City Council Packet - 01/15/1979ME
T I G A R D CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION MINUTES, JANUARY L5, 1979, 7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Alan Mickelson; Councilmen 'Toni Brian, John E.
Cook, Kenneth W. Schekla; Councilwoman Nancie Stimler; Chief of
Police, Robert B. Adams; Legal Counsel, Joe D Bailey; City
Administrator, R.R. Barker; City Recorder, Doris Hartig; Planning
Director, Aldace Howard; Park Board Chairman, Fred Cooper;
Research and Development Aide, Martha McLennan.
L. RESOLUTION NO. 79-3 A RESOLUTION HONORING AND COMMENDING WILBUR A. BISHOP
FOR HIS FOUR YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS
OF TIGARD AS MAYOR.
(a) City Recorder read the Resolution in full..
(b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve,
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
(c) Mayor presented Wilbur A Bishop with a copy of the Resolution, his personal
copy of the Code Book, and a plaque and gavel.
(d) Wilbur A. Bishop expressed his thanks to Council and wished them sucess
in the future.
3. CONSIDERATION RE: ZUMWALT REQUEST — TRACT "C" PURCHASE
(a) City Administrator summarized Zumwalt's request to purchase land and
recommended that this;be declared surplus. He expressed concern about
City 'liability in the event of flood damage to the property.
(b) City Attorney stated that a '"hold harmless clause" could be written in
the purchase agreement.
(c) Motion by Councilman Scheckla, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to declare
Tract "C" surplus land.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
q. ORB PARK CONTRACT REVIEW (SUMMER LAKE)-
(a) City Administrator expressed his 'concern that there may be a duplication
of effort ;between the private developers and City consultants.' He asked
Fred Cooper, Park Board Chairman, to up-date 'Council on the status of the
project.
(b) Fred Cooper explained that the extent of development in the area, and
the number of developers involved bmade-it a difficult task to maintain
coordination. The consultant hired by;the City served to tie the project
together.
a
He stated that he was particularly concerned with the possible increased
run-off problem should the developers use the lake for storm rainage.
He said that the Park Board was looking at alto nativcs
keep the water
level constant--such as dredging.
Cooper went on to describe the project in ore detail,
explainand would be amultiing that
this would be Tigard's first "communitypark",
aths and recreational facilities.
facility including jogging paths, bike p
Cooper stated that he hopes to be able to apply for State grant monies
for the project in April.
(c) Planning Director expressed his concern that there was a lack of commun
tion between the Park Board, staff and Council on this project. He went
on to say that he felt that the in-house resources were sufficient to com-
plete the project and that the consultant was unnecessary.
5. CCI RESOLUTION REVIEW AND NPO REORGANIZATION
(a) The Planning Director explained that these Resolutions would serve to
up-grade and simplify the process of membership for the CCI and NPO's.
Councilwoman Stimler questioned the existence of a membership problem
in all of the NPO's. Planning Director said that NPO #7 was the only one
that didn't have a problem.
Planning Director stated that he would bring these Resolutions to the
Regular Meeting on January 22, 1979.
6, PROPOSED'CORNUT ANNEXATION
(a) Planning Director reviewed the status of the proposed Cornut Annexation `
and stated that the necessary signatures had been, received. He also
described the statues of the �
and c^,�1 ,
Annexation+, He said that these would be on
the Council agenda for next week.
FM 7. MICROFILM READER AND MICROFICHE PROPOSAL
(a) Planning n toexplainor Yhisned shiftainhe was views onlbuyingtthe equipment. He went
his to Council's
attention to exp for 'itself over,time and provide 'ac-
on`to say that this purchase would pay
curacy for notifications. This will be on the agenda next Monday to
transfer funds from contingency for the purpose.
g, PROPOSED REVISION OF TRANSCRIPT PREPARATION DEPOSIT.
(a) Planning Director explained that the $100.00 deposit was insufficient to
cover expected charges and asked that this be increased to $250.00. He
went on to say that we have had problems with the temporary;help on the ,
transcripts and will now use our own 'clerical staff, on their own time,
WROM paying $6.00/hour.
Page 2 --January 15, 1979 .- ,Council Minutes
1
(b) Mayor Mickelson expressed his concern that this increase would discour-
age the average homeowner from appealing decisions of the Planning
Conmission.
(c) Councilman Brian suggested that language be added to the Resolution
(77-53) pointing out the right to request from Council a waiver of
fees.
Planning Director said that this could be done.
Resolution to amend fee will be considered at next Council meeting.
9. PROPOSED DESIGN REVIEW FEE REVISION
hat
t a
ange in the fee
(a) Pchedule Directorthmerel.a1ned beentbroken1downsinosmallle,: increments.
schedule, it h Y
Council had no questions and will consider revised fee schedule next
week.
10. APPOINTMENTS - BUDGET CO14MITTEE, LIBRARY BOARD & SITE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD.
(a) Mayor reviewed recommendations of the Selection Committee, to date. He
also asked that Council continue looking for other citizens who would
ffm be interested in sitting on these Committees and Boards.
City Administrator said that Resolutions to appoint members would be
prepared for the next regular Council meeting.
TNG CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE REFUNDS UNDER $500.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION AUTHORIL
so many
for
(a) City
Administrator
expeiitedmattersaifaCouncil did s there enot have torequests
out tht dealwith
refundsds i
all of them. He recommended that lie be authorized to make refunds up to
$500:00.
After discussion of Council, it was agreed to consider a Resolution to
this effect at the next regular Council meeting.
12. OTHER
(a) City Administrator stated that the Attorney General Opinion, requested
by Council, had been recanity�Leave wouldGbe eral subjectfelt
tohatsutccessfu0l A•
contract provision for Mate
challenge
(b)' City Administrator said that the petition for the LID for Sanitary and
Storm sewer on Katrine had een received.
emphasized thatcactionnshoulder
expressed her coneonc
be 'takenquickly.
receifor
ew
(c) City Administrator stated that the bids had been
lCnaussved$6341t30;nand,
Patrol cars. They were: Wentworth - $6481.85;
Carlson - $6311`.98. City Administrator and Chief
i f police recommenced
accepting the Knauss bid as it would incur less p_ p expenses. Y
Page 3 - January 15, 1979 - Council Minutes
Administrator explained, however, that the City of Beaverton had recom—
mended accepting the Carlson bid, and the Beaverton City Council was
acting on the issue today. It was agreed the City would have to accept
Beaverton's decision on the matter as the majority of the bid was for
Beaverton (2 cars for Tigard, 3 for Beaverton).
(d) Planning Director again expressed his concern over the lack of a good
liason relationship between the Park Board, staff and City Council. He
recommended that Council consider the problem and perhaps require more
reporting responsibility of the Park Board.
Councilwoman Stimler felt that the Park Board was being responsible
(in terms of having a reporting system and long—range plans), Council
just needed to ask for the information.
(e) Councilwoman Stimler reported that she had attended the League of. Oregon
Cities Elected Officials Caucus last weeken3 in Beaverton. She felt
that it was a very interesting and productive mini—convention. She was
lic relations other cities are involved
particularly impressed with the pub
in, and showed Council a flyer from Forest Grove.
(f) Councilwoman Stimler reported that she had been spending some time learn—
ing about the Tigard Police Department, including riding on patrol with
the Officers. She recommended that other Council members get a new view
of the City by riding on patrol.
RECESS OF STUDY SESSION: 9:35 P.M.
Council then went into Executive Session to discuss guidelines for T.M.E.A. labor
negotiations under ORS 192.660 (2)(a).
MEETING RECONVENED 9:45 P.M.
City Administrator summarized tentative agreements reached with T;.M.E.A. and
requested Council feed—back-regarding salaries, President Carter's guidelines and
T.M.E.A'. proposals. Council discussed the matter at length, requested staff cost
out various proposals and gave _direction for future negotiations.
MEETING ADJOURNED 10:45 P.M.
City Recorder mss`
ATTEST:
Mayor
Page 4 - January 15, 1979 — Council Minutes
i
January 11, 1979
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: R. R. Barker, City Administrator Ole
Subject:- Background Information Regarding Certain Items On January 15; 1979
Council Agenda
AGENDA ITEM #
3. Consideration Re: 'Zumwalt Request — Tract "C" Purchase
Six months ago the City received a letter front Mr. Roger C. Zumwalt,
dated July 13, 1978, requesting that the City declare Tract "C",
located adjacent to tax lot 1000 on Pathfinder Way, surplus property and
give him the opportunity to purchase this small parcel of land (see
letter and map in Council packet.)
The above request was considered by the City Council at the July 24, 1978 Council
Meeting. At that time I stated that Tract "C" appeared to be surplus land
but I recommended that the City not sell the parcel at that time because
we may need an casement across the property: for various purposes. I further
recommended that this request by tabled to determine what easement would be
required and the possible affect of the Yolo Estates Subdivision upon
the parcel. The request was then tabled by the City Council.
The Zumwalts are still very interested in purchasing the above parcel and
have again asked that the City consider their request.
In reviewing the Zumwalt's request, we have become concernedabout' the
potential problems involved with the property under private ownership.
Because Tract "C" is located in`a drainageway, it is very susceptible to
erosion. If privately owned, and developed to any extent, and erosion occurs,
the owner may petition the City for relief. In my opinion, the City does not have
the wherewithall to properly maintain all the greenways and drainageways in
the City.
Recommendations
It is my recommendation that the City not sell Tract "C" at this time. I
further recommend that the Zumwalt's"apply for a-variance to allow them
to construct their wooden patio deck."
4. ORB Park Contract Review (Summer Lake)
Mr. Fred Cooper, Park Board Chairman; recommended to the City Council, at the
study session'December 4, 1978,' that the City engage the services of the ORB
Organization to develop a 'mastev plan for Summer Lake Park. The Council
accepted the Park Board's recommendation and instructed the City staff to
_ a Y
E
Page 2
January 11, 1979
Memo to Council
prepare the necessary contract.
il On December 18, 1978,C1 recommended,
ract and thehe City
nCouncg of ummerhLakeePark e
EM execution of the OR Y
er
Recently, it has capeto our somepalans1on forthat SummereLakeePark. oOuruconcernkis that
of
eP
Subdivision has preparedthe
some duplication of effort may occur between the a consultant
unnecessary work.City and the developer, and that the City may pay for
ested
The City staff is checking into
batematter and has the�Council Meeting11Mondaytnightthe
Chairman of the Park Board be present
Resolution Re: Refunds Under $500.
Hardly a Council Meeting goes by without a request from a developer, .
contractor, businessman, etc. for a refund for a planning fee application,
transcripts, street vacation deposits, business license, etc.
security deposit,
aest5 are for refunds under $100.
A great number of these reg
In an effort to "streamline� �inistatorCouncil
tomeeting
grant refunds, whenajustifiedggested
that we authorize the City
u
for relatively small amounts. We have checked with our auditors and they
do not object to this practice.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution that would grant the City
Administrator the authority to approve refunds in an amount not to exceed, $500.
An alternative approach would be to put refund items (under a certain dollar
amount on the consent, agenda).
� T
Y
10665 S. W. Pathfinder Way
Tigard_ Oregon
July 13, 1978
Raeldon Barber
City Administrator
C'4" of Tigard
Trgay rd, Oregon 97223
Dear Mr. Barber:
Recently I had the occassion to be discussing with you and other City
staff regarding a parcel of land owned by the City of Tigard that ajoins
my residential property in the Pathfinder addition (Tax Lot 1000). The
City of Tigard's parcel of land is known as tract 'C' of the Pathfinder
addition and bound on it's North side by S. W. Fonner Road, the West
side by a parcel of land owned by Yolo Estales which I understand is
to be dedicated to the City, on the South side by Pathfinder Way, and
on the East side by my tax lot. (See enclosed map).
I am respectfully requesting that the City of Tigard declare tract 'C"
surplus land and therefore vacated so that I might have the opportunity
to:purchase this ,small parcel and have it added to the tax rolls in
conjunction with my parcel , tax lot 1000. I desire to purchase
tract 'C' for the following reasons
1 . To establish a small garden plot for personal use only.
2. To construct a wood patio deck to accomodate,sliding glass
patio doors already constructed on the 4test side of my
home withouthaveto secure a property line side variance.
3. To landscape and beautify or otherwise enhance the visual
appearance,of this parcel .
Any encumberances, right-of-ways or other easements the City wishes to
maintain or impose on tract 'C' will not be cause of concern or objection
Ion my part. I am not familiar with all the procedures and/or processes
that are involved in the possibilities that I might acquire tract 'C
but would welcome the opportunity to cooperate with the City in any
way in allowing my request to be granted.
If there are any questions or concerns regarding this request, please
contact me at your convenience. Until then, I shall await your return
communication.
spectfu y submitted,
-
Ro er C. walt
y
501,• ,2700 TR."a,5200 r"a",
: .av£r,Yfi 900 TR,.C",5300 Tr'.0'"5400 TR
NTY
0
P-0. Box 23.397
'
12420 S.W. Main
Tigard,Oregon 9722 -
yi
4J E Y....A...T 7_ 117
20
i 155
104
zoo
104100 Ac. 10539
.-f4Ac.
i - �`y M
r --— loo
i 3 0 w'30 to 120.0 \\
96.4 103 105
1 106 o v 35Ac. 3CAc.
15
J ZD 4
25. Q:
a yt3 20,<.�•
N
1�} 3 102
m
TRA CT "CI
.z
7
82.5 ,,,�`� .`'y.•F, o '. °
rs
a 354 c, 1000'a (a
�.���, -
2 O -
$ �• .82
'p'�12QQ aC' ��Y -�GQt'Ta,OI:
1 3 a E M A Ps003 =
}
0 2S I 22C
1401J\o `� ?ti gip° ���15
O
OA 11 :•% x';GJy�ek TC
5bTRACT B �
52
"14-051 14 Z
--.--y? s
5100
41 �h
100.22 _
't. y36 1•' � aF,
000
2800 40
O r
;off 17 0
2.500 '°,� l!ry�<vC i !��r'"1'O i9 18 T 9,3.91 1
•''� CC�. .6�y ' 0 9QQ?0•p .89"51-I.4 E
:3 t00 <G 16 r %,o% �'s, 4s.13Ec`O — 49Q0 a—
I
MEriORA�rDUF4
TO: ry1Ei��E'RS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ALDIE
SUBJ. : MICROFILM READER AND CARDS
MOST OF YOU HAVE :E ARD ME COI�iENT ON MICROFILI4IPIG FOR CITY HALL
AND I HAVE GENERALLY BEEN IN OPPOSITION. . . .NOT THAT WE DO NOT
NEED IT, BUT THAT VIE HAVE OTHER PRIORITIES. WITH I4Y HISTORY
BEHIND TSL T A2d NOZa SUGGESTING THAT THE PL_4NNING DFPART14ENT
PURCHASE A MICROFILM READER. YES, I DO FEEL A LITTLE UNEASY.
TIT, MACHINE WILL COST APPROXIMATELY $180.00 INCLUDING A SCREEN
SHIELD, A RULER FOR SPACING,AND FREIGHT. NORMALLY THIS WOULD '
NOT COME TO YOUR ATTENTION. BUT I FEEL IT SHOULD BECAUSE OF 14Y
OPPOSITION IN THE PAST AS I MENTIONED ABOVE.
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED A GREAT DEAL OF CRITICISM
ON OUR "NOTIFICATION PROCESS". WE ARE REQUIRED BY LAW AND BY
CITY ORDINANCE TO NOTIFY PROPERTY O?ATI•rERS IN SURROUNDING AREAS
WHEN CHANGES ARE MADE OR CONTIMPLATED IN LAND USE. OUR PROCESS
NOW IS TO XEROX COPIES OF THE TRAIISAI-IERICA TITLE DOCUMENTS. THE
OFFICE ACROSS THE STREET FROM CITY HALL HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL
BUT TIl—EY CHARGE OI1 THE AVERAGE OF 51.50 EACH TIME ?dE REQUEST
INFO?34ATION. THE REAL PROBLEM IS THAT THEIR RECORDS ARE AT
LEAS'!' D PROPERTY TURNOVER
i
IS FASTER THAN THAT IN THIS AREA.
WASHINGTON COUNTY, THE OFFICE OF ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION, HAS
THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AND THEY UPDATE THEIR RECORDS
QUARTERLY. WE ,CAN 'PURCHASE THE MICROFISHE FROM THEM FOR ABOUT
$15.00`PER>QUARTER. t
FOR THE INITIAL AMOUNT OF $195.00, AND THE ADDITIONAL COST OF {
$45.00 FOR THE FIRST YEAR, WE WILL HAVE ACCURATE TNFORPIATION
ON EACH TAX LOT IN THE COUNTY. NOTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS �
CONCERNED WITH PLANNING IQATTERS WILL BE ASSURED, PLUS WE WILL
i
HAVE THE INFORMIIATION "IN HOUSE" FOR ANNEXATIONS, THE TIGARD WATER E
DISTRICT, AND ANYONE ELSE<WHO NOR14ALLY 14UST GO TO THE COUNTY
COURTHOUSE I FEEL` TIE; PURCHASE IS WORTH tlHILE.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTION PLEASE CONTACT ME. THIS ITEM WILL APPEAR.
ON THE JANUARY 15TH STUDY SESSION AGENDA.
9
i
f
Avoid Vernal ,dessages -
s
CITY OF TIGARD
McLennan & West
To:� From:
Subject: Maternity Leave Date; January 12, 1979
Attached please find a copy of the Attorney General Opinion
which we had requested. If you have any questions regarding k
this, please feel free to contact us. j
f
MEM
k
1
4.
i
i .
{
t
2
f
JAMES A. REDDEN
ATroRN&cENEFm _
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
100 State Office Building
Salem, Oregon 97310
Telephone: (503)3784400
January 3, 1979
The Honorable Pat Whiting
State Representative
6122 S.W. Spruce
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Opinion Request Op-4519
Dear Representative Whiting:
You have inquired whether, under ORS 659.029 and
659.030, an employer may treat maternity and all other -
WWI physical conditions which are exclusively gender-related,
such as a hysterectomy, vasectomy, or prostatectomy
differently, from other _physical conditions in connection
with the receipt of such benefits as paid sick leave and
disability payments.
We understand the factual setting to, involve a pro-
vision in a collective bargaining agreement which provides
for sick leave on an "honor basis" for absences from work
due to almost all physical illness or incapacity; and estab-
lishes a separate: and additional sick leave accrual at the
rate of one day per month to be used for absences from work
due to exclusively gender-related physical conditions.
Thus, ; if an -employe is absent from work for ten days due to
the flu, the ten days' absence would be paid leave on the
"honor basis" provision and would not be charged to the one
day per month accrual provision'. Upon returning to work
following recovery from the flu, the employe would again
have 90 >full` days of "honor basis" accumulated sick leave.
On the other hand, a -female employe absent from work for 25
days because of pregnancy or a male employe absent from work
for 25 'days in connection with a prostatectomy would receive
leave with pay only to the extent of the sick leave accumu-
lated on the one -day per month provision of the plan.
A
The Honorable Pat Whiting
January 3, 1979
Page 7
Further; unlike the "honor basis" portion of the plan the
employe would not upon returning to work have the full
number of accumulated sick leave days reinstated, but rather
would have to accumulate sick leave again on the one day per
month basis. Clearly, the "honor basis" portion of the plan
is far more favorable to the employe than is the one day per
month accrual basis sick leave.
The one day per month accrual portion of the plan
appears somewhat unusual and we have not been provided with
the reason or reasons for its adoption. Clearly, however,
the effect of this portion of the plan is to treat absences
from work due to pregnancy differently from leave occasioned
by substantially all other physical disabilities. Presum-
ably, the rationale employed to justify this portion of the
plan is that, since pregnancy is a gender-related condition,
treating all gender-related physical conditions the same
would not violate the statutory prohibition against dis-
crimination in compensation or in the terms, conditions or
privileges of employment because of pregnancy.
ORS 659.029 provides in part:
"Women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or
related medical conditions or occurrences'' shall be =
- n , _
treated the same for all ciTip,.oyiucii� 1:�l.dtcu yULpV3cS,
including receipt of 'benefits under 'fringe benefit
programs, as other persons not so affected, but similar
in their ability ,or inability to work by reason of 4
physical condition."
This statutory provision does not provide that preg-
nancy be compared to other gender-related-physical condi-
tions; rather it requires that female employes affected by
pregnancy be treated the same as persons notsoaffected ;
but who are,similar in their ability or inability to work s:
by reason of their physical conditions. The thrust of. ORS c
659.029 seems clearly to be eliminating the adverse employ- C
meat consequences on pregnant female emp oyes where no
similar -adverse consequences generally befall employes
affected by substantially all other physical conditions.
The quoted language of the statute must be read as comparing'
pregnancy with all other physical conditions, not just to
the limited category of gender-related physical conditions.
erns_
When viewed from this perspective, which in our opinion
i
T1
s
The Honorable Pat Whiting
January 3, 1979
Page 3
reflects the legislative intent, it appears to us that the
plan in question violates ORS 659.029 and 659.030.
We pointed out in our prior Opinion No. 7502 , 38 Op
Atty Gen 1239 (1977) that where an employer does not provide
any sick leave or disability payment plan for the employes,
there is no requirement that the employer provide a female
employe with a paid maternity leave or any disability pay-
ments. But where the employer does provide a paid sick
leave plan which covers substantially all medical condi-
tions, it would be unlawful to entirely exclude maternity
�_r ty , differ-
ently
fe
- leaves from the plan or to treat mat.c.�.iai�.y -eaves ..r-
er_tly from leaves provided for substantially all other
physical conditions. We stated in that opinion:
"Inclusion of pregnancy in a fairly
extensive list of conditions with limited
benefits would not necessarily be a violation
of the statute in any case. It would, how-
ever, . . . be necessary to establish common
characteristics (other than sex-relatedness)
distinguishing all the listed conditions from
other conditions not on the lista .
[Tlreat(ing] pregnancy, along with other con-
ditions, in a manner differing from the treatment
of most other;conditions, would in most cases be
held to violate the statute." 38 Op Atty Gen at 1249
(Emphasis added. )
The extremely limited number of physical conditions
treated differently from substantially all other physical
conditions under this plan renders it, in our opinion,
vulnerable to a successful challenge. Simply adding a few
other gender-related physical conditions to pregnancy and
treating this limited list differently would not, in our
opinion, be enough to render the plan lawful under ORS
659.029 and 659.-030.
Very truly yours,
Jee . Redden
Ay General
JAR:VL:vb
-g -
TAR U_ PD E
lb-m"
A WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
VOLUME II ISSUE II JANUARY 11, 1979
HUD PROPOSALS.
Proposals are being sought by Portland HUD for private developers
or public housing agencies to take part in Section 8 Housing
Assistance Payments Program. The Portland area office plans to
subsidize 55 units. Successful developers will be offered a cont-
ract under which HUD .will agree to pay a portion of the, monthly
rental which the low--income tenants cannot afford to pay.
KIwANIS REQUESTS A1'1,TP,'E;,ATI0N.
On January 24, 1979 at Eve's Restaurant at 6:3G_a member of the
Tigard Plan°zing Staff will discuss the annexation issue with
members of the Tigard Kiwanis Club.
PUBLIC WOP.KS IN THE ICE A_ND SNOY.
Members of the Tigard Public Works Department have been very busy
clearing fallen trees from roadways, sanding streets and helping
citizens through the recent colcl, spell. Call: ha`r: Deen received
at City Hall acknowledging their efforts.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
D... ^... a_4 r.at nH -f-per -.+ i-;.�.:� it the Dl ur,»i»tt 71eriartmont Staff
3Lc—V1 SCl 1uG.aV ivl Val Von 414 nua b -ad.r
is siftinn, through the paperwork and pulling things together. The
Planning Commission agreed, reluctantly, to meet for three Regular
Sessions this month. ' Thank you.
INTERVIEW COMITTEE.
A meeting was held last Thursday evening to interview candidates
for the one position on the Library;Board and one; position on the
Budget Committee. Recommendations will be made to the Council.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE SWEPT AT1iAY?
Staff has circulated "a proposal for new Street Sweeper to the
Cities of Sherwood, King ,City and Tualatin. It is hoped that a
co-operative lease or purchase agreement can be drawn-up between
"us and 'them" concerning this piece of equipment. Sherwood's
machineis irreparable, the rates at ging City increased to $45.00
per hour and Tualatin needs a sweeper. Our machine is very tired
and has cost us considerable money`this 'past ,:year.` Following a
response from these entities and a joint meeting�Staff 'will make
a recommendation to the Council.