City Council Packet - 02/22/1982 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA an agenda item needs to sign their name on
FEBRUARY 22, 1982, 7:30 P.M. the appropriate sign-up sheet(s) .
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL If no
LECTURE ROOM sheet is provided, ask to be recognized by
the Chair.
1. REGULAR MEETING:
1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call
1.2 Pledge of Allegiance
1.3 Call to Audience , Staff and Council for Non-Agenda Items Under Open Agenda
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:
2.1 Approve the Minutes: February 8 & 15, 1982
2.2 Approve the Expenditures and Investments: $ 37 ,931.00
2.3 Receive and File Written Communications:
o Transmittal from Washington County Community Action Organization re:
request for financial support - $1479.00
• Report on Flower Vendors
• Proclamation by Mayor for "nock and Roll Jamboree" Day - 2-19-82 ^'
o Town and Country Days Report
2.4 Cancell 3/15/82 Study Session (due to lack of quorum) and Call Special o,
Meeting 3/1/82. N
2.5 Approve following OLCC applications and authorize Mayor to sign:
• Connies Grocery, 16035 Upper Boones Ferry Road , Tigard, Or. Package Store App.
• Shakey`s Inc. 11475 SW Pacific Hwy. , Tigard, Or. Retail Malt Beverage App.
• Powers , Robert D. , Pizza Caboose LTD, 11670 SW Pacific Hwy, Tigard, Or.
Retail Malt Beverage App.
• 7-Eleven Food Store , 12123 SW Scholls Ferry Road, Tigard, Or. , Package
Store App.
• 7-Eleven Food Store, 10650 SW McDonald Street, Tigard, Or. Package Store App.
• Scholls Thriftway, 12280 SW Scholls Ferry Road, Tigard, Or. Package Store App.
• Liquor Store , 12490 SW Main Street, Tigard, Or, Wine Sales
2.6 Approve Resolution No. 82-13 regarding NPO Memberships
2.7 Approve Resolution No- 82-14 regarding CCI Memberships
2.8 Accept Consolidated Supply Non-Remonstrance Covenant - authorize Mayor and
City Recorder to execute.
2.9 Approve Photo Copy Lease/Contract
3. REQUEST FOR FUNDS: Tigard Loaves and Fishes Presentation - Resolution 82-
calling for election in May. $12,500.
4 . FINAL ORDER FOR DR. ALVA ROBERTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION - CPR 14-81 - NPO #7
o Presentation by Legal Counsel
5. FINAL ORDER FOR JOHN SKOURTES VARIANCE APPEAL - V 10-81 - NPO #5
• Presentation by Legal Counsel
6. RESOLUTION No. 82- TRANSFERRING TRUST ACCOUNT FUNDS
• Recommendation of City Administrator
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:00 P.M.
7. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ZOA 1-82 - City of Tigard
' A request by the City of Tigard for an amendment to Section 18.72 of the Tigard
Municipal Code to allow for general and dimensional criteria for reviewing and
approving conditional use requests.
• Public Hearing Opened
0 Motion by Council to set-over to 3-8-82 meeting
8. VARIANCE - V 1-82 - Tigard School District #23J - NPO #6
A request by the Tigard School District 923 J for a 27 foot variance to the
35 foot height requirement for construction of an auditorium as an addition to
the existing high school complex located on Durham Road (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 14A,
Tax Lot 100) .
• Request by Staff for cancellation of hearing.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONCLUDED
9. BIKEWAY REPORT
• Report by Director of Public Works
10. GENERAL TELEPHONE FRANCHISE RENEWAL
• Report by Director of Public Works
11. 72ND AVENUE FINANCING DISCUSSION
• Discussion by City Administrator.
12. OPEN AGENDA: Consideration of Non-Agenda Items identified to the Chair under item
1.3 will be discussed at this time. All persons are encouraged to contact the City
Administrator prior to the meeting.
13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Per ORS 192.660 (1) (d) relating to labor relations.
14. ADJOURNMENT
PAGE 2 - COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 22, 1982
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1982 - 7:30 P.M.
® or Wilbur Bishop; Councilors John Cook and Kenneth
1. ROLL CALL: Present: May
Scheckla; Director of Public Works/Planning Director, Frank Currie;
Finance Director/ City Recorder, Doris Hartig; City Administrator,
Bob Jean; Legal Counsel, Ed Sullivan; Office Manager, Loreen Wilson.
2. CALL TO AUDIENCE, STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS UNDER OPEN AGENDA
(a) City Administrator requested the following items be considered under
Open Agenda:
.1 Approval of City Attorney Bill
.2 Report on Governor's Letter
.3 Oral Report on Packet Items Proposal
.4 Oral Report on County Plan and Tax Base Prop
.5 Charter Draft Ordinance
.6 LCDC Planning Grant Application
Consensus of Council was to consider items as noted.
3. APPROVE THE MINUTES: February 8th and 15,
1982.
(a) Mayor Bishop requested the following amendment to Page 4 of the February 15,
1982, Council minutes: 1st paragraph should read as follows:
"Chapter III/Section 7/3rd paragraph: Mayor Bishop requested seven-member
Council issue be placed on May ballot to give an opportunity for the
recently annexed areas to be represented. Staff also recommended a change
in the wordage to bring the section into compliance with state election
laws."
seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve minutes
(b) Motion by Councilor Cook,
as amended.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
4. APPROVE THE EXPENDITURES AND INVESTMENTS: $ 37,931.00
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
5. RECEIVE AND FILE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
o Transmittal from Washington County Community Action Organization re: request
for financial support - $1479.00
o Report on Flower Vendors - 2/19/82
o Proclamation by Mayor for "Rock and Roll Jamboree" Day
o Town and Country Days Report
(a) Staff requested report on Town and Country Days be removed from consent
agenda and discussed separately.
(b) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to remove Town
and Country Days Report from consideration under Consent Agenda and
receive and file other written communications.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
6. CANCEL March 15, 1982 STUDY SESSION (DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM) AND CALL SPECIAL
MEETING MARCH 1, 1982.
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
7. APPROVE FOLLOWING OLCC APPLICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO SIGN:
o Connie's Grocery, 16035 S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road, Tigard, Oregon, Package
Store App.
o Shakey's Inc. , 11475 S.W. Pacific Hwy„ Tigard, Oregon, Retail Malt Beverage App.
o Powers, Robert D. , Pizza Caboose Ltd. , 11670 S.W. Pacific Hwy. , Tigard, Ore. ,
Retail Malt Beverage App.
0 7-Eleven Food Store, 12123 S.W. Scholls Ferry Rd. , Tigard, Ore. , Package Store App.
0 7-Eleven Food Store, 10650 S.W. McDonald Street, Tigard, Ore. , Package Store App.
o Scholls Thriftway Store, 12280 S.W. Scholls Ferry Rd. , Tigard, Ore. , Package
Store App.
o Liquor Store, 12490 SW Main Street, Tieard, Or. Wine Sales
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve and
authorize Mayor to execute.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
8. APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 82-13 regarding NPO Memberships
(a) Motion by Council Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to remove from consent
agenda for further consideration.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
9. APPROVE RESOLUTION No. 82-14 regarding CCI Membership
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
10. ACCEPT CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY NON-REMONSTRANCE COVENANT - Authorize Mayor and City
Recorder to Execute - S.W. 72nd Avenue - Lot 4 S/P Tigard Industrial Park
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve and
authorize Mayor and City Recorder to execute.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
11. APPROVE PHOTO COPY LEASE/CONTRACT - Canon Copier
` (a) City Administrator recommended Council approve lease, as the cost for fiscal
PAGE 2 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 22, 1982
year 198I-82 is under $2,500 and he will review further ramifications
with Legal Counsel.
(b) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
12. RECEIVE AND FILE TOWN AND COUNTRY DAYS REPORT
(a) Mayor Bishop questioned whether the City should pay for the beer fencing.
He noted that the City participates in many other ways i.e. public works
and police crews and stressed that the City should be careful to not get
involved in costs when the function is fund-raising in nature.
(b) After brief discussion between Council and staff, Consensus of Council
was to meet with the Town and Country Days Committee on March 22, 1982
for further discussion.
13. APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 82-13 REGARDING NPO MEMBERSHIPS
(a) Mr. LaValle Allen, 7540 S.W. Hermosa Way, member of NPO #4 questioned how
this resolution will effect the members currently on NPO X64
there is not a 50%-50% split of city residents city
there
ty residents.
and out of
He also noted his objection to the requirement of 50% of the members be-
ing in the City.
(b) City Administrator stated the current membership split on NPO #3 would re-
main until membership terms expired. At that time, the reappointments to
the NPO would have to be in conformance with the 50%-50% split.
(c) Mr. Carl Johnson, 6155 S.W. Bonita Road rquested that item No. 8 under
Section 3 (d) functions, be removed. It reads as follows: "Two have
the opportunity to review and make recommendations on proposed changes in
comprehensive land use plans prior to the public hearing process." He
noted that this was the same as item #3 of the same section. Mr. Johnson
also requested Council add under Section 3 (a) 1. that the remaining mem-
bers of NPO's which reside outside the City boundaries should either
reside, maintain busines or own property within the boundaries of the NPO.
(d) Mr. James Miller, 12918 S.W. 63rd Place, Portland, 97219, expressed the
same basic concerns of Mr. Johnson.
(e) Lou Ann Mortensen, 11600 S.W. Fonner, member of NPO #3, asked how the 50%-50%
split would be viewed when the entire NPO was inside the City limits. Staff
stressed that the 50%-50% split would only apply until the NPO was within
the city limits.
(f) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckl_a to adopt Resolution
No. 82-13 as amended.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
L
PAGE 3 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 22, 1982
14. REQUEST FOR FUNDS: Tigard Loaves and Fishes Presentation
(a) City Administrator requested that this item be removed from the agenda
and scheduled for the March 8, 1982 meeting.
(b) Consensus of Council was to schedule for March 8, 1982
15. FINAL ORDER FOR DR. ALVA ROBERTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 14-81 NPO #7
(a) Legal Counsel stated that the resolution was prepared setting forth two
findings of Council. Those were: I.
the of the failure of the applicant to justify thelplanlon changedenrequest;ied and
e
2• the application be denied because the City must preserve existing
vacant buildable multi-family designated land
Goal No. 10. to meet State-wide Planning
(b) RESOLUTION NO. 82-15 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF
THE APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISIONS,
ORIGINALLY REQUESTED BY DR. ALVA ROBERTS, FILE NO.
CPR 14-81 , REVERSING THE ACTION OF THE TIGARD PLANNING
COMMISSION, ENTERING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND A FINAL
ORDER.
(c) Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Cook to adopt.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
16. FINAL ORDER FOR JOHN SKOURTES VARIANCE APPEAL - V 10-81 - NPO #5
(a) Legal Counsel noted findings and conclusions of law as set forth in the
resolution presented for adoption.
(b) Mr. John Skourtes appeared before Council and requested that the condition
of a dedication for street improvements of right-of-way along Bonita Road
of railroad property was difficult to guarantee.
(c) Discussion continued between staff, Council, and Mr. Skourtes regarding the
necessity of dedication along Bonita Road.
(d) Planning Director recommended condition 6 be changed as follows: "Dedication
of right-of-way on $ojjj�o to $04016004U A Woto
S.W. 74th as necessary to accommodate any realignment of the "S" curve due to
design."
(e) RESOLUTION NO. 82-16 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPEAL OF JOHN SKOURTES, FILE NO. V10-81, REVERSING THE
ACTION OF THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, ENTERING
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
(f) Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Cook, to approve
resolution with amendment to condition #6.
` 'a� Approved by mti o�.T
3�tg vote of Council present.
PAGE 4 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 22, 1982
17. RESOLUTION NO. 82-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TRANSFERRING FUNDS.
(a) Finance Director reported that this was a housekeeping matter. The City
needs to transfer funds from trust accounts formally to make payments when
they come due for the Civic Center and Library Building Funds.
(b) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt.
(c) Mayor Bishop questioned why the City was placing money in Oregon Trails
when there is not a branch of Oregon Trails in the Tigard city limits.
(d) Finance Director responded that this was the institution which was paying
the highest interest rates.
Motion to adopt was approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
18. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 1-82 - City of Tigard
A request by the City of Tigard for an amendment to Section 18.72 of the Tigard
Municipal Code to allow for general and dimensional criteria for reviewing and
approving conditional use requests.
(a) Public Hearing Opened
(b) City Administrator recommended Council continue public hearing until March 8,
1982, for taking testimony.
(c) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to continue public
hearing to March 8, 1982 meeting.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
19. VARIANCE - V 1-82 - Tigard School District #23J - NPO #6
A request by the Tigard School District #23J for a 27 foot variance to the 35
foot height requirement for construction of an auditorium as an addition to
the existing high school complex located on Durham Road (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1
14A, Tax Lot 100) .
(a) Planning Director requested Council cancel the public hearing since staff
has found a previous conditional use which allows the height variance for
the school property and will not need a variance at this time.
(b) Consensus of Council was to cancel the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONCLUDED
20. BIKEWAY REPOT
(a) Director of Public Works gave an oral presentation, with map, setting out the
improvements planned for the bikeways in the City and the timetable for
implementation of the plan.
PAGE 5 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 22, 1982
21. GENERAL TELEPHONE FRANCHISE RENEWAL
(a) City Administrator stated there was no action needed at this time by Council,
however, staff would be bringing this item back for action on March 8, 1982.
Staff has checked with the PUC office and was informed that if a franchise
tax was over 3% that it would be considered a local tax to the citizenry.
Staff would recommend staying with the 3% and requested Council study the
proposal franchise and call staff with any concerns or questions. Director
of Public Warks stated that his department would be comparing the franchise
with the cable TV needs in case any wordage changes would be needed in the
telephone renewal contract.
22. 72ND AVENUE FINANCING DISCUSSION
(a) City Administrator discussed a report filed by Legal Counsel regarding
financing issues pursuant to all LID's in the City and more specifically
the 72nd Avenue LID. Deferrals of payments, city bonding, interum financ-
ing methods - formal vs. informal bidding processes, variable vs. fixed
rates of interest, and arbitrage problems were areas discussed. The
Administrator then gave a report on the progress of the 72nd Avenue LID
noting that bids would be opened on March 2, 1982, at 2:00 P.M. Staff
proposed to report on March 8, 1982, to the Council of the apparent low
bidder in the process and submit financing quotes at the same time.
23. OPEN AGENDA: Consideration of NON-Agenda Items identified to the Chair under
item 1 .3 will be discussed at this time. All persons are encouraged to contact
the City Administrator prior to the meeting.
23.1 Bill Payment for Legal Counsel
(a) Finance Director reported a bill from the City Attorney was received too late
for inclusion in the bills presented for payment under Consent Agenda and
requested Council approval for a payment of $4,498.70 to O'Donnell, Sullivan
and Ramis for services rendered.
(b) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve payment.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
23.2 Report on Governor's Letter
(a) City Administrator reported that a letter has been received from the Governor's
office dated February 12, 1982, which stated that the PUC office is in the
process of studying and revising the Portland General Electric rates which
were questioned by Council and citizens earlier in the month.
23.2 Oral Report on Packet Items
(a) City Administrator drew Council attention to the new report format which is
being used by the Police Department and requested Council comments on the form.
He also mentioned that the Boundary Commission would be hearing the Bechtold
Annexation issue on the 18th of March.
PAGE 6 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 22, 1982
r"
23.4 Oral Report on County Plan and Tax Base Proposal
(a) City Administrator reported to Council has reaction to the County Commission
meeting of February 16, 1982 which he attended at Council's request. He
gave a brief overview of his presentation of City concerns to the Commission
noting specifically that he expressed concern regarding the County Framework
Plan preparation and the need of financing capital improvements and operat-
ing budget services being addressed simultaneously with the Plan. Other
areas covered by the Commission at their meeting were (1) concern about
Urban Renewal as a reversal of the double taxation argument and (2) debate
over a new tax base up from $3 million to $27 million. City Administrator
suggested that staff would be getting involved on the issue of double taxa-
tion in March.
23.5 Charter Draft Ordinance
(a) Legal Counsel submitted draft of Charter changes requested by Council at the
February 8, 1982 meeting and requested they study the proposals and call him
regarding any concerns or questions they might have.
23.6 LCDC Planning Grant Application
(a) Legal Counsel requested Council approve the Planning Work Program and projected
time table for revision of the Comprehensive Plan so that the City would be-
come eligible for LCDC grant monies to assist in this project.
(b) RESOLUTION No. 82-18 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WORK PROGRAM AND PROJECTED
TIME TABLE FOR REVISION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
(c) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
24. ADJOURNMENT: 9: 17 P.M. - Regular Meeting
25. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Per ORS 192.660 (1) (d) City Council went into Executive
Session at 9:45 P.M. to discuss issues relating to labor relations.
(a) Council permitted the members of press to attend the meeting.
(b) City Administrator discussed the current status of negotiations with each
bargaining unit and discussed negotiation strategies and their relation-
ship to Council goals and objectives.
26. ADJOURNMENT: 10:40 P.M. - Executive Session
Recorder - � City of Tim d
ATTEST:
Mayor - City of Tigard
i
PAGE 7 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 22, 1982
PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL �-
PROGRAM BUDGET FEBRUARY 22, 1982
Community Protection
Police 5,808.33
Public Works 9,838.50
Municipal Court 67.87
Planning 1,615.69
Building 183.06
Total Community Protection 17,513.45
Home & Community Quality
Public Works 1 ,018.26
Social Services
Library 804.20
Aged Services
Youth Services
Historical
Total Social Services 804.20
Policy & Administration
Mayor & Council 583.99
Administration 649. 17
Finance 264.73
Total Policy & Administration 1 ,479.89
City Wide Support Functions
Non-departmental 8,800. 12
Misc. Accounts (refunds & payroll deductions, etc.) 3,053. 13
CAPITOL BUDGET
Community Protections
Road Acquisition & Dev.
Parks Acquisition & Dev.
Storm Drainage
Total Community Protection
Support Services
Building Improvements
DEBT SERVICE
General Obligation Bond
Bancroft Bond 5,243.95
UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY
Contract
37,931 .00
TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS WRITTEN
Da to February 22, 1982
I wish to testify before the Tigard City
Council on the following item:
(Please print your name)
1.3 Non-A enda Items Under Open Agenda for Audience, Staff and Council
27ame, Address & Affiliation Item Description
6/
��- WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUNITY
® d. ACTION ORGANIZATION
245 SE SECOND HILLSBORO,OR 97123 PH.503-6486646
i
RECEIVED .3Ai� 2 2
January 19, 1982
Bob Jean, City Administrator & -
Members of the City Council
City of Tigard
12420 S.W. Main St.
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. Jean and Members of the Council :
Washington County Community Action Emergency Services and Shelter
. House Program would like to request financial support from your
city in the amount of $1,479.00. We need your support to assist
in the operation of the program. Our program provides emergency
assistance and temporary shelter to individuals and families
throughout Washington County.
While the state has reduced human service costs by 40% over the
past 3 years, the local impact is that we have experienced an
increase in the number of services provided. The responsibility
of responding to social problems has been shifted gradually from
the federal and state levels to the local level , which is in
keeping with the current economic trend. Unfortunately, the
drastic proposed reductions in human services, which are currently
being considered on the state level , are not, as Leo Hegstrom,
Director of Human Resources, says in his attached letter to Governor
Atiyeh, "appropriate or humane. " It is unknown at this time whether
the additional 20% reductions will be adopted, but if they are, the
results will be catastrophic to all local communities unless they are
prepared for it. I urge you to read the attached materials submitted
by Mr. Hegstrom to Governor Atiyeh and project what the impact of
this will be to local communities throughout the state. In addition
to this, the population in Washington County has expanded over the
past 3 years by 16.69%, which further increases the demand for social
and public services. I believe all local public officials, in
preparing budgets for the coming year, should be acquainted with the
facts relating to the potential havoc that may result in the event
of these reductions, and plan accordingly in terms of police, fire,
rescue units, and all social and emergency service programs that address
the needs of individuals in crisis. I would like to comment here that
�JN�SY SFq.
� m
o M
U
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER �0��11//S1���\O
Bob Jean, City Administrator
January 1.9, 1982
Page 2
while many people believe that Welfare, Red Cross, Salvation Army,
churches, police departments, etc. are able to respond to all
emergencies, we receive calls and referrals from all of these
agencies and many others as well on a daily basis. Most social
and public service programs are interdependent. Our particular
expertise is reponding to immediate emergencies.
The WCCAO Emergency Services and Shelter House Program has increased
their number of services provided by 53% over the past 3 years.
We have absorbed the 40% reduction in human Services, in addition
to responding to the increased need due to the population expansion,
while maintaining the same number of staff and virtually remaining
close to the same budget level in terms of operation. (See attached
statistic and budget sheets) .
Over the past 5 years, we have increased our private sector funding,
experienced a small drop in local government support and reduced
federal support significantly. This is in keeping with the current
economic attitudes and trends. Nevertheless, while we have managed
to balance out the two ends, local government support needs remain
basically the same at this time. Last year we took a big risk and
asked United Way for a large increase. We did not anticipate receiving
the whole amount but we DID get it. We feel that we will continue to
receive support from them and hopd for an additional increase. We are
also seeking funds from other private sources in an effort to reduce
our reliance on local government dollars, but we continue to need your
support at this time. Hopefully that need will be reduced as private
sector funds increase.
To summarize, I urge you to consider the possible effects on the poor,
the unemployed, the disabled and elderly, etc. (both to the individual
AND the community) as you read Mr. Hegstrom's reduction plans, and
support, ethically and financially, the social service programs that
will address the anticipated needs in the near future. In particular,
I request that you provide our program with such support. Program
services have increased by 53%, state cutbacks have been reduced by 40%
and it is anticipated that they will be reduced another 20%. In quoting
Leo Hegstrom's final statement to Governor Atiyeh:
"We are prepared to carry out whatever is
required in the current emergency, but I
appeal to you to give special consideration
to programs for the poor and dependent in
your review of agency budgets."
Bob Jean, City Administrator
January 19, 1982
Page 3
{ I would make that same appeal to you.
i
Sincerely,
AC u lA ne D. Hanes , Coordinator
WCCAO mergency Services and Shelter House Program
210 S.E. 12th Street
Hillsboro, OR 97123
648-0829 or 648-0820
JDH/sw
Enclosed: Budget sheet
Statistics
Letter & proposed budget cuts from Leo Hegstrom to Gov. Atiyeh
Brochure
{1
z- .
m o
a� a� r,-,
co Vco co
� t
ra
0 1
CO v% V)CN •+ rii vs
Vt
cam+ o a2i ccr%
Cc
Ltl �en Wq Tr CC.-N O O c6
m rH -N ', 4-'� m 41
.,I)+F al
it) 5_- O
'Lvi �� c� U
r- co
O Q O _ ,-iceILI
�ec� era n
- a co -o 'o
m co -
o o H 0
S O ` p
Po
V CT U ' - CC 2j
m O m rl 0 �D
2 O �0 al %O tty
W W co -F r-1 cu i O
-g O r! co 'Id Gam, or�i e-1
C7
CC) G� � �H v - v '�O :S N
E��i ri U r-1' O -N -H �N �
pit
O O V1 i' V m
'
p c
�
C>
43
rn
r-9
`u A r~
rn O co W�
co
o �W r IA H W ;3 fail
CWWn `� ti -P, O O -d 0 's~
FJ f-1 w � H P o 0Oi 7-4v
co >~
7-1
CH 0 cu
O O N cou u C) - .O O
-tom cu cu a,
r-1 4T O U O Q 0)
-H c`'1 [4
C)
@ co O W GR UH 4:2 P4 N
1 O I-1 -�O1 -O r i
P �1 cC r-
t` H 111 H -Ci m 1; •=-
3
1982-83
EMERGENCY SERVICES & SHELTER PROGRAM
Budgeted Budgeted Projected Budget
1980-81 1981-82 1982-83
EXPENDITURES
Salaries $ 48,719. $ 56 ,484 . $ 54,143.
Fringe Benefits 7,325. 9,219. 9,386.
Travel 818. 300. 200.
Rent 1,200. 10,800. - 11,880.
Utilities 2,200. 3,600. 4,000.
Bldg. Maint. & Repairs 2,092. 1 ,86Q . 1 ,200.
Bldg. Insurance 400. 400. 400.
Telephone 1,800. 11900. 1,900.
Office Supplies 300. 300. 300.
Printing, Postage 550. 500. 400.
Program Supplies 800. 11000. 1,200.
Equipment Purchase 780. 400. 400.
Beneficiary Costs 600. 600. 600.
Recruitment, Training 450. 500 . 500.
Equiprrent Repair 1,055. 600. 700.
Bookkeeping, Audit, Super. 6,546. 7,500. 7,650.
One-time Costs 141,298. 0. 0.
Contract _ 4,100. 8,600.
TOTALS: $216,933. $100,063. $103,459.
Received Received Projected
PROJECTED REVENUE 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83
United Way $ 22,500. $ 34,000. $ 40,000.
CETA 7,069. 8,263. 0.
Jesuit Vol . Corp. (in-kind) 4,810. 6,000. 12,600.
Washington County 16,000. 16,000. 17,000.
City of Hillsboro 7,200. 5,000. 6,000.
City of Beaverton 10,000. 10,000. i1,000.
City of Forest Grove 2,000. 2,000. 2,500.
Wash. County Block Grant 131,453. 0. 0.
WCCAO (in-kind) 8,145. 10,800 . 11,880.
WCCAO/CSA 7,756. 81000. 0.
City of Cornelius 0. 0. 1,000.
City of Tigard 0. _ 0 ._ _ 1,479 .
TOTALS: $216,933. $100,063. $103,459.
y[
f
Department of Human Resources
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
VICTOR ATIVQM
f
318 PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDING, SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE 378-3033
December 11, 1981
Governor Victor Atiyeh
254 State Capitol
Salem, Oregon. 97310
Dear Vic:
Attached are schedules detailing actions the Department
Of Human Resources would have to take to absorb up to
a 20 per cent reduction in general funds for the rest
of the 1981-83 biennium.
It is with misgivings that I present this "State Revenue
Reduction Plan" ' to you -- misgivings born of my concern
over the impact of these cuts on the poor and dependent
clients we serve. However, I have no misgivings about
the quality of the work that has gone into developing
this plan for your review. I am proud of the division
Administrators and their staffs . For them, this has
been a difficult task under intense pressure_ They
have made the tough, often agonizing, choices necessary
to produce a plan that is as fair and balanced as
Possible under the current financial circumstances.
At the full 20 per cent reduction level , the Department' s
loss in general funds would exceed $114 million for the
rest of this biennium. A schedule on the first page of
the attached report breaks down these losses division-
by-division.
Of course, dollars do not tell the whole story. Cuts
of this magnitude will affect many people -- clients,
Providers, workers in private agencies , staff in our
divisions. The cuts tend to hit almost everyone and
everything. There is little in these budget reductions
that can be described as increasing the efficiency and
, effectiveness of state government. We will be asking
clients who depend on the state for help and subsistence
to turn somewhere else. (You can get- an idea of the
``. kinds of program cuts we have had to propose by reviewing
an attachment to this letter which includes listings for
each division. )
'1 *�jlf� •
Governor Atiyeh
December 11 , 1981 �
Page 2
g K.
For the most part , the cuts do not eliminate the cost
they transfer the cost. Take , for example , the $36 million
reduction in modic.-11 assistance in the Adult and Family
Services I)i vision . Admittedly , there is some over-
utilization of medical care in AFS , there is in private
health in urancr , but the vast majority of the medical
care we finance is essential. .
Some of the cost of these reductions will be transferred
to the client in the form of untreated medical problems
and the rr-sulLing lonci-term consequences through the
denial of medical. care . Arid , in other circumstances
where essential medical care is not denied due to the
severity of the condition , some of the costs of treatment
will be trans : rred to private patients and their insurers
in the form of increased charges .
Other cost shifts contained in our plan are obvious
for instance , the proposal. for local school districts to
pick up the cost of educating children at MacLaren,
Hillcrest and Fairview. Up to now, the state through CSD
and MILD has paid this: cost, and it amounts to some $5
million annually.
But some of tho cost shifts in our plan are not so
obvious. 'I`hey carry with them hidden costs that will
} fall on local communities.
These include reducing psychiatric care for the mentally
ill , eliminating pre-school and parent training programs
for the mcnt:allj' retarded, reIucing academic and psychi-
atric treatment programs for prison inmates, eliminating
assistance for drug addicts and alcoholics, reducing day
care for w(-,r};i.ng mothers by 50 per cent, closing juvenile
correction camps and cottages, and reducing services and
meals designed to help the dependent elderly remain in
their own homes .
There are manv othcir serious reductions that are difficult
to descri.b,-! in a general way . Cutbacks in state adminis-
trative costs resulting in the elimination of 1 ,073
positions , siclni ficant. red!ictions in funding for county
programs, and eliminating inflation adjustments ($17 million)
will seriously dilute the duality of governmental services .
'I'llis, in turn can only result in increased public dis-
satisfaction with governme-tit.
S.
4 :'x: 3„
Governor Atiyeh
December 11 , 19.91
Page 3
Contrary to past reduct � (-)ns , we had 1it.t1c, opportunity in
this plan to cushion tho impact b,rtakingdisproportionate
cuts in lower priority pro(jraws , c,r iJi stat(! administrative
costs. The simple reason is that, for the most part , we
exhausted those opportunitie5-; in cuts made for the August
1980 Special Sc'sSi011 , and for the 1981 RQgular Session .
This included a $66 . 4 mill.jon federal funding reduction
associated with the block grants.
I also want to point out that the new - cuts in this "State
Revenue Reduction Plan" come on tole of cutbacks
made in
our contingency jjrcjc.-(-,;s this fall. . A copy of
that plan is attached and we will want to review it with
you and, with your concurrence , present it to the Special
Session. In short, the plan shows that we are taking action
to compensate for budclet problems totaling $9. 9 million ,
some of them stumming from reduction: Liu(] to the Rea(jan
Administration ' s September budget recommendations.
As you review the "State Rt�vonuc 1,1al-1 , 11 you will note that
we have not recommended eliminatinq many Programs , even
at the 20 per cent reduction level . In accord with your
instructions , we did look closely at this , 1-.)ut my conclu-
sion -- and that of the division administrators -- is that
the programs remaining before this round of cuts were
critical. That being the case, we were reluctant to
abandon entirely the People we serve in these programs
when we had to make these now reductions .
Anotherway of saying it is that the programs we now operate
are essential, even if we have to cut thein substantially.
(The attachment to this letter highlights. the Programs that
would be cOmPlet(>-lY eliminated at the 20 per cent reduction
level. )
To set the stage for your in' -depth review of our recOnimenda-
tions , I want to make some general cominonts about our
reduction proposals :
® The reductions are spread rather evenly throughout
the Department . They tend to hit everything. To ill.ustrate,
the following table shows the proportionate reduction in
general funds for each division for the last 16 months of
the biennium.
Governor Atiyc:}! .#.z
December 11 , 1.9 F31
Page 4
Adult. and i irrrli l Y Services 21 . 8 E>er cent
Children ' s Services 20. 7
Corrections 19. 1
Health 21 . 2
Mental Health 22. 3
Senior Services 23. 5
Vocational Rehabilitation 08 . 0
Director' s Office 23. 3
Total DIIR 22 . 4 per cent
The reason for the large reduction in the Vocational
Rehabilitation Division is complicated. Essentially, it
stems from our proposal to discontinue using state
general funds to replace cuts in federal support. In the
last Legislature a decision was made to replace predicted
losses of federal• revenue with state general funds .
Congress, however, approved a higher level of federal funds
than anticipated. For that reason , we believed it was
appropriate to reduce general fund support for VRD.
® There will be a much greater impact on client
services and on community based programs in this plan
compared to previous reduction plans over the last two
years. As I pointed out earlier, we have been able to
temper the impact of previous reductions by taking dispro-
portionate cuts in such programs as Aid-to-Families-with
Dependent-Children (AFDC) and General Assistance (GA) .
That, in my judgment, is no longer possible . In past
reduction plans , we also intentionally took more than a
proportionate cut in state administrative costs , particularly
at the central office level , to protect direct service pro-
grams. That, too, is no longer possible . The result
is that we have had to takea hard look at, the relative
priority of client services and community programs , and
they are absorbing substantial cuts in our plan .
® Emj.)loyes will feel the impact of these recommenda-
tions. Many will lose their jobs. The plan we are submitting
calls for eliminating more than 1, 000 positions department-
wide and that will translate , this time, to nearly a one-to-
one ratio in layoffs. Vacancy savings were used up in the
actions called for in the latest contingency plan ; now a
Position cut will almost always mean an employe layoff.
O Given the magnitude of the reductions , it has been
impossible to protect the cost-of-living adjustments for
provi.dets and clients scheduled this biennium. Therefore,
we are prdposing to withhold cost-of-living increases for
providers in the second S per cent reduction package. Cost-
of-living increases for GA, ADC and other clients are
eliminated in . later packages.
fawe
Governor nti f to
;;,:•a; December 11 , 1981
Page 5
The: thing that troubles me about these rrdi.ictions is not
that the Department of human Resources has to tighten its
belt further , especially under today' s economic condi tions .
What does trouble • me is the extent to which these reduc-
tions depart from what I believe is the Yrci�er role of
this Department.
When you appointed me Director of the Department, the
biennial budget was $2 . 1 billion . Today, three years
later, the biennial budget is $1 . 7 billion , before taking
into account the reductions outlined in thi:. flan . Adjust-
ing the budget for inflation at 1.0 peT cent
per year sir.co the time I was appointed would have
required a biennial appropriation of $2 . 7 billion to
sustain the same level of program. So, in effect , the
Department' s programs Have already been reduced by $1
billion, or approximately 40 per cent.
This simply reveals that an additional $114 :pillion cutback
will entail serious program reductions .
The best way t can describe the function of this Department
is to liken it to an insurance company . What it does is
spread the cost of responding to social. catastrophes across
the general population to prevent the total cost from falling
on the individual or the family , whoever is unfortunate
enough to be the victim.
What these budget reductions do is reduce the catastrophes
the state covers , with the result that the budget reduction
plan relieves 'the general population of a relatively small
cost individually and imposes the total burden on the
individual or family affected by the misfortune.
Finally, L want to reiterate the Department management 's
support for considering an across-the-board salary freeze
as a way to avoid some of the cuts we have outlined. The
division administrators and I am in unanimous support of
this alternative . To be fair, I do not think state
employes should be alone in helping to solve the state ' s
^ 'revenue problem in this manner . By that I mean that, if
° .state employesaccept a salary freeze , then cast-of-living
adjustments for providers and community based programs
should be withhold as well. We have reflected the latter
freezes in our plan, and urge that serious consideration
be. given to an employe salary freeze as an alternative to
some of the reductions we have outlined.
- -- ---- 3.h��;sc:.:$ti•ant
Governor Ati yeh
December 11, 1981
Page 6 `
In summary, I personally do not believe that what remains
in human resources after these cuts is appropriate or.
humane . The impact speaks for itself . I believe the
Department of Human Resources has done more than its part
in the past in confronting the state ' s budget problems:
We are prepared to carry out whatever is required in the
current emerge-ncy, but I appeal to you to give special
consideration to programs for the poor and dependent in
your review of agency budgets_
Sincerely,
Leo T. He Strom
Director
LTH:sm
Attachments
cc: Division Administrators
`i
1
EXAMPLES OF PROGRAM CUTS IN DEPAR1MLNI Of HUMAN kESOURCES
�9
The following is a list of program reductions throughout the Department of Human
Resources. One major reduction is not listed indivi &011y by division -- a
freeze in adjustments for inflation for all private agencies and community pro-
grams that provide services to clients. In all , withholding these adjustments
saves $17 million in total funds.
Adult and Family Servicbs Division
1 . Freeze cash assistance standards for clients in General Assist- $ 2.5 M
ante, Aid-to-Families-With-Dependent-Children, and Day Care.
2. Require persons to be unemployable for 90 days; rather than 60, 5 1 .8 M
to be eligible for General Assistance. This will remove cash
and medical benefits for more than 300 current GA clients.
3. Eliminate drug addiction and alcoholism as reasons for qualify- $ 3.8 M
ing for the state' s General Assistance program.
4. Eliminate WORTH Program for two-parent families. It has pro- $ 5.9 M
vided job finding help, two months of emergency cash assistance
for the parents, and medical help for their children.
5. Require General Assistance applicants to qualify for a cash $ 4.7 M
benefit before they become eligible for medical help. This
will primarily affect hospitals, which are now reimbursed for
care they have already provided.
6. Eliminate the burial program for indigents. $ .6 M
7. Require welfare clients to pay part of the cost of their $ 2.8 M
medical care (S1 for drugs, $2 for office visits, and $5 for
hospital outpatient visits. )
8. Reduce the number of days of paid hospitalization for General
Assistance and Medicaid clients. $ .8 M
3. Cut Day Care Program in half. $ 4.2 M
10. Reduce the amount the state reimburses medical providers for $15. 3 M
treating welfare clients.
11. Eliminate General Assistance Medical Only Program. $ 1 .7 M
Children's Services Division
1. Close. two camps for juvenile delinquents , one in Corvallis and $ 1 .4 M
one in Portland. Also close two living unit cottages at the
{ state's juvenile training centers, one each at Hillcrest and
MacLaren.
2. Cut in half the services CSD purchases from child care centers $ .3 M
to .help disturbed youngsters make the transition from out-of-
home to in-home care.
Children' s Services Division (Cont' d) Its
3. Make a 15 per cent cut in funding for private child caring
agencies. Some facilities could close; others will curtail
operations.
S 2.1 M
4. Make a 15 per cent cut in funding for the Day and Residential
Treatment Centers (DARTS) which treat severely emotionally
disturbed youth.
5. Stop serving status offenders in out-of-home settings once 5 .5 M
' they reach 18 years of age.
V
5. Eliminate the Salem Y-Teen Program, seed money for cooperative $ .28M
day care centers, and the State 4-C Council .
7. Cut Migrant Indian Day Care Program in half. $ .5 M
8. Finance the special education program for children in private $ 3.2 M
agencies and DARTS through the State Department of Education
rather than CSD.
9. Charge school districts where the children reside for partial
� $ 1 .2 M
costs of educating those children at Hillcrest and MacLaren.
I
10. Terminate state supervision of juveniles after they have been $ 90,000
on parole for six months.
11 . Reduce foster care and group care by providing intensive $ 1 .5 M
services for children in their own homes.
Corrections Division
1 . Hold vacant about 140 new parole and probation officer positions $ 2. 1 M
which were to be phased in during the biennium.
2. Eliminate 46 existing positions which assist in job finding and $ 1 .8 M
relocation for inmates on temporary leave who are preparing for
parole.
3. Make a 20 per cent reduction in Community Corrections Act funding. $ 1 .9 M
4. Convert the Correctional Treatment Program at Oregon State $ 1 .7'M
Hospital to a secure facility only, which means eliminating
treatment programs for inmates who have mental health problems.
(The 100-beds in this unit would be operated as an annex to
Oregon State Correctional Institution. Psychiatric services
to inmates, including women, would be provided through the
Psychiatric Unit at Oregon State Penitentiary. )
S. Cut back substantially -- in some cases, eliminate -- academic
and vocational training programs for inmates at Oregon State
Penitentiary, ,the Correctional Institution and the Women's
Center. .
-3-
Health Division
1 , Delay hiring six of 13 r.ew positions approved by the last` Legis- S 177,000
lature to imple::ent the state's water system moni tering program.
2. Eliminate the hearing conservation program for grade and pre- S 557,000
school children, including purchase and repair- of hearing aids .
3. Eliminate the school dental health program. $ 103,000
4. Eliminate training and testing for emergency medical technician 1 S 280,000
personnel .
Mental Health Division
1 . Close psychiatric wards at Dammasch, Eastern and Oregon State $ 1 .6 M
Hospitals by limiting voluntary admissions and transferring
patients elsewhere.
2. Force early closure of Stehekin Ward at Oregon State Hospital $ 104,372
which serves alcohol and drug addicts .
3. Close Cornerstone, a 30-bed ward which serves alcohol and drug S 790,386
addicts transferred from the state's correctional institutions.
4. Eliminate pre-vocational training program for mentally retarded S 208,507
residents at Fairview Training Center.
5. Close a 30-bed ward in the Oregon State Hospital Forensic Unit $ 480,665
which houses persons found by the courts to be not responsible
by reason of mental defect. Closure means some court-committed
patients will be housed in the community psychiatric wards at
the hospital , further restricting voluntary admissions.
6. Cut outpatient drug treatment slots by one-third. $ 700,000
7. Eliminate state support for transporting mentally retarded S 368,314
clients, except those in wheelchairs, to activity centers .
8. Eliminate activity center program for clients 60 years of age S 280.000
and older.
9. Cut state support in half for the trainable mentally retarded $ 1 .0 r'
program in public schools.
10. Overall , reduce community mental health programs -- by 20 per
cert for basic services for the mentally and emotionally dis-
turbed, by 17 per cent for the mentally retarded, and by 6 per
cent for alcohol and drug addicts.
11 . Eliminate two programs for the mentally retarded -- training for $ 1 .4 M
parents, and services to pre-school children ages- 3 to 6.
12. Eliminate mental health counseling services for inmates in Oregon $ 201 ,638
State Penitentiary, Oregon State Correctional Institution, Oregon
Women's Correctional Center and the Corrections Division Rplpa-,p
_4_
Senior Services Division •
I . Cut in half the program that coordinat -s :he efforts of volun- S '424;128
teers in three divisions -- `enior Services , Adult and Family )
Services and Children' s Services .
2. Reduce Oregon Project Independence by 30 per cent. $• 687,039
3. Force additional reduction beyond planned levels in the nursing S 3.8 M (GF)
home caseload. S 7,9 td (FF)
4. Make substantial reductions in alternate care services -- home $ 2.2 M
health by 40 per cent, special diets by 100 per cent, home
delivered meals by 50 per cent, residential care facilities by
25 per cent, and personal care by 100 per cent.
Vocational Rehabilitation Division
1. Close Woodstock House in Portland which serves young deaf adults S =.22 M
with emotional problems .
2. Reduce "special P payments" which counselors use to purchase such S .66 M
services as training, transportation and prosthetic devices
for disabled clients .
3. Make 15 per cent reduction in the number of slots for subsidized $ • .5 M
employment of disabled persons in sheltered workshops.
4. Make 15 per cent reduction in the number of sheltered workshop $ .14 M
slots for work behavior and social adjustment training to dis-
abled clients that will enable them to enter competitive employ-
ment.
February 15, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Director
SUBJECT: Report on Flower Vendors
Staff has been approached by Council and citizens regarding the presence of
flower vendors over the Valentine's Day weekend in the city limits of Tigard.
Staff wants to assure Council that this issue has been carefully followed.
At this time, there is a temporary use granted through April 11, 1982, to allow
the flower vendor to sell from the corner of Hall Blvd. and Pacific Highway.
Staff has evaluated the traffic safety and parking provisions and finds them
adequate. It is our interpretation that this use is consistent with the purpose
of the zoning code.
3 � r
���
CITY OF TIGARD1 OREGON
iy _
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS residents of the Tigard Care Center Nursing
Home are joining with other nursing homes across the
United States to raise needed dollars to combat heart .�
disease;
and
,s' • �:: -
WHEREAS, heart disease has been coined "the nation' s M� ,zi..,
= m number one killer"; and
M.
,; ,• :
WHEREAS the residents of the Tigard Care Center Nursing
,
m . nual "Rock and Roll Jamboree" on
Home
Hoe will hold an an
' '.. February 19 , 1982 to be part of the fund raising drive
"
'7• to benefit the American Heart Association,
NOW THEREFORE I Wilbur A. Bishop Mayor of Tigard
..,.. Oregon, do hereby proclaim February 19, 1982 as "Rock and
��:����'• Roll Jamboree" Day in Tigard, and in so doing urge support
w
y of the American Heart Association and the efforts by "ttl3 �
Tigard Care Center Nursing Home to raise the needed w.'=
T.' dollars to assist in the combat of heart disease.
DATED: This 16th day of February, 1982 at Tigard, Oregon.
r�
I ur Bishop, Mayor `'"�" a
47
,... s� -y S-•:AGM.:..
-• _ ���s�4ra
'•'�' RA?
it b till,fi
END
:.'�.•�_ �sf�iLi41 a .._w.. ?1.-...,
� 3
February 18, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Frank A. Currie, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Tigard Town & Country Days
I have met with Mr. Joe Schafer and other members of the TT & CD Committee to
discuss their concerns relative to the TT & CD celebration, and the facilities
at Cook Park.
The following items, with comments, were discussed:
ITEM COMMENTS
Beer Garden fencing City paid $220 in 1981 to Security Contractors
Service for fencing around the beer garden.
Chemical toilets City paid $182.50 to Schultz.
Park crew time 81 total straight time hours - cost 824.58.
Police Department time 51.7 total straight time hours - cost 625.05.
Electrical needs TT & CD wants to help install a permanent
electrical panel instead of paying 400(plus)
each year for temp. installation. City will
get an estimate of the cost. This is a general
need and a good idea.
Insurance TT & CD pays for a rider to our policy.
Relocate fence for pasture City staff will attempt to get permission to move
parking fence and park in pasture as has been done in
previous years. Est. cost $200.00.
Soccer field parking Committee asked for soccer field parking. Not
practicable as we would incur too much damage.
92nd Avenue parking We need street side parking. We could fill in the
ditch and widen it for parking along west side of
92nd. (Est. cost $300.00)
Carnival at west end of Committee wants to allow a carnival at the west
parking lot end of the parking lot adjacent to the new
restrooms. We should advise them that we are
looking at T.U. standards for carnival type
activities, particularly relative to safety
requirements.
INFORMATION ONLY . . .
c
4
February 18, 1982
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Doris Hartig, Finance Director/City Recorder
Subject: OLCC Applications
The Chief of Police reports that after investigation, all liquor
license applications listed under agenda item # 2.5 are recommended
for approval by Council and authorization for the Mayor's signature.
Avoid verbal Messages
CITY OF TIGARD
To: C14TFI OF POLICE
Subject:_ LIOUOR LICENSES
From :__ DORIS HARTIG
Date:_ February 1 1, 1982
Please investigate and have recommendation ready for February 22, 1982
Council meeting.
Shakey°s Inc.
11475 S.W. Pacific Hwy
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Type of Application: Retail Malt Beverage
Powers Robert D.
Pizza Caboose LTD
11670 S.W. Pacific Hwy
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Type of Application: Retail Malt Beverage �� G
t
Avo-4d Verbal Messages 1 `
CITY Of TIGARD
To: CHIEF OF POLICE. From:`_ DORIS HARTIG
Subject: OLCC APPLICATIONS Date:_February 4. 1982
Please investigate and have recommendation ready for February 22, 1982
Council meeting.
7-Eleven Food Store
12123 S.W. Scholls Ferry Rd
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Type of application: Package Store
7-Eleven Food Store
10650 S.W. McDonald St
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Type of application: Package Store
Scholls Thriftway
12280 S.W. Scholls
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Type of Application: Package Store
Liquor Store
12490 S.W. Main St
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Type of Application: To be able to sell wine (attached copy of application)
r
i
Avoid Verbal Messages '
CITY OF TIGARD
To:-- CHIEF OF POLICE From:-- DORIS HARTIG
Subject• OLCC RENEWAL APPLICATION Da to:_ 2-16-82
Please investigate and have recommendation ready for February 22, 1982, Council
meeting.
Connies Grocery
16035 Upper Boones Ferry Rd
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Type of Application: Package Store
February 16, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Nonremonstrance on 72nd LID
The attached Consent Covenant is a nonremonstrance for Consolidated Supply
on SW 72nd Avenue. The purpose is for the Council to accept the agreement
so that it may be recorded.
CONSENT COVENANT
Street Improvements
The undersigned owners (including purchasers) of the
real property described below do hereby record their consent to
the formation of a local improvement district by the City of
Tigard for the purpose of improving S.W. 72nd Avenue. The
undersigned expressly waive all present and future rights to
oppose or remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement
district for the improvement of S.W. 72nd Avenue, reserving only
.the right to contest the inclusion of the described property
within the local improvement district, inclusion or particular
cost items in the improvement district proceeding and any right
they may have under the laws of the state of Oregon to contest
the proposed assessment formula.
This consent and waiver shall run with the title to the
described land and be binding upon the undersigned and all
successor owners, for a period of 15 years from the date of the
last signature below.
The real property that is the subject of this consent covenant
is described as follows:
Lot 4, Southern Pacific Tigard Industrial Park
Page 1 - CONSENT COVENANT
r
i
PR03L CT NAME:
_ - FILE( �Fn
DATED this ro �y Y of da
STATE OF OPZGON )
ss
County of Washington )
On this day of �� 1990personally.
appeared the above named 7 _ 7
and acknowledged the foregoing instru.�ent to be voluntary
act and 'deed.
Before me:
otary Public for Oregon _
My corunission expires :
NG ARY PU--LIC FOR OR G!:",:
11!V LbITIM5S'tm C-r;t--S CVC 10, I� q
Approved by Council on February 1982
City Recorder
t ---
Page 2 _ Consexz�
February 18, 1982
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Doris Hartig, Finance Director/City Recorder`;,��
Subject: Recommendation for Photo Copier Lease
This department has been surveying the overall city copier needs. We have attached
copies of the reports and information regarding the the survey, which was done by
staff over the last few months. We have surveyed not only the needs of City Hall,
but also took a look at city-wide copy volumes - existing and projected , copy machine
enhancement needs, and cost analysis.
RECOMMENDATION:
After considerable study, staff recommends the City enter into a rental agreement for
24 months with Automated Office Systems for the rental of a Canon NP-400. The
monthly minimum premium will be $299.00 which will include 10,000 copies. The Canon
equipment will be placed in the central copy center in September when the existing
Xerox equipment rental lease expires and a less expensive convenience copier will
be placed downstairs in City Hall. The early placement of the Canon equipment will
give the city a chance to test not only the equipment but the maintenance response
by the vendor. If the equipment is not meeting the City's needs by June 30, 1982,
the City does have the option of not budgeting for that equipment and therefore
terminating the rental lease.
BUDGETARY SOURCE:
This rental amount is included in the 1981-82 control budget and will be charged to
the various user departments.
PURCHASE REQUIREMENTS:
Several vendors were tested and three were selected for a closer comparison because
of their features. Final selection was made based on the following criteria: (1) at
least one mode of reduction and one mode of enlargement; (2) be cost effective at
8,000 to 10,000 copies/month; (3) have good maintenance response from vendor; (4) be
a test machine for possible rental as the main copy center equipment in September; and
(5) have good copy quality. The only equipment that could offer all of the above was
the Canon NP-400. In the City's Contract Review Board Rules , adopted by Ordinance No.
76-3, the City is not required to hold competitive bidding if there is a single seller
of a product of the quality required available within this area. Since Automated
Office Systems is the only dealer in the area that could meet these requirements , staff
met the purchasing requirements of the City.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends Council approve the rental lease agreement for a 2 year period with
Automated Office Systems on a monthly minimum premium of $299 for 10,000 copies per
month for the Canon NP-400.
lw
January 20, 1982
MEMORANDUM
To: Finance Director & City Administrator
From: Office Manager CI,,;
Subject: Copier Needs Survey Results and Machine Rental Recommendation
I have spent considerable time over the last three months evaluating various machines &
their features versus our needs. I am attaching my memos from 12/16/81 and 12/21/81
as reference for some of that work.
This department has completed a survey of copy machine volume and cost over the
last five years on a city-wide basis. As you will note , when new featured machines
were added at City Hall and the Police Department a copy volume increased was
experienced. at a rate of 16% for the Police Department and 33% for City Hall. This
will support the copy volume projection of 7500 - 8000 copies per month for a copier
placed on the main floor of City Hall.
Looking at the copy volume graph attached, you will notice that City Hall and the
Police Department experience an increase in copy volume early each calendar year.
This is due to the budget process.
From the information gathered to date, I feel unable to recommend a city wide copy
system need. With the organizational changes, tighter economic situation, and new
"game plan", it is difficult to tie down needs other than the following:
Police Department: Currently have a Xerox 4000. At the copy volume running
(average of 9400/mo - high of 13,500/mo.) a smaller or slower machine would only
increase time consumed in copy projects. With Word Processing being implemented,
the copy volume on the police equipment should remain fairly consistent with this
last year even with population and work load increasing.
City Hall: Currently have a Xerox 4500.' Need a copier downstairs to handle short
runs for staff and public. At the copy volume running (average 19,100 - high 37,700)
a Canon NP-400 would seem to be the most economical answer to the needs and also
add the enhancement of reduction and enlargement to- the copy system. (One added
note: the contract for the Xerox 4500 expires 9/82, if the Canon NP-400 proves to
be a durable machine with good maintenance support, it could be considered as a
replacement for the 4500 in September and then replace it downstairs with a lower
cost machine. We should talk about this issue more.)
At this time I would recommend rental of the Canon NP-400 (for either a two or three
year contract if you wish to maximize the cost savings of a low rental fee) for � Q9.?01
per month. This would include 10,000 copies per month, an automatic document feeder,
and three paper trays. Supply costs would include toner at $76.50 ( .0067 /copy) and
a new drum at $292.50 ( .0029q,/copy) through the use of the machine. (Drums are replaced
approximately every 100,000 copies, or in this case every 12-13 months.) Currently,
we purchase toner, developer and fuzer oil for the Xerox 4500 and the total costs for
supplies are running about .0098p/copy.
t.
t
CITY OF TIGARD
* * AVERAGE COPIES EACH YEAR AVERAGE COST
1977 12,693 452.29
1978 18,872 606.15
1979 18,725 582.92
1980 17,149 578.73
1981 19,065 680.58
CITY OF TIGARD POLICE DEPT.
*** 1977 5,298 212.79
1978 5,887 239.20
1979 6,875 250.86
1980 8,158 287.47
1981 9,368 337.40
* New Machine 9-77
New Machine 9-79
*** Averages expressed in monthly figures.
DMJ
Wo
IG
.�...� ............�....■..�.�.,. . III
NMI
.........
December 21, 1981
MEMORANDUM
To: Finance Director r& City Administrator
From: Office Manager �LkL
Subject: Further Information on Copier Needs
As requested I have done some research on the cost of the Xerox 4500 copier which
the City has had for about 4 years and compared this with the copier recommendation
which was submitted on December 16, 1981. (see attached copy) . The average Xerox
cost over the last 16 months has been $658.14 per month for rental and copies with
an average number of copies being 18,617. If last fiscal year were compared to this
fiscal year (first 4 months) , the number of copies were: 1980-81 - 19,166/mo;
1981-82 (4 mo.) - 16,971/mo. ' This copy reduction can be attributed to change in
management (i.e. City Administrator & Planning Director) , and the move in October/
November which disrupted normal routine.
In the last memo, I did not reflect the cost of developer for the machines, since
each machine runs about �q, per copy in supply costs.
The following comparisons are made at 5,000 copies/mo. and 10,000 copies/mo.
This includes developer or supply costs.
Make of Machine 5,000/mo. cost 10,000/mo. cost
Canon 325.00 (6.5,,-) 350.00 (3.5q.)
Xerox 225.00 (4.3,,-) 298.00 (3.O(,,)
Sharp 317.00 (6.3(,,) 405.00 (4.10)
As you will note, the cost savings is enhanced with the more copies run each month.
On a 12 month average the copy use on the Xerox 4500 is as follows:
1 - 5 copies/original 53% use
6 - + copies/original 477 use
Since 58% of the employees at City Hall are located on the first floor and of those,
most are 1-5 copies/original users, I feel safe in estimating that machine will
run about 6000 copies per month. Anytime a new feature is added to a copier (i.e.
reduction, automatic document feeder and enlargement) industry averages show that
a 25% - 33% increase will be experienced in usage. If this is true, then the machine
will have a copy volume of 7500 to 7980 per month
At this time, I still recommend the Canon NP - 400 because it requires the least
operator time and care, costs will be reduced in-house from using the reduction/
enlargement modes, supplies will become available through Multnomah County Purchasing
soon and thus create more savings, copy speed is .higher that the other machines
and will decrease operator time, and the machine is more reliable because of the
feeder feet than the other machines which will decrease jams, & there are two modes
of reduction and one mode of enlargement (other machines only have 1 mode of reduction) .
If I can answer any further questions, please call. (Please note - Canon will only
contract for 10,000 copies per month, or $299.00 rental fee.)
* = cost per copy
1
December 16, 1981
MEMO RJLN DU24
TO: Finance Director & City Administrator
FROM: Office Manager
SUBJECT: Copier Needs and Recommendation
Over the last month (+) I have surveyed the copy market for a reduction machine
which would fit in the application on the first floor of City Hall. Each of the
following machines have gone through a "hands-on" demonstration. The following
are the three top machines in the study and their specs and costs.
MACHINE TYPE COPIES/MIN. # OF REDUCTION MODES RENTAL COST/2•:O./ff OF COPIES
Canon NP-400 40 2 + enlargement $299.00/10,000
Xerox 3107 20 1 $185.00/4,525
10,000/mo. @ $247.96
Sharp SF 820 24 1 $292.00/5,000
10,000/mo. @ $354.50
My search has shown that the machines can all hold 250 sheets per paper cassette;
they cost about the same for supplies; have good copy quality; use dry toner and
bond paper; run from 110v electrical outlet; copy from 5ax8� size sheet to
at least 11x17. Recommended copy volume per month are as follows:
Canon 10-50k
Xerox 5-10k
Sharp 5-45k
I would recommend the Canon NP-400 for the following reasons:
1. Maintenance support is excellent (per City of Portland and Mult. County applications)
2. Machine will withstand heavy - rough treatment without breakdowns
3. 2 modes of reduction and l mode of enlargement gives more versitility
4. Machine can become copy center quality' with little cost increase (ie. adding
sorter)
5. Runs quickly (40 cpm)
6. Within six months (estimate from County) supplies will be purchased from Mult.
Co. and give more cost savings.
7. Machine is easy to use (ie. board display, jam clearing, paper changing)
If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. I have attached pictures
for your review.
LW
February 18, 1928
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and Council
From: Doris Hartig, City Recorder
Subject: Consideration of Tigard Loaves and Fishes Request For Funds
The Tigard Loaves and Fishes group will be presenting their request for funds
at the 2-22-82 Council meeting. The staff is unable to complete the resolution
calling for the May election until Washington County Department of Elections
completes their revision of the polling places and precincts in the City of Tigard.
This work will be completed in time for the March 8, 1982 Council Meeting. We
would respectfully request that you carry-over consideration of this issue to
the 3-8-82 meeting for formal adoption of a resolution calling for election.
lw
i
r _ _
February 17, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Director
SUBJECT: ZOA 1-82 City of Tigard
V 1-82 Tigard School District
The purpose of these items was to provide for the issuance of a building permit
for the new high school auditorium by either approving conditional use prior to
their formal presentation r March 8, 1982, or granting a variance to the
apparent height limitation for this zone.
After further reviewing the General Provision section of the Zoning Ordinance,
staff found that the variance to the height requirements for Tigard High School
is not needed. Specifically, Section 18.12.110(b) states:
(b) Building heights in any zone may be increased as a
conditional use to a maximum permitted height of seventy-five
feet provided that the total floor area of the building does
not exceed the area requirement of the zone (if any) and provided
that in residential zones all yards shall have a minimum depth
of not less than one-half the height of the principal structure.
Since the Tigard High School was granted a Conditional Use permit when the area
was annexed, the proposed addition meets all City ordinance requirements and
therefore, the V 1-82 hearing should be cancelled.
The public hearing for ZOA 1-82 should be set over to the March 8, 1982 regular
Council meeting for consideration after review by the Planning Commission.
/ D
1 A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT GRANTING TO GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF THE
NORTHWEST, INC. , A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIG!-1S
2 THE RIGHT TO PLACE, ERECT AND MAINTAIN POLES, WIRES AND OTHER APPLI-
ANCES AND CONDUCTORS AND TO LAY UNDERGROUND WIRES FOR THE TRANSMISSION
3 OF ELECTRICITY FOR COMMUNICATION PURPOSES IN, UPON, UNDER. AND OVER
THE STREETS, ALLEYS, AVENUES, THOROUGHFARES AND PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF
4 THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AND TO CONDUCT A GENERAL COMMUNICATION
BUSINESS WITHIN THE SAID CITY OF TIGARn, OREGON.
5
6 SECTION 1. Subject to the other terms and conditions set forth in
7 this document there is hereby granted by the City of Tigard to the General
8 Telephone Company of the Northwest, Inc. , a Washington Corporation, its
9 successors and assigns; subject to the development ordinances and regulation
of the City, the right and privilege to conduct a general communication bus-
iness within the said City, or such other public property as may come within
11 the jurisdiction of the City during the term of this agreement. This for th
12 purpose of furnishing, as a public utility the products and services utilize
13 in providing telephone, telegraph, and other communication products and
14 services. This grant includes the right to erect, construct, place, replace
15 reconstruct, lay, maintain, and operate poles, wires, switching equipment,
16 amplifying equipment, fixtures, facilities, appliances, structures and
other devices including, but not limited to, electronic, optical and
17
mechanical devices customarily associated with Grantee's function, and
18 purpose of serving as a common carrier of information for communication
19 purposes.
20 SECTION 2. It shall be lawful for Grantee to make all needful and
21 necessary excavations in any of said streets, alleys, avenues, thoroughfares
22 and public highways. All work shall be in compliance with applicable rules,
23 regulations, ordinances or laws of the City or State.
24
25
Page One
I SECTION 3. Prior to the commencement of any ordinary construction,
2 extension or relocation of any of Grantee's facilities upon, over, under,
3 or across any of the streets, highways , or other public property within the
jurisdiction of the City, the Grantee shall advise the City's Department of
4
Public Works of the location of such proposed construction, extension, or
5
relocation and shall obtain from the City Engineer approval prior to
6 commencement of such work. Not less than one working day prior to commence-
7 ment of any work which might affect City utilities, Grantee shall give notic
8 to City's Maintenance Department for purposes of utility location. The
g location of all such facilities shall be at places approved by the City.
10 SECTION 4. Whenever Grantee shall disturb any of the streets, alleys,
Ii avenues, thoroughfares and public highways for the purposes aforesaid, it
shall restore the same to good order and condition as soon as practicable
12
without unnecessary delay and failing to do so , City shall have the right
13
to fix a reasonable time within which such repairs and restoration shall be
14 completed and upon failure of such repairs and restoration being made by
15 Grantee, City shall cause such repairs to be made at the expense of Grantee.
16 The Grantee hereby agrees and covenants to indemnify and save harmless the
17 City and the officers, thereof against all damages, costs and expenses what-
18 soever to which it or they may be subjected in consequence of negligence of
the Grantee, or its agents or servants, in any manner arising from the right
19
and privileges hereby granted.
20
SECTION 5. The City, by its properly constituted authorities, shall
2a have the right to cause the Grantee to move the location of any pole, under-
22 ground conduit or equipment belonging to Grantee whenever the relocation
23 thereof shall be for public necessity, and the expense thereof shall be paid
24 by the Grantee. Whenever it shall be necessary for public necessity to
25 remove any pole, underground conduit or equipment belonging to Grantee or
Page Two
I on which any wire or circuit of the Grantee shall be stretched or fastened,
2 the Grantee, shall , upon written notice from the City, or its properly con-
3 stituted authorities, meet with City representatives and agree in writing to
4 a plan and date certain to remove such poles, underground conduit, equipment
5 wire or circuit, at Grantee's expense, and if the Grantee fails, neglects
or refuses to do so , the City, by its properly constituted authorities, may
6 remove the same at the expense of the Grantee.
7 SECTION 6. Whenever it becomes necessary to temporarily rearrange,
• 8 remove, lower or raise the wires, cables or other plant of Grantee for the
9 passage of buildings, machinery or other objects, Grantee shall temporarily
10 rearrange, remove, lower or raise, its wires, cables or other plant as the
11 necessities of the case require; provided, however, that the person or
12 persons desiring to move any such buildings, machinery or other objects,
13 shall pay the entire actual cost to Grantee of changing, altering, moving,
'
removing or replacing its wires, cables or other plant so as to permit such
14 passage, and shall deposit in advance with Grantee a sum equal to such cost
15 as estimated by Grantee and shall pay all damages and claims of any kind
16 whatsoever, direct or consequential , caused directly or indirectly by
17 changing, altering, moving, removing or replacing of said wires, cables or
18 other plant, except as may be occasioned through the sole negligence of
19 Grantee, Grantee shall be given not less than ninety-six (96) hours written
20 notice by the party desiring to move such building or other objects. Said
notice shall detail the route of movement of such building or other objects
21
over and along the streets, alleys, avenues, thoroughfares and public high-
22 ways and shall bear the approval of the City. Such moving shall be with as
23 much haste as possible and shall not be unnecessarily delayed or cause
24 Grantee unnecessary expense or waste of time.
25
Page Three
t
1SECTION 7. In consideration of the rights and privileges hereby
2 granted, City shall have, and Grantee hereby grants to it, the right and
3 privilege to suspend and maintain wires and necessary control boxes on
4 poles placed by the Grantee in the streets, and other places aforesaid, or
if such wires are placed underground, to place/maintain in the pipes or
5
conduits of Grantee, if space therein is available, wires which City may
6 require for fire and police purposes. All such wires shall be placed on
7 the poles or in conduits so as not to interfere with communication service
8 and shall not carry currents or voltage dangerous to telephone plant or
9 telephone users and all installation, maintenance and repairs shall be
10 subject to tiie rules, regulations and supervision of the Grantee. City
11 agrees in consideration of the establishment of this service and the
12 furnishing of such facilities to hold Grantee entirely free and harmless
from all claims or liability for damage which may arise out of the operation
13 of these special services.
14 As further consideration Grantee agrees to pay to City 3% (three
15 percent) of the gross annual revenue for local exchange service rendered
16 subscriber within the city limits, such revenue to be determined in accord-
17 ance with the lawful rates and rate groupings applicable to the exchange,
18 exclusive of extended area service. Such payments shall be made by Grantee
19 on or before March 15 of each year for the calendar year preceeding and the
first and last payments shall be for the fractional part of the calendar
20
year, during which this franchise is in effect.
21 SECTION 8. It is understood and agreed that the
g percentage to be
22 paid to the City by Grantee under the terms dnd provisions of Section 7,
23 above, is the standard franchise fee paid by the Grantee to other cities it
24 serves for the rights, privileges and franchises of the nature contemplated
25 herein, and in the event that during the term hereof the Grantee shall agree
Page Four
I do a negotiated franchise to pay any city in Oregon a percentage rate of
2 compensation exceeding that provided for herein, said increased rate of
3 compensation shall thereafter be payable to the City and this ordinance
and franchise shall be amended accordingly.
4
SECTION 9. The rights, privileges and franchise hereby granted
5
shall continue to be in full force for a period of ten (10) years from the
6 date of its passage. However, this franchise shall be inoperative unless
7 it is accepted in writing by the Grantee within sixty (60) days after the
8 date of its passage.
9 SECTION 10. All ordinances and parts of ordinances of previous date,
10 insofar as the same are in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed and
annulled.
11
12
13
14 INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED this day of 1982
15
16 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
17
By
18 Mayor
19 ATTEST:
20
21
22
23 City Recorder
24
25
Page Five
I General Telephone Company of the Northwest, Inc. , a corporation
2 hereby unconditionally accepts Ordinance No. of the City of Tigard
3 and all of the terms, provisions and conditions thereof, said Ordinance
4 No. being entitled:
5 An Ordinance granting a non-exclusive telephone utility
franchise to General Telephone Company of the Northwest,
6 Inc. , fixing terms, conditions and compensation of such
franchise.
7
Which said Ordinance No. was passed and adopted by the Council
8
and approved by the Mayor of said City of Tigard on the day of
9
1982.
10
11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF said General Telephone Company of the Northwest,
12 Inc. , has caused this acceptance of said Ordinance to be signed by its Vice
13 1 President, and its corporate seal to be affixed hereto and attested by its
14 Secretary, this day of 1982.
15
16
GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF THE NORTHWEST, INC.
17
18 By
Vice President
19
20
ATTEST:
21
22,
Secretary
23
24
25
Page Six
is
February 18, 1982
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Finance Directory
Subject: GTE Franchise Renewal
This department has contacted the Public Utility Commissioner' s
office regarding the limit on franchise fees . They reported that
any fee above 3% of the gross revenue would be considered a city
tax.
lw
r
O'DONNELL. RHOADES. GERBER DATE: February 11, 1982 '
SULLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW To: EJS
1727 N.Y . HOYT STREET
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
(503) 222-4402 FROM:
RE: City of Tigard - Streets: 72nd LID
Financing
On February 4, 1982, Bob Jean, Frank Currie, Doris Hartig and I
met to discuss the proposed financing for the 72nd Local
Improvement District. In the course of this discussion, a
number of new issues were raised which we have been asked to
look at.
Bob Jean asked us to examine the possibility of offering owners
of property used residentially in the assessment area a deferral
of this assessment until the property changes hands or is used
commercially. Specifically, Bob Jean asked:
1. Is such a distinction by class of use proper?
2. Are there arbitrage problems similar to those encountered
in the earlier proposal to subsidize Bancroft assessments outright?
3. Can we design a program like the state but not as
attractive, say one-half point higher?
4. May the city pick up the 6% interest charged by the
state under the state' s system of deferral?
In response to Bob Jean's questions, the answer is that there -is
no general b,:-.r to the city developing a deferral program.
1 . As you have since told Bob Jean, distinctions by class
on some reasonable basis are proper. The use of the land as
residential is neither arbitrary nor capricious and has some
reasonable relation to the benefit to be derived from the
improvement. As that relationship will change when the property
is used commercially, certainly then to defer the assessment
only until that time is rational.
2. The arbitrage problems do not seem to exist in this
instance because it is not the city financing its own share of the
project. The property owner ultimately pays for the entire
share of the improvement as reflected by the lien. It is
essentially the same program as the state operates. In addition,
other cities use such devices. See 1 Financing Local Improvements
by Special Assessment 25, Bureau of Governmental Research &
Service, University of Oregon (1982) . Other cities using this
technique include Lake Oswego and the City of Eugene (I have not
been able to reach Dick Roberts this week to confirm this
conclusion) .
3. If the city is going to develop its own program to defer
i payments, we can certainly draft an ordinance with an interest
rate slightly higher than the state' s or with any other restrictions
the Council would like, i.e. , restricted to low income, restricted
to a certain age group, or occupants only, etc.
SKS:mch
2/11/82 - Page 1
_LL. RHOADES. GERBER DATE: February 11 , 1982
SULLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO: EJS
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
(503) 222-4402 FROM: SKS
RE: City of Tigard - Streets: 72nd LID
Financing
4. I think there may be some problems with the city
attempting to subsidize the interest rate charged by the state
in its programs. The statute providing for deferral of special
assessments for local improvements is ORS 311.702-311.735. It
says in part:
"An individual who has elected to claim the deferral under
ORS 311 .702 to 311.735 shall not be entitled to claim a
deferral or other similar assistance available under local
law. "
ORS 311.704 (4) . This seems to imply that the state' s program
is intended to be exclusive and may not be combined with local
assistance of any kind. I think the interest subsidy would be
construed to be "similar assistance available under local law"
and improper.
SKS:mch
2/11/82 - Page 2
O'DONNELL. DATE: February 11 , 1982
SULLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO EJS
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
(503) 222-4402 FROM SKS
RE: City of Tigard - 72nd LID, Interim Financing
FACTS
The City of Tigard will soon be going out to bid on the 72nd
local improvement district. If all goes well , a contract will
be let by the end of March. The city is proposing to finance
the project at least in part through Bancroft bonds. The bonds
will not be sold until later this year. Traditionally, the city
finances this interim period of construction through the issuance
of General Obligation Improvement Warrants provided at ORS
287.502-287 .510 (attached) . _
ISSUE
It has come to our attention that cities such as Tualatin are
advertising for bids for warrants. The question is whether this
advertising and bidding is required by law.
CONCLUSION
No, it is not required, but may be useful for other reasons.
DISCUSSION
The City Charter does not require bids in this situation. The
only provision of the Charter which might be applicable is
Section 40 which says:
"A contract in excess of $2,500 for public improvements
to be made by a private contractor shall be let to the
lowest responsible bidder. . . . "
The plain meaning of the language refers to the contractor who
will make the improvement; that is, actually be responsible for
its construction. Section 40 does not apply to the financing.
There is nothing in ORS 287 .503-287 . 510 which requires bids. On
the other hand, other types of interim financing provided by
state law, such as Short Term Nates , require bids by the terms
of the statute. ORS 287 . 414-287. 416.
The local government handbook chapter on bond financing prepared
by Dick Roberts includes a section on warrants and the following
comments:
"The warrant statutes do not expressly require publication
of a notice of sale of warrants as is required for the sale
of general obligation bonds. It is recommended, however,
that issuers publish notice of sale of warrants to assure
that the municipality achieves the more favorable interest
rate that results from competitive bidding . "
SKS:mch
2/11/'82 - Page 1
Re: City of Tigard - 72nd LID, Interim Financing
No changes to the statute have been made which would affect this
conclusion. However, it should be noted that among the cities
which have taken the advice to advertise for bids on warrants
is the City of Tualatin whose bond counsel is Dick Roberts. I
called the City Recorder of the City of Tualatin who said that
it has been their practice to advertise for bids for warrants
for better prices, but that for the last couple of sales they
have not received any bids and have had to negotiate them
any-way. The City of Tigard should consider whether or not the
chances of advertising producing a better price offset the risk
that they will receive no bid for the warrants and still have
all the expense of the advertising.
SKS:mch
2/11/82 - Page 2
• BORROWING AND BONDS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 287.SA2 r '' .
-- ---- #
f. ..
ps stating the amount of each warrant, to 287.484 Master warrant procedure
.a issued and date of issuance. The county authorized if warrants would be not paid
want o[ funds. Whenever the county
treasurer shall certify the same information for i`�,
'.,r...'
as to checks drawn. [Amended by 1959 c-438 §11 fiscal officer audits and approves a claim and ,{�: :;:���
issues a warrant therefor and at the same L. '• '' ^^"�'
287.456 Notice that warrants and time or subsequently ascertains that the coun- 1''-� 'mow`_
checks not presented will be canceled. ty treasurer has not sufficient moneys in the
Upon receipt of the list referred to in ORS particular fund of the county from which the }_. '-
287.454, the court or board shall cause to be "�'V •t
claim so approved and allowed is payable and F"=� - '="-•
published in a newspaper published in the that the warrant as issued against that fund
county and having a general circulation there- for the payment of the claim
Y'
would be in-
in,or if no paper is published in the county, in dorsed "Net Paid for Want of Funds," the
some paper published in the state and having county fiscal officer may, with approval by
a general circulation in the county, a notice
resolution of the county court or the board of �N
that if the warrants and checks are not county commissioners, issue a master warrant
presented for payment within 60, days from to any person for the purpose of obtaining `= `'
July 1 they will be canceled and payment money to pay such claim. The money shall be t�r "
thereof will be refused. [Amended by 1959 c.438§2] obtained only in the manner provided in ORS
-
28?.458 Order canceling warrants 287.486. [1955 c.321 §21
and checks; duties of cleric; payment. At
287.436 Procedure. (1) The county _ .•;:r
the first regular term of the court or board in
fiscal officer shall draw a master warrant in
each county after expiration of the 60 days '
from July 1 of each year the court or board the amount of one or more claims referred to
in ORS 287.484, payable to any person who is ya s
shall make an order that all such warrants
and checks which have not been so presented willing to accept the master warrant, and such
for payment, describing them, shall be.can- person shall, upon delivery of the master :
p g
celed. The clerk shall also collect together all warrant duly indorsed "Not Paid for Want of
other county warrants which have been issued Funds," pay to the county treasurer the full
amount for which the master warrant is
by order of the court or board and which still
remain in his hands and unclaimed, and in drawn. :i•' '_'�� '
the presence of the court or board shall cancel (2) The amount paid under subsection (1)
all such warrants issued more/than seven of this section shall constitute a special fund s :
years prior to July 1 of that year/, nor shall the to be used toward the payment of warrants
amount thereof be computed .� any estim'a- issued under ORS 287.484 by the county fiscal '
tion or computation of count finances. This officer in payment of claims audited and ap-
section does not prohibit t court or board proved and included in the amount of any
from paying theprincipal 1 and interest to
p y g `y' Y master warrant issued to the person advanc-
date when such warrant v/as called, upon n an
Y ing such moneys. [1955 c.321 §3) �:f��y ��
claim arising from ca9celing of any such
warrant at any time thefeafter if it is resent- pay-
rd
' '•"�'
p 287.488 Taxes must be levied for pay-
ed and the court or bo�rd deems it proper for
p pe went of claims included in master war-
the county so to do.[A�ended by 1959 c.438§31 rant. No master warrant shall be issued un-
287.4450[Repealed by973 c241 §1] der ORS 287.482 to 287.488 unless taxes have ' "�' �*;�•
been levied for the payment of all claims
257.462[Repeaiedby 1973 c_241 §I] included in the master warrant and such taxes
/
287.464[Repealby 1973 c.241 §11 are in the process of being collected at the
time of the issuance of the master warrant. _
287.482 DeInifions for OILS 287.482 to [1955 c.321 §41
287.488. As use in ORS 287.482 to 287.488:
rtiF r j
(1)"Count} fiscal officer" means:
(a) The c unty auditor in counties whereIF GENERAL OBLIGATION """;`� "�-•-
IMPROVEMENT WARRANTS
such office is established by law. If OF CITIES
(b) The unty clerk in counties not hav- �
'•,g a countyauditor. 287.502 General obligation improve-
ment warrants; debt limitations not appli- o. ,
order issued and drawn pursuant to ORS cable. (1) Any improvement warrants issued
3.—
" ` E
o Z
287.4$6. 11955c.321 §11 by a city, evidencing an indebtedness for
o:0y am`
j, 4 a
1211
287.504 PUBLIC BORROWING AND BONDS
construction of a public improvement of the of those outstanding warrants for which t11e
character described in ORS 223.205, shall. if fund deficiency exists.
` the resolution or ordinance authorizing their (4) Funds collected pursuant to OgS
l issuance so provides, constitute a general 287.506 shall be applied to payment as therein
obligation of the city.
provided to warrants issued pursuant to sub-
<' 5 (2) The debt limitations imposed by stat- section (2) of this section. (Amended by 1977 C-234
ute or by the charter of the city shall not §11 _ N
affect the right of the city to issue general z =
i287.506 Call and payment of war- T'=
obligation improvement warrants pursuant to
the provisions of ORS 287.50`l to 287.510, nor rants; liability for failure to hold, account
'r r
for or apply funds. (1) All proceeds from the
shall any such warrants be taken into consid-
eration in determining the percentage or collection of unbonded assessments, the sale of �r
improvement bonds, and the foreclosure of
extent to which the city is indebted under any `.
improvemen
such debt limitation. t liens for unbonded assessments,
realized from the improvement
im rovement with respect to "�s4Y
c
(3) When a general obligation improve-
which such general obligation improvement
K ment warrant is directed to the custodian of warrants are issued, shall be applied to the
the funds from which it is to be paid and is an call and payment of such warrants as rapidly '
; r unconditional order to pay on or before a as funds are available for the payment of the i
stated date a sum certain in money to the earliest outstanding warrant or warrants, but
order of the payee, it shall be deemed a negoti- that call may be deferred in the discretion of
able instrument. One who takes such an in-
the treasurer or other financial officer of the
I strument before maturity for value and with-
city when the funds available for the payment
out notice of any defense thereto takes the of outstanding warrants do not exceed 82,500.
instrument free from all defenses of any party None of such funds shall be trans-
_ ' to the instrument with whom the holder has ferr(2)(2) }sorrowed, diverted '
not dealt except such illegality of the transac- , or used for any '•'
tion as renders the obligation of the party a other purpose, and, for failure to hold,account
for and apply such funds, as provided in this
nullity. [Amended by 1967 c.238§11
_ section, the treasurer or other financial officer
287.504 Interest; order of payment; of the city shall be personally liable and shall
additional warrants. (1) General obligation also be Iiable upon his official bond to the
rp improvement warrants issued under the au- holder of any such warrant.
thority of ORS 287.502 to 287.510 shall bear
interest from the date of issuance to the time 287-508 Notice of intention to redeem.
General obligation improvement warrants -
3
when called for payment at the rate specified
•8 in the resolution or ordinance authorizing shall.be called for payment by notice of inten-
,°r. g tion to redeem the warrants given not less
- j their issuance and shall mature oor before
n than five days nor more than 30 days prior to two years after the date thereof. The warrants the call date by:
"'} `r-•_ issued with respect to each improvement shall
K :F r be called for payment in the order of theirp
(1) Publication of the notice in a news a-
= ._ issuance, as funds become available, and shall Per of general circulation printed and pub
be aid upon resentment at or lished within the count in which the cit or
-- p po p after mature- Y Y
zI� ty,if not sooner called. the principal portion of its assessed valuation
is located; and
` s 3� (2)If the governing body of the city deter-
�zP; mines, by resolution or ordinance, that suffi- (2) Notice in writing directed to the holder
r;= �Oof such warrant and mailed b ordinary•�z_� . �i m m m� tient funds are not available pursuant to ORS Y mail
_ 287.506 to pay the holders of warrants on concurrently with such publication, if the city
treasurer or other financial officer has been
m a presentment at maturity, the city may issue
additional warrants. Such warrants shall be informed of the name and address of such
. a ( issued in an amount not to exceed the amount holder.
of such deficiency as determined by the gov- 287.510 Provision in budget. Any city
erring body of the city and shall be issued and
which has issued general obligation improve-
r � sold as are other warrants to QRS
s pursuant wan-ants shallrovide in its budget for
` 287.502 to 287.510. p g
the fiscal year in which the warrants will
m the
k (3) Proceeds frosale of warrants mature such amount for the payment thereof
t issued pursuant to subsection (2) of this sec- as shall be estimated or determined to be
tion shall be applied to the call and payment owing thereon and unpaid at the maturity
roc 1212
iie
.z .>.. M'6. -- - n ...- n. , .-.,s...d_�. x-�'.cc � .�._:.:a.:...-_ 3•..._ .n. ,X+f�uix+�'__�-�:.,=t__.Y=.,a� •-_i.Y�-�.:.�.- - �`�i
287.528 '
BORROWING AND 130NDS OF LOCAL GOVER1vAtI:NTS
��^ •,_?a cam' ..
!.;
tl- -,of after application of collections made TORS 288.515 to 288.550. The notes shalt be
p to such maturity as provided in ORS advertised for sale for a period of at least 10 �- s
days by publication of notice thereof in one
287.506.
issue of a newspaper of general circulation
printed and published within the municipality , '
UTILITY IMPROVEMENT or, if there is no such newspaper, in a newspa- r=; �.;;',, •
ITERIM FINANCING per of general circulation printed and pub-
N
lished within the county in which the munici- a
287.522 Definitions for ORS 287.522 to pality, or the major portion of its assessed " .1 ,
287.528. As used in ORS 287.522 to 287.528,
valuation, is located. If sold, the notes shall be f •_��. J!,
unless the context requires otherwise: sold .to the responsible bidder offering the z F'
(1) "Municipality" means a county, city, lowest net cost to the municipality. Proceeds
domestic water supply district, water control of such loans shall be used only in the financ-
for which the
district, sanitary district, sanitary authority ing of the public improvements
loans were obtained and shall not be used for
and other municipal corporations or political r .ant•; .-=
subdivisions authorized to issue bonds and any other purpose.
accept grants of funds, or either, to finance - "' 'the cost of municipal public improvements_ (3) Notes issued pursuant to this section ;
shall mature not later than the date estimated
a
(2) "Public improvement" means real or by the governing body of the municipality as _ s
personal property to be used for a public pur- the completion date of the improvement fi- r .,' c
S. A
pose. Public improvement does not include nanced in whole or in part by the loan or ,_'
improvements to be financed under ORS
grant. The principal of the notes and the in-
223.205 to 223.295. (1973 c.488§1;1981 c.526§31 t.erest thereon shall be paid in full only from ct �
287.524 ORS 287-522 to 287.528 super- and at the time of receipt of the grant, if any,
or theProceeds of sale of the bonds issued to
sede local laws; exception. ORS 287.522 to finance such improvements and from any
2$7.528 supersede all conflicting charter other funds available therefor.
provisions, ordinances or resolutions of munic-
a municipality may 1.„ytanly`
I (4) Notes may be issued to redeem prior
ipalities, except that
borrow money and issue its notes as evidence notes, at the discretion of the municipality, ; :
ic- but can not mature later than one year from
thereof to finance an improvement to a mun
ipal public utility either pursuant to ORS the date of such redemption. However, in no
pursuant to its charter- P _w• r j
287.522 to 287.528 or pu case shall the maturity of the original note
11973 c.488§5-.1981 c.526§41 when combined with the maturity of any
win debt Urn -
period
notes exceed the construction _ �M;t
287.526 Interim borrowing;
period of the public improvement plus two dzFle-
tation; promissory notes, advertising, sale, ears. 11973 c.a88§2:1981 c.94 §26; 1981 c.526§51
use of proceeds; maturity, payment. (1) A �'
municipality may borrow money for interim 287-528 Borrowing from state or fed-
financing of a public improvement if prior eral agency authorized; bonds; refunding.
thereto an agency of the state or of the Feder- g y
(1) After advertising bonds for sale, if no bids
al Government has agreed in writing to pro- re-
are
;
are received or, if the most favorable bid re- > _
vide funds for the public improvement or _ -�• ,�,��
bonds of the municipality have previously ceived requires the payment of interest ata
been authorized to apply in payment of such net rate higher than that offered by an agencyy
of the state or of the Federal Government, a
cost. Debts created under this section out-
Muni
may-borrow' from the agency by �` -• �-`
standing at any one time shall not exceed in
furnishing thereto one or more bonds in such
the aggregate the estimated unpaid cost of the
public improvement or the total of written form and on such terms as may be agreed -_
between the governing body of the mu-
offers of such state and federal grants, if any, upon
nicipality and the agency. ,Y
plus the amount of the bonds previously au- i rrv,x
thorized but not issued for the public improve- (2) With the approval of the lending agen-
ments,whichever is the lesser. cy,bonds issued by a municipality pursuant to Ys�y
y
(2)The loan shall be evidenced by promis- subsection (1) of this section ma be refunded yly��
spry notes bearing definite due dates, drawn at any time after issuance through the sale of > rVwll_ �t
avor of the lenders of the money, bearing lawfully authorized refunding bonds bearing o C. �Xfid`
interest at a net effective rate not to exceed interest at a net rate not exceeding that of the N0Z
the rate established for issuance of bonds by bonds refunded. [1973c.488 §§3,4) Z.�z
>>
1213 O n ^r_-
O'D�`�NELL. RHOADES. GERBER DATE: January 29 , 1982
SULLIVAN & RAMIS
'4TT45RNEYS AT LAW TO EJS
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
(5031 222-4402 FROM SKS
RE- City of Tigard - Streets & Sewers:
72nd LID
FACTS
The City of Tigard proposed to improve two miles of 72nd Avenue
from Highway 217 to Jean Road, Boones Ferry Road from Durham to
I-S , and Bonita Road from 72nd to I-5. Remonstrances
have been received for - 36. 446 percent in area of the
property within the proposed district. In addition, non-
remonstrance agreements are in effect for 18 . 965 percent in area of
the property within the district. After hearings, the City
Council found the remonstrances to be less than the 66-2/3
percent required to be a bar to further proceedings . Tigard
Municipal Code 13. 04 . 050 . The City Council ordered the improve-
ment of 72nd by Ordinance No. 81-45, June 8 , 1981 . Tigard
Municipal Code 13. 04 . 060 .
As a result of hearings and discussions with citizens ' groups ,
the ordinance ordering the improvement . includes a limit of
$1 .5 million on the amount to be assessed to the property owners.
In addition, the Citv Administrator and the City Public Works
Director have taken the position that the project should not proceed
if the product will be a substandard street. It is unreasonable
to believe that a standard improvement can be built for less than
$1 .5 million. This means that the city will have to put some
money into the project_
The current estimate is that for a "acceptable" project, the city
would have to contribute up to $500 ,000 . The city has $500 , 000
available in its Systems Development Fund. However, the city is
reluctant to deplete the fund on one project. The city would
like to spread its contribution to the 72nd LID over several
years.
Another consideration is that there has been considerable vocal
opposition to this project, particularly from owners of property
in residential use, especially as to the apportionment of assessments.
On January 18 , 1982 , the Tigard City Council directed the city
staff to proceed with plans and specifications for what is
identified as Proposal "A" in the June 8 ordinance, No. 81-45 .
In recommending this option to the Council on January 18 , 1982,
the City Administrator also recommended to the Council that the
project cost and not just the $1 .5 million be assessed to the
property owners (Ordinance 81-45 , June 8 , 1981 would have to be
amended to permit this) . Assuming that the property owners then
applied to Bancroft for the assessed amounts, Bancroft bonds
would then be sold to cover the entire amount needed for the
project. The city then proposes to enter into agreements with
the property owners to pay a specific percentage of each property
SKS :mch
1/29/82 - Page 1
k -
F
Re: City of Tigard - Streets & Sewers: 72nd LID
k
F
E
owner' s payment on the bonds when they become due semi-annually.
I
If , by the good .fortune of the bidding process , the bids are
considerably lower than anticipated, the city may choose to bring
the project very close to the $1 . 5 million assessment limit by
eliminating deductive alternatives. If property owners want
these alternatives included at their expense, Ordinance 81-45
would have to be amended to raise the assessment limit appropriately.
The city could also choose to bring the project within or close
to the $1.5 million limit by eliminating items which are not among
the deductive alternatives. This would be a change in the
specifications approved in Ordinance No. 81-45 .
ISSUES
1. May the city fund its share of the project by assessing
total project costs to the property owners and by separately
agreeing with the property owners to pay a portion of the semi-
annual payment to the bond fund each year?
2 . If the assessment lirait established in Ordinance No.
81-45 must be amended for any reason, what effect does that have
on the remonstrance process?
E 3. If the project specifications are changed other than by
the deductive alternatives specified in Ordinance No. 81-45,
what effect does that have on the remonstrance process?
4 . Where nonremonstrance agreements were signed but not
recorded, of what effect are they? And, if the property has changed
hands since the nonremonstrance was signed and before it was
recorded, of what effect is the agreement?
CONCLUSIONS
1 . The city may not fund its share of the project through
the Bancrofting process where it is not a property owner. It
can enter into agreements with property owners to defer their
assessments.
2. The right of remonstrance is one created by the charter
or ordinances of a city and, if the changes to be made cannot
be construed to be reasonably in conformance with Ordinance No.
81-45 , a new hearing and remonstrance process must be initiated.
3. See 2 above.
4. There is authority to conclude that the nonremonstrance
( agreements are effective whether recorded or not and whether or
not the property has changed hands.
SKS:mch
. 1/29/82 - Page 2
Re: City of Tigard - Streets & Sewers: 72nd LID
DISCUSSION
1 . The first question is whether a city may take advantage
of the Bancroft Bonding Act to finance its share of a public
improvement. The statute provides:
"Whenever in any incorporated city the common council . . .
has proceeded to cause any improvement to be constructed
. . .and has assessed the costs. . . , the owner of any property
so assessed. . .may file- - -a written application to pay (a)
the whole of assessments in installments; or (b) if part of
the assessment has been paid, the unpaid balance of the
assessment in installments. " ORS 223 .210 .
To the extent that a city is the owner of property assessed for
an improvement, they "have the same right to bond the assessment
thereof. . . " . ORS 223. 212 .
After applications for •Bancrofting are received, a bond lien
docket is compiled and bonds may be sold "equal to the total
amount of unpaid assessment, and for which application to pay
under the Bancroft Bonding Act have been filed as shown by the
lien docket" . ORS 223. 230 and .235.
There is no prov=i=:ion in the Bancroft Bonding Act for cities to
Bancroft any portion of the cost of an improvement not assessed
to property owners . Bancroft bonds are unusual obligations of
the city in that they do not require an authorizing vote of the
People. The normal method for cities to finance the city' s
share (not attributable to city-owned property) of public improve-
ments are general obligation bonds, which do require a vote of
the people.
The implication is that since the plain language of the statute
is to enable assessed property owners to pay in installments and
since other means are provided for the city to fund any portion
it wishes to, the City of Tigard's proposal is , in effect, an
effort to use the Bancroft Bonding Act for purposes for which it
was not intended. Provided a city could get property owners to
apply for Bancrofting which would result in a lien on their
property, there is nothing in the proposed reasoning of the City
of Tigard to stop a city from paying the total cost of an improve-
ment by financing it with Bancroft bonds. Obviously, this was
not the intent of the statute--it would make general obligation
bonds almost superfluous.
Another problem with the use of the Bancroft Bonding Act in this
goes to the nature of the benefits from the improvement. To
assess the property owner for the cost of the improvement, the
property must be "specially benefited" . ORS 223 . 387 (j ) .
SKS:mch
1/29/82 - Page 3
Re: City of Tigard - Streets & Sewers: 72nd LID
Though there is no Oregon case law to this effect, it can be
argued that when the city pays a portion of the cost of a local
improvement, it is paying for that portion which benefits the
city as a whole. (It would be hard to justify the payment
except for its value to the city as a whole. ) Therefore, the
property owners could not, or at least should not , be assessed
for the costs which , in effect, are conceded to be by the
agreement with the property owner that portion of the project
which is a general and not a special benefit. See generally
Fisher v. City of Astoria, 126 Or. 268 , 269 P. 853 (1928)
(ornamental street lighting was special benefit to local
businesses) ; Sisters of St. Mary v. City of Beaverton, 4 Or. App.
297 , 478 P. 2d 412 (1970) (railroad gate crossing did not benefit
St. Marys any more than the rest of the city) ; Stanley v. City
of Salem, 247 Or. 60, 427 P. 2d 406 (1967) (the fact that improve-
ment may benefit the public generally does not alone deprive it
of its local character) .
The City of Tigard' s Code provides specifically:
"The city is authorized to make payment of all or any part
of the cost of any improvement, provided the method
selected creates a reasonable relation between the benefits
derived by the property specially assessed and the benefits
derived by the city as a whole. " TMC. 13. 04 . 020 (b) .
The Cade appears to only authorize assessment for special
benefits (consistent with state law, ORS 223 . 389) and to prohibit
expenditure of city funds except for benefits derived by the
city as a whole.
For the above reasons, we should recommend against the city' s
financing its participation in the 72nd LID as proposed.
The proposal for financing through the Bancroft Act was designed
to speak to two concerns of the city. One was the objection of
owners of property now in residential use primarily, and the
other was the city' s need to keep its Systems Development Fund
intact. While we may not be able to speak to the latter,
provisions could be made for extension of payments or deferral
of payments for property owners whose use is now residential.
I have attached some model provisions used by the City of Eugene
which the City of Tigard may want to consider.
2 . and 3. The simplest solution to the issue of changing
the assessment limit or the specifications is to hold a hearing
including permitting remonstrance and adopt an ordinance amending
Ordinance No. 81-45 .
SKS:mch
1/29/82 - Page 4
Ite- Cit of Ti and - Streets b Sewers= 72nd LID
If , for any reason , the Council dhesquestionwant
isoare theythrough
the remonstrance process again, rovides first
required to do so? The Tigard Municipal Code p
that:
edient , is
"The City Council , whenever it may deem it exp
authorized and empowered to order any improvement , to
determine the character , kind and extent of the improve-
and collect an assessment upon all lots and
ment, to levy d by the improvement,
benefited parcels of land especially benefited
and to determine what lands are specificallyount to which each parcel
by the improvementisand thited
am. , TMC 13 . 04 . 020 (a .
or tract o
The ordinance further provides that:
"Whenever the City Council shall deem it eXped1ent.or necessary
improvement, it shall require from the City
to order any imP ecifications for the improvement and
Engineer plans and sp probable cost
estimates of together
with to staaementone noftthelots, parts of
thereof , tog ercen-
lots and parcels of land to be merovementawhich eeach of
tage of the total cost of the improvement
of land should -pay
such lots , parts of lots and parcels
on aderive - The City
ccount of the benefits ltandespecif ications available
Clerk shall have such pans
in his office for inspection. " TMC 13 . 04 . 030 .
The Council is then required he approve the plans , specifications
and estimates, to determine the boundaries of esof1such an
benefited and to be assessed, to declare the purpose
, describing the probable total cost a
improvementnd defining
the boundaries , and all maybe done in one resolution or
ordinance. TMC 13_04 . 030 .
The next section of the Code requires notice by the City Council
which declares the purpose of the improvement. TMC 13. 04 .040 .
Though it is not specifically provided in the notice requirements ,
Th requiring specifications ications to be avai.lablal PartheofCaehearingf ice,
the specifications are arguably an integthe ral _
and remonstrance Process . To the extente� atowners lnot��tolion
lid was instrumental in influencing property
remonstrate, the same may be said of it_ provides
improvements, the Tigard Municipal Code
As to ordering the imp Council
that if not enough remonstrances are received "the City
thereafter provide by ordinance for the making oarticulars
may r ', ch shall conform in all reasonable P TMC 13 . 04 .06
improvement, previously
adopted" .
to the plans and specifications p
SKS:mch
1/29/82 - Page 5
i
t
Re: City of Tigard - Streets & Sewers : 72nd LID
An Oregon appeals court has recently said that:
" (1] evying a special assessment is correctly classified
as a quasi-judicial function; it nonetheless has aspects
of a legislative function . " Hiransomboon v. City of
Tigard, 35 Or. App. 595 , 582 P. 2d 34 , 37 (1.978) . (z,
change in the cost of the project and amount of
assessment was upheld though the court did not reach .-the
question of whether the procedure where there was no
hearing or opportunity to remonstrate the change was
proper. )
The -Council could determine that the changes to be made in
amending Ordinance 81-45 conformed in all reasonable particulars
to the plans and specifications which had previously been
adopted. How that would be viewed by a court would turn on
whether that portion of the decision was viewed as essentially
quasi-judicial or legislative. In any case, any findings should
be supported by substantial evidence .
The safest route , obviously, is to hold a new hearing and go
through a new remonstrance. That would remove all doubt.
4 . Whether or not the nonremonstrance agreements which
have not been recorded are effective against property owners
depends to a great extent on the circumstances in each case.
Where the agreement was signed with the property owner who still
owned the property, there doesn ' t seem to be any question that
that property owner is bound by his agreement, recorded or not.
Where the property has changed hands may raise a question as to
whether the doctrine of bonafide purchasers is applicable. The
general rule is that a bonafide purchaser, one who buys in good
faith for valuable consideration and without actual or construc-
tive notice of intervening claims _ , will be protected against
those claims. . The applicability of the doctrine depends on
a number of factors. Normally, if the claim is one which is
recordable and the -. claim--- is not recorded until after the
bonafide purchaser' s recorded claim, . then the purchaser will
be protected. However, the question becomes more complicated
when public records are involved. Simply filing a piece of
information with a public office generally does not impart con-
structive notice. Hall v. Risley, 188 Or. 69 , 98 , 213 P. 2d 818
(1950) (housing code restrictions filed with the acting Building
Inspections Director was not sufficient to out a subsequent
purchaser on notice of the restrictions) . However, where there
is information which should put a prudent person on inquiry-as 'to
such records, the purchaser will be charged with notice of what
the records contain. Klamath Falls Assembly of God v. State
Highway Commission, 255 Or. 211 , 465 P.2d 697 (1970) (where a
SKS:mch
1/29/82 - Page 6
Re: CitZ f Tigard - Streets & Sewers: 72nd LID
F
purchaser acquired property and the chain of title showed that
ng
the state had previously acquired an adjoiurchastriwasfor notice
highway purposes the court held that the p
to check and see whether the proposed highway would be with or
without access even though the .record which determined the
highway was of limited access was contained in tWe willtes havefto
a highway commission almost 17 years earlier) .
look to the particular circumstances of acquisition of each
property owner to make any kind of determination as to whether
i
may not be chargeable they may or with constructive notice of
ending on the circumstances
the nonremonstrance agreements: Dep
surrounding this LID; for example, how well publicized it was
at the time of purchase and may or may not appear in the chain
of title, then the nonremonstraneegeemoWnerscould still be
i enforceable against subsequent proP Y
In any case, all such instruments entered into by the city from
now on should be promptly recorded to avoid this situation.
e
SKS:mch
1/29/82- - Page 7
February 18, 1982
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Finance Director, Doris Hartig n�j
Subject: Bill Payment Requested
The City Attorney's bill was received too late for processing with the other
bills which are to be considered in the consent agenda. We respectfully
request that Council approve payment of $5,598.70 to O`Donnell,_ Sullivan, &
Ramis for the period ending 2-9-82.
lw
i
O•DONNELL. DATE: February 10 , 1982
'SULLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO: Bob Jean & Doris Hartig, City of Tigard
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
(503) 222-4402 FROM: Ed Sullivan
RE: Attached Memorandum re Nomination for
City Office of Persons in Recently
Annexed Areas
Enclosed please find a copy Of a memorandum prepared by Susan
Schneider regarding the above matter. I think her interpreta-
tion of the Charter section is correct and suggest that this
may be a matter which the City Council might want to consider
as part of an amendments package.
If you disagree with Ms. Schneider or would like to make further
amendments to this section of the Charter, please contact me.
LN
` 1`
EJS:mch
2/10/82
O'DONNELL, RHOADES. GERBER DATE: February 5, 1982
!SULLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET To: EJS
PORTLAND, OREGON 97209
15031 222-4402 FROM: SKS
RE: City of Tigard -- General: Nomination for
City Office of Persons in Recently
Annexed Areas .
The City of Tigard Charter sets two residency limitations for
nomination to city offices. A person must have "resided contin-
uously for a period twelve (12) months or more immediately
preceding the election in any area which is within the corporate
boundaries of the city. . . " at a certain date. City of Tigard
Charter, Section 31. It is the date when the area of residency
must have been annexed to the city that is the second prong of
the residency limitation for nomination to city office. That
is, "any area which is within the corporate boundaries of the
city as the same shall exist as of a date one hundred twenty
(120) calendar days immediately prior to the date of the election" .
City of Tigard Charter, Section 31.
From this section, it appears that a person living at the same
address for a year may run for city office even though that
property was annexed to the city only four months (120 days)
before the election_. The Charter provides that nomination
petitions may be filed not more than 120 days or less than 90
days before an election. City of Tigard Charter, Section 31.
The requirement that a person's residence must have been annexed
to the city at least 120 days before the election avoids the
anomoly of nomination of a person not yet residing in the city
but annexed before the election. The latter would create an
invitation to even more complex political problems with
annexation.
However, . the terms of the Charter provision may still be a problem.
The issue could be what is meant by "area" . Does it mean across
the street, in the same block, the neighborhood, or perhaps
census tract?
Suppose Ms. Smith lived at 1220 Elm Street from January 1 to
July 1, 1981 (outside the city limits) . Ms. Smith moved to
1223 Elm Street (across the street) on July 1 , 1981. 1223 Elm,
but not 1220 Elm, is then annexed to the city October 1 , 1981 .
Ms. Smith files a petition for nomination on October 2, 1981 .
The election is to be held February 8, 1982. Has Ms. Smith met
the requirements of the Charter by residing for a year in the
"area" which was annexed to the city within 120 days of the
election?
The City Council is the final judge of the qualifications of
their own members subject to judicial review, of course. City
of Tigard Charter, Section 12. Presumably, the Council could
make a determination that in the situation above the person was
qualified to be nominated as within the definition of area as
it was used in the Charter. This does not provide much certainty
SKS:mch
2/5/82 - Page 1
• .f
Re: City of Tigard - General: Nomination for City Office
of Persons in Recently Annexed Areas
for those wishing to run for office. The only really satisfactory
way to resolve the ambiguity is to amend the Charter to define
area or use another term such as address.
Without an amendment to the Charter. , chances are the ambiguity
will not arise often. The present Charter is reasonably liberal
in allowing recently annexed citizens of Tigard to run for office
while avoiding practical problems related to that.
Note: Residency requirements for electors have recently come
under attack under the Equal Protection clause of the U. S.
Constitution. But, variety of residency requirements for
nominees have been upheld by states on the rationale that they
should have some knowledge of the constituents they propose to
represent. 56 Am. Jur.2d, Mun. Corp. 5247, 63 Am.Jur.2d Pub.
Off. X47.
i
SKS:mch
2/5/82 - Page 2
l ] J•
i
shall _
r the commence the the 3p `3I
election, first of
Sect
affidutrm
of-his On Sof OATH OF OFF year immediately follow,",
that ICE.
form heUnited tates and lofs�PPortthe oo Before
shall upon the
j not duties of regon and that ti tut i ons andoa th or sha
rt zation en nor ever has s office. He he will fait or
of th
ment- advocat • been at an shall affirm hfully Per-
ing the overthro any time a me that he
is
of
Sec w o the United St t any Organ -
the tion 31 - aces govern-
meaning of
NOPIT NAT_,ONS
continuousl the Stat
e A 9ualifled
immediately Y for a period constitut ' elector
in the Precedin of twelve on, who will have within
exist as orPorate bound.. .the election (12) months resre ided
Of e in or
ammediately Pridore One hundred the Citynasatea whichois
terr' the twerp he same With-
all for to
may ,be no y Previous) date of they (120) calendarshall
S' Prev-
shall urinated fo Y effective) election days
PrescribedbeoPetition an
eolective City posannexed t (thelusive of
o
not fewer Y the specifying
-Eying the Position. City) I
one than 25 i-1 Such Position sought
3
signatures
for electors- No Petition shall in a form
gnatures shall each vacant elector shal be signed
J{ eParatPetition need notballnc'alid. pThets�n' If he doen more than
Of the e Paper of the be appended he
to s so, his
the Paper the Petthereofition shall be Paper, but to
made and stat ' , Indic attached o each
son Whose Presence that each sign the number an affidavit
se name and is gnature of signers l be stated the it Purports the genuine EIPPended the gners of
astreet and signer 's to be. Wit signature of-thereto was
' nu er or Otheresuff• residence,each Of shall
All icieidentif'
minat ' descri
't assembledno ion
Papers nt Ption, ied by its
t
earlier and filed wit comPrisin
i each recorder hall or laterhthan corde 9 as one tion shall be
The than h
and addrepetition is r made a -record 90 days beforenstrument not
tJo ss of theile and shall of the exact the election.
Perso time at
tors, the recogned by the b- whomtiteisnfiPreserve the name
who filed rder shall require number led. If the name
othe petit2oheistion withinffi��he cand datequalified elec-
it, ocer r shall return sufficient in days after the the person
cient. tifying in it immediatel t other part• filing-
Suc ti"ritin Y to icular
' again as a h deficient 9 wherein the thpetite person who
, the
a same candidate new PetitionpeezitioSubaY be amended is insuffi led
Ing nomination petib1pnSled, tute
pets andfoiled
The recorder rev filed
the
' regular
r shall notify an r fi1-
C1 OFTIVARD
February 12, 1982 WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON
Duane M. Thompson
230 NW Tenth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97209
Dear Mr. Thompson: t
I'm sorry we have not been able to make contact with you. It's not from
a lack of trying. I have many messages from you and have attempted to
contact you in return or have worked through our architect.
The City Council at its January 15th meeting authorized staff to pay the
retainage when satisfied that the conditions of this contract were met.
In this regard, final retainage in the amount of $2500 is being held by
the City until confirmation that the kitchen flooring problem is either
a performance problem, in which case we will continue to hold this amount
until a satisfactory resolution is secured, or that this flooring problem
is one of warranty, in which case the city will release the retainage.
Also in dispute is the question of the two double doors on the lower level.
The architect is checking the specifications as to materials supplied and
we are concerned about the sloppy workmanship as to the installation. Our
architect is investigating these matters at this time. I hope to have an
answer early the week of February 15th.
In regard to the claims against the city, we have reviewed the claims with
the architect, city staff, our attorneys and you. We have had numerous
hearings with you and others and contend that these claims are a result of
project management by your firm. We don't feel these claims are valid and
do not intend to pay them!
Sincerely,
Frank A. Currie, P.E.
Public Works Director
cmv
cc: City Attorney
i
12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
-t
'H W 1
x o.
H
z C a
1-4 _4 b
z G
r-, c
\p cn w O
H N
N
►r
t. .
\D
u1 cV N
O r.
RD
OI OI m _4 Q
Cl) C.7 ^ cn M I C7 n a.+ O
N rn
to
14
Cq 11 cs7 ai
... -4E-~+ cd co
H (+
1--41 - H 4
P4 co o p6.1 x1 W oho
y�j 1 14 a Q }aPG rn
+
, . ' 00 vt W f=lN UI pctcm 1 1
v,
P, cn
cn( o
n( M c..
N n
* ' cd I i
L
P
o10N '-'
[� 13.4o �
V z ( a
z x
cd 1
4j
:(
M ca O
ni .
O I H M N p.
M H
{ H H t`i F-'4 t� O
?may: u) c'. U E O
H x1 W U cdctl
A4 s i Z W N-4 Co o
w U �1 vHH H N •.+ ora
b
}a H El ,� do 'K 4.3 O •p � ri
-K •K rf 4c cl)1 H U •K •X -K •1C c*1 '� OD C9
N O( H 7C \O - Q N - t+0'1 d —4 3
wi vwim rn
0 4v
U O cn
O Pal w U z6w O
OI I i�
/l
v d t�1
po '-� a H 1'' ni
H 3+ F4 � U 1 CHJ H U
, , x o
z .-�-4 .. i-]
rn
O .O -n 1 O OU N w N y css
1 U w oc) ,] U
ani P.
14
p U
cd �4
41 �
7 -K is
rL �
r
\ 1
- N N
Simn