City Council Packet - 01/18/1982 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Study Sessions are lnfnrmaI, __.
STUDY SESSION AGENDA work sessions of the City Council. N,
? JANUARY 18, 1982, 7:30 P.M. final action on any item will be takes
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL at the Study Session. Action items w;
LECTURE 80014 set for Regular Meetings,
7:30 pm 1. STUDY SESSION:
1.1 Call To Order
1.2 Roll Call
1:35 pm 2. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one
motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed
for discussion and separate action. Motion to accept:
2.1 Serena Court Report
2.2 Waverly Meadows (Krose Loop & Bikeway) Report
2.3 Annexation Status Report
2.4 Sorg/Library Lease Report
2.5 Departmental Reports
7:45 pm 3. Streets. SDC, City Administrator and Public Works Director: Discussion
8:00 pm 4. 72nd Avenue LID Progress Report and Financing, City Administrator and Public
Works Director: Discussion
8:45 pm 5. LID Policy, City £.dministrator and Public Works Director: Discussion
5.1 Current Policy
5.2 Related Issues: Private LID's, Metro-Model, City Match, Due-On.-Sale Policy,
Sewer Finance Charge In-Lieu-Of-Assessment.
5.3 Professional Services Policy
5.4 Tualatin Development Corp. Sewer Agreement Report
9:30 pm G. Sign Code, City Administrator and Building Official: Discussion(Continued to 2-15-82)
9:30 pm 7. Council Expenses, City Administrator and City Attorney: Discussion
9:45 pm S. Public Safety Department Annual Reports:
8.1 Public Safety Overview, Chief of Police
8.2 Police Department, Chief of Police
8.3 Municipal Court, Judge Pelay
8.4 City Attorney
9. Open Agenda: Staff, Public and Council Comments
10. Adjournment
i
r 1
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
STUDY SESSION MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1982 - 7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur A. Bishop; Councilmen John Cook, Kenneth Scheckla;
Councilwoman Nancie Stimler; Chief of Police, Robert Adams; Director of
Public Works/Planning Director, Frank Currie; Finance Director/City Recorder,
Doris Hartig; City Administrator, Robert Jean; Legal Counsel, Ed
Sullivan; Office Manager, Loreen Wilson.
2. CALL TO AUDIENCE, STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS
(a) Mayor Bishop read letter from Ima Scott regarding PGE rate increases for
multi-family dwellings. Mrs. Scott requested full support of the Council
and Mayor to aid the citizens in this unjustified rate hike .
City Administrator stated he finds this matter inconsistant with LCDC rules and
raises a large policy issue that needs to be addressed. Discussion followed as
to how the Council could handle this issue.
Ed Sullivan advised asking for an amendment of that regulation to the PUC.
Then, he noted, that LCDC could speak to this matter under ORS 197.180
where plans and programs have to be compatible with goals.
City Administrator stated that under the current franchise it might be possible
to force PGE to absorb cost for underground work for the LID's. PGE has applied
to the PUC for a rule amendment that would allow them to pass on the cost of
undergrounding in a community directly to the customers in that community. The
Mayor sent a letter to PUC Commissioner John Lobdell opposing that philosophy
of rate making. The City Administrator also mentioned that the application was
filed by PGE in October and the League of Oregon Cities just heard about it and
today was the last day to be able to protest the increase. This also raised
the question as to what the process is by which the PUC is providing notice .
Discussion followed regarding policies for notifying public for legislative acts.
City Administrator stated that staff would send a letter to LCDC, DEQ, PUC
and a summary letter to the Governor. City Council requested a letter be sent
to the State Legislature also.
(b) Mr. Dave Atkinson, resident on Durham Road, expressed his appreciation for a speed
limit being set on Durham Road. However, this was only solving a small portion
of the problem. Mr. Atkinson's main concern was the noise and through tractor/
trailer traffic from 99W to Interstate 5. He questioned the monitoring
of traffic and posting load limit signs which read "except for utility and
local area vehicles - no thru traffic".
City Administrator stated that no speed limits have been set, but have applied
to the State Speed Control Board for a study. Regarding the issue of load limits
and restricting trucks, this is being pursued with the County and staff hopes to
have some action on this in February. The Police Department is trying to
intensify their patrol efforts in that area.
Discussion followed as to what could be done in the interim and when the
r g�e� committee,�fiichh iF working on this issue , would be meetingagain. Councilman
y,ri SchecklaY to 7'h would like to attend the meeting. City Administrator
stated that staff ouId try to schedule a late afternoon meeting and notify
interested parties who wished to attend.
(c) City Administrator reported that as of July, 1981, Portland State has recognized
the City's population as 15 ,100. He noted that the City would be approximately
18,000 by next July due to the annexations occuring.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
3.1 Director of Public Works gave a verbal update on the Serena Court issue and
noted that conditions were applied to the approval of the plat which have not
been fulfilled by the developer as of this date. City Administrator and
Director of Public Works met with the residents of Serena Court and outlined
their concerns. Staff is presently working on these and will be getting
back with residents within the next two weeks.
3.2 Director of Public Works gave verbal report on Krose Loop and bikeway issues
in Waverly Meadows. Staff had met with residents in that neighborhood and worked
out a solution for the cul-de-sac on making it just large enough so street
sweepers could turn around, installing a catch basin and looking out for the large
fir trees. With regards to the bikepath, the developer signed a compliance
agreement and the staff intends to enforce it. Staff would like to work out a
solution with the developer, however, to date he has not accomplished this.
Discussion followed regarding City Council concerns on time limit for completion
of problems and other solutions for completion of the bikepath.
3.3 City Administrator informed Council that the annexations listed in the memo
from the Planning Director, would go to the Boundary Commission according to
the noted time table.
Councilman Scheckla questioned the rights of persons being annexed regarding
the November election.
Legal Counsel stated that those citizens could participate and that this right
could not be waived because it was set forth in the City Charter.
(a) Councilwoman Stimler moved to approve all Consent Agenda reports, motion seconded
by Councilman Cook.
Motion passed by unanimous vote of Council present.
4. STREETS - SDC
(a) City Administrator requested item be set over to the February 15, 1982 meeting.
He gave an overview as to the effect 72nd Avenue LID would have on the SDC fund
and explained receipts of SDC funds and expenditures. He noted that this fund
could be totally depleted if used for 72nd Avenue LID and this was due to
revenue being down because of the economy and other demands in the city for those
funds. The City Administrator continued to state that the only way to sort this
issue out was to give a comprehensive look at the entire street program, maintenance
dollars, minor and major capital improvement dollars from the SDC fund, and then
list out the funding sources along with the programs Council has adopted. Staff
should have this full view for Council in February. Then Council would need to
review street funding policies prior to issuance of any funds with the mid-year
budget review. Discussion followed between the City Administrator and Council
regarding these issues.
5. 72ND AVENUE LID PROGRESS REPORT AND FINANCING
(a) City Administrator presented his staff report to Council (see attached report).
Mayor Bishop expressed his appreciation of the City Administrator's complete
and concise review of the matter. City Administrator stated his intent in doing
PAGE 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1982
the synopsis was to reduce the facts on the issue and provide a current status
report. He discussed some background issues, and following the staff report
format, summarized options available to the Council. He concluded by
commending Director of Public Work's objectivity and Marlin DeHaas ' , consulting
engineer, for following the intent of Council and the discretion which he used.
The City Administrator continued by outlining the five alternatives which Council
might want to choose from.
(b) Mayor Bishop noted that this was not a public hearing but that he would allow
the audience to express their thoughts regarding this project.
(c) Tony Maksym, 13536 SW 72nd Avenue , stated that Mayor Bishop's original plan
was including some very important issues concerning the upper two-thirds of the
project. Two items that were changed by City Council amendment were: (1)
an ordinance to add to the cost of the 1.5 million any additional cost in the
right-of-way; and (2) ordinance No. 81-82 to standardize a 40' road instead of the
44 ' road. He reported that these altered the Mayor's original proposal. Now
instead of paying for 28 foot road with open ditches working within an existing
40' right-o€-way, citizens were faced with a 40 foot road with curbs and drainage
and working within a 60 foot wide right-of-way. Mr. Maksym suggested Council
continue to look at the original proposal given, then see where the cost estimate
would come out. He felt that subtle changes have been made that have caused
the citizens to have to come back on a project that they thought was already
'put to bed'. He questioned staff's concern and ability to deal with these issues.
(d) City Administrator assured Mr. Maksym that the project is very important to staff
and that he would continue to be a part of this project with the Director of
Public Works.
(e) Mr. John Skourtes, 17010 SW Weir Road, Beaverton, noted page 4 , paragraph 4 of
the memo by stating that the citizens had set a budget of $1.3 million. Next
thing the citizens knew, it was up to $1.5 million, then another $50,000 was
added for right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Skourtes stated that he would like to
see a compromise of $1.4 million for the total project. He questioned why the
north half of the project couldn't be cut down to 36' or 38' and what difference
it would make since there was no traffic congestion in that area. He suggested
that City Council direct the engineer to design within the set budget.
(f) Mr. Gus Greco, 13425 SW 72nd Avenue, agreed with Mr. Skourtes , stating that other
streets are overloaded and that 72nd was at least quiet on weekends. He asked
City Council to please save as much money as possible.
(g) Mrs. Lenore Warner, property owner of 13515 SW 72nd Avenue , concluded, after
listening to the discussions, that SDC fund demands may be at the point of
depletion at the time the project comes about. This would seem to indicate
the cost could then be placed back upon the property owner, especially if the
project is not completed to Cit; specifications.
(h) City Administrator commented that there are a lot of projects competing for the
same SDC funds. He further stated that if 72nd Avenue were not completed to
major collector or arterial street standards that SDC funds could not be used
for partial payment in city match funds. He discussed the need for SDC
financing policies, and uses of bancroft bonds and new financing plans for
LID's in ger:eral.
Discussion followed regarding residential versus collector or arterial street
standards and the Cicy's financial participation.
PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1982
(i) Mrs. Lorraine Greco, 13425 SW 72nd Avenue , questioned the method of deferal
Of payment of Bancroft Bond Assessment and how it would effect them as a
home owner. The City Administrator suggested that she contact him at City
Hall and he would work out the figures with her.
(j) Mr. Maksym stated Council had discussed giving residential properties an
assessment deferal, interest free, until the property sells or a zone
change is requested. Council requested Legal Counsel investigate this and
also the issue of whether bancroft funding could be used by the City for this
purpose. Mr. Maksym continued by saying that he wanted the City Council to submit
their findings and a true comparison between proposals "A" & "B" to the
property owners before tiie Council approves the project.
(k) Councilman Scheckla questioned the impact 72nd Avenue had on the Police Department
in the form of citations and accidents over the last year or so. Lieutenant
Jennings responded that this was difficult to say without information from the
office, however, there are other areas in the City which present more problems.
RECESS: 9:40 PM
RECONVENE: 9:54 PM
(1) Mayor Bishop reiterated that the report by the City Administrator was very
concise and complete and showed expertise in grasp ng what the problems have
been. He gave a historical synopsis of the A & B proposals. Then he stated that
since _he staff reports that alternate B would be as expensive as alternate A,
he would recommend that proposal #1 of the City Administrator's would be the
best choice at this time. The Mayor felt that the City should see the bid
results before another alternative could be considered.
(m) Councilman Cook agreed with Mayor Bishop and recommended the City Administrator's
alternate #1 be enacted.
(n) Mayor Bishop recommended that staff go to the property owners and give them a
choice as to what alternatives they wish to be added to the project if the bids
come in low.
(o) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to adopt alternative
#1 on page 5 of the Administrator's report.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
6. City Administrator requested Council re-set agenda items No. 5 through 7 to a later
date due to the lateness of the hour. Consensus of Council was reached to re-set
items 5-7 until a later meeting date.
7. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT ANNUAL REPORT
(a) Chief of Police gave an overview of the Public Safety Department and had a few
members of other agencies report their reaction to the Council.
Mr. Chuck Kingston, Fowler Junior High School Principal, reported his support of
the Police Department's positive response and service.
Mr. Pete Lorain, Tigard High School Vice Principal, reported his appreciation
of the Department's success in developing rapport with the students.
PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1982
Chief Doug Krebs , Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District, noted the Police
Department's tremendous help in creating the 911 system and cooperative
efforts and support at the fire scene and other emergency scenes.
(b) Chief of Police and staff gave brief overviews of the Police Department and its
functions. Slides were periodically shown throughout this presentation.
Chief of Police discussed traffic management data, community crime rates
versus clearance rates, and how each division interacts with each other.
Lieutenant Jennings advised Council of the training program at the Police Department
and how that enhances the service delivered to the citizens.
Records Supervisor Carrick discussed the responsibilities and work load of the
Services Division.
Sergeant Wheeler presented slides and narrative describing various drugs and drug
related problems addressed by the Police Department.
Sergeant Martin discussed the Patrol Division and Reserve Program.
Sergeant Branstetter and Corporal Myers advised Council of the Detective Division
duties and what methods they are using to locate criminals.
Officer Grisham discussed the crime prevention program.
(c) Municipal Court Judge Anthony Pelay gave a brief synopsis of the Municipal Court
role in the City of Tigard and noted some of his concerns.
(d) Legal Counsel noted that their firm had been working closely with the
Municipal Court and city staff and referred Council to the written memo
which had been distributed.
8. ADJOURNMENT: 11:55 P.M.
Cit ecorder
ATTEST:
Mayor
PAGE 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1982
January 15, 1982
Mayor and City Council
City of Tigard, Oregon
SUBJECT: 72nd Avenue L.I.D. Status Report
Honorable Persons:
The 72nd Avenue Local Improvement District project has produced some recent deve-
lopments contrary to what might have been originally thought to be the case at this
point in the project. I have recently become involved in a thorough review of the
project and have met extensively with staff and interested parties. My purpose
here is to report to you as to my findings on the status of this project and to ask
for specific direction prior to further work on this project.
BACKGROUND
So that I may refresh your memory and to identify what I consider to be relevant
past influences, I will briefly review some of the background to this project.
a 72nd Avenue had been a County road until annexation of the area and acceptance
of the road by the City around 1978.
o Washington County had done a maintenance overlay from Bonita north around 1974.
e About that same time, Washington County pursued a Federal grant to widen
and improve the road to a 5-lane arterial standard. The State was to do the
design, and the adjacent property owners were to contribute rights-of-way.
The project was not done.
e In 1977, the first petitions were circulated by First State Bank to improve the
area by the S-curve by L.I.D. The proposal gradually expanded south to Bonita
and then to Carmen. By Council direction, it was extended down 72nd to Tualatin,
and later, Pac Trust and Boones Ferry were added.
e Meanwhile, in 1978 a preventive maintenance overlay was done by the City from
Bonita south to buy time for the L.I.D. formation and construction.
• Some property owners in the area had been conditioned to non-remonstrance agree-
ments in lieu of half-street improvements. Petitions and non-remonstrance agree-
ments for the L.I.D. project were on file with the City by May, 1980.
L.I.D. PROCESS
Once the necessary petitions and documents had been received by the City, the formal
part of the L.I.D. process was started. The sequence and major actions were as
follows:
o 6/2/80 - Motion by Council to have DeHaas and Associates, Engineers, prepare
an Engineer's Report on the 72nd Avenue L.I.D.
-2-
a 1/12/81 - The Engineer's Report was presented to the City Council. Resolution
81-2 (attached to Ord. 81-45) was passed by the Council "declaring the intent
to construct street improvements in the area to be known as the S.W. 72nd
Avenue L.I.D. " The Engineer's estimate of the total cost was $3,097,137, in-
cluding a City cost of $379,111 for 15% of the project and covering legal,
administrative and engineering costs. The assessable costs were $2,718,026.
A Public Hearing was set for 2/9/81.
® 2/9/81 - At the Public Hearing, testimony indicated that the project was too
big, had too many extras, that residential properties should be given an ex-
emption or deferral, and that more information on railroad and traffic signal
grant funding was needed. The Council indicated its need for more information
and additional alternatives. The Hearing was closed and continued to the Study
Session of 3/2/81.
e 3/9/81 - At this meeting, Mayor Bishop asked if the 36 foot standard used on
Hunziker could be used instead of the 44' standard arterial proposed for 72nd
Avenue. Discussion followed. City Attorney Bailey read a request from Attorney
Blount asking to reopen the Hearing. Bailey recommended that the Council re-
open for new testimony only. The Council moved to reopen the Public Hearing
on 3/23/81.
e 3/23/81 - Mayor Bishop indicated that Attorney Blount had a request of the
Council prior to reopening the Hearing. Attorney Blount indicated that some
of the property owners felt the project was too expensive. Attorney Blount
requested that the matter be tabled for 120 days, and that an Ad Hoc Committee
be formed to develop another alternative. The Ad Hoc Committee would be com-
prised of City staff, the consulting engineer Marlin DeHaas, property owners
and another consulting engineer (or engineers. . .Ginther and Waker) to be paid
separately by the property owners. Lengthy discussion followed.
A motion was made to hold a Public Hearing on 5/18/81. The motion was amended
to havea Study Session with the Ad Hoc Committee on 5/18/81 and hold a Public
Hearing on 6/1/81.
e 5/14/81 - An informal meeting with some members of the Council, staff and affec-
ted property owners was held at the Consolidated offices on 72nd. No formal
proposals or costs were presented by the Ad Hoc Committee at that time.
(NOTE: Public Works Director Frank Currie had contacted the committee as to
staff and consultant involvement with the Ad Hoc Committee, but was told they
weren't ready and would contact him. Staff was not involved with any of the Ad
Hoc Committee's efforts until the 5/14/01 meeting. )
0 5/18/81 - At this Study Session, the Ad Hoc Committee's engineer, Bud Roberts of
Waker and Associates, presented the Ad Hoc Committee's five alternatives. No
cost estimates were presented, although a cap on assessments of $1.3 million was
` suggested. (See attached Waker letter of 5/29/81 with attachments dated 5/11/81. )
Public Works Director Currie responded that the Ad Hoc Committee's suggested 28'
improvement project was inadequate for future traffic needs, and that a 40'-44'
roadway was needed if City SDC funds were involved. Staff presented its estimates
of a total $3.1 million project with possible deductible parts down to a basic
project of $2.272 million. (See attached letter of 5/18/81 from DeHaas to Currie. )
Discussion followed regarding funding of railroad crossings from PUD monies, State
funding at interchanges, and City funding from SDC monies. Discussion of traffic
volumes and City maintenance costs next occurred. Council moved to continue to
the 6/1/81 Hearing.
-3-
e 6/1/81 - The Public Hearing was reopened. Mayor Bishop presented his view of
the background to the project and then presented his proposal, which he felt
was consistent with the Ad Hoc Committee's alternate #1, and using $469,891 of
the City's SDC funds. (See attached minutes from 6/1/81. ) The Public Hearing
was closed.
Lengthy Council discussion followed. Mayor Bishop and Councilman Scheckla
favored the idea of 1/3 at full standard and 2/3 at an interim width. Council
members Cook, Brian and Stimler expressed desire for at least 36' paved improve-
ments. Acting City Administrator/Public Works Director Currie reported that the
Mayor's 1/3-2/3 proposal would require half of the City's current $1 million SDC
fund, and that as Public Works Director, he could not recommend the use of SDC
funds for a street not to developed standards.
Councilman Cook moved to "request the engineering work be done and bids solicited
for the improvements with the following alternates". . .A and B. (See pages 4-5
of 6/1/81 minutes. ) Assessment participation was to be limited to $1.3-$1.5
million. An ordinance was to be prepared for the 6/8/81 Council meeting.
• 6/8/81 - Ordinance 81-45 was introduced. Discussion followed regarding financ-
ing, deferred assessments and right-of-way costs. The ordinance was amended
by Council, including the exclusion of right-of-way costs over $50,000 from the
$1.5 million assessment limit. Ordinance 81-45 as amended passed unanimously.
s 9/28/81 - Ordinance 81-82 was introduced to standardize 40' and 44' portions of
the project all to the 40' standard. Passed.
• 12/12/81 - Public Works Director Currie reported to Council that engineering
studies to date indicated that the alternate "A" final design and the "B" alter-
native with interim standards might be very close in cost, yet still well above
the $1.5 million assessment portion. Council was asked if completion of the
plans and specifications for bids on both A and B as per Ord. 81-45 should con-
tinue, 'or if, since only City funds were involved, whether A only should be for-
warded. Council directed that staff pursue the matter further and come back as
soon as possible with better cost data.
* 1/13/82 - At the request of property owners John Skourtes and Tony Maksym, a
meeting was held at City Hall from 2:00-6:00 P.M. with Mayor Bishop, City Adminis-
trator Jean, Public Works Director Currie, Consulting Engineer DeHaas, and Mr.
Skourtes and Mr. Maksym. The purpose of the meeting was to review allegations
and concerns of Skourtes and Maksym, as well as to report to them on the process
to date and cost findings.
The essence of the meeting was that if, as the Engineer estimates, the "A" alter-
nate costs from $2,488,750 - $2,016,566 and "B" costs $2,343-420 - $1,990,712
then another cheaper option, "Alternate C", should be developed.
DESIGN AND COST FINDINGS
Both the "A" and "B" options have been pursued simultaneously thus far. Since the
"B" option is a narrower paved surface within the "A" alignment and grade, both involve
the same drainage and rights-of-way issues. Information on the amount of cut and
fill and estimated materials quantities for both alternatives are available. By
necessity, "A" is a bit further along towards final plans and specifications for
bid than "B!'. If, as it seems, "A" is equal to "B" in cost, then it is questionable
whether the City should best spend an additional $30,000-$35,000 of its limited re-
sources to complete the "B" option plans and specifications purely to satisfy the
curiosity of those whose assessments are already limited. Obviously, if both are
comparable in cost, the "A" option with a completed street is preferable over the
incomplete "B" option.
-4-
Logic would seem to dictate that "B" must certainly be cheaper than "A". But,
when the specifics of this project are considered, it is the opinion of our
consulting engineer and Public Works Director in this case that "A" and "B" are
comparable. Critics have challenged the integrity and objectivity of both the
consulting engineer and our Public Works Director, also a registered professional
civil engineer. These same critics had the opportunity to offer constructive al-
ternatives, but all they really said was $1.3 million is all we can afford. I am
not of the opinion that a second opinion of another engineer, especially one of
the critics' choosing, will offer any significant revelations or cost-savings.
Any engineer can design a project within a budget. Just tell them what you want to
spend, and they can recommend how best to spend it. But that will not necessarily
give the community - and it is community SDC funds we're talking about, since the
assessable amount is limited to $1.5 million - a standard project meeting future
traffic demands and minimal maintenance cost goals. A sub-standard street design
must be evaluated as to the reduction or elimination of City SDC participation.
Like it or not, believe it or not, I am convinced that alternative "A" is comparable
in cost to alternative "B", anti since both are well above the assessment limit, I
must recommend that the Council consider eliminating alternative "B" at this point
and putting the $30,000-$35,000 of savings into construction improvements. The
Council should resist pressure to spend limited City resources on what appears to
be curious speculation_. All speculation or guessing aside, the facts as of 1/12/82
on minimum costs are summarized as follows (See attached worksheets) :
Alternative "A": $2,016,566
Alternative "B": $1,990,712
CONCLUSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
There are essentially two ways to engineer a project: (1) set your standards as
to what you want and ask the engineer what it will cost; or, (2) set your budget
amount and ask the engineer how to best use those monies for maximum benefit. What
you cannot do is essentially what we are trying to do, and that is to stay with set
standards and keep under an arbitrary budget amount.
Any second engineer's opinion in this case will only result in recommended revisions
down to a sub-standard street with a shorter useful life. We can direct our engineer
to do that, but that's not what we directed. We can always do it "cheaper", but the
real questions remains: Is "cheaper" really "less expensive"? Any efforts towards
a sub-standard project must consider reduction or removal of City SDC funding partici-
pation. Without City SDC funds, the "cheaper" project may have assessments still in
the $1.341.5 million range.
But we are after all still talking about estimates. Perhaps if we get plans and
specifications out to bid, we may hopefully receive bids considerably below reason-
able estimates. Some have suggested that construction bids may be as much as 30% below
estimates. If so, it seems to be even more reason to move as quickly and as far
along towards the final standard improvement as we can.
Assuming we finally agree upon the preferred option and get favorable bids, the ques-
tion of financing remains unanswered in my mind. A sub-standard project will be less
attractive to bond buyers than an interim or final standard project. The City's
present unencumbered fund balance for the SDC fund is $550,000. If we were to approve
a $2 million project based on $1.5 million in assessments and $.5 million in City
monies, we would need to freeze that entire fund balance into some sort of escrow
agreement in order to satisfy a bond buyer. Alternatively, the property owners
-5-
could agree to assessing 100% of the cost and then being billed annually for only
75% or their share. In this way, the City could Bancroft Bond its obligation along
with the property owners. This would net totally deplete the fund and would still
be attractive to bond buyers and property owners alike.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council must provide the guidance to staff prior to taking any next step in the
process. Essentially, I see five alternatives, each: with advantages and disadvan-
tages.
1. ) The staff is directed to proceed with plans and specifications to call for bids
on Alternative "A" only at this time. The timetable shall be revised according-
ly: Call-for-Bids on 2/1/82; Open Bids on 3/2/82; Council Declares Apparent
Low Bidder on 3/8/82; Letter to Property Owners on 3/9/82; Public Hearing to
Amend Ordinance, Reject or Award Bid on 3/22/82; Construction in April.
The advantages are: good chance construction bids may be below estimates; saves
$30.,000-$35,000 of City funds in engineering to complete "B" option; stays on
spring timetable; get final product at same cost of interim product; still allows
Council to reject all bids if found inappropriate; allows property owners to
decide on deducts based on actual bid cost and their benefit; allows time for
letter notification and Public Hearing if amendment to ordinance is desired;
is consistent with City policy on use of SDC funds.
The disadvantage is that it does not provide conclusive "proof" that "A" and "B"
are similar in cost. Critics will claim that "B" still could have been cheaper,
even though it made no impact on their assessment and only affected the level
of SDC funding.
2. ) The staff is directed to finalize plans and specifications for both Alternate "A"
and "B". The timetable shall be revised accordingly: Call-for-Bids on 3/1/82;
Open Bids on 4/2/82; Council Determines Apparent Low Bidder and Desired Option
on 4/12/82; Public Hearing to Award or Reject Bids on 4/26/82; Construction in
May or June if "second opinion" is desired.
The advantages are: ends sp,-�culation as to costs and integrity of process.
The disadvantages are: costs added $30,000-$35,000 of SDC dollars and offeres
no hope of reducing assessments below $1.5 limit; good contractors may avoid
bidding or weight bidding; still subject to challenge tha_ a "second opinion"
could have saved money. If a second opinion is entered, it only opens other
questions as to whether the project remains at an acceptable standard or whether
SDC funding amounts should be reduced or eliminated.
3. ) The staff, with or without assistance of a "second opinion", is directed to
develop a sub-set option known as "Alternative C". The total project cost
is set by Council motion. The consulting engineer is directed to return to
Council with his recommendation as to the best use of the budgeted amount.
The City Administrator and Public Works Director are to recommend the level
or percent of City SDC funding and report on the proposal as to City standards.
The timetable shall be revised accordingly: Motion to Authorize Study on
"Alternative C" on 1/25/82; Engineer's Report and Resolution of Intent on
2/22/82; Public Hearing to Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications
on 3/22/82; Call-for-Bids on 5/24/82; Open Bids on 6/28/82; Council Declares
Apparent Low Bidder on 7/12/82; Some Construction in August of 182, but Most
Construction in Spring of 183.
-6-
The advantages are: lowest possible total cost, although really just a main-
tenance L.I.D. and not an improvement project; allows City to reset amount of
SDC participation, if any; might be lower assessment cost if total cost is under
$1.341.5 million current limit.
The disadvantages are: essentially restarts process; likely a sub-standard
project; future upgrading costs when needed would be a City expense; might
loose advantage of lower bids in tight economy.
4. ) Staff is directed to prepare necessary documents to split the current L.I.D.
north of the railroad crossings into two phases and to prepare plans and spe-
cifications for a north section and a south section. The south section shall
be to full standard as in Alternate "A" and the north section shall be a
minimal maintenance and bottleneck improvement project. Differential assess-
ments with differential SDC contribution percentages shall be developed. The
timetable shall be adjusted accordingly: Review North/South Proposal and
Differential Assessments at Public Hearing on 2/22/82; Call-for-Bids on 3/1/82;
Open Bids on 4/2/82; Council Determines Apparent Low Bidder and Desired Option
on 4/12/82; Public Hearing to Award or Reject Bids on 4/26/82; Construction in
May, or June if "second opinion" is desired.
The advantages are: allows reduction of total SDC funds; allows project to go
ahead and salvages investment to date; works within legal framework to date;
allows standard section in south with SDC share and sub-standard section in north
with no SDC share; preserves north section option of volunteering to complete
their section.
The disadvantages are: uses up non-remonstrance agreements in north section
while getting sub-standard street and ongoing long-term maintenance costs; un-
known extra engineering costs.
5. ) Staff is directed to begin formation of two new L.I.D. 's known as 72nd Avenue
North and 72nd Avenue South. The southern L.I.D. timetable shall be: Call-for-
Bids on 2/1/82; Open Bids on 3/2/82; Council Declares Apparent Low Bidder on
3/8/82; Letter to Property Owners on 3/9/82; Public Hearing to Amend Ordinance,
Reject or Award Bid on 3/22/82; Construction in April. The northern L.I.D. time-
table shall be: Motion to Authorize Study on 1/25/82; Engineer's Report and
Resolution of Intent on 2/22/82; Public Hearing to Authorize Preparation of
Plans and Specifications on 3/22/82; Call-for-Bids on 5/25/82; Open Bids on
6/28/82; Council Declares Apparent Low Bidder on 7/12/82; Some Construction
in August of 182, but Most Construction in Spring of 183.
The advantages are: ends bickering about southern properties causing "over-
build"; completely adjust City SDC share and consider 100% assessments; allows
time for City to review SDC policy and consider reducing or limiting SDC shares
in project.
The disadvantages are: requires complete recalculation of necessary properties;
new hearings; still uses up non-remonstrance agreements in north without get-
ting standard street, although Council could go ahead with just south L.I.D.
at this time and hold the north L.I.D. until some future date when support for
full standard exists (therefore could be considered an advantage) .
All of the foregoing options should involve the 100% assessment of cost with City
q participation at the time of billing to reduce the amount due by the City's share.
The bonds would reflect 100% property assessment, but subsidary contracts would be
entered into between the City and property owners. Such a policy should be con-
sidered for use on all L.I.D. 's with City participation.
-7-
In conclusion, I find that staff -- Public Works Director Frank Currie in particular
has done an excellent job of following both the letter of the Council's directives
and that good judgment has been used as to the intent. I find that the consulting
engineer, Marlin DeHaas, has responded honestly and creatively to the assignment
at each step and alteration. I see no need for an engineer's "second opinion" and
I have no intention of removing the project management assignment from the Public
Works Director.
I, too, was surprised that Alternate "B" would cost about the same as Alternate "A
I cannot recommend investment in a sub-standard street less than the "B" Alternative.
I have also reviewed the previously discussed and discarded 36' wide street along a
Hunziker design and agree with the earlier decision that it cannot function as a
major collector/minor arterial. I have attempted to listen to all critics and to
review suggested alternatives.
It is after this thorough review that I recommend my initial Alternative #1 to you
for approval. I find Alternative #1 to be consistent with the letter and spirit of
the Council's action, while offering a full-length standard improvement at the lowest
total cost and abiding by the $1.5 million assessment limit. To delay any longer is
to kid ourselves. Any deferral to the future will only cost proportionatelmore.
It is time to build this project. y
Sincerely,
Robert Jean
City Arlrinistrator
cv
Enclosures
PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL (12/24/80)
Total Project Cost Lstimate: $3,097, 137
Less Miscellaneous Items: (190,507)
Less Legal, Administrative & Engineering: (379, 111)
(1) Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate: $2,527,409
(1) At 44' , islands, turnouts, signals, sidewalks, street lighting,
railroad crossings . . . full length .
Total Assessable Costs: $2,718,026
Total City Share (L, A&E): 379,111
Total Projected Funding Estimate: $3,097,137
ALTEIR ATIVE "A" (1/12/82)
(1) Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate (12/24/80) : $2,527,409
Less Deducted Revisions:
Landscaped Median ($22,400)
Street Trees ( 32,500)
Bus Turnouts ( 15,000)
Delete Cherry Circle ( 24,460)
Move Sidewalk ( 14,963)
Water Relocations ( 11,250)
Lighting on Existing Poles ( 83,732)
Sub-total Deductions ($204,305)
Less 5% or x 1.05
Sub-total Deductions: ($214,520)
Less Quantities and Current Costs: ($287,839)
Revised Construction Cost (1/12/82) $22025,000
Construction Cost Estimate (1/12/82) $1,928,941
5% Contingency 96,059
Revised Construction Cost (1/12/82 $2,025,000
Add L, A&E 303,750
Add Right-of-Way (60') 50,000
Interest on Interim Finance 110,000
Revised "A" Project Total Cost (1/12/82) $2,488,750
Less Grants ($20,000 Fire Signals
& $113,400 PUC/RR) (133,400)
Sub-total "A" Project Net Cost: $2,355,350
Less Deduct Options:
Sidewalks at $142,534
Signals at $153,250
Lighting at $ 43,000
Sub-total Deduct Options: ($ 338,784)
Total Minimum Cost "A" After Maximum
Deducts: $2,016,566
ALTERNATIVE "B" (1/12/82)
Construction Cost Estimate (1/12/82): $1,763,649
5% Contingency: 88, 183
Estimated Construction Cost (1/12/82) : $1 ,851,832
L, A&E at 15% 277,774
Additional L, A&E estimate at 3.5% 34,814
Right-of-Way (60') 50,000
Interest on Interim Finance 110,000
Sub-total "B" Project Total Cost: $2,324,420
Less Grants ($20,000 Fire Signals
& $113,400 PUC/RR) (133,400)
Sub-total "B" Project Net Cost: $2.,191,020
Less Deduct Options:
Sidewalks at $ 52,270
Signals at $153,250
Lighting at $ 43,000
Add 6' Bikepath at $ 48,212
Less Deducted/Added Options: ($200,308)
Total Minimum Cost "B" After Maximum Deductions: $1,990,712
i"
ISO
January 14, 1982
I`EMORANDUN
TO: City Council
FRON: Planning Director
7:11e following timetable will be observed for annexLitions to the city:
Submission to Boundary Corniissi_orn by 2/5/82
Bechtold
North Dakota
Hwy. 217 Right-of-IJay
Randall
Larsen/66th
Alderbrook
Durham Island
McIntosh
Hearing before Boundary Commission on 3/11/82
Bechtold
North Dakota
Hwy. 217 Right-of-Way
Randall
Larsen/66th
Alderbrook:
Durham Island
McIntosh
Zone change ordinance before City Council on 3/22/82
Bechtold
North Dakota
Hwy. 217 Right-of-Way
Randall
1,arsen/66th
Alderbrook
Durham Island
McIntosh
Submission to Boundary Commission by 3/5/82
Walnut Island
Bearing before Boundary Commission by 4/8/82
Walnut Island
Zone Change Ordinance before City Council on 4/26/82
T
OFARD t
PUBLIC�� 639-9511
12568 SW Main-Tigard, Or.97223 MrM URANDUM January 14, 1982
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY LIBRARIAN
SUBJECT: Sorg Lease
The City Attorney has drawn up a new lease for the Library which run from July of
1982 through June of 1983 with an option to renew for a one-year period. We have indi-
cated that the City will apply for a real property tax exemption for the premises and
that the rent will remain the same ($440 per month) to reflect the reduction in real
property taxes that we expect to obtain.
We had made an appointment with Mr. Sorg, the lessor, for December 17, 1981, to discuss
this matter. Unfortunately, Mr. Sorg has been very ill and unable to meet with us.
I am suggesting that the Council review the new lease at its January 25th meeting, sign
the lease if it is satisfactory and enable me to send the document to Mr. Sorg for his
signature. A letter outlining the strategy for tax exemption and its benefits to him
will accompany the lease.
We've talked to Mr. Sorg about this previously and I believe that he will be amenable to
! the terms of the new lease. This will assure the Library a "home" while the Civic Center
complex is being developed.
Irene Ertell
City Librarian
IE:w
i
d�-
t
MEMO
TO: CITY COUNCIL
DATE: JANUARY 25, 1982
FROM: BUILDING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: MONTHLY REPORT FOR MONTH OF DECEMBER, 1981
December's building activity included permits for 4 signs,
1 single family residential, 3 residential alter and repair,
5 commercial alter and repair and 4 demolition for a total
valuation of $143,860.00.
Fees for 13 permits $1, 142.46
Fees for 4 signs 120.00
Plumbing Activity - 16 979.81
Mechanical Activity - 22 419.56
Business Licenses - 23 974.00
TOTAL - - - $3,635.83
Sewer Permits - 1 $ 775.00
Sewer Inspections - 4 170.00
Icing City did not have any building activity this month.
i
1~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
-rt 0 1n 0 u» c- en o 0 1 1 1 1 lP
lu
fiS N ri N I.
�O N O
>
O O z 1~ 1
-r1 -r1 O O
4-1 +) -r1 -H
•rI -ri 4J 4-1
. .-1 -ri -r1 .-d
O O -1 -1 O
E O O rn
\\ \ �4 44 $4 S 4 W rO 'C N Q)
to cd td ra •
cd cd rtf PQ
P4
-rl -.4 r1 -i b (a rd cd td -r1 -r1 As ro
aJ a-+ -P -4) 4-) -rI -ri -r1 -r4 -r1 4J 4.) -r1 •r1
N O N aW
r4 ) " �4 $4 W 44 O U W 44 W
00 4 b 'O 'O 'O a) a) a) U (1) 'O 'O (1) a) A
m -11 -4 -.4 -.•� -r1 -r' O O O O O
r•1 v) co to 1n 1n co W lO O O O kO
a) a3 a) U O O O O O a) a) 0 0 O O 4, % N
34 U U N M
P4 x d4 yr
W Ei
O
W
U
A O
W
1.41
>4 4 'O
H H sd
>1 >1 F ate) a >1 o
H >~ 4-) 90 4J to a) cd ON
H a) 3 U 3 4-) 44 >+ 3 -1
U W > �:s 0 (1) .0 (1) .>~ (1) 4-1 k Z
O Q r~ 1~ >4 tT $4 a) (1) t l a) E) )•4 a) ZT
O a) a) +1 -r1 4J 0 :3 -H 44 a) U -14 P4
E-+ a 'O >1 .0 > > to x to 1~ 1~ x 4-) •-+ W ca x W
H > (a N f< 4 a) (L) to cd .-i Pq
N r♦ 3 4 to U tr > > U -rI to P4 U
P4 r1 CA to to U) 11 -r4 �-1 4 < -'-1 E U r I -,i w
W U) 0 3 0 0 -r1 4-4 ::$ 4-4 (a 14 .•4 4-) 44 U
134 a) ••4 a) w ..0 .q " -.-I .Q 4 J1. -r1 J., a) O =3 •14 W
1. r-1 O E E 4-4 U 'O � 4-) U Z .0 1~ U A
U to CO rt 44 to rl -r1 O td 1. d' �r cd )-1 E U r•1 cd
z w C7 x U N z z U W fd n n R+ :3 O U) cd PL W
A s44 333 u-) 33 � 3 � 333A 0333 O
14 H 10 to En En i cACA � t!] � t4cACJ) :3 :R: U) Ei
to Co O to to O O 1- O O O O M z
LD N \ON c> %D -10M00 \OOlc11 OCDtn %o O
Cl) NQ% d' N 1-41- r1Oa% 00100 1nNriI
A MNIn N OO [- Cl) .-II�r V' NCA ON CN OD r
P4 r♦ -4 r4 r4 .-1 .-1 00 r-1 r` r-1 1-1 .-1 OD 00 r4 M r-1 p4
w
H
Ei ri a
O
O� H
•+ O
Ei
a
•)-) w
1n -rU� �
41 LO W
43 (1) U
4a O N A -,,1 -4 ) A
O U) U) 17 14 k t; U) t U)
4J U) 44 r4 -4 r4 .-4 43 d-1 :
U (L) r4 Cl) b (a cd O N U) 1:.r rU U) tT
cd N 1~ a) TO x a) (1) 'O O O :j O 1~ H 'O -r1
la -N E 4) >~ 44 44 0 .t~ F4 b 'O f-- H H -N CO 4-1 -t-)
4-) O M 4) 4 'O a) a) td U O 0 O to a 44 W
1~ r. -r1 W 4J +) 1% U] H H H -r1 44 a >1 cd td
O U U) (d 1~ z Pq a) w -4) )4 �4
U x .0 H H 41 'O 1~ 44 )4 H P4 r1 U U
►7 td U W $4 O a) (1) • •J a 4a
1x E >.-r1 r-1 r-1 a) td tr U U PA r. z
a) —1 u P4 r4 r4 ,Q is a) W 4.1 O to as U sr V)a) -.4 rd O O O -r1 $4 a) (1) • 4.1 H a) -r1 •r1
a33Z x :4 P4 E-+ O .z. X. f7L*4 CO Ucncnto
CA
0
Fherse 639-951;
12588 SW Niain-Tigard, Or. 97223 MELkID ANDUM January 11, 1932
t•
TO: LIBRARY BOARD
CITY COUNCIL
FR0M: CITY LIBRARIAN +
SUBJECT: Monthly Report, December 1981
n
1. Administration:
a. Librarian attended meeting of Washington County Cooperative Library Services (t:CCLS) cc�
budget committee on December 4. The committee made reconunendations for expenditure of the
remainder of 1980-81 state aid and for disbursement of 1981-82 state aid which goes to the
County. This was presented to the WCCLS neto:ork on December 17 and approved. #:
b. Librarian attended meeting at the State Library on December 8, concerning the for-
oration of taxing districts. Three persons from various state offices presented information
on how to go about forming a district, pointing out pitfalls of the process. 3
C. Librarian attended meeting of the Tigard Urban Renewal Agency on December 8, at which
the consultant presented the plan and public testimony was heard.
d. Librarian attended meeting of the Civic Center Development sub-cormnittee on Dec. 8. t'
I•
The sub-committee narrowed the site choices to three -- Crow site, public works site and the ; .
Air King site, indicating its willingness to look at any new sites the architect might dis-
cover.
e. Librarian attended microcomputer workshop at Lewis and Clark College on December 10.
Lyle Wilhelmi, computer consultant with Interropoint, Richland, WA. , presented "The Evalu-
ation and Selection of Microcomputers. " j..
f. The Library Board held its regular meeting on December 14. Minutes were mailed on 1
December 29. f,
g. Librarian went on trip to visit the Salem Civic Center on December 15. Architect, t '
Dennis Brun, conducted tour of facilities.
Librarian sent a letter to City Council recom-
h. In accordance with Board's direction, i
mending that Tigard remain with MACC. A letter from Donna Selle, WCCLS Coordinator, out- 7'
lining the advantages for libraries was transmitted as an enclosure.
i. the new lease with Mr. Sorg has not been negotiated as planned. Mr. Sorg became ill t
and was not able to keep his appointment. This will be pursued as soon as Mr. Sorg indicates
he is available. :
J. Contrary to previous years, the month of December has been not only the busiest ever,
but one of the busiest of the year. Overall circulation for the first six months of FY 1981-
82 is up 12% over the same period in 1980-81. There has been a noticeable increase in the
numbers of persons using the library without checking out materials as well.
k. Librarian attended WCCLS network meeting on December 17. Of interest: (1) The by-
laws are currently being revised to reflect the evolution of the WCCLS board and its relatioit- z '
ship to the coordinator and to insure fair representation for the small libraries. (2) The
county survey has been postponed indefinitely by the County Administrator. WCCLS will hold
its list of questions for the time being. ( '
1. On December 23, staff members went to the tx:o branches which Multnomah County closed
recently to select books. Tigard picked out approximately 350-400 books, most of them j;rve-
nile non-fiction. This is an important addition to the collection, worth approximately $5,000.
F1
t
Tigard Public Library_- Monthly Report, December 1981 - page 2
2. Personnel:
a. Volunteer hours totaled 102 for a daily average of 4.1.
b. Community service assignees worked 36 hours.
3. Statistics:
a. Circulation of all materials 8160.
Books 7561 Magazines 298
Adult Books 5964 Audio-Visual 197
Juvenile Books 1597 Other 30
Interlibrary Loan: Requests placed 82 ; requests filled 74.
b. User cards issued 160. In-town 90; out-of-town 70.
C. Story hours: total 37; average 5.
d. Reference/Reader's Advisory 436-
e. Materials added 448.
f. Materials withdrawn 321.
g. Money received:
Fines $23.25
Lost Books 40.89
Mise. Replacement 7.25
Donations 17.60
Card Fees 0
TOTAL $88.99
4. Youth Services - John Henshell:
Special programs were presented December 16, 19, and 30, for school-age children.
On the 16th, Christmas crafts were demonstrated and a filmstrip/cassette, Christmas in
Noisy Village, was shown. December 29, there were stories, popcorn and movies, Madeline
and A Cricket in Times Square. December 30, there was a filmstrip/cassette show of
Ramona and Her Father, as well as more movies, popcorn and stories.
Magazine shelving arrived and was installed.
Extensive weeding was done in the juvenile fiction section. Grounds for removal
included non--circulation for several years or more, poor condition and duplicates.
A complete set of thirty-seven (37) Dr. Seuss books (intended primarily as replace-
ments) and a Cat in the Hat doll (bonus) have arrived and will soon be in service.
6rC; Lt3 COMMUNITY SURVEY 1
If you ' ro are a VOTER in Washiiigton County , we VIOLIN 1ilO to know:
1 . What level of public Iibrary service would you support ? On the
card there are s o m e d m f far e n t Do r v i c e l e v o i s and the i r a p p r o n lion t o
costs , in dollars per thousand of assusu=d valuation . Please
indicate the level that you would support . ( 1 ) Service level
( 2 ) Shouldn ' t b tate supported ( 3 ) Don ' t know
2 . ,Would you vote in favor of a separate , upecial public library
district for the County ?
( 1 ) Yos ( 2 ) Pio ( 3 ) Don ' t know
3 . Would you vote in favor of a bond to computerize the library and
reduce the amount of atatf effort needed to operate the librarlen?
( i ) Yes ( 2 ) 1`±0 ( 3 ) Don ' t know
4 . Is It easy for you to gat to a public library in Washington
County? ( i ) Y a s ( 2 ) No ( 3 )—Don ' t know
If not , why not ?
( 4 ) No transportation ( 5 ) Takes too long
( 6 ) Physical problems ( 7 ) Inconvenient hours
5 . When was the last time you used a public library in Washington
County ? ( 1 ) ( 2 ) Never
IF THE ANSWER IS NEVER . THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS AREN ' T RELEVANT
6 . How often do you usually use a public library in Washington
County? ( I ) 1 - 6 tines per year ( 2 ) 6 - 11 times per year
OR AT LEAST ( 3 ) 1 per month ( 4 ) 1 per week
7 . What is the one most important purpose for which you use the
library? ( 1 ) leisure time use ( 2 ) personal interests
( 3 ) school related ( 4 ) career or job related
( 5 ) other . . .WHAT?_
r 8 - How satisfied are you with the services you ' re getting from. the
library? ( 1 ) Very unhappy ( 2 ) Unhappy 1
( 3 > Neutral ( 4 ) Happy ( 5 ) Very happy i!
S . Please read the list of present services on the separate card and
indicate all of those that you presently use : C1 ) ( 2 )
( 3 )_ ( 4 ) ( 5 ) ( 6 ) - ( 7 ) ( 8 ) —( 9 >
( 10 ) ( 11 ) ( 12 ) ( 13 ) ( 14 ) ( 15 )
( 16 ) ( 17 ) ( 18 ) ( 19 ) ( 20 ) < 21 ) i
( 22 ) < 23 ) t24 ) ( 2 5 ) ( 26 ) ( 27)
( 28 ) ( 29 )
Which do you use the most ? < 30 )
10 Please read the list of present libraries on the separate card and
Indicate aIl ' of those that you presently uvo : ( 1 ) ( 2 )
( 3 ) ( 4 ) ( 5 ) ( 6 ) ( 7 ) ( 8 ) C9 )
Which do you use the most ? ( 1o )
Which library la closest to your hora®? ( 11 )
Which library in closest to your work? ( 12 )
11 . Should the library provide additional service points by any of the
following means? ( 1 ) No ( 2 ) Yes - check which ones c
( 3 ) 'Library in or near shopping center '•
C4 ) Public library combined with school library i
( 5 ) Expand books-by-mail to include hard cover books i
< 6 ) Initiate bookmobile service
i
I
i
i
i
- j
MONTHLY REPORT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DECEMBER 1981
The following projects were acted on by the Planning Commission over the past month.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISIONS
CPR 14-81 Dr. Alva Roberts/Vincent Olson NPO # 7
APPLICANT: Dr. Alva Roberts OWNER: Vincent Olson
12805 S.W. Trigger Rd. 12520 S.W. Scholls Ferry`Rd.
Beaverton, Oregon 97005 Tigard, Oregon 97223
REQUEST: For a comprehensive Plan Revision from A-12 Multi-Family
Residential to CP Commercial Professional.
SITE LOCATION: 12520 S.W. Scholls Ferry Rd. (WCTM 1S1 33AD lot 2500)
ACTION TAKEN: Approved December 8th with conditions
CONDITIONAL USES
t
CU 15-81 Dr. Alva Roberts NPO # 7
APPLICANT: Same as above CPR 14-81 OWNER: Same as above CPR 14-81
REQUEST; For a Conditional Use for Small Animal Veterinary hospital.
SITE LOCATION: Same as above CPR 14-81
ACTION TAKEN: Approved December 8th with conditions
CU 17-81 John Vander Werf NPO # 1
APPLICANT: John Vander Werf OWNER: C. L. & Arlie C Woodard
12300 S.W. 106th 10215 S.W. Walnut
Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tigard, Oregon 97223
REQUEST: To open a small pet shop on Main Street.
SITE LOCATION: 12442 S.W. Main St. (WCTM 2S1 2AB lot 4600)
ACTION TAKEN: Approved December 8th with conditions
PLANNING DEPT. MONTHLY REPORT
PAGE 2
CU 18-81 Invest-A-Venture Inc. NPO # 2
APPLICANT Invest-A-Venture Inc. OWNER. James B. Castles by BKN Corp.
3021 Industrial Way N.E. 17120 S.W. Shaw
Salem, Oregon 97303 Beaverton, Oregon 97005
REQUEST: To locate an indoor minature golf course and an electronic
game arcade in a C-3 zone.
SITE LOCATION 8820 S.W. Center St. Tigard (WCTM 1S1 35DD lot 4900)
ACTION TAKEN: Continued until Staff and Applicant could resubmit or withdraw.
SENSITIVE LAND & PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
M 2-81 Main Street Land Company
APPLICANT: JB Bishop/Main Street Land Co. OWNER: Same
10505 S.W. Barbur S-303
Portland, Oregon 97219
REQUEST: Sensitive Lands permit and approval of Traffic circulation
and site access.
SITE LOCATION: 12660 S.W. Main St. (WCTM 2S1 2AC lots 201, 1200, 1300,
1400, 1500, 1600, 2201, 2301)
ACTION TAKEN: Sensitive lands permit was continued
Conceptual approval of traffic circulation and site access
MISCELLANEOUS
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
ACTION TAKEN: Moved that Administrative Procedures, with amendments and
December 1, 1981 and corrections, be taken to the City Council with further
discussion to be made regarding the Hearings Officer.
Following items be recommended to the City Council regarding
Hearings Officer issue:
1. Office to have a tern of one year. (six month then annudl
review.)
2. Planning Commission to be able to review Office and
Office Holder annually.
3. Have a three member committee for hiring including one
Planning Commissioner.
4. Removal because of neglect or malfeasance
5. A determination of need to be made with the Planning Comm.
6. Planning Commission to be notified of all Hearings Officer's
decisions.
^L .
PLANNING DEPT. MONTHLY REPORT
PAGE 3
FLOODWAY ORDINANCE
ACTION TAKEN: Recommend to City Council for a "O" foot Floodway
December 1, 1981 for insurance premium rates only.
NOISE ORDIANCE
ACTION TAKEN: Recommend to City Council specific wordage to be added to
December 1, 1981 appropriate sections of the Tigard Municipal Code.
The following actions were taken by the Planning Director.
SITE DESIGN REVIEW:
SDR 32-81 Tigard High School
APPLICANT Tigard High School
> REQUEST: Additions to existing building for a metal shop, weight room
and counseling center _
SITE LOCATION: 9000 S.W. Durham Road
ACTION TARN: Approved with conditions
/ I
A
pRELIMINARY PROPOSAL (12/24/80)
Total Project Cost Estimate: $3,097,137
Less Miscellaneous Items: (190,507)
Less Legal, Administrative & Engineering: (379,111)
(1) Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate: $2,527,409
(1) At 44' , islands, turnouts, signals, sidewalks, street lighting,
railroad crossings Lull length .
Total Assessable Costs: $2,718,026
Total City Share (L, A&E): 379,111
Total Projected Funding Estimate: $3,097,137
ALTERNATIVE "A" (1/12/82)
(1) Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate (12/2z,/80): $2,527,409
Less Deducted Revisions:
Landscaped Median ($22,400)
Street Trees ( 32,500)
Bus Turnouts ( 15,000)
Delete Cherry Circle ( 24,460)
Move Sidewalk ( 14,963)
Water Relocations ( 11,250)
Lighting on Existing Poles ( 83,732)
Sub-total Deductions ($204,300
Less 5% or x 1.05
Sub-total Deductions: ($214,520)
Less (Zuantities and Current Costs: ($287,839)
Revised Construction Cost (1/12/82) $2025,000
Construction Cost Estimate (1/12/82) $1,928,941
5% Contin4ency 96,059
Revised Construction Cost (1/12/82 $2,025,000
Add L, A&E 303,750
Add Right-of-Way (60') 50,000
Interest on Interim Finance 110,000
Revised "A" Project Total Cost (1/12/82) $2,488,750
Less Grants ($20,000 Fire Signals
& $113,400 PUC/RR) (133,400)
Sub-total "A" Project Net Cost: $2,355,350
Less Deduct Options;
Sidewalks at $142,534
Signals at $153,250
Lighting at $ 43,000
Sub-total Deduct Options: ($ 338,784)
Total Minimum Cost "A" After Maximum
Deducts: $2,0163566
f '
Y'
is
b
I ALTERNATIVE "B" (1/12/82)
t
i
Construction Cost Estimate (1/12/82): $1,763,649
5% Contingency: 88 183
Estimated Construction Cost (1/12/82): $1,851,832
L, A&E at 15% 277,774
Additional L, A&E estimate at 3,5%
Right—of—Way (60') .334814
,000
i Interest on Interim Finance 110 000
3
Sub—total "B" Project Total Cost: $2,324,420
Less Grants ($20,000 Fire Signals
& $113,400 PUC/RR) (133,400)
a
Sub—total "B" Project Net Cost: $2.,191,020
Less. Deduct Options.:
Sidewalks at $ 52,270
Signals at $153,250
Lighting at $ 43,000
Add 6' Bikepath at $ 48,212
Less Deducted/Added Options: ($200,308)
Total Minimum Cost "B" After Maximum Deductions: $1,990,712
t
I 8.1
MEMORANDUM
January 18, 1982
TO: City Council and Administrator
FROM: Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Public Safety Overview
t
f I. Interagency Cooperation
A. The Tigard Police Department, attitude relative to inter-
agency cooperation is to aggressively pursue a harmonious
relationship between all public agencies who have an interest
in public safety.
B. Law Enforcement
This includes all law enforcement agencies, municipal, county,
! state, and federal. This department has participated in many
I multi-agency investigations crossing county and state lines.
We also participate in Washington County Major Case Team and
the Tactical Negotiation Team (hostage negotiations) for many
years. We are working jointly with Beaverton Police Department
' on a narcotic task force, starting our third year at this time,
We also are members of the Law Enforcement Mutual Aid group.
C. Tigard School District.
The Tigard Police Department has worked with the school district
for many years. This work has involved crime related matters,
as well as safety and law related subjects for all grade levels
of the school district.
I have found the spirit of cooperation and harmony between the
Police department and school district staff members to be out-
standing. In the area of crime related matters, we have worked
the problems consistent with the district's policy.
D. Fire District
The relationship between the fire and police department is out-
standing. The Tualatin Rural Fire District has provided countless
assistance to this agency in 1 ,i areas of emergency medical
services, assistance in washint; combustible liquids from the
streets at accidents or spills. They have provided emergency
lighting equipment at crime scenes. We work arson cases in
cooperation with the fire department as a matter of routine.
The development of the 911 system is one example of a program in
E
which the fire and police department shared responsibility, and
through mutual efforts, this project was completed and is on line
today.
This department is in con::tant contact with the fire department;
we are at this time setting up a training schedule, to cross
train between agencies in areas of mutual concern.
As stated above, the spirit of cooperation and harmony between
the Tigard Police Departrnent and the Tualatin Fire District is
outstanding.
In summary, I find very few problems existing between the various
agencies referred to above. As this community develops, the spirit of
cooperation between all agencies will go far in making a safe and
desirable area for the citizens to reside.
Respectfully,
R.B. Adams
Chief of Police
RBA:ac
O'DONNELL.?f;} i $
xse> c DATE January 18 , 1982
`_54dCLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW To, Tigard City Council
X727 N.W. HOYT STREET
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209Kenneth M. Elliott
(5031 222-4402 FROM
RE- Annual Report from Municipal Court
In June, 1981 , the City Attorney' s duties were transferred from
Joe D. Bailey to O'Donnell, Sullivan & Ramis. During the next
five months , Kenneth M. Elliott Of that office served in the
position of City Prosecutor. Effective November 1 , 1981 ,
Stephen F. Crew has taken on the responsibility of representing
the city in Municipal Court. The day-to-day administration of
the court continues to be handled in a conscientious and
efficient manner by Ms. Billie Rawlings, Municipal Court Clerk.
In general , the Tigard Municipal Court has functioned well in
1981 . Two priority items should be considered by the y
Council in planning for 1982. These are:
(1) Agnew location for Municipal Court; and
(2) Code revision.
(1) Municipal Court Location - It is recommended that existing
space in the new City Hall Building be considered for a Municipal
courtroom. The court now meets in a Sunday School multi-purpose
room at the Tigard First Baptist Church, 11075 s. W. Gaarde St.
The present location is apparently much improved over the prior
courtroom. However, it still lacks much in terms of judicial
dignity and does little to instill a respect for the court and
judicial system in those members of the public who come before
the court.
For many citizens, an appearance in Municipal Court will be the
only contact they have with either the judicial system or the
City of Tigard. It is important that they be left with a
positive impression of and respect for the judiciary. A formal
courtroom would certainly improve the court' s image among Tigard
citizens. In addition, locating the courtroom at City Hall would
be more convenient for police officers and court personnel .
(2) Code Revision - Revision of the Tigard Municipal Code to
bring it into conformance with 1981 statutory changes and to
expand the number of offenses prosecuted in Tigard Municipal Court
is a continuing priority of the Tigard Police Department and of
the Municipal Court. Because of recent budgetary restrictions,
the Code revision was not completed in the Fall of 1981 . No
additional offenses have been added to the Code and Code revisions
to conform to 1981 statutory changes have been made only on a
case-by-case basis. In a memo to the City Administrator dated
October 2 , 1981 , Ed Sullivan outlined the estimated fees for
either the "housekeeping" revision or a complete Criminal Code
revision. A copy Of this memo is attached to this report for
the Council' s review.
KME:mch
1/18/82
RHOADES. GERBER — ATE: October 2, 1981-
lVAN a RAMIS rf
0RNEY1 AT LAW
NW HOYTSTREET TO Bob Jean , City Administrator
OREGON 97209
15031 222-4402 FROM Ed Sullivan , City Attorney
RE Criminal Code Revision
During the past week, we have discussed the timing for revising
the Criminal Code in light of present budget constraints .
Recently, Chief Adams requested this office to provide you with
an estimate of our fees required to complete the revision.
On September 30 , 1981 , we discussed in my office the possibility
of doing a "housekeeping" revision to bring existing sections of
the Criminal Code into conformance with statutory changes
enacted by the 1981 Legislature. I would estimate the fee of
$350 to $400 for this work , based on seven or eight hours of an
associate ' s time in reviewing the statutory changes and con-
forming the Criminal Code where necessary.
For the complete Criminal Code revision, a general estimate
would be in the range of $1 , 000 to $1 , 500 . This represents 20
to 30 hours of an associate ' s time billed at $50 per hour. A
complete examination of the Oregon criminal statutes would be
required and decisions made on the practicability and desirabilitv
of included offenses in the Criminal Code which are currently
prosecuted in Washington County.
If I may be of any further assistance in analyzing the budgetary
considerations involved in either of these two projects,
give me a call . please
EJS:mch
10/2/81
c-4
i
�k� �A