such as the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements of Measure 11 or by legislative mandates such as Senate Bill 1145 and House Bill 3194 that give the County significant responsibilities for incarcerating prisoners formerly held in state institutions. Given the significance of levy funding on the systems balance, loss of existing levy funds could pose significant challenges for the County's overall efforts to maintain a semblance of balance in all of the justice systems major components. (See the following sections for more specifics regarding growth and funding-related impacts.) In Washington County, justice system stakeholders (who share responsibility, authority and resources) for various system components, meet regularly to discuss issues of coordination and balance in the integrated system. On a broad level, the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) has addressed systems coordination as mandated by Oregon Revised Statutes since 1995. The principal charge of the PSCC is to review and coordinate policy related to the Community Corrections and Juvenile Prevention Plans. At the administrative level, the County's justice department managers meet on a monthly basis to discuss systems issues that are specific to intra-County justice matters. In general, overall planning and review of the County's criminal justice system coordination has been steadily evolving to a more coordinated/collaborative system. Growth Impacts on the Justice System 2 The Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District provides an additional .54 officers/1,000 for the urban unincorporated area via a special tax rate and local option levy (paid for by urban unincorporated residents only)for this "municipal" level of service. Funds/expenditures for this additional service level are not included in the countywide service level identified above since it is not a countywide service and is only available in the urban unincorporated area. 13IPage Since 1990, growth in county population and growth in police agency assets have been significant and have placed increased demands on the County's justice system programs and services. For example: • Increases in the numbers of offenders entering the system mean more demand on jail and corrections center space, criminal prosecution, juvenile programs and other core services. • Significant increases in jail and corrections center population mean significant increases in cost for maintaining and operating those facilities and ultimately, increased demand to build more incarceration space. • Increases in courts/judges mean increases in costs for building and maintaining court facilities. • Increases in the numbers of offenders being processed through the system mean also that offenders on their way out of incarceration programs will require increased supervision services from parole and probation and other service programs. As with most states, the legal and fiscal responsibility for a significant portion of this continuum rests squarely on the shoulders of County government despite the fact that these core services are provided to offenders referred from cities and returning from state prisons as well. Accordingly, efforts made by the County to maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system are therefore in the best interests of all County residents—those who live inside cities as well as those who reside in the urban and rural unincorporated areas. The benefits of maintaining or improving the criminal justice system cannot be viewed as strictly a city-only or a county-only benefit. 141I' ,1 „ , Key Levy Elements & Assumptions Levy Budget Summary An overview of the proposed levy budget fund is included below. This summary of the levy fund includes seven budget units: Levy Administration (budget 1690); Sheriff's Administration (4010); Sheriff's Law Enforcement (4020); Sheriff's Jail (4030); District Attorney(4510);Juvenile(5010);and Community Corrections (5515). FY 16-17 Est FY 17-18 Est FY 18-19 Est FY 19-20 Est FY 20-21 Est 5 Yr Total Resources Beginning Fund Balance 12,940,984 12,793,612 12,194,719 11,420,554 10,353,393 12,940,984 Non-Operating Revenues 1690 Levy Administration 23,722,055 24,695,820 25,729,233 26,803,987 27,921,586 128,872,680 (taxes and interest) Operating Reven ues 4010 SO Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 4020 Law Enf.Services 76,663 78,963 81,332 83,772 86,285 407,014 4030 Jail 0 0 0 0 0 0 4510 District Attorney 437,784 450,918 464,445 478,378 492,730 2,324,255 5515 Comm.Corr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total operating revenues 514,447 529,880 545,777 562,150 579,015 2,731,268 Grand total revenues 24,236,502 25,225,700 26,275,010 27,366,137 28,500,600 131,603,948 Total Resources 37,177,486 38,019,312 38,469,729 38,786,691 38,853,994 144,544,932 Approach to Levy Development & Assumptions As can be seen in the previous budget summary and on the following table of key levy development assumptions, a number of factors are taken into account as the local option levy is developed: • The estimated beginning balance for the new levy is calculated based on the estimated ending balance for all levy programs as of the end of fiscal year (FY) 2015-16 (the last year of the expiring levy). The estimated beginning fund balance for the new levy period (FY 2016-17 to FY 2020-21) of approximately $12 million dollars is the result of slightly higher than anticipated tax revenues, reserve (contingency)funds not being utilized and cautious spending patterns on the part of the County's public safety and justice program managers during the current levy period (FY 2011-12 to FY 2015-16). • An estimate of taxes to be generated by the new local option levy takes into account modest growth following the recent upturn in the U.S. economy. Using a conservative approach, the overall average property tax rate increases will be assumed to be in the 4.0%to 4.25% range for the proposed levy. • Determinations are then made of the approximate delinquent tax collections that are due from previous tax years which are based on historic proportional relationships between taxes collected on time, and taxes that are paid on a delinquent basis. 15 I I'a c • An estimate of annual interest earnings on the levy fund balance is obtained based upon an estimate of the levy fund's average monthly balance for the new levy period (FY 2016-17 to FY 2020-21). As with the tax revenue assumptions outlined above, interest rate earnings assumed for the proposed levy are slightly higher than the current levy due to economic conditions. • In other areas, budget estimates have been developed for levy programs for the next five years using the assumptions highlighted on the following table. A key assumption is that each year's budget is expected to be expended at the 95% level. This means that each year's budget is calculated based on the cost increase assumptions listed on the following table (that is applied to the prior year's budget) and is then assumed to be under-spent by 5% each year. These approaches are being taken in order to: provide long-term financial sustainability for levy programs; meet month-to- month cash-flow requirements; and provide flexibility in the event of unforeseen fiscal challenges and uncertainties. (See related issues in the juvenile budget section.) • Finally, once all fund balance and revenue/expenditure assumptions are calculated over the life of the levy, the sustainability of the current tax rate is evaluated/entered and estimated taxpayer impacts for the proposed levy is calculated using estimated assessed values and an average-priced county residence. 16 I i' . Assumptions FY16-17 Est FY17-18 Est FY18-19 Est FY19-20 Est FY20-21 Est Assessed value increase(annual) 4.0U9„ 4.00'i,, 4.25`;a 4.25`so 4.25';° Assessed value 57,904,633,760 60,220,819,111 62,780,203,923 65,448,362,590 68,229,918,000 Prop tax collection rate 96.00% 96.00% 96.00% 96.00% 96.00% Tax rate 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 Levy imposed 24,319,946 25,292,744 26,367,686 27,488,312 28,656,566 Estimated prop taxes collected 23,347,148 24,281,034 25,312,978 26,388,780 27,510,303 Del taxes as a%of curr yr taxes 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% Annual interest earnings rate 1.00% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% Departmental revenues collection rate Departmental revenues growth rate 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% Annual expenditure rate 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% Employee step increases 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% COLA Increase: Non-Reps 2.00% 2.00% 2.50% 2.50% 3.00% COLA Increase: WCPOA 2.00% 2.00% 2.50% 2.50% 3.00% COLA Increase: AFSME 2.00% 2.00% 2.50% 2.50% 3.00% COLA Increase: FOPPO 2.00% 2.00% 2.50% 2.50% 3.00% COLA:Avg 2.0% 2.0% 2.5% 2.5% 3.0% Annual M&S expenditures growth rate 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% Annual other expenditures growth rate 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% Annual interdepartmental expenditures growth rate 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% Annual WCCCA expenditure growth rate 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Annual capital expenditures growth rate 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Duty Gear for each new Patrol Deputy position,uniform,radios,computers etc $ 16,582 $ 16,600 $ 16,600 $ 16,600 $ 16,600 Duty Gear for each new Jail Deputy position, uniform,radios,computers etc $ 9,642 $ 9,650 _ $ 9,650 $ 9,650 $ 9,650 Benefits Calculations FICA 6.20% 6.20% 6.20% 6.20% 6.20% Medicare(above salaries of 117k) 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% Workers compensation-Public Safety $1,268 $1,269 $1,270 $1,270 $1,271 Workers compensation-DA $374 $374 $374 $374 $375 Workers compensation-Juvenile $576 $577 $577 $577 $578 Workers compensation-Community Corrections $696 $696 $697 $697 $698 Employer paid work day tax 0.0500% 0.0500% 0.0500% 0.0500%, 0.0500% Pers contribution 16.33% 17.67% 17.67% 19.01% 19.01% Pers pick up 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% Health insurance premiums per employee $16,926 $17,942 $19,018 $20,159 $21,369 Disability insurance 0.3000% 0.3000% 0.3000%_ 0.3000% 0.3000% Life insurance premiums per employee WCPOA $92 $93 $94 $95 $96 Non-MAPPS $27 $27 $28 $28 $28 MAPPS $223 $225 $227 $230 $232 Unemployment insurance $110 $110_ $110 $110 $110 Tri-Met tax 0.7537% 0.7637% 0.7737% 0.7837% 0.7937% 17IPage Proposed Permanent Position Information Calculation of Employee Benefits The preceding table included information pertaining to the benefit's calculation assumptions for the permanent positions included in the proposed levy. These positions were authorized in the current levy and are included for continued funding in the proposed levy. More details regarding staffing and specific positions are included in the "Budget Summaries" section of this report. Salary levels for each permanent position are derived from the County's fiscal 2014-15 pay plans and are inflated by a cost of living adjustment (COLA) calculation base on consumer price index (CPI) for each ensuing fiscal year. Assumptions used in the calculation of benefits for these positions are included in the table presented previously. In some cases, percentages are used and these are the factors that are applied to each position's annual salary to obtain the respective annual cost for each benefit area. In other cases, dollar amounts (premiums)are used and are added to the total benefits package. A listing of the actual permanent positions by program area is included on the following page. 18 I1' Proposed Permanent Positions--Summary by Program Org Position FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 4010 Sheriffs Office-Administration Sergeant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sr Mgmt Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Acct Assistant II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Admin Spec II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Law Enforcement Technology Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Info Systems Analyst II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 4020 Sheriffs Office-Law Enf.Svs. Sergeant 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Civil Deputy 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sr Prog Educator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Admin Spec II 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Sr Admin Spec 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Criminal Records Spec II 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Criminal Records Spec,Senior 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Deputy Sheriff 27.83 28.83 29.83 30.83 31.83 Patrol Services Aide 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Corporal 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Detective 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Lieutenant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Evidence Officer II 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Forensic Unit Supevisor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Crime Scene Tech 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Criminalist II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 60.08 61.08 62.08 63.08 64.08 4030 Sheriffs Office-Jail Jail Deputy 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Admin Spec II 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Corporal-Court Release Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Corrections Sergeant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Jail Services Tech II 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 MH Specialist 11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 15.50 15.50 15.50 1550 1550 Total Sheriffs Office 81.58 82.58 83.58 84.58 85.58 4510 District Attorney DA IV 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Admin Spec II 7.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 DA II DA III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Senior Deputy DA 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sr Admin Spec 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 Sr Softw App Spec 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Victim Assist Spec 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Total 20.75 22.75 23.75 23.75 23.75 5010 Juvenile Accountant I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Management Analyst II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sr Juvenile Counselor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sr Juvenile Counselor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Juv.Counselor II 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Juv.Counselor I 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Total 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 5515 Community Corrections Prob Br Parole Off II 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 Admin Spec II 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Community Corrections Specialist II 8.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 Community Corrections Center Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Residential Counselor 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Community Corrections Specialist III 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Prob Sr Parole Svs Sup. Total 31.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 Total FTE 142.33 146.33 148.33 149.33 150.33 19IPage Taxpayer Impacts The following includes the highlights of the taxpayer impacts of the current versus the proposed levy.All impacts are based on an estimate of the assessed value of an average-priced home in Washington County. Annual Public Safety Current ! CNN' Countywide Assessed Value AV Le Levy Rate Growth °3' 2011-12 Actual $48,061,478,403 $20,185,821 $0.42 2012-13 Actual $49,184,385,714 2.34% $20,657,442 $0.42 2013-14 Actual $50,975,829,129 3.64% $21,409,848 $0.42 2014-15 Actual $53,325,861,950 4.61% $22,396,862 $0.42 2015-16 Estimate $55,677,532,462 4.41% $23,384,564 $0.42 Five Yr Avg $51,445,017,532' 3.75% $21,606,907 $0.42 Impact of Current Levy for Average Home Average Home Assessed Value Annual Cost Monthly Cost 2011-12 Actual $214,362 $90.03 $7.50 2012-13 Actual $220,644 $92.67 $7.72 2013-14 Actual $228,700 $96.05 $8.00 2014-15 Actual $236,139 $99.18 $8.26 2015-16 Estimate $245,585 $103.15 $8.60 Five Yr Avg $229,086 $96.22 $8.02 Annual Public Safety Proposed Levy Countywide Assessed Value AV Le Levy Rate Growth �'3' 2016-17 Estimate $57,904,633,760 4.00% $24,319,946 $0.42 2017-18 Estimate $60,220,819,111 4.00% $25,292,744 $0.42 2018-19 Estimate $62,780,203,923 4.25% $26,367,686 $0.42 2019-20 Estimate $65,448,362,590 4.25% $27,488,312 $0.42 2020-21 Estimate $68,229,918,000 4.25% $28,656,566 $0.42 Five Yr Avg $62,916,787,477 4.15% $26,425,051 $0.42 Impact of Proposed Levy for Average Home Average Home Assessed Value Annual Cost Monthly Cost 2016-17 Estimate $255,408 $107.27 $8.94 2017-18 Estimate $265,624 $111.56 $9.30 2018-19 Estimate $276,913 $116.30 $9.69 2019-20 Estimate $288,682 $121.25 $10.10 2020-21 Estimate $300,951 $126.40 $10.53 Five Yr Avg $277,516 $116.56 $9.71 Current Levi Cost or Average Home Compared to Proposed Levy Cost Annual Cost Monthly Cost Current Levy Average Cost $96.22 $8.02 Proposed Levy Average Cost $116.56 $9.71 Change $20.34 $1.70 20II' a �, c Budget Summaries LOCAL OPTION LEVY ADMINISTRATION No. Budget Unit Name Prog Program Name FY 15-16 Est FY 1647 Est FY 17-18 Est FY 18-19 Est FY 19-20 Est FY 20-21 Est 5 Yr Total 1690 Levy Admin(rev) 169005 Levy Admin 22,523,764 23,722,055 24,695,820 25,729,233 26,803,987 27,921,586 128,872,680 169010 Emergency Shelter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 169015 911 Center Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 169025 Public Outreach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Org Unit Total 22,523,764 23,722,055 24,695,820 25,729,233 26,803,987 27,921,586 128,872,680 1690 Levy Admin(eap) 169005 Levy Admin(Cont/Cap) 12,940,984 0 0 0 0 0 0 169010 Emergency Shelter 797,907 813,865 830,142 850,896 872,168 898,333 4,265,405 169015 911 Center Equipment 125,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 875,000 169025 Public Outreach 163,610 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 Org Unit Total 14,027,501 988,865 1,005,142 1,025,896 1,047,168 1,123,333 5,190,405 Revenues Transferred to Operating Programs 8,496,263 22,733,190 23,690,677 24,703,337 25,756,818 26,798,253 123,682,275 Permanent Positions: None Overview The Local Option Levy Administration organization unit (234-1690) is the central fiscal entity for all levy proceeds derived from the public safety local option levy and is comprised of four service programs: Levy Administration (taxes, debt service, contingency and other capital expenditures); Emergency Housing; 911 Center Equipment, and Public Outreach Services. Beyond this summary on the following pages are descriptions of each of the surrogate programs of the Levy Administration budget. Levy Administration(Tax Revenue, Interest Earnings and Contingency) This program contains all levy resources that are derived from the public safety levy to fund levy programs described in the previous sections of this report.These resources include current and delinquent tax revenues and interest earnings. Emergency Shelter Services This program provides funding for four(4) emergency shelter/services programs. This public-private partnership continues a County public safety initiative that began as part of the original levy. The program funds emergency shelters that help women and children who are victims of domestic violence and helps move homeless families off the streets and prepare them for self-sufficiency. The four private non-profit emergency programs are: the Domestic Violence Resource Center (DVRC), Community Action,the Good Neighbor Center and Family Promise of Washington County. Proposed funding levels are based on the same levels as the current levy and are increased by the same factors used in the calculation of budgets for the regular levy operating programs. 211Pa ! C Shelter Name FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 5 Yr Total Est Est Est Est Est DVRC $ 281,978 287,618 294,808 302,178 311,244 1,477,825 Community Action Shelter 209,954 214,153 219,507 224,994 231,744 1,100,352 Tigard Shelter(Good Neighbor Ctr) 279,941 285,540 292,678 299,995 308,995 1,467,150 Family Promise of Washington County 41,992 42,832 43,903 45,001 46,351 220,079 Emergency housing contracts $ 813,865 830,142 850,896 872,168 898,333 4,265,405 911 Center Equipment 911 Center Capital funds will be used for information technology and building component upgrades at the Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency(WCCCA). Public Outreach The Public Outreach program houses expenditures related to conducting elections for renewal of the public safety levy. These expenditures include ballots, printing, legal fees and production of public information materials. 22IP c Sheriffs Office Overview The Sheriff's Office portion of the levy is comprised of levy budgets covering three main areas: 1) Sheriff's Office Administration (234-4010);2)Countywide Law Enforcement (234-4020);and 3)the County Jail (234-4030). Consistent with other levy-funded public safety programs, the Sheriff's Office levy funds are used to supplement existing programs already funded by the County's General Fund. In this report, these General Fund programs are commonly referred to as "base-level" programs. Sheriff's Office Administration No. Budget Unit Name Pros Program Name FY 15-16 Est FY 16-17 Est FY 17-18 Est FY 18-19 Est FY 19-20 Est FY 20-21 Est 5 Yr Total 4010 SO Admin(rev) 401005 Executive Admin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401015 Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 901020 Rsrch&Crime Anlys 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Org Unit Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4010 SO Admin(exp) 401005 Executive Admin 648,478 672,199 699,407 725,637 757,355 788,224 3,642,822 401015 Training 144,857 149,532 153,593 157,994 162,523 167,423 791,065 401020 Rsrch&Crime Anlys 280,494 291,721 304,059 315,450 330,096 343,848 1,585,174 Org Unit Total 1,073,829 1,113,452 1,157,058 1,199,082 1,249,975 1,299,495 6,019,061 Amount needed from levy fund: 1,073,829 1,113,452 1,157,058 1,199,082 1,249,975 1,299,495 6,019,061 Permanent Positions Sergeant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sr Mgmt Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Acct Assistant II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Admin Spec II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Law Enforcement Techno 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Info Systems Analyst II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 The Sheriff's Office Administration budget provides a separate accounting entity to track levy funds that augment existing Sheriff's Administration programs such as research, planning and crime analysis, training for uniformed personnel, executive administrative support and public information (which includes accounting, clerical and analytical support). The Sheriff's Administration includes the following service programs: Executive Administration,Training and Research, Planning and Crime Analysis. 23IPa �� c Sheriff's Office Law Enforcement No. Budget Unit Name Prog Program Name FY 15-16 Est FY 16-17 Est FY 17-18 Est FY 18-19 Est FY 19-20 Est FY 20-21 Est 5 Yr Total 4020 Law Enf.Svs(rev) 402005 Patrol Operations 32,930 33,918 34,935 35,984 37,063 38,175 180,075 402010 Investigations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402015 Records 6,000 6,180 6,365 6,556 6,753 6,956 32,810 402020 Crime Prev/Pub lnf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402030 Civil 35,500 36,565 37,662 38,792 39,956 41,154 194,129 Org Unit Total 74,430 76,663 78,963 81,332 83,772 86,285 407,014 4020 Law Enf.Svs(exp) 402005 Patrol Operations 7,093,315 7,507,891 7,915,494 8,394,198 8,926,395 9,411,833 42,155,812 402010 Investigations 2,314,892 2,422,099 2,520,618 2,614,364 2,730,757 2,842,894 13,130,732 402015 Records 359,603 379,093 395,408 410,726 430,004 448,361 2,063,593 402020 Crime Prev/Pub Inf 217,149 134,427 139,897 145,050 151,535 157,730 728,640 402030 Civil 290,000 326,108 361,878 397,761 459,980 523,103 2,068,830 Org Unit Total 10,274,959 10,769,618 11,333,296 11,962,100 12,698,672 13,383,922 60,147,607 Amount needed from levy fund: 10,200,529 10,692,955 11,254,334 11,880,768 12,614,900 13,297,637 59,740,594 Permanent Positions Sergeant 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Civil Deputy 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 SrProgEducator 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2_.110 Admin Spec 11 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 x.00 Sr Admin Spec 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I-00 Criminal Records Spec 0 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Deputy Sheriff 26.83 27.83 28.83 29.83 30.83 31.83 Patrol Services Aide 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Corporal 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Detective 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Lieutenant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Evidence Officer 0 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Forensic Unit Supevisor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Crime Scene Tech 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Criminalist 11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 58.08 59.08 60.08 61.08 62.08 63.08 The Sheriff's Office Countywide Law Enforcement budget houses levy funds earmarked for maintenance of county base patrol and investigations service levels to a service level goal of approximately .54 officers per 1,000 residents. It also includes funding to maintain capacity for civil enforcement (the serving of legal court orders and warrants countywide); increased scientific evidence-gathering and records services that will make more efficient use of existing investigative and patrol resources; and provides additional capacity for crime prevention program and education. This budget unit includes the following service programs: Countywide (Base) Patrol Operations, Investigations, Criminal Records, Crime Prevention and Civil Enforcement. 24 I P n 12 c Sheriff's Office Jail No. Budget Unit Name Prog Program Name FY 15.16 Est FY 16-17 Est FY 17-18 Est FY 18-19 Est FY 19-20 Est FY 20-21 Est 5 Yr Total 4030 Jail(re%) 403010 Jail Housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4030 Jail(exp) 403010 Jail Housing 2,447,887 2,560,067 2,653,637 2,753,200 2,873,236 2,990,112 13,830,253 Amount needed from levy fund: 2,447,887 2,560,067 2,653,637 2,753,200 2,873,236 2,990,112 13,830,253 Permanent Positions Jail Deputy 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Admin Spec II 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Corporal-Court Release 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Officer Corrections Sergeant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Jail Services Tech 0 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 MH Specialist II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 14.50 15.50 15.50 15.50 15.50 15.50 The Sheriff's Office Jail budget contains levy funds earmarked for the operation of one jail pod (56 beds) in the Washington County Jail. The jail provides a 572-bed facility with booking and incarceration services for all law enforcement agencies in the county. It provides medium and maximum security housing for individuals awaiting trial and those sentenced by state courts to periods of incarceration up to one year. Additionally,the jail provides transport services to other facilities and to the courts.This budget unit includes the following service program:Sheriff's Office-Jail (Pod 9) The prisoner transport service directly supports city police departments when prisoner transports are required. This allows city officers to return to normal duties rather than spend precious time transporting prisoners to and from the County Jail. The proposed levy continues the additional resources added to the current levy to provide expanded coverage and availability of this service to our city police agencies countywide. The Corporal-Court Release Officer is a new position for the levy focusing on the Jail Pre-trial Release Program. This program is designed to evaluate individuals that are in custody to determine if they would be eligible for release from jail prior to their trial, but still be under jail supervision through electronic monitoring. The intent of this program is to reduce jail over-crowding and forced releases. 25 I P l �r. c District Attorney No. Budget Unit Name Prog Program Name FY 15-16 Est FY 16-17 Est FY 17-18 Est FY 18-19 Est FY 19-20 Est FY 20-21 Est 5 Yr Total 4510 District Attorney(rev)451005 Child Support Ent 425,033 437,784 450,918 464,445 478,378 492,730 2,324,255 451010 Prosecution Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 451015 Victim Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OrgUnitTotal 425,033 437,784 450,918 464,445 478,378 492,730 2,324,255 4510 District Attorney(exp)451005 Child Support Enf 643,990 680,698 709,805 732,681 767,105 799,708 3,689,997 451010 Prosecution Services 1,712,360 2,042,031 2,400,356 2,486,367 2,608,301 2,718,143 12,255,198 451015 Victim Assistance 215,344 221,931 231,289 322,025 337,027 351,485 1,463,758 Orb Unit Total 2,571,694 2,944,660 3,341,451 3,541,073 3,712,433 3,869,336 17,408,953 Amount needed from levy fund: 2,146,661 2,506,876 2,890,533 3,076,628 3,234,055 3,376,606 15,084,698 permanent Positions DA IV 5.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Admin Spec 0 6.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 DA W 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Senior Deputy DA 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sr Admin Spec 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 Sr Softw App Spec 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Victim Assist Spec 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Total 18.75 20.75 22.75 23.75 23.75 23.75 Overview The District Attorney is responsible for the prosecution of individuals charged with crimes and other law violations in the county. The DA reviews police reports, prepares warrants and other documents, directs investigations, participates in court proceedings, directs extradition proceedings, and provides on-call assistance to police agencies in multi-agency major crime teams, auto crash analysis,and child abuse cases. The District Attorney's Office portion of the levy is comprised of one levy budget (234-4510) that includes three service programs: Child Support Enforcement, Criminal Prosecution and Victim Assistance. Consistent with other levy-funded public safety programs, District Attorney levy funds are used to supplement existing programs already funded by the County's General Fund. 26IPage Juvenile Services No. Budget Unit Name Prog Program Name FY 15-16 Est FY 16-17 Est FY 17-18 Est FY 18-19 Est FY 19-20 Est FY 20-21 Est 5 Yr Total 5010 Juvenile(rev) 501005 Basic Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 501015 Juvenile Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 501030 Homeless Youth Svs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Org Unit Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5010 Juvenile(exp) 501005 Basic Services 835,460 1,234,597 1,282,454 1,328,020 1,384,243 1,438,405 6,667,721 501015 Juvenile Prevention 293,254 299,619 306,126 314,045 322,169 331,834 1,573,794 501030 Homeless Youth Svs 45,000 45,900 46,818 47,988 49,1:: 50,664 240,558 Org Unit Total 1,173,714 1,580,117 1,635,399 1,690,053 1,755,601 1,820,904 8,482,073 Amount needed from levy fund: 1,173,714 1,580,117 1,635,399 1,690,053 1,755,601 1,820,904 8,482,073 Permanent Positions Accountant I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Management Analyst 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sr Juvenile Counselor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sr Juvenile Counselor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Juv.Counselor II 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Juv.Counselor l 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Total 6.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 Overview As outlined in Oregon law, the purpose of the juvenile justice system includes protection of the public, the reduction of delinquency, and the delivery of fair and impartial procedures for the disposition of juvenile cases. The system is founded on the principles of personal responsibility, accountability, and juvenile reformation. The Juvenile portion of the levy is housed in one Juvenile levy budget (234-5010) and is comprised of three service programs:Juvenile Basic Services,Juvenile Crime Prevention and Homeless Runaway Youth. 27IPa .ggc Community Corrections No. Budget Unit Name Pros Program Name FY 15-16 Est FY 16-17 Est FY 17-18 Est FY 18-19 Est FY 19-20 Est FY 20-21 Est 5 Yr Total 5515 Comm corr(rev) 551505 l'rogram Svs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 551510 Parole/Probation Svs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 551530 CCC Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 551535 Drug Court Sys 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Org Unit Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Comm corr(exp) 551505 Program Svs 175,244 481,876 496,333 511,223 526,559 542,356 2,558,347 551510 Parole/Probation Svs 1,512,743 1,663,577 1,735,166 1,802,563 1,886,727 1,967,013 9,055,046 551530 CCC Expansion 1,852,610 2,001,055 2,174,906 2,260,284 2,366,102 2,467,454 11,269,802 551535 Drug Court Svs 335,720 280,586 292,205 303,700 316,824 329,868 1,523,184 3,875,817 4,427,095 4,698,610 4,877,770 5,096,213 5,306,691 24,406,378 Amount needed from levy fund: 3,875,817 4,427,095 4,698,610 4,877,770 5,096,213 5,306,691 24,406,378 Permanent Positions Prob Sr Parole Off II 12.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 Admin Spec]] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Community Corrections 7.00 8.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 CCC Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Residential Counselor 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Community Corrections' 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Prob&Parole Svs Sup. 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 29.50 31.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 Overview Community Corrections is a state and local-funded program that is responsible for providing probation, parole (post prison supervision), and residential services/work release (Community Corrections Center) services to the adult offender population. The Community Corrections portion of the levy is housed in one levy budget (234-5515) that includes four service programs: Program Services; Probation and Parole; Community Corrections Center Expansion and Drug Court Services. Corrections levy funds are used to supplement existing programs already funded by state funds and the County's General Fund including probation/parole supervision of offenders and 24 beds in the Community Corrections Center (for a total bed-capacity of 215 beds). 28IPawrc Appendix A - Levy Budget Detail FY16-17 Eat FY17-18 Eat FY18-19 Eat FY19-20 Bat FY20-21Eat 7/1 Beginning balance 12,940,984 12,793,612 12,194,719 11420,554 10,353,393 7 One twelveth of regular revenues I 74,113 1 78,722 I 80,169 I 81,446 I 82,525 Property taxes(current only) 0 0 0 0 0 Expenditures(1/12th of total exp) 2,031,908 2,151,963 2,254,008 2,369,347 2,482,717 Ending balance 10,983,189 10,720,371 10,020,881 9,132,654 7,953,202 8/1 Beginning balance 10,983,189 10,720,371 10,020,881 9,132,654 7,953,202 8 One twelveth of regular revenues I 74,113 I 78,722 1 80,169 1 81,446 I 82,525 Property taxes(current only) 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 Expenditures(1/12th of total exp) 2,031,908 2,151,963 2,254,008 2,369,347 2,482,717 Ending balance 9,025,393 8,647,130 7,847,042 6,844,754 5,553,010 9/1 Beginning balance 9,025,393 8,647,130 7,847,042 6,844,754 5,553,010 9 One twelveth of regular revenues I 74,113 I 78,722 I 80,169 I 81,446 I 82,525 1 Property taxes(current only) 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 Expenditures(1/12th of total exp) 2,031,908 2,151,963 2,254,008 2,369,347 2,482,717 Ending balance 7,067,598 6,573,889 5,673,204 4,556,853 3,152,818 10/1 Beginning balance 7,067,598 6,573,889 5,673,204 4,556,853 3,152,818 10 One twelveth of regular revenues I 74,113 I 78,722 1 80,169 I 81,446 I 82,525 I Property taxes(current only) 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 Expenditures(1/12th of total exp) 2,031,908 2,151,963 2,254,008 2,369,347 2,482,717 Ending balance 5,109,802 4,500,648 3,499,365 2,268,953 752,626 11/1 Beginning balance 5,109,802 4,500,648 3,499,365 2,268,953 752,626 11 One twelveth of regular revenues I 74,113 I 78,722 I 80,169 I 81,446 I 82,525 I Property taxes(current only) 19,494,869 20,274,664 21,136,337 22,034,631 22,971,103 Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 Expenditures(1/12th of total exp) 2,031,908 2,151,963 2,254,008 2,369,347 2,482,717 Ending balance 22,646,876 22,702,070 22,461,864 22,015,684 21,323,537 12/1 Beginning balance 22,646,876 22,702,070 22,461,864 22,015,684 21,323,537 12 One twelveth of regular revenues I 74,113 I 78,722 I 80,169 I 81,446 I 82,525 I Property taxes(current only) 2,042,875 2,124,590 2,214,886 2,309,018 2,407,152 Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 Expenditures(1/12th of total exp) 2,031,908 2,151,963 2,254,008 2,369,347 2,482,717 Ending balance 22,731,956 22,753,419 22,502,911 22,036,802 21,330,497 1/1 Beginning balance 22,731,956 22,753,419 22,502,911 22,036,802 21,330,497 1 One twelveth of regular revenues I 74,113 I 78,722 I 80,169 I 81,446 I 82,525 I Property taxes(current only) 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 Expenditures(1/12th of total exp) 2,031,908 2,151,963 2,254,008 2,369,347 2,482,717 Ending balance 20,774,161 20,680,178 20,329,073 19,748,902 18,930,305 2/1 Beginning balance ® 20,774,161 20,680,178 20,329,073 19,748,902 18,930,305 2 One twelveth of regular revenues I 74,113 I 78,722 I 80,169 I 81,446 I 82,525 I Property taxes(current only) 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 Expenditures(1/12th of total exp) 2,031,908 2,151,963 2,254,008 2,369,347 2,482,717 Ending balance 18,816,365 18,606,937 18,155,234 17,461,001 16 530,113 3/1 Beginning balance 18,816,365 18,606,937 18,155,234 17,461,001 16,530,113 3 One twelveth of regular revenues I 74,113 I 78,722 I 80,169 I 81,446 I 82,525 I Property taxes(current only) 875,518 910,539 949,237 989,579 1,031,636 Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 Expenditures(1/12th of total exp) 2,031,908 2,151,963 2,254,008 2,369,347 2,482,717 Ending balance 17,734,088 17,444,234 16,930,632 16,162,680 15,161,558 4/1 Beginning balance _all 17,734,088 17,444,234 16,930,632 16,162,680 15,161,558 4 One twelveth of regular revenues I 74,113 I 78,722 I 80,169 I 81,446 I 82,525 I Property taxes(current only) 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 Expenditures(1/12th of total exp) 2,031,908 2,151,963 2,254,008 2,369,347 2,482,717 Ending balance 15,776,293 15,370,993 14,756,794 13,874,780 12,761,366 5/1 Beginning balance 15,776,293 15,370,993 14,756,794 13,874,780 12,761,366 5 One twelveth of regular revenues I 74,113 I 78,722 I 80,169 I 81,446 I 82,525 I Property taxes(current only) 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 Expenditures(1/12th of total exp) 2,031,908 2,151,963 2,254,008 2,369,347 2,482,717 Ending balance 13,818,497 13,297,752 12,582,956 11,586,880 10,361,174 6/1 Beginning balance 13,818,497 13,297,752 12,582,956 11,586,880 10,361,174 6 One twelveth of regular revenues I 74,113 I 78,722 I 80,169 I 81,446 I 82,525 I Property taxes(current only) 933,886 971,241 1,012,519 1,055,551 1,100,412 Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 Expenditures(1/12th of total exp) 2,031,908 2,151,963 2,254,008 2,369,347 2,482,717 Ending balance 12,794,588 12,195,752 11,421,636 10,354,531 9,061,394 Avg Monthly bal 14,785,433 14,507,603 13,912,890 13,092542 12,013,633 Monthly Interest Earned 12,321 15,112 14,493 13,638 12,514 Annual Interest Earned 147,854 181,345 173,911 163,657 150,170 29IPa �ge CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE LEVY RENEWAL FOR MAINTAINING PUBLIC SAFETY COUNTYWIDE SERVICES—MEASURE 34-236 WHEREAS,The Washington County Public Safety Levy was created in 2000 to provide all the residents of Washington County with certain public safety services including jail, special enforcement teams, prosecutors,juvenile counselors,probation and parole, emergency communications,and emergency shelters for families and victims of domestic violence;and WHEREAS,The citizens of Tigard and surrounding areas would benefit from the renewal of the services provided through the funding of this levy; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby proclaims its support of the passage of the levy renewal for maintaining public safety countywide services, a five-year local option levy to maintain countywide public safety services, to be presented to voters at the November 3, 2015 General Election. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2015. Mayor- City of Tigard ATTEST City Recorder—City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 15- Page 1 AIS-2321 5. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 08/18/2015 Length (in minutes): 15 Minutes Agenda Title: RECEIVE BRIEFING ON EARLY MARIJUANA SALES IN TIGARD Prepared For: Roger Gonzalez Submitted By: Carol Krager, Central Services Item Type: Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Workshop Mtg. Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the City of Tigard allow the early sale of limited quantities of recreational marijuana sales in medical marijuana dispensaries beginning October 1,2015,as permitted by state law? If the City Council prefers to ban the early sale of recreational marijuana,action would be needed at the August 25,2015 meeting. If early sale is allowed,no action by the City Council is needed. Council will also be asked at a future meeting in September,2015,to discuss and decide whether,and how,to amend the City's currently enacted marijuana taxes to align with state law and refer any marijuana tax to voters in November,2016. STAFF RECOMMENDATION /ACTION REQUEST Allow early sale of limited quantities of marijuana in medical marijuana dispensaries. Continue discussion about the approach to marijuana taxation in September,2015. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Issue 1: Early Sales. The State has authorized medical marijuana dispensaries to sell limited marijuana retail product to persons at least 21 years of age in accordance with certain conditions beginning October 1,2015. Under SB 460,medical dispensaries will be able to sell the following: •One quarter of one ounce(1/4 oz.) of dried marijuana leaves and flowers per person per day; •Four (4) marijuana plants that are not flowering;and •Marijuana seeds. The rationale for allowing early sales is "to provide recreational customers a legal option for purchasing product while the ground rules for legal recreational sales are developed,thus avoiding sales in an unregulated manner to recreational customers." (League of Oregon Cities) Early sales would begin October 1,2015 and would end on December 31,2016. If the Council takes no action to ban early sales,medical marijuana dispensaries may proceed with early sales. It is unlikely that the City will be able to impose and collect a tax on early sales.The League of Oregon Cities noted a distinction between prohibiting the establishment of marijuana businesses and prohibiting early sales,indicating that cities prohibiting early sales should"remain eligible to receive state marijuana tax revenues" even though cities are prohibited from collecting a local tax on early sales. Issue 2: Marijuana Taxation.The City Council will be briefed about the city's authority and options for marijuana taxation at a September,2015 meeting. Essentially,City Council will need to decide whether to align current tax rates with state legislation,or continue to impose and collect taxes per Tigard Municipal Code. Tigard has previously enacted: i.10%Tax on Recreational Marijuana; ii.5%Tax on Medical Marijuana;and iii.Annual Privilege Taxes. Before its September consideration of this issue,City Council will receive an advisory memo from the City Attorney about taxation options under the recently enacted state law,HB 3400. It is likely that the City is pre-empted by state legislation in HB 3400 from levying the city's 10% tax on recreational marijuana.There is ambiguity regarding the imposition of the city's 5% tax on medical marijuana.The city's $1,000 privilege tax on selling outside city limits is pre-empted by state legislation,and the city's $500 privilege tax on consumption is likely not pre-empted by state legislation.The City Council will need to consider any changes to taxation at a future meeting. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Council could elect to ban the early retail sales of limited marijuana items. Council could adopt an ordinance to ban early sales without referring it to the voters.An ordinance would need to be approved by August 31 to take effect by October 1,2015 and prohibit early sales. Electing to ban early sales is not anticipated to have an effect on the City's ability to collect future taxes on the sale of marijuana, and would not affect already enacted land use and zoning regulations. The purpose of this briefing is to highlight the upcoming decisions that will be presented for Council consideration. No decision about taxation alternatives are proposed for this briefing. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION The Council considered a moratorium on dispensaries and subsequent taxes on marijuana on the following dates: February 11,2014 April 15 and 22,2014 September 9 and 23,2014 November 25,2015 March 10,2015 April 14 and 21,2015 1 AIS-2086 6. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 08/18/2015 Length (in minutes):40 Minutes Agenda Title: Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission to Receive a Briefing on the Tigard Triangle Prepared For: Cheryl Caines,Community Development Submitted By: Tom McGuire,Community Development Item Type: Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Joint Meeting-Board or Other Juris. Workshop Mtg. Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Joint meeting with the Planning Commission to receive a briefing on the Tigard Triangle Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST No action necessary - update only. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Visioning The Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan has been completed. The final plan is very similar to the draft recommended plan option presented at the last City Council update in June 2014. This plan includes greater street connectivity inside the Triangle,parks,open space,trails,pedestrian oriented streets,and zoning for a mix of uses at various densities. An open house was held in September 2014 to present the plan. Over 100 people participated on-line or in-person. The plan was generally well received. Comments included: •concerns about increased traffic •trails and walking connections are great •too urban in a suburban area •a mix of affordable housing options is needed The final plan was also reviewed by the Triangle citizen (CAC) and technical(TAC) advisory committees at their meetings in September and December. Advisory committee discussions mainly focused on code regulations and how the plan would be implemented. A set of recommended implementation strategies was outlined in the plan document that include regulatory actions,infrastructure investments and incentives/public-private partnerships. The next step is to put regulatory actions in place,such as the adoption of zoning,development of Triangle code regulations,and updates to previously adopted plans such as the Transportation System Plan,Parks Master Plan,and Comprehensive Plan. Implementation-Regulatory Actions The city has engaged PlaceMakers,a planning and design firm to help complete the next step of finalizing the zoning and preparing the code regulations.PlaceMakers was chosen because they specialize in the creation of form-based codes. Form-based codes tend to be more clear and objective than traditional codes,as well as easier to administer because they are less complex. A form-based code is right for the Triangle because it works particularly well with mixed use development within an area that is in the process of redevelopment and it will better facilitate the creation of a vibrant,walkable,urban area. Form based codes focus primarily on the relationship between the street and site,how buildings relate to one another,and the street scale and design; whereas traditional zoning codes focus on regulating uses. This type of code will allow flexibility for the applicant while ensuring essential elements needed for a walkable environment are included in the design. In addition to being form-based,the regulations will be lean.The use of this term comes from a practice known as Lean Urbanism that seeks to accelerate revitalization by minimizing regulation,particularly process time,expense,and unpredictability. Lean regulations could be shortened review times, fewer code regulations, or requiring public improvements that are more proportionate to the impact of the development. Fewer regulations and less process means quicker review time,lower expenses and more certainty. This allows smaller property owners and business entrepreneurs to participate in building the community through incremental change.These small developers have the opportunity to invest in the community. The PlaceMakers team will be on-site September 14-17 for a four day code drafting workshop. During this time,the team will meet with staff,agency representatives,landowners and citizens to discuss the code framework. The goal is to work through as many issues as possible during the workshop and minimize changes to the first draft. Hearings for the adoption of the code are being scheduled for January. Because the concept of a lean code is different from our current practices,the PlaceMakers team will also be providing staff training. Other Updates •Staff has been meeting with the key stakeholders during this time of transition to update them on Triangle planning efforts. Their involvement throughout this process is key to developing code and zoning that will positively impact property owners in the Triangle. •These conversations with property owners and developers are fostering relationships that may lead to partnering on a catalyst site development in the Triangle. This includes discussions with PacTrust about the short and long term plans for redeveloping the cinema site with a mix of commercial and residential uses. •In addition,Qamar Architecture&Town Planning has been contracted to provide urban design services to those wanting to develop in the Triangle. Laurence Qamar has been reviewing proposed site plans, meeting with developers,and providing ideas and designs that improve how the development can advance Tigard's strategic vision. •Public Works and Community Development worked together on a Lighter,Quicker,Cheaper project to create an overlook at the corner of SW 68th&Dartmouth. This improvement highlights the views to the west and creates a new destination for walking in the Triangle. A Community Development ice cream visit was held on the site to help get the word out about the overlook. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Not applicable. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS •City Council Goal#3 (Adopt Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan and enable future development capacity) •Tigard Strategic Plan Goals •#1 (Facilitate walking connections to develop an identity) •#2 (Ensure development advances the vision) DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION September 3,2013,December 17,2013,May 13,2014 and August 12,2014. Attachments Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan Maps FIGURE 9 Tigard Triangle Preferred Option Street Functional Classification v W W 4 > SW PINE ST i ii �1 •RONAL.,, SW SPRUCE Sr SW SPRUCE Sr - ^`�"'� I J SW SPRUCE ST z a V CD 1 o o sw THORN ST • y H--- ST Sws7EVE - n ■ V, .--- ,/ W / & N 3 y y • a SWPFAFFLE ST • ,--,, Consider rerouting i:• `. trek to SW 69th to g 1• Increase visibility for ■ businesses. iii N • �� 6 ��■■■■ ATLANTA sT ■■ ■■■■■■■ _ SW NArnes ST•\ �0 SWATLANrAST • i ��'•••4 MMMMM1 SW BAYLOR Sr F v��i ■ • s ■ ■ is rF • h y „SW SOUTHVIEW Si 1 ■ SW CLIMON Si ✓;r y.y op . ■111111., ■•■ ■11 n 11 T'P 4 •• i PP SW DARTMOUTH ST ,-"'' ■ W �y • L 1 �-''^' : SwDOUCUSOa • 310. /�. ■ .1•a.1 SW ELMHURST ST C.- s, • ■■■ ■1•• >g 111,11* 1• � < a ., R e 0 •`' SWNER.NOSO WAY c. t m fs y 3 f 4r„ Al y •3 ■111111111, SWF" INST 0 8w:. • ■1• •m■ 1 1r • / SW SOUTHWOOD OR St.,,,,,, / \ • 'Sl • III SW GONZAGA ST • \ a • SW HAMPTON Sr • Z:II LEGEND _; 3 DI e1 ■ 31 ■ Freeways "• • 3 see PAMELA sr Roads and streets' • ■ ••••i_1•• Existing Functional t7wifcatioo SW CRESrvawsI 1 - Arterial ■ Collector I t' Local SWVARNS ST loNleE MI(58LVD Future Functional Classifications • \\*■■•1 Arterial■■■■1 Collector a■■■■1 Neighborhood Route l Local 'sr SW PR ST-Highway Crossing(multimodaB 3WalRL1�1••••• ■ -Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing 1 ...1 0 300 600 .:- A in N 1 1 1 1 r l 1 FeSt SW CHERRY DR \ SW SANDBURG ST . . lig/ 'E.srng or planned if ' IIts SI m the curre„T.gd Triangle Plan Disrrr■ SW TECH CENTER OR FIGURE 10 Tigard Triangle Sta A7FGIC Pia Preferred Option Primar Land Use Functions w The Preferred Option generally increases land use densities from what is SW PINE Sr >; currently allowed in the MUE zoning district.In addition,some areas that are ,x� 41 _rill currently zoned for general commercial uses would change to residential/mixed 6 M use.Key components of the Preferred Option Include: w some r •Changing general commercial coning to residential/mixed use and sw SPaucr Sr in land use densities: < , Multifamily residential densities would be permitted up to SO dwelling units per acre.Multifamily residential uses would be permitted in all CD • areas. -Townhome developemnr would be allowed in some areas. Building heights and lot coverage change,which would increase , potential density. -Vertical mixed use buildings with ground floor retail flex spacers -- ./ encouraged along pedestrian streets and in redeveloped areas that have a large amount of foot traffic and high visibility.Buildings would be required to have a high percentage of windows,operable doors,and attract lye facade treatments. General commercial uses,except where they transition to mixed•use land uses,and office and Institutional uses would be in similar locations as today. - 3 -Off-street parking can be located off-site,either on a surface lot or in a w F structure. i \.\ ; Commercial areas that are not within designated commercial zones r. would be limited to a 30,000 square foot(ft')maximum floor plate.This ;j" ,f provides for some larger uses,but not for large format retail. " w ' '� "?i atr _j SA,HAINES Si ONIQ 0 'tTt,afa 4 4// \\41iiiiii . • i SW eAYr OR ST 5 `s .1i / --::' . ,i = , SW SOUTNV,Ewsr ,'.:, .. , y ..// / SW CLINTON Sr i .moo 3 j _�._— . N ( � -- f' _ — ooucus oa 1 r---/ SW EWHy•ST ST 2 r -- SWNERMOSO wAY A I s' !; :Fa N ea N$1 F SW FYENN RD $ _.. r l - SW SOUTHWOOD DR SW GGNZAGA ST �� ' • - ..K HAMPTal p %' a%///// /////, %//, 3 LEGEND , Existing features ii F Illt reeways Ti' R' Er', SWPAMFLA Sr Roads and streets' SW CRESTyrcW ST y I Primary Land Use Functions ie Townhome/Apartments(up to 4 stories) MUM Mixed Use(up to 6 stories) SW YARNS Sr ce0S0 O.acs eu'o — Mixed Use(high) t Campus and Education(up to 6 stories) _ — Open Space le t /�/'//�////, Ground floor flex space/active use q ; I,\\ Proposed roadway SW FIR ST swFn or , u Highway crossing(multimodaU 5B Bicycle/Pedestrian crossing • Potential area for central/structured parking - ..... 0 300 600 N I r t I s t IFeef _ `"- Si-te,iagr„aanned 4 I in he cuneni Tigard Triangle Plan Piln(1 /1- SW riCN aEN7ERGR re. I S I I i I I I I I I I I I 1 4"I I 4' FIGURE 11 Tigard Triangle Preferred Option Open Space and Natural Areas i I i I RONbi SW SPRUCE ST SW SPRUCES) t .�F•�.�.—.—.S1aSAGWCW.j.._..—.J ! I w > l New bike/pedestdan CDconnection Sw THORN ST , 1 N sw6:It—W T-' •• rim, _ . 7 3 I I' I ' _it/ z / I i \' I 1 , .,, ., ' ATLANTA I ' I I .Z i I . .k * I r r5s „SW SOUTNVIEW ST Y .. a , '• I I SW DOUGLAS DR I I I \ I \ ��F aw D `•`' I I�' a SWSOUTHWOOD DR ., I` � �I —t�IMFtiNy61S.T.—i� a 3 I LEGEND �•-. ' g Existing features �•—'—•�.` i 3 Freeways .N. I Roads and streets' - N. SW PAMELA Sr Designated bike lane —•—•- Shared lane SW CRESTWEWST `• ••^•••- Regional and local trails ‘■. . Pedestrian Pathway I Key features SWVARNS Sr I KRUSE OAKS Bp/6 — Natural Area --, —^n Plaza U v Potential Neighborhood Park a I lapprox.1 acre) I `nb `!, SSW Greenway corridor SW FIR Sr SW FIR sr I ——— Multi-use trail/Pedestrian pathway • 9W FIR LOOP — Proposed roadway I 1 S — Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing :' I 0 300 600 y I i i I i i IFeet SW CHERRrDa • I SW SANDBURG ST 8\--.• 1 'Tvuenq or planned 4 ; 1 ■ 1 1, ,1 1.1A .<u Twa,c TnanGle Ian1P.iri \ SW TECH CENTER DR ` . SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR 11 t45 . /s a.6 4(- (DATE OF MEETING) B. Building setback. The minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way or dedicated wetlands/buffers and other environmental features shall be zero feet; the maximum building setback shall be 10 feet. C. Front yard setback design. Landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to the applicable standard in paragraph 5 of this subsection A. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per 18.520.040.B and Table 18.520.2. D. Walkway connection to building entrances. A walkway connection is required between a building's entrance and a public street or accessway. This walkway must be at least six feet wide and be paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Building entrances at a corner near a public street intersection are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per 18.520.040.B and Table 18.520.2. E. Parking location and landscape design. Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the street frontage and must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 landscape standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 landscaped area is eight feet or is equal to the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to an L-2 landscape standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 landscape standard. See Diagram 2 below. ru7:,,. 7-z ‘xill II ,1, - r.' L 7 i 0.10 i,,,,,,,..A r s.lnneft sow? Suft•I i fie a rtw7a„, $/2 L `1 f ej Mop/er Miner A,b ia) �ihrc. 0-70• .r..h.d (Ord. 12-09 §1) 18.620.040 Building Design Standards A. Nonresidential buildings. All nonresidential buildings shall comply with the following design standards. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in 18.370.010.C.2, criteria for granting a variance,is satisfied. Tigard Triangle Plan District 18.620-3 AP Update:2/14 Final: 11/14/2013 TABLE 4. BUILDING CONFIGURATION INTERIM CODE City of High Point TABLE 4:Building Configuration. This table shows the Configurations for different building heights for each Transect Zone. It must be modified to show actual calibrated heights for local conditions. Recess Lines and Expression Lines shall occur on higher buildings as shown. N=maximum height as specified in Table 8k. T4 T6 l Lot ►tROw Lot 1+4ROW I I t I Max height Lot►ltROW Lot►I R.0 W. Max height I I Max height Max height I mil—Expression Line I I I a.THOROUGHFARE&FRONTAGES • Ovh i f r Building I Private Public I Vehicular I Public Private Building Frontage Frontage Lanes Frontage Frontage Private Lot Thoroughfare R.O.W. Private Lot 1 64 Final: 11/14/2013 INTERIM CODE TABLE 5. BUILDING DISPOSITION City of High Point TABLE 5: Building Disposition. This table approximates the location of the structure relative to the boundaries of each individual Lot,establishing suitable basic building types for each Transect Zone. a.Edgeyard: Specific Types-single family House,cottage,villa,estate house,urban villa.A building that occupies the center ■ ! m of its Lot with Setbacks on all sides This is the least urban of types as the front yard sets it back from the Frontage,while the side yards weaken the spatial definition of the public Thoroughfare space.The front yard is intended to be visually '---- ' Mg continuous with the yards of adjacent buildings The rear yard can be secured for privacy by fences and a well-placed i Backbuilding and/or Outbuilding T4 b.Sideyard:Specific Types-Charleston single house,double house,zero lot line house,twin. A building that occupies ! one side of the Lot with the Setback to the other side A shallow Frontage Setback defines a more urban condition.If _ m the adjacent building is similar with a blank side wall,the yard can be quite private This type permits systematic climatic ' 0 orientation in response to the sun or the breeze If a Sideyard House abuts a neighboring Sideyard House,the type is known as a twin or double House Energy costs,and sometimes noise,are reduced by sharing a party wall in this Jill. ' Disposition c.Rearyardr Specific Types-Townhouse,Rowhouse,Live-Work unit,loft building, Apartment House,Mixed Use Block, T4 Flex Building,perimeter Block.A building that occupies the full Frontage,leaving the rear of the Lot as the sole yard This is a very urban type as the continuous Facade steadily defines the public Thoroughfare.The rear Elevations may Ell be articulated for functional purposes In its Residential form,this type is the Rowhouse For its Commercial form the rear yard can accommodate substantial parking T6 d.Specialized: A building that is not subject to categorization Buildings dedicated to manufacturing and transportation r SD•are often distorted by the trajectories of machinery Civic buildings,which may express the aspirations of institutions, :'s:• may be included = l' Q e.BUILDING DISPOSITION f.LOT LAYERS I ','. , i i*Ffr I f + '- '4". . I 3rd layer ii I ,.I 1 I $i 2nd tej�ei' 1. r:'� •I I N 1-Principal Building I � • I i 2-Backbuilding ————Pnncpa�rronIaw—__ I 1s1 layer j ' I 3-Outbuilding _ i �—'— 1--- —� , I/ li 7. A 7. 1 ea--— - g.FRONTAGE&LOT LINES h.SETBACK DESIGNATIONS 4 I 4 i 3 i 3 2 II 4 4 ! 4 '311 ►'i ' ► 1� 1 I i • Zit i I i 1-Frontage Line • I 1-Front Setback 3 I 3 i 2-Lot Line I j i I 2-Side Setback 3-Facades _— 1__ I 1 i --._}_— _1—__.r__J -- -_----� 3-Rear Setback 4-Elevations _ I • A a / i.e. �r 5 I' AIS-2258 7. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 08/18/2015 Length (in minutes): 25 Minutes Agenda Title: Presentation on Tigard Street Heritage Trail Concept Submitted By: Sean Family, Community Development Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Workshop Mtg. Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Presentation on the final Tigard Street Heritage Trail concept. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Council is requested to review the Tigard Street Heritage Trail Concept Plan to share ideas and opinions. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Tigard Street Heritage Trail project will convert about 3/4 of a mile of unused rail spur right-of-way into a dedicated off street walk/bike path including lighting and safety fencing and a public space where the trail intersects with Main Street. In 2014, the city signed a 99-year lease with ODOT Rail for use of this property. The path would stretch from Main Street to Tiedeman Avenue, connecting Tigard's neighborhoods to Downtown businesses and the transit center. While funding to construct the project has not yet been secured, staff has advanced the Tigard Street Heritage Trail project. In the fall of 2014, the Community Development Department organized two focus groups to work with Resolve Architecture and Planning to explore possible design themes and concepts. Focus group participants included members of City Council, Tigard Downtown Affiance, City Center Advisory Commission, Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee, and city staff. On January 20, 2015, Resolve presented preliminary concepts to the Tigard City Council. A final charrette was held in February with the focus group reviewing the draft plan. Resolve designer Suenn Ho's design approach was to work with the following unique attributes of the Tigard Street Heritage Trail: •Various points of place-making opportunity along the former rail line •A linear crescent shape to create visual interest on approach for both autos and pedestrians •Connection with historic Main Street •Celebration of the early development of Tigardville and the city's rail history •Connectivity with Fanno Creek Trail •Tigard's Strategic Plan and Vision •Recognition that installations along the trail may need to be relocated if the railroad reclaims the easement The "Tigard Street Heritage Trail" concept is the result of working with the focus group, other stakeholders and research. This concept provides for an active trail that celebrates Tigard's people, heritage, nature and art. The concept design strives to be: •Relevant to the history of the community •Built upon the 2010 Tigard Greenway Trail Master Plan •Connecting to the surrounding network of trails •An attractive active trail that is embraced by all ages •Accommodating of proposals from the focus group and City Council: a fitness trail, veterans memorial, a BMX track, an outdoor event/market space, some parking and seasonal decor •Respectful of the environment and native vegetation •Accommodating of all users and those with strollers, wheelchairs, bicycles and dogs •A safe, durable, low maintenance public trail that includes the following amenities: o Conveniently placed emergency-police assistance kiosks o Clean and safe toilet facilities (ADA standard) o Drinking fountains o Playful splash pad features o Trail lighting The concept has four main sub-areas: 1) A community plaza where the trail meets Main Street (including the area under the viaduct); 2) a Commons area that includes concepts for a dog park and/or BMX track; 3) a Stage Area for performance space; and 4) A plaza at the north (Tiedeman) entrance. The concept also calls for connections to the Fanno Creek Trail and public art. In June, the 100% design concept was reviewed by the City Center Advisory Commission, which suggested additional amenities and strongly expressed support for the concept. As part of the Lighter Quicker Cheaper program to implement the Strategic Plan, the Public Works department is paving the trail to allow public use in the interim before funding can be secured to design the concept and build the full project. City staff will explore appropriate grant opportunities to assist in funding the full project including re-applying to ODOT's Connect Oregon program. OTHER ALTERNATIVES No alternative for consideration at this time. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Tigard Strategic Plan In 2014, the City of Tigard adopted a strategic vision focused on making this city the most walkable community in the Pacific Northwest where people of all ages and abilities enjoy healthy and interconnected lives. The Tigard Street Trail implements this vision that improves connectivity for residents, employees and commuters and by providing public open space for people to connect with each other. Tigard City Council Goals and Milestones 2015-17 Goal #2 Make Downtown Tigard a Place Where People Want to Be Increase walkable access to open space by advancing plans for new downtown open space, including the Tigard Street Trail plaza, the Fanno Creek Overlook and a Main Street plaza, including programming. Tigard Greenways Trails System Master Plan Tigard Street Trail: Short-term recommended project list City Center Urban Renewal Plan Projects C. Bike/Pedestrian Facilities 8. Conversion of Existing North Rail Corridor into a Multi-use Pedestrian Trail DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION January 20, 2015 - Tigard Street Trail Design Concepts Attachments PowerPoint Presentation • Tigard Trail , ...(� . .t p ,CAT• �•• •• /Concept Design � 100% - Final Document 8.11.2015 �t�,,���� j. •.r L.t�17.. ' Vv , sik Presentation to City Council .;' '. ' %∎-•v' ','.''i- „ " ' S .•r f 8.18.2015 ...t; ' ,i ' ;Terri .I di ' P \ • 't .F:"'� 1 s 111 1.141'.� '. �a '• PREVIOUS DESIGN PROGRESS PRESENTATIONS 4, f ; .. 4 or. '• Concept Design at 85% - to Advisory Committee 2.23.15 ► '• .r (�frill Concept Design at 75% - to Tigard City Council 1.20.15 . y." 4' ,,.. ;h `4-, ♦ • ,L ,,.c; •-i ,r '+p•. •,• Concept Design at 50% - to Advisory Committee 12.18.14 ' + t.�:,. •,+. '' 7• a • Concept Design at 25% - to Advisory Committee 10.30.14 '•w • , ■ .%.4 - P /� sue, f ti ° �{. . C ! 1 �_ 1 r r� • RESOLVE ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 1 F,, . ., 1, ...4, , d Design Process • W Research / Analysis - �._.._4 . _ 4 4. • t n . s3 x`^'250/ • rt if Kick Off Mtg Presented Observations to Advisory Committee ``� '. 0-3 ft*.a^ Generate Design Options @50% Presented 3 Design Themes to Advisory Committee Synthetize Feedback @75% Presented Project Design Overview to Tigard City Council Refine Design Preference @85% Presented Refined Design Themes to Advisory Committee Finalize Design Concept * @100% Delivered Final PDF and PowerPoint RESOLVE Tigard Street Heritage Trail AwCHI-E;..'i;vE + P_Ar,JN r.1 Tigard's History & Environment ..,.._ _ ,Y ,--''' , f ' 1 •„ / + � . ' - • , r 1 ∎ .1i. >i, +�--- . 1`44 l' 1 !y►' � 'I *. INN 4...t — -:* 1 Lairs. ♦ r. ' 1 _ f --r ' - Inspirations for an active trail that celebrates People Heritage Nature Art . 1 1 , 4 — . 4 _:., j , jai . .ii. s. ba r LM / I I-. r 1 I 1 \\\ �.` 1 442 ' .. RESOLVE Tigard Street Heritage Trail Agc..HIlEctu., - °LANNitd`y Inspirations ►. ,l, ,.. Eesign Goals f!1_,. -- , . `., h`yj, The Concept Design strives to be a safe, durable, low maintenance cs Of .,' ;`'P-7-' public trail that includes the following amenities: -, • Conveniently placed emergency-police assistance kiosks r • Clean and safe toilet facilities (ADA standard) •• Drinking fountains 4. ....t.. _._:.; � - T -+ • Playful splash pad features 0 47 • •I • Trail lighting ) , 2, ` r1t is , 1. r i r w { --.z--. .-6 me. ' . . - RESOLVE Tigard Street Heritage Trail I Heritage & Tigard - "I am always full of ideas, but I thought something p t, like this on a much larger scale, about the history of �- / ` "" `- Alts , .,. :, Tigard as a rail and farming community could involve .' r F,. , , f " the Fought & Company here in town, the railroad �;; 4 , C ; 4"' , e ''' history community and the city of Tigard. Perhaps • . ' . ° i . • with embedded rail tracks rising out of the ground, ,► - ;• . �'` with wheel and gear parts, plows, etc. i. Also, as a nod to my small portion of Native .4,, . , 111C 1:5,6,‘ y American blood, it would be wonderful to see some It a ,' part o the historical record talking about the At alati p f g f tribe that inhabited the land before us. This whole valley was their abundant fishing and hunting } µr grounds. -- i. Elise Shearer -��-*.\ Tigard Street Advisory Committee Member iii r # �l • i '9^ '"n , 1 RESOLVE Tigard Street Heritage Trail Amoy'• " `- "_' - '' Ideas for Heritage Screen Heritage & Tigard „ : "Historic Tigard includes the entrepreneurial spirit o f the businesses on Main Street and a wide diversity in 0;c • the ethnicities that created our community including 0t ._`` Germans, Swiss, French, and Japanese, all of whom ' ' 1 � ► A '. lived in harmony and productivity. The railway `� >: , allowed Portland and Salem to tap into Tigard's µ _ , 4 is, farming commodities and harvest the bounties of -. Z -'• nature. ” 41. , ;;• N 1 .. -w Barbara Bennett Peterson, PhD , , i Author of the book Images of America: Tigard Y.....411;. 0 . 4 . r' 3'' , ' a 1:114 R E S O L V E' SEM i ...,s.,,Ii: I it . . , , lir Tigard Street Heritage Trail ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING Ideas for Heritage Screen Heritage & Tigard Some Notable Women in Tigard History for the Heritage Trail rr 114 Rebecca Jane Denney (1819-1909) "...after coming west in 1849. She was a teacher and with her husband cultivated onions. They aided other immigrants to the area including the Tigards..." tf. Mary Ann "Polly" (toes) Tigard - Mrs. Wilson Tigard "...survived the 6 month journey from Arkansas arriving in 1852 and settling on a section VA of land with her husband, helped him build their homestead..." Tekla Koenig Scheckla, "...arrived from Prussia in 1894. She bore 9 children and they built a farm together on the current location of Tigard OPP AlPik High School..." 3 t'r Ftea ng and Mary Sue,pnm hewing art poured with their fwr Mary Sumpton Frewing "...came from Heston, Middlesex, England a"un"`"I ' ...purchased 115 acres known as Frewing's Orchard known today as Images of America TIGARD �� By Barbara Bennett Peterson, PhD Frewing Street..." Wesch, "...is one of the best remembered teachers in the Tigard District, teaching at Tigard Union High School in 1926 when it first opened until retiring in 1969 from Tigard Senior High School. " Examples of notable women provided by Elise Shearer Tigard Street Advisory Committee Member RESOLVE Tigard Street Heritage Trail ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING Ideas for Heritage Screen Commerce & Tigard ` 4 BA66IWSTO$ F4 &t. sTaar _ __. 5.-.T., , -. ? ' ` Ill E GRANGE tic/_... _ = ii `F �.'= I oi-orrriir�rl.1 r•il �'�'r,.rhti7 1 , _ '^ s: 1-- , J ,.Hgjx •.-.-...- 9 p\ ie , . 5 - .. ::' 1 . • i 4. l',' :;-7 t.‘.- ...--:-,, f: •i _' ' .. illt)' •'- I v..., ,. t �t HOTEL GERMANIA HALL = - _Moan ..s GRIMSTA I 1 ... ,... ___ _ _•________._.........__„- .,...• .....„... .. .. _ „ , . . ._.-_--, J, ,77 d ,1 , _ •. t t . .,. RESOLVE Tigard Street Heritage Trail A,,,HEL"'J~ - '` '".'"j` Historic Iconic Graphics for Heritage Screen Rails & Tigard The Portland, Eugene Cab Eastern Railway Company 4 jes asnptetitt( "The railroads had a direct and significant impact on 350 Miles of Electric Interurban Railways tr tNe the development of what would become Tigard. The \\,TS l l a m e t t e \Talley railroads were a significant thread in the fabric ,..._______v____. •___' OF OREGON of daily life for the area residents." i \c, :-`r' .� ^tr Information provided by Ron McCoy, 45 ..rise ease+ t . .JI+ J :RYLAND Pacific NW Chapter National Railway Historical Society '":«: ";`"°'\, ...oral".% H u In a n Be i n g s g . ,� .... u.,. ';,;;t,, Live Loner A ...... ► . �. Oregon wwwe. �.��� i„».• in w L 1 ...a...MWa..I•.•a ~•. . `'<!1,�~ ... �µ+.. Based upon eampwnsona ui obituary unties, more Western Oregon people _- - •■•••.• -a.,,, �. ; • tr•aa4A lire to be'tom SO to 100 years nit than s . - - f` i d•the inhabitants of any Mire distnrt Jr ..a.r • «• cam'^ N i•the l'oiuo. ,� t :!' '3 n�•ea•au There tare Peres Naitleusira•[disowns ` is the Willamette Valley Asa anywbere i t sa•••, • atise on Earth. P . wiser rR i j ....,. � EartlNluabra, cyclones. tnenadveq• ar I 1 •,.;`"«,. .mw i ardteriae heat ne earesore mild nt*ne. o"'•' •,..t... ltu•rra is INst`kistoev of the Willamette °..t • r • r 1 r "�-ec-- — «. . ' �a, ��..� 'inky • ''• s •111taN BMA - s' 6...n0..4 , ALBANY' \Vhy ?{``' y Y 4 Y• h.y. ! • '„r: vi.7 F. ,tti� : . `. ` - _ U'+t _- i '—. ;;, I %v.r.,..�.. T?� i� __ -,_:4,... t w, '{; 4 e..w, ` "\....,...... bemuse the rsim ciesnee the as we t t I,... J t fir breathe, and tbry writ the earl and ■ e 1.1 j (J s",«""" streets of all diten.me rymtdinK R'•+mi• II 'PI 4,1. �IlaniltiafgaM The wales sapper of Ilse Willamette / k 'I. . 1 ,.,,. ,.••�,.. .•� Vallee camas arm from the Ca.n+,lr - �_ f: t; M••r.•Me :and Gage nrypra a( awtum une, Mt► r. —;_ - ,,.a.^ �..�..\ "'•°'•,w..,`°'t*,•""• teetrd fear t+otttasttiattiw.• Tltc cyos t.e ti•o.urr.f K!>utart sad �} I \ 1Ctnterer:tactn-. ` s.. ^ L 111°11" '+':Iet�fQ _1 '1,��hs _ 1 :_ ' " 1,h..,,t,, The car ititt nhcrh farnnt,nuke 1 .1..'''.:.. :Ill . r CYOe ��•••••a• lama in the Wal art ate Valk?. �y: • air> 4 �'I, '' ` `�', You ought to see crops grow in the Willamette Valley• RESOLVE Tigard Street Heritage Trail Air,l";,` ar t - '`,"AN;t``; Heritage Material for Story Screen 1 1 Event Space ,- T ► .w i .E ,'� ; _ �. t Y _ 7 rr - s; Commons psr r - - ,y + • .• E rr. s'` . *�, •� " * , Stage� ., •- : . .r Y b " Y -:._..-- -�ca-•-- . t. — * ` .41 ' ` -• ! ' •` -.- Plaza .i � - ,t � ,.. -k .• ti •fi, . • . • If • : i. Y r �.r -., p — -. -JR L • • • tw M C• :+:a •''' T t`; fir • • r�:..-i i.,�• v., . C. }. Connections to a7 . ., '.1.... _" �. t; . M Fanno Creek _,� . r - . • Art Objects i 110 PT •. - r i ,- :, . - .. = - �, joy ,., i►, ' f Beacons x. '� - Fanno Creek '� s �' `� - . s� ;. -.. •. . . . . Fanno Creek - J• �' ..• . �` N... ,• ,' — ■ Unsafe to•- 4 `+�i connect RESOLVE Tigard Street Heritage Trail Points of Interest A, • :, . : X . 4 . .Y4, •2"r7-111 ,v. ; , r , ' el Ilr• % / 41 .,1 -*Ili.,„ ...- 4" 4' ••1 NI C �. �f T. t -.i n1r of • r r K 444 �.. ' is P , L*' ;; k 1 •%.' W �e , •' lifili-1111 il'el 4 .. F f it. 11A J g� a � t. rrr J Y + R y A • 14,,,t4 i. . . 1 • -.7, ..',.. ,,, *le' . !lip: • l• .,, . / .:1,11■ ,...ili; ) ‘:'1E-„11‘ ... o F, ,� r , � , 4�� , ,,• • 1 '0,t . � t� •!/ — y • d , f►+� `.fir -K,+ 1 f _ y r� r '-'S• CD grio. 4,4:1, `:. Zi V'1-r,e7 70. I's- -C) t Nr ..- fe ... .--,..irr- - " Ash.' 110' Q �/ p / � , Q ♦` _ <'• ji, �� t.i �� mow. •f; A 0 �• -• . ,r4'"'''''.:e . AIL ,-* . -- ' \t* a''. ' - Rails & Tigard illt� DRELDN "There are many historical elements to consider at y - 4' ' RAILWAY IMMO the north end that provide inspiration for names. This is where the tracks of the two railroads 0` UNITED RAILWAYS (Southern Pacific and the Oregon Electric) crossed each other using a railroad "diamond". Later, the _.____ diamond was eliminated and the track aligned to a t= ..0., junction. 5' a ,� . , Consider: "Diamond Crossing", "Diamond r , Plaza", "Greton Junction", "Junction Plaza", or Ilfotatow �, perhaps "Red Electric Crossing". All of these have tY historical relevance and provide opportunities for =�= interpretation:' : vro /. if o II -, » Information provided by Ron McCoy, Pacific NW Chapter- National Railway , Historical Society _ r s if V h RESOLVE Tigard Street Heritage Trail AMCHI1ECIURE ÷ PLANNING Naming Inspirations Rails & Tigard \ " "These two date blocks were preserved by ODOT '\\ �.. from, 1 believe, the Oregon Electric-built retaining wall on the Terwilliger curves during the recently completed widening project. ODOT would like these ,x historic 1913 blocks to find a new home. / 1 ~' The railroad found, before ODOT, that this hillside .4 provided some unique challenges.... R-,-- It would be great if one of these blocks went to the - r�`` K . �.i-K, . �• . 'I..., 's City of Tigard trail project and one to the Oregon ►*.< s'� ._ Electric Historical Railway at Antique Powerland." . ,:, -. _ Arlen Sheldrake, Pacific NW Chapter, National Railway Historical Society ' '�: +' •.�''> -_ �' "- r` 2 r - c 4�_ ' '' f R E S O L V E Tigard Street Heritage Trail ARCHIrECru.k t PLANNING Artifacts for Display .r. ___.. 0 , � + '.Heritage of Tigard =1 veil f A I .21 0 1 ait- '4A4c, _ 017- -- - lib . . L /4c> fok-4; iii,i rif# P 11114:t . .-...:. ./ lik '''ir ..... _..9k4 . .-_- 7, 1,�, ,...., _, Photo of Ladysmith,BC,provided by Elise Shearer • .`��` ,i, mot►' J _ - ,��, t 1t [1 Qom _ .._—C.: .11.11 iii 4 ' r It'd ' (� q vj 1 ! 1 a. , , ... ,� • - =ok . "■..... .4r,1,0 1,, . ' % •-- 4 v.) . 4 ip,. , . . „. - kOPA ,‘ 1 is,....;.„:„<„,:,::,'%::...::::,...._ i =Pik-a- ID 11 VI -i. Ot i,_''' ' rg:i_ loA r MIMI. AEI Trail Plaza at SW Tiedeman Avenue Astoria former City Councilman Pete Roscoe at the Heritage Square Story Screen Photo by Suenn Ho RESOLVE Tigard Street Heritage Trail AQCHl1ECTU E - PLANNING Heritage Screens Place Making n 1 d }f1) ii 11 y ../. • _ __ Ilir • . y Oly.f5- 1`1• L� \ oPPO , 4 _. , tifr--zz_r_._,...1,-..z_v5.- . • _)< , . .... .. ';'" 1444. F , Ilightlitel44-iit riP-) '---. r .s,nt _.4c) P Puv ......., I -N' -::::NL'SK--------- •'i 4 Any ,. . - _ _ / rr a . dr- -..,....;.z.;.. . „ . . -- ID .....1 . ..... ._ ill A- ... , a-a-ar ---1 - - . _ ..,.._ 134A,, ttlir .1 i I # ' ..i, , . vie - ---va ■ II i 1. R E S O L V E Tigard Street Heritage Trail ARCHITEC1UR i• PLANNING Event Plaza ... , ' 'Wiz _ �.-� • ,rte ` ./ r r s ,, s'.' ' . 911 ...i..„, .+y ,� a�. .r-'. -44;. .••'• . 4.1. . i , ., . .... :i alt 'li 1 al A '• •;. , .3 I 1 ,.' i ,:-,:3, 1,...' i r t Nip, ,,_•.: ,.. 1,114ifd 4,..... , v.„- - .....0: •it , .1111111hm$,. tii: x i ILL RESOLVE Tigard Street Heritage Trail ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING BMX Tracks + A• 1j:' 1 • •WW1 ••• ! ^� 4 'xl. • I • • a) t •: / , 0) • 1 :=1 ■ i CO 0 - .,„•!:- , ,V:,;)-a= 4y, i : . / c : ' . 7 ,r ' CO C , • 1 _ • f i /• _ I f. y • �/ • s / • • S • • •• J:1 ' /' • r. • •• // • • f •• r • • • • l •• • • P• • • •• • y • • .• Z rir r , ` W = ,fr.e f .-O k.. f Ow Cl) .. /1;if i . / :, ef V� __ lA Rails & Tigard The location of "Southern Pacific Plaza" is be significant because it is the interface with the Tigard core area but the name is erroneous, as that spot was never occupied by .r - �-. the Southern Pacific. It was, however, the "�' \�` -1 t.4. - k.. . :.>i, ir location of the Oregon Electric Station. The SP .� _._ . , ,..., _. ran where the surviving rails still are, and are J - used by freight trains and the WES today. I think we should consider alternative names , . . . . . . ----. :: 1 .44 such as "Station Plaza" or "Oregon Electric - ~`!'r Plaza", or "Depot Plaza". -�� ' Rail crossing at Main Street Information provided by Ron McCoy, Pacific NW Chapter- National Railway Historical Society RESOLVE Tigard Street Heritage Trail AQCHITECTU* PLANNING Naming Inspirations ►►'` l 1' \ ' 1‘tslw 1 ". .. � it I ' 41# ..4:7 �'iil'' ,`� ,1111. ,. i, ji ', 1lil1 ,I� ``1 %t /--� = t I ,, .... sir ;�1+11';�l� ill 11.; �i"' ,%' rn ' x 4+� ` ." i' ,,i+1111{�1 111 , 1� '^ 'a 't' ), v.:' �` ��. 1 .11111 11�� �,,,, �/, �.. �4' ,I. ..T I I I1111111�� `,,■: , _ ill II1111\11\11 r , ! :� � I-,i.,, .. i� ,'1,,i III11 {1 � , rn :41,f•: 1. a,unlll \‘� e ,_. t c,,,,- _ , ti , 11111 JI1�I1\cti\A :, = .� �IU II III �� �� } .�,- ri4.-!‘ 4:11 I III >,i ‘ - z � / AI \ ,,t 7,,, ,....,, ' ?. . - ( !C:L . . I k ! 1 "...:11:-.:::Sli)11.."111 1 \ / -e---- \Cu, . lit 0) 1 \ s-c--. - 1 k . t . .. ..--i-a„. b. n . .1 3 3 : -- .: il l' - )_A r /__, ';cn . �r - • 4 1 . S' , T i i• t-I- "'N \ i , • w v) ,V tit .0411, r .1 — 1 Q �p :�,> . r 4. „ L..._---IL ‘ O .. �. + om • • A . ..■: -.7 -.■°L.4., i illealitul N r7r ill'. r Under the B Inspiration t If rip -ANEW It All ' ..I -•'...' t ' , . , 1 ' _ a�` IR �g r� 111 Ili , .0 ry 1 „i!,i .:. , _... ... -,R. .k 1:40 oi ilt ;1111a. 1 _ 1 :-- -4111' ii 0 - i .... , . r `1 4 � - RESOLVE Tigard Street Heritage Trail ARCHIYECIURE -• PLANNING Inspirations ,...11111111.iiiiMNINIVON■ . ... all a ' 110•4St, . 411017' 4+-- ' •,• • #-. . Fr.....::.#,-, - • i - -... vron..., • . . . . • I ...1.. ,..`• _.,,. . -..-e ,„...IRMS Ile- A ., . FT!" MUM AB-- .... 11.- .i ZW-Argrillit .'s % ' •. ::_.. .:7,, fir .,.• -•1 , • ''''''' • .,- ' ... li ,„ , , - ... .., ,. kit t . ,. Pea Y----jit . , _. . . .. . , ., . . ..., ,,. r". . , . .....# ...I _ ,... .,.........,Fa& ..rfillill '.■41 _ . 0...7......... . , I 0 1 I i 1 I li I.Ir__ --."AMOS 4 • iLif_ :..:: .....1. . 'i -....iii as - ....„,,..... ........------..... ...... ................... *.+................• rm.-. ......, Iwo^ ...,. . .....,....,.., .......„... . + I 1 1 ..,,,,, „..,, ..,„.,,,,) ,- , ..-', ... - I •v ' ' 1°' \ ■ .0,....■,,, .,0nompliflaillffoilifkiefi ,••••...1.1.,.. ,...■...-...lk mi..11, """".......... ' ..........„„7.001.<0... 1 . I 1 ............................. ...............-.......................1.,,,..tor.:A r:•••,-....... or, *.V.. .44.,,,..**. * / , --*••••.**,...... .1>iicr--.4 -V•'‘' ... • .--.• • , \ i -'......-“...". .'.1° .....■••■■■••••'... I I--••••' -— '1,112 .... etylt & f• ■ \o• ....1 li f_...4 1 c ,.,_ ■ :,..^.., i ,.. ■ : I V ir r \ 4-- . t-I -t 14 i ( i L , ii17, _- ' s ni•-1 v 1.— °II' ... '. ..1,..z, s 4--• .2i 7 . N„,...........N.:: • ' .;., -• • , .., . - ply It.., ___. . .. • 1 .-......... . N , - 1 lif +.. ................ ----.............._ ■ 4." '''... .111 .% 111 4114. RESOLVE Tigard Street Heritage Trail ARCHIIEC.:111.qh - PLANNING Community Event Space f • w G1•. di - { }~ice_ , A A: V �" . " - 4. .:.' ' it-,. ..i,i;01,....-- .7,,__.i. -. i. rill -.- ' ,;:4 I , ' r _/ _ _ ..:3 ' P:ki_. ..„,;4...it. - _ + • Ai filf.111 ir_w " rs. _ tee y 4,1;‘;:. r, ^2 - '�� ° .Fel t?..- - '11H.);.. , -... sr IlrillillrAllig 1.11:411'4" r r a\a 114. iii AilL :k ''' • . w r ,.-:- - . .... ,., ..:r" . '-A r i . , r R E S O L V E Tigard Street Heritage Trail ARCHITECTURE •- PLANNING Fitness Trail .... 46:.? 1 .7.- 1:1!. ..... NN'S'f‘. :.43-' ., ..,1,-,41...,g,,-, 'z' "■:ht : -;:::....i. fr . .„... . 17"•••, :i.-. ' 4...j.."4.. ••••fl.:' • ■ .4; '. pi.■ 111k•. A 11 10; , .•;-1.:i4il0 y.*g,.;• ....1.1,-0•1':.. . : : I • \7 •:.44..%1.-:,. .-.1.4...',"...'- f ,-;..,...,‘, .•, rf 1 ... -••,•". • . St. a* *Al•- Ili ..• • i\ it*.'n•Sly:: $4 • } • S '•44,,,,,,s)4, .!..!. 1,,,, *NY..< , ,Arki "4 "'• ' 11. ' • a 1 th, •:".". 1 4'.-S. ..„,„ ...7 ( 404". I \' •4,".•J4' - ..4... . JS .4 , '• . 4t. ••• itr's4 i •:• - , , ‘A. - P li•W .„4.: 14;7. ziez,l.,...„ .,,,, . . , r, e „.. ...: -..,,,. .• .,..... • AP , L (.0,1 r • z.,„, .! _ .4t.,,, ,,. ...., a i ....... • 7 -.11:14 f IV/ I ■ ' • i It .'■.., 11 1 ' y lc ? ;77 . f 040 ' . 'rig- ..,,Pi ) ri■‘i -.4 .....1 .,... k lil II I le . or-: 3.... S..,,...;,,..:: ,i .0.;::■ 1.:417.4f.f. ;t':....-1;41■ip.....\-2., ,l' , ',/,',4.!..161::::.:1: ' -•"''i., 'ir • : • ofiti PI - ....)(.... Obi i0"44:-.1e. ig1.1' „...•• •....... lio t AIM 4.1lPIP': . .,.. "'. . - -. , .. ... ..Mittlettsc.'•`'t ''' -.'. .4 a" '''- 1...... 4 •. 41111111.1.11-8-'11 ...• , .1• , #141/0,,th •• •'//tP ..40•111m i . i .1,,.ilj,VI,'‘,1`kic:,e••Ili IN*:VI !• ' • , . • 4," tr. ,.%. “. ', ,C"'elf'. .,L1-1 *. 44 01..,• • .41 fa ;394,11.,,.... ;4i0. "liaitalat""" . 111111110F Iss•••••=111114,- . ,., l'a.•• .. '... .:•*.•411,. - Init. .1, oh 6 .• il• .1 . 1, • 40' • 0.• . . . 11.11% ( • • 111r* fp ■ '4\ , . I RESOLVE Tigard Street Heritage Trail Seasonal Festivities Ai?(_:FillECIU•fl: — PLANNIN:',3 An Acknowledgement with Sincere Gratitude Project Resources Tigard Historical Association Martha Worley, Valri Darling, Yvonne Brod Alex Craghead Oregon Rail Heritage Center National Railway Historical Society Ron McCoy, Arlen Sheldrake ODOT Robert Melbo, Bryce Haworth Christopher Bell, Mike Shippey C Oregon Historical Society • Tigard Public Library Tigard Street Heritage Trail Project Advisory Committee: Debi Mollohan,Steve DeAngelo, Mike Stevenson, Elise Shearer, Richard Shavey, Marland Henderson, Linli Pao, Eddy Perez & City Of Tigard —City Council and staff(Kenny Asher, Sean Farrelly, Lloyd Purdy). Photo images were referenced from the following sources: Image of America TIGARD by Barbara Bennett Peterson, PhD Tigardvillle Tigard by Mary Payne Washington County Heritage Online City of Tigard, official web site R E S O L V E Tigard Street Heritage Trail ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING Inspirations AIS-2259 8. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 08/18/2015 Length (in minutes):25 Minutes Agenda Title: Discussion on Saxony Property Redevelopment Study Submitted By: Sean Farrelly,Community Development Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Workshop Mtg. Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Introductory presentation on Saxony Property Redevelopment Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST The Board of the CCDA is requested to share their opinions and ideas on the goals,schedule,and process of the study. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY On May 26,2015,the City Council authorized a resolution to complete the purchase of the Saxony-Pacific properties on Main Street. On July 9th,the City of Tigard closed on the properties. Because the property was purchased with Park Bond funds,there is a fixed timeline to determine the best use of the site.Within 20 months of closing(by January 2017),the city must designate which portion (if any) of the property will be public space,with any remaining portion to be sold for private redevelopment. The funds from any sale to a developer will reimburse the Parks Bond. The city has engaged Resolve Architecture and Planning to study the site over the next twelve months.Their scope of work includes site and building design,economic feasibility,taking the design through land use approval,and public involvement. The first phase of the project will be to determine what type of development can be built on the site.The site has constraints in that all of the property is in the100-year floodplain,with portions in the floodway and vegetated corridor. Resolve Architecture,working with staff,will determine what can be built within the limitations of Clean Water Services (CWS),Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA),Army Corps of Engineers,Oregon Department of State Lands,and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regulations and those of the Tigard Development Code. The scope of work provides for an innovative"Developer Teaming"approach for this project.The consultant team is expected to select a developer(or development advisor) to play an active role in shaping the plans. By involving a developer partner early,cleaning up the site,creating an architecturally exciting concept and absorbing the costs of entitling the project,development of the site is expected to be marketable and financeable by late 2016. Prior to closing the City obtained a Prospective Purchaser Agreement(PPA)with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ).This agreement spells out the City's cleanup obligations and liability limitations for existing contamination The city is committed to perform further testing(five soil gas sample points with follow-up soil and groundwater sampling) once the structures are demolished. This investigation will evaluate whether soil cleanup work may be necessary to reduce or eliminate the need for a vapor mitigation system.The city's environmental consultant estimated a likely cost to receive a No Further Action Letter from DEQ to be approximately$260,000.This includes testing,remediation,vapor barrier installation, and DEQ oversight. The city intends to apply for a Brownfield clean-up grant from the EPA to assist with these costs. Project Milestones: •September 2015:Visioning Charrette •December 2015:Project Open House •December 2015:Apply for U.S.EPA Brownfields Clean-up Grant •May 2016: EPA grant notification •September-December 2016: Demolition and clean-up of property (estimate) •March 2017: Decision on the future of the site (park bond funds requirement) *July 2017: Redevelopment of site into public space and/or private redevelopment commences OTHER ALTERNATIVES No alternatives for consideration at this time. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS Tigard City Council 2015-17 Goals and Milestones Goal#2. Make Downtown Tigard a Place Where People Want to Be City Center Urban Renewal Plan Goal 1: Revitalization of the Downtown should recognize the value of natural resources as amenities and as contributing to the special sense of place. Goal 5: Promote high quality development of retail,office and residential uses that support and are supported by public streetscape,transportation,recreation and open space investments. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Special Planning Areas-Downtown Goal 15.2 Facilitate the development of an urban village. Tigard Strategic Plan Goal 2: Ensure development advances the vision DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION May 26,2015,Authorize Purchase of Saxony Pacific Site May 5,2015,Discussion of Prospective Purchaser Agreement April 8,2014,Authorize CCDA Executive Director to negotiate voluntary property acquisitions The purchase of the Saxony property was discussed in a number of Executive Sessions including:. December 2,2014 October 28,2014 September 2,2014 January 7,2014 December 3,2013 November 5,2013 October 1,2013 September 3,2013 August 20,2013 • Saxony Property Redevelopment Study A Tigard Mixed Use / Public Space Design SUPPLE ENTAL PACKET ., . FOR c g c6/5-- (DATE MEETING) , - :":1,-.‘. Project Progress To Date 15 % into a 9-month project sr� ' •D� •bM/ � � F ' o o Presentation to City Council . -;. ',, , ‘ �,`.a 8.18.2015 1 ` � 3 ..40-lit , . _,,,, - , -;,)• -.;.. ,-., IP 'iv . ,... - - ,. . 7 d 4 JS q i m RESOLVE ARCHITECTURE ITECT+URE + PLANNING 1 r. rid, * `-Alt •.., :_ •, . :if, � 'S N`. - � ?. a f`` •e� ! _ ; Jt y' y ,4 , _ ••,,a ,la,• - •,'. r.. t 'A [.ir•.'. 1 . ' l''''''' 7 .- t' �.'a.-�� L � - i'. ' T—� L af?f 4.•t _ -.I .rte-�"" —�_ _ 4, Y-- �. r - .4444-- i„ ;- ! = x fir p �l',. - 14 jai ; . .,1 1 ^'` • ; c.rr•• c 1 I � ,I., • ) k4,ii„ „i ,,,,i1 9 1 ii, • iii tit;.`� 441,;„ +# 7 e o , 1 w^ ..t4%.1 ti:iYi ZT. 4/4‘ • j. . r , ■ 1 r 1111' 1 i .. •!... il /I h _ Z • • > t �i . lilt, 11 • Ir y 'C ti • 4 — i ,-• ..s.' - - x i F__ •• , ' • � � �!� ��� � - �c' . i ...t....: • ,, . ,, - •t :; a .�1'" r lad �. >' . t- • -.. . L., cerwr—i- . , .... . - ., .X' : • 4454 '.:r .•'''ITT ?J - __ s -- ,_'�.. J1 .• { �.. .�' V ..n 1 .. F` ,. tom--- ✓r ";, !'f 1 1 i. _ h.�A•.-::::.. . .' ..' . .1' I 1.). ,,,,t'(.� •i J • fi � �s }. --�$ i; L* r ;r a' . . - r, - r t "; .". I .,- r '! 1 ,. . --•'-'0 . -.` .4 Iti . . . ..-. . - . - s.-,..- , '' .\el ' I;%7 r : 't ' /3-'•-', •i• Viie • Irla ...• ..1 .4.-- : -- r- :-4 ' i•' :'471 .P. . i 'S pf;el..V.I. tow , rr.t ''b•■••, ' -111L) 5 ........„ 4 ^, ..,,,C. tik,.... • .„. `' V 1,..,;„140,:.., ..'''t lir '•-■1 ' ' ., , .1347.; )..., . .. - • . - / - 1!--,.' .1". ' " 1 ---;0., „ pd. '•-• r ... . -. .N... . , `..... • •' ,.,,,e14_.--4..r7-'1: .. ... T , i • '' tii 1 _ . •1...;. .' ....•. ,. , . _ • .10 ..,-V- • t ..0. - .., :• ...g...„., .c--' •. " kf , L I .. ..- -_-, ,: - - -,,• . ,"Nit --.) ev? .• ' ,L-, 7 ..4 , . • Z.E.,•...-. ..e., - • '9 0. .... .. .,_ - -- •'" --'7 NIP-- 1 - I: I— 0 1 -• •,•,,,, 4k a . •- -,4-"-Pik -.. __ _ ...., up ' •. " ,` .t '1. owill■ ' i 'i,. .,` . 1 - _,0, ,...'•l' jr...4. , . , - , ...... 0110 1. i , i ss 'Zell. "10•17'......::W* i 1 - r• ...7 st _._..._ • ' - .. ''.-..- ,•1*,;.1°. . , , . - 3 ... ' I( ,. . . • - A " • -A - - ,,it If. e - ...- -,•.-.- ' P".. • :. - ••,.,^ ,:. -111 — •••• • - . ••• -•- 4.. - 4'' 'le, • , '..... -• , . -.-..0...11‘ i., *P-'7,_-. , . 1 44' ;• : - . -.*- - .. $144 --.-,N. , • . , • . _ .. --,,o• . ... •Iipv-V; . .. . , • _ ....._ '-• --,it • -411:: .. _.,, —_ • • ---4-tiitrifie . * '• . - . , . , .,...-.. - 4:-•" .11i-T.," •,' - ? - ,,,ti--oe-- - - - . • •;'-11 • N,,r,t, •• 4.--:,.),- .?".. • .7rsi- :'r • • .g .4. - , ete Nr •,•,, • ••• ---•„,„lit Ar',,,.!...- , . ilki` • Ice •_ ..-7,....'•,.....,., dr.,4 -.... '. ly, . - ,• 54`C,.,....■•_• ,,.,A1 4111 -37., .. 111/0-. -4‘,.. * •P 11" .. " •Ilt_"‘or -- ;,■.-,2" ' a" .■ ..., . ''./k.■:.e. • i. -illai -. - %. . _ . --i.A.r*-'-- ...014. --•;'- -. ..-4rt-- - -- .•- di- -- - ‘' ..._ A .,...,..,... ,Ar ", l. '•-•-., ,- .441‘•••:.1141 _ -- .1‘.. .. le c Inglii_ ..s '•p3 • "7°. . •„, ,...ti ..•-43.4,, .,111k,..... ilt.; 40...., .,-Ara.46.0. -.. ... - --- vitid. .. -4' ''-''''s.• .-...i:. - 4-.T•%vv.) t- ,*.l'e0q*Ii•--.' :L--.t.'---;1111 -'. : 1.•7.1---0',› • .*.:.,,-.s.1,„ ., .__ v._.,,,:s.: :„,,,,, _ • „ _ , , ,, ,—'4 4. ' ^;;,-. ' - -,vt-- -.- • . _ • -1 -,,,e,,..„, * - .,..t. ... %.. - ....,$$ *. '.. 4%.,...;;;.t.I•' -\ ,- -.- - - - ' ' , 1' O' .....- .• ' .1‘. -4:, ' -,$rt' N*: ", • '..c: : f,,, ler .... 'V' • ..."'I. -,a". ‘NV • - '4$,•.. ! 42..-," (.., 41. * ''41ki," 111, . " . ..•. . $, • 't,-:$'. '--3..-:-. I . ., ... „ :7;:,, ' __ .. .r• . -----L%- --it t __L., 1 Ar ... . • . -4.• _ - . -,... .,_ . .../. imizsl3//,' -.. - - „---- ;......../........._.a -- - ....___40 . a....tigo- air \ k - --.....— iiir 1 .,. t . ..-- — . . . ., i 1 , , - ' , ...... -----.--—-- i. . . . at- - _ . • , _ z j: • '-- .- 7 , ] 4 ' - • ..w. , ...., ' . ...... - , _ . 1• _. _ - •- . .., , / 11' IP' . ., .. i ,ry • . .. ,.. , s. . '.... "4410', A, - ..,:.,...... .....,..„,... •:•,.... .....!.. ......... ........,. .4,1',,, I it """ ---0--:_ ` - -rte ••••...,� Survey of Project Site Approach 1 ( : _ ..... .... •. _ . t • :11iii• ____ ,t • • ■ t • �J e - • Approach 2 Approach 3 Saxony Property Redevelopment Study RESULVL A Tigard Mixed Use / Public Space Design Presentation to City Council 8.18.2015 Aec-i i. . •._ • e. a..ok S%,y, ;40, PACIFIC HIGHWAY ,t • N. qr 1 �•.1 UEYlMf fNR_A .Y�x "'���� I�., �'' ••49/i11/41':-)Y \ }' e to Pr-,''`r4, ch}J: %k" t;/1'4.l•�/1- \ '` • -,:p. tk•-•, "I •..-r • \ % '' 0�I !li r fi t'r a t* �r� s., [? 'tl.• Z. sq,..J , s r 1 +a. sR r. t 1 i [ : k t�. �' t . . e St Oec 1 .f,0.4 ', �ar ` t q , iy y •`t .. x4c '1 ' a °. . ts47,;,,tlet Iy.�4t'Jk•. Y _..•s .. ...- 41' .j• — _ t_t .r,�. ``r r'�!�: SW MAIN STREET 4 1 .....��. ....:�1....._._..�.........--_......._......._ vet — ._r... i �..• _1._ .._ _-•yid- t .., ,�7' ,r ...... i /p[•trr�,'tnlR_.`.:5}a[ , o• ti C. . S p ::L _ _ Rw ... _._«._ ._ ...r... _-•S.`4 +n ty�'.•4 �t1 �[ 4 ...r..... -• '.'•'-w"........ ...v _. ....w_ _ ....._..-•1••-•-1 `,f -.t �r t p. ,I, 10 t, 4. I� 4 .,�, ... ._. :4 -3,_ _- \___.. .._y_..__s'"' re, ._ S !,1 t�'� - " , -,-,„,,,.,=, •►�`ti?ts _ ..._ ... _. rs, kr'� 11114,44:440 n i.sc i:,; kr'f'm�' eA;. h :t tr}Fill4 c 4,.4 kg. 6L•�st "k'.`fin Fr: i<<r n'•y� t l?> tip Survey of Project Site Saxony Property Redevelopment Study R E S O L V L A Tigard Mixed Use / Public Space Design Presentation to City Council 8.18.2015 �. IIrIMC A' - l I r___-... 1 I: 1#4,11.,. `VII, �►`; r. a ,. '� jam+ j • ■t,ti yam, ,s n Survey of Project Site Approach 4 _v. .4-, - te; l - -! -" i - . i -�__ �'=t Il • ice► r- 1 k • t :� L I--IL I . v 1 --1. _i . Pe E.L kitr Approach 5 Approach 6 Saxony Property Redevelopment Study RESOLVE_ A Tigard Mixed Use / Public Space Design Presentation to City Council 8.18.2015 f� .. �• 1 f. r l.1 .0..OIL. .a.•• ,.... E/ • .0 , .... : . • • . ... : . . ,E-i 1 / . 1 . 7., ., • 1 c , t .c„,s.,\..,,,.. _ \ {` \ ■eRSO. ` ' 462 `T ` _ 5 1 \ 1 9 . t ft . , , , , '1 •.1 , Iller-Cs 4‘1".. "64.ff AL-IL" , Approach 4 Total Building Footprint: 6,800 sf Saxony Property Redevelopment Study R E S O L V E A Tigard Mixed Use / Public Space Design Presentation to City Council 8.18.2015 ARCH nc uRE+PIANNNG ..---- ..,---- - 4 ---- 1 . 7.-,!_ --: ___ _ _____ _ ..._ , — - - -1•"' ;.•,-:-.7;"•."-.77.-' "'•• ..• :;',': ------- ---, , • . ..... • --.x..1 I 1M 1 • ..... •-..,„ res•N. , v / \ . blittil- ''• ti 4'r! 1, .1, ....... _.... ....... ....„. t. . i -.--- ._....1, 7 1 . 11 1 I • 2-, 6 \ a. 1 4 . •. v/ / 15 i • t _.. i ; -dr ‘.. ••• sirk.. 311 —.------ — • .....--.-.-ofir•......i.... a - • .”I._ A i . , r-,- . , it..Ila " . / .40“... . .•, `„ft i '.. .!. ) T .0! , ..1 -4{k \ \ \ ..,, ......• ., - .er•--: • •N.-- --- ' -•• 1.* - ' 1 a '''4 -, \ \ \ , e AI '..4 ,v.:.. .1,, . . ,, „fill' 0 it ' •:. 1;00,, , ,..., 1 -d, • 1 • i," • ..... •---- - _ , • , •-- - - , /. ----:•--, ...-...- ,„,,..._._,.... ..., ! - ,!,11:;11.4 • I' • • 0, . ii..4001, a : Oili '' ■ t• i P 14' -. \,` ■..:"4.; ,■■(.. \ '1■,, } • 'III; T F,". ' Nk".710 "...' • ■.•_,.......". ‘4 .".., _ . - ',"'` 'T ‘•■r . . r el). (1911) j ' ,,, ____ ., .... i.a.-- ... ,_ ,,t2r _ A I - _ .. i . , • C------- . ...., ,. Approach 5 , __ Total Building Footprint: 6,800 sf i;,,(419 - Saxony Property Redevelopment Study RESOLVE A Tigard Mixed Use / Public Space Design Presentation to City Council 8.18.2015 ARCH ITC.-LRE+Pt ANNING 2 ..01mo• OEM.. ter• — _ — 111111 • /11.31;.%,':i 1,24:1"4-1:::'I,4.',.:40 '4..1111674: illiki _______.. , • ,, , , 1$ 1 ;ft y j 1 ci l' A di., <,4 , ga, • • r,��. � 1 414 7..."'—'... I•ar ...,....:,..d......- ..-*--.•‘...'"w•. •'.: __ .', :- ..".:* ---'1- __,. ,n,_._-__— ....___:1•1 lialsok -- , ..'k, ':4 1 1 4._—______— \ . •: . sz \ v, "4411104‘ .. '"..." F.... • - :1 \\ All - \ 1 p _' :,t 1 Approach 6 Total Building Footprint: 10,150 sf Saxony Property Redevelopment Study - - RESOLVE A Tigard Mixed Use / Public Space Design Presentation to City Council 8.18.2015 ARCH-ECTU2E+PtANNING f I r Section of Project Site Through Possible Expanded Creek Width -elalw I r um. .r y ..� sr, .--.._ ..� .11101.1114 , 11 • 1 I Section of Project Site Through Deck Looking North Saxony Property Redevelopment Study R E S O L V E A Tigard Mixed Use / Public Space Design Presentation to City Council 8.18.2015 a. ,',::- r - =1 y,., .lillIIilI TIGARD MIXED USE/PUBLIC SPACE DESIGN ICUECT SCHEDULE 2015 7016 :r u or of Asa Sep Oct Nov Dec M e fib Moe AP MI{y tan n1 a1111O11U{R1011imig 1 —�t ■atrutjrec/r�elte Sp{rr Ana1Pw ...., mil to Cino{'w'DisOM.61 e.... 1c- — – — — 441ma t Proposal «.. - MtMet Saar Me,Acation ,.....i. '.locus°wen* Me k f -- ,_ . _, Galkpowt Prow Sw& s ' Sara. 110 c pr p `r - MwMrdir au � — — /rianary Pro Fyne ar -- — i d__�__.,__. ate- —__ ilIements.Rand Use Poen,process sssut■ ii W - - - —._.-- ._ _ .�. .. NOW ad Pmen111Mbli _ OamprworrivrAA CM MN r1 It _ •r1 Sf �Ma{ ip1w{ _ Wm Irmo mr—sle. _pme_legt'urinous nlrarfiew wwlin1 1 . �u. .. _ ' Mrr1AV°M er — — — •oe.W. r IDeYlnaM Oesebiw Ataea�eRl soles .. - 1r�.M...r.... .• I — - — — — RESOLVE Ase,eeCISAIS•hM+ewo Saxony Property Redevelopment Study RESOLVE A Tigard Mixed Use / Public Space Design Presentation to City Council 8.18.2015 ARCHITECTunE +PLANNING AIS-2299 9. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 08/18/2015 Length (in minutes): 15 Minutes Agenda Title: Annual Police Department Temporary Holding Facility Tour and Inspection Prepared For: Alan Orr,Police Submitted By: Julia Jewett,Police Item Type: Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Workshop Mtg. Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE The City Council is asked to conduct a tour and inspection of the police department temporary holding facility as indicated by the Oregon State Department of Corrections Facilities Inspector. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends that City Council participate in the tour and inspection of the police department temporary holding facility. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The police department has completed mandatory information reporting for the Oregon Commission on Children and Families regarding all custodies involving juveniles,annual audits of our temporary holding facility,and nightly inspections by the supervisory staff. During an audit conducted by the Oregon State Department of Corrections in 2005,the state inspector made several findings. The police department has since complied with those findings and implemented processes to ensure compliance. The state inspector stated that the City Council should conduct an annual tour and inspection of the facility as the governing body for the City of Tigard. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The City Council may choose not to conduct an inspection. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A AgendaQuickp2005-2015 Destiny Software Inc.,All Rights Reserved