The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 06/06/2017 III ' City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda 1 I GARD m TIGARD CITY COUNCIL& LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE AND TIME: June 6,2017 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session;7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available,ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated;it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7::30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-718-2419, (voice) or 503-684-2772 ( DD -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: 503-718-2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: http://live.tigard-or.gov CABLE VIEWERS:The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. Friday 10:00 p.m. Monday 6:00 a.m. City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL& LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE AND TIME: June 6,2017 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard -Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM STUDY SESSION •EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss labor negotiations,under under ORS 192.660(2) (d). 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. 6:30 p.m. estimated time B. DISCUSS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TMC 1.12.060 CHIEF PETITIONERS FOR INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, OR RECALL PETITIONS 6:50 p.m. estimated time C. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 7:00 p.m. estimated time 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less,Please) A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication B. Citizen Communication—Sign Up Sheet 3. CONSENT AGENDA: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: A. APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: •April 4,2017 *April 18,2017 •ConsentAjenda-Items Removed for Separate Discussion:Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council/City Center Development Agency has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 4. MAYOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF "IF I WERE MAYOR" CONTEST WINNERS 7:35 p.m. estimated time 5. RECEIVE REPORT FROM THE YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL DELEGATION'S TRIP TO THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE 7:45 p.m. estimated time 6. CONSIDER RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A METRO 2040 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT 7:55 p.m. estimated time 7. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD CONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT AWARD FOR PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE 8:05 p.m. estimated time 8. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD CONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT FOR 2017 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM-PAVEMENT REHABILITATION 8:10 p.m. estimate time 9. RECEIVE FISCAL YEAR 2018 MASTER FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULED UPDATE 8:15 p.m. estimated time 10. CONSIDERATION OF CLEAN WATER SERVICES IGA CONTRACT AMENDMENT 8:35 p.m. estimated time 11. NON AGENDA ITEMS 12. 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. 13. ADJOURNMENT 8:50 p.m. estimated time 111 ,, City of Tigard N . Tigard City Council Meeting Agenda T I GA RD June 6, 2017 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS EXECUTIVE SESSION 6:30 p.m. estimated time Mayor Cook will announce: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss labor negotiations,under ORS 192.660 (2) (d).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. DISCUSS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TMC 1.12.060 CHIEF PETITIONERS FOR INITIATIVE,REFERENDUM, OR RECALL PETITIONS 6:50 p.m. estimated time COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 7:00 p.m. estimated time ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: A. Council Vacation dates—please let us know if you have any dates you will be unavailable. B. Revision of H.O.P. Section of the Code to restrict sale of ammo. Council Meeting Calendar June 6* Tuesday Council Business Meeting- 6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 12 Monday Jt Meeting w/TVR&R&Tigard Leadership Team—6:30p.m.Progress Station 53 13* Tuesday Council Business Meeting-6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 20* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting- 6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 27* Tuesday Council Business Meeting- 6:30 p.m.,Town Hall Jul' 1* Tuc3day Council Busincs3 Mccting 6:30 p.m.,Town Hall Cancelled 11* Tuesday Council Business Meeting-6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 18* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting- 6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 24* Tuesday Council Business Meeting- 6:30 p.m.,Town Hall August 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 29 Tucaday 5 .. - • _• - - ' - - - Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk(*) AIS-3085 B. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 06/06/2017 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Discuss Proposed Amendment to TMC 1.12.060 Chief Petitioners for Initiative, Referendum, or Recall Petitions Prepared For: Kent Wyatt, City Management Submitted By: Kent Wyatt, City Management Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Mtg - Study Sess. Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Consider allowing property owners within a island annexation to refer a ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Discuss a proposed amendment to TMC 1.12.060 Chief Petitioners for Initiative, Referendum, or Recall Petitions to be Electors of the City of Tigard. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Council will consider approving a number of island annexations at the June 27th council meeting. Staff noticed, in preparing an ordinance for the island annexations, that Municipal Code 1.12.060 does not allow property owners within the islands to refer the ordinance. Property owners would only have the right to refer to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. 1.12.060 Chief Petitioners for Initiative, Referendum,or Recall Petitions to be Electors of the City of Tigard. No petition for initiative, referendum, or recall filed with the city shall be valid unless all chief petitioners are electors of the city at the time of filing and remain electors of the city throughthe entire, initiative, referendum, or recall process, including the election. The requirement that the chief petitioners be City electors, even after the measure is filed with Washington County, is potentially problematic. If the measure is legally filed, but then the chief petitioner's status changed prior to the election, it's unclear whether that would invalidate the vote and the Citycould not pull it back from the County at that point, potentially creating a number of significant issues. The City's legal counsel has advised a revision to TMC 1.12.060 Chief Petitioners for Initiative, Referendum, or Recall Petitions to be Electors of the City of Tigard. No petition for initiative, referendum, or recall filed with the city shall be valid unless all chief petitioners are electors of the city at the time of filing. and remain electors of the city through the entire, initiative, referendum, or recall process, including the election. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Elect to keep the current language in TMC 1.12.060. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Council Goal 6. Annex Territory into the City. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments Proposed TMC Amendment TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 1.12 INITIATIVE AND with the City Elections Officer not later than the REFERENDUM. seventh business day after the ballot title is filed with the City Elections Officer. If the elector is (Chapter 1.12 repealed and replaced by Ord. dissatisfied with a determination that the initiative 95-09). measure does not meet the requirements of Section 1 (2)(d), Article IV of the Oregon Sections: Constitution, the petition must be filed with the City Elections Officer not later than the seventh 1.12.010 Adoption Of State Law. business day after the written determination is 1.12.020 Appeal Of One Subject made by the City Elections Officer. The review Determination. by the City Council shall be the first and final 1.12.030 Procedure For Elector review, and shall be conducted expeditiously to Dissatisfied With Ballot Title insure the orderly and timely circulation of the For City Measure. petition. (Ord. 95-09) 1.12.040 Filing Deadline For Initiative Petitions. 1.12.030 Procedure For Elector 1.12.050 Authorization to Submit Dissatisfied With Ballot Title Explanatory Statements For City Measure. Relating to Municipal Legislation Referred or Any elector dissatisfied with a ballot title Initiated by Petition. filed with the City Elections Officer by the City 1.12.060 Chief Petitioners for Initiative, Attorney or the City governing body, may petition Referendum,or Recall Petitions the City Council seeking a different title and to be Electors of the City of stating the reasons the title filed is insufficient, not Tigard. (Ord.07-16) concise or unfair. The petition shall be filed with the City Elections Officer not later than the seventh business day after the title is filed with the 1.12.010 Adoption Of State Law. City Elections Officer. The City Council shall review the title and measure to be initiated or Except as provided in this chapter, the general referred, hear arguments, if any, and certify to the laws of the state concerning initiative and City Elections Officer a title for the measure referendum shall apply for any initiative or which meets the requirements of ORS 250.035 referendum of a city measure. (Ord. 95-09) and 250.039. The review by the City Council shall be the first and final review, and shall be 1.12.020 Appeal Of One Subject conducted expeditiously to insure the orderly and Determination. timely circulation of the petition or conduct of the election at which the measure is to be submitted to Any elector dissatisfied with a determination the electors. (Ord. 95-09). of the City Elections Officer under ORS 250.270(1) may petition the City Council seeking 1.12.040 Filing Deadline For Initiative to overturn the determination of the City Elections Petitions. Officer. If the elector is dissatisfied with a determination that the initiative measure meets the (1) No later than the 90th day after the requirements of section 1 (2)(d), Article IV of the prospective petition for an initiative for Oregon Constitution, the petition must be filed a city measure is filed with the City 1-12-1 Code Update: 11/08 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Recorder, the initiative petition shall be authorized to prepare explanatory deposited with the City Recorder for statement(s)for the Washington signature verification. Within ten days County Voters' Pamphlet for after a duly prepared petition is matters relating to municipal deposited with the City Recorder, the legislation referred or initiated by City Recorder shall verify the number petition. (Ord. 06-17). 501.12.050 and genuineness of the signatures and the voting qualifications of the persons 1.12.060 Chief Petitioners for Initiative, signing the petition by reference to the Referendum,or Recall Petitions registration information in the office of to be Electors of the City of the Washington County Clerk. If the Tigard. City Recorder determines that there are an insufficient number of signatures,the No petition for initiative, referendum, or petition shall be returned to the sponsor recall filed with the city shall be valid unless all or person offering the petition for filing. chief petitioners are electors of the city at the time The petition may be refiled at any time of filing .,-: - • • -- . :•- within 90 days of the filing of the •• - •• , - , : - , prospective petition. . (Ord. 07-16)■ (2) No initiative petition shall be accepted for filing unless: (a) It contains 100 percent of the required number of signatures; (b) All signatures were obtained within 90 days after the date the prospective petition was filed; (c) As circulated, it complies with the requirements of state statutes;and (d) The initiative is for a legislative measure within the authority of the City. (Ord. 01-19 §4) 1.12.050 Authorization to Submit Explanatory Statements Relating to Municipal Legislation Referred or Initiated by Petition. When directed by the Tigard City Council,the City Manager,City Attorney or City Recorder is 1-12-2 Code Update: 11/08 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2B- CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: June 6, 2017 (Limited to 2 minutes or less,please) The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda and items on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME,ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: LaArt l Ir 104"1-t4 Pt-f+t{,r 9'►owr5 emir uicy Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will 1►1J�(,�fi1' fu rn o 1 SL Y1(� help the presiding officer pronounce: .fry IQ,t{, Cr!i YIOn pa ylfww-- Address ?)46 ,SW Nf.i,r'h 61,111 R G1 City Tioi QxoL State O P-% Zip 61 2-2- Phone No. 5 44:7 Name: A 2 MAJ J o Sv(7' Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will L/ (Este 0- i help the presiding officer pronounce: 6`/°' 17901 Address 1 3 CIO Sw r /4 AVC Z City 1-1 (.s n d f2 State 0/— Zip el-7Z-2-- Phone 7ZZ-Phone No. 51/ 3cr1_L(t.(7� Name:2O1 Also,please spell It- name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: °3(°(AS Address Vie[ tW pC � \ef) City l% State 0 611 Zip � ((.01� Phone No. 6*(13 43/ ' 04.54 CITIZEN COMMUNICATION I\ADM\CITY RECORDERS\000 City Recorder-Records Resources and Policies\CCSignup\citizen communication 170509.doc AIS-3146 3. A. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 06/06/2017 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Approve City Council Meeting Minutes Submitted By: Kelly Burgoyne, 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 4, 2017 •April 18, 2017 OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments April 4,2017 Minutes April 18,2017 Minutes City of Tigard • s Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes TIGARD April 4, 2017 ti 1. BUSINESS MEETING 6:30 p.m. A. At 6:35 pm Mayor Cook called the meeting to order. B. Deputy City Recorder Burgoyne called the roll. Name Present Absent Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Council President Snider I Councilor Woodard I Councilor Anderson I Mayor Cook I C. Mayor Cook asked the audience to stand with him for 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. Scott Porter, 13970 SE Barlow Place,Beaverton,OR 97008,owner of Fido's (the world's first dog tap house),introduced himself as a new business owner in Tigard and explained that this unique hybrid business is a combination of a craft beer tap house and foster home for rescued dogs. He explained they will offer a variety of food and beer,hold different types of events and will be a place where people can come and adopt rescued dogs. Opening day will be in August. He thanked the Community Development department for their help. 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. RESOLUTION APPOINTING ERIN KIRKWOOD AND EMILY OBERDORFER AS TIGARD MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES PRO TEMPORE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-April 4, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 1 of 15 RESOLUTION NO. 17-15 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ERIN KIRKWOOD AND EMILY OBERDORFER AS TIGARD MUNCIPAL COURT JUDGES PRO TEMPORE. Mayor Cook called for a motion to adopt the consent agenda. Council President Snider motioned to approve the consent agenda and Councilor Goodhouse seconded the motion. Name Yes No Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Mayor Cook announced that the consent agenda passed unanimously. 4. CONSIDER FEE WAIVER REQUEST FOR NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS Building Official Van Domelen gave the staff report on this item. Mr.Van Domelen said these requests initially came through the building department and that of the four requests submitted,only one is requesting a fee waiver to System Development Chargers (SDC) fees. Council President Snider asked if council needed to act on these separately. Mayor Cook said yes. Mayor Cook stated he does not want to compare one non-profit against another;however,not all non-profits are equal. While he thinks the single-family home is a good cause,his question is if the SDC fees were to be waived and the homeowner then chose to sell the home shortly afterwards, what would happen with the waived fees. Would the homeowner profit from those fees? Councilor Goodhouse said he had the same thoughts and asked if council could waive a percentage of the fees in lieu of the entire amount requested. Mr.Van Domelen said council has discretion to adjust any of the proposed resolutions. Mayor Cook asked if any of these fees would have gone into the Water Fund or Enterprise Fund. Mr.Van Domelen said the building fees requested on the single-family home are all Enterprise Funds and the other requests are partially general fund money. City Attorney Rihala said the City of Portland offers a reduction or a full waiver of fees for affordable housing,but they attach a deed restriction or a covenant that states if the homeowner sells the property within a certain timeframe,they have to pay back the fees. Council President Snider said the case for the single-family home waiver is compelling,but attaching a covenant would give the city some assurance. This is more comforting to him than waiving a percentage of the amount requested. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-April 4, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of 15 Councilor Woodard agreed and suggested fully waiving the fees for the single-family home,but thinks attaching a covenant to it is a good idea. He said the other requests to him are more like a social services grant situation,and it may be a good idea to have ones like these come before council once a year instead of individually throughout the year at different times. Going forward,he said he would like to have a written evaluation process in place. This would help make the process easier. Mayor Cook said he didn't disagree with Councilor Woodard;the difficult part is that when someone gets the money they may not be ready to build if council were to waive fees only once a year. City Manager Wine said another option is for council to direct staff to come back with more information and a recommendation along with a waiver policy for council to consider these requests. Council President Snider stated that if there is a compelling public benefit and the project would not have happened without the city waiving fees,then it seems to him to be a logical thing for council to approve. Council Goodhouse added he would like to have some kind of criteria to follow and would like to see what other cities do. Mayor Cook said on the small amounts,to him,it is not a big deal,but having more information on the larger requests would be helpful to council. He said it is a tough situation and he has more trouble when it comes to requests that would have fees going into the Enterprise Fund,but it sounds like this can be resolved by attaching a covenant to it. He's ok with passing all of the requests tonight,assuming they can attach a covenant to the single-family home request. Council President Snider asked how long the covenant should be. City Attorney Rihala believed Portland's covenants were for five years. Councilor Goodhouse asked if the covenant would require full payment or if it would be pro-rated. City Attorney Rihala said Portland requires the full amount be re-paid. Building Official Van Domelen explained that in this situation,the request is coming from the foundation not the homeowner and the homeowner will not receive the benefit. The special features of the home will stay with the home and the foundation would have control over selling the home. Council President Snider said it would need to be re-paid with the proceeds from the sale of the home. City Attorney Rihala said the covenant would operate like a lien,but is not a lien. Council President Snider asked if they needed to bring back the single-family home request for separate adoption or if they can attach the covenant to this in their motion for approval tonight. City Attorney Rihala said council could choose to do either. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—April 4, 2017 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of 15 Councilor Woodard suggested that after tonight staff should bring forward an outlined evaluation process,but said he would like to act on all of the requests tonight. Council agreed. Councilor Goodhouse motioned to approve Resolution No. 17-16 as amended to include a five-year covenant. Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. Deputy City Recorder Burgoyne read the number and title of the Resolution. The motion passed unanimously. A RESOLUTION WAIVING CITY OF TIGARD FEES AND CHARGES, INCLUDING SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME BY THE GARY SINISE NON- PROFIT FOUNDATION FOR A LOCAL DISABLED VETERAN as amended Name Yes No Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Mayor Cook announced that Resolution No. 17-16 passed unanimously. Council President Snider motioned to approve Resolution No. 17-17. Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. Deputy City Recorder Burgoyne read the number and title of the Resolution. The motion passed unanimously. A RESOLUTION WAIVING CITY OF TIGARD FEES AND CHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING AN ADDITION TO THE GOOD NEIGHBOR CENTER EXISTING FACILITY Name Yes No Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Mayor Cook announced that Resolution No. 17-17 passed unanimously. Councilor Woodard motioned to approve Resolution No. 17-18. Council President Snider seconded the motion. Deputy City Recorder Burgoyne read the number and title of the Resolution. Motion passed unanimously. A RESOLUTION WAIVING CITY OF TIGARD FEES AND CHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING AN ADDITION TO THE CARING CLOSET EXISTING FACILITY TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —April 4, 2017 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 4 of 15 Name Yes No Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Mayor Cook announced that Resolution No. 17-18 passed unanimously. Councilor Anderson motioned to approve Resolution No. 17-19. Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. Councilor Goodhouse asked if this request was from the School District and not a non-profit organization. Mr.Van Domelen said the request is from the Parent Student Organization (PSO). Mayor Cook explained the PSO is paying for this,but the School District would own it. Council President Snider asked that the material be clearer next time since the report states the Mary Woodard Elementary School and not the PSO. Deputy City Recorder Burgoyne read the number and title of the Resolution. Motion passed unanimously. A RESOLUTION WAIVING CITY OF TIGARD FEES AND CHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING A NEW BIKE SHELTER AT MARY WOODARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Name Yes No Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Mayor Cook announced that Resolution No. 17-19 passed unanimously. 5. CONSIDER LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR THE DIRKSEN NATURE PARK INTERPRETIVE SHELTER/RESTROOM Surface Water Quality Coordinator Staedter gave the staff report on this item,explained how much the grant is for and why the resolution is needed to move forward. Council President Snider motioned to approve the local government grant program agreement for the interpretive shelter/restroom at Dirksen Nature Park and Councilor Goodhouse seconded the motion. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-April 4, 2017 City of"Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 5 of 15 Name Yes No Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson I Mayor Cook ✓ Mayor Cook announced the motioned passed unanimously. 6. ISLAND ANNEXATION WORK PLAN Assistant City Manager Newton explained the wok plan for the island annexation and discussed the April 5 meeting and topics for discussion. Ms. Newton said they are scheduling the hearing tentatively for June 27,the annexation ordinances will take affect thirty days once passed,and then staff is suggesting that the annexations be final three years from that date. She noted that in one area sewer is not in close proximity and homes in this area would be waiting for future development, so staff is suggesting this area be final in five years. She explained the purpose of the meeting on April 5 is for council to hear what questions,concerns or ideas people may have and then staff will do some detailed follow-up. She will send more information out in May to those who cannot attend the meeting. Mayor Cook explained how an island is formed and asked staff what other boundaries help form an island. Ms. Newton said that being along I-5 helps form an island and specific rivers and roads help form a boundary. Councilor Goodhouse suggested having applications available at the meeting and sending out more applications. Ms. Newton said if homeowners are interested,she would follow-up with them individually. Mayor Cook looked at the property tax bill and discussed the difference between being in the city limits vs not being in the city limits. Councilor Anderson asked what would happen if the owner sells the home. Ms. Newton explained annexation is based on the property not the owners. Mayor Cook discussed a situation where two properties created an island on Bull Mountain and the city put a stipulation in that stated if one of the properties sold it would automatically be annexed into the city. He said one property has since sold,but the other has not. He asked if the unsold property is part of this island annexation. Ms. Newton said she does not believe this is one of the properties they are looking at,but would check. At 7:14 p.m. Council President Snider motioned to recess and come back at a time certain of 7:30 p.m. and Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—April 4, 2017 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 6 of 15 Name Yes No Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard I Councilor Anderson I Mayor Cook ✓ El At 7:31 p.m. Mayor Cook reconvened the meeting. 7. QUASI JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING—APPEAL OF QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION FOR MADRONA RECOVERY CENTER—CONTINUE TO DATh, CERTAIN Mayor Cook opened the public hearing. City Attorney Rihala read the Quasi Judicial Land Use Hearing Procedures into the record. Mayor Cook asked council if they had any conflict of interest or ex-parte to disclose. There was none. Mayor Cook asked if anyone in the audience challenged any councilor's participation. There was none. Associate Planner Pagenstecher gave the staff report,summarized the memo from the City Attorney, traffic impacts and use of site. He talked about the Hearings Officer's Final Order and the appeal process of those findings. Mr. Pagenstecher discussed the proposed resolution denying the appeal and the applicants building site. Mayor Cook called the appellant up to testify. Mike Conners,Hathway Koback Conners LLP,representing the appellant,said the issues for the appeal are relatively narrow. The issues on appeal are not whether or not it should be a medical center,but instead, they are appealing the Hearings Officer's decision. He said the Hearings Officer after reviewing the application,re-opened the record and asked the applicant to provide more information,and upon further review,the Hearings Officer concluded that the use does not qualify as a medical center,but approved the application upon a"director's interpretation"of the use.They believe the Hearings Officer erred in his decision,because once he made the determination that the use does not qualify as a medical center or any of the other uses that are allowed in the CP Zone,he was legally obligated to deny the application. He said there is very clear law that states you cannot defer compliance,unless you do so subject to a process of the same procedures as the underlying application, so that all participating parties have the same rights and abilities to make their case. What the Hearings Officer did was to provide for a director's interpretation,which does not provide for the same amount of procedures and protection when determining a Type III decision. He said City Code states that a director's interpretation is a separate application and is a Type I decision and can only be appealed by the applicant,and that only once the applicant has appealed the decision can it be appealed beyond city council. Mr. Conner said since his applicant is not the applicant of the application,he does not qualify to appeal the director's interpretation and does not have the same rights or the right to even participate. It is on this basis that the appellant felt compelled to TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-April 4, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 7 of 15 appeal the decision. Mr. Conner explained that once the applicant looked at the issue,they realized they had some problems and are now trying to expand the appeal,by asking if the Hearings Officer correctly decided that it does not qualify as a medical center. He said City Code does not allow for this,that the applicant should have appealed the Hearings Officer's decision,but chose not to. He referenced the letter they submitted into the record,which responds to some of the material that came in after they filed their notice of appeal.The applicant is now trying to expand on the Hearings Officer's decision and City Code does not allow for this. He explained the appellant filed his notice of appeal early and there was still time for the applicant to file an appeal if they wanted and they chose not to. He asked council to take a careful look at how the Hearings Officer determined that; that the Hearings Officer through code defined the definition of a medical center as having inpatient, outpatient and emergency services. He said in their application, the applicant does not propose outpatient or emergency services and the only category this facility falls under is transitional housing. Mr. Conner said the scope of the appeal is limited. The Hearings Officer determined it was not an allowed use,but approved the application upon a director's decision to the use,and the appellant is appealing the subsequence process of the director making a decision as to use. Mr. Conner addressed the traffic impacts requirements and based on what he has seen from the application,he did not see any impact studies to that affect. Councilor Woodard asked if the application asked for transitional housing use vs medical center, would that be satisfactory to the appellant. Mr. Conner replied that the issue is not before council and the Hearings Officer did not conclude that,but if he had,the use would not be allowed. Mayor Cook called the applicant to testify. Zoee Powers,Radler White Parks Alexander Attorneys at Law,representing the applicant,addressed the memo from the city attorney,which talked about the procedures for the night. She disagreed with the appellant and said this is a Type III procedure and council is not restricted to the limitations outlined by Mr. Conner. Ms. Powers said they are unaware of the appellant's letter submitted earlier in the day and asked council to hold the record open for at least seven days to allow Madrona an opportunity to submit additional testimony in response. She responded to the appellant's discussion regarding State Law references and said what the director's interpretation code says,is that anyone including the applicant and those who were noticed,could appeal and the Hearings Officer made sure that anyone who participated in the conditional use process would get notice and therefore be able to appeal. She said section 18.340.20e of the code provides this right to appeal to city council and the Hearings Officer made sure of that by saying the director would have to give notice to anyone who participated. Ms. Powers explained Madrona had a pre-application last year and went before the Hearings Officer on February 13. City staff concluded the best match for use was a medical center and the Hearings Officer conditionally approved the application with the criteria applicable to medical centers,but asked that Madrona seek the director's interpretation on whether medical center as described is the best use. She said city council has the authority to make the use determination tonight without requesting director's interpretation,since the director's interpretation,if appealed would be to city council. She agreed there is an alternate path and council could refer back to seek the director's opinion,but that council has the discretion tonight to make the determination and agree with staff. Ms. Powers stated that council is tasked tonight with determining whether or not the Madrona site TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-April 4, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 8 of 15 fits the medical center use as stated in the code. She introduced Dr. Howard who would provide explanation as to how the Madrona Center meets each of the requirements of the medical center use. Dr. George Howard,Psychologist working with Madrona,explained the Madrona Center does meet the requirements and definition of a medical center,because they provide inpatient,outpatient and emergency services. He said triage services are a key component to emergency services;starting with first responders and police. Even in the ambulance triage is taking place,they will often call the center describing the situation, seeking guidance and reassurance. He talked about emergency services and specialized skills,discussed inpatient services and what is included,what outpatient services look like and said he believes people will stay two to four weeks on average. He explained these services will be administered by a team of psychiatrists,licensed nurses and social workers, nutritionists,neuro-psychologitsts and other licensed counselors who will be monitoring and caring for patients with self-threatening and mood altering disorders,substance abuse and other serious illnesses twenty-four hours every day. Council President Snider asked what type of license the Madrona Center will be seeking from the Oregon Health Authority. Dr. Howard said they will have a license through Department of Human Services (DHS) as a child caring agency,a license through Addictions and Mental Health for Integrated Services and Support Rules (ISSR) as well as another license through ISSR for outpatient services. He said they would be certified through the Joint Commission Accreditation under Behavioral Health Rules. Council President Snider asked if they would be seeking a license for an inpatient hospital type facility from the Oregon Health Authority. Dr. Howard replied no,they are not getting a hospital license. Councilor Woodard asked if triage services would provide transportation for those patients who need to be referred to other facilities. Dr. Howard said it depends. Often times there are safety concerns and most often triage staff would be called in. Ms. Powers reiterated council has the authority to approve the site as a medical center,and the discretion to make this determination even though they are not obtaining a hospital license. She said they are looking for the description that most closely describes the nature of the proposed use. They are treating children that have serious issues and need a place like the Madrona Medical Center where they can go. The Madrona Medical Center is a "for profit"organization that will be paid by insurance companies and therefore does not meet the definition of transitional housing and the Madrona staff will not reside onsite. Ms. Powers addressed the traffic impact concerns and explained they did submit the required study including the transportation system at the time of the application and it was included in the material that went before the Hearings Officer. The engineering staff did not identify any public facility capacity issues or concerns. Ms.Powers concluded by discussing the documents attached to the letter they submitted. Council President Snider asked if they would be submitting professional fee bills and facility fee bills out of the facility or just one. Dr. Howard explained it depends. Council President Snider asked if they are providing both and billing for both. Dr. Howard said he anticipates both service fees will be billed,but they could be bundled together. Council President Snider asked if Madrona operates other facilities elsewhere. Dr. Howard said no. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-April 4, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 9 of 15 Mayor Cook asked for any public testimony.There was none. Mayor Cook asked staff to comment. Mr. Pagenstecher said Community Development staff determined the Madrona Medical Center most closely fits the definition of a medical center as outlined in the Code. He talked about the Hearings Officer's footnotes regarding public facilities and the traffic impact study and discussed staff's memo. Mayor Cooked called the appellant back up for rebuttal. Mike Conners,representing the appellant, said they appealed the Hearings Officer's decision because it does not fit any of the allowed uses and he did not hear any argument contrary to that. Additionally,the applicant is now trying to broaden the application by asking council to decide on the whole application. The appellant does not believe City Code permits council to do this. He said he disagrees with Ms. Power's interpretation of the city attorney's letter to council that they can decide anything on appeal,and he asked council to look at the letter again to understand what it actually means. Mr. Conners explained that council's decision today would set a precedence that someone filing an appeal can raise any issues all the way up to the close of record. The second issue he addressed was the idea that the director's interpretation is the same process. He said the applicant has now submitted new evidence claiming they are an inpatient,outpatient and emergency facility,when they only claimed to be an inpatient/in-care facility to the Hearings Officer. Procedurally,new evidence cannot be submitted,it is not permutable and they object to this new evidence. Mr. Conners discussed the Hearings Officer condition that the facility shall not provide care to patients with a history of sex offence,violence or running away,and now the applicant is claiming this is an emergency service. The Appellant's fear is that they will ignore this condition. Mr. Conners said council should affirm the appeal,denying the application and let the applicant reapply once they know what they will really being doing in terms of the actual use. He believes the facility best fits the definition of transitional housing and not a medical center. The Hearings Officer got that piece correct;he only erred in the procedural piece of his decision. The appellant requests council uphold the appeal and deny the application. Mayor Cook called the applicant back up for rebuttal. Ms. Powers explained this is a Type III hearing and under the procedures outlined in a Type III hearing,new evidence can be heard and council does have the authority to make a decision. She noted they did not receive the additional written testimony from the appellant and if council has more questions,she requested they leave the record open,allowing them the opportunity to respond to all material submitted. Councilor Goodhouse asked staff how this should be zoned and where it should be located. Mr. Pagenstecher replied the C-P Zone,which allows for medical centers and that this use is allowable under this zone and fits proportionally. It is not the scale of a hospital but that of a medical office. Staff believes this is the correct location for this application. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — April 4, 2017 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 10 of 15 Mayor Cook asked staff what area on the map allows transitional housing. Mr. Pagenstecher said transitional housing is allowed in the CG Zone,MUCBD Zone,MUC1 Zone,MUC and MUE Zone, and MUR Zone. He explained these are generally areas around Washington Square, Downtown and along Pacific Highway. Mr. Pagenstecher said medical centers are allowed in all Commercial Zones except in the CC Zone,which is a small Commercial Zone. Council President Snider asked the city attorney what council is limited to in their scope of decision- making. City Attorney Rihala said somewhere between what the two attorneys are arguing. Ms. Rihala explained the Type III procedural rules and said that this hearing is a de novo hearing,which means "starting anew". She said the Hearings Officer decision was strange and what he did was conditionally approve based on the criteria applicable to a medical center,so her interpretation is that council can agree or disagree on that interpretation only,but they cannot make a determination of whether this meets transitional housing or medical center. She advised council to limit their review to whether or not this is a medical center. Council President Snider asked the city attorney her opinion regarding the appellant's statement that council is extremely limited and the new issues and content being raised by the applicant is not considerable. Ms. Rihala said as long as council's decision is focused on the question;is this a medical center,yes or no,then,it can be allowed into the record. City Attorney Rihala reminded council the applicant requested the record be held open for seven days and to continue the hearing to the next meeting in order to leave the record open. Mayor Cook called the applicant back up to clarify this. Ms. Powers said if council is prepared to approve the conditional use permit,then they do not need the record to be open. However,if the decision is other than to approve the conditional use permit, then they request the record remain open to allow them the opportunity to respond to the new written testimony. Mayor Cook called the appellant back up to respond. Mr. Conners said council could not conditionally approve to leave the record open or not. Council needed to decide first whether to leave the record open or not. Council President Snider said he does not want to be disrespectful to the parties,but he does not need more information to make a decision. Mayor Cook asked the city attorney her opinion on leaving the record open. She agreed with Mr. Conners,that if council chooses to leave the record open then council should not deliberate now, but if council would like to deliberate,then the record should be closed. Mayor Cook polled council on how they would like to proceed. Council President Snider and Councilor Woodard said they would like to deliberate on the item now,and Councilor Anderson and Councilor Goodhouse agreed. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-April 4, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 11 of 15 City Manager Wine suggested rescheduling the executive session due to time concerns. Mayor Cook postponed the executive session to a future council meeting. Mayor Cook closed the record. Council President Snider agreed this is an interesting situation and acknowledged he does not remember reading this part in the code. He said there are two-hundred licensed beds in the state that would not meet the criteria as currently written in the code,especially if the interpretation is that the word"and"means that it has to be all things. Council President Snider explained that each of these services mean very specific things and is not certain the applicant will provide inpatient services,but believes they will provide outpatient services. It sounds to him that the applicant does not know what they are really going to be doing at the site and is not quite sure how to resolve the word"and" as stated in the code,but believes it best fits the use of a medical center. Councilor Woodard said he sees this as a medical center facility as described by the applicant and can see inpatient,outpatient and emergency services all offered. He does not need to have this go to the director for an interpretation. Councilor Woodard does not have any problem classifying this facility as a medical center. Councilor Goodhouse agrees that it best fits a medical center. Councilor Anderson agreed it is a medical facility,but is concerned about overstepping the code as it is currently written. Council President Snider asked the city attorney what she thinks about the word"and"in the code. City Attorney Rihala explained that"and"means "and",and advised that council find all three services fit. Council has discretion as to what it classifies as an inpatient,outpatient and emergency service. Council President Snider said that each of the services have specific meaning and it is not up to the City of Tigard to determine. City Attorney Rihala said that inpatient and outpatient do have classifications,but believes emergency services is very broad. She explained that if council finds all three services exist,than council may determine it is a medical center,but if they find that only two or one services exist,than they must find it does not. Councilor Anderson said it probably meets two out of the three services and asked the city attorney how the director's interpretation would work. City Attorney Rihala explained,that if council requested a director's interpretation,council would stay this appeal,not make a decision on it and would have the director make an interpretation. The applicant or any other party would have an opportunity to appeal that decision and if it was appealed,it would come back to council. If the director's interpretation is not appealed,it would be binding on council. Council President Snider stated the director would be making an interpretation from the same code. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-April 4, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 12 of 15 Mayor Cook asked if this can be appealed to someone else after council renders a decision. City Attorney Rihala explained,the director's interpretation would not be,but council's decision would be appealable to LUBA. Council President Snider said it is hard to say this meets emergency services,but based on the general description and meaning he can see them providing inpatient and outpatient services. Councilor Woodard asked Council President Snider if he considered suicidal tendency an emergency. Council President Snider replied yes and asked if they will be handling this type of situation at the facility. Councilor Woodard explained they will be taking in mental health and drug addicted patients that will be coming to the facility in all frames of mind. He talked about various other mental stages patients may be in when they arrive at the facility who may be in critical condition. Councilor Woodard said,while these may not be the typical emergency,he considers these emergency situations,especially as a parent. Council President Snider agreed with Councilor Woodard's points. Mayor Cook agreed Councilor Woodard brought up a good point,however,he heard from the applicant there would not be a doctor onsite at all times. He asked if triage would be happening at the facility or via phone from somewhere else. Councilor Woodard said he heard the applicant say they could deal with this type of situation and it is difficult to update the code to address all possible scenarios. He sees all three services performed onsite. Council President Snider asked if the fact they have to interpret the code and make a decision,if this in itself gets them out of dealing with the word"and". City Attorney Rihala explained there are two different types of interpretation. There is an omitted use and a most closely fitting interpretation. The director's interpretation is an omitted use,which means,it does not fit any of the applicable uses and council's interpretation is the most closely fitting interpretation. Ms. Rihala corrected her earlier statement and said the director's interpretation would be appealable to LUBA because it is a Type III. Council President Snider commented that Councilor Woodard is helping him understand they could be providing emergency services. He does not like how the code for this is currently written. Councilor Goodhouse added onto Councilor Woodard's earlier statement and said mental health issues are commonly overlooked as being an emergency. Council President Snider asked about the safety issues raised by the appellant and if this raised any concerns. He asked the city attorney if council could propose additional conditions in their approval. City Attorney Rihala replied yes. City Attorney Rihala explained the Hearings Officer did hear testimony about safety concerns and he did attach a condition that addresses this. Council discussed safety concerns and if there was a need to add additional conditions to address this. City Attorney Rihala referred to the Hearings Officer's conditions on page 41,where the Hearings Officer outlined that the facility will not provide treatment to patients who have a history TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—April 4, 2017 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 13 of 15 of sex offense,violence or running away. Councilor Woodard said he believes the Hearings Officer's conditions as outlined satisfy his concerns about safety. Councilor Woodard explained there are different levels of risk and said if facilities can get to kids and help them before they reach a high level of risk,there is a huge number of success with behavioral therapy. Council President Snider asked council if they agreed to find the Hearings Officer's conditions acceptable. Council discussed this along with whether or not the age of patients is a concern. City Attorney Rihala explained that the application before council is for ages between thirteen and seventeen and discouraged the council from hypotheticals. She said the center is not held to that indefinitely,but that is what is before council. Council discussed if there is a need to condition for additional onsite security. Councilor Goodhouse stated he feels they are getting too far into the weeds and in order for the facility to be paid by insurance; they will be required to do certain things. Councilor Goodhouse motioned to approve Resolution No. 17-20 and Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. City Attorney Rihala said the motion should include the adoption of supplemental findings. She explained that the Resolution refers to Exhibit A,and since Exhibit A was not attached to the Resolution before council she asked staff to clarify what is included in Exhibit A. Associate Planner Pagenstecher said Exhibit A contains the Hearings Officer's Final Order,the applicant's testimony, staff's use memo and public facilities memo. City Attorney Rihala said Exhibit A also contains the applicant's memo. Mayor Cook asked for an amended motion to include Exhibit A. Councilor Goodhouse amended his motion to include Exhibit A and Council President Snider seconded the amendment. Deputy City Recorder Burgoyne read the number and title of the Resolution. Deputy City Recorder Burgoyne conducted a vote. The motion passed unanimously A RESOLUTION AND FINAL ORDER APPROVING THE MEDICAL CENTER USE IN THE PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL(C-P) ZONE,ADOPTING SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF COUNCIL'S DETERMINATION,AND DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S FINAL ORDER NO. CUP2016-00004/VAR2016-00004, as amended Name Yes No Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-April 4, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 14 of 15 Mayor Cook announced that Resolution No. 17-20 passed unanimously. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION—Rescheduled. 9. ADJOURNMENT At 9:32 p.m.,Council President Snider motioned to adjourn the meeting and Councilor Goodhouse seconded the motion. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council. Name Yes No Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Council President Snider I Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook I Kelly Burgoyne,Deputy City Recorder Attest: John L. Cook,Mayor Date: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-April 4, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 15 of 15 City of Tigard ./01 Tigard Workshop Meeting Minutes TIGARD Aril 18, 2017 VI 1. WORKSHOP MEETING - 6:30 PM A. Mayor Cook called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. B. Deputy City Recorder Burgoyne called the roll. Name Present Absent Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ C. Mayor Cook asked those attending to stand with him for the Pledge of Allegiance. D. Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items—There was none. 2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE LIBRARY BOARD Library Director Barnes presented this item. Members of the Library Board in attendance were Joseph Callahan, Scott Hancock,Becky Gauthier,Katie Harris and Roarke Van Brunt. Library Board Member Gauthier talked about the importance of the library to the community. Library Board Member Callahan discussed the library statistics and showed two short videos on children programs offered at the library. Vice-Chair Harris talked about the vitality of the library to ensure access for everyone in the community. She talked about the feasibility study that was done in 2011 and highlighted the maps in council's packets that included checkout statistics. She asked council to consider library services when planning. Council President Snider talked about the current budget cycle and asked if there is anything specific the library board would like council to act on this year. Ms. Harris said she would like to return the library hours to full service on Thursdays. Council President Snider asked staff if this would be coming to the Budget Committee as a white paper. City Manager Wine said that it would not at this time,but that council could consider this. Council President Snider said he would like staff to be prepared to discuss this at the upcoming Budget Committee meeting. City Manager Wine explained staff had done a report on this last year for council and considered this the equivalent of a white paper. She said staff would be prepared to respond to questions after the Budget meeting on areas that council would like to consider. Council President Snider said he would not be attending the first Budget Committee meeting and asked council to discuss this. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — April 18, 2017 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 6 Councilor Woodard asked if there was a feasibility study prior to and after 2011. Ms. Barnes replied no,but there has been population growth. Councilor Woodard asked if a new feasibility study was to be done now,would it show similar things that are in the 2011 study. Ms. Barnes said she believes a new study would reaffirm what the city learned from the 2011 study. City Manager Wine said there are some things since 2011 that have changed and the city knows more about new transit routes and the expansion to the west,but does not know if a feasibility study for a branch library site would tell the city anything different.The original purpose of the feasibility study was to see when and if the city should invest in a library branch site. Councilor Goodhouse asked about the new homes in River Terrace and if this added increased revenue to the library. Ms. Barnes said yes, the library is a General Fund item and she understands these homes to be in the city limits. She explained that partial funding comes from Washington County due to the agreement the city has with the County. Council President Snider asked what the formulation is based on. Ms. Barnes said 2013 became the base year for the formula distribution from the County, and that that particular year was not beneficial to the city. Mayor Cook talked about the Tigard Library Bond. He said the new residents that come into River Terrace actually help pay for the bond,it does not give the library anymore revenue,it helps all the other citizens in the city in paying the bond off more quickly,because there is not more money coming in for that. Mayor Cook thanked the library board for coming and for volunteering their time on the board. 3. LEADERSHIP TIGARD UPDATE ON HOMELESS SERVICE PROJECT Communications Manager Gavin,Police Department Business Manager Shaw, Senior Human Resources Analyst Leos,Acquisitions Supervisor Gibson,Leadership Team participant Stacey McCormack,Project Homeless Connect Kim Marshal and Tigard Farmers Market Manager Jessica Love presented this item. Ms. Gavin introduced members of the program who were present and talked about the Leadership Tigard Program and what they have been doing to build leaders and grow the community. She said the program started in September 2016 and that 45%of the program participants are Tigard employees. She explained the group has studied and visited social service groups and business, toured several locations and learned about the Tigard Tualatin School District, and discussed the group's homeless service project. She explained they are working with Homeless Connect to bring a one-day event to Tigard that will provide several types of services for the homeless community. Kim Marshal with Homeless Connect explained the need to bring resources to the homeless population in Tigard and that they are working with local businesses to provide services for this event. She said they are excited about the project. Ms. Gavin explained they have separated into three separate groups and explained what each group would be doing. She said they are looking to raise between$3,000 and$5,000 to be able to host an event like this in the city. Ms. Shaw asked if council had any questions. Mayor Cook explained the idea behind Leadership Tigard and that choosing a project within the community is an important piece to what they do. He explained why Leadership Tigard chose this TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -April 18, 2017 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 6 project and that since Hillsboro is the county seat,most services are located there, and not available in Tigard, so this is one way to have resources available. He said the Leadership Tigard Program is a nine-month commitment and thanked each of the members. Council President Snider said Tualatin is in the same graphic situation the city is and asked what location they planned to hold the event. Ms. Marshal said they would be holding this at St. Anthony's Church and explained why. Council President Snider suggested using this event as an opportunity to outreach to Tualatin and see if they would like to participate. Ms. Marshal agreed and said a key piece to events like this is always budget. Councilor Goodhouse asked if this is separate from the task force. Ms. Gavin replied yes,and said they are talking with Senior Management Analyst Kent Wyatt so they may be able to coordinate with them on this. City Manager Wine explained that the task force bylaws would be coming forward in a week to council. Councilor Woodard asked how long it has been since the Tigard Leadership Program has been reinstated by the Chamber. Ms. Marshal explained the program originally started sometime in 2007, and that due to management changes at the Chamber it was discontinued sometime after 2008 and just recently reinstated. Councilor Woodard asked who had taken lead on reinstituting the program. Ms. Marshal said Debbie Mollahan initiated reinstituting the program. Councilor Woodard commended the group for their work. Council President Snider suggested council consider a one-time matching of funds up to $2,500. Ms.Wine confirmed council supports one-time matching of funds of up to $2,500. Council agreed and directed staff to look into what line item this would come from. Ms. Marshal explained the goal of the Homelessness Project is to bring awareness to the community, engaging businesses with in kind donations and engaging the community to volunteer. She thanked council for their consideration. Ms. Shaw said the team would report to council in a memo. 3. TIGARD TRIANGLE LEAN CODE UPDATE Senior Planner Shanks,Community Development Director Asher and Assistant Community Development Director McGuire presented this item. Ms. Shanks explained what they have discussed at the last couple council meetings and discussed the other components of the code that make-up the entire code. She focused on five other elements: • General Provisions: Ms. Shanks explained that when a development proposal comes in for land use review it has to address criteria and meet standards in multiple sections of the code, creating multiple cross references. What staff is trying to achieve is to minimize the cross referencing in this chapter where possible. • Review Process: Ms. Shanks explained they are trying to make the review process not only quicker,but also easier for applicants and staff. She said if someone can meet all of the TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - April 18, 2017 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of 6 standards, they will not need to go through a land use review process and can go straight to the development review process. • Pre-Existing Development: Ms. Shanks explained the city wants to be friendly to existing development and is proposing that in this instance,not making pre-existing development non-conforming and instead recognize they are pre-existing and with this new adoption in the code,they would be legal without having the stigma of being non-conforming. Essentially, they are pre-existing and legal,not non-conforming, however,they cannot build the same structure. They want to honor what is there,but allow incremental development to happen on those sites that have existing development and push them forward to conforming standards. Mayor Cook asked if this would allow the current owners to sell their business to someone else and use it as the same thing. Ms. Shanks said they are treating existing uses the same way as the code's current non-conforming use states,meaning, they would be allowed to continue,but they could not expand beyond their existing boundaries;they cannot make it more. Yes,they could sell it to someone else;but changing ownership does not change anything. The city does not monitor change of ownership. Councilor Woodard asked about carports. Ms. Shanks explained carports are often attached partially to the side of the house and are considered part of the primary structure. She said if the carport is not attached,it is considered an accessory structure and size limitations would kick in. • Site Design Standards: Ms. Shanks explained the trees within the Tigard Triangle are not protected, and that what staff heard from people during the visioning process,is that people want to try to keep the existing character of the Triangle and the large existing trees do that. She explained the city took a look at the trees in the area and with the help from an arborist, determined there are a lot of white oak trees throughout the whole area, and since these are slow growing trees, staff is proposing making these the district tree to preserve them. Instead of going the incentive base for keeping trees, since this does not seem to work, staff is proposing doing a disincentive approach. So, that if a property owner chooses to take down one of these trees,they have to go through an adjustment process and may have to pay a fee in order to do so. Council President Snider asked if staff considered changing the code to state that an owner cannot remove the tree. Ms. Shanks said they did consider that. Assistant Community Director McGuire explained another reason for taking the disincentive approach is that if the owner wants to build another building like a courtyard,and chooses to keep the tree,which would now be the district tree, the city would count the courtyard towards their 70% building frontage. Community Development Director Asher said they are trying to make it easier for smaller buildings to be built. Councilor Woodard likes the idea of incentives rather than disincentives,unless there are specific exceptions. Ms. Shanks said this would just affect district trees,because the tree canopy approach is more of an urban approach and it assumes there will be a lot of landscaped areas, and the Lean TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — April 18, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 4 of 6 Code is not proposing the same. She explained that this was a kind of compromise to trying to get at the value of preserving trees and reducing the complexity and cost. • Transportation Facility Standards: Ms. Shanks said they are trying to lean up when transportation improvements are triggered to encourage small-scale development. She explained that if someone were trying to put in a small building,transportation improvements would be required. Staff is proposing that if a small existing area were being improved, then maybe they would get a pass. Even though they would have transportation impacts,they would be small impacts. On the other hand,if large improvements are being made, a fee in lieu of transportation improvements could be paid. She said developers find this much easier. Councilor Goodhouse asked where the money goes if a developer writes a check up front for something like sidewalks and the sidewalks are not constructed right away. Does that money get ear marked? Ms. Shanks said yes, and it can only be used for that purpose,and spent in a way that would benefit the development and surrounding properties. Councilor Goodhouse asked when the funds for sidewalk improvements are collected. Ms. Shanks replied in the beginning,prior to development. Ms. Shanks said staff is looking at things that make a place more walkable and pedestrian friendly when it comes to designing a street. Council President Snider asked if staff is looking to incentive this type of behavior to developers. Ms. Shanks said staff thinks that if they just allow it, then it will naturally happen, but is open to suggestions. She said in Portland they charge developers to use the sidewalks in front of the buildings and in the right-of-way. Tigard is not proposing doing this, so staff considers this an incentive. Ms. Shanks discussed the next steps. She said by mid-May staff should have a draft of the Lean Code completed,then out to public agencies and the public,then to the planning commission in late June for the first hearing,and finally to city council sometime in August for council consideration. Ms. Shanks explained that the transportation analysis staff has to do that affects the zone change in the area is taking a little longer, so in this case, staff is proposing adopting the code changes first,but they will not be in effect until the zone change has been finalized. Mayor Cook asked how long between the two approval processes. Ms. Shanks replied that it could be a couple of months. Mayor Cook discussed what he has heard from developers on this. 5. NON AGENDA ITEMS—There was none. 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION—There was none. 7. ADJOURNMENT At 8:12 p.m.,Councilor Goodhouse motioned to adjourn the meeting and Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of council. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —April 18, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 5 of 6 Name Yes No Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Council President Snider V Councilor Woodard ✓ Kelly Burgoyne,Deputy City Recorder Attest: John L. Cook,Mayor Date: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — April 18, 2017 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 6 of 6 AIS-3057 4. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 06/06/2017 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Announce "If I Were Mayor" Contest Winners Prepared For: Joanne Bengtson Submitted By: Joanne Bengtson, City Management Item Type: Update, Discussion, Meeting Type: Council Direct Staff Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Should Mayor Cook announce winners in the Oregon Mayors Association "If I Were Mayor" Contest? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Announce winners and distribute prizes. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Tigard students in grades 4-12, including students who are home schooled had the opportunity to enter the 2017 "If I Were Mayor, I Would..." student contest sponsored by the Oregon Mayors Association (OMA). Mayor Cook selected one winner in each category: •Poster (Elementary grades 4-5) Isabelle Gonzalez •Essay (Middle School grades 6-8) Abigail Rader •Digital Media Presentation (High School grades 9-12) Kennedy Parish The local winner in each category will be awarded a $50 Visa gift card and their winning submission has been sent to Salem to compete in the statewide contest for an Apple iPad Air 2. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Mayor Cook could choose not to award a winner in any of the categories. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION Mayor Cook selected winners of this contest in 2016. Fiscal Impact Cost: 165. Budgeted (yes or no): yes Where Budgeted (department/program): 100-0500 Additional Fiscal Notes: One winner in each category will receive a $50 Visa gift card. These cards have a $4.95 activation fee. Whether or not the mayor awards someone in each of the three categories will affect the final cost of this item. Cost: 164.85 Budgeted (yes or no): yes Where Budgeted (department/program): 100-0500 Additional Fiscal Notes: Three $50 Visa gift cards, plus activation fee - one card for each winner in three categories. Attachments Poster Winner Isabelle Gonzalez Abigail Rader Essay winner Kennedy Parish video winner .. , --c i Lioc„rt.... 11()G\Y °r °C 4-1.3°f& r PI an Marc 4rce ivc mcoAl k home\cs ,. Ice ,. . 'aS } I CO') Ci--) .. ATITA A ' '' . Aliiiiir . . ,, ,A / iw ii; (v,-* r) i ,A ,a. ,. R'-'-\\\\_,....__ , ! ... ...,_ . , / ,, i‘,..............,. _..... .._,. _ ...,,_____- Irl a ih • rr%Li'( t 65 LI., P6J t\'' __ -.mil Le / A • inimmuir• O.4 3 6 ' _ fil c it 5 att..J4 ,',,--, .. PN........10000.017Ain _ All�, b b� 9,?ajexy Abigail Rader (503 : :::) If I Were Mayor, I Would. . ... If I were Mayor I would work to improve Public safety, Land Use, Transportation, Utilities, Recreation and Cultural Facilities, and Economic Development. All of these things will make a more fun, safe, healthy, and thriving town. Public Safety is crucial in running a town. The police help enforce the rules. This keeps everyone safe and happy. Fire prevention needs talented and highly trained fireman with up to date equipment. This makes for more spared lives and houses. We also need Ambulance Services, which are very important if somebody is sick or hurt, and needs medical attention immediately. The vehicles need to be maintained in good condition, with plenty staff to keep things running. With these things you can be positive that the public will be safe. Land use is important so that we can expand and make room for more growth. Planning more buildings and zoning out where to put houses is one way we can work to develop our towns housing and our businesses. But, when we build and develop our towns housing and our businesses, we have to make sure we enforce the safety codes and building regulations. If just one code is left out, somebody could get physically and financially hurt. We want town to grow! People have things to do, and places to go. But how are they going to get where they need to go? That's where transportation comes in! People can take a public bus that stops at different points of the town, or they can drive their own vehicles. The problem is, the roads, sidewalks, and bridges aren't in good condition it could be deadly. When streets are in bad shape with pot holes and ditches, it could cause car wrecks and injure people severely. When sidewalks are all torn up or there is no sidewalk at all, it endangers pedestrians walking on the side of the road. I would make sure that there is a sidewalk on every street. Bridges also deserve to be maintained because if they collapse half of the town is stuck. We also need speed limit signs, stop signs, and traffic lights to ensure safe driving. We don't want to end up living on a giant trash heap like Oscar the Grouch! So, we need utilities like water, Sewage, trash collecting, and Electricity. We need H2o to survive and live in a clean and healthy atmosphere. Proper water treatment plants are places we must have so we can drink clean water. We also must have proper sewage systems and pipes, which will keep our town cleaner and keep down the stench. Trash is all around us, and that is not good. Every town, including ours, should have a way to transport and dispose our trash correctly. 2 This generation cannot live without electricity. Electricity powers our heat, cooling systems, lights, our phones and television, offices, and businesses. We rely on it. We rely on all of the utilities to stay alive, healthy, and happy. Our fine town needs to have fun, and Recreation and Cultural parks are a great way to do it! Public parks are a clean, fun, safe environment for kids to play and be kids. Recreational sports teams are a great experience and a great way to exercise. People of all ages need a place to go to learn and read. A library is such a place, and every town should have one. Cultural Facilities are a place where we can come together as a community, learn together, have fun together, and build strong relationships. Our town needs fun places like these so we can bond together, relax, and have fun for once. One if the reasons why there are lots of homeless people all around the world, is because of a bad Economic Development. Job creation gives folks a second chance. They can get a job and earn a steady income. We also need a good Retention department so we can keep people in their jobs. That leaves less, broken families, poverty, and homeless people. If I were Mayor I would make sure our town has good Public Safety, Land Use, Transportation, Utilities, Recreational and Cultural Facilities and Economic Development. All of the stated topics will make us a fun, healthy, and safe town. And 3 would work hard 24/7 to enforce and build up these things and then we could be the best town in America. 4 Kennedy Parish—2017 If I Were Mayor contest Link to digital submission: https://youtu.be/ p77mfhg0Ko AIS-3064 5. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 06/06/2017 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: RECEIVE REPORT FROM THE YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL DELEGATION'S TRIP TO THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE Prepared For: Kent Wyatt, City Management Submitted By: Kent Wyatt, City Management Item Type: Receive and File Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE The City Council will hear a report from the Tigard Youth Advisory Council members who attended the National League of Cities conference in Washington, DC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Receive the report and discuss opportunities to improve future NLC trips. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Three Tigard High School students - Barbara-Ann Schlabach, Hannah Alzgal, and Landon Carlson - represented the Tigard Youth Advisory Council (TYAC) at the National League of Cities Conference in Washington, DC in March. The Youth Delegate portion of the conference allowed the TYAC members to network with other delegates and observe how their councils worked and benefited their city hall in their own towns. Political commentator Nicole Wallace,who also served as the communications chief during the presidency of George Bush and his 2004 re-election campaign, was one of the highlights of the conference for the students. In addition to attending conference sessions, the three students visited the Newseum, walked around the White House where they met Sean Spicer, current White House Press Secretary, and went to a few Smithsonian museums. The students wrote in detail about their trip in the April edition of Cityscape. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments TYAC NLC Cityscape Tigard's Youngest Leaders Gain Insights During D.C.Trip In March,Tigard Youth Advisory Council members Hannah Alzgal, Landon Carlson and Barbara- Ann Schlabach visited Washington, D.C.,to learn first-hand how American democracy works. The three Tigard High School students attended the National League of Cities conference,visited the capitol's landmarks and even met with a key aide to President Donald Trump. Hannah Alzgal Attending the 2017 conference in Washington, D.C. as a Tigard Youth Advisory Council (TYAC) delegate was an experience that cannot be replicated in textbooks. Prior to the trip, I thought that D.C. offered opportunities at every corner and was a place to make your voice heard.Those expectations were met and more. We heard a memorable speech from political commentator Nicolle Wallace,who served as the communications chief during the presidency of George H.W. Bush. She showed me that we all want the same outcome—to better our country and our lives.Wallace spoke about the importance of unity in a time of division within our nation. The Youth Delegate portion of the conference allowed the TYAC delegates to network with other delegates and observe how other councils benefit their cities.This gave me ideas for what we could bring to our youth council in Tigard. Interacting with other peers cannot be replicated by the Internet or in a book. My experience in D.0 provided excellent insight into how we can make changes here in Tigard. Even though I am only a teen, my voice is as important as anyone else's in my community. Landon Carlson When I arrived at the conference I was nervous for the days ahead. I quickly learned I could meet and share ideas with other students from across the country. At the opening Youth Delegate session, each youth council made a presentation on the most important issue facing their community and efforts to combat the issue. It was incredible to see how impactful and creative a group of teens could be in their community. I look forward to bringing some of the approaches to our council. The next day at the general session we heard from Nicolle Wallace, now an analyst for MSNBC. I learned about national politics from a conservative perspective and how the media covers it. We also met with Democratic Party leaders. Michael Blake,vice chair of the Democratic National Party, gave a powerful speech urging us to incite change in our communities and to stand up to injustice. His speech was one of the top three I've heard and was possibly the highlight of my trip. I am grateful to the City of Tigard, Mayor Cook and the City Council for providing me an opportunity to attend this conference. Barbara-Ann Schlabach Washington D.C.was full of memorable sights.The most interesting places we visited were the Lincoln Memorial and the National Air and Space Museum. We also met with Press Secretary Sean Spicer outside of the White House. Walking up the immense staircase to the Lincoln Memorial, I could see the enormous Abraham Lincoln statue perched behind the giant, white columns. It is overwhelming to see up close.The Emancipation Proclamation is engraved in large letters on both of the side walls.The memorial provides a valuable piece of history. We also met with Sean Spicer, President Trump's spokesman and communications director. It was an unexpected chance of a lifetime. It is rare to meet anybody famous, especially current political figures. Spicer was outside of the White House talking with people when we happened to notice him. I asked him for a picture and he was delighted to pose with us! It doesn't get much better than that. I am grateful to the City of Tigard for providing the opportunity. The trip was a great opportunity to expand my knowledge about government and visit some of the most impactful memorials and monuments in the country. SUPPLEMENTALFOR PACKET (DATE OF MEETING) TIGARD YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL \ ' 1r, '/1 �, � GOES TO DC "- , 40 k)i ,/ ,. , ,f i , / ft. , -,,, 0 , - tfi.,A.:., .,,,,s r/ ',IL' jiHannah Alzgal, „. A ' Landon Carlson & i ''',.,-,s ,, ,. ...,-, . ,_., .._.il '4,11r1:1 - Barbara-Ann Schlabach ,ert 41, TIGARD rot Iwo Sightseeing ,, ��: \ �� . • f -. • , .1 Q ikk , \ ' tt • 46.1 . • N ewseu m . m g .%, , �+rd. �% j :,„:0,:•i r flit, . ° ii Will 11 ti • Abraham Lincoln Memorial 0; ti. .1„,„;,, rl� �1. I l Pq I - ---_-4giettii.---t,....... Gr Jr • Capitol Building lil 1 E !• Supreme Court 010 o' • National Mall f , -O • Holocaust Museum N t it. White House , , i # • National Air and Space Museum INIF , Networking ... Met Youth Delegates from across the United States Attended the Youth Delegate ,: Orientation �' -- _ _ Ir A _ 'SII 1 ' 'T ..._ -°*. 1 lila Participated in Youth Social Events �.'1 General Sessions t - • Commentator Nicolle Wallace4 ,, • Afternoon session with speakers Scott — ... Blackburn, Jay Williams, Sally Satel, COFp11E5 and Steve Williams , 1 , Ili ---...IP...7Z- IFIN. • Closing general session with J.D. Vance and Scott Pruitt 4 i First General Workshop : Immigration Reform obi • Speakers Lisa Soronen, Monica Fuentes, William Peduto, and Joel Navarro • Discussed how local leaders are working inthrough the challenges of immigration _ and integrating immigrants in a healthy ,:__ " ""~'�`' �- " '�i 'kali ; ' '.. way , � � I thit_ot iiii , . ,..1 pi 0 pit Attended "Oh So Blue" Breakfast • Heard from Vice Chairman Michael Blake • Learn about pressing issue in DC /- • Met other delegates with similar interests - Y 0 DM: 7M.s rr-.4r-pppr. 4 1 �4 N Second General Workshop •• MeeOfficials(NBC-LEO)Policy Commlttr, Meeting McKinley Room Digital Inclusion ��Ta 7:30 a.m.•8:45 a.m, Td Military Communities Council Meeting Tr 7:30 a.m.-8:45 ,I . 10:3t Council on Youth.Education 8 Families Tr Meeting C. 'n,.•g000 t•ta,sh4'N. El • Speakers Miguel A Gamino Karen Archer 7:30a.m.-8am. Hispanic Elected45Local Officials(HE.. BusinessMeeting 10:3 Perry, and Karima A. Zedan. S' 8:00 a.m,-3:30 p.m. Prosperity Playbook Community of Practice .e ham Hotel} • Discussed how critical access to internet is 8:00a.m.-600p.m. 12: Corporate and Enterprise Partners Lounge to all people. Learned about public and 8:45am--10:15 a.m. Oili private resources to close the digital divide. Digital Inclusion-Getting Everyone Online Virginia A.6 dna t. 8:45 a.m,-10:15 a.m. Keep the Clean Water Flowing Pliii Delaware Suite A ISIN,KC Events metal*aPP,.' y Conference Feedback Pros • +. :. Relevant information that was interesting to both .. ,; 4adults and youth - • Influential and inspiring speakers - Nicolle Wallace, etc. - _ - _ - . : - • Different points of view and perspectives on varying 1. 10- topics - .. 1 1 I Cons -'�= - =— = = 4 • Not enough overlap of the two conferences ,. , i� • Not enough time to network ` `" Wanted more time to mingle with the elected officials from across the country Thank _ .-,-leaaor • diteSillikmr • ,�� . $ 6� r q rfy r !/�� a a _. r + __ rbi r to , AIS-3116 6. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 06/06/2017 Length (in minutes): 15 Minutes Agenda Title: Resolution Authorizing Application for a Metro 2040 Planning& Development Grant Submitted By: Lloyd Purdy, Community Development Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE In order to pursue a Metro 2040 Planning and Development Grant, Council must endorse the application with a resolution of support. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Pass a resolution supporting Tigard's 2017 grant application for a Metro 2040 Planning and Development Grant to fund a Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Implementation Plan. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Metro 2040 Planning and Development Grants support planning and pre-development activities that remove barriers to development, make land ready for development and prepare existing developed sites for redevelopment. Up to $2 million in funding will be available for the 2017 grant cycle. Cities awarded grant funding will enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Metro. A minimum 10% match of local funds is required. The Community Development Department is seeking up to $450,000 in grant funding. Competitive applications must significantly advance Metro's regional priorities including: • equitable development • vibrant communities • sustained economic competitiveness • reliable transportation • minimizing climate change Partnerships, public involvement, likelihood of implementation, and a city's track record are also considered during the grant review. In previous years, the City of Tigard has successfully competed for this funding for projects focused on River Terrace, Downtown Tigard, and the Tigard Triangle. The Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Implementation Plan will be used to plan and prioritize urban renewal investment over the next five to ten years to stimulate private sector development on selected sites. The 500 acres of the Triangle lack sufficient transportation, sewer, stormwater, parks infrastructure, affordable housing, and multi-modal and mass transit facilities. Tigard needs these to support the dense, walkable, mixed-use urban style development necessary to best achieve the city's vision for the Tigard Triangle and Comprehensive Plan goals. The City needs an urban renewal implementation plan to scope, coordinate, leverage and deliver these projects. Which projects should the agency pursue first? When should the city bond against the capacity of the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal District? With an investment strategy driven by an implementation plan - more than just the existing list of urban renewal projects - the City can make decisions that leverage private sector investment, synchronize projects across different infrastructure categories, and maximize the value of urban renewal TIF. Grant funded activities will include: 1. Infrastructure Investment Study Consultants will provide preliminary design, feasibility, costs, ROI and impact analysis of key infrastructure investments. These will have sufficient specificity to communicate to decision makers, property owners and developers the appropriate alignment, location, sections and phasing in order to catalyze redevelopment. Initial work will include feasibility, development readiness, and concept level planning for key Triangle infrastructure projects includes surveying, sensitive lands inventory, traffic analysis, horizontal and vertical alignments, preliminary concept design, site assembly, development impacts, project timing, economic impact and project leveraging/synchronization. 2. District Financing Plan Consultants will consider how interrelated projects change the tax increment finance (TIF) revenue forecast model. This will formalize plans for years one through ten of district tax collections and expenditures. 3. Redevelopment Opportunity Study Consultants will identify property and site assembly opportunities for public infrastructure and project acquisition and redevelopment. 4. Equitable Development Strategy Consultants and staff will unite the transportation, utility, parks, housing and property acquisition investments outlined in the Urban Renewal Plan. Deliverables 1, 2 and 3 above will be coordinated under an equitable development strategy that supports equitable housing and employment opportunities. A collaborative team including development consultants, engineers, and financial analysts will be retained to complete a Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Implementation Plan. Urban renewal funded investments in infrastructure, amenities and affordable housing will set a foundation for private investment and development. With a comprehensive understanding of key projects, the City can make informed decisions about project timing, funding, and leveraging to ensure Urban Renewal investments maximize public value and private development. The Triangle has been in development limbo since the mid-90s due to development barriers based on an incomplete street network, missing sewer and stormwater infrastructure, and lack of access to the freeways that surround it. In 2013, the city produced a plan for the area that captured the community vision, identified barriers to achieving the vision, and recommended measures to overcome them. In May 2017, voters approved the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan with a maximum indebtedness of$188,000,000 for investment in the Tigard Triangle. An Urban Renewal Implementation Plan is the next step towards a development-ready Triangle. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Forgo this round of grant funded planning and pre-development work. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Tigard Strategic Plan: Goal 2 - Ensure development advances the vision. Tigard Comprehensive Plan: Goal 9 - Economic Development and Goal 10 Housing Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION First consideration. Fiscal Impact Cost: $100,000 Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where budgeted?: CD Budget Additional Fiscal Notes: Local match for Metro 2040 Planning and Development Grants require a minimum match of 10%. This local match will be met through staff time and cash contributions from the Community Development Department's budget. Attachments Resolution CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A METRO 2040 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT TO FUND A TIGARD TRIANGLE URBAN RENEWAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN WHEREAS, Metro has a new cycle of funding available for the 2040 Community and Development Grant Program,designed to help cities remove barriers to development;and WHEREAS,the Tigard Triangle is within the Tigard Town Center;and WHEREAS, the City has developed the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan (TTSP) and Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan (ITURP). These plans provide a long range vision to diversify the mix of uses, improve connectivity for all travel modes, create a safe and enjoyable walking environment, provide parks and open space,affordable housing,public infrastructure,and protect natural amenities in the Tigard Triangle;and WHEREAS,the City of Tigard voters elected to create the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal District in order to fund$188 million in investment through tax increment financing over 35 years;and WHEREAS, the City seeks to identify optimal urban renewal investments, sites, projects and partnerships in order to facilitate development,redevelopment and infill to create a pedestrian-oriented,mixed-use district. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Council approves submittal of an application for a Metro 2040 Community Planning and Development Grant to complete predevelopment activities to guide Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Investments. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2017. Mayor-City of Tigard A 1TEST: Deputy City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 17- Page 1 AIS-2981 7. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 06/06/2017 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Consider Contract Award - Pavement Management Program Preventative Maintenance Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Kelly Burgoyne, Central Services 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 Local Contract Review Board award a contract for the preventative maintenance (slurry seal) portion of the city's pavement management program to Blackline, Inc.? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board award a contract for the 2017 Pavement Management Program Preventative Maintenance (slurry seal) project to Blackline, Inc. in the amount of$629,167, with an additional $40,000 for additional or incidental work, and further authorize the City Manager to take the necessary steps to execute the contract. The total contract shall not exceed $669,167. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The yearly Pavement Management Program (PMP) protects the city's investment in street infrastructure. The program typically includes a combination of minor maintenance projects (slurry seal applications) and major maintenance and rehabilitation projects (pavement overlays). In a preventative maintenance (slurry seal) project, a coating of oil mixed with sand is applied to the surface of the street as cost-effective means of pavement preservation. Slurry seals typically add 5 to 10 years of pavement life for a street. Work under the project will include: •Application of slurry seal on residential streets •Application of pavement striping and markings on residential streets •Temporary signage, protection, and traffic control •Installation of crack seal on city streets •Performance of additional and incidental work as called for by the specifications and plans. The city issued an Invitation to Bid for the project on April 28th and published notice in the Daily Journal of Commerce and in the Business Tribune. At closing on May 16th, the city received bids from three firms: •Engineer's Estimate - $699,686 •Blackline, Inc. - $629,167 •VSS International, Inc. - $661,118 •Intermountain Slurry Seal, Inc. - $735,691 Staff has reviewed the bids and determined that Blackline, Inc. has submitted the lowest responsible bid. Blackline, Inc.has no State of Oregon Contractor Construction Board violations and is not on the Bureau of Labor and Industries ineligible list. As such, staff recommends an award for the city's PMP preventative maintenance contract to Blackline, Inc. for the work totaling $629,167. This amount is within the FY 2018 approved budget ($2.35 million for all PMP projects including overlay, design, slurry seal, and other pavement maintenance activities). Staff is also requesting that the LCRB authorize an additional $40,000 in potential work under this contract for any additional and incidental work as called for by the specifications and plans. The contract shall not exceed $669,167 at any point. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Local Contract Review Board may direct staff to resolicit the work and not award this contract. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION This is the first time the Local Contract Review Board is being presented this contract award item. Fiscal Impact Cost: $669,167 Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where Budgeted (department/program):Street Maintenance Fund Additional Fiscal Notes: The proposed contract is for $669,167, which includes $40,000 for unforeseen extra work. Appropriations are in the approved budget for FY 2018 for Capital Improvement Plan Project Number 95001 which includes this project and other Pavement Management Program elements. Attachments No file(s) attached. AIS-3145 8. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 06/06/2017 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Consider Award of Contract for 2017 Pavement Management Program - Pavement Rehabilitation Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Joseph Barrett, Finance and Information Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Local Contract Review Board Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the Local Contract Review Board award a contract for 2017 Pavement Management Program - Pavement Rehabilitation construction project to S-2 Contractors, Inc.? STAFF RECOMMENDATION I ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board award a contract for the 2017 Pavement Management Program - Pavement Rehabilitation construction project to S-2 Contractors for $993,489 plus and additional $50,000 in possible additional need work and authorize the City Manager to take the necessary steps to execute the contract. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The yearly Pavement Management Program (PMP) protects the city's investment in street infrastructure. The program typically includes a combination of minor maintenance projects (slurry seal applications) and major maintenance and rehabilitation projects (pavement overlays). In a payment overlay project, the pavement on a street has deteriorated due to traffic usage and weather, and is at the point where pavement repairs and overlays are necessary to avoid further deterioration and return the street to a good condition. Work under the project will include: • Construction of asphaltic concrete inlays and overlays •Asphalt concrete removal (grinding) and repair •Applying sealant along pavement edges and joints •Temporary signage, protection, and traffic control •Striping and pavement marking • Construction of concrete curbs and ramps •Performance of additional and incidental work as called for by the specifications and plans. •Installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Systems (Note: This specific item (costing $23,000) will be paid for by Capital Improvement Plan Project # 95027 - Pedestrian and Cyclist Connections Program). Staff believes it is cost-effective to construct the crosswalk beacons along with the paving project, as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires ramp reconstruction along with paving, and as the crosswalk beacon would also disturb the ramps. For fiscal year 2017-2018, streets, or sections of these streets, in need of this level of repair, include: •Benchview Terrace, Clearview to Greenfield • Greenfield Drive, Benchview to Gaarde • Gaarde Street, Greenfield to Walnut •Viewmount Lane, 115th to 114th • 114th Avenue, Viewmount Lane to South of Fairhaven •Viewmount Court, 114th to End •Royalty Parkway, 99W to South of Naeve • 109th Avenue, Willowbrook to Naeve •Kable Street, 100th to 98th • 96th Avenue, Sattler to Murdock •Bonita Road, Hall to 76th The city issued an Invitation to Bid for the project on April 28, 2017 and published notice in the Daily Journal of Commerce and in The Oregonian. The city issued a two-tiered bid schedule, adding additional streets under the second tier with the intention of contracting for the most streets the PMP budget would cover. Bids were due on May 16th and the city received responses from two companies and will only be able to cover the base tier in order to stay within the projects budgeted appropriations for FY 2018: •Engineer's Estimate (through base tier) - $974,284 •S-2 Contractors - $993,489 •Kodiak Pacific Construction - $1,268,000 Staff has reviewed the bids and determined that S-2 Contractors has submitted the lowest responsible bid. S-2Contractors has no State of Oregon Contractor Construction Board violations and is not on the Bureau of Labor and Industries ineligible list. S-2 has performed this work for the city for the past few years and the city has been very satisfied with their performance. As such, staff recommends an award for the city's pavement overlay contract to S-2 Contractors in the amount of$993,489. This amount is within the FY 2018 approved budget ($2.35 million for all PMP projects including overlay, design, slurry seal, and other pavement maintenance activities). Staff is also requesting that the LCRB authorize an additional $50,000 in potential work under this contract for any additional and incidental work as called for by the specifications and plans. OTHER ALTERNATIVES COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the first time the Local Contract Review Board is seeing this project. Fiscal Impact Cost: $1,043,489 Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where budgeted?: Street Maintenance Fund Additional Fiscal Notes: The proposed contract is for $1,043,489, which includes $50,000 for unforeseen extra work. Appropriations are in the approved budget for FY 2018 for various PMP projects including this one. Attachments No file(s) attached. AIS-3106 9. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 06/06/2017 Length (in minutes): 20 Minutes Agenda Title: Receive Fiscal Year 2018 Master Fees and Charges Schedule Update Prepared For: Joseph Barrett, Finance and Information Services Submitted By: Joseph Barrett, Finance and Information Services Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE City Council Discussion of the FY 2018 Master Fees and Charges Schedule. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff requests council direction on the proposed changes to the FY 2017 Master Fees & Charges Schedule prior to the June 13, 2017 budget adoption hearing. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY As part of the annual budget and as directed by TMC 3.32.050, Council adopts the Master Fees and Charges Schedule at the first business meeting in June as part of the annual budget process. The attached draft of the FY 2018 Master Fees and Charges Summary of Changes Report outlines the proposed changes to the fees and charges; the basis of the change; the authority for proposing the change; and where that change can be found in the actual schedule. Additionally, this agenda item summary includes the strikeout draft version of the Master Fees and Charges so council can review the detail of the proposed fee changes. Staff will incorporate any fee implementations based on council direction from this meeting and include them for presentation at the June 13, 2017 business meeting. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council may direct staff to make changes to the Master Fees and Charges Schedule prior to the June 13, 2017 adoption hearing. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the first time the Council is seeing the proposed FY 2018 Master Fees and Charges Schedule. Attachments FY 2018 Draft Summary of Changes to Fees and Charges FY 2018 Master Fees and Charges-Draft Memo FY 2017 Approved Master Fees &Charges Summary of Changes Report Included Schedule in Budget? Department Fee Description page(e).., . . Basis of C_ Authority (Y/N) Financial&Information Services 'Business License(Annual Feel 4 Portland Consumer Price Index(CPI-U)increased by 2.10%. Ord.88-13 Municiple Court 'Traffic School and Compliance Program Fee 2 Creates consistency between the adult and juvenile fees for non-traffic diversions Dept.Policy Community Development Planning Fees/Charges I v 22 Fees have been adjusted by 1.1%per the Seattle Construction Cost Index. Council Policy 2016 ORS 227.175(1)(a) ORS 227.175(10)(b) TMC 18.798 Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee 25 This fee is set by Clean Water Services. Increase of 3.77% Clean Water Services School District Construction Excise Tax 25 Fees are calculated by the Tigard Tualatin and Beaverton School Districts. ORS 320.170-189 Increases range between 1.67%and 3.28%. Urban Forestry 26 Fees have been adjusted by 1.1%per the Seattle Construction Cost Index. Park System Development Charge(SDC' 42 Fees adjusted based on an equal combination of two indexes;the Seattle Construction Cost Index Ord.15-09 (1.10%)and the other index reflects changes in land acquisition costs provided by Washington County(22.80%) Thus the 2017 SDC charges were increased by 11.95%. Residential Transportation System Development Charges 45 The residential transportation SDC's were adopted by council on April 28,2015. Res.15-15 Charges increased by 0.13%resulting from the combination of the Construction Ord.15-09 Cost Index-Seattle(1.10%)and the Oregon Monthly Asphalt Cement Material Price Index(-8.57°o). Transportation Development Tax 46 This fee is determined by Washington County.TDT rates increased by roughly 2.175% Washington County for FY 2018. Page 1 of 2 FY 2017 Approved Master Fees&Charges Summary of Changes Report Included Schedule in Budget? Department Fee Description Page(s) Basis of C ;` Authority (YIN) Public Works Fire Rates(Sprinklers) 31 Fee adjusted by 1.10%based in the Seattle-Construction Cost Index for April 2017. Dept.Policy Meter Installation Fees 31 Fee adjusted by 1.10°o based in the Seattle-Construction Cost Index for April 2017 and rounded to near Dept.Policy Park and Recreation Fee 37 Increases by annual minimum of 4.26°o on July 1st of each year. Additional increase can be TCM 3.75 authorized by Council,at the recommendation of the Public Works Director,as needed. The FY 2018 report for the Public Works Director is before Council on May 16,2017. Sanitary Sewer Service Fee(set by Clean Water Service) 31 Will be updated by Clean Water Services on June 20th. Clean Water Services Service Installation Fees 31 Will be updated by Clean Water Services on June 20th. Clean Water Services Tigard Sanitary Sewer Surcharge 31 The sanitary sewer surcharge was approved by Council on April 19,2016. Res.14-66 Street Maintenance Fee Fee adjusted by a 2-year rolling average of 85%Seattle Construction Cost Index and 15",'o Oregon TMC 15.20 Monthly Asphalt Cement Material Price Index Storm and Surface Water Fee(set by Clean Water Service) 32 Will be updated by Clean Water Services on June 20th. Clean Water Services Water Customer Charges 32-34 Removed old fees Dept.Policy Tigard Transportation Utility Fee(River Terrace) 35 Charges increased by 0.13°o resulting from the combination of the Construction Res.14-66 Cost Index-Seattle(1.10%)and the Oregon Monthly Asphalt Cement Material Price Index(-8.57%). Solid Waste Collection Rates 38-40 Collection rates for solid waste have been increased by 2.10%per Tigard Municipal Code TMC 11.04 Water System Development Charge 44 Fee adjusted by 1.10°'o based in the Seattle-Construction Cost Index for April 2017. ORS 223.304(8) Res.10-76 Library Overdue Items 7 Daily charge for overdue items(except DVDs&Blu-Rays)increased per WCCLS. WCCLS Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A City of Tigard, Oregon Master Fees & Charges Schedule Fiscal Year 2017 - 2018 Revised May 10,2017 11 1111 T I GARD Page 1 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective Date CITY MANAGEMENT Claims Application Fee(TMC 1.21.050&1.22;Ord.08-09) $1,000.00 /deposit* 6/24/2008 * Claim fee shall be actual cost incurred by the city to process claim. Any funds remaining from the deposit after the claim has been processed will be refunded to the claimant.Payment of any costs exceeding the amount of the deposit is required prior to issuance of a final decision by the city on the claim. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Municipal Court Fees Civil Compromise $150.00 8/28/2008 Traffic School and Compliance Program Fee Criminal $150.00 8/28/2008 Juvenile non-traffic S-5.00 8/28/2008 $ 130.00 7/1/2017 Traffic School Equal to the relevant fine provided for the 8/28/2008 violation in the Violations Bureau Fine Schedule T_a-fi School Sctoyer 32$00 8/28/2008 License Reinstatement $15.00 8/28/2008 Payment Agreement Administrative Fee $15.00 8/28/2008 Overdue Payment Letter $10.00 8/28/2008 Show Cause Hearings-Court Costs 8/28/2008 Non-compliance $25.00 Non-payment-fees paid prior to hearing No Fee Warrant Fee $50.00 8/28/2008 CITY MANAGEMENT Public Assembly 8/25/1970 Application Fee Persons Reasonably Anticipated 1,000 to 2,499 $100.00 2,500 to 4,999 $150.00 5,000 to 9,999 $500.00 10,000 to 49,999 $1,000.00 50,000 and over $1,500.00 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/RECORDS Tigard Municipal Code(TMC) (Titles 1-17)or TMC/CDC(Titles 1-18) Compact Disk(CD) $10.00 7/1/2009 Page 2 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective Date CITYWIDE Attorney Time Current attorney billing rate 1999 4GB Flash Drives $11.00 each 7/1/2011 Candidate Nomination Petition Fee $50.00 DVD/CD $10.00 7/1/2015 Faxes for Public $2.00 /first page 7/1/2007 $1.00 /each additional page Microfiche Sheet Copies $1.00 /sheet up to 50 sheets plus 7/1/2007 staff time Photocopies 8-1/2x 11 $0.25 /page 1999 8-1/2 x 14 $0.50 /page 1999 11 x 17 $1.00 /page 7/1/2005 17 x 24 $1.50 /page 7/1/2007 36 x 36 $2.50 /page 7/1/2007 Candidate Nomination Petition Fee $50.00 7/1/2008 Oversized Copies $2.50 /page 7/1/2011 Photographs Actual Cost 1999 Recording of Documents Actual Cost 1999 Research Fee Staff hourly rate+Citywide Overhead 2/7/2002 Fee+ Materials Staff Hourly Rate for Miscellaneous Billing Staff hourly rate+benefits +paid time off+ 7/1/2015 and Reimbursement Agreements administrative time+ department overhead+citywide overhead as determined by most recent A-87 Indirect Cost Study Based on the agreement,all,or part,of the components of the A-87 Indirect Cost Study may be used. Page 3 Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective Date FINANCIAL&INFORMATION SERVICES Assessment Assumption $50.00 4/22/1985 Budget Document Compact Disk(CD) $10.00 7/1/2007 Paper $50.00 Business License Annual Fee* 0-2 employees $89 /per ycar 74442044 $ 91 /per year 7/1/2017 3-5 employees $449 /per year 7/1/2016 $ 122 /per year 7/1/2017 6-10 employees $429/per-year- 7/442044 $ 428 /per year 7/1/2017 11-20 employees $68; eryear- 7/1/2016 $ 702 /per year 7/1/2017 21-50 employees $789 year 7/1/2016 $ 805 /per year 7/1/2017 51-75 employees $859-/-per-year- 7/1/2016 $ 877 /per year 7/1/2017 greater than 75 employees $1,163 per year- 7/1/2016 $ 1,187 /per year 7/1/2017 *Adjusted annually in conjunction with the Portland Consumer Price Index(CPI)-2.1%in use for 07/01/2017 fees. Pro-Rated Fee Schedule Issued January 1 -June 30 See Fee Schedule above Issued July 1 -December 31 1/2 the annual fee Temporary License $25.00 1/1/2008 Duplicate License/Change of Ownership Fee Change in ownership or name only $10.00 1/1/2008 Copy/replacement of license $10.00 1/1/2008 Delinquency Charge the original business license fee due and payable shall be added for each calendar month or fraction thereof that the fee remains unpaid. The total amount of the delinquency penalty for any business license year shall not exceed one hundred percent(100%) of the business license fee due and payable for such year. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report $0.00 2/7/2002 Page 4 Revenue Source _ME jilt Fee or Charge Effective Date Franchise Fee/Right of Way Usage Fee (See TMC 15.06) (Owns facility in ROW and provides service to customers Electricity within Tigard) 5%of gross revenue or$4,000 whichever is greater 1/9/2015 (Owns facility in ROW and provides no service to customers Electricity within Tigard) $2.90/linear foot of installation in right-of-way 1/9/2015 or$4,000,whichever is greater (Using a non-owned facility in ROW and provides service to Electricity customers within Tigard) 5%of gross revenue 1/9/2015 (Owns facility in ROW and provides service to customers Natural Gas within Tigard) 5%of gross revenue or$4,000 whichever is greater 1/9/2015 (Owns facility in ROW and provides no service to customers Natural Gas within Tigard) $2.90/linear foot of installation in right-of-way 1/9/2015 or$4,000,whichever is greater (Using a non-owned facility in ROW and provides service to Natural Gas customers within Tigard) 5%of gross revenue 1/9/2015 (Owns facility in ROW and provides service to customers Telecom* within Tigard) 5%of gross revenue or$4,000 whichever is greater 1/9/2015 Telecom* (Provides no service to customers within Tigard) $2.90/linear foot of installation in right-of-way 1/9/2015 or$4,000,whichever is greater (Using a non-owned facility in ROW and provides service to Telecom* customers within Tigard) 5%of gross revenue 1/9/2015 *(Includes telecommunication utilities,long distance providers, private networks and competitive access providers) Utility Franchise Application Fee $2,000.00 8/8/2006 Solid Waste Disposal(See TMC 11.04) 5%of gross revenue 7/1/2013 Cable TV(See TMC 5.12) 5%of gross revenue 1/26/1999 Application filed with MACC(email macc@maccor.otJ Lien Search Fee $35.00 2/1/2004 Overhead Fee Added to charges for property damage/repair 10%of total charge Passport Execution Fee $25.00 2/1/2008 Passport Photographs Fee $10.00 4/1/2007 Page Returned Check Fee 5 $20.00 10/9/2001 Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective Date Sewer Reimbursement District Loans Interest Rate Applicable Federal Rate(AFR),Table,Long-term,semiannual for the month the loan is approved System Development Charge Financing(other than Sewer Reimbursement District Loans) Application Fee $25.00 Interest Rate Prime rate as published in the Wall Street Journal as of the date of the application plus 4% Page 6 Department Revenue Source Fee or ChaiM11011111P Effective Date LIBRARY Collection Agency Fee $10.00 7/1/2007 Disk or CD(Blank) $1.00 2/7/2002 Flash Drive $5.00 each 7/1/2013 Library Card Fee(non-residents only) $110.00 per year 7/1/2015 Lost Items Replacement cost+$5.00 processing fee 7/1/2003 Overdue Cultural Passes $10.00 per day 7/1/2013 Overdue Items Daily Charge(All Items except DVDs&Blu-Rays) S0.1E 7/1/2003 $0.25 /item 7/1/2017 Daily Charge(DVDs&Blu-Rays) $1.00 /item 7/1/2005 Maximum Charge $5.00 /item 7/1/2005 E-Readers $1.00 per day up to a maximum of S5.00 7/1/2014 Public Copier and Printer Charges $0.10 /page for black&white 2001 S0.50 /page for color 7/1/2011 Replacement Library Card Fee $1.00 7/1/2007 Page 7 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective agi POLICE Alarm Permit Fee (Residential&Commercial) (Government agencies,disabled residents or over the age of 60 an exempt) $25.00 7/1/2009 Late payment of fees/fines(after 60 days) $100.00 7/1/2013 Failure to Obtain Permit within 60 Days of Alarm Installation $100.00 7/1/2013 Reinstatement Fee,Once Revoked(After 90 days past due) $100.00 7/1/2014 Non-permitted or Revoked Alarm Permit $500.00 7/1/2013 Distracted Driving Diversion Program $25.00 7/1/2014 False Alarm Fines 1st false alarm No Charge No Charge 7/1/2013 2nd false alarm No Charge No Charge 7/1/2013 3rd false alarm $100.00 7/1/2013 4th false alarm $150.00 7/1/2013 5th false alarm $200.00 7/1/2013 6 or more false alarms $250.00 7/1/2013 Fingerprint Card $15.00 per card 7/1/2012 Good Conduct Background/Letter $10.00 7/1/2012 Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Qualification Fee $25.00 7/1/2006 Liquor License $25.00 7/10/2001 Police Services Fees DVD/Audio/VHS Evidence Copies $20.00 7/1/2012 Police Documents/Reports $10.00 /for the first 15 pages and 7/1/2008 $0.30 /page thereafter Police Digital Photo CD Copies $10.00 /CD 7/1/2005 Police Photograph Copies $10.00 /roll 7/1/2003 Property Forfeiture for Criminal Activity Varies 5/25/1999 Page 8 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge _ Effective Date POLICE Second Hand Dealers and Transient Merchant License Occasional $40.00 7/1/2010 Full-Time $100.00 7/1/2010 Reporting Forms $0.80 each 7/1/2010 Special Event Permit Application Fee For-Profit Fee(Resident) $150.00 7/1/2015 For-Profit Fee(Non-Resident) $200.00 7/1/2015 Non-Profit Fee(Resident) $75.00 7/1/2015 Non-Profit Fee(Non-Resident) $125.00 7/1/2015 Social Gaming License Annual fee due January 1st $100.00 1/1/2014 If a business applies on or after July 1st $50.00 7/1/2014 Vehicle Release Fee $125.00 7/1/2013 Page 9 Departmen:ARevenue Source Fee or Charge& Effective Date COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-BUILDING Building Permit Fees (New Commercial) 1()'1 '-()O" Total Valuation: $0.00 to$500.00 $51.09 /minimum $500.01 to$2,000.00 $51.09 /for the first$500 and $2.69 /for each additional$100 or fraction thereof. $2,000.01 to$25,000.00 $91.44 /for the first$2,000 and $10.76 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof $25,000.01 to$50,000.00 $338.92 /for the first$25,000 and $8.06 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof $50,000.01 to$100,000.00 $540.42 /for the first$50,000 and $5.38 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof $100,000.01 and over $809.42 /for the first$100,000 and $4.49 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof (New Single Family&Multi-Family) 10/1/2009 Total Valuation: $0.00 to$2,000.00 $66.25 /minimum $2,000.01 to$25,000.00 $66.25 /for the first$2,000 and $11.48 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof $25,000.01 to$50,000.00 $330.29 /for the first$25,000 and $8.75 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof $50,000.01 to$100,000.00 $549.04 /for the first$50,000 and $6.25 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof $100,000.01 to$250,000.00 $861.54 /for the first$100,000 and $4.46 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof $250,000.01 to$500,000.00 $1,530.54 /for the first$250,000 and $4.42 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof $500,000.01 to$1,000,000.00 $2,635.54 /for the first$500,000 and $4.10 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof Page 10 $1,000,000.01 to$2,000,000.00 $4,685.54 /for the first$1,000,000 and $3.33 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof $2,000,000.01 and over $8,015.54 /for the first$2,000,000 and $3.18 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof (Additions,Alterations,and Demolitions for Single Family,Multi-Family,Commercial, &Industrial) 10/1/2009 Total Valuation: $0.00 to$500.00 $53.27 /minimum $500.01 to$2,000.00 $53.27 /for the first$500 and $3.39 /for each additional$100 or fraction thereof $2,000.01 to$25,000.00 $104.12 /for the first$2,000 and $15.21 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof $25,000.01 to$50,000.00 $453.95 /for the first$25,000 and $11.02 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof $50,000.01 to$100,000.00 $729.45 /for the first$50,000 and $7.53 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof $100,000.01 to$500,000.00 $1,105.95 /for the first$100,000 and $6.04 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof $500,000.01 to$1,000,000.00 $3,521.95 /for the first$500,000 and $5.09 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof $1,000,000.01 and over $6,066.95 /for the first$1,000,000 and $3.39 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof Building Plan Review Fee 65%of base building permit fee 9/26/2000 Deferred Submittals $200.00 minimum fee 9/24/2002 Plan Review plus 65%of building permit fee based on valuation of the particular portion or portions of the project. Phased Permitting $200.00 9/24/2002 Plan Review plus 10%of building permit fee based on total project valuation not to exceed$1,500 for each phase Page 11 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge It Mt Effective Date Photovoltaic Solar Panel System $180.00 (includes plan review and administrative fees) 1/1/2011 plus 12%state surcharge of permit fee Electrical Fees 10/1/2009 New residential,single or multi-family per dwelling unit;service included: 1000 square feet or less $168.54 Each additional 500 square feet or portion thereof $33.92 Limited energy,residential or multi-family $75.00 (with above sq ft) Each manufactured home or modular dwelling service or feeder $67.84 Services or feeders;installation,alterations or relocation: 200 amps or less $100.70 201 amps to 400 amps $133.56 401 amps to 600 amps $200.34 601 amps to 1000 amps $301.04 Over 1000 amps or volts $552.26 Reconnect only $67.84 Temporary services or feeders;installation,alteration or relocation: 200 amps or less $59.36 201 amps to 400 amps $125.08 401 amps to 600 amps $168.54 Branch circuits;new,alteration or extension per panel: With purchase of service or feeder-each branch circuit $7.42 Without purchase of service or feeder First Branch Circuit $56.18 Each addit.Branch circuit $7.42 Miscellaneous(service or feeder not included): Each pump or irrigation circuit $67.84 Each sign or outline lighting $67.84 Signal circuit(s)or a limited energy panel,alteration or extension $75.00 Each additional inspection over the allowable in any of the above Per Inspection $66.25 /hour(min 1 hour) Per Hour $66.25 /hour(min 1 hour) Industrial Plant Inspection $78.18 /hour(min 1 hour) Page 12 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge NM Effective Datil Renewable Energy Electrical Fees: 5 kva or less $100.70 7/1/2012 5.01 to 15 kva $133.56 7/1/2012 15.01 to 25 kva $200.34 7/1/2012 Wind generation systems in excess of 25 bra: 25.01 to 50 kva $301.04 7/1/2012 50.01 to 100 bra $552.26 7/1/2012 >100 bra the permit fee shall be calculated in accordance with OAR 918-309-0040. Solar generation systems in excess of 25 kva: Each additional kva over 25 $7.42 7/1/2012 >100 bra no additional charge Each additional inspection over allowable in any of the above: Each additional inspection will be charged $66.25/hr 7/1/2012 at an hourly rate(1 hr minimum) Misc.fees at an hourly rate(1 hr minimum) $90.00/hr 7/1/2012 Electrical permit plan review fee 25%of the electrical permit fee Fire Protection Systems 10/1/2009 (Commercial Fire Suppression-Sprinkler,Alarm and Type I-Hood systems based on project valuation) Total Valuation: $0.00 to$500.00 $51.09 /minimum $500.01 to$2,000.00 $51.09 /for the first$500 and $2.69 /for each additional$100 or fraction thereof $2,000.01 to$25,000.00 $91.44 /for the first$2,000 and $10.76 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof $25,000.01 to$50,000.00 $338.92 /for the first$25,000 and $8.06 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof $50,000.01 to$100,000.00 $509.42 /for the first$50,000 and $5.38 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof $100,000.01 and over $809.42 /for the first$100,000 and $4.49 /for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof Page 13 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective Date Fire Life Safety Plan Review 40%of base building permit fee 9/26/2000 (Commercial Only) Fire Protection Systems 10/1/2009 (Residential Fire Suppression) Stand Alone System Square Footage: 1 to 2,000 $198.75 2,001 to 3,600 $246.45 3601 to 7,200 $310.05 7,201 and over $404.39 Multipurpose or Continuous Loop System Square Footage: 0 to 2,000 $121.90 2,001 to 3,600 $169.60 3,601 to 7,200 $233.20 7,201 and over $327.54 Manufactured Dwelling Installation $305.50 9/24/2002 (Fee includes placement permit 5275.50 and state administration fee$30.00) Manufactured Dwelling and Mobile Home Per OAR 9/24/2002 Parks,Recreation Camps, and Organizational Camps Mechanical Fees 10/1/2009 (1&2 Family Dwellings for New,Additions,or Alterations) Heating/Cooling: Air conditioning $46.75 Furnace 100,000 BTU(ducts/vents) $46.75 Furnace 100,000+BTU(ducts/vents) $54.91 Heat pump $61.06 Duct work $23.32 Hydronic hot water system $23.32 Residential boiler(radiator or hydronic) $23.32 Unit heaters(fuel-type,not electric), in-wall,in duct,suspended,etc. $46.75 Flue/vent for any of above $23.32 Other $23.32 Page 14 Department Revenue Source MEE Fee or Charge Effective Date Other fuel appliances: Water heater $23.32 Gas fireplace $33.39 Flue/vent for water heater or gas fireplace $23.32 Log lighter(gas) $23.32 Wood/pellet stove $33.39 Wood fireplace/insert $23.32 Chimney/liner/flue/vent $23.32 Other $23.32 Environmental exhaust and ventilation: Range hood/other kitchen equipment $33.39 Clothes dryer exhaust $33.39 Single-duct exhaust(bathrooms, toilet compartments,utility rooms) $23.32 Attic/crawlspace fans $23.32 Other $23.32 Fuel piping: First four $14.15 Each additional $4.03 Minimum permit fee $90.00 Mechanical plan review fee 25%of Permit Fee Mechanical Permit Fees 10/1/2009 (Commercial and Multi-family) Total Valuation: $0.00 to$500.00 $69.06 /minimum $500.01 to$5,000.00 $69.06 /for the first$500 and $3.07 /for each additional$100 or fraction thereof $5,000.01 to$10,000.00 $207.21 /for the first$5,000 and $2.81 /for each additional$100 or fraction thereof $10,000.01 to$50,000.00 $347.71 /for the first$10,000 and $2.54 /for each additional$100 or fraction thereof $50,000.01 to$100,000.00 $1,363.71 /for the first$50,000 and $2.49 /for each additional$100 or fraction thereof $100,000.01 and over $2,608.71 /for the first$100,000 and $2.92 /for each additional$100 or fraction thereof Plan Review 25%of permit fee 9/24/2002 Page 15 r e Effective Date Plumbing Fees 10/1/2009 (Commercial,Industrial,Residential,&Multi-Family) New One&Two Family Dwellings 1 bath $312.70 2 bath $437.78 3 bath $500.32 Each additional bath/kitchen fixture $25.02 Site Utilities Catch basin or area drain $18.76 Drywell,leach line,or trench drain $18.76 Footing drain,first 100' $50.03 Each additional 100'or part thereof (footing drain) $37.52 Manufactured home utilities $50.03 Manholes $18.76 Rain drain connector $18.76 Sanitary sewer,first 100' $62.54 Storm sewer,first 100' $62.54 Water service,first 100' $62.54 Each additional 100'or part thereof (sanitary,storm,water service) $37.52 Fixture or Item Backflow preventer $31.27 Backwater valve $12.51 Clothes washer $25.02 Dishwasher $25.02 Drinking fountain $25.02 Ejectors/sump $25.02 Expansion tank $12.51 Fixture/sewer cap $25.02 Floor drain/floor sink/hub $25.02 Garbage disposal $25.02 Hose bib $25.02 Ice maker $12.51 Interceptor/grease trap $25.02 Medical gas(value:$ ) see table Primer $12.51 Roof drain(commercial) $12.51 Sink/basin/lavatory $25.02 Solar units(potable water) $62.54 Tub/shower/shower pan $12.51 Page 16 Effective Date Urinal $25.02 Water closet $25.02 Water heater $37.52 Water Piping/DWV $56.29 Other: $25.02 Minimum permit fee $72.50 Plumbing plan review 25%of permit fee Medical Gas Systems 9/24/2002 Total Valuation: $1.00 to$5,000.00 $72.50 /minimum $5,000.01 to$10,000.00 $72.50 /for the first$5,000 and $1.52 /for each additional$100 or fraction thereof,to and including$10,000. $10,000.01 to$25,000.00 $148.50 /for the first$10,000 and $1.54 /for each additional$100 or fraction thereof,to and including$25,000. $25,000.01 to$50,000.00 $379.50 /for the first$25,000 and $1.45 /for each additional$100 or fraction thereof,to and including$50,000. $50,000.01 and over $742.00 /for the first$50,000 and $1.20 /for each additional$100 or fraction thereof. Restricted Energy 6/27/2000 Residential Energy Use,for all systems combined $75.00 Commercial Energy Use,for each system $75.00 Sanitary Sewer Inspection Fee 6/6/2000 Residential $35.00 Commercial $45.00 Industrial $75.00 Site Work/Grading Permit Fees 10/1/2009 Based on project valuation-See Building Permit Fees(New Commercial). Page 17 Department Revenue Source ME MI= Fee or Charge 111111111k, INIME AIL Effective Dail Miscellaneous Fees Administrative fee to change issued permits,including but not limited to: Address change(minimum charge-one-half hour) $90.00 per hour 7/1/2014 Contractor change(minimum charge-one-half hour) $90.00 per hour 7/1/2014 Process and handling fee to mail permits with plans $5.00 7/1/2014 Fee paid inspections for residential structures pursuant to Title 14,Chapter 16 6/27/2000 Single&Two Family Dwellings $100.00 Apartment Houses&Social Care Facilities $160.00 /plus$7 for each dwelling unit in excess of 3 Hotels $160.00 /plus$5 for each dwelling unit in excess of 5 Information Processing&Archiving(IPA)Fee $2.00 /sheet larger than 11"X 17" 7/1/2010 $0.50 /sheet 11"X 17"and smaller Investigation Fee $90.00 per hour(average cost) 1/1/2014 (minimum charge: one-half hoar) Phased Occupancy $200.00 6/27/2000 Permit or Plan Review Extension $90.00 Temporary Occupancy $90.00 Other Inspections&Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours 10/1/2009 (minimum charge-2 hours) $90.00 per hour 2 Reinspection fees $90.00 per hour 10/1/2009 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically 10/1/2009 indicated(minimum charge:one-half hour) $90.00 per hour 4. Additional plan review required by changes, 10/1/2009 additions or revisions to plans(minimum charge:one-half hour) $90.00 per hour Note: A 12%suirharge fee as mandated by the State Building Codes Division is applied to all permit fees,investigation fees and inspection fees lifted above. Page 18 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective D4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING Accessory Residential Units $21314 $253.00 7/1/2017 Annexation $3,353 $3,390.00 7/1/2017 Appeal Director's Decision(Type II)to Hearings Officer $250 $250.00 7/1/2011 Expedited Review(Deposit) $300 $300.00 7/1/2016 Hearings Referee $649 $616.00 7/1/2017 Planning Commission/Hearing's Officer to City Council $3,372 $3,409.00 7/1/2017 Approval Extension $357 $361.00 7/1/2017 Colocation(of Wireless Communication Facilities) 7/1/2013 Conditional Use Initial $6,676 $6,749.00 7/1/2017 Major Modification $6,676 $6,749.00 7/1/2017 Minor Modification $731 $739.00 7/1/2017 Design Evaluation Team(DET) Recommendation(deposit) $4464 $1,884.00 7/1/2017 Development Code Provision Review Single-Family Building Plan $90 $91.00 7/1/2017 New/Additions/Accessory(including,but not limited to,garages,carports,porches,patios,decks, storage sheds,awnings,steps and ramps) Commercial/Industrial/Institution-New $357 $361.00 7/1/2017 Commercial/Industrial/Institution— Tenant ommercial/Industrial/Institution— Tenant Improvements in Existing Development Project Valuation up to$4,999 Project Valuation$5,000-$74,999 $99 $91.00 7/1/2017 Project Valuation$75,000-$149,999 $224 $226.00 7/1/2017 Project Valuation$150,000 and more $37 $361.00 7/1/2017 Page 19 Department Revenue Source AMIE X Mlik Fee or Charge& MIL Effective Date Downtown Review Downtown Review Compliance Letter $123 $124.00 7/1/2017 Downtown Design Administrative Review Under$1,000,000.00 $1,708 +0.004 x project valuation $1,727.00 7/1/2017 $1,000,000.00 and over(max fee$25,000.00) $6,586 +0.002 x project valuation $6,659.00 7/1/2017 Downtown Design Review-Design Review Board $3,166 +applicable Type II fee $3,504.00 7/1/2017 Hearing Postponement $406 $411.00 7/1/2017 Historic Overlay/Review District Historic Overlay Designation $5,219 $5,277.00 7/1/2017 Removal Historic Overlay Designation 8-5724-9 $5,277.00 7/1/2017 Exterior Alteration in Historic Overlay District $783 $791.00 7/1/2017 New Construction in Historic Overlay District $783 $791.00 7/1/2017 Demolition in Historic Overlay District $7.-83 $791.00 7/1/2017 Home Occupation Permit Type I $123 $125.00 7/1/2017 Type II $300 $303.00 7/1/2017 Interpretation of the Community Development Code Director's Interpretation $731 $739.00 7/1/2017 Appeal to City Council $3,372 $3,409.00 7/1/2017 Land Partition Residential and Non-Residential(3 Lots) $1,830 $4,884.00 7/1/2017 Residential and Non-Residential(2 Lots) $1,017 $4,061.00 7/1/2017 Expedited $5637 $5,699.00 7/1/2017 Final Plat $1,122 $1,134.00 7/1/2017 Lot Line Adjustment $731 $739.00 7/1/2017 Marijuana Facility Permit $744 $721.00 7/1/2017 Minor Modification to an Approved Plan $731 $739.00 7/1/2017 Non-Conforming Use Confirmation $731 $739.00 7/1/2017 Planned Development Conceptual Plan Review $9,286..00 $9,388.00 7/1/2017 Detailed Plan Review(Concurrent Hearing) Applicable SDR Fee plus$93.00 per lot 7/1/2016 Detailed Plan Review(Separate Hearing) Applicable SDR Fee plus$93.00 per lot 7/1/2016 Page 20 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective D> Pre-Application Conference Type III or IV $7-1-8 $726.00 7/1/2017 Type I or Type II 13(40 $303.00 7/1/2017 Sensitive Lands Review With Excessive Slopes/Within Drainage Ways/ $731 $739.00 7/1/2017 Within 100-Year Floodplain(Type I) With Excessive Slopes/Within Drainage Ways/ $3,207 $3,242.00 7/1/2017 Within Wetlands(Type II) With Excessive Slopes/Within Drainage Ways/ $3, 64 $3,502.00 7/1/2017 Within Wetlands/Within the 100-Year Floodplain(Type III) Sign Permit Existing and Modification to an Existing Sign (No Size Differential) $201 $203.00 7/1/2017 Temporary Sign(Per Sign) $63 $64.00 7/1/2017 Site Development Review& Major Modification Under$1,000000.00 $56664 $5,726.00 7/1/2017 $1,000,000.00/Over $7,358 $7,439.00 7/1/2017 (+$6.00/per each$10,000.00 over$1,000,000.00) Minor Modification $300 $303.00 7/1/2017 Subdivision Preliminary Plat $87890 plus$93.00 per lot 58,988.00 7/1/2017 Expedited Preliminary Plat $7,197 plus$93.00 per lot $7,579.00 7/1/2017 Final Plat $2,261 $2,286.00 7/1/2017 Plat Name Change $4448 $413.00 7/1/2017 Temporary Use Director's Decision $357 $361.00 7/1/2017 Special Exemption/Non-Profit Special Mixed Use-Central Business District Zone Rate 1st Temporary Use in a Calendar Year $357 $361.00 7/1/2017 2nd Through 5th Temporary Use With Substantially the Same Site Plan Within A Calendar Year $63 $64.00 7/1/2017 Page 21 Department Revenue Source IIMML Fee or Charge 11111M.L. Effective Date Urban Forestry Type I Modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component of an Approved Land Use Permit $?0 $711.00 7/1/2017 Type III Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Permit with concurrent Type III review $110 $445.00 7/1/2017 Type III Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Permit without concurrent Type III review $2,712 $2,742.00 7/1/2017 Variance/Adjustment Administrative Variance $783 $791.00 7/1/2017 Development Adjustment $35-7 $361.00 7/1/2017 Special Adjustments Adjustment to a Subdivision $357 $361.00 7/1/2017 Reduction of Minimum Residential Density $ 7 $361.00 7/1/2017 Access/Egress Standards Adjustment $-83 $791.00 7/1/2017 Parking Adjustments Reduction in Minimum or Increase In Maximum Parking Ratio $783 $791.00 7/1/2017 Reduction in New or Existing Development/Transit Imprvmnt $783 $791.00 7/1/2017 Reduction in Bicycle Parking $783 $791.00 7/1/2017 Alternative Parking Garage Layout $783 $791.00 7/1/2017 Reduction in Stacking Lane Length $357 $361.00 7/1/2017 Sign Code Adjustment $783 $791.00 7/1/2017 Street Improvement Adjustment $783 $791.00 7/1/2017 Wireless Communication Facility Adjustments Setback from Nearby Residence $783 $791.00 7/1/2017 Distance from Another Tower $357 $361.00 7/1/2017 Zoning Map/Text Amendment Legislative-Comprehensive Plan $11,211 $11,335.00 7/1/2017 Legislative-Community Development Code $1,577 $4,627.00 7/1/2017 Quasi Judicial $1,218 $4,264.00 7/1/2017 Zoning Analysis (Detailed) $731 $739.00 7/1/2017 Zoning Inquiry Letter(Simple) $16-7 $108.00 7/1/2017 Page 22 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective Date COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT- MISCELLANEOUS FEES&CHARGES Plan Copies $2.50 7/1/2007 Community Development Code CD Rom $10.00 Tigard Comprehensive Plan $75.00 7/1/2011 GIS Maps* 8-1/2"x 11" Non Aerial $2.50 7/1/2011 Aerial $4.00 7/1/2011 11"x 17" Non Aerial $5.00 7/1/2011 Aerial $7.00 7/1/2011 17"x 22" Non Aerial $11.00 7/1/2011 Aerial $15.00 7/1/2011 34"x 44" Non Aerial $25.00 7/1/2011 Aerial $30.00 7/1/2011 Custom Maps Staff Hourly Rate Information Processing&Archiving(IPA) Fee Temporary Sign $5.00 7/1/2010 Type I Review $18.00 7/1/2010 Type II Review $175.00 7/1/2010 Type III Review $200.00 7/1/2010 Type IV Review $200.00 7/1/2010 Neighborhood Meeting Signs(Land Use) $2.00 1997 Oversize Load Permit $200.00 7/1/2005 Planimetric Maps Blueline print-quarter section $5.00 Mylar-quarter section $150.00 /+reproduction cost Retrieval of Materials Confiscated in ROW Lawn and A-board signs $40.00 /sign 7/1/2010 Other signs and materials(based on size and value) City Manager's Discretion(per TMC 7.61.035 Ord 10-06) 7/1/2010 Page 23 Department Revenue Source 111111t, Fee or Charge AM_ Effective Da4 Tigard Transportation System Plan $75.00 7/1/2011 Washington Square Regional Center 1999 Task Force Recommendations $10.00 Master Plan Map(Zoning/Plan) $2.50 Per Ord 03-59,fee is adjusted yearly based on the Construction Cost Index for the City of Seaitk as published in the April issue of Engineering News Record Page 24 Department Revenue Source It Fee or Charge IME Effective Date COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-MISCELLANEOUS DEVELOPMENT Blasting Permit* $388 $384.00 Fee in Lieu of Sewer Based on actual cost of sewer connection, 0P>8 if sewer was available (MU-CBD zone only) the current Washington County Assessor-determined real market value of the land(not improvements)by 10%. Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee $5,380 /dwelling unit $5,500.00 -7/1/2017 (This fee is determined by Clean Water Services. The City of Tigard receives 3.99%of fees collected.) Water Quality Facility Fee(Fee set by Clean Water Services)*** 7/1/2017 (City receives 100%of fees collected) Residential Single Family S225 /unit $238.50 Commercial&Multi-family S'__5 /2,640 sq.ft of additional $238.50 impervious surface Water Quantity Facility Fee(Fee set by Clean Water Services)*** 7/1/2017 (City receives 100%of fees collected) Residential Single Family $27 /unit $291.50 Commercial&Multi-family $275 /2,640 sq.ft of additional $291.50 impervious surface Metro Construction Excise Tax 12%of building permits for projects 7/1/2006 (City will retain 5%for administrative expenses) with a total valuation of$100,001 or more; (Tax set by Metro,but collected by cities) not to exceed$12,000. School District Construction Excise Tax (City will retain 4°/o for administrative expenses) (Tax set by school districts based on ORS 320.170-189 and collected by cities) Beaverton School District S1.23 /sq.ft residential construction $1.26 7/1/2017 844764- /sq.ft.non-residential construction $0.63 7/1/2017 8344;7007W Non-residential maximum per building permit or $31,400.00 7/1/2017 per structure,whichever is less Tigard-Tualatin School District $4-29 /sq.ft.residential construction $1.23 7/1/2017 $9.68 /sq.ft non-residential construction $0.61 7/1/2017 $29,900:00 Non-residential maximum per building permit or $30,700.00 7/1/2017 per structure,whichever is less Page 25 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge AL Effective Date COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-MISCELLANEOUS DEVELOPMENT Urban Forestry* Hazard Tree Dispute Resolution Fee $172 +$55.00 each additional tree $174.00 7/1/2017 In Lieu of Planting Fees(Planting&3 Year Maintenance) Street Tree $569 per 1.5"caliper tree $566.00 7/1/2017 Open Grown Tree $369 per 1.5"caliper tree S566.00 7/1/2017 Stand Grown Tree 8.544 per tree 2'in height or 1 gallon container S403.00 7/1/2017 Tree Permit Fees(Complex) City Board or Committee $307 $310.00 7/1/2017 City Manager Tree Canopy Fee $2.95 per square foot of tree canopy 3/1/2013 Urban Forest Inventory Fees Open Grown Tree $4-54 +$28.00 each additional tree $156.00 7/1/2017 Stand of Trees $,294 +$44.00 each additional stand S206.00 7/1/2017 Tree Establishment Bond(Planting&Early Establishment) 1.5"Caliper Minimum Street or Open Grown Tree in Subdivisions or Minor Land Partitions $549 per tree $516.00 7/1/2017 1.5"Caliper Minimum Street or Open Grown Tree in Land Use Review Types other than Subdivisions or Minor Land Partitions $469 per tree $465.00 7/1/2017 2'in Height or 1 Gallon Container Minimum Stand Grown Tree in Subdivisions or Minor Land Partitions $383 per tree $387.00 7/1/2017 2'in Height or 1 Gallon Container Minimum Stand Grown Tree in Land Use Review Types other than Subdivisions or Minor Land Partitions $365 per tree S369.00 7/1/2017 Vacation(Streets and Public Access)* $2,705 /deposit+actual costs $2,735.00 7/1/2017 *Per Ord 03-59,fee is adjusted yearly based on the Construction Cost Index•for the City of Seattle as published in the April issue of Engineering News Remed. **1$307099 $310.00 per tree up to and including 10 trees.If over 10 trees,the applicant submits a deposit of$44;310.00 for each tree over 10 trees up to a maximum of$5000.00.The applicant is charged actual staff to process the permit and will be refunded the balance of the deposit if any remains after the review is compkte *** Thisfee is determined by Clean Water Services. Page 26 Authori Effective Date PUBLIC WORKS-DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING Addressing Assignment Fee $50.00 Res.99-08 10/29/2003 Erosion Control Inspection Fee With Development Construction Cost Estimate$0-$25,000 $80.70 IGA w/Clean Water Service 7/1/2014 Construction Cost Estimate$25,001-$50,000 S107.60 7/1/2014 Construction Cost Estimate$50,001-$100,000 $161.40 7/1/2014 Construction Cost Estimate over$100,000 $161.40 plus$75 per$100,000 or fraction thereof 7/1/2014 exceeding the first$100,000 Without Development 0-0.99acres S322.80 7/1/2014 lacre of greater $322.80 plus$150 per acre or fraction thereof 7/1/2014 Reinspection Fee $96.84 per hour with a minimum of 1 hour 7/1/2014 Plan Check included in inspection fee 7/1/2014 Plan Resubmittal Review $96.84 per hour with a minimum of 1/2 hour 7/1/2014 Fee In Lieu Of Bicycle Striping 8-inch white stripe $2.69 /linear foot of frontage 7/1/2014 Bike lane legends $188.30 /each 7/1/2014 Directional mini-arrows $107.60 /each 7/1/2014 Mono-directional reflective markers $4.30 /each 7/1/2014 Fee In Lieu Of Undergrounding $35.00 /lineal feet of frontage CDC 18.180.120 10/29/2003 Public Facility Improvement Permit 2%plan review plus 7/1/2009 5%of estimated cost of public improvement with a 7/1/2005 $300 minimum Reimbursement District Application Fee $300.00 1/27/1998 Reimbursement District Fee Not to Exceed$6,000.00 unless reimbursement fee exceeds$15,000.00. Res.98-03 7/1/2001 Any amount over$15,000.00 shall be reimbursed by the owner;$6,000.00 limit valid for only 3 years from Council approval of district cost. Streetlight Energy&Maintenance Fee Based upon PGE Schedule#95 Option"A"for the first two years costs PGE 2000 Traffic/Pedestrian Signs Cost of materials and labor Dept.Policy 2/7/2002 with Council Direction Page 27 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge 1.111111r W-Effeelliba34 PUBLIC WORKS-UTILITIES Booster Pump Charge Meter Size(diameter inches) 5/8 x 3/4 51.86 1/1/2014 $5.15 /monthly 1/1/2015 3/4 x3/4 47-00 741tortfitly 1/1/2014 $7.42 /monthly 1/1/2015 1 $1295 r hly 1/1/2014 $13.72 /monthly 1/1/2015 1.5 $38.83 /monthly 1/1/2011 $41.16 /monthly 1/1/2015 2 6634A4 I-monthly 1/1/2014 $66.82 /monthly 1/1/2015 3 $111.16 /monthly 1/1/2014- $117.83 /1/2014$117.83 /monthly 1/1/2015 4 c„ 974iftedtthly 1/1/2011. $241.65 /monthly 1/1/2015 6 $212.67 ,'mond* 1/1/2011 $257.23 /monthly 1/1/2015 8 5388.27 7Lnifmithly 1/1/2014 $411.57 /monthly 1/1/2015 10 $758.59 4ritenthly 1/1/2014 $804.11 /monthly 1/1/2015 12 $1,092.36 1/1/2014 $1,157.91 /monthly 1/1/2015 Page 28 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective Date Customer Charge (Basic fee charged to customers to have the City deliver water.) Meter Size(diameter inches) 5/8 x 3/4 $26.67 /monthly 4-471-204-6 $27.54 /monthly 1/1/2017 $28.44 /monthly 1/1/2018 $29.36 /monthly 1/1/2019 3/4 x 3/4 S38.12 1/1/2016 $39.67 /monthly 1/1/2017 $40.96 /monthly 1/1/2018 $42.29 /monthly 1/1/2019 1 $59.81 74yreprithly 1/1/2016 $61.78 /monthly 1/1/2017 $63.79 /monthly 1/1/2018 $65.86 /monthly 1/1/2019 1.5 $158.02 1/1/2016 $163.16 /monthly 1/1/2017 $168.46 /monthly 1/1/2018 $173.93 /monthly 1/1/2019 2 $256.39 1/1/2016 $264.72 /monthly 1/1/2017 $273.32 /monthly 1/1/2018 $282.20 /monthly 1/1/2019 Page 29 41,1 Effective Da 3 $504-66 /monthly 1/1/2016 $521.06 /monthly 1/1/2017 $537.99 /monthly 1/1/2018 $555.47 /monthly 1/1/2019 4 X69 7Lrnenthlr 1/1/2016 $989.75 /monthly 1/1/2017 $1,021.92 /monthly 1/1/2018 $1,055.13 /monthly 1/1/2019 6 S1,074.83nthly 1/1/2016 $1,109.76 /monthly 1/1/2017 $1,145.83 /monthly 1/1/2018 $1,183.07 /monthly 1/1/2019 8 $1,678.68 ntkly -1444-2E46 $1,733.24 /monthly 1/1/2017 $1,789.57 /monthly 1/1/2018 $1,847.73 /monthly 1/1/2019 10 53,097.58 y monthly 1/1/2016 $3,198.25 /monthly 1/1/2017 $3,302.19 /monthly 1/1/2018 $3,409.51 /monthly 1/1/2019 12 S1,382.87 ifiteethly= 1/1/2016 $4,525.31 /monthly 1/1/2017 $4,672.38 /monthly 1/1/2018 $4,824.23 /monthly 1/1/2019 Final Notification Process Fee $10.00 /per instance 10/19/2016 Page 30 Department Revenue Source Y Fee or Charge Effective Date Fire Hydrant Flow Test S375.00 /test 7/1/2016 Fire Hydrant Usage-Temporary 3"hydrant meter deposit* $650.00 9/1/2002 *Deposit is refundable if returned in good condition Hook-up service $50.00 2/27/2001 Continued use $50.00 /month 2/27/2001 Consumption Current irrigation water usage rate 9/1/2002 per 100 cubic feet of water used Fire Rates(Sprinklers) 6"or smaller 413.49 /month $18.69 7/1/2016 8"or larger S21.16 /month . $24.73 7/1/2016 Fire Service Connection 51,195.29 /+ 12%fee based $1,511.74 7/1/2015 on construction costs. Meter Disconnection Actual labor and material costs+ 10% 9/1/2002 Meter Installation Fees 5/8"x 3/4"Meter $356.00 S392.00 7/1/2016 3/4"x 3/4"Meter $407.00 $448.00 7/1/2016 1"Meter $560.00 $616.00 7/1/2016 1 1/2"Meter $8655.00 $952.00 7/1/2016 2"Meter X420,00 $1,232.00 7/1/2016 3"or more Meter Actual labor&materials+ 10% 9/1/2011 Meter Out-of-Order Test Meter calibration cost+actual labor 9/1/2002 and material costs+ 10% Sanitary Sewer Service (Fee set by Clean Water Services) (City receives 20%of fees collected) Base Charge $27.45 /dwelling unit/month 7/1/2016 Use Charge $1.82 /100 cubic feet/month for 7/1/2016 individual customer winter average Tigard Sewer Surcharge $2.07 /dwelling unit/month 10/1/2016 Service Installation Fees Single Trench-Single Residential Service $3,695.00 includes labor&materials 7/1/2016 1 1/2"Meter and greater Actual labor and material costs+10% 10/1/2011 Page 31 Department Revenue Source j11111111.1 Fee or Charge 11.11c Effective Date Storm and Surface Water(Fee set by Clean Water Services) (City retains 75%of Service Charge fees collected) (City retains 100%of its Surcharge fees collected) Service Charge $7.75 /ESU/month 7/1/2016 Tigard Stormwater Surcharge $2.00 /ESU/month 7/1/2009 Water Bacteriological Quality Testing Cost per test $65.00 7/1/2016 Water Disconnection Charge for Non-payment During business hours $50.00 2/27/2001 Water Line Construction-New Development 12%of Actual Cost 2/27/2001 Water Main Extension Designed and installed by others 12%of Actual Cost 9/1/2002 Water Usage Charges Residential 53.15 1/1/2016 Tier 2 sab4/4 1/1/201G Tier 3 &5774 1400 cubic fe_t o fwat__ 1/1/201G Tier 1 $3.56 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2017 Tier 2 $5.20 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2017 Tier 3 $5.95 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2017 Tier 1 $3.68 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2018 Tier 2 $5.37 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2018 Tier 3 $6.14 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2018 Tier 1 $3.80 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2019 Tier 2 55.54 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2019 Tier 3 $6.34 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2019 Multi-Family Ticr 1 S2.87 '+90 cubi_fcct of___ater 1/1/2016 Ticr 2 S44 1/1/2016 Tier 3 $4786 1/1/2016 Tier 1 $2.96 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2017 Tier 2 $4.33 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2017 Tier 3 $4.96 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2017 Page 32 Department Revenue Source AL Fee or Charge Effective Date Tier 1 $3.06 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2018 Tier 2 $4.47 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2018 Tier 3 $5.12 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2018 Tier 1 $3.16 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2019 Tier 2 $4.62 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2019 Tier 3 $5.29 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2019 Commercial Ticr 1 $3.92 100___b1_feet oc____.__ 1/1/2016 Tier 2 $5.72 /100 cubic feet- fwatcr 41420+6 Ticr 3 $6.54 100 cubic c_ct oc___t__ 1/1/2016 Tier 1 $4.05 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2017 Tier 2 $5.91 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2017 Tier 3 $6.75 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2017 Tier 1 $4.18 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2018 Tier 2 $6.10 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2018 Tier 3 $6.97 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2018 Tier 1 $4.32 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2019 Tier 2 $6.30 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2019 Tier 3 $7.20 /100 cubic feet of water 1/1/2019 Industrial Uniform Rate $5.16 /monthly 1/1/2016 $5.64 /monthly 1/1/2017 $5.82 /monthly 1/1/2018 $6.01 /monthly 1/1/2019 Irrigation Uniform Rate S7.75 /monthly 44442044 $8.00 /monthly 1/1/2017 $8.26 /monthly 1/1/2018 $8.53 /monthly 1/1/2019 Page 33 Fee or Char_a ,r Effective Date Tiered Rate Structure Thresholds(100 cubic feet of water) Meter Size 5/8 x 3/4 Tier 1 6 ccf Tier 2 15 ccf Tier 3 over 15 ccf 3/4 x 3/4 Tier 1 9 ccf Tier 2 22 ccf Tier 3 over 22 ccf 1 Tier 1 16 ccf Tier 2 40 ccf Tier 3 over 40 ccf 1.5 Tier 1 48 ccf Tier 2 120 ccf Tier 3 over 120 ccf 2 Tier 1 78 ccf Tier 2 195 ccf Tier 3 over 195 ccf 3 Tier 1 137 ccf Tier 2 344 ccf Tier 3 over 344 ccf 4 Tier 1 282 ccf Tier 2 705 ccf Tier 3 over 705 ccf 6 Tier 1 300 ccf Tier 2 750 ccf Tier 3 over 750 ccf 8 Tier 1 480 ccf Tier 2 1,200 ccf Tier 3 over 1,200 ccf 10 Tier 1 938 ccf Tier 2 2,345 ccf Tier 3 over 2,345 ccf 12 Tier 1 1,350 ccf Tier 2 3,376 ccf Tier 3 over 3,376 ccf Page 34 Department Revenue Source IIIMEM., Fee or Charge MIK IL Effective Dal Street Maintenance Fee(TMC 15.20) Monthly Residential Rate-Single and Multi-Family $5.30 /unit 7/1/2016 Monthly Non-Residential Rate $1.86 /per min required parking space 7/1/2016 Monthly Residential Rate-Single and Multi-Family $6.56 /unit 1/1/2017 Monthly Non-Residential Rate $2.15 /per min required parking space 1/1/2017 Staff Review No Charge City Council Written Appeal Filing Fee $300.00 Tigard Transportation Utility Fee(River Terrace) $5.00 /month 10/1/2016 Meter Maintenance Fee (TMC 12.01) $30.00 per required service 10/19/2016 Page 35 PUBLIC WORKS-PARKS&RECREATION Community Garden Plot Rental Large $40.00 /year 7/1/2010 Small $20.00 /year 7/1/2010 Park Reservation Fees Application Fee Resident $25.00 /per event 7/1/2010 Non-Resident $50.00 /per event 7/1/2010 Rental Change Fee $15.00 /per event 7/1/2011 Organized Group Event Processing Fee $50.00 /per event 7/1/2012 Event Monitor $15.00 /hour 7/1/2012 Special Use/Alcohol Permit Fee $25.00 /per event 7/1/2010 (Fee assessed at time of reserrutien) Special Event Permit Fee(First 3 hours) $75.00 0 to 100 people 7/1/2013 $175.00 101 to 200 people 7/1/2013 $275.00 201 to 500 people 7/1/2013 $475.00 501 to 2000 people 7/1/2013 $1,000.00 2001 and more 7/1/2013 (Each Additional Hour) $25.00 0 to 100 people 7/1/2013 $55.00 101 to 200 people 7/1/2013 $90.00 201 to 500 people 7/1/2013 $155.00 501 to 2000 people 7/1/2013 $330.00 2001 and more 7/1/2013 Shelter Rental Fees(2 hour minimum) Shelter#2 • Resident $35.00 /hour 7/1/2012 Non-Resident $70.00 /hour 7/1/2012 Shelter#1,#3,#4,Bishop/Scheclda Pavilion,&Summerlake Resident $25.00 /hour 7/1/2012 Non-Resident $50.00 /hour 7/1/2012 Soccer/Ball Field Rental Fee(2 hour minimum) Resident $10.00 /hour 7/1/2010 Non-Resident $20.00 /hour 7/1/2010 Refundable Security/Cleaning Deposit May be required for some events to mitigate Not to exceed$400 7/1/2010 possible cleanup and/or damages. Page 36 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge AuthogillL Effective Date PUBLIC WORKS-PARKS Parks & Recreation Fee(TMC 3.70) Monthly Residential Rate-Single and Multi-Family 5 4/1/2016 $3.91 /equivalent dwelling unit 7/1/2017 Monthly Non-Residential Rate $3.75 - • - .-.. - -• - 4/1/2016 $3.91 /equivalent dwelling unit I&3 7/1/2017 Reduction for Qualified Low Income Single Family 50% 4/1/2016 Notes: 1 Commercial EDU Calculation(rounded to nearest whole EDU): (Billed Parking Stalls from Street Maintenance Fee*0.76 Jobs Per Stall)/15 EDU Factor =EDUs 2 Industrial EDU Calculation(rounded to nearest whole EDU): (Billed Parking Stalls from Street Maintenance Fee* 1.19 Jobs Per Stall)/15 EDU Factor =EDUs Calculation of the annual Park Maintenance Fee Index(from FCS Group report"Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee: Report to Council for January 12,2016 Public Hearing" Cost Center Annual Rate Weight Personnel 4.80% 0.60 Services/Utilities 3.00% 0.25 Materials/Internal Services 4.20% 0.15 Annual Index(Weighted Average) 4.26% TMC 3.75.050.D authorizes the establishment of a program to reduce the Park Maintenance Fee for low income individuals responsible for paying the utility bill. The reduction will last for 12 billing cycles after which the fee reduction will end or the responsible party can reapply To Qualify for the reduction,the responsible party: 1 Must be the individual(s)on the utility bill 2 Provide documented proof of income such as most recent tax statement or W-2. 3 Have an income at,or below,50%of the Median Income for Oregon as set by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). Page 37 Revenue Source Effective Date Solid Waste Collection Rates Residential Cart Collections Recycling only (carts&yard debris cart) $13.58 1/1/2017 $13.87 1/1/2018 (recycling cart only) $7.28 1/1/2017 $7.43 1/1/2018 (yard debris only) $6.30 1/1/2017 $6.43 1/1/2018 Mini cart(20 gal)with yard debris $21.83 1/1/2017 $22.29 1/1/2018 without yard debris $19.39 1/1/2017 $19.80 1/1/2018 Cart(32 gal)with yard debris $24.87 1/1/2017 $25.39 1/1/2018 without yard debris $22.32 1/1/2017 $22.79 1/1/2018 Cart(60 gal)with yard debris $36.98 1/1/2017 $37.76 1/1/2018 Cart(90 gal)with yard debris $44.15 1/1/2017 $45.08 1/1/2018 On-call service(mixed waste,recycling cart and yard debris $12.43 1/1/2017 $12.69 1/1/2018 Commercial Cart Collections 20 gallon $21.83 1/1/2017 $22.29 1/1/2018 32 gallon $24.87 1/1/2017 525.39 1/1/2018 60 gallon $36.98 1/1/2017 $37.76 1/1/2018 90 gallon $44.15 1/1/2017 $45.08 1/1/2018 Weekly Collection Frequency Every other Week One Two Three Four Five One yard $66.44 $108.54 $202.95 $293.69 $384.44 $475.42 1/1/2017 $67.84 $110.82 $207.21 $299.86 $392.51 $485.40 1/1/2018 Each additional $71.19 $137.32 $203.30 $269.30 $335.44 1/1/2017 $72.68 $140.20 $207.57 $274.96 $342.48 1/1/2018 One and 1/2 yards $78.18 $139.39 $257.26 $375.03 $492.81 $610.70 1/1/2017 $79.82 $142.32 $262.66 $382.91 $503.16 $623.52 1/1/2018 Each additionalPage 3t98.59 $191.63 $284.66 $377.66 $470.72 1/1/2017 $100.66 $195.65 $290.64 $385.59 $480.61 1/1/2018 Two yards $91.64 $166.84 $311.64 $456.43 $601.20 $745.98 1/1/2017 $93.56 $170.34 $318.18 $466.02 $613.83 $761.65 Each additional $126.05 $246.02 $366.04 $486.06 $606.01 1/1/2017 $128.70 $251.19 $373.73 $496.27 $618.74 1/1/2018 Three yards $118.65 $221.56 $420.37 $619.08 $817.82 $1,016.64 1/1/2017 $121.14 $226.21 $429.20 $632.08 $834.99 $1,037.99 1/1/2018 Each additional $180.76 $354.74 $528.70 $702.67 $876.66 1/1/2017 $184.56 $362.19 $539.80 $717.43 $895.07 1/1/2018 Four yards $145.68 $276.30 $529.17 $781.80 $1,034.44 $1,290.81 1/1/2017 $148.74 $282.10 $540.28 $798.22 $1,056.16 $1,317.92 1/1/2018 Each additional $236.10 $463.54 $691.41 $919.31 $1,147.33 1/1/2017 $241.06 $473.27 $705.93 $938.62 $1,171.42 1/1/2018 Five yards $172.57 $331.09 $637.77 $944.45 $1,251.13 $1,557.82 1/1/2017 $176.19 $338.04 $651.16 $964.28 $1,277.40 $1,590.53 1/1/2018 Each additional $290.30 $572.17 $854.06 $1,135.98 $1,417.84 1/1/2017 $296.40 $584.19 $872.00 $1,159.84 $1,447.61 1/1/2018 Six yards $199.61 $385.55 $746.28 $1,106.88 $1,467.48 $1,828.19 1/1/2017 $203.80 $393.65 $761.95 $1,130.12 $1,498.30 $1,866.58 1/1/2018 Each additional $344.77 $680.65 $1,016.47 $1,352.33 $1,688.23 1/1/2017 $352.01 $694.94 $1,037.82 $1,380.73 $1,723.68 1/1/2018 Eight yards $253.53 $496.02 $964.58 $1,433.17 $1,901.72 $2,370.31 1/1/2017 $258.85 $506.44 $984.84 $1,463.27 $1,941.66 $2,420.09 1/1/2018 Each additional $455.24 $898.97 $1,342.78 $1,786.58 $2,230.32 1/1/2017 $464.80 $917.85 $1,370.98 $1,824.10 $2,277.16 1/1/2018 1 yard compacted $244.22 $456.65 $660.82 $863.92 $1,069.72 1/1/2017 $249.35 $466.24 $674.70 $882.06 $1,092.18 1/1/2018 2 yard compacted $375.40 $701.17 $1,026.97 $1,352.73 $1,678.50 1/1/2017 $383.28 $715.89 $1,048.54 $1,381.14 $1,713.75 1/1/2018 3 yard compacted $498.51 $945.82 $1,392.87 $1,840.04 $2,287.38 1/1/2017 $508.98 $965.68 $1,422.12 $1,878.68 $2,335.41 1/1/2018 4 yard compacted $621.68 $1,190.63 $1,759.06 $2,327.48 $2,904.29 1/1/2017 $634.74 $1,215.63 $1,796.00 $2,376.36 $2,965.28 1/1/2018 Page 39 Revenue Source Effective Date Drop Box Collections 10 Cubic Yard Container $145.53 1/1/2017 $ 148.59 1/1/2018 20 Cubic Yard Container $145.53 1/1/2017 $ 148.59 1/1/2018 30 Cubic Yard Container $145.53 1/1/2017 $ 148.59 1/1/2018 40 Cubic Yard Container $145.53 1/1/2017 $ 148.59 1/1/2018 All Compactors $152.05 1/1/2017 $ 155.24 1/1/2018 Delivery $73.85 1/1/2017 $ 75.40 1/1/2018 Demurrage 20 Cubic Yard Container $5.43 10/20 Yard Box after 48 hours 1/1/2017 $5.54 1/1/2018 30 Cubic Yard Container $7.17 30 Yard Box after 48 hours 1/1/2017 $7.32 1/1/2018 40 Cubic Yard Container $7.17 40 Yard Box after 48 hours 1/1/2017 $7.32 1/1/2018 All Compactors $8.69 Drop Box with Lid 1/1/2017 Delivery $8.87 1/1/2018 Service Fee plus actual disposal cost and franchise fee Medical Waste Collections On-Site Pick-up Charge $30.96 Rate is the on-site collection 1/1/2017 $31.61 1/1/2018 Disposal Cost per 17 to 31 gallon unit $22.07 charge plus the disposal cost per 1/1/2017 $22.53 1/1/2018 Disposal Cost per 43 gallon unit $26.74 medical container unit 1/1/2017 $27.30 1/1/2018 Miscellaneous Service Rates Extra mixed waste per cart-overload fee(based on 32 gallon capacity) $4.34 /occurrence 1/1/2017 $4.43 1/1/2018 Extra yard debris(manual up to 32 gallon) $3.26 /occurrence 1/1/2017 $3.33 1/1/2018 Additional yard debris service(second 60 gallon cart) $3.81 /occurrence 1/1/2017 $3.89 1/1/2018 Call back/return for pick up of inaccessible cart per service call $13.03 /occurrence 1/1/2017 $13.30 1/1/2018 Yard service rate-extra distance away from curb after first 5 feet $4.34 /occurrence 1/1/2017 $4.43 1/1/2018 Special service fees $78.20 /occurrence 1/1/2017 q$p79.84 1/1/2018 Account reinstatement fee Page 130.00 /occurrence 7/1/2014 Fee or Charge X 4Effective Date NSF check fee $35.00 /occurrence - `1 2014 Tire disposal Hourly Rate+disposal fee Solid Waste Compactor Permit $100.00 Page 41 Department Revenue Source 1.111Er 111 Fee or Charge Effective Date COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING Park System Development Charge(SDC)* Single Family Detached Dwelling-Reimbursement $1,207.00 7/1/2016 $ 1,351.00 7/1/2017 Single Family Detached Dwelling-Improvement $473-56,00 $ 4,877.00 7/1/2017 Single Family Detached Dwelling-Improvement for Neighborhood Parks Outside River Terrace $ 600 7/1/2016 $ 1,808.00 7/1/2017 Inside River Terrace $2,0033.00 7/1/2016 $ 2,242.00 7/1/2017 Multi-Family Detached Dwelling-Reimbursement $772.00 7/1/2016 $ 864.00 7/1/2017 Multi-Family Detached Dwelling-Improvement $3,280.00 7/1/2016 $ 3,672.00 7/1/2017 Multi-Family Detached Dwelling-Improvement for Neighborhood Parks Outside River Terrace S47246,007/1/2016 $ 1,361.00 7/1/2017 Inside River Terrace S47547,00,507.00 7/1/2016 $ 1,687.00 7/1/2017 Non-Residential(Per Employee)-Reimbursement $68.90 744-71-2444.6 $ 76.00 7/1/2017 Non-Residential(Per Employee)-Improvement S3776..00 7/1/2016 $ 421.00 7/1/2017 *See methodology report used to calculate the charges. The Park System Development Charge(Park SDC)is a City of Tigard charge that is assessed on new development to support the acquisition and development of parks,greenways,and paved trails,all of which are used by residents of Tigard and by those who work here. The Park SDC is a one-time fee charged to new development to help pay a portion of the costs associated with building additional parks and trails to meet the needs created by both residential and commercial/industrial growth. The SDC revenues can only be used on capacity-increasing capital improvements and cannot be used to repair existing park facilities. Park SDCs are assessed on new residential development on a per-unit basis and against commercial and industrial development on a per-employee basis. The amount of the charge for each land use category is adjusted each year,effective July 1st,in relation to two indices,one reflecting changes in development/construction costs and one reflecting changes in land acquisition costs. For more detailed and updated information on calculating Park SDC's see"Parks&Recreation System Development Charge Methodology Report,"by FCS Group,May 19,2015. Adopted by Ord. 15-09. Page 42 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective Date 1I ( 1 Effective Date PUBLIC WORKS-WATER Water System Development Charge(SDC)* 5/8"x 3/4"Meter S7,917 7/1/2016 $ 8,004 7/1/2017 3/4"x 3/4" Meter $11,102 7/1/2016 $ 11,527 7/1/2017 1"Meter 521,119 7/1/2016 S 21,352 7/1/2017 1 1/2"Meter $63,321 7/1/2016 $ 64,017 7/1/2017 2"Meter $102,821 7/1/2016 S 103,952 7/1/2017 3"Meter $181,319 7/1/2016 S 183,314 7/1/2017 4"Meter 5371,861 7/1/2016 $ 375,955 7/1/2017 6"Meter 1;395,817 7/1/2016 $ 400,202 7/1/2017 8"Meter S633,3✓F 7/1/2016 S 640,321 7/1/2017 Water ystem connections greater than 8 inch diameter,City will forecast the demands on an average-day,peak-day,and peak-hour basis to determine SDC fees. *As per ORS 223.304(8)Res. 10-76,the City will nse ENR Seattle CCI for the month of April prior to the budget year imposed. The ENR Seattle CCI for April 2017 is 1.1%based on a 12-month average. The multiplier 1.011 is used for all Water SDCs effective 7/1/2017. Page 44 Department (evenue Source IL Fee or Charge EffectaiDate COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING Residential Transportation System Development Charge(SDC)* Single Family Detached Dwelling-Reimbursement $317 $ 317 7/1/2017 Single Family Detached Dwelling-Improvement $5,488 $ 5,496 7/1/2017 Single Family Detached Dwelling-River Terrace Overlay** $2,684 $ 2,688 7/1/2017 Multi-Family Dwelling-Reimbursement $485 $ 185 7/1/2017 Multi-Family Dwelling-Improvement $3,201 $ 3,206 7/1/2017 Multi-Family Dwelling-River Terrace Overlay $ 566 $ 1,568 7/1/2017 *See Adopted Methodology Report used to calculate the charges. **Based on 50%Credit Policy for the "local" elements of River Terrace Blvd. For more detailed and updated information on calculating Transportation SDC's see"Transportation System Development Charge Methodology Report,"by FCS Group,April 28,2015. Transportation SDC Annual Adjustment 7/1/2015 Transportation SDC fees shall be adjusted annually on July 1st of each year beginning in 2016. The index to be used for adjusting transportation SDCs will based on the weighted average of the year over year escalation for two measurements:90 percent multiplied by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Seattle Area percent change plus 10 percent multiplied by the Oregon Department of Transportation monthly asphalt price(annualized)percent change. CCI = 1.10% Asphalt Index=-8.57% Page 45 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective Date COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEERING Countywide Transportation Development Tax(TDT)-(Example Land Uses and Charges*) Single Family Detached $8,278 /per unit $ 8,458 /per unit 7/1/2017 Apartment $5,115 /per unit $ 5,533 /per unit 7/1/2017 Residential Condominium/Townhouse $1,951 /per unit $ 5,059 /per unit 7/1/2017 General Office Building $ 8,876 (per TSFGFA**) 7/1/2017 Shopping Center $ 46 (per TSFCI._k**) $ 11,613 (per TSFGLA*'") 7/1/2017 The Countywide Transportation Development Tax(TDT)is a Washington County Tax approved by the voters in November, 2008,that is administered and collected by the City of Tigard. It went into effect on July 1,2009,replacing the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)program. Like TIF,TDT is assessed on new development to help provide funds for the increased capacity transportation improvements needed to accommodate the additional vehicle traffic and demand for transit facilities generated by that development. It provides funds for these capacity improvements to county and city arterials,certain collectors,and certain state and transit facilities as listed in the County's Capital Improvements Project List. The TDT is categorized as an Improvement Fee:revenue must be dedicated to capital improvements that expand capacity and may not be used for maintenance,repair,or other non-capital improvements. TDTs are assessed on new development on a per-unit basis. For residential uses the units are dwelling units,bedrooms,etc. For commercial and industrial uses the units are the square footage of the use or units unique to the use such as lanes,fueling positions,etc. For information about the TDT regarding a specific project contact the City's Permits/Projects Coordinator at(503)718-2426. * For more detailed information on calculating TDT charges and a detailed list of Land Uses and TDT charges through 6/30/2013 see Appendix B to Washington County Engrossed Ordinance 691,August 29,2008 and the Washington County Countywide Transportation Development Tax Manual. ** TSFGFA=thousand square feet gross floor area;TSFGLA=thousand square feet gross leasable area. Page 46 City of Tigard TI G A R D Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Public Works Director Brian Rager Re: Appendix D of Parks and Recreation Fee Report Date: May 22, 2017 Staff received direction from the council at their May 16, 2017,workshop regarding funding options for the Parks and Recreation Program. In addition, the council provided helpful feedback related to Table 2 (Parks Comparison) of the report. Attached please find Appendix D that will amend the report provided to the council on May 16. This appendix provides the following: • A graph to coincide with Option 4: "Increase the PARF by Annual Index and Accept a Lower Level of Service" • A new option that increases the PARF from $4/EDU to $7/EDU over five years; and • A revised Table 2 showing consistent comparisons from national statistics to local. C: Finance Director PARKS AND RECREATION FEE REPORT Appendix D: Additional Funding Options and Table 2.0 Amendment Additional Funding Options Staff is providing information about two additional funding options as requested at the May 16,2017, workshop meeting. The two options include: • Increasing the PARF by the annual index and accepting a lower level of service • Increasing the PARF from four to seven dollars over five years This information is provided for council consideration on June 6 as part of the Master Fees and Charges discussion. OPTION 4: INCREASE THE PARF BY ANNUAL INDEX AND ACCEPT A LOWER LEVEL OF SERVICE This option was discussed in the report, but a graph was not provided. Figure 9 shows what would happen if the PARF were to increase by the annual index only. Without an increase of the PARF, and without General Fund contributions over and above forecasted transfers, the difference between the funds needed and the funds available will increase to nearly$1 million by year five. Option 4 will lead to degradation of park and trail system quality and public safety which runs counter to the city's strategic vision. For more information see page 16 of the report, specifically the section entitled, "Lower Level of Service Park Impacts." Further,the recreation program level of service would need to be frozen in place and not expand. Figure 9. Option 4: Increase the PARF by Annual Index—Lower Level of Service Park and Recreation Fee 4.26%Index Increase 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 $4,500,000 $5.00 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $4.00 w oo 'O $3,000,000 o C=1 $3.00 73 $2,500,000 o $2,000,000 $2.00 .ti 44. $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $1.00 $500,000 $ $ 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Unfunded Variance - 508,048 574,818 816,991 919,322 Parks&Recreation Fee Revenue 1,047,258 1,096,784 1,148,653 1,202,975 1,259,866 Budgeted General Fund Transfer* 1,505,500 1,568,500 1,630,500 1,672,000 1,738,378 Parks&Recreation Fee $3.91 $4.08 $4.25 $4.43 $4.62 * Contingency total$100,000;not included City of Tigard Page 1 PARKS AND RECREATION FEE REPORT OPTION 5: VARY PARF RATE UP TO$7 PER EDU AND ACCEPT A LOWER LEVEL OF SERVICE Council expressed interest in seeing an option that started with a PARF at approximately$4/EDU in FY 2017-18,and ended with a total increase of $7/EDU by year five (FY 2021-22). The annual escalator of 4.26%would bring the PARF up to roughly$3.91/EDU for FY 18. For ease of calculation and graphic presentation,staff rounded up the first year to an even$4/EDU. Figure 10 illustrates this option. Again, if the gap or unfunded variance remains,staff will be forced to reduce the level of service in both parks maintenance and recreation. For parks maintenance,the biggest impact would be to Type 3 and Type 4 park areas. See page 16 of the report,specifically the section entitled,"Lower Level of Service Park Impacts" for more information. Figure 10. Option 5: Increase PARF up to$7/EDU by Year Five Park and Recreation Fee $4.00- $7.00 $4,500,000 $8.00 $4,000,000 $7.00 t $3,500,000 $6 fi 0 $3,000,000 $5.00 $2,500,000 �' $2,000,000 $4.00 $3.00 'ti $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $2.00 $500,000 $1.00 $- $- 2017-18** 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 IMN Unfunded Variance 327,309 236,963 255,279 270,203 Nam Parks&Recreation Fee Revenue 1,071,432 1,277,523 1,486,508 1,764,687 1,908,984 Budgeted General Fund Transfer* 1,505,500 1,568,500 1,630,500 1,672,000 1,738,378 Parks&Recreation Fee $4.00 $4.50 $5.50 $6.50 $7.00 Axis Title * Contingency total$100,000;not included ** Variance generated in addition to budgeted need in current year is accounted for in fee revenue in next year;$66,738 added to next year fee revenue. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION This document(Appendix D) details two options that reduce the level of service for parks maintenance and recreation,but keeps the fee lower for utility billing customers. • Option 4: Increase the PARF by annual index and accept a lower level of service • Option 5: Increase PARF up to$7/EDU by year five The staff recommendation is to adopt an option that will fully fund Parks & Recreation in five years (options 2B-2D in the PARF report): • Option 2B: 80/20 Funding Split Page 2 City of Tigard PARKS AND RECREATION FEE REPORT • Option 2C: PARF increases, General Fund remains constant • Option 2D: PARF covers 100% of Parks &Recreation As discussed in the PARF report, adequate funding for the Parks and Recreation Program is vital,as it is the foundation for development of the city's strategic plan. Amendment of Table 2 Council provided staff with helpful feedback about the report,including the comparison structure of Table 2. Below is a revision of the table. Table 2.Parks Comparison(National Average,Tigard and West Linn) MEASURE NATIONAL AVERAGE ' TIGARD WEST LINN Jurisdiction Population 40,100 50,444 25,540 Park Acreage 9.6 acres/1,000 residents 10.9 acres/1,000 21.4 acres/1,000 residents residents Staff FTE 7.3 FTE/10,000 residents 2.4 FTE/10,000 residents 8.5 FTE/10,000 residents Program Budget $3,501,000 $2,510,194 $3,572,000 $3.75 per residential $13.66 per residential Park Fees equivalent dwelling unit household,and$12.97 per and$7.00 for commercial multi-family household accounts Notes: 1. (National Recreation and Park Association,2016) 2. (City of West Linn, 2016, p.86) 3. (City of West Linn,2016, p.6) City of Tigard Page 3 AIS-3108 10. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 06/06/2017 Length (in minutes): 15 Minutes Agenda Title: Clean Water Services IGA Prepared For: Toby LaFrance Submitted By: Kelly Burgoyne, Central Services 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 Council authorize the City Manager to sign the attached amendment to the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Clean Water Services (CWS) to collect Right of Way (ROW) Franchise Fees? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to sign the attached amendment to the IGA. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY ROW Franchise Fees are the fees paid by utilities for the use of the city's ROW. Utility infrastructure is largely located under city streets in the form of wires and pipes. The franchise fee pays for the use of the city's property. The sewer rates paid by Tigard customers is shared between the city and CWS. Tigard has been collecting a 5% franchise fee; however, the franchise fee has been paid entirely by the city's share of the revenue. Discussion of changing this disparity started in 2014 with a combination of the Budget Committee direction to pursue a sewer surcharge and case law that established a city's ability to assess a franchise fee to a special district or county service district. City staff has been in discussions with CWS since 2015. Recently, the discussions were joined by other Washington County cities, and the result of those discussions is the draft IGA for Council's consideration. On February 2, 2017, Council amended TMC 15.06 to include special districts and county service districts as utilities that should pay franchise fees. On March 17, 2017, the CWS Board approved the attached amendment to the IGA between the cities and CWS, This amendment establishes consistent processes for the assessment of franchise fees on sewer revenues. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Don't approve attached amendment to the IGA with CWS and continue to take the franchise fee entirely from city sewer revenues. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION While this IGA has not come before Council before, the subject was discussed during the hearings to amend TMC 15.06 on January 10 and February 7, 2017. Attachments IGA Amendment AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TIGARD AND CLEAN WATER SERVICES THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of the 7th day of March,2017 between the City of Tigard, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon,hereinafter referred to as"City," and Clean Water Services, a municipal corporation and county service district,hereinafter referred to as"District". WHEREAS City and District entered into an Intergovernmental agreement(IGA)on January 25,2005 (and subsequently amended on May 16,2005,June 14,2005,March 17,2006, July 1,2008,July 1,2009 and July 2,2012)for the operation of sanitary sewer and surface water facilities; and WHEREAS the IGA allows the agreement to be amended upon approval of the governing bodies of both parties; and WHEREAS Oregon cities have home rule authority to assess Rights of Way(ROW)Fees on utilities. Rights of way fees are assessed to account for the use of the City's ROW for the delivery and conveyance of utility services,including sanitary sewer and surface water services; and WHEREAS the City and the District agree that is in the best interest of both parties to strive for adequate funding for both the District and Local sanitary sewer and surface water programs;and WHEREAS this agreement resolves issues related to the procedures for collection and payment of City ROW Fees on District established sanitary sewer and stormwater charges; and WHEREAS District bills certain industrial customers directly and City has the responsibility for billing all other customers;and WHEREAS District uses a resolution and order to establish rates("Resolution")as provided in the IGA; and WHEREAS the City has or may enact ROW Fee ordinances,and the District has requested the City for this Amendment to the IGA to provide for administrative and procedural governance surrounding the implementation,collection,and payment of a City ROW fee;and WHEREAS in order to avoid any disputes regarding the administration of ROW Fees,the City and District have agreed to this IGA Amendment to reflect the parties' agreement regarding administrative matters related to ROW Fees. Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement City of Tigard Page 1 NOW,THEREFORE,the parties agree, effective as of March 7,2017,as follows: 1. Definition of Terms. Wherever the following terms are used in this amendment they shall have the following meaning unless otherwise specifically indicated by the context in which they appear. a. ROW Fee is defined to include the following: Franchise Fees,Right of Way Fees,Right of Way Usage fees,Privilege Tax,or any other interchangeable term for a City imposed charge for the use of the Rights of Way in the City. 2. City's Home Rule Authority. The District recognizes the City's home rule authority to impose fees for use of City Rights of Way(ROW), separate from permit fees,to enable the conveyance and provision of services.Nothing in this Amendment shall be construed as a limitation on the District's or City's authority relative to matters outside the subject matter of this amendment. The Parties will administer ROW fees in the manner specified herein. 3. Amendment Intent.Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the IGA, City ROW Fee ordinance, or District Resolution,this amendment is intended to represent the City and District's agreement regarding the rate setting,implementation and remittance of ROW Fees.Nothing in this Amendment shall modify any provisions of the existing IGA except to the extent necessary to provide for the rate setting, implementation, and remittance of ROW Fees as provided herein. 4. Rate Setting. a. The existing Resolution provides for District-wide rate and a Local rate for base and use charges. The Resolution will be amended to include a new rate category called City ROW Fee as set forth in Exhibit C. b. The City ROW Fee is calculated on the District-Wide rate for monthly residential and commercial service charges. c. The City ROW Fee is calculated on the District-Wide rate of the industrial monthly volume services charges. d. The City ROW Fee will be implemented upon notice by the City and the fee is between 0 and 5%on the District-wide rate e. For purposes of calculating the ROW Fees due to the City,ROW Fees are applied to gross District-wide service charge revenue collected, exclusive of the ROW Fees,for residential and commercial customers located in the City. f. For purposes of calculating the ROW Fees to be remitted to the City,ROW Fees are applied to gross District-wide volume service charge revenue, exclusive of the ROW Fees,collected for industrial customers located in the City. g. These provisions are to ensure that the District receives its full allocation of District-wide monthly service charges and that the City receives the ROW Fee calculated on the District rates. Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement City of Tigard Page 2 h. Upon future annual rate adjustments,the ROW Fee will be applied after the District annual rate adjustment to the service charges. 5. Notice of Intent to Implement ROW Fees. The City will provide CWS with at least 30 days' notice of its election to institute ROW Fees. a. The notice will include a copy of the City's ordinance or other legal authority establishing the ROW Fee, and the effective date of the fee. b. The notice will indicate whether the ROW Fee will be applied to the industrial revenue from volume monthly service charges in addition to being applied to the District-wide monthly service revenue for residential and commercial, which determinations will be within the City's sole discretion. c. The notice will also include a proposed City rate schedule establishing rates to be applied to City billed customers. d. The City and District will within the 30-day notice period, calculate rates that will be used to determine the City's remittance to the District based on the new rate schedule. 6. Remittance. The City will use the new rate on the District remittance form. The District will prepare a monthly industrial remittance form to be submitted to the City. a. The remittance forms will include the report of all revenue billed,revenue collected,and the calculation of the ROW Fee. b. The City will retain the amount of the ROW Fee derived from revenues from the monthly service rate collected from all customers billed by the City. c. For industrial customers billed by the District,the District will remit to the City on a monthly basis the ROW Fee derived from the monthly District-wide volume service charges collected by the District. d. Forms showing the methodology for implementing Remittance are attached as Exhibit A and B. 7. City Surcharge Not Limited. Nothing in this Amendment shall limit the City's authority to determine the Monthly Service Charge Rates for the Local Program. 8. Notice to Customers. City shall notify residential and commercial customers and District shall notify industrial customers in substantially the manner as set forth in the attached Exhibit D. Messaging may be directly on the bill or in some other similar, effective manner. 9. Indemnity. The City shall indemnify and defend the District in the event of third party lawsuits challenging the City's authority to impose the ROW Fee. 10.Licensing. If there is a licensing requirement or license fee for use of the rights of way in the City ROW Fee ordinance,that requirement and fee are considered satisfied Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement City of Tigard Page 3 by the IGA. District is not required to furnish a certificate of insurance, if that is a requirement of the City ROW fee ordinance. CITY OF TIGARD CLEAN WATER SERVICES By: By: Mayor or City Manager General Manager or Designee (as applicable) APPROVED AS TO FORM Attest: City Recorder(if applicable) District Counsel City Attorney(if applicable) Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement City of Tigard Page 4 • EXHIBIT A-SAMPLE CiTY REMITTANCE FORM CLEAN WATER SERVICES MONTHLY REPORT OF CITY SEWER&STORM RECEIPTS&REMITTANCES FY 2016-17 CITY: MONTH: BILLING PERIOD: • SEWER SVCS ALLOCATION: 1'~. District Rate($22.94+$1.52) 24.46 83.567% l•. City Rate($4.51+$0.30) 4.81 16.433% ROW Fee 0.00 0.000% $29.27 100.000% Remittance to Sewer Service Fees Collected(100%) 1,000,000.00 CWS CWS Use Local Portion(City Retains) 16.433% $ 164,332.08 District-wide Portion(To CWS) 83.567% A $ 835,667.92 #101.000.0000.40120.0000.0000 STORM SVCS ALLOCATION: I• District Allocation(25%) 1.94 25.032% • Local Allocation(75% 5.81 74.968% ROW Fee 0.00 0.000% I' $ 7.75 100.000% Surface Water Management($7.75 per ESU) Service Fees Collected(100%) 100,000.00 . Local Portion(City Retains) 74.968% $ 74,987.74 • • District-wide Portion(To CWS) 25.032% B $ 26,032.26 #201:000.0000.40120.0000.0000 • Sanitary Sewer SDC Charges($5,300 perEDU): Reimbursement Portion of Sanitary SDCs($3,242.86 per EDU) • District-wide Portion(To CWS) 61.187% C $ - #107.000.0000.41020.0000.0000 improvement Portion of Sanitary SDCs($2,057.04 per EDU) r: Local Portion(City Retains) 3.983% $ District-wide Portion(To CWS) 34.830% D $ - #107.000.0000.41210.0000.0000 Adjustments or Corrections E r• (please provide explanation) {1{': • Erosion Control Fees Collected F #201.000.0000.40290.0000.0000 • • Total Remittance to CWS(Sum of A through G) Sewer Permit Numbers Issued # thru# Number of Connection Permits Issued(in EDU's) ` Total number of EDU's Served(period end) SWM Permit Numbers Issued # thru# Number of SWM Connection Permits Issued(In ESU's) Total number of ESU's Served(period end)• a;. kt Exhibit A to Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement ;" • EXHIBIT B-SAMPLE CWS INDUSTRIAL BILLING REMITTANCE FORM CLEAN WATER SERVICES i•: MONTHLY REPORT OF DISTRICT INDUSTIRAL SEWER RECEIPTS&REMITTANCES FY 2016-17 i'• CITY: MONTH: • BILLING PERIOD: • • • SEWER SVCS ALLOCATION: District Rate($22.94+$1.62) 24.46 83.567% Local-Unlcorporated Wash Co.Rate($4.51+$0.30) 4.81 16.433% City Rate 0.00 0.000% City ROW Fee 0.00 0.000% $29.27 100.000% Remittance to Sewer Service Fees Collected(100%) 1,000,000.00 CITY CWS Use District-wide Portion(CWS Retains) 83.587% $ 835,887.92 City Portion(To City) 16.433% $ 184,332.08 City ROW Fee(To City) 0.000% $ - A $ 164,332.08 #101.000.0000.40140.0000.0000 R•. • • 'tea ti• Exhibit B to Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement I • Exhibit C—District Rates and Charges to Cities with City Right of Way Fee APPENDIX B DISTRICT RATES AND CHARGES TO CITIES For the Cities of Forest Grove,Cornelius,Hillsboro,Beaverton,Tigard,Tualatin,Sherwood Sanitary Sewer Fee&Charge Service Charge Monthly Sanitary Sewer Charges per DU District Rate City Right of Way Fee(0 to 5%) Total$ Variable Fixed Variable Fixed Base N/A $22.94 N/A $0.00 to 1.15 $22.94 to 24.09 Use $1.52/ccf avg winter N/A $0.00 to 0.08/ccf avg N/A $1.52 to 1.60/ccf avg water usage winter water usage winter water usage Storm and Surface Water Fee and&Charge Service Charge Monthly Storm and Surface Water Service Charges per DU District Rate City Right of Way Fee(0 to 5%) Total$ Base $1.94 $0.00 to 0.10 $1.94 to 2.04 Rates and charges for the cities of Banks,Durham,Gaston,King City and North Plains will be collected and allocated according to the individual Intergovernmental Agreements. Rates and Charges Resolution and Order luly 1,2016—June 30,2017 Appendix B Page 1 Exhibit C to Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement EXHIBIT D BILLING NOTIFICATION LANGUAGE—RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERICAL CUSTOMERS: Effective ,2017,the Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater bill includes a new rate calculated to include a—%City of Rights of Way Fee. BILLING NOTIFICATION LANGUAGE—INDUSTIAL CUSTOMERS: Effective ,2017 the Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater bill includes a new rate calculated to include a_%City of Rights of Way Fee.The fee is calculated as_ percent of Sanitary Sewer volume charge and Stormwater fee and is identified on your bill as "City of Rights of Way Fee". CWS will collect and remit the money to [name of City]. Exhibit D to Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement