Loading...
City Council Packet - 01/05/1981 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JANUARY 5, 1981 , 7 :30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM AGENDA: 1 . CALL TO ORDER 2. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE TO MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEN 3 . ELECTION OF PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL 7 :45 P.M. EXECUTI17E SESSION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ORS 192 . 660 (2) (a) to DISCUSS TMEA/OSEA LABOR MEDIAT X)N - Darrell Smith RECONVENE - STUDY SESSION 4. S .W. 72ND STREET LID - Presentation by Consultant 5 . S .W. 74TH STREET LID - Director of Public Works 6 . STATUS REPORT - DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PLAN APPLICATION - Councilman Brian 7 . OTHER 8 . ADJOURNMENT T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L STUDY SESSION MINUTES - JANUARY 5 , 1981 - 7 : 30 P .M. 1 . Councilwoman Stimler called the meeting to order and asked Legal Counsel to administer the oathes of office to the recently elected and re-elected members of the Council . 2 . ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE TO MAYOR AND COUNCILMEN . (a) Legal Counsel administered the oath of office to Mayor Wilbur A. Bishop, and to Councilmen John Cook and Kenneth Scheckla . 3 . ROLL CALL: Present : Mayor Wilbur A. Bishop; Councilmen Tom Brian, John Cook, Kenneth Scheckla ; Councilwoman Nancie Stimler ; Chief of Police, Robert Adams ; Legal Counsel , Joe Bailey; City Administrator, Raeldon R. Barker; Director of Pubic Works , Frank Currie ; Finance Director/City Recorder, Doris Hartig; Administrative Secretary, Loreen Wilson. 4. Mayor Bishop and Council expressed their concerns and expectations for the coming year. The main theme was that of wanting more citizen involvement and citizen communication with Council . 5 . ELECTION OF PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL (a) City Recorder counted the ballots cast by the Council for the posi- tion of President of Council and reported that John Cook had been unanimously elected for the position. 6 . SW 72ND AVENUE STREET LID (a) Director of Public Works gave brief history of project and noted that it has taken several years to get the project to the point of requesting a public hearing . He then introduced Marlin DeHaas who is engineering the project . (b) Mr. DeHaas noted that the project was two miles in length and would cover the area of 72nd Avenue from Varns Street to the City Limits and Boones Ferry Road from 72nd Avenue to Durham Road with minor parts of Bonita Road and Cherry Street included . The project will include street improvement and widening to 60 feet of right-of-way, railroad crossing automatic gate signals , sidewalks on one side, street lighting, five bus turnouts , realignment of 72nd, landscaped meridians , trees planted along 72nd Avenue , and traffic signals at three intersections . Mr. DeHaas stated that the preliminary engineering report showed costs would be as follows : Improvement Costs $2 , 527 ,000 Engineering 379,000 Right-of-Way Acquisition 50 ,000 Interest on construction payments 1405000 Total Project Cost $3 ,097 ,000 It was mentioned that the City ' s participation in the LID costs would be $379 ,000 which would leave $2 , 718 ,000 to be borrowed through the Bancroft process . (c) Council , staff and citizens discussed the proposed improvement and were advised by Mr. DeHaas that the public hearing would be February 9 , 1981 , at 8 :00 P.M. (d) Legal Counsel explained the process for right-of-way acquisition to the citizens in the audience. (e) City Administrator stated that the City ' s System Development Charges would be used for the City ' s match in the expenses . (f) Director of Public Works advised Council that the 72nd Avenue project was feasible and badly needed and recommended Council consider a resolution of intent at the January 12 , 1981 meet- ing. At that time the public hearing would be set for February 9 , 1981 . (g) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Cook to consider resolution at the 1-12-81 meeting. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present . 7 . SW 74TH AVENUE STREET LID (a) Director of Public Works advised Council that a petition had been received for street improvements to be made on the portion of SW 74th Avenue between Bonita Road and Durham Road. More information would be presented at a later date on this subject . 8 . STATUS REPORT - DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PLAN APPLICATION (a) Councilman Brian gave brief history of City ' s application to the Community Development Block Grant Program in Hillsboro (HUD funding) for $20,000 for a downtown revitalization plan study. After having been rejected by the citizen advisory board and the County Commissioners for funding qualification, Councilman Brian talked with Mr. Hank March, Program Manager, and requested his help in resubmitting a request before the County Commissioners at 10:00 A.M. to discuss the matter with the Commissioners . The Mayor and City Administrator were asked to attend the meeting by consensus of Council . RECESS : 8 :50 P.M. 9 :00 P.M. Council reconvened in executive session under provisions of ORS 192 . 660 (2) (a) to discuss TMEA/OSEA labor mediation. PAGE 2 - STUDY SESSION MINUTES January 5 , 1981 Council met with City Negotiator Darrell Smith to discuss status of labor negotiations and provide direction for further mediation sessions . Negotiator discussed proposals , issues , recent settlements , economic package and steps through negotiations leading up to fact-finding or settlement. He pointed out that fact-finding for. this Association is not binding and may be rejected by either side . Should no settlement be reached, and the Association goes out on strike , the City, by Oregon law, may fill the positions with permanent or temporary help. Council discussed the issues and gave guidance to negotiator . Meeting recessed 10 : 15 P.M. Meeting Reconvened OTHER: (a) Chief of Police distributed to members of Council the new Police Operations Manual along with a copy of complimentary letters from other agencies . (b) City Administrator expressed his appreciation to the Chief and staff for their excellent .work. 10: 16 P.M. Councilwoman Stimler left meeting. (c) City Administrator requested Council authorize partial payment of $48,835 to contractor on Senior Citizen Center . Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve payment. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present . (d) City Administrator reported the Assessment Center for the Lieutenant ' s position will be held at the Wayside Inn, Friday, January 9 , 1981 . Eight people will be participating, three are City employees . It is estimated a recommendation for the position can be made in about two weeks . (e) Council discussed mailing of the annexation letter and who should sign. Concensus of Council was to close letter "Tigard City Councy by: (signed) Wilbur A. Bishop, Mayor" . Letters to be mailed Wednesday, January 7 , 1981 . ( f) Mayor Bishop announced meeting of Washington County Elected Officials Thursday, 7 :30 P.M. January 8, 1.981 , Wolfe Creek Water District Offices . (g) Mayor Bishop distributed copy of Mayor ' s Advisory Council survey and commented on the response. He reviewed specific questions and citizens opinion. i PAGE 3 - STUDY SESSION MINOTES January 51, 1981 (h) Council and Staff discussed holding informal Council meetings with department heads for exchange of ideas , setting up priorities and goals. ( i) Mayor Bishop requested staff encourage the Oregonian to publish a schedule of City of Tigard ' s meetings . MEETING ADJOURNED 10:55 P.M. City Recorder ATTEST: Mayor r PAGE 4 — STUDY SESSION MINUTES January 5, 1981 WASHINGTON COUNTY Inter-Department Correspondence Date January 6, 1981 To : Board of Commissioners From : Program Manager, Office of Community Development DECfl �g�Q Subject : Tigard Planning Project, Revi@w and Reconsideration Of TIGARC At its regular meeting of December 23, 1980 the Board voted 2 - 1 to support a staff recommendation -to deny 1981 Block Grant funding in the amount of $20,000.00 to the City of Tigard for CDBG Project #3003. The basis upon which such denial was made and the fact that -there was little opportunity to evaluate newly introduced evidence prompts me to ask your Board to review the matter in its full context and, following such review, reverse the decision to deny funding. Although the two advisory groups that rated the project differed con- siderably - 50.86 points from the Citizens Advisory Committee vs. 66.3 points from the Policy Advisory Board - according to existing policy, "a project which scores 65 points from either body would be considered eligible for funding". Implicit in such a policy statement is the notion that the attainment of 65 points means a project automatically receives a favorable indorsement. Staff failed -i(, make it clear to the Board chat staff 's recommendation to den; funding was an independent assessment that needed to be, but was not, evaluated by the Board and measured against the overall PAB/CAC rating, or more appropriately, in my estimation, against those of both the PAB and CAC. While the Board's motion to deny funding supported the staff recommen- dation such a motion - contrary to the belief of the Board - did not support, according to the 65 point rule, the collective recommendation of the advisory groups. Incidentally, there was never a question or doubt about this project being an eligible activity. The second aspect of this issue involves the introduction of new testim- ony and evidence by the sponsor at the December 2.3rd meeting. in order to have judged the project on its merits, that evidence should have been the focus of our deliberations - unfortunately it was not, in rotro- spect, that evidence ( Included herein) while not as precise as it might have been, considerably belays staff 's previous concerns and object;ons. Because 2 of -the 3 staff recommendations made on December• 23, 1980 are inter-related to one another, your concurrence to now include Tigard's planning project on the list of those already selected for funding would have the following effect on those previously adopted recommendations: Item I - Project #3003 would be added directly behind 3002 and the total dollar value would be Increased from $346,888 to $366,888. Item 2 - Deleted You should note the 1981 project proposals need to be incorporated into our draft application which will be reviewed by the Board at a special public hearing on February 3, 1981 . For your further review of this matter I have enclosed the following documents: - a copy of the original project proposal - PAB/CAC rating of 3rd year projects - Tigard's December 23, 1980 letter - an extract of my overall recommendations to the Board on December 23, 1980 plan to discuss this issue with you et the worksession preceeding the January 6, 1981 Board meeting. Recommendation: Following your review of the testimony and evidence cited herein I recommend your Board allow the Tigard Planning Proposal , #3003, to be funded and incli•ded in the County's 1981 Draft Application. Sincerely, H.J . March Program Manager HJM:ps enc. cc: Raeldon Barker, Tigard PAB Chairperson CAC Chairperson OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS 12-23-80 For the purpose of developing the 1981 CDBG Draft application I recommend your Board: I . Concur with the recommendations to fund the following proposals in decending priority order: 3009, 3005, 3006, 3004, 3001 , 3007, and 3002 for a total dollar value of $346,888. 2. Following your reviews, concu'- with the recommendation not to fund Proposal 3003. 3. Concur with the further recommendation of the PAB/CAC and endorsement of staff to allocate $5,000 towards Fair Housing Counselling and using the balance of reprogrammable income for County-wide Housing Rehabilitation. � P PAB/CAC Raring of 3rd Year Projects y #3009 Comprehensive Community Development Planning Dec iared a program deficiency by staff and endorsed unanimously by PAIS/CAC for funding. 0!3005 Migrant Farmworker Housing Pre-Development CAC: 98.57 PAB: 97.5 Average: 98.04 #3006 Rehabilitation Center Construction CAC: 84. 14 PAB: 86.80 Average: 85.47 #3004 McKinney Park Improvements CAC: 74.71 PAB: 73.7 Avorage: 74.21 #3001 Eater and Sewer lines for Tualatin/Durham Senior Center CAC: 70.86 PAIS: 74.6 Average: 72.73 REM Of3007 North Plains Traffic Safety Project CAC: 72 PAB: 70 Average: 71 003002 Shorwood Senior Conter S l•I-e Devo l opment CAC: 65. 14 PAB: 75.2 fiverago: 70, 17 #3003 Tigard Downtown Rovitolizaiion Plan CAC: 50.36 PAD: 66.3 Avcrago: 58.58 #3008 Expansion of North Plain, Sonior Cvnler inoi IgIL)lo C OF TEGM WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON December 23 , 1980 Washington County. Board of Commissioners 150 North First Avenue Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 Dear Commissioners : The City of Tigard requests that you approve our proposal to fund part of the costs of_a downtown revitalization plan through the County' s Community Development Block Grant Program. A local planning committee has spent over six months identifying problems and making recommendations to the Ci-ty Council regarding Tigard 's downtown area. This committee recommended that the City engage the services of an experienced consultant to prepare a downtown revitalization plan. The plan would address the following existing problems : housing, recreational , and trans- portation needs of those with low to moderate incomes in the downtown area, building deterioration of commercial structures, need for additional parking and improved traffic safety and circulation. It would include gatheri-n7 increased data on needs, cost estimates, and recommended methods of financing the necessary improvements . On December llth, the Policy Advisory Board and the Citizens Advisory Committee rated our project proposal along with seven others . The PAB approved our project but the CAC only gave it 50.8 points. Comments made by members of the CAC at the December 11th meeting indicate that they did not understand the intent or value of our project. These comments included the following: 1. There is "no benefit" to low to moderate income individuals . 2. There are other sources of funding readily available. 3. The City should be able to use its comprehensive plan to accomplish the same thing. Because the City was not allowed to provide additional information or act as an advocate for its own project at the December 11th meeting, we were unable to respond to any of these issues. k We would like to stress the following points : t 12420 5.W'. MAIN P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223' PH: 639_4171 Washington County Board of Commissioners -2- December 23, 1980 1. We have investigated other sources of funding and they are not .available for the purpose of this planning/study effort. 2. The project would benefit low to moderate income individuals. We believe the majority of existing households in the down- town area fall into this category. Currently, there are 267 multi-family units in the proposed project area. It should also be pointed out that a 200 unit home for the aged is proposed for the downtown area at the corner of Hall and Burnham. Also, many of the small businessmen downtown have incomes which are low to moderate. 3. The City 's comprehensive plan does not have sufficient detail to assist the City in downtown development. For example, it does not include population of- income data specific to the core area, nor does it address cost estimates or reco-muended sources of funding for. improvements . If we already had the information we need, we would not be willing to spend $5 ,000 of the City taxpayer's money to duplicate that information. While our proposed project may not benefit as many low to moderat- individuals (or score as high) as some of the other projects, you are now considering, we believe our project does have merit, and it is eligible for funding through the CDBG Program. The City is only requesting $20,000 for this project. We have not requested reimbursement for any in-kind services or materials . The money is currently available through the CDBG and we request that you approve our project for submittal to HUD. Your consideration will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Raeldon R. Barker City Administrator On behalf of the Tigard City Council , Alan Mickelson, Mayor Tom Brian, Councilman John Cool:, Councilman a Kenneth Scheckla, Councilman Nancie Stimler, Councilwoman RRB: lw • „ 9 k - SP 12 ■II!� 1 �Inl :11 1l:1 IHI �i�n E 11 • 11 ■ �1 i y _ IHI1 a HIIn1 111® 4' •1 11!11 1 11! 1 1 ` r )t i' R 131111N r,4 r 14 SIM 11�11 N 26 26 y: r • � IH11 1 - _: x 1 ■ + 1 - . • i� 27 ■IHii1�'i'rini ■Inii■ "i'lu'� :. : �® 1H II111HN nHlHn28 f �I� IIHI II�nHinn 1 J 1 1111 1 IH H■IHII31 ;�= 32 ■I NII1 In ■NIHII33 � "� ■■1 H nl IIIN �� 11111■NII;1 Nln 1� 1 - 4 t =moi IH 11 11 ■/11� Illn Inn - 11 IInN � 11;11 111 1111/ 1� - NIII I■11111 � /NIH/NILn111n�in s , , .;�� � ■111111■1 nI 11 m 1111 nll/i�11111 1 0 Fa r a a.: b • F I • • : I■I■1 1 11 H �1 rl �- IR!H II Ih NIII �: I�1/'71� ILII Ngl■■1 - 11� N - I� Ell n11�' .,._..`_�■� 1�,''1/uii/,1 Iii _� ^ �1/ M- r iii I I■1�1 Illn�Ilq 1 �a x i 11�1/g111� ■Ih.11irk 1 i --.� 11111 In 1 Inl 1 NO ® 1�1 1� II II■■11 - = �� I �1�1 ■11111 N 1 � 1 '=...:�= _:v;�® � i■ �11■I■In 1 INII■■IIInu t_ .,�:=:�ll� I■�111 1 � ■11 H■I■Iliq I �` '` - ■, i�1�FALMall MEN am o Hsi Hac�e�i�nr ia�ni� � VIII■ pIII■I■NIII■i■ 1 :. 11111. 111 ■� H�q ■� '' - ■I I■IIIII HI��H��IINI�I/iq KIM nn 1 1�1�1 111 I�■It 1111 1 IINminn ■I I�In 1111H NIi - /n11N1■11I1�� INI�■11 IIII _ In ■I■IHII 11111 IHII q1 ��■I■�111 - , . I■■I /�11�1■IIInN H MINI 1 - � ■� IINI n � 1■! nN1■I■ = : I i■Inll �■■1 1■i� ■I 1 = -- I�NIq II dill inlNf�11.11 ■Ili