Loading...
City Council Packet - 08/04/1980 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA AUGUST 4, 1980, 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM 1. ROLL CALL 2. ENGLEWOOD GREENWAY POLICY - PARK BOARD RECOMMENDATION 3, LAND USE APPEAL PROCESS - City Administrator and Legal Counsel 4. SURVEY OF POLICE SERVICES - City Administrator 5, PROPOSED TAX BASE ORDINANCE - City Administrator 6. AGREEMENT WITH ODOT - Re: Traffic Signals At Hall Blvd. & Hunziker - City Administrator 7. OTHER 8. ADJOURNMENT T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L STUDY SESSION MINUTES - AUGUST 4, 1980 - 7:33 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Alan Mickelson; Councilmen Tom Brian, John Cook, Kenneth Scheckla (arriving at 7:35 P.M.); Chief of Police, Robert Adams; Legal Counsel, Joe Bailey; City Administrator, Raeldon R. Barker; Finance Director/City Recorder, Doris Hartig; Planning Director, Aldie Howard; Administrative Secretary, Loreen Wilson. 2. ENGLEWOOD GREENWAY POLICY (a) With respect to overgrown grass and weeds, City Administrator presented Park Board recommendation to Council that playground equipment be moved to highest ground possible in greenway and that playground area be mowed. He advised Council that the manpower in the public works department had been cut by two men; that the improvements in the soccer fields, Cook Park restrooms and 20 acre Summerlake Park were more than the present staff could keep maintained adequately. The City Administrator suggested that the greenway area in Englewood be mowed two or three times a year with the flail mower and the playground equipment area be maintained more often. (b) Discussion followed between Council, staff and audience. Those in the audience were: Mr. Phil Hirl, Chairman of the Park Board, Mr. Bob Irby and Don Moen, residents of Ironwood Loop in the Englewood Subdivision. Mr. Moen noted that Ordinance No. 73-17 originally adopted the Englewood Planned Development with a condition to maintain the greenway as a park. Mr. Hirl stated the Park Board would have to determine what area should be considered park and what area greenway and requested resident's input to assist the board in this task. (c) Consensus of Council was to have staff mow the greenway in its entirety at_least'_once in this growing season (May through. September) when the flail mower arrives and to groom the play equipment areas to a more park- like standard.` Council to give: this problem consideration when develop- ing 1981`-82 Budget. 3. LAND USE APPEAL PROCESS (a) City Administrator stated the Council considered eliminating public testimony in the appeal hearing'process and requested Legal Counsel speak to this issue. (b) Legal Counsel explained the concept behind the Fasano Decision which sets forth the procedure for appeal hearings. He suggested that Council might wish to ;use a "notice of appeal farmsuchas Multnomah County uses to have the appellant set forth his reason for ;appeal. (c) Council discussed the problems with the current appeal process and request- ed that staff prepare an ordinance to not allow testimony during the appeal N-0 hearing. They also requested Legal Counsel include copies of the Multnomah County notice of appeal form and any other forms from surrounding jurisdictions which might assist the City in the appeal procedures. Y a Councilman Cook requested staff send the transcript and other appeal papers to Council 10 days before the hearing to give them enough time to read all the documents. Planning Director requested Council not ask for a verbal recommendation from him at the appeal hearing as this is already in writing in the staff report. This item will appear on the August 18th agenda for further comments. 4. SURVEY OF POLICE SERVICES (a) City Administrator reported that Council had requested staff investigate the cost for a professional survey to be taken as the Police Study suggest- ed. He received a quote from Mr. Davis of Oregon Attitudes showing the difference in costs for telephone and in-home interviews. The price ranged from $3,000 to $7,500. (b) After considerable discussion, consensus of Council was to abandon the consideration of a professional survey this calendar year. They requested staff collect some tested. survey questionnaires from state and federal associations and bring back to Council at the August 18th study session. When the City hires a Research h Development Aide, this project could be started with the distribution of the su-vey at different civic club meet- ings, Chamber of Commerce members and possibly in the sewer billing mail. (c) Chief of Police expressed concern that this way of distributing the survey could cause problems in getting a true picture of the concerns of the community at large. Also, he requested Council look at possibly having a professional take the completed surveys and pull together the statistics. (d) Councilman Scheckla requested Council consider taking action to approve the'Police Manual at this time or in the near future. After some discussion, Council requested staff meet to develop an ordinance, as suggested in the 'manual, 'and consider the ordinance at the August 18th study session. .It was noted that after the ordinance was developed and adopted, the 'Chief`could'implement the operations manual without Council approval. (e) ' Mayor Mickelson stated the Council needed to develop some goals and-objec- tives for the Police.Department and wished to discuss this item at the August 18th study session. (f) Chief of Police noted he would forward to the Council a copy of the new letter of transmittal in the operations manual, as it sets forth his: long range goals and objectives for the department. He 'stated'this 'might . help, Council in forming their list of objectives. ' 5. PROPOSED TAX BASE ORDINANCE (a) The City Administrator advised Council that the ordinance adopting the language for the ballot in the November general election would have to be delivered to the County Elections Department by September 4, 1980. He showed Council four different 'purpose' and. 'explanation' formats to chose from for the ballot wordage. PAGE 2 - Study Session Minutes '- August 4, 1980 After discussion, consensus of Council was to adopt the following verbage for the ballot. QUESTION: Shall the City of Tigard establish a new tax base of $562,098 to be effective in fiscal year 1981-82? PURPOSE: This new tax base would finance police, parks, library, streets, and other services to city residents with state revenues offsetting part of the cost. This measure submits for voter approval, a tax base of $562,098 effective July 1, 1981. Future taxes levied within the the proposed new tax base would be partially paid by the State under existing state law. EXPLANATION: The present City tax base was established in 1968. Today it isnot sufficient to fund City services such as police, library, parks and streets. In order to continue providing the present level of services, the City must receive additional revenues. If this measure is approved, the estimated tax would be $1.10 per $1,000 of assessed value. Taxes levied within the tax base would be partially funded by the State. (b) City Administrator reminded Council that a committee should be formed for support of the tax base measure. The ordinance will be presented for Council approval. on August 11, 1980. 6. AGREEMENT WITH ODOT - Re: Traffic Signals at Hall Blvd. and Hunziker (a) City Administrator stated the Oregon Department of Transportation has requested the City enter into an agreement for a signal light at the intersection of Hall Blvd and Hunziker Street. He noted that the City would be paying for the energizing of the lights. _ (b`) Councilman Cook requested staff contact ODOT to see whether the light is to be installed at the intersection of Hunziker or Scoffins. Agreement will be considered at the August' Ilth meeting. i 7. OTHER a City Administrator distributed a copy of a notice of sale for land surround- ing urround- • He'expressed his sire for Council to r site.ang' the;presen� City'Hall si consider the matter. (b) City Administrator also advised Council that the room for the computer was being made,ready for the arrival of the system. (c) Councilman Brian requested City Administrator check into a signing problem at the intersection of S.W. Greenburg Road and Pacific Highway for the woodstove store. The signs seem to be oversized. (d) Councilman Brian and Mayor Mickelson expressed their appreciation to the planning 'group 'for town and country days. They also expressed concern regarding the liquor'sales' (beer garden). They suggested next year the Town and Country Days Committee present their plan for the beer garden to the Councilfor approval. Discussion followed regarding the ways PAGE 3''- Study Session Minutes August 4, 1980 available to control the problems the beer garden presents. RECESS: 10:37 P.M. Meeting reconvened 10:48 P.M. Council met in executive session under provisions of ORS 192.660 (2)(a) to discuss TPOA labor negotiations. Council negotiating team gave updated report on status of their negoticil ation with Officers Grishain and Johnson. Proposed package as agreed by and Association considered matter over the week end. Today a counter offer was received, copy being distributed to Council and staff. Council discussed entire negotiation proceedings at some length and instructed Brian and Mickelson regarding further negotiations. Meeting adjourned 11:40 P.M. City Recorder ATTEST: n j -Mayor PAGE 4 — Study Session Minutes August 4, 1980 r July 31, 1980 Re: Englewood Greenway Dear Englewood Resident: The Tigard City Council will be considering the Park Board recommendation regarding the greenway problems which you have addressed before the Council at their next meeting. The meeting will be held on August 4, 1980 at 7:30 P.M. in Fowler Junior High School Lecture Room. Please notify your interested neighbors. Sincerely, Doris Hartig City Recorder DH:lw Sent to: Bill Taylor, 11354 SW Ironwood Loop Curtis Stephens, 11338 SW Ironwood Loop Bob Irby, 11515 SW Hazelwood Loop Tigard Park and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 24, 1980 Durham Treatment Plant - 7:30 P.4 16:530 Std 85th Tigard, OR 97223 1. Meeting opened by Roger Zumwalt at 7:40 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL: New members were introduced: Hiram Fitzpatrick, Elizabeth Golden, Ronald Jordan. and Audrey Kartak. Other members present were Bob Bellinger, Roger Zumwalt, Mary Payne Absent: Phil Hirl (excused) City Staff: Frank Currie Guests: Becky and Eric Weizenborn Cortis Stephens Fred Cooper 3. Minutes of the May meeting were approved. 4. In deference to the interests of the guests, Roger Zumwalt took up item 14.3 from the aganda first in which Frank Currie reported to the Park Board that the City Staff has mowed the Englewood greenway area twice in 1978, four times in 1979 and twice this year, 1980. There are :two men to maintain all of the City parks completed and in the process of improvement and new development. The greenways have not been on their high priority 'list. ,Because of the moist nature of :the area it is not-a potential fire;hazard at this time,according to the local Fire Marshall. The City is not in violation;of any ordinance but will make a special effort to keep the areas around the ,playground equipment d mowe . r Mr. & Mrs. Weizenborn stated that ,their mower could not cut the; grass which is 10" high at present, Mary Payne suggested that adjoining property owners continue to mow greenway after the City does the first spring cutting. Mr. Stephens expressed concern about the weed problem. An ordinance exists -concerning roadways but not 'greenways. Staff suggested fencing and mowing, areas with playground equipment. Mrs. Golden moved to have the City remove playground equipment from the swampy areas'where necessary for maintenance in the spring and within the limitations of money, equipment and manpower. The board voted unanimously in favor (4 to 2). x .- , w s i TO: City Council FROM: City A-ctorney SUBJECT: Procedures on Appeal in Land Use Matters; Section 18.92.020 Tigard Municipal Code Section 1.8.92.020 of the Tigard Municipal Code has .always been difficult to administer. In my opinion the problem is not one created by the language of the section, but rather one created by the complexity of the problem it deals with. I don't know that reviewing the history and the legal surroundings will be helpful, but on the chance that it might I will go into some of that in this explanation. (A copy of section 18.92.020 is attached to this memorandum.) The first important aspect of the section is the sentence whichprovides that "if an appeal is filed, the council shall receive a report and recommendation from the planning commission and a verbatim transcript of the hearing before the com'nission �`� . � That much of the sentence describes what is known as "the record on appeal." This phrase and the notion of a limited or "frozen" record comes from the model which exists in the court system, upon which this appeal process we have adopted is based. You will recall that in the early 1970s the Oregon courts began to construct a set of rules concerning land use matters built on models taken from the Oregon court system.' The courts had been e:.perienci.ng frustraciora in dealing with cases in which loose procedure or the romnlete lack of formalized procedure in proceedings before county icimpossible forthe courts to and municipal land use bodies made ' ` A 4.. e 2 give appropriate review, and left the system open to what the court felt was a dangerous degree of manipulation by (the court seems to have feared) both those attempting to develop land and those in the local public bodies which were charged with adminis- tering the land-use regulation system. At this time, beginning with the Fasano case, the court began to talk about the "quasi- judicial" character of most of the land-use decision-making that local public bodies were doing. The courts soon began insisting on fairly rigid adher- ence to the model created by the court system, and our Section 18.92.020 reflects a response to that insistence, % think. That is not to say that our approach is improper; in fact, it seems a completely rational response to the problem posed by the supreme court, and it is a solution which still functions quite well for the purpose of meeting the court's requirements. Thedifficulty is that the model is not likely to be understood very well by a large part of the population which is affected by the rules. The next clause of the 'sentence discussedabove tells what the city council shall do with the "record on appeal": It says that the city 'council "shall hold a hearing on the record established before the planning corrsnission. " I think the diffi- culty arises because of the use of the word "hearing" in connection with the words "on the record. " "Bearing" suggests to most people a meeting at which } Persons attending the meeting *-or the purpose of influencing the decision to be made are to be given an opportunity to give testi- mony on the subject in i;°hich' they are °interested. (Certainly if , r 3 the word "public" were added before "hearing"everyone would have that expectation. As I say, I think most people have that expectation anyway. ) But what was intended was that there would be this "record, " which would not be altered by anything which occurred at the city council meeting, and each side would be given an opportunity, not to give nein evidence, but to make arguments to the city council in support of the positions they took as to what result was appropriate, given the record made in the planning commission. There is a very precise analogue to this procedure in the court system. It works like this: A case is "filed" in the cir- cuit court. (That is analogous to the filing of an application or a petition for a variance or a zone change, for example.) A t "trial" is then held in the circuit court. At that trial each side has the;,opportunity to give whatever evidence it believes would be relevant and 'helpful to its side of the case. : (The analogous por- tion of the land-use proceeding is the public hearing before the planning commission. ) At the conclusion of the trial the judge or jury makes a' decision, and that decision is entered on the records of the court as a "judgment. " (The analogous portion of the land-use proceeding is the decision by the planning cor�nission. ) ordinarily one side or the other will be unhappy with the result of the trial. He or she must decide whether to appeal. In the court example the appeal is' conmenced by the filing of a "notice of appeal. " This triggers the preparation of a transcript by the court reporter. (In the lard--use situation, too, there is a notice of appeal and here, too, a transcript is prepared as a result of 4 the filing of the notice of appeal. ) In the court setting each side then files a brief in the court of appeals . The party appealing must file first. The re- sponding party then has a certain additional time in which to file its brief. After the briefs have been filed the court sets a time for argument. (In the land use situation, under our code, a "hearing" before the city council is scheduled as soon after the filing of the notice of appeal as possible, given the need for some time for the preparation of the transcript. ) In the court setting the arguments before the court of appeals are clearly just that- arguments. Typically only laveyer_s are in attendance. That is, neither the parties nor witnesses attend. The lawyers appear before the court to attempt to persuade the court to reverse or to sustain the position taken by the circuit court. _ They are not 'permitted to introduce new evidence, though they are permitted to talk about the evidence submitted to the circuit court. it may be some comfort to you to know that the courts, too, often have trouble discriminating at this stage between evidence and>'arcrument, and the judges on the court of appeals and the supreme court will often stop a lawyer and ask him whether he is arguing ;n a manner truly consistent with the evidence available in the record or is embellishing the evidence for the purpose of improving his position. It is very clear, though, that the rules prohibit intro- ducing new evidence at this stage, it is not necessary that the parties be represented at this argument by the same lawyers who represented them in the circuit court. Ordinarily the court's rules ... snore than one lawyer the -,-vp,-esentation of a party by .. . . (in a sneaking role) but there are some exceptions to this rule. The court will not look at any pictures not submitted during the trial, will not hear evie';entiary statements otr,er than statements given as evidence in the trial, and will not t<<ke up any issues not considered during the trial. This last statenent creates a lot of problems, because typically during a trial one or more of the sub- jects concerning which the parties have decided to argue on appea2 will not have drawn any significant attention, and there will often be some struggle as to whether this is a "new" area or merely an area in which the decision in the circuit court was made quickly, _r and with little attention. In the land-use situation our problem in this area is even more difficult. The parties are often not represented by la,ryers, and in many instances the people involved u7ill have had no reason to be exposed to the model presented by the court system.. Furthermore, ure are often involved with more than just the city and an applicant. We will have the city, an applicant, and neighbors and others affected by the proposed land use. Even if the city and the applicant are represented by persons who are familiar with the procedure, there will very often be someone present who is not. We often encounter the situation in which someone with a legitimate interest in the land use in uuestion will want to talk, but we can see from the `beginning that the person who wants to talk really wants` to 'give new 'evidence. It always seems .harsh to cut that person off, and yet to permit the introduction of new evidence puts the developer or the city, depending, on what kind of evidence the witness cants to give, in an a47fward position. it will then want to respond, of course. a c _ 9-0.. 6 Like the court model, our ordinance does not limit the parties to a land use appeal before the city council to representation by the same person or persons who spoke before the planning commis- sion. I know this must be confusing to people who are unfamiliar with the court model. The distinction between "argument" and "testi- mony" is obscure enough to a person who has not had significant experience with the court model to crake it awfully difficult to understand how we can let one person who was not present at a former hearing make a speech and forbid another to do the same. The problem is that the permission to speak depends on the commitment to stick to argument based on the record.. Our policy has always been to cut off a speaker who has straved from the record and begun to give new evidence, but because we don't want to be rude I think that we some- times permit them to give some new evidence and then try to disregard that new evidence in making decisions. In any case, we do not pro- hibit someone's rohibit_someone's makinq an araunent merely* because he or she did not give evidence at the planning commission level. It may be that some 'bit of additional confusion arises out of paragraph (b) of Section18.92.020. I am not going to deal with this at any length right now, because I am not sure that this problem comes up often enough to be of concern. The distinction' between "legislative" and "quasi-judicial" decision-making is difficult sometimes, but generally we have not had a problem with it in the administration of our land use code, in ny experience. In any event, because of the way paragraph (b) is written the problem only arises in those rare instances in which the city council decides to bring; up a subject on its own motion. That is certainly ,not the ordinary- case', and not the Rind 'of case c ith %•,'with ve've bL en having trouble ss Z suggest as a tool for helping to think about the proce- dural problems we have experienced the following- Imagine chat the city council is sitting as the court of appeals of the state, and that it has before it "the record," which consists of the transcript: of the planning commission hearing and any 71aps, photographs, tables, petitions or other documents made exhibits at the hearing before the planning commission. The decision of the council must take into account only those pieces of informa- tion which are in that record. In order to assist the council in its thinking aboLt what to do with the facts in the record the council will be hearing arguments by representatives of the various points of view. Those arguments will typically tall: about what is fair, ghat kind of Impact one living in a certain neighborhood should have to put up with from a neighboring development, what kind of economic e.cpectations a person in the position of a devoloper or` one opposing a development should be entitled to, given the comprehensive plan, the history of the city, .and so forth, and, per most important, what kinds cif interpretations ought to be placed upon the facts available to the council in'the record. In addition, there will often be arguments concerning the inter- pretations of the relevant statutes and ordinances and the neigh® borhood plazas. All of these are proper subjects for argument. It is only the introduction of new evidence which is prohibited by the ordinance. c- Oc ��n )7.2S- , t 503)_. 3-_ 15 01i crrisun Suite iOS. Port land _r__-- Oregon Qrt cnf RECEIVED _ J U L 31 19180 � July 29, 1980 CITY OF TIOQ P80019 Mr. Ray Barker City Manager 12420 S.W. Main Street Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Ray: This letter is a follow-up to our telephone conversation on July 29, 1980. During that conversation you expressed interest in conducting a survey of Tigard residents' attitudes toward police services. Following is a proposal for the project. The bids are based on a sample size of 300, margin of error ± 5.6%. Telephone Interviewing In-Home Interviewing 20-30 minutes Length of interview 10-15 minutes i Price,. $3,000 - 4,500 $6,000 - 7,500 Project turnaround time 4-5 weeks 5-7 weeks The bids are for the following costs: questionnaire design, sample design and random selection, interviewing, editing, coding, keypunch, computer and q analysis. Without knowing the interviewing technique to be used (phone or in-home) and the length and the content of the questionnaire, an exact price cannot be prescribed. ; telephone interviewing present different As we discussed, and advantages and disadvantages: Telephone In-Home s Quicker project turnaround time - Slower project turnaround time Less expensive - More expensive y - Limitation on length - Allows;for longer questionnaire and more types of questions Certain types of questions (show cards) cannot be asked i � August 4, 1980 ALTERNATE WORDING OF PURPOSE AND EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED NEW TAX BASE PURPOSE: 1. Continues present level of services: police, library, parks, planning, zoning, building regulations. If approved, the State will pay for part of the new tax base. 2. This measure, which would be partially State financed if approved, will authorize the City of Tigard to increase its tax base from the current $223,793 to $562,098 to be effective for fiscal year 1981-82 which commences July 1, 1981. The current tax base is not adequate to maintain City services. 3. This proposal is referred to the legal voters of the City of Tigard for the reason that the amount of taxes that may be levied by the City Council within the present tax base is insufficient to cover the following functions: police, parks, library, and streets. EXPLANATION: 1. The tax base for fiscal year 1980-81 is $223,793 which, in accordance with State Constitution, can be increased by 6% to $237,221 for fiscal year 1981-82. This ballot measure, if approved, will increase the tax base to $562,098 effective July 1, 1981. The proposed tax base, if approved, will be partially financed by the State. The City cannot operate on its present tax base and has, for several years, been required to request voter approval of an annual levy in excess of the six (6T) percent limitation. ¢ 2. Submission of a tax levy annually to the voters is not cost effective. The State Legislature has recognized this and has required the City to hold a tax base election. Passage of this measure would allow but would not require the City to levy taxes for the total amount authorized. All taxes levied would be subject to the budgetary control process, which requires a thorough review of the'entire budget document by the Budget Committee; and a public hearing open to all citizens. If this measure is approved, all taxes levied within the tax'base will be partially funded by the State. 3. The present City tax base was established in 1968. Today it is not 'sufficient to fund City services such as police, library, parks and streets. In order to continue . providing the present level of services, the City must receive'additional'revenues. f The estimated cost of this measure would be $1.10 per $1,000 or assessed value.' The City taxes on a home assessed at $910,000 would be $99.00. .q 1 mom v3 O O rn rn rn rn o a O.. N N vy co O J w O O O w O 1 w h h 6 N N O 00 r. O fes- 00 dry M cn 1O" 1O CO r--t x M hO to 'n O C4 u'1 to � -+ W �-+ N rrr cn s tr)- Ln W '-+ 00 co r. in -q h rn M O H O O cn h co L a O W IM rn m N 1=O � O G, CINCom? CCN aN 0 N 00 h Nm N O w O N N O N N O O cry r--I It fh � p cn W o'l O O O Ln O N H W C .-+ rn O O O O H r� O E-4 00 w A a, O O O to M O � c+ c, r. rn I 1 O o, r Lf) [] h Y> to N cll S� O h. �O H O =) m CO O ON N Cl h N N w p �... E a R7 H N ,-+ ch M c•t �y7 CN rs. H �' O W >4 E"t H W V Q� oO r- -4 -4 tr) �o r-+ r+ N h h �A >'f to h of N. Nco un may- Ll 07 CfJ :co UQ� to �t O', 6\°. r-i Lr) IQ C. tfy �U h N a1 N r-+ N N O rt rt1-4 N Vj cn m c`J h r` cn ao I co H 01 to to N N N co r- N C51 ri �' � � N k O .. w w w co0 i :ry co cn -'M X h H ` h. N O 09 co o" .-1 Qti ra S� oo oo O h r-i rt r-t N N co tJr N co H W Q y W' j� � 03ro N m a a w z to b.7 L N 0 O H trcn7 u w s+ s G Z H W ca u r4 W al r al al C o > � O i.+ •.t c9 't u O U 7 W C1 43 O W 0 q N Cl OJ v.5r7 "le W _ °r August 1, 1980 NOTES 1. The proposed budget and tax base for 1981-82 was recommended by the City Budget Committee June 18, 1980. 2. The proposed 1981-82 operating budget provides for a 10% increase in payroll costs for existing employees. it also provides for one additional employee. 3. Provides for an 8.5% average increase over the previous year for operating costs such as utilities, insurance premiums, materials and supplies, street resurfacing, etc. 4. Provides for an 8.5% average increase in equipment replacement costs, and $100,000 in 1981-82 for purchase of additional equipment such as a loader, new communications center at Police Department, letter stuffer/folder, tractor, library automation, etc. 5. Official revenue and expenditure figures for 1979-80 will not be known until after completion of the annual audit. Figures shown reflect what was budgeted. 6. The tax base proposed for 1981-82 would become effective July 1, 1981 if approved by the voters 7. TCYS and Loaves and Fishes were included in all of the operating budgets shown except 1981-82 (TCYS not included in 1977-78). 8. Non-property tax revenues include all revenues other than property taxes. 9. Estimated property taxes shown for 1980-81 and 1981-82 reflect the assumption that 927 of taxes levied will be collected in the current year, and that $20,000 in delinquent taxes will be collected annually. 10. It is assumed that fewer state and 'federal grant dollars will beavailable to the City in the next 2-3 years because of efforts to balance the federal budget.< 11. Estimated assessed valuation figures for 1980-81 and 1981-82 reflect a 107 increase over the previous year. 12. You will note that in every year, between 1977 and 1980, the City has had to levy outsidethetax base for TCYS and Loaves and Fishes (Loaves and Fishes alone in 1977). 13. The tax rates shown include the combined rates of the City, TCYS and Loaves and Fishes for all years shown except 1981-82. 14. Capital,Budget proposed for 1981-82 provides for street projects such as 72nd Avenue, Durham Road, Walnut Street, and Greenburg Road; further development of Cook Park and Summer. Lake Park; and greenway 'development (Hall to Main). 15. The large increases in non-property tax revenues from 1978-79 to 1980-81 are due mostly to the increases in state and federal grants (e.g. Senior Center) and the collection and accumulation of System Development Charges. : The large .decrease in estimated non-property tax revenue from 1980-81 to 1981-82 -is due mainly to the decrease in state and federal grants and a decrease in the amount of System Development funds available if they are all used or most of the funds are used on proiects during 1980-81 (e.g. 72nd Avenue improvements). E TIGARD BUDGET COP!MITTEE MINUTES JUNE 18, 1980 DURHAM TREATMENT PLANT 1. Chairman Bergmann recovened the meeting at 8:14 P.M. 2. PRESENT: Chairman Floyd Bergmann; Committee members John Cook, Tom Brian, Alan Mickelson, Dale Evans, Wally Hoffman, Kenneth Scheckla.; City Administrator, Raeldon R, Barker; Chief of Police, Robert Adams; Head Librarian, Irene Ertell; .Administrative Secretary, Loreen Wilson. 3. City Administrator presented Example No. 4 for the Committee's consideration. This example reflected the requests of the committee from the last meeting which included a 10% increase in payroll costs and provided for an 8.57 increase for operating costs, and increase in equipment costs. City Administrator suggested the Council might want to look at the survey, taken with other cities and entities which passed tax base measures in the May primary, which was distributed. After lengthy discussion, consensus of Committee was to remove the TCYS and Loaves and Fishes amounts from the tax base figure and require these groups to request a separate tax levy each year. Discussion followed regarding the amount of Tax Base to request from the voters and how to approach the election so that it would be passed successfully. At the Committee's direction, the City Administrator figured the tax base at $562,098 which would remove TCYS and Loaves & Fishes and still maintain the monies necessary to operate in the fiscal year 1981-82. With the assessed valuation figures currently available,',this would be a tax rate` of $1.10 per 'thousand. The Committee consensus was to keep the tax:base figure under $600,000. After further discussion, Committee member. Scheckla moved to send the tax base figure of ,$562,098 to the voters in November. Motion was seconded by ,Committee member Mickelson. Approved by unanimous vote of Committee present. ' 4. ADJOURNED: 9:08 P.M. City Administrator' i y. t tr• r � r i r Approved: L. E. George MCH:pf 7/8/80 Misc. Contracts & Agreements No. 7329 CONSTRUCTION-FINANCE AGREEMENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, Highway Division, hereinafter referred to as "State"; and the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, acting by and through its City Officials, hereinafter referred to as "City". W I T N E S S E T H RECITALS 1 . The Beaverton-Tualatin Highway, State Secondary Highway. Noo 141 , is a state highway under the jurisdiction and control of the Oregon Trans- portation Commission, and S.W. Hunsiker and Scoffing Streets are public roads under the jurisdiction and control of the City of Tigard. 2. State and City, in their judgement, have deemed it necessary and desirable, in order to maintain a safer and more expeditious flow of traffic, to install traffic control signal equipment on the Beaverton- Tualatin Highway at Hunsiker and Scoffing Streets,, hereinafter referred -- to as "project". 3e By the authority granted in ORS 366,775, State and City may enter into agreements for construction and maintenance of any state highway with the allocation of costs on terms mutually agreeable to the contracting parties. 4. By the authority granted in ORS 487.850, State is authorized to determine the character or type of traffic control signals to be used, and to place or erect them upon state highways at places where state deems F necessary for the safe and expeditious control of traffic. No traffic control signals shall be erected or maintained'upon any state highway ,by any authority other than State, except with its written approval. NOW, THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the fore- going RECITALS, it is agreed by andbetweenthe parties hereto as follows: STATE OBLIGATIONS - 4 1 . State shall. conduct the necessary field surveys and traffic invests- r ^ gat tons, obtain all right-of-way and easements, perform all preliminary engi- neering and design work required to 'prepare plans, specifications and'esti- - mates, advertise for bids, award all contracts and furnish all construction engineering, material testing, technical inspection, and resident engineer services for administration of the contract. The traffic signal 'instal- t . x lation may be accomplished by the use of state forces, by contract or by any combination of these methods, as State shall elect. 2. State shall, upon completion of the project, perform all necessary maintenance for operation of the traffic signal equipment, and shall retain complete jurisdiction for the timing established for the operation of the traffic signals. 3. State shall, without cost to City, relocate or cause to be relocated, all existing privately-owned utility conduits, lines, poles, mains, pipes, and other such facilities that are located on private property where such relocation is necessary to conform said utilities or facilities to the plans for the project. CITY OBLIGATIONS 1 . City shall accept responsibility for, and pay all costs of, electrical energy consumed in operation of the traffic signal equipment. E" 2. City shall, upon request ,by State and without cost to State, relo- cate or reconstruct, or cause to be relocated or reconstructed, all privately or publicly-owned utility conduits, lines, poles, mains, pipes, and all other such facilities of every kind;and nature, where such utilities or facilities are located within the right-of-way of any presently existing City street where such relocation or reconstruction is necessary in order to conform the utilities or facilities to the plans for the 'project. -2- 3. City shall adopt a resolution authorizing its City Officials to enter into this agreement and the same shall be attached hereto and become a part hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals as of the day and year hereinafter written. Citd has acted tin he y this matter pursuant to Resolution No. , iby t Council on the This project was approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission on _ May 20, 1980 as apart of the Six Year Highway Improvement Program. The Oregon Transportation commission, by a duly adopted delegation order, authorized the State Highway Engineer to sign this agreement for and on behalf of the Commission. Said authority is set forth in the Minutes of the Oregon Transportation Commission. APPROVAL RECOMMENDED STATE OF OREGON, by and through its Department of Transportation, Highway Division Metropolitan Administrator State Highway Engineer Date lJ CITY OF TIGARD, by and through its City Officials By Mayor By City. Recorder -3-