City Council Packet - 06/27/1983 ,4.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate
JUNE 27, 1983, 7:30 P.M. sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available,
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ask to be recognized by the Chair. Non-agenda
LECTURE ROOM items are asked to be kept to 2 minutes or less
and are heard at the discretion of the Chair.
TI.
w
1. REGULAR MEETING: s,
1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call
1.2 Pledge of Allegiance
1.3 Call To Staff, Council & Audience 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 by motion for discussion and separate action.
Motion to:
2.1 Receive Expenditures and Investments Report $ 278.433.61
2.2 Approve Century 21 Partial Performance Bond Release - $71 ,884.00
2.3 Approve Resolution No. 83- 54 Initiating 113th Avenue Vacation
2.4 Approve Audit Addendum
2.5 Receive and File:
e NPO #5 Letter re: Jadco
a Letter to Washington County & Secretary of State/Mail Ballot
2.6 Approve OLCC Applications
w Godfather's Pizza, 12286 SW Scholls Ferry Road - New Application
s Special Event License - Elks Lodge, Lake Oswego
3. FY 83-84 CITY BUDGET:
3.1 RESOLUTION NO. 83- Auth. Interfund Loan & Trf. Funds FY 82-83 0
3.2 RESOLUTION NO. 83- Adopting Budget ^j
3.3 RESOLUTION NO. 83- Making Appropriations I
00
3.4 RESOLUTION NO. 83- Levying Taxes Lj
3.5 RESOLUTION NO. 83- For State Shared Revenue
3.6 ORDINANCE NO. 83- Receiving State Revenue Sharing
RECESS COUNCIL MEETING
4. T.U.R.A. BUDGET
4.1 Call To Order and Roll Call
4.2 RESOLUTION NO. 83-04 Making Appropriations and Adopting Budget FY
83-84
4.3 RESOLUTION NO. 83-05 Approving $15,000 Short Term 2-Year Note FY
82-83
4.4 Adjourn. TURA Meeting
RECONVENE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
5. 68th PARKWAY (ATLANTIC/PACIFIC) LID# 35 PUBLIC HEARING (continued from
June 13, 1983)
® Public Hearing Reopened
Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
AC s Public Hearing Closed
s Council Consideration and Action
PAGE 1 - COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 27, 1983
4
6. 100th AVENUE SANITARY SEWER LID #41 PUBLIC HEARING (continued from June
13, 1983)
s Public Hearing Reopened
Summation by Public Works Director
e Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
• Public Hearing Closed
o Council Consideration and Action
7. 68th SEWER I.ID #42 RESOLUTION NO. 83- Resolution of Intent
0 Director of Public Works
8. APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 83- Adopting UPAA with Washington County
o Director of Planning & Development
9. ALARM ORDINANCE REVISION, DISCUSSION
e Chief of Police
10. PERSONNEL RULES DISCUSSION
0 Administrative Assistant Sargent
11. OPEN AGENDA: Consideration of Non-Agenda Items identified to the Chair
under 1.2 will be discussed at this time. All persons are encouraged to
contact the City Administrator prior to the meeting.
12. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON DEVELOPMENT
CODE/SENSITIVE LANDS
13 EXECUTIVE SESSION: Per ORS 192.660 (1)(f) & (1)(e) to consider issues
relating to litigation and land acquisition.
14. ADJOURNMENT
PAGE 2 - COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 27, 1983
(lw/0316A)
_ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilors: Tom Brian (arriving
at 7:45 P.M. and leaving 8:30 P.M.), John Cook, Kenneth
Scheckla; City Staff: Frank Currie, Director of Public Works ;
Doris Hartig, City Recorder; Bob Jean, City Administrator;
Bill Monahan, Director of Planning & Development; Tim Ramis,
Legal Counsel.
2. CALL TO STAFF, COUNCIL & AUDIENCE FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS UNDER OPEN AGENDA
o City Administrator noted the executive session has been cancelled.
3. RECEIVE EXPENDITURES AND INVESTMENTS REPORT: $278,433.61
(a) Motion be Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Cook to receive
report.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council. present.
4. APPROVE CENTURY 21 PARTIAL PERFORMANCE BONDS RELEASE - $71,884.
(a) Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
5. RESOLUTION NO. 83-54 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING VACATION OF A PORTION OF
S.W. 113TH AVENUE A 20 FOOT WIDE DEDICATED PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON
COUNTY, OREGON.
Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
6. APPROVE AUDIT ADDENDUM
(a) Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
7. RECEIVE AND FILE:
NPO #5 Letter re: Jadco
Letter of Washington County & Secretary of State/Mail Ballot.
(a) Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Cook to receive
and file.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
PAGE 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1983
8. APPROVE OLCC APPLICATIONS
( o Godfather's Pizza, 12286 SW Scholls Ferry Rd. , New Application Retail
Sales/Beer & Wine
o Special Event License - Elks Lodge, Lake Oswego
(a) Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve
and forward to OLCC.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
9. FY 83-84 CITY BUDGET
(a) Finance Director reviewed summary memo to Council indicating changes
to recommended budget. She explained the addition of the part-time
position and the work to be done. Planning Director Monahan noted
his memo to Council and re-emphasized the need for this assistance.
COUNCILOR BRIAN ARRIVED 7:45 P.M.
City Administrator commented it would be an efficient use of city
money and personnel. Councilor Scheckla questioned if the plans
examiner position would be filled if the building activity picked
up. City staff responded they couldn't say definitely as it would
have to be evaluated at that time.
10. RESOLUTION NO. 83-55 AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM THE STORM DRAINAGE FUND TO
THE TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY.
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve.
Motion approved by 3-1 majority vote of Council present with
Councilor Scheckla voting NAY.
11. RESOLUTION NO. 83-56 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1984.
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
12. RESOLUTION NO. 83-57 A RESOLUTION MAKING APPROPRIATION FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1984.
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to adopt.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
13. RESOLUTION NO. 83-58 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE AD VALORE*1 TAX LEVY FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1984.
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
PAGE 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1983
14. RESOLUTION NO. 83-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL CONFIRMING
THAT THE CITY PROVIDES A MINIMUM OF MUNICIPAL
SERVICES IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR STATE-SHARED
REVENUES IN LIQUOR, CIGARETTE TAX AND CERTAIN
RK
HIGHWAYS FUNDS.
a:
(a) Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Brian to adopt. n
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
15. ORDINANCE NO. 83-30 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING ZHE CITY OF TIGARD'S
ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES.
r
(a) Staff recommended the Resolution be revised to read "Ordinance".
Council concurred.
(b) Motion by Councilor Cook to adopt as amended, seconded by Councilor
Brian.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
COUNCIL RECESSED 8:05 P.M.
s
COUNCIL RECONVENED AS TURA BOARD
16. TURA FY 83-84 Budget
Planning Director reviewed the proposed budget and recommended .
approval.
RESOLUTION NO. 83-04 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1983 AND MAKING
APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Motion by Board Member Brian, seconded by Cook to adopt.
s.
Motion approved by 3-1 majority vote of Board present with Board
Member Scheckla voting NAY.
17. RESOLUTION NO. 83-05 AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM THE STORM DRAINAGE FUND TO
THE TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY.
(a) Motion by Board Member Cook to adopt, seconded by Brian. '
The Board discussed the $15,000 loan and process for payment. City
administrator commented if the charter amendment, ballot measure 51
passed, taxes would be collected until the revenues equal expenses.
Motion approved by 3-1 majority vote of Council present with Board
Member Scheckla voting NAY.
TURA MEETING ADJOURNED 8:12 P.M.
RECONVENED AS CITY COUNCIL
PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1983
18. 68TH PARKWAY (ATLANTIC/PACIFIC) LID #35 PUBLIC HEARING (continued from
6/13/83)
Public Hearing Reopened
Director of Public Works gave brief_ summary of project and responded
to question raised regarding the assessment formula. He reported
staff and engineering consultant had met with the property owners and
consensus was to increase the zone boundary from 270' to 370' and
give reimbursement on right-of-way on appraised value rather than
assessed value. He spoke to the assessment on the White property and
how the proposed revision would apply.
Councilor Cook asked property owners in audience if they were in
agreement with proposed assessment formula. Audience indicated in
affirmative.
Mr. Intosh, representing the White property testified they were in
full agreement with the reccirmendation.
Public Fearing Closed.
Director of Public Works recommended the engineer's report regarding
the zone boundary be amendea to 370' instead of 270' ; reimbursement
for right-of-way cost be based on appraised value rather than true
cash value as determined by Washington County. Director of Public
J Works also reported the city would proceed only as far in design to
t determine the right-of-way necessary and not proceed with the project
until all the property right-of—,way is available. Council discussed
the use of the same appraiser for all property.
Council discussed amendment to ordinance, section one to add the 3
items as follows: zone depth be increased to 370' ; reimbursement for
right-of-way be based on appraised value and be done by single
appraiser.
ORDINANCE NO. 83-31 AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING AND RATIFYING THE
RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL OF APRIL
25, 1983, WITH RESPECT TO SW 681H PARKWAY
(STREET) IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LID #35;
APPROVING, RATIFYING A:D ADOPTING PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF SAID STREET IMPROVEMENT: DECLARING RESULTS
OF HEARING HELD WITH RESPECT THEREOF;
DIRECTING SOLICITATION OF BIDS FOR
CONSTRUCTION; PROVIDING FOR THE MAKING OF SAID
IMPROVEMENTS, AND DECLARING Ali EMERGENCY.
Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Brian to approve
as amended.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to negotiate
engineering contract with Coopers and Associate for the LID project.
Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 272 1983
COUNCILOR BRIAN LEFT 8:30 Y.M.
19. 100TH AVENUE SANITARY SEWER LID #41 PUBLIC HEARING (continued from June
13, 1983)
Public hearing reopened.
Engineering Supt. John Hagman updated Council on recent information
gathered regarding this project. He distributed exhibits indicating
alternative proposals, indicating advantages and disadvantages as
well as proposed assessments.
Public Testimony
o Loren Tower 10040 SW McDonald testified he wanted sewer service and
supports alternative marked "Exhibit C, alternative 2".
Phil Pasteris, representing NPO #6 testified the NPO had reviewed the
proposal and felt the city's participation is appropriate.
Melvin Probst, representing tax lot 200 felt the number of
connections that can be made on a 6 inch line is limited. Staff
responded. Staff responded as to the size of the line.
Public Hearing Closed.
Council discussed the testimony and staff report and recommended
Exhibit marked " alternate C-2" be inserted & amend the proposed
t .
ordinance, sections one, four and six.
ORDINANCE NO. 83-32 AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING AND RATIFYING THE
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAY 16,
1983, WITH RESPECT TO SW 100TH AVENUE SANITARY
SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID #41) ; OF SAID
STREET IMPROVEMENT; DECLARING RESULTS OF
HEARING WITH RESPECT THEREOF; DIRECTING
SOLICITATION OF BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION;
PROVIDING FOR THE MAKING OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS,
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt as
amended.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
20. 68TH SEWER LID 442
Engineering Supt. John Hagman reported on meeting with property
owners and recommended approval of resolution to form LID.
Geraldine L. Ball, representing herself and DJB properties, 11515 SW
92nd, expressed her disappointment in the public works information
stating the estimated assessment and property ownership information
is incorrect. She suggested the city correct their records. Staff
responded this is the latest information from Washington County and
assured Mrs. Ball the correction would be made as the project
proceeds.
PAGE 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1983
RESOLUTION NO. 83-60 DECLARING AN INTENTION TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN AN AREA
DETERMINED TO BE A SEWER IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
NO. 42 FOR S.W. 68TH PARKWAY (FRANKLIN TO ATLANTA),
DESCRIBING THE PROBABLE TOTAL COST THEREOF;
DEFINING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE WORK AND
ESTIMATES OF THE CITY'S ENGINEER, AND SETTING
PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECTING THE GIVING OF NOTICE
THEREOF.
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
21. ORDINANCE NO. 83-33 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE URBAN PLANNING AREA
AGREEMENT (UPAA) BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND
WASHINGTON COUNTY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
22. ALARM ORDINANCE REVISION
Chief of Police reported this is housekeeping amendment to the
ordinance and noted the adjustment in fees and method of processing
false alarms. Lt. Wheeler reported on charges made by other entities
F
and recommended amendment to the ordinance.
Public Testimony
o Roland A. Cartisser, P.O. Box 40, Sandy, Ore of Gresham Alarm Inc.
discussed the interpretation of how the number of false alarms are [
computed. He felt the proposed ordinance is discriminatory and k
requested city's revoked users permit regulations be similar to
Multnomah County's model ordinance.
o Arthur R. Kohanck, 10125 S.W. Century Oak Drive, Tigard, suggested
Council consider charges that are compatible with others in the area.
o Bob Phillips, Phillips Electronic Alarms, 1110 N.W. Flanders
Portland, re-emphasized Mr. Cartisser's testimony regarding revoked
user permits.
o Jim Kirkland, Briggs Security System and representing Bill Thompson
read letter from Harold J. Franks regarding revoked user permits and
fees. He urged Council keep the ordinance pretty much standards in
the area and spoke to the economics of administering the ordinance.
He suggested Multnomah Ccunty
o Roberta Keller, Phillips Electronics spoke to the false alarms and
revoked user permits. She requested Section 7.b.7 be eliminated and
our ordinance be the sauce as Multnomah and Washington County.
1
PAGE 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1983
o Staff testified in rebuttal to above testimony and cited examples of
user abuse. City Administrator pointed out the issues as being
interpretation of the number of false alarms, & the city trying to
recover administrative costs.
o Mr. Kirkland, Roberta Kelly submitted rebuttal testimony.
Councilor Scheckla commented he would like to see the ordinance
adopted as proposed but brought back to Council for review one year
from now. Council and staff discussed proposal Further.
Councilor Scheckla moved, seconded by Mayor Bishop to adopt ordinance
with amendment to section 3 to read the City shall review the
provisions of the ordinance one year from the date of the passage of
this ordinance. Section 3 to be amended to section 4 "Emergency
Clause".
Motion approved by 2-1 majority vote of Council present with
Councilor Cook voting NAY.
Ordinance will be read for second time July 11, 1983.
COUNCIL RECESS 10:30 P.M.
COUNCIL RECONVENED 10:43 P.M.
i 23. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON DEVELOPMENT
COBE/SENSITIVE LANDS
Present were Planning Commission Members Bonnie Owens, Deane Leverett, Don
Moen, Phil Eden and Chairman Frank Tepedino.
Planning Director referred to staff report of June 9, 1983 regarding
sensitive lands and noted it is an expensive process for the property
owners who submit art application. Staff is hoping to streamline the
procedures and still provide the necessary safegaurds. The Planning
Commission would like some direction from Council before they begin
their review.
Frank Tepedino, Chairman of Planning Commission, requested Council
input as to philosophy on how the city should move regarding the
development of the sensitive lands area. The Planning Commission is
not comfortable as they do not fully understand the feelings of
Council and would like to coordinate and fit in with the city
policy. He requested Council discussion and input. Then the
Planning Commission would go back and work with staff in developing a
policy.
Discussion centered regarding fill of sensitive land areas, costs in
d Ate. ols.
V lJLGiiA ills pe—its ua�.. ...w.....i..Y b
Frank Tepedino expressed some of the concerns of the Planning
Commission in applying the sensitive land code provisions.
Staff suggested setting up a matrix to show how to administer the
code.
PAGE 7 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1983
Discussion followed regarding economics of development and policy
issues. Councilor Scheckla spoke to bike paths in greenway/floodwa_y
areas.
Planning Commission responded they were aware of the problem and
requested clear direction on policy from Council. City Administrator
commented the Park Board would like to have some input regarding
specifications for future parks & bike paths for the park program.
Due to the lateness of the hour it was suggested another workshop be
held; staff prepare the matrix and Park Board develop a Capital
Improvements Program. It was suggested the Planning Commission
continue with work on the comprehensive plan and consider the
sensitive lands issue at the end of August. Another workshop with
the Planning Commission was scheduled for July 18, 1983 to consider
the threshold issue, bike paths, matrix, other issues and policies.
24. PERSONNEL RULES DISCUSSION
Due to lateness of hour it was consensus of Council to discuss at
another time.
ADJOURNMENT 11:30 P.M.
City Recorder
ATTEST:
M.fyo
(DH:ch/0398A)
PAGE 8 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1983
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal
P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-036 Notice 7-6912
BEAVERTON.OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising RECEIVED
e • ❑ Tearsheet Notice JUN 2 8 1983
City of Tigard
• P.O. Box 23397 0 ❑ Duplicate Affidavit CITY OF TIGARD
Tigard, oregon 97223
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss.
1 Susan Pinkley
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard Times
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Tigard, Oregon in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
LEGAL NOTICE
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of.said newspaper for one successive and
cons6dbtive art the following issues:
June 23, 1983
Subscribed and sworn to 40ore me 4 is ,A ne 24 1983
f 101V
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires: 2/24/86
AFFIDAVIT
r 'xh ?oiioxc Yor your informadq
ktu intoes i�Y +nm t)je City"Recorder,t;
Ct'FY��AI.[i.1��GL3LG
.i�U1VE:2r,8883;?:3 ,P Ri,
�f3';�Ti.ERJLiMOR ffiG$S(M0m'1 C'xT3R£12EX?iMi
.:. eae ttiv
Ti ntr�r%+ sit e!�:7�[a'._,aDTf ntP'clly
{p� }'t6SEY{�W{�JI�C••R�L4aLa_uA'aaaa.,ar_aav''zw,..va+asa,:vi�
•S'S�8:4pCitLJ��1�Be�rLylei Qw— -
-tisil�p "_XXA PACIRC)L10D#35 PuriaC HEARjNG t
¢'A SEWER,if W#4,1"PL RT_1C H£ARU4G p�o+nfinue d, f
ff.Q3#42 "Muton of�XA Iatet�tt
t11.:.. j �#�•^ -P.esolutioet i3t Ihtettg
&.Tt(Y+yf�1� A<"ly.,�[�Y
� •�y�YJ�Lt.LYyR�l�}��/pls�Fif '7�:.-. ���Vl�;Pe'�l'R�ii�`- ...`
'1^ICfi81 1?0
aiF!$'131
Da to
I wish to testify before the Tigard City
Council on the following iters:
(Please Rrint your name)
s
�7at;te, Address & Affiliation Item De c
rition p
✓d lC
June 27, 1983
1 wish to testify before the Ti----1 City Council On
the following item: (Please print your name)
Item Description:
68th PARKWAY (ATLANTIC/PACIFIC) LIL 35
Puhlir- Hearing ('nntjpuPd from 6/ 3/ 3
roponent (for) Opponent (against)
ame, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
k
l.Jd LC
June 27, 1983
i Wish to testify before the ri igard �1 ty Vouncit orl
the following item: (Please print your name)
Item Description: ^^'
100th Avenue Sanitary Sewer LID #41
Public Hearing (continued from 6/13/83)
Proponent (for) opponent (against)
i
ame, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
V ,
L�1 l C
June 27, 1983
L w.L i to testify i,efore the Tigard City Council on
the follo:,ring item: (Please print your name)
Item Description:
ALARM UN
roponent (for) J Opponent (against)
ame, Address and Affiliation Igame, A4idress and Affiliation
Cw
.4 o C gfs�,q^7 411A-1117,I^iC
!
5 , = ZVI e.16
ct
2
I IIo Ow F 1A-tJ
June 23, 1983
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council ((f� `
FROM: Doris Hartig, City Recorder�(r X.R�1
SUBJECT: 6-27-83 Meeting Packets
Please bring the following agenda items from previous packets. Thank you for
assisting us in keeping copy costs to a minimum.
AGENDA ITEM # 10: From 6-20-83 packet
AGENDA ITEM # 12: From 6/13/83 packet
(lw/0333A)
a .
EXPENDITURES AND INVESTMENTS REPORT
June 27, 1983
PROGRAM BUDGET
Community Services
1. 1 Police 35,933.28
1.2 Finance & Records 3,826.72
1.3 Municipal Court 687.91
1.4 Library 2,667.31
1.5 Social Services
Total Community Services 43, 115.22
Community Development
2.1 Public Works 37,478.81
2.2 Planning & Development 1 ,762.03
Total Community Development 39,240.84
Policy & Administration
3.1 Mayor & Council 783.62
3.2 Administration 1,018.57
Total Policy & Administration 1,802. 19
City Wide Support Functions
4.1 Non-departmental 12,523. 16
Misc. Accounts (refunds & payroll deductions, etc. ) 24,327.63
Investments _0
DEBT SERVICE
5. Bancroft Bond & LID Expenses 88,504. 10
UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY
Contract 68,920.47
TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS WRITTEN 278,433.61
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: AGENDA ITEM #: / Y
Ling 7Z, 1983 r7l.
DATE SUBMITTED: ,Line 21 - 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: Released $42.831.20
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: _ Release of_11,884 when sanitary sewer was completed
jo Century 21 i; ±mes_ Inc. REQUESTED BY: Puhjic Works
1 11
Engineering Department _�
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: —
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Century 21 Homes, Inc. contractor has completed the work on the site preparation,
curbs, streets, storm drains, water lines, and street lights. We are now able to
release funds from their Letter of Commitment (Performance Bond). We will still
be holding $56,048.80 on their Performance Bond.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do not release monies until all work has been completed and accepted by the City.
SUGGESTED ACTION
It is recommended that City Council authorize Mortgage Bancorporation to release
to Century 21 Homes, Inc. the amount of $71,884.00,by authorizing the Mayor and
Recorder to execute the attached Release Authorization Letter.
I
a
CIWOFTIGARD
June 20, 1983 WASFdII-G C041NTY,OREGON
Century 21 Homes, Inc.
7412 SW Bvtn-Hillsdale Hwy Suite 112
Portland, OR 97225
RE: Winterlake - Phase IA
Gentlemen:
In the matter of the original One Hundred Seventy Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-
four Dollar : ($170,764) letter of commitment between Century 21 Homes Inc. , the
City of Tigard and Mortgage Bancorporation in which Fortytwo Thousand Eight
Hundred Thirtyone Dollars and 20/100 ($42,831.20) has been released.
We hereby authorize to be released Seventyone Thousand Eight Hundred Eightyfour
Dollars ($71,884) for the completion of the following:
1. Site Preparation $ 5,660.
2. Concrete Curb 7,416.
3. Streets 21,908.
4. Storm Drains 5,292.
5. Water Line 28,024.
6. Street Lights 3,584.
The amount to remain entrusted to Mortgage Bancorporation to assure the City that
all remaining requirements of said subdivision are completed shall be Fiftysix
Thousand Fortyeight and.-80/100 Dollars ($56,048;80) .
This notice shall not be construed to nullify or alter the terms of the afore-
mentioned agreement in any way, it is merely an authorization to release a
portion of entrusted monies.
CITY OF TIGA.RD, OREGON
By:
Mayor
By:
Recorder
12755 S.W.ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGAPD,OREGON 9722; PH:639-4171
(-(,)UNC I I, AGENDA I'I'L:M SUMMAH'i
AGENDA OF: JUNE 27, 19$ _____ AGENDA ITEM 4 : 2.3
DATE SUBMITTED: June 23, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: none
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: SW 113th
Avenue street vacation resolution REQUESTED BY: Herb Morissette
Builders Inc.
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Herb 14orrisett Builders Inc. wants to vacate SW 113th Avenue as shown on the
attached Exhibit "B". They intend to dedicate a realignment of Sid 113 Ave as
shown on Exhibit "C" to accomodate a single family subdivision. The signatures
submitted meet the legal requirements set forth in the ORS.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Set the Public Hearing date for August 8, 1983.
2. Do not set the Public Hearing.
- SUGGESTED ACTION
Recommend Council adopt the resolution to set the Public Hearing for August 8, 1983.
CITY UI' '1'Ic,AKU, U111_G0 t.J
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
r�
AGENDA OF: Tune 27, 1983 AGENDA ITEM
DATE SUBMITTED: june23. 19st3 PREVIOUS ACTION: Council apnrcr yc-d
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Audit nonfor q�ar ending Fi-30-84
Addendum REQUESTED BY: Coope-r.-, F. Lybrand
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Council previously approved addendum to Coopers & Lybrand audit contract for
services not to exceed $13,500.
The attached addendum revises the City staff work scheduled for completion
by August 22, 1983. This revision is acceptable to the Accounting Department and
Coopers & Lybrand. The completed report/audit will be ready before or by
September 30, 1983.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
NA
SUGGESTED ACTION
Recommend approval and authorize the Mayor and Recorder execute addendum on
behalf of the City.
certified public aca>untants 2700 First Interstate Ta+ver in pnnopal areas o1 the wortd
Coopers Pontand.Oregon 97201
OC L-YUI C I IU mleohr'ne(Sa3) 227 86(X1
June 7 , 198;:
Ms. Jerri Widner
Finance Director
City of Tigard
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Jerri:
Enclosed is the addendum to our audit contract for the
engagement for the year ending June 30 , 1983. Please sign two copies
and return them to me.
If you have any questions, please call. We appreciate the
opportunity to be of continuing service to the City of Tigard.
Very truly yours ,
JLS:bb
Enclosures
This is an addendum to our contract made between
COOPERS & LYBRAND, as certified public accountants , and the
CITY OF TIGARD. E,
In accordance with Paragraph 7 of the May 13 , 1974
agreement, the terms and provisions of the agreement may be ex-
tended for additional fiscal years after June 30 , 1974 as mutually
agreeable to the parties and by the execution of an addendum.
:
ADDENDUM
It is hereby agreed that the accountants shall conduct
an audit of the accounts and fiscal affairs of the CITY OF TIGARD
for the fiscal period beginning July 1 , 1982 and ending June 30 , 1983
in accordance with the prescribed Minimum Standards of Audit Reports ,
Certificates and Procedures and Oregon Revised Statutes 297 . 405
through 297. 555.
The completed report or audit, in accordance with the
Minimum Standards of Audit Reports , Certificates , and Procedures
shall be available in 25 or more copies to the City not later than
September 30.
F
The billings for services rendered hereunder shall not
exceed $13 ,500 providing the City personnel have satisfactorily
completed requested schedules. Requested schedules shall be
completed to auditors ' satisfaction not later than August 22 , 1983 .
Auditor has provided formats of required schedules and shall review
by July 31 if schedules are being prepared satisfactorily.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY through its Mayor and Recorder,
acting pursuant to resolution of the City Council , and the accountants
acting through their duly authorized undersigned agent, have caused
this agreement to be executed.
COOPERS & LYBRAND CITY OF TIGARD :
By By
Mayor
Title Partner By
Recorder
�F"` 'I%�"•f�A
901a AM
June 23, Y983 WASHING'i COUNTY.OREGON
Election Division .
Washington County .
345 E. Main
Hillsboro; Oregon . 97123.
Attn: Vickie Ervin
Re: Ballot Measures for`Special .Election September 200 1983
Dear Ms. Ervin:
Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 83-53 which will include ballot
measures numbered 51 and 52 on the September 20, 1983 special election ballot
the Cit of Ti rd. Please acknowledge receipt of the second copy of the
City g pap
40
The City Council, at their special meeting 'of June 20, 1983, unanimously
directed staff to relay the message they did not want these measures voted on
by mail. The Council is interested i.a the :process,,but-.,objected to this method
as this is the initial effort and for various other •reas'ons.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to contact me
at 639-4171.
Sincerely, :
City 'Eecorder
DM:lw •
CC: - 5ecretai7 of ,State
Y r tt c"
:^_ -
<F r �x+C:r�•� c� �- ��—`t ��,,Y_t ?� ,,�t,r s y t 4+,a . , Lek� 1,F �#'��`'•a•'W:*
))t
CJ3t. ��hS YFr-. S}�it 'fit .1._fy y.:, •] t ��.�.0 J� `!''f� b C�� ,..i
s �. '� � - 3�'G'�Ai ♦ -.z ` +' <a, t�,,r JE�v-tet
,yt'„ ;� !.'+r}T� � , #.:�,rf� �k t f��s�',��a is t�� rtTi�'ai Lk?•� r 3? rfa' �'�tF �f u. .��fi4`'� e;t rt��,
t - ! Si5-.,+r!+w l -1.fge*j 4t>; •� cSy4}'k' t i. t,'"' .<.:'�,g -' �' -:��+`r,�s A•`A�sk.r'- yt,y
� • -i, 1 -. •fpe. tr^'.�C�Ii�.E' 6if�.•�RA}'�t...w•=Ei Mi•�}.q1 �rrf��v.. �'"lt Y �` -' � � � v '`
allv2l-''•3" 11419110,
.7..
(+° t n ca �•tet..of r<, y "':'9� 4,t'c cti Arlo ` 7 ET�' ��ati'�1'Y T �,�> �''�', '�+l; 'w�1k 4 tv ds����r, '^°r �-
. ��.�. pati a 4r-. 5 _ ) ,z t t. .rr , 7 •.Yt F �s �,.
?
fi'•.1'•rr.,
.-rtartf r�:.�3�lr��i�y-.r � ��_.� .4tr��'! f �,. �, t` �<.� t, ,9 �- ,F..} a � ����a�5uf• � '
�''•' f Y� ' �,pt+t 'at .x:t•n';�..i�f4. 'e -,�:. � `�;..ti.rS'� a t rr > t•ri yr:Sl�' t>t!." a
7NW.
ELL• DATE June 15 , 1983
RAMIS
T LAW TO Bob Jean, Cit Administrator
STREET yON 97209 i!1 P,
15031 222-4402 I FROM
RE City of Tigard - Administration
Mail In Ballots for September Election
FACTS
The City of Tigard will be conducting a special election on September
20th. There will only be two issues on the ballot. One will be a
referendum and one will be an initiative. Both are proposed charter
amendments. The Mayor has asked you whether mail in ballots would
be available for such an election.
ISSUE
May the City of Tigard use the mail in ballot procedure for its
September 20, 1983 election? i
i
CONCLUSION
i
Maybe, the decision will be in the hands of the Oregon Secretary of
State' s office.
i
DISCUSSION
I spoke to a representative of the Secretary of State' s office today.
t. He indicated that they expect the Governor to sign HB 2050 (A) -
Engrossed, extending the mail in ballot experiment, by the end of
this week. He assured me that there are no provisions of the Bill
which would require any formal action by the City to take advantage s
of its provisions. The Secretary of State ' s Office suggests that
the Mayor send a letter to Mrs. Norma Paulus, Secretary of State,
Salem, Oregon, requesting that the election be conducted by mail. i
The Secretary of State' s Office will make a determination whether it
is economically and administratively feasible for the election to k
be conducted in this way. As a courtesy, you should send a copy of
the letter to Mrs. Paulus to the Washington County Elections Clerk.
t
f
i
P
3
i
e`
z
4
L
P.
pp
C
a-
R-
SKS:dn
6/15/83
CIONF TIO
WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON
MEMORANDUM I
4
TO: NPO # 5 - Debra Naubert, Chairperson
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development
DATE: June 22, 1983
SUBJECT: Jadco Sensitive Lands Permit
e
,
On June 21st I received a copy of your June 16, 1983, memo concerning the
above referenced permit application. Please be advised that the sensitive
lands hearing before the City Hearings Officer has been held over at the
-
request of the applicant from June 23 to July 14th. The latest delay was
granted to accomodate the applicant's need to address concerns of city staff.
The long delay in resolving the issue centers around the change . in sensitive
lands policy Which the Council requested staff to prepare. Now that the
policy is in place, applicants are required to become familiar with, interpret
and apply the new policy.
2
Your concerns relative to present methods in place to deal with situations
such as this, are noted. It is hoped that the new policy will better
accomodate the needs of all parties, citizens as well as potential developers.
F:
92755 SW.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
Ilan
_ CTE0: T1:G:ARD C�COUNCIL I
FROM: NPO#5
t J
DATE: June :5, 1983
RE: JADCO SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT CH Y OF TIGARDPLANNIRG DEPT.
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council :
During the past year the committee members of NPO#5 have been monitoring
the Council 's actions regarding the Jadco Sensitive Lands Permit. At this time
we wish to express our deep concern at the lack of corrective action which has
been required of Mr. Duncan regarding this issue.
Although we can perhaps understand the Council 's difficulty in dealing
with this issue considering the state of flux in the comprehensive plan. it is
none the less alarming to us that such a condition has been allowed to continue
for a period of nearly a year. This is particularly disconcerting when Mr.
Duncan's illegal fill on a sensitive lands area may have had and continue to
have an adverse impact upon the surrounding environment.
It is also of concern to us that the current citation system apparently
does not provide a sufficient deterrent to prevent developers such as Mr. Duncan
from violating the city's permit requirements. This has been certainly punct-
uated by Mr. Duncan's continuing violation of the city's permit process.
We would recommend to the Council that this situation merits careful review
with regard to the city's policy and methods of dealing with such violations.
In light of the more lenient foodplain policy we feel it is particularly
important that the city have a swift and efficient method of preventing such
violations in the future. We do not feel in the current situation that the
rights or the best interests of the other property owners along Fanno Creek,
or indeed the city as a whole, have been protected. The lack of positive and
swift action by the Council has seta dangerous precedent for other potential
developers along the Fanno Creek Greenway.
We are, ofcourse, available to further discuss our concerns in this area
or to assist in any exercise toward the resolution of th's situation.
Sincerely,
The Members of NPO#5
j cc: Tigard Planning Commission
r ell
L
r
v '
i
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ^ /
AGENDA OF: .Tune 27 1983
AGENDA ITEM h:
r,
DATE SUBMITTED: June 14, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: None
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: g
O.L.C.C. Application -Recommendation REQUESTED BY: Applicants named below �
r
x
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: �- i,!` � CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY .
New Business: Greenway Pub
Address: 12272 S.W. Schblls-Ferry Rd.
(Greenway Shopping Center)
122nd & Scholls Ferry Rd.
License: R.M.B. (Retail sale of beer and wine)
Applicants: McMenamin, Michael Robert
1135 S.W. 57th -
Portland, Oregon
McMenamin, Robert William
4435 S.W. 75th
s
Portland, Oregon 3
• NOTE: See attached report of Lt. Branstetter.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .
N/A
• E
S
C
J
SUGGESTED ACTION -
" Recommend approval of the application and forwarding to O.L.C.C:
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: June 27 AGENDA ITEM
DATE SUBMITTED: 6-23-83 PREVIOUS ACTION: Nnna
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: OLCC
Application Recommendation REQUESTED BY: -U liCajats N rued Belay7
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: �✓sYb= 'f _ CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
New Restaurant Outlet (Retail Sales/Beer and Wine)
Godfather's Pizza
12286 SW Scholls Ferry rd.
Tigard, Oregon
Owners: #1 Denfeld, Bernard Alexander/Rt. 4, Box 557, Scappose, Oregon
#2 DENFELD, Kenneth James and Denfeld, Donald James
Rt. 6 Box 51,
Hillsboro, Oregon
See Attached Report of Lt. Branstetter
-----------------
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
SUGGESTED ACTION
CRecommend Approval of application and forwarding to O.L.C.C.
Zoo
CITY OF TIGARD
To: ✓ Cheif of Police From: Det, Lt. Rranstetter
Subject: New Liquor license applicant Date: 6-22-83
God Fathers Pizza aka Pacific Pizza Company
12286 S.L . Scholls Ferry Rd„
Tigard, Ore.
OWNERS: DENFELD, Bernard Alexander DENFELD, Kenneth James
Rt. 4 Box 557 Rt. 6 Box 51
Scappose, Ore. Hillsboro, Ore.
DOB 5-25-24 DOB 12-23-46
DENFELD, Donald James
Rt. 6 Box 51
Hillsboro, Ore.
DOB 2-16-19
Criminal checks on the listed owners show no record. All three applicants
show •other similiar businesses in Beaverton and Hillsboro under the business -name of.
God Fathers Pizza.
Writer wade an on sight inspection, but the rented space which is located in :
the Greenway shopping center, is under construction. It should be noted that this
{{ business will be located one North of the new food vendor, Papa Aldo's Resturant,
E. and two doors North of the recently approved liquor outlet, The Greenway Pub.
It is the intention of the business not to sell over the counter package sales.
-
e
Avoid Verbal Messages A-1
CITY OF TIGARD
To;_ Chief Adams
From: Doris Hartig
--
Subject:- Date:OLGC Liquor License — June 16, 1983
ls
NEW OUTLET - RESTAURANT 1228tra
6SWSchollsFerry Road
Tigard, OR 97223
Please review and have recommendation to us by Thursday, June 23rd so we may include
it in the packets for the June 27th Council meeting.
Thanks.
1.
F
i
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: AGENDA ITEM #: � -
DATE SUBMITTED: 6_91_83 PREVIOUS ACTION: NIA
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: QT,rr. Speri al
Event T-irpnse ApplinatiOn REQUESTED BY: Ln a Oswego Elks
Lodge #2263
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The above lodge have requested a special event license for August 7, 1483 from
11:00am to 7:30pm to take place in Cook Park. Tickets will be sold to lodge
members at the park which includes the meal and beer.
The Tigard Municipal Code authorizes the City Administrator to issue a permit
subject to approval by the City Council, as per TMC 7.52.100
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N.A.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Recommend approval of the Special Event License application and forwarding to OLCC
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO RECOMMENDED 1983-84 BUDGET
The recommended column is as per the Budget Committee's action. The
adjustments suggested below for adoption are due to year end fund balance
information and expenditure carryovers caused by year end procedural
delays. The only suggested change is regarding the use of part-time
clerical resource which is included for your consideration in Building and
Support Services Divisions.
1983-84 1983-84
BUDGET SUGGESTED
COMMITTEE FOR
RECOMMENDED ADOPTION
REVENUES
GENERAL FUND $ 2,584,263 $2,390,282 B levy failure
FEDERAL REV. SHARING 113,000 113,000 No change
SEWER FUND 522,000 502,500 Beg. Bal. chge
STORM DRAINAGE 225,000 247,500 Beg. Bal. chge
STATE TAX STREET 296,500 300,360 Beg. Bal. chge
COUNTY GAS TAX 90,000 99,000 Beg. Bal. chge
COUNTY ROAD LEVY 690,000 658,500 Beg. Bal. chge
STREETS SDC 200,000 220,000 Beg. Bal. chge
PARKS SDC 38,000 41,800 Beg. Bal. chge
BOND DEBT -0- -0- No change
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 1,018,273 1,018,273 No change
TOTAL REVENUES $ 5,777,036 S 5,596,215
EXPENDITURES
COMMUNITY SERVICES
POLICE
PERSONAL SERVICES $ 1,077,763 $ 1,051,048 B levy failure
MATERIALS/SERVICES 106,327 95,927 " " of
CAPITAL OUTLAY 107,000 -0- of �
TOTAL POLICE 1,291,090 1,146,975
FINANCE & SERVICES
PERSONAL SERVICES 271,807 279,803 New Pay Plan=`
MATERIALS/SERVICE 90,564 88,364 B levy failure
CAPITAL OUTLAY 22,525 25,650 Comp. contract
TOTAL FIN/SERV. 384,896 393,817
MUNICIPAL COURT
PERSONAL SERVICES 21,763 31,958 judge employee
MATERIALS/SERVICES 13,241-- 6,941
TOTAL MUNIC. COURT 35,004 38,889
r
LIBRARY
PERSONAL SERVICES 129,976 124,568 New Pay Plan
MATERIALS/SERVICES 9,620 9,620 No change
CAPITAL OUTLAY 29,300 27,000 B levy failure
TOTAL LIBRARY 168,896 1612188
SOCIAL SERVICES
MATERIALS/SERVICES 59,000 15,000 B levy failure
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
PERSONAL SERVICES 595,148 593,651 New Pay Plan
MATERIALS/SERVICES 302,080 3192146 Comp. contract
CAPITAL OUTLAY 34,300 70,500 Equip. purch.
CAPITAL PROJECTS 1,113,722 1,012,670 Sewer project
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 2,045,250 1,995,967
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PERSONAL SERVICES 180,138 185,782 New Pay Plan*
MATERIALS/SERVICES 25,705 23,905 B levy failure
CAPITAL OUTLAY 12150 250
TOTAL PLAN/DEV. 206,993 209,937
POLICY & ADMINISTRATION
_ PERSONAL SERVICES 114,512 115,785 New Pay Plan
MATERIALS/SERVICES 872600 86,325 Legal cntrct
CAPITAL OUTLAY 500 500 No change
TOTAL POLICY/ADMIN. 2022612 202,610
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
PERSONAL SERVICES -0- 10,000 Unemploy. cost
MATERIALS/SERVICES 215,865 221,865 Cost carryover
CAPITAL PROJECTS 9,165 9,165 No change
TOTAL GEN. GOVT. 225,030 241,030
DEBT SERVICES 1,018,273 1,018,273 No change
ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES
CONTINGENCY 139,992 122,124 Yr. end info.
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 5,777,036 $ 5,596,215
*Part-time position included in these areas at .75 of a full-time person.
The position is .5 to Finance & Services-Support Services and .25 to
Planning & Development - Building.
JLW:ms/0658A
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BOB JEAN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: JUNE 27, 1983
SUBJECT: T.U.R.A. SEPTEMBER ELECTION
Councilors Scott and Brian asked about Legal Services costs to date
on the T.U.R.A. Initiative Petition and competing measures. They
are:
#51
INITIATIVE ALTERNATIVE TOTAL
January, 1983 $296.00 $ 0 $296.00
February, 1983 100.00 0 100.00
March, 1983 201. 00 10.00 211.00
April , 1983 434. 50 135. 00 569. 50
May, 1983 496. 50 110. 00 606. 50
June, 1983
SUB-TOTAL (Actual) $1,528. 00 $ 255.00 $1, 783 .00
Estimated June Costs 100.00? 100. 00 200 .00
SUB-TOTAL (Estimate) $1, 628 . 00 $ 355. 00 $1, 983 . 00
September Election Cost (Est)_ 1, 000. 00 1 ,000.00 2, 000 . 00
TOTAL COST (Estimate) $2 ,628 .00 $1 , 355.00 $3 , 983 .00
I
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
i
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: 6/27/$3 AGENDA ITEM
DATE SUBMITTED: 6/22/$3 PREVIOUS ACTION: ynnn ^nnroval by the
adoption of the supplemental budget for
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Resolution fiscal yPar 1982-83
authorizing loan to TURA for fiscal REQUESTED BY:
year 1982-83.
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: J. Widner CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Downtown Tigard Revitalization Plan provides for Storm Drainage improvements.
There is sufficient money in the Storm Drainage Fund to loan the Tigard Urban
Renewal Agency $15,000.00 for current expenses of fiscal year 1982-83.
The attached resolution was reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office.
t
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
t
1. Commercial Bank lending.
2. General Fund lending.
F
i
SUGGESTED ACTION
f
Approve the resolution to loan the Tigard Urban Renewal Agency $15,000.00.
E
RD
TO: Members of the City Cauncil CITE va 0 TIG
WASHINGTON COiJNW,OREGON
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development 14#"
DATE: June 27, 1983
RE: Part Time Clerical Support
Presently the Council is considering funding a part time clerical position
in the Finance Department. One third of the employee's time, or .25 man
years, would be allotted to the Department of Planning and Development. I
would like to strongly express my support and need of your approval to fund
this position.
The clerical support time which I would be alloted would be assigned to
the Building Division. I would utilize the employee's time to fill in and
assist the Building Official and Inspector. Of particular need is an
individual to be present in the office during the time that these two
-employees are in -the--field- performing inspections. With the reduction from
three to two in the Division effective June 30, 1983, the use of a part time
clerical person to answer telephone calls, schedule inspections, schedule
appointments, and process building permits could greatly offset some of the
extra burden placed on my staff.
In conclusion, I strongly urge you to fund this position so that my office
is better prepared to handle the current and anticipated workload. I would
also note that the percentage and time for the employee allocated to the
Finance Department Word Processing Division would also provide assistance to
me. The Division presently provides back up to my secretary and performs a
great amount of our clerical work on major typing projects. Without this
resource, the efficency of my office will be greatly reduced.
a
L
12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
>- Eli
yyy
June 27, 1983 -
x
MEMORANDUM '
TO: Mayor and City Council
LO 1O k�
FROM: Loreen Wilson, Office Manager L
SUBJECT: Part-Time Employee Request
As you are aware, the Word Processing/Support Services Division of
Finance/Service Department has been using the services of a part-time employee
since March 10, 1982.
The funding of the part-timer has been very successful for the following '
reasons: 4
toco in for the City and runs
(a) The part-time employee does the pho p g �.:
errands (i.e. to the newspaper with legal ads, delivering daily mail
and bank deposits, and acting as messenger to the Attorney's office)
which enables the other secretarial staff to spend their time doing
more complex clerical duties;
(b) The funding of the part-time position is fiscally wise because the ,
salary is $3.50 to $5.00 per hour with fringe benefits being
basically non-existent. (Example of cost savings for copying Council
Packets: 6 hours of copying and collating packets by the part-timer
is $21.00 and the same job performed by another secretarial employee
would average $65.82) ; and
(c) In order to keep our WP computer operators functioning in a
production efficient manner, they must be able to work without '
interruption. The part-time position would allow this type of
support for the Division. In turn, the Division can offer production
oriented response to all departments and their work requests. r
We would encourage your favorable consideration of the request for funding a €.
week. This work schedule would be set up
part-time employee for 20 hours per t
to allow coverage during our peak work-load hours. The savings of man-hours
would greatly enhance the efficient operation of the Word Processing Center
deal with the increased •.:.,ork-lo?d being
and allow staff the opportunity to
placed on the Division in a more time and dollar-efficient way.
Thank you for your consideration.
(LW:lw/0533A)
4
C,,I'Y (.W TIGAPD, ORE-"ON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
r-
AGENDA OF: AGENDA ITEM h : ✓ �'
�-2z-83
DATE SUBMITTED: 6-22-83 PREVIOUS ACTION: Council approved budget
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: FY 83-84
City Budget Adopting; Budget REQUESTED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Council held a public hearing April 4, 1983 on the FY 83-84 budget and this
is part of the 3 step process in implementing the budget. This resolution
formally adoptes the budget and by reference adopts the Tigard Police Officer's
Association agreement (TPOA) , Tigard Municipal Employees Association (TMEA/OPEU)
and salary/job classification pay plan for 1983-83.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
NA
SUGGESTED ACTION
Recommend approval of attached resolution.
OPEG
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: 6/27/83 AGENDA ITEM a :
DATE SUBMITTED: 6/22/83 PREVIOUS ACTION: Council approve budget
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: FY 83-84
City Budget Making Appropriations REQUESTED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK- CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Council held a public hearing on April 4, 1983 on the FY 1983-84 budget and
this is part of the 3 step process in implementing the budget. This
resolution appropriates funds by programs as outlined in the budget.
t
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
it
NA
SUGGESTED ACTION
Recommend approval of attached resolution.
1:
a
I I y UI' 'Cit_Al±li, 01E:G00
COUNCIL. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: 97_99 AGENDA ITEM k : �•
DATE SUBMITTED: 6_22_93 PREVIOUS ACTION: Council approved budget
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: FY 83-84
City Budget - Leving Taxes REQUESTED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Council held a public hearing April 4, 1983 on the FY 83-84 budget and
this is part of the three step process in implementing the budget. This
resolution gives authorization to certify the tax levy to the County for
FY 83-84.
1
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
NA
SUGGESTED ACTION
t
Recommend adoption Of attached resolution.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: June 27, _1983
AGENDA ITEM
DATE SUBMITTED: 6/23/83 PREVIOUS ACTION: NA
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: State
Shared Revenues REQUESTED BY: cram -f Oregon
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: /C� CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Cities must each year certify to the State of Oregon that they provide four
or more municipal services to be eligible to receive state shared cigarette,
liquor and highway taxes.
The adoption of the attached resolution will provide the necessary
certification.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve resolution & receive state shared cigarette, liquor & highway taxes.
2. Disapprove and forfeit the above stated revenues.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Recommend approval of attached resolution.
-- �� t'�FCE/VE'o
t :'d� a jut 1 v? /—
t" Executive Department C/Ty Of r/G,483
VICTORATIVEH 155 COTTAGE STREET NE., SALEM, OREGON 97310 RQ
Governcr
July 11, 1933
TO: MAYORS
CITY RECORDERS
FROM: Bob Montgomery, Administrat
Intergovernmental Relations sion
SUBJECT: State Revenue Sharing
ORS 221 ,770
R E M I N D E R
State Revenue Sharing Ordinance and Certification of Hearings forms
have not been received from your city as of this date.
This must be received in our office by July 31 , 1983 in order for us
to certify you for FY 83-84 revenue sharing.
If you have any questions, please contact Dolores Streeter at
373-1998.
BM:pat
0038C
CITY Ot_'I IGARU, OftE_GON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: 6-27-83
AGENDA ITEM h : L�
DATE SUBMITTED: 6-22-83 PREVIOUS ACTION: NA
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Receiving
State Revenue Sharing REQUESTED BY: State of Oregon
DCITY ADMINISTRATOR:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK
INFORMATION SUMMARY
State revenue sharing law requires cities to pass resolutions each year stating
they want to receive state revenue sharing money as well as certifying that the
2 required public hearings were held.
The adoption of the attached resolution and certification of hearings will
meet this requirement to receive state revenue sharing funds.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve resolution and certify the required public hearings were held and
receive state revenue sharing funds.
2. Disapprove resolution and forfeit state revenue sharing funds.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Recommend approval of attached resolution and request staff to certify.
The required 2 public hearings were held: April 4 & February 10, 1983.
pk
E
_ QLn AllC-4 WN
`
O N
R'i 1p O D H9 n O N
a\
v .yrs
1.4
>+
�+ If
p a
W ® I � to O O O � r
l� O O+ O O ul '/'1 t�'w f
G!1 PG r-7 Z 1 O N N
Q�
O I+ ^ O N C r� +,
IAJWY .1 {R
A Z 2i � II
fs7
O $
W H W
co }
P4
E-4 4
1 U1 u'1 O O O
®� to �7 O N N c
I
vdID 1` O NN J.1
BQ c0 r
Sm
J..�
R o
a� 9LL
r
y$� M
CNX
c
a
0 I r
Q IO y N
a a 00
w H .°e r_ ?. ON ;
U) a) a w �
q iC X co d W E-+
W co H >+ cd cc CD
O O
z � cn w a %=
o o d H e
N C7 C'1 Pr W H H V-&-:I-
C14
�=.
® H W 4:
L O r
1 a% �•1 O O O C y
® CD Ln
N t. e
N U 4 }
� 5
1O O F'
1�! O N N N �-
14 C ch .
s O , E
W
1 O I O O
O
O to
� C) N O
�► O O d
_ �r1 O qHj .
{
O
LF-I H
O
44 to
O a\
K
i I I 1 I
O O O O O
CID w r-
1 CO �� ,t
t.
1 V it �
4
6� k
41 � �r
o
0 0 0 0 0 �
w
• a 1 •.O'I C
4
k 14
W f+ to >> 1 1 O O O O W
W O d .�� G O� G O O N N I ca .-.
cc)d w P w a o0 o N O x 3 3
ca O co Q -4 CY% .-+ al
W A bo U 0) y coo ami
>>4 E i W 4-3
Q. U
U G
H G G •G E-4 bo 60 N 1 I O o O O 0 1+ -O
z •,� •�
o G G m rq r� of o o N N L" p• a
^7+ G G G G co x M w
0 E- .•moi •moi w •0 CO co O 00 CT CD N O G cd
v•• w a+ iJ N U O co
• b c0 W 4 .1
41
y b W L L R
G
.. c�iJ a) 1cc
VJ > W U
.. ` kl � Cl Gu
�►�Q a O W I o O O O N ba
�2V y y U Cn� 10 Co O N N G .0
0 b07 C) .,� L G
L T O CO —4 o N N .d ca O .-I
CO 0 ca
Q o0 4 d w O
�Qo:�Q A. H ccy G O
Q. v trj O •L V
Cd ca v cc co
CU W E• >
w
co a)
a. to
= , @ w L O0 N
ca
.1.:, V G (4-1 J,4 > L L
0o a,L o. w h p >, v co L
Gci
•, mow Xto e R J oU co ay 3
t, G > o > W Q Q o00 1 � 4J a)
v o b 0. ,G.c, a E "
U.co coN Q, co
V U O� O4 O W O
LUSQ 1.4 C. G 00 U
3O p' L ,- JJ
ai W W o O � M
> W 1—CO O O n Ln
CHay O N Nal •.G�
4J
4 w
A� 4 Co to
0 U co MW O CD N O •t0 > t14 c0
CO „-1 •> w Q1 �--� ,-� V O a)
Q' 6 G `J a' o
N Co W V a) -4 Co N
>> L Co L
•rC CA
,� G a) co W CD N 1 N LrN G W
boL W I N a, w
,4 g G
v U N .7 i -r+
U a •.1 000 r-4 y L G
G) °� co O S ca n .oa
C A. L
d w
� 'b O 1 1 1 1 1 N G
aj m d -Cl d O o 00 $4 v g
o o Q 1 1 1 1 1 co ca 'v a
a3 4J W .,4y 41 > Q.
G o -0 > U W ++ al a.•.a
go®� C p 0
v aD p Q L N
® 4 0) "'c 0 co 4j 44
ca .,I "a w
a) M bo wG
►+ � '> G 1 I I I I CO
V N
C13 •bo j .11 O A
H RI U ca Q Cfl CO d .� 4
N Dt co '4J f--O •r1 aj G o
a) G -4 ••+ UCO w W _4
A c+ a cc •n Q� A 0 W R.
x wCD
L F-• I ! o
CL
co 1 i
c�►
a
Q
z .. •.+ •.� a co o c
:D cc cc
U v W W
W
.. cr
.. ••IV ® 1 1
�O W-W Oj o
Z � c
come
W
W
ca a
USCL 0
W
a
W1
z ,a
0 6
O H
W H
® W
O O
1 I
L61 1
cp
UP
I I
co O O
a ''� O ON
IZI
�W
1
C O
9 CID 1
�
a
1 I
O
� c
1—
4-0
�o � It Nok�
W 8 �� O Op N CD
O w G
��
O , Li
p Ln Op %D p tr G
QAC v. M -4 w
>
WrN U ami yr
a
M c4 O
CO .0 W 1Q
!Hbo bo
-1 O 00 N O N O N 'O
� OD
A r4 �CD � 00 O c0 .•-1 C
CSG C Cccco >4 �
O Hca O� M W wL
+ �
U v Pa Aa �+Y •4 N 00 d
4+
Cl)
0 4jd
C
U aJ
Ln 00 +O O d 1+ �+O
dua t� M °�° `n i •4 o
CID .ca-a F1r. U
O
Ch bo 0
�L� 4pG a a oCC ma:
ti�v >+ w vi
®co Q N d a a W w 0001 00
v U
•'•1 •'� Cn O •.d .,q 00
CA H > Gp U >
lil U cn En r�o y, cn 1''
1.4 ca
CA N
C
_ t� •a
J W O Cl) O
Q W 00 00 4J C13 Li
V U c W Q 4 pz a C13 ca y
L&I I" 0o i•+ 00 �
CL® UQj
r 6 o w ��p w >4 4J cli PL4 1 +� O
SAJ1--1 u -4 1-a -400 • H
Ri
Q00
1-4 +•-r .-a H O N O O
N N WN O 00 O co
r-4 W-W. N
Cd G y u
O O N O U •.� Cp U
d 0000 O
Ln �O O 0 b N •$4
O\ M U C14
� W 1 r 3••rl -
®� O d U
s 4-1 O CA .-u
CD CJS]
O 0
O 1 1 '
OCR— E�� N O O
6L!!98 N 1 pq
f O -It Oi O
v1
® 0)
o • >>
ni�i o q
d II M O
1 1 I
L L
ft—
b S9 t d
t Q
V -4 O O ~
eA�l101 Q e a 00 U t
® U O% r1 N
1 I I O 4+3 O O
O M It 4J
_j 0 0 o I a Ca
CC ull
L N Ln
00
N p c1 m
' a� W Fj•ev!t?
{
4,
w e °° O
PW
o cr
A O
8
0-4CD
CD
U -4 1-4 rn
t3
W
vim c
CID cc
as
CL
rewjv b a
a0�� G a�
r FRIG
� po4
H U F+
l!1
� O H � a
�¢
�•� O U CD CD
A A A
( � I vy Ln O
6 N NE-4
we® Ho ts3 ass
U HLai N
O O
O
O O
wOIL-2 M O o
cy O
N
I I b
O O
41
® °D b
CD
SAL
0 I I 01.
_j CV E-4WIZI
w
® o00
I t �i cn
Coo
�� o .c+ � o
eel
��
C,I"I'Y ul' TIGARD, OPi"GO)N
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: 6-27-83 AGENDA ITEM q : / , - z
DATE SUBMITTED: 6-22-83 PREVIOUS ACTION: TURA_Board ApLp or med Budget
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: FY 83-84
TURA Budget - adopting budget & REQUESTED BY:
r
making appropriations
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
----------
INFORMATION SUMMARY
t
TURA Board approved FY 1983-84 budget on 5/18/83 and must now formally adopt
the budget and make appropriations.
Y
r`
t
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
NA
1
k
SUGGESTED ACTION
Recommend approval of attached resolution,
-
TIGARD URBA": RENEI-LkL AGENCY
- -r�xY_� x291@3SiS241oxx
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: TAGENDA ITEM
DATE SUBMITTED: PREVIOUS ACTION: T pan approval b y- the
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Rncn1litinn tni qfjopt-ion of t-he snnnlPmenta h id9,V-
for fiscal year 1982-83
aGGo t 3-0-P. frnmstnrm Tlrainagp F13nd REQUESTED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: .T_ WidnPr CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Downtown Tigard Revitalization Plan provides for Storm Drainage improvements
The Storm Drainage Fund will loan the Tigard Urban Renewal Agency $15,000.00
to meet current expenses for the fiscal year 1982-83.
The attached resolution was reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Commercial bank lending.
2. General Fund lending.
- - ------------ -------------- ----------------------------
SUGGESTED ACTION
t Approve the resolution to accept the loan from the Storm Drainage Fund.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM a v
Date: June 2, 1983 Item No. :
Description: Ordinance creating S.W. 68th Agenda Of:
Parkway (Street) L.I.D. Previous Action :_Council__
passed a "Resolution gam_
Action Required:_ Council adoption, Intent" to create the L.j—D.
and opened the ublic hearing.
_after the public hearing. Dept. Head:
City Adm. :
SUMMARY
1. This ordinance, if passed; will actually create an L.I.D. to install specific
street improvements from S.W. Atlanta Street to S.W. 69th Avenue, connecting
Atlanta To Pacific Highway.
2. The Council opened the public hearing thereinregard and, subsequently,
continued said hearing to facilitate property owners input.
RECOMMENDATION
Pass the ordinance if the consensus of ownerships, at the conclusion of the
public hearing is to proceed with the L.I.D.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Dismiss the L.I.D. by a Council motion; direct staff to prepare a
dismissal resolution for council action to formally do so, at the next
meeting .
2. Table the ordinance (pending future action thereon) .
f
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON �;,;•'`
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Date: June 2, 1983 Item No.:
Description: Ordinance Creating Agenda Of: June 13, 1983
S.W. 100th Avenue Sanitary Sewer L.I.D. Previous Action : Council
passed a "Resolution of
Action Required: Council Adoption, after Intent" to create the L.I.D.
the Public Hearing Dept. Head: _®
city Adm. :40p, t2n
---------------- -
SUMMARY
1. This ordinance, if passed; will actually create an L.I.D. to install a
sanitary sewerage line serving two residential properties adjacent to
S.W. 100th Avenue and serving one residential tract (via a private
easement) which does not front on S.W. 100th Avenue.
2. A resolution of intent to create said L.I.D. was passed by the Council
on May 13, 1983 in response to a petition for said improvement.
RECOMMENDATION
Pass the ordinance if:
1. The owner of Tax Lot No. 100 is agreeable to granting an easement
(across T.L. #100) to the owner of Tax Lot No. 200; and if . .
2. The consensus of the ownerships, at the conclusion of the public
hearing, is to proceed with the L.I.D.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Dismiss the L.I.D. by a Council motion; direct staff to prepare a
dismissal resolution for council action to formally do so, at the next
meeting.
2. Table the ordinance (pending future action thereon) .
4 �
i
P,eo�SEO -
I I
-- �f 70 8" CO.t/C. S.S�sV-:2j
/l
_ I
I '
x ,
I �
a
ti cu N
1
a i
�i
s
O LU It . �1
4
{
EXHIBIT "B"
Aaft
S.W. 100th AVENUE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION
COST ESTIMATE
ITEM DESCRIPTIGN Unit Est. Unit TOTAL
Measure Quantity Price
..' 1) Pipe
8". R.J.C.P. L.F. 186 8.00 $1,488.00
6" R.J.C.P. L.F. 57 6.00 342.00
t 2) Wye's/Tees
8' X 6 Ea. 3 45.00 135.00
�. - 3) 48" Manhole
(complete w/stub) Ea. 1 950.00 950.00
.YY
•t I.:
4) Connection to
Existing MH Ea. 1 250.00 250.00
5) Excavation & Backfill
(01 - 8' ):
Class "D" Trench L.F. 243 7.00 1,700.00
Class "B" Pipe• Zone L.F. 243 2.00 486.00
6) R. & R. Pavement L.F. 214 6.00 1,284.00
7) Concrete Plugs
6" Ea. 3 20.00 60.00
8" Ea. 1 25.00 25.00
3
8) Legal/Admin/Engr/Etc. (25%) - - - 1,680.00
9) Contingency (10%) - - - 840.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL: $9,240.00
S.W. 100th AVENUE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION - LID #42
ASSESSMENT ROLL
T.L. & MAP NO. OWNER (EST. ) ASSESSMENT
# 100 (11BB) L.B. & M.T. TOWER $ 3080.00
# 200 (11BB) J.J. & C.M. PLIETH 3080.00
# 800 (11BA) A.D. & M.A. TOMINAC 3080.00
TOTAL: $ 9,240.00
i
METHOD: TOTAL COST i NUMBER OF LOTS = LOT ASSESSMENT
(EXHIBIT "B" )
y FRI y V
� O [�
1i
OD
I OL
L
f C.O. sTi9 /SGS ��� G'O.tX S�JN-
i
t
O �
f �
EXHIBIT "C"
S.W. 100th AVENUE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION
COST ESTIMATE
ITEM DESCRIPTION Unit Est. Unit TOTAL
Measure Quantity Price
1) Pipe
8" R.J.C.P. L.F. 186 8.00 $1,488.00
6" R.J.C.P. L.F. 205 6.00 1,230.00
7) Wye's/Tees
8' X 6" Ed . 1 45.00 45.00,
6 X 6 Ea. 2 45.00 90.00
3) 48" Manhole
(complete w/stub) Ea. 1 950.00 950.00
Cleanout Ea. 1 600.00 600.00
4) Connection to
Existing MH Ea. 1 250.00 250.00
5) Excavation & Backfill
(0' - 8' )
Class "D" Trench L.F. 418 7.00 2,930.00
Class "B" Pipe Zone L.F. 418 2.00 840.00
6) R. & R. Pavement L .F. 385 6.00 2,310.00
7) Concrete Plugs
6" Ea. 3 20.00 60.00
8a1 Ea. 1 25.00 25.00
8) Legal/Admin/Engr/Etc. (25%) - - - 2,704.00
9) Contingency 10% - _ _
g y ( ) 1,350.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL: $14,872.00
P
a
C[e
P
S.W. 100th AVENUE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION - LID #42
ASSESSMENT ROLL
ALTERNATE # 1
T.L. & MAP NO. OWNER (EST. ) ASSESSMENT
# 100 (11BB) L .Q. & M.T. TOWER $ 4957.33
# 200 (11BB) J.J. & C.M. PLIETH 4957.33
800 (11BA) A.D. & M.A. TOM[NA(. 4957.33 '
+
TOTAL : $ 14,872.00
(
METHOD: TOTAL COST a NUMBER OF LOTS = LOT ASSESSMENT
� a
(EXP!3IT "C" )
t
E:
E .
S.W. 100th AVENUE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION - LID #42
ASSESSMENT ROLL
ALTERNATE # 2
T.L. & MAP NO. OWNER (EST. ) ASSESSMENT
# 100 (11BB) L .B. & M.T. TOWER $ 3108.33
# 200 (11BB) J.J. & C.M. PLIETH 3108.33
800 (11BA) A.D. & M.A. TOMINAC 3108.33
TOTAL: $ 9,325.00
(EST) CITY PARTICIPATION 5,547.00
TOTAL: $ 14,872.00
METHOD: TOTAL COST j NUMBER OF LOTS = LOT ASSESSMENT
(EXHIBIT "C" )
�10
IK
OD
It
EXHIBIT
S.W. 100th AVENUE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION
COST ESTIMATE
ITEM DESCRIPTION Unit Est. Unit TOTAL
Measure Quantity Price
1) Pipe
8" R A.C.P. L.F. 35 8.00 $ 280.00
6" R A.C.P. L.F. 210 6.00 1,260.00
2) Wye's/Tees $
8' X 6" Ea. 1 45.00 45.00
6 X 6 Ea. 2 45.00 90.00
3) Cleanouts
Ea. 2 600.00 1,200.00
4) Connection to
Existing MH Ea. 1 250.00 250.00
5) Excavation & Backfill
(0' - 8' ):
Class "D" Trench L.F. 245 7.00 1,700.00
Class "B" Pipe. Zone L.F. 245 2.00 490.00
6) R. & R. Pavement L.F. 230 6.00 1-;380.00
7) Concrete Plugs
n
6" Ea. 3 20.00 60.00
8" Ea. 1 25.00 25.00
8) Legal/Admin/Engr/Etc.(25%) - - - 1,695.00
9) Contingency (10%) - - - 850.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL: $ 9,325.00
NEW
S.W. 100th AVENUE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION - LID #42
ASSESSMENT ROLL
T.L . & MAP NO. OWNER (EST. ) ASSESSMENT
# 100 (11BB) L .B. & M.T. TOWER $ 3108.33
# 200 (11BB) J.J. & C.M. PLIETH 3108.33
800 ( 11BA) A.D. & M.A. TOMINA(. 3108.33
TOTAL : $ 9,325.00
METHOD: TOTAL COST NUMBER OF LOTS = LOT ASSESSMENT
(EXHIBIT "D" )
J
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: _June 27, 1983 AGENDA ITEM :
DATE SUBMITTED: June _21,. 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: Acceptance of
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Resolution of Petition, feasibility report ordered
INTENT TO CRFATE AN L.I.D. KNOWN AS REQUESTED BY: Public Works
68th PARKWAY SANITARY SEWER LID #42 Engineering Department
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: I
v
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Resolution, if passed, would facilitate staff development of detailed
construction pians, specifications and estimates for development of a
sanitary sewerage line along 68th Parkway, 7rom Franklin Street to (about)
Atlanta Street . . . and, further, would set the time, date and place for a
public hearing thereinregard.
----------------------- -
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Take no action
2. Table the Resolution, pending additional information as may be desired
prior to action thereon.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Passage of the attached Resolution of Intent to create S.W. 68th Parkway
N1, LID No. 42, after consideration of the feasibility (engineers) report.
a ,
05 �, W
D
PreoPs T CizyA,UT *O
C � J
1
a
�6//1�JT 4E 1
IPa.o�wl I T�� I I
x x I ITOMWAC
I
ry I L - - J y
r
o° Q
G
0
F �
S. W. 100th AVENUE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION
L . I .D. #42
PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS ROLL
PUBLIC HEARING DATE 6/13/83
T. L . & MAP NO. OWNER ADDRESS ASSESSMENTS
# 100 2S1-11BB Loren B. & Mary T. Tower 10400 S.W. McDonald St $ 3,080.00
# 200 2S1-11BB John J. & Clara M. Plieth 10100 S.W. McDonald St 3,080.00
# 800 2S1-11BA Albert D. & M.A. Tominac 9980 S.W. McDonald St. 3,080.00
TOTAL: $ 9,240.00
METHOD: Total cost = Number of lots = Lot Assessment
$9,240. 3 = $ 3,080.00
MEN
EXHIBIT # 1
S.W. 100th AVENUE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION
COST ESTIMATE
Y4
Unit Est. Unit TOTAL
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Measure Quantity Price
"' 1) Pipe
8". R.J.C.P. L.F. 186 8.00 $1,488.00
6" R.J.C.P. L.F. 57 6.00 342.00
2) Wye's/Tees
8' X 6" Ea. 3 45.00 135.00
3) 48" Manhole
(complete w/stub) Ea. 1 950.00 950.00
4) Connection to
Existing MH Ea. 1 250-00 250.00
5) Excavation & Backfill
(0' - 8' )
�j Class "D" Trench L.F. 243 7.00 1,700.00
Class "8" Pipe, Zone L.F. 243 2.00 486.00
t' 6) R. & R. Pavement L.F. 214 6.00 1,284.00
7) Concrete Plugs
6" Ea. 3 20.00 60.00
8" Ea. 1 25.00 25.00
>�. 8) Legal/Admin/Engr/Etc. (25%) - - - 1,680.00
9) Contingency (10%) - - - 840.00
4
r'� ESTIMATED TOTAL: $9,240.00
S.W. 100th AVENUE SANITARY SEWER L. I .D.
OWNERSHIP DATA
T.L. 800 T.M. 251-11BA
Albert D. & M.A. Tominac .36 ac land $18,000 build $30,500
9980 S.W. McDonald
Tigard, OR 97223 0,¢S SDO
T.L. 100 T.M. 251-11BB
Loren B. & Mary T. Tower .52 ac land $18,000 build $35,900
10040 S.W. McDonald St_
Tigard, OR 97223
T.L. 200 T.M. 2S1-I1BB
John J. & Clara M. Plieth .47ac land $18,000 build $32,200
^< l 10100 S.W. McDonald St.
�J Tigard, OR 97223
r SO, 20(f
Y
int nuNUKAbLt NAYUK A�NU l l lY Lutvt LL
'-
� ityof Tigard �F
Wasli ington County
i
State of Oregon
the Matter of the Improvement)
of lands described as : ) #:
[oT ��� T/GAROvi«E /YEIc'jy 's PETITION FOR AND CONSENT
/ TO CREATE A LOCAL
7cy' 1,4e.) IMPROVERENT DISTRICT (LID)
r /a T/Gi�RDvicztr /i�G/C�`�-s )
Petitioners hereby request that the hereinbelow described area be improved
by creation of an assessment district for the express purpose of
c�.ot�,vEc riNG To SELL/E2 L
(1) That the undersigned is in fact the owner(s) or the contract purchaser(s)
of the indicated property(s) .
(2) That the undersigned represent one-half or more of the affected area
as hereinbelow described.
(3) That the cost of this improvement to be borne by the benefited
properties and in respect thereto respectfully show:
That the area proposed to be improved by creation of an assessment district
comprises approximately _ acres , and is legally described
'hereinbelow (or on the attar e sheet marked Exhibit "A" which by reference
herein is made a part hereof) :
Wherefore, petitioners request that=said . lands be improved by creation of
as assessment district and that the City Council of the City of Tigard, Oregon ,
expedite creation of the same as provided by law.
- SIGNATURE ADDRESS MAP Y RECORDING
TAX LOT r NUMBER
SCK S8o
W SON fI- s - O/dO PRGE -71
- i
=` 3
34(
�.sc /oa 79.x1
I 00 2400 2300 35
i
ri A 11 •
•Z;. a n Y � �! q J600
{7.7{
d
r 3700 •
• - 01 a s2e IIaA 'O s 'M sI11r• "'w •. ._.1 v
� \ ��
3700 3800 n11.e7 3000 2E
>
36Ac.
�j 3005 \ .3c
4 6Ac.
3800 46Ac. ,J4 Ac :
o _ �+ •o
O tt 9.87 o v E
3900 3002\
.35Ac
` R.ZO
BOA I s I `
-- I00.82 p..• 1tw
113.0 05.0
Mt . L-_ L3 ST
MI' DONA
a.ca 800 803 804 700
..
35 Ac. s .311 Ac. o.4Z Ac.
5 �': : •�
f UJs _
o m
- ; 's'.. 0
o -
n e11•9 30-w
E' i 118.1{ •• 94
I I
300 30 806 1
s I 19Ac. I 72 Ac- ;
V r,
1)L7{ H 69'•18�OM
400 �0 7.511
805
SrF• a .73 Ac. a
sz I o
1364.-
_ >aI
9.9tcw.
M C9`SL" -
v
Y: —.00— - 1 60 2
_ 500 - _ .� _73 Ac. I ~ 901
/./JAc ;
:4
0 _ 9.4 ac
14
110.09 —
.. 1 e
t
1 801 607
e aac•
56.4c ST Ai. (d:
• t•r".�f ♦.1 r .
RECEIVED
ct o -7igaAd, 0- n - Reno.Luti.on # 83-44 .JUN f" 1983
S.W. /00th Avenue Sani_,ta� Sewe.a. �x;te z4ion L 9 d # 4/ CITY OF TIGARD
7i-AAt pubLiC-lMtil0n Of Re.'v.Luti.orr, 0ary 26, 1983
3o,L ouu,zg _& a. wAA,� en. obyer-;6ivn-Y dated Pune 21 1983 by Lop-en 3owen4 own.e-1 If
Sax Lot # /00.
1. Ordy ,ug iet& o� peLb on, owneAA o� 3ax. Lost # 100 and 3ax Lot # 200 , an./zed
fo,, exker,&i.oa of &ewe% oa S.W. OcDona.Ld St. %emotion u aa. not azgn.ed by anyone
on S.W. 100th Ave.
/ u• csxc LuLle 33c,-..< Lu/ �l 200 ui� !/�uul nn eu�unrur/_ lu ItJ/LI 3UN to/
/wL��.eu ��-_an rw u,
# /00. SaZd ea&ement twuld l.eau-4 cn � �# �� vaLue of Sax Lot # /00
w/ii.Le i_gcnea&i-ag coat Of A00le-uP maw timed oven PA 3ax Lot # 200 , ( a�pnvx.
3 time& to ma Ln Lure ).
3. With a. aJw�eA, .Leda ex,oenitve ex;een&ion on S.W. Mcl)ona-Ld St_ , not 2 but 4
( Aome& could be aeicved. She owneAA of Sax. Lot # 3900 and Sax Lot # 3870 have
indjr ed tlrey uvuLd Lihe to /wofz-up to a. aeweA ezterr&ion on. S.W. Mcvona,Ld St.
4. S44f nepoAt indi.ca,14-e% mcl)onatd St. .Locati.on waa conaiden.ed. Wj"tea corrtenda
con&i.deAab.Le coat to the CLEy ( 11,687.00 ) wuLd be ,Lecove&ed Zf Ma-t ,Loca#.ion
c� u-ed, not ao i f 9 D P UA-
5. At&o ir, tAa;t cane, en-- iJ e coat of L 9 D uouZd be &AwLed by 4 homeowneaA,
not 2.
Loiren 6. 3owelc
10040 S.W. Alcdon-aU St.
Jigaicd, J, 97223
(503) 639-2536
1) 1
S.W. 68th PARKWAY SANITARY SEWER L.I.D. #k 42
�^r
SCOPE:
This:report summarizes staffs' evaluation of the feasibility of constructing a
`' public main-line sanitary sewerage facility running generally north-south along
.S.W: 68th Parkway, from S.W.. Franklin Street to S.W. Atlanta Street, . serving lands
k:' - situated adjacent to 68th Parkway and lands immediately easterly thereof, within '_
the eastern protion of the area commonly known as -the Tigard Triangle.
LID BOUNDARY:
�A
41, The proposed L.I.D. is located in the northeast quarter of Section 1, T2S, RIW, W.M.
and in the Southeast quarter of Section 36, TIS, R1W, W.M. ; see Figure ##l. All tax
,..
lot numbers are from Washington County Assessor's maps. The proposed L.I.D. bound-
K
ary encompasses only those parcels of land which directly benefit by installation of
� the sewerage facility by immediate availability of service to each ownership (the
tr-:`` term "ownership" is more specifically defined under the topic heading "Ownerships") .
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The relationship of the proposed sanitary sewerage improvement and the district
-comprehensive land use plan is shown on figure #2.
Generally, the land slopes downward, laterally, across the project, from East to
West, at an approximate 7% grade in the northerly portion of the project area and at
an approximate 4% grade in the southerly portion of the project area; also, the land
slopes downward longitudinally along the length of the project, from north to south,
at an approximate 3% grade.
Parcels of land within the project area are, for the most part, undeveloped. Older,
a
single family dwellirg units are acattered along S.W. 68th Parkway. Said Parkway is
a sixty foot wide dedicated.pubiic right-of-way and, likewise, is for the most part.,
undeveloped also; through vehicular travel therealong is not possible due' to 68th'p
1"-
alternating unimproved and semi-improved (gravel) segmentation.
r �
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has received bids for construction of
roadway improvements along Atlanta Street and along 68th Parkway as a part of the
>r
I-5 freeway improvements (in the vicinity of Dartmouth Street) . ODOT. predicts
8,000 vehicles per day on 68th Parkway by the year 2000.
'It is obvious that installation of public main line sanitary sewerage: facilities
`2'---.:therealong should be done prior to ODOT°s road installation %,ro_k.
y�?' OWNERSHIPS:
Within the boundary of the proposed sanitary sewerage district, there are 68
separate parcels of land; but, in terms of "ownerships" there are 31 The object
herein being is provision of public sanitary sewerage service to each physically
�•�;;:` isolated ownership and each physically clustered ownership within the district. it
is absolutely necessary to have that service concept clearly understood.
,F-- .Ownerships within and assessed value of the district is shown on Table # 1.
BENEFITS:
:.:
d< ' Within the boundary of the proposed sanitary sewerage district, each ownership is
provided with the opportunity to make a direct connection to the proposed public
sewerage facility and, subsequently, should be considered to have been directly
benefitted and assessable for a fair share portion of the total cost of said facility.
j ( The proposed district boundary is described on the attached Exhibit '°A".)
ASSESSMENT METHOD:
The assessment method proposed to be applied is based on private ownership acreage,
to wit . . .1) Total Project Cost s Total Acreage = Cost per Acre then,
2) Cost per Acre X Individual Tax Lot Acreage = Parcel Assessment.
3F3, (ESTIMATED) COST:
The estimated total cost of the proposed public sewerage facility is S 136,800
Said cost is detailed in Table # 2
(ESTIMATED) ASSESSMENT DISTRIBUTION:
ownership, is illustrated in Table
The°distribution of estimated assessments per 3. {
i
A Such was computed using the aformentioned Estimated Total Cost and the Assessment R
}; Method.
Page 1
OWNERSHIP & ASSESSED VALUATION
TABLE: # 1
TAX VALUATION
LOT # MAP # NAME LAND IMP. I.D. NO.
1: 100 lAA D.J.B., INC. 227,500 - 51
>1
2:' 1400 1AA
39,000 - 53
26,000 100
59
3.° 1301 1AA «
4800 36DD « 4,000 - 44
:
~q q00.• 36DD " 6,000 - 47
4,000 - 46
6t goo 36DD
�;-'5100 36DD " 4,000 45
8. 5800 36DD 14;000 - 48
571.1700 1AA " 129,500 - 50
1200 1AA G.L. Ball 67,600 - 60
5-,700 36DD " 20,000 13,000 49
` 6600 36DD " 18;100 17,000 40
x:;:6500 36DD G. L: Ball & Bank of Calif. 4,000 - 41
n34'.'-2900 1AA Donald E. & Julia Gail Pollock 3,800 - 55
r;
S`15. 1300 36DD " " 6,000 - 7
.56900 36DD « " 4,000 - 39
7 8800 36DD " " 4,000 - 38
i8.' 3300 36DD Donald E. & Doris B. Har*ig 4,000 - 16-18
3301 36DD " " 18,101 28,200 17
'•20: 1400 35DD John E. & Janine M. King 4.000 - 6
`•21. 2600 36DD Boyd D. & Donna Johnson 18,100 29,700 19
22. 3001 36DD Ramona Eileen Alvarez 20,200 47,700 31
X23. 3200 36DD Irving L. & Jennie E. Larson 6,000 - 21
. 24. 3290 36DD " r 18,100 27,300 20
i
:2 ;400 36DD " " 6;000 - 29
si26: 3402 36DD " " 30,200 61,300 22
`1627. 3500 36DD " " 20,200 21,800 30
OWNERSHIP & ASSESSED VALUATION
TABLE # 1
TAX VALUATION
1= MAP # NAME LAND IMP. I.D: NO.
•528:`3700 36DD Irving & Jennie E. Larson 20,200 21,800 23
t.
150x;5360 36DD « « 12,000 - 34=37
X00 36DD « « 20,200 24,200 33
36DD !' « 4,000 - 43
X000 36DD « « 4,800 - 36
3. •3201 36DD State of Oregon - 70
34. 3404 36DD « - - 69
H ;. 5301 36DD « - - 68
67
x=
:5901 36DD -
36DD 35
42
5500 36DD
400 1AA Ford Leasing. Dev. Co. 537,900 524,300 52
+='
T
40 3800 36DD Erhart Steinborn 55,000 69,400 13
41 44100 36DD « 20,700 - 14
2-' 4100 36DD Anne Leiser 6,000 - 26
=43* 200 36DD « 20,200 20,100 2
�.:.
'44. 301 36DD Margaret A. Mattson 2,000 - 81
M .
:45. 400 36DD « 2,000 - 9
500 36DD « 19,200 39,000 10
��47. 6100 36DD Robert S. & Harriett Hogg 30,200 51,500 32
3403 36DD Diane L. Baldwin 4,000 - 28
:49. 3600 36DD Judy Lorraine Strogny 4,000 - 27
50. 3900 36DD John K. & Iia J. Wardin & 20,200 21,200 15
G.F. & Marina E. Wardin t Erhart
L 4000 36DD Lewis J. & Jennie O. Bucholfpteinborn 20,200 34,800 24
•52. 4300 36DD Doris Philip & Louise Tazer 22,200 31,800 25
4 Frederick Cooper
53. 100 36DD Stephen L. St. Clair 18,100 25,800 1
OWNERSHIP & ASSESSED VALUATION
TABLE # 1
TAX VALUATION
LL0T # MAP # NAME LAND IMP I.D. NO.
54. 600 36DD Tigard Water District - - 12
ter_,
55' : 700 36DD Barbara Anderson
20,200 13,400 3
} i00 36DD Lawrence Estes & Dolores Dorthy
Greene 20,200 51,800 5
3T - 1800 36DD Family Baptist Church - - 4
-r:
..58. 801 36DD " - - 11
59. 2000 1AA Marvin F. & JoAnn Winters 3,800 56
x.60:;:. 2100 lAA " 3,800 - 57
,1 2200 1AA 3,8G7 - 58
4.
4500 LAA Roy W. & Ardelle C. Anderson 21,300 28,400 66
5500 1AA John K. Wardin 80,000 - 65
r,:"4800 1AA Bruce H. & Debra H. Bartlett
John F. & Mary A. Wardin 36,00 - 64
5. 5200 1AA " 24,000 - 62
6Gz& 5300 1AA 48,000 - 63
6 ,'•. 1800 LAA Max W. & Marlene A. Landon 21,300 39,500 54
"68. 401 1AA Ronald Dychen 237,700 - 61
r ESTIMATED TOTAL COST
(TABLE NO. 2) s
ITEM UNIT EST. UNITS EST. UNIT PRICE EST. COST
.' ,,. —
�1 1 Clewing & Grubbing L.S. All - $ 2,000 E
L.F. 4600 3.00 13,800
greinch'Excavating
:Base & Pipe zone L.F. 4600 L.F. 2.50 11,500
4LI,400
sTrench, Rack Backfill L.F. 4600 L.F. 9.00
A':>`.
�' `•' 8 Pipe, in place
L.F. 3400 L.F. 7.00 23,800
•. 6) 6" Pipe, in place L.F. 1200 L.F. 6.00 7;200
_.
?�. 48" Precast M.H. w/R&C, in place Ea 10 1,000.00 10,000
}Ln' :Connect @ Exist. M.H. Ea 1 500.00 500
:z::Pavement R & R L.F. 800 L.F. 7.00 5,600
x
-Contingency - - - 3,150
Est. Payment to Contractors . . . . . . . 118,950
SUMMARY (Estimate) :
Payment to Contractors $ 118,950
Engineering 7,800
't Interest on Warrants 2,500
Legal 1,780
Financial 595
Clerical 595
Admin, Advertize, Print., etc. 1,780
t' 2,700z-
Estimated Contingency 2,700 -
Estimated Total Project Cost: $ 136,800
r•
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT DISTRIBUTION
(TABLE NO. 3)
T.L. NO. NAME AC. ESTIMATED• ASSESSMENT
100 11AA) D.J.B. INC. .683: $ 4,498
.339 2,232
X1400 UAA)
.229
'w' ==1301• (lAA) " 1,508
4800 (36DD) " .14 922
4900 (36DD) " -24 1,581
5000 (36DD) .15 988
i. . ��
5100 (36DD) .18 1,185
.45 2 963
5800 (36DD) •
1700 (lAA) .671 $ 4,419
:59- 3,932 2_4 ZZ8'
•�s'' 1200 (lAA)
. sv�Zoz1aL
5700 (36DD) a.u- 1K.Ak 'z3 1,976
6600 (36DD) .207 1,363
SUB. TOTAL: $:
6500 (36DD) G.L. Ball & Bank of Calif. .051 S 336
1900 (lAA) D.E. & J.G. Pollock .115 $ 757
1300 (36DD) 93 •172 1,133
6700 (36DD) " .103 678
x+
6800 (36DD) .103 678
T SUBTOTAL: $ 3"246 _
R•'
Maw—
i
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT DISTRIBUTION
(TABLE NO. 3)
T.L. NO. NAME AC. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT
3300 (36DD) D.E. & D.B. Har_tig .295. S 1,943
3301 (36DD) .160 1,054
�- SUB TOTAL: $ 2,997
.115
!2600
S 757
1400 ' (36DD) J. & J. King
T•
2600 (36DD) B.D. & D. Johnson .344 $ 2,265
._ 3001 (36DD) R.E. Alvarez .295 $ 1,943
3,200 (36DD) I.L. & J.E. Larson• .224 $ 1,475
3290 (36DD) " .115 757
t 3400 (36DD) .229 1,508
-3402 (36DD)
" .682 4,491=
3500 (36DD) " .209 1,376
3700 (36DD)
" .231 1,521
r^ 5300 (36DD) " .436 2,871
5400 (36DD) " .204 1,343
5900 (36DD) .029 191
6000 (360D) " .172 1,133
SUB TOTAL: $ 16,666
3201 (36DD) State of Oregon .006 $ 40
3404 (36DD) " .006 40
5301 (36DD) " .023 151
5901 (36DD) .200 1,317
5200 (36DD) °' .229 1,508
r
Mm
5500 (36DD) " .172 1,133
SUB TOTAL:$ •4,189
Page .3
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT DISTRIBUTION
(TABLE NO. 3)
T.L. NO. NAME AC. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT
r. 400 (1AA) Ford Leasing 2.95 $ 19,428
'r
.3800 (36DD) E. Steinborn .287 $ 1;890
400 (36DD) .229 1,508
4 '
u -•-��:�:;. SUB TOTAL: $ 3,398
�+ = '�'w`4100 (36DD) A. Leiser .365 $ 2,404
200 (36DD) " .325 2,140=
SUB TOTAL: $ 4,544
r` . 301 (36DD) M. A. Mattson .057 $ 375
400 (36DD) .057 375
500 (36DD) .229 1,508
°$ SUB TOTAL: $ 2,2.58
•: 6100 (36DD) R.S. & H. Hogg .203 1,337
3403 (36DD) D.L. Baldwin .115 757
i i-• -
3600 (36DD) J.L. Strojny .115 757
+ 3900 (36DD) J.K. & I.J. Wardin &
Erhart Steinbornrdin .172 1,133
4000 (36DD) L.J. & J.O. Buchols .287 1,890
q 4300 (36DD) D., P. & L. Tazer .344 2,265
Frederick Cooper
100 (36DD) S.L. St. Clair .365 2,404
600 (36DD) Tigard Water District .344 24265
r
94••-4
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT DISTRIBUTION
(TABLE NO. 3)
` T.L. NO. NAME AC. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT
(36DD) J.A. & M.M. Martin by
�. .i,
V.B. Stevens .296 S 1,949
900 (36DD) L.- Estes & D.D. Greene .335 2: 206
` 800 : (36DD) Family Baptist Church .743 $ 4,893
801 (36DD) .265 1,745
SUB' TOTAL: S 6,638
200 (lAA) M.F. & J. Winters .172 $ 1,133
:. :2100 (1AA) .115 757
:.`. 2200 (lAA) .229 1,508
SUB Tr}'rAT,, $ 3,398
"Y 'i,,%4500 UAA) R.W. & A.C. Anderson .172 1,133
5500 (lAA) J.K. Wardin .459 3,023
4800 (lAA) B.H. & D_A.• Bartlett &
' x J.F. & N.A. Wardin .115 $ 757
5200 (1AA) °' .229 1,508
rF
5300 (lAA) .459 3,023
SUB TOTAL: S 5,288
rs;,
1800 (lAA) M.N. & M.A. Landon .384 2,530
401 (1AA) R. Dyches
Century 21 Homes Inc. 1.25 8,233
TOTALS: 20.773 Ac. S 136,800
fir'"
sm
vf
�
,
'�•
SAL
�• \\\? sw w 'tt s v
fTL'ax
warty a s+ '�___r.
all,
sjx
A
! ara°eq
t.. Lwwo fL x .� • fs� -
SAL
Lew f tar.
� °•� ) �� i �� dew j..J !��;.
a� NCaOBi7 ) Q B ;O �� Ufa 7.0
K .•.
���" r e w ►yam 4 o' ) �. : i ' ]
P.sa
0.�•1 a !
t!.r
��,:. • ^- f� nom..
9r. IL
st
sr. Vii" rn ase. .--.
IS.. cowwom ST.
.
ua
a a, afw tt. �►� to f• g �' `• :.
SDR_ MaCKIM
^ 1`
� pq
A
fA awTiKV
aaw�
_ s t
f.t wKt fE n tom. ii waa,)j:'`.
IR
g' wZTO
J� tar wafoaar i ° + • foff ft I f/�� *f•'�.:
ri - e '�` Jl1V t �s � •
� .LCBY6d�° s.am+y r D V
Ferre� o� C � ®•�,� y )j 3 )
N
1 L RLi
1 Ak'
moons
�( Perim ' /
- ..� — ,
+ILif[a � i'r Y
r , fit map �. a.. �� >• r
sa.
RWF
=r[J� �w g k^ •�•c% T c�!tet ti _
row,ftp It�ii ' c
fin
pp -1 Mp7w .7
AMA
41
r-e"s, V1 TOM
>Ty i EWE Of 'i
�TbA
�r -„/Ir � •.. 'e�..±� � �.�raa► •e, it Vic.. Wp ��i 1
� it ���..�.y7� � :�. '��' � �a; ?:F7� s .��v•���C'®-�� ~ S r� r
yam} • yr - all
KIM
{ � �i ,�r� � v �4;C?7�• fa5' �'- ,�' �rr.�.r. iso �-'�j�r.'� � � 8 �_ �`�
era
'•bey"'.i
as
ix
'S✓ ..f may{ .. � �� ':,a p,� �`Y�..
� •�� �`:Ys�,� ® - �l .o'er �� �� :�� �� "'�r�•1't _
p t
Ji 'r
2
J
k
_
i
G O�
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: June 26, 1983 AGENDA ITEM #:
DATE SUBMITTED: June 23, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: Mayor signed
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Urban Planning agreement.
Area Agreement (UPAA) REQUESTED BY: Dept. of Planning &__
Development
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
-- --------------------------------------- ----------
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This is an ordinance adopting the City/County Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA)
as an implementing process for the City of Tigard`s comprehensive pian. The
agreement has already been reviewed by the Council and signed by the Mayor.
r
• -------===ecce
aassa=sasaaaaaaaaza$zasaaa¢ssaasss=casasaoa=x===c=====---
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
-- - ---------- --------- -------
aseaaaaxsca=xssasscaxxa
SUGGESTED ACTION
The Department of Planning and Development recommends adoption of this ordinance.
�p
WASHINGTON COUNTY - TIGARD O ��
URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 19
by WASHINGTON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State, of Oregon,
hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and CITY OF TIGARD, avt incorporated
municipality of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as.,, he "CITY."
WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local governmepts may enter into
agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a
party to the agreement, its officers or agents, have authority to perform; and
WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goal *2 (Land Use Planning) requires that City,
County, State and Federal agency and special district.`plans and actions shall
be consistent with the comprehensive plans of the -cities and counties and
regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 1 and
WHEREAS, the Oregon Land Conservation and elent Commission requires each
jurisdiction requesting acknowledgment ofnce to submit an agreement
setting forth the means by which land uienation in the unincorporated
areas within the Regional Urban Growth Bou dart' will be implemented; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY, o ensure coordinated and consistent
comprehensive plans, consider it m�tual y advantageous to establish:
1. A site-specific Urban P1nning;/Area within the Regional Urban Growth
Boundary within which th the COUNTY and the CITY maintain an
interest in comprehensi planning;
2. Policies regarding comprehensive planning and development in the
Urban Planning Area;
I
3. A process for coordinating comprehensive planning and development in
the Urban Planning Arew; and
J
4. A process for amendin� the Urban Planning Area Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNTY AND/THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. Location of the Urbanl'Planning Area
The Urban Planning° Area mutually defined by the COUNTY and the CITY
includes the area designated on Exhibit "A" to this agreement.
II. Comprehensive Planning and Development. Policies
A. Active Planning Area
1. Definition
Active Planning Area means the incorporated area and certain
unincorporated areas contiguous to the incorporated area for
which the CITY conducts comprehensive planning and seeks to
regulate development activities to the greatest extent
possible. The CITY Active Planning Area within the Urban
Planning Area is designated as Area A on Exhibit "A".
2. The CITY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning within
the Active Planning Area.
3. The CITY shall be responsible for coordinating and planning for
the provision of urban services in the Active Planning Area.
4. The COUNTY shall not approve land divisions within the Active
Planning Area which would create lots less than 10 acres in
size, unless public sewer and water service are available to the
property.
S. The COUNTY shall not approve a development proposal in the
Active Planning Area if the proposal would not provide for, nor
be conditioned to provide for, an enforceable plan for
redevelopment to urban densities consistent with CITY•s
Comprehensive Plan in the future upon annexation to the CITY as
indicated by the CITY Comprehensive Plan.
6. Approval of the development actions in the Active Planning Area
shall be contingent upon provision of adequate urban services
including sewer, water, storm drainage, streets, and police and
fire protection.
7. The COUNTY shall not oppose annexation to the CIT) within the
CITY's Active Planning Area.
B. Area of Interest
1. Definition
Area of Interest or Primary Arca of Interest means
unincorporated lards contiguous to the Active Planning Area in
which the CITY does not conduct comprehensive planning but in
which the CITY does riaintain an interest in comprehensive
planning and development actions by the COUNTY because of
potential impacts on the CITY Active Planning Area. The CITY
Area of Interest within the Urban Planning Area is designated as
Area B on Exhibit "A."
2. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning and
development actions within the Area of Interest.
3. The COUNTY shall be responsible for coordinating and planning
for the provision of urban services in the Area of Interest.
-2-
4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of
Interest subject to the following:
a. The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in the Area
of Interest as a condition to the provision of urban
services for development.
b. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall
not create islands unless the CITY declares its intent to
complete the island annexation. .
C. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other
representative means for annexation in the Hetzger/Progress
Community Planning Area, which includes Washington Square,
within the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary to the
foregoing, the City reserves all of its rights to annex and
acknowledges the rights of individual property owners to
annex to the City pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes.
d. Upon annexation of land within the area of Interest to the
CITY, the CITY agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to
CITY plan designations which most closely approximate the
density, use provisions and standards of COUNTY
designations. Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this
designation for one year after the effective date of
annexation unless both the CITY and COUNTY Planning
Directors agree at the time of annexation that the COUNTY
designation is outdated and should be amended before the one
year period is over.
e. Should any land within the Area of Interest be annexed to
the CITY, the area shall continue to be considered as part
of the COUNTY Urban Planning Area for the purpose of
calculating county-wide new dwelling unit mix and density as
required by OAR 660-07-030 and 660-07-035. This provision
shall apply until the CITY and COUNTY plans have been
acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission.
C. General Policies
1. The CITY and COUNTY are in disagreement on at least two major
transportation issues: (1) the classification and use of Durham
Road between Pacific Highway and the Interstate 5 freeway; and
(2) the need and location of the extension of Hurray Boulevard
to Pacific Highway. Despite this disagreement, the parties have
agreed to a process for resolution of their conflicts and agree
not to preclude potential transportation options or road system
improvements proposed in their respective comprehensive plans,
notwithstanding their disagreement.
-3-
2. The CITY shall. include all right-o€-way within and adjacent to
property in current and future annexation proposals. In
addition, the CITY and the COUNTY shall reach agreement upon a
schedule and process for the surrender of jurisdiction of those
COUNTY roads currently within the city limits and those COUNTY
roads that may be included in future annexations to the CITY if
the COUNTY determines these roads are not necessary as part of
the COUNTY road system. Such an agreement shall be reached
within 60 days of the effective date of this Agreement.
3. Annexations to the CITY outside the Urban Planning Area will not
be supported by the COUNTY or the CITY.
III. Coordination of Comprehensive Planning and Development
A. Amendments to or Adoption of a Comprehensive Plan or Implementing
Regulation
1, Definitions
Comprehensive Plan, as defined by OAR 660-18-010(5) , means a
generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of
the governing body of a local government that interrelates all
functional and natural systems and activities relating to the
use of lands, including, but not limited to, sewer and water
systems, transportation systems, educational facilities,
recreational facilities, and natural resources and air and water
{ quality management programs.
Implementing Regulation means any local government zoning
ordinance, land division ordinance adopted under ORS 92.044 or
92.045 or similar general ordinance establishing standards for
implementing a comprehensive plan.
2. Except as provided in subsection (B) below, the COUNTY shall
provide the CITY with the appropriate opportunity to
participate, review and comment on proposed amendments to or
adoption of the COUNTY comprehensive plan or implementing
regulations. The CITY shall provide the COUNTY with the
appropriate opportunity to participate, review and comment on
proposed amendments to or adoption of the City comprehensive
plan or implementing regulations. The following procedures
shall be followed by the COUNTY and the CITY to notify and
involve one another in the process to amend or adopt a
comprehensive plan or implementing regulation:
a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the
proposal, hereinafter the originating agency, shall notify
the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, of the
proposed action at the time such planning efforts are
initiated, but in no case less than 45 days prior to the
final hearing on adoption. The specific method and level of
involvement shall be finalized by "memorandums of
-4-
c
a
Understanding" negotiated and signed by the planning
directors of the CITY and the COUNTY. The "Memorandums of
Understanding" shall clearly outline the process by which
the responding agency shall participate in the adoption
process. If, at the time of being notified of a proposed
action, the responding agency determines it does not need to
participate in the adoption process, it may waive the
requirement to negotiate and sign a "Memorandum of a
Understanding."
b. The originating agency shall transmit draft recommendations
on any proposed actions to the responding agency for its
review and comment before finalizing. Unless otherwise
agreed to in a "Memorandum of Understanding," the responding
agency shall have ten (10) days after receipt of a draft to
submit comments orally or in writing. Lack of response
shall be considered "no objection" to the draft.
C. The originating agency shall respond to the comments made by
the responding agency either by a) revising the final
recommendations, or b) by letter to the responding agency z
explaining why the comments cannot be addressed in the final
i
draft.
d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given
consideration as a part of the public record an the proposed
action. If after such consideration, the originating agency �
acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the
responding agency may seek review of the action through the
appropriate body and procedures.
e. Upon final adoption of the proposed action by the
originating agency, it shall transmit the adopting ordinance
to the responding agency as soon as publicly available, or
if not adopted by ordinance, whatever other written
documentation is available to properly inform the responding
agency of the final actions taken.
B. Development Actions Requiring Individual Notice to Property Owners
1. Definition
Development Action Requiring Notice means an action by a local
government which requires notifying by mail the owners of
property which could potentially be affected (usually specified
as a distance measured in feet) by a proposed development action
which directly affects and is applied to a specific parcel or
parcels. Such development actions may include, but not be
limited to small tract zoning or comprehensive plan map
amendments, conditional or special use permits, individual
subdivisions, partitionings or planned developments, variances,
and other similar actions requiring a hearings process which is
(� quasi-judicial in nature.
2. The COUNTY will provide the CITY with the opportunity to review
and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice
within the designated Urban Planning Area. The CITY will
provide the COUNTY with the opportunity to review and comment on
proposed development actions requiring notice within the CITY
limits that may have an affect on unincorporated portions of the
designated Urban Planning Area.
3. The following procedures shall be followed by the COUNTY and the
CITY to notify one another of impending development actions:
a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the
proposal, hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by
first class mail a copy of the public hearing notice which
identifies the proposed development action to the other
agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest
opportunity, but no less than ten (10) days prior to the
date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the
responding agency to receive a notice shall not invalidate
an action if a good faith attempt was made by the
originating agency to notify the responding agency.
b. The agency receiving the notice may respond at its
discretion. Comments may be submitted in written form or an
oral response may be made at the public hearing. Lack of
written or oral response shall be considered "no objection"
to the proposal.
C. The originating agency shall include or attach the comments
to the written staff report or supplemental thereto, and
respond to any concerns addressed by the responding agency
in such report or orally at the hearing.
d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given
consideration as a part of the public reco-d on the proposed
action. if, after such consideration, the originating
agency acts contrary to the position of the responding
agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action
through the appropriate appeals body and procedures.
C. Additional Coordination Requirements
1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall do the following to notify one
another of proposed actions which may affect the community, but
are not subject to the notification and participation
requirements contained in subsections A and B above:
a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the
proposed actions, hereinafter the originating agency, shall
send by first class mail a copy of all public hearing
agendas which contain the proposed actions to the other
agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest
opportunity, but no less than three (3) days prior to the
date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the
responding agency to receive an agenda shall not invalidate
an action if a good faith attempt was made by the
originating agency to notify the responding agency.
-6-
b. The agency receiving the public hearing agenda may respond
at its discretion. Comments may be submitted in written
form or an oral response may be made at the public hearing.
C. Comments from the responding agency shall be given
consideration as a part of the public record on the proposed
action. If the originating agency acts contrary to the
position of the responding agency, the responding agency may
seek review of the action throLgh the appropriate body and
procedures.
IV. Special Policies
A. The CITY and the COUNTY shall provide information of comprehensive
planning and development actions to their respective recognized
community Planning Organizations (CPO) through the notice procedures
outlined in Section III of this Agreement.
B. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to (1)
amend the COUNTY comprehensive plan, (2) adopt a new plan, or (3)
amend the text of the COUNTY development code shall be mailed to the
CITY within five (5) days after its introduction.
C. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to rezone
land within one (1) mile of the corporate limits of the CITY shall
be mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction.
t.. V. Amendments to the Urban PlanningArea A_�reement
dures
be followed by the CITY and the
A. The COUNTY toowamend ing pthe elanguage of l this agreement or the Urban Planning
Area Boundary:
1. The CITY or COUNTY, whichever jurisdiction originates the
proposal, shall submit a formal request for amendment to the
responding agency.
2. The formal request shall contain the following:
a. A statement describing the amendment.
b. A statement of findings indicating why the proposed
amendment is necessary.
C. if the request is to Amend the planning area boundary, a map
which clearly indicates the proposed change and surrounding
area.
3. Upon receipt of a request for amendment from the originating
agency, the responding agency shall schedule a review of the
request before the appropriate reviewing body, with said review
to be held within 45 days of the date the request is received.
C
_
-7-
-
4. The CITY and the COUNTY shall make good faith efforts to resolve
requests to amend this agreement. Upon completion of the
review, the reviewing body may approve the request, deny the
request, or make a determination that the proposed amendment
warrants additional review. If it is determined that additional
review is necessary, the following procedures shall be followed
by the CITY and COUNTY:
a. If consistencies noted by both parties cannot be resolved in
the review process as outlined in Section IV(3) , the CITY
and the COUNTY may agree to initiate a joint study. Such a
study shall commence within 30 days of the date it is
determined that a proposed amendment creates an
inconsistency, and shall be completed within 30 days of said
date. Methodologies and procedures regulating the conduct
of the joint study shall be mutually agreed upon by the CITY
and the COUNTY prior to commencing the study.
b. Upon completion of the joint study, the study and the
recommendations drawn from it shall be included within the
record of review. The agency considering the proposed
amendment shall give careful consideration to the study
prior to making a final decision.
B. The parties will jointly review this Agreement every two (2) years,
or more frequently if mutually needed, to evaluate the effectiveness
of the processes set forth herein and to make any necessary
` amendments. The review process shall commence two (2) years from
the date of execution and shall be completed within 60 days. Both
parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any
inconsistencies that may have developed since the previous review.
If, after completion of the 60 day review period inconsistencies
still remain, either party may terminate this Agreement.
VI. Effective Date
This Agreement shall be effective until January 1, 1984. During this
period, the parties shall resolve the following issues now outstanding between
them:
1. Adoption by the CITY and COUNTY of a single comprehensive plan
for the CITY and its Active Planning Area; and
2. Adoption of development standards for streets and storm drainage
facilities consistent with and adequate to carry out CITY=s
Plan; and
3. Adoption of the attached Agreement, Exhibit "A by the Board of
Directors of the Unified sewerage Agency of Washington County.
4. Resolution of outstanding transportation issues between the
parties, including:
-8-
a. consistent street classification standards;
b. the status of Durham Road; and
C. the need and location of the Hurray Boulevard Extension from
Scholls Ferry Road to Highway 99W.
Until resolution of these transportation issues, the parties
shall take no action to preclude alternative solutions to those
issues.
As of January 1, 1984, this Agreement shall lapse and the agreement currently
in effect between the parties shall revive, unless:
1. The parties resolve the issues set forth above; and
2. The parties extend the time in which to reach agreement.
This Agreement commences on , 19
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Urban Planning Area
Agreement on the date set opposite their signatures.
CITY OF TIGARD
� Date —'e, <� e� /3 J9 83
Mayor
WASHINGTON COUNTY
By Date
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
Date
Recording Secretary
(0595A)
-9-
r
ji
-------------
t L
LM
-V
ui
w
m
LU
C:1
z
z
4c
Z z
-cc
LU LLI
Q
x CD < 4c co
uj 93 CD CD Lu
cr
LU
F—
z
Ix LL
k6- 0
z a LU
U1
11w
AC -cc
cr-
K
i
6/9/83
UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY, WASHINGTON
COUNTY AND CITY OF TIGARD AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ,
1983, by and between the UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY; a
County Service District formed under ORS Chapter 451, hereinafter called
"AGENCY" and the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation of the State of
Oregon, hereinafter called "CITY".
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local governments may enter into
agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a
party to the agreement, its officers or agents, have the authority to perform;
and
WHEREAS, State-wide Planning Goal No. 2 (Land Use Planning) requires that
city, county, state and federal agency and special district plans and actions
be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities and counties; and
WHEREAS, ORS 197.185 provides a method for coordination of programs affecting
land use of special districts ; and
WHEREAS, the parties are amenable to entering into an agreement under the
terms and conditions set forth herein;
_ NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows:
1. AGENCY shall undertake its actions within CITY limits and CITY's
Active Planning Area in accordance with CITY's Comprehensive Plan.
2. AGENCY shall prohibit the connection of new development within CITY's
Active Planning Area to its sewer system facilities unless CITY gives
prior written approval.
3. CITY will cooperate with AGENCY in its functions of providing
sanitary sewer facilities.
4. This Agreement shall continue until the parties mutually agree to
terminate this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement on the date set
under their signatures.
CITY OF TIGARD BOARD OF DIRECTORS, UNIFIED SEWERAGE
AGENCY, WASHINGTON COUNTY
By__�_L�C��to -i. 0 � i r say BY
Mayor Chairman
! Attest 6e* '
City Recorder Recording Secretary
Date �u`-�4�-- J3-, Iq 3 Date
(0596A)
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: June 27. 1983
AGENDA ITEM
DATE SUBMITTED: June 22. 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Alarm
Ordinance Amendment REQUESTED BY: Chief Adams
� � CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
1. The proposed amendment will raise revoked alarm user permit fees to aid
in recovering the cost of false alarm response time of the Police department.
2. The language amendment in Section 2, subsection (b)(7) , clarifies the City's
position on the administration of revoked user permits. There ,is an
interpretation problem in this section of the existing ordinance.
f
(See attached memorandum)
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
a
SUGGESTED ACTION
`� Recommend approval of ordinance amendment as submitted.
MEMORANDUM
t
May 23, 1983
TO: City Administrator/City Council
FROM: Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment
RE: City Council Meeting of June 27, 1983
Sir:
The following ordinance amendment regulating the use of alarm systems
is provided for your review and City Council consideration.
The amendments are housekeeping in nature, relating to revoked user
permit fees to cover response time costs, and to clarify the city's
position on the administration of revoked user permits.
1. Ordinance Amendment: An ordinance regulating the use of alarm
systems.
This amendment will raise the revoked fees in Section 4: Alarm User
Permits Required, Sub. Sec. (b)
First revoked fee from $40 to $60
Second revoked fee from $100 to $120
The third and each additional revoked fee remains the same, at $180
Amends Sub. Sec. (e) (3) Special Alarm Users Permit, raises fee
from $25 to $60
A language charge is proposed in Section 7: False Alarms.
Permit Revocation Sub. Sec. (7) . The last sentence is amended as
follows:
Delete the words: four (4) false alarms in the permit year. Added
new language to this sentence: a false alarm after issuance of a
revoked user's permit has provided in this paragraph.
The amended Sub. Sec. 7 will read as follows:
(7) An alarm user whose permit has been revoked may apply for a permit
as provided in Section 4 (b) . The Chief of Police shall not be
required to issue a permit to one whose previous permit has been
revoked unless he is satisfied that the user's system has been properly
serviced and its deficiencies corrected. The Chief of Police may impose
reasonable restrictions and conditions upon a permit issued to one whose
previous permit has been revoked. Such restrictions and conditions
shall be written on the permit and shall provide for summary revocation
on the occurrence of a false alarm after issuance of a revoked user's
permit as provided in this paragraph.
This amendment is required to clarify an interpretation problem of the
former language. The former language tended to infer that the alarm
user was entitled to four (4) additional false alarms that were allowed
on each stage of the revoked user's permit process, and there are three
specific levels as identified in Section 4, Sub. Sec. (b) of this ordinance.
If the former language is binding, it is my opinion that the ordinance
will not solve the false alarm problem, nor will it be cost effective. As
an example, the police department's hourly operational cost under the
control budget is $121. It takes approximately one half hour of the
deDartment's time to clear an alarm call. If an alarm user went through
the three levels of the revoked user's permit process in the permit year,
we would have responded to 13 false alarms at a cost of $786. The fees
generated would be $385 and loss of six and one-half hours (6-1/2 hours)
of patrol time that may have been needed for other emergencies to Tigard
citizens.
The amendment to Sub. Sec. 7 would allow for 7 false alarms at the third
stage of the revoked user's permit. Our response cost would be $425, and
the fees generated would be $385. Therefore, the amendment would almost
put us at a break even stage, and the alarm user should have their system
in order and personnel trained to operate the system, or face termination
of the permit.
To clean up the language problem in this section is vital to the management
of the alarm ordinance.
Recommend that this amendment be approved.
There may be people from the alarm, industry to talk in opposition to this
amendment.
Respectfully,
R.B. Adams
Chief of Police
June 9, 1983
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Department of Planning and DevelopmentzAK
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA-1-83 Sensitive Lands
Since the adoption of the Floodplain Policies within the Comprehensive Plan,
it has been necessary to revise the Sensitive Lands chapter of the Zoning
Ordinance. Staff has included a revised Sensitive Lands chapter in the draft
Tigard Community Development Code. The revised chapter is also attached to
this memo.
This issue was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their June 7, 1983
meeting. At that time it was suggested they choose one of two options when
reviewing the draft Sensitive Lands chapter: 1) Review it separately from the
remaining portions of the draft Tigard Community Development Code, or 2)
Review it in conjunction with the entire draft Tigard Community Development
Code since the Sensitive Lands chapter references other chapters of the draft
Code, and since the timing on both issues if reviewed separately will probably
occur at the same time.
The Planning Commission decided on the latter option and also requested that
Planning Commission and City Council set up a joint study session to
cooperatively review the issues related to Sensitive Lands. If the City
Council believes that a joint study session with the Planning Commission is
appropriate, staff will schedule Monday, June 27, 1983 for the study session.
Requested Action.
1. The City Council should determine how the Sensitive Lands issue should be
reviewed and whether it is appropriate to conduct a joint study session
with the Planning Commission on this matter.
(0458A)
18.84 SENSITIVE LANDS
18.84.010 Purpose
A. Sensitive Lands are lands potentially unsuitable for development
because of location within 100-year floodplain, within natural
drainageway, on steep slopes or on unstable ground.
B. Sensitive land areas are designated as such to protect the
public health, safety and welfare of the community through the
regulation of these sensitive land areas. }
C. The regulations of this Chapter are intended to implement the
Comprehensive Plan and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
flood insurance program, and help to preserve natural sensitive
land areas from encroaching uses and to maintain the September
1981 zero-foot rise floodway elevation.
D. City actions under this Chapter will recognize the rights o
F
reparian owners to be free to act on the part of the City, its
commissions, representatives and agents, and land owners and
occupiers. T
18 84 015 Applicability of Uses - Permitted, Prohibited and Nonconforming
a
A. Except as provided by subsection (B), the following uses shall
be outright permitted with sensitive land areas:
1. Accessory uses such as lawns, gardens or play areas; r
2. Agricultural uses conducted without locating a structure
within the sensitive land area;
s
4
3. Community recreation uses such as bicycle and pedestrian
paths or athletic fields or parks, excluding structures;
4. Public and private conservation areas for water, soil, open
space, forest and wildlife resources;
5. Removal of poison oak, tansy ragwort, blackberry or other
noxious vegetation;
6. Maintenance of floodway, excluding rechanneling; and
7. Fences, excluding floodplain area.
B. The following uses and activities are permitted only by a
Sensitive Lands permit granted by the Hearings Officer except
(3)(a) and (b):
1. Land form alteration or development within the I ^0-year
floodplain;
2. Land form alteration or development on slopes of 25% or
greater and unstable ground;
IV-28 _
t 3. Land form alteration or development within a drainageway k
r round water flow, unless:
where there is yea
a. The drainageway is proposed to be incorporated into a .
public facility of adequate size to accommodate
maximum water flow in accordance with the adopted 1981
Master Drainage Plan; or
b. The land is not proposed to be partitioned, subdivided
or developed.
4. The provisions in subsection 3 (a) and 3 (b) may be
approved by the Director.
C. Except as explicitly authorized by other provisions of this
chapter, all other uses are prohibited on sensitive land areas.
D. A use established prior to the adoption of this Code, which
would be prohibited by this chapter or which would be subject to
mpsed byshall be
the limitations and controls lbeo ubject ttos theapter provisions of
considered nonconforming,
chapter 18.132 of this Code. a:
18.84.020 Administration and ApprovaL ApprovalProcess
A. The applicant for a Sensitive Lands permit shall be the recorded
owner of the property or an agent authorized in writing by the
owner.
B. A Pre-Application conference with City staff is required. See
Section 18.32.030.
C, Due to possible changes in State statutes, or regional or local
policy, information given by staff to the applicant during the
alid for not more than 6 months.
Pre-Application Conference is v
1. Another Pre-Application Conference is required if any
variance application is submitted 6 months after the
Pre-Application Conference.
2. Failure of the Director to Provide any of the information
required by this chapter shall not constitute awaiver
of
the standard, criteria or requirements of the applications.
The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions or
D. permit as set forth in
deny an application for a Sensitive Lands
Section 18.84.015 (B)(1)(2)(3), excluding subsections (3)(a) and
(3)(b).
E. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an
application for a Sensitive Lands permit as set forth in
( Sections 18.84.015 (B)(3)(a) and (b).
IV-29
fi
L
Director shall apply the standards
the Hearings Officer and the ter when reviewing an
F. Section 18.84-040 of this Chap
set forth in
Sensitive Lands permit.
application for a be appealed
s Officer or Director may
The decision of the Hearing l8.32.260(B) -
G.
in accordance with Section the Council if
request a review before rove
The applicant may s Officer is to deny or to app
1• Hearing
the action of the
3.
with conditions. the Commission 2
before t
2• The applicant may request a hearing or approve with
if the action of the Director is to deny
conditions. interests are
Of persons whose '
3• �y person or group appeal the decision
adversely affected by this action may
Hearings Officer's
if the action °f with conditions the
to the council or approve
decision is to approve
application. are
4• y persons or groups of persons
whose interests
this action may appeal the decision z
affected by of the D-rector's decision
adversely r
to the Commission if the acticonditions•
is to approve or approve with `
sensitive lands proposal
mail notice of any have the right to
F. The Director shall persons who may with
decision to the following he Comm'
in accordance
request a hearing before 2
Section 18.32-280• feet (100 feet if r
1- All property
owners of record within to Oerty which is the
approved by the Director) of the p P
lication; and
subject of the app Neighborhood
official recognized z:
Chairperson of an which is the subject �
2• The Chairp • if the property the
Or anization, or partially within
Planning g
of the application Lies wholly r is adjacent thereto.
anization
boundaries of such org ,
Aroval - Standards of
Extension of Time
18.84.030 Ex iration of
it shall be void after one
Approval of a Sensitive Lands Perm vt
A.
year unless: approved plan has begun
construction of the
1, Substantial eriod; or
within one year P
on the site
is a departure from the approved
2. Construction
plan. b
the �
written request xtension of
The Hearings Officer shall, upon rant an 9
B. of the required fee, g
applicant and payment rovided that:
the approval period not to exceed six months P
Iv-30
�( 1. No changes are made on the original variance plan as
approved by the Director;
2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction of
the site within the six-month extension period; and
3. There have been no changes in the applicable policies and
ordinance provisions on which the approval was based.
18 84 040 Approval Standards
A. The Hearings Officer shall make findings on the following
criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an
application request within the 100-year floodplain:
1. Land form alterations which preserve or enhance the
function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway
shall not result in any narrowing of the floodway boundary.
2. The land form alteration or development within the 100-year
floodplain is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map:
Land Use as either Commercial or Industrial;
3. The land form alteration or development is reasonable and
necessary to achieve better economic use of the site;
4. The land form alteration or development is not located
within the floodway;
5. The land form alteration or development will not result in
any increase in the elevation of . the zero-foot rise
floodway;
6. The remaining undeveloped land within the greenway as of
September 1, 1981 is intended to be dedicated to the City
for flood control and greenway purposes;
7. The land form alteration or development plan includes a
pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted
pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan;
8. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that
no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual
flood.
9. The applicant will deposit in the City's applicable
account, adequate cash to cover the construction of the
pedestrian/bicycle pathway if such pathway will not be
constructed directly after the time wher. the land form
alteration or development is completed as determined at
site design review.
B. The Hearings Officer shall make findings on the following
criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an
application request for a Sensitive Lands permit on slopes of
25% or greater or unstable ground:
IV-31
r
The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration
or development will not create site disturbances to an
extent greater than that required for the uses ;
2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not
result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground stability,
or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to
life or property.
3. Appropriate siting and design safeguards shall ensure
structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and
crawl space areas for development with any of the following
soil conditions: Wet/high water table; high shrink-swell
capability; compressible/organic; and shallow
depth-to-bedrock; and
4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form
alteration or development , the areas not covered by
structures or impervious surfaces shall be replanted to
prevent erosion in accordance with Section 18.106
(LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING).
C. The Hearings Officer shall make findings on the following
criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an
application request for a Sensitive Lands permit within
drainageways:
1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration
or development will not create site disturbances to the
extent greater than that required for the uses;
2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not
result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground stability
or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to
life or property;
3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not
decreased; and
4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form
alteration or the development, the areas not covered by
structures or impervious surfaces shall be replanted to
prevent erosion in accordance with Section 18.106
(LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING).
D. The Director shall :Hake findings on the following criteria when
approving, approving with conditions or denying an application
request for a Sensitive Lands permit within drainageways.
1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration
will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than
that required for the uses;
IV-32
2. The proposed land form alteration will not result in
erosion, stream sedimentation, ground stability or other
adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or
property;
3. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of
adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance
with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan; and
4. The land involved on which the land form alteration is to
take place will not be partitioned , subdivided or
developed as a part of this application request.
18 84.050 Application Submission Requirements
A. All applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director
and shall be accompanied by:
1. five copies of the Sensitive Lands permit proposal and
necessary data or narrative which explains how the proposal
conforms to the standards, and
a. The site plan(s) and required drawings shall be on
sheets not exceeding 18" x 24"; and
b. The scale for the site plan(s) shall be 20, 50 or 100
feet to the inch.
C. All drawings or structure elevations or floor plans
shall be a standard architectural scale, being 1/4" or
1/8" to the foot.
2. Names and addresses of all persons who are property owners
of record within 250 feet of the site.
3. The required fee.
B. The required information may be combined on one map.
C. The site plan(s), data and narrative shall include the following:
1. An existing site conditions analysis, Section 18.84.070;
2. A site plan, Section 18.84.080;
3. A grading plan, Section 18.84.090;
4. A landscape plan, Section 18.84. 100;
5. Architectural elevations of all structures Section
18.84.110;
6. A sign plan, Section 18.84.120;
7. A copy of all existing and proposed restrictions or
covenants, or prior approval by the City or County.
IV-33
E
3
. k
i 18.84.060 Additional Information Re uired and Waiver of Requirements
x
t
A. the Director may require information in addition to that
required by this chapter in accordance with Section 18.32.055
(A) .
B. The Director may waive a specific requirement for information in
accordance with Section 17.32.055 (B) and (C) .
18.84.070
Site conditions
A. The site analysis drawings shall include:
f
showin streets and access points,
1, A vicinity map g
pedestrian and bicycle pathways, and utility locations ;
ki
4
2. The site size and its dimensions;
3. Contour lines at 2-foot intervals for grades 0-10%C and
5-foot intervals for grades over 10 percent;
4. The location of drainage patterns and drainage courses;
5. The location of natural hazard areas including:
a. Floodplains areas (100-year floodplain and floodway) ;
b. Slopes in excess of 25%;
C. Unstable ground (areas subject to slumping, earth
slides or movement) ;
high
d. inches having
the asurface seasonal
three aorrmore table within
Areas weeks of the
year;
e. Areas having a severe soil erosion potential; or as
defined by the Soil Conservation Service;
f. Areas having severe weak foundation soils.
6. The location of resource areas incls shown on the
Comprehensive Plan inventory map
a. Wildlife habitat; and
b. Wetlands.
The location of site features including:
a. Rock outcroppings; and
b. Trees with 6" caliper or greater measured 4 feet from
ground level.
IV-34
8. The location of existing structures on the site and
proposed use of those structures.
18.84.080 Th,. Site Plan
A, The proposed site development plan shall be at the same scale as
the site analysis plan and shall include the following
information:
1. The proposed site and surrounding properties ;
2. Contour line intervals (See Section 18.84.070 (A)(3) ;
3. The location, dimensions and names of all:
a. Existing and platted streets and other public ways and
easements on the site and on adjoining properties ; and
b. Proposed streets or other public ways and easements on
the site.
4. -'le to ?tion and dimension of:
a. The entrances and exits on the site;
b. The parking and traffic circulation areas;
t
C. Loading and services areas;
d. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities ;
e. Outdoor common areas; and
f. Above ground utilities.
5. The location, dimensions and setback distances of all:
a. Existing structures, improvements and utilities which
are located on adjacent property within 25 feet of the
site and are permanent in nature.
b. Proposed structures, improvement-- and utilities on the
site.
6. The location of areas to be landscaped; and
7. The locations of proposed utility lines.
18.84,090 Grading Plan
A. The site plan shall include a grading plan which contains the
following information:
1. Requirements in Sections 18.84.070 and 18.84.080 of this
chapter.
IV-35
4.
2. the location and extent to which grading will take place
indicating contour lines , slope ratios and slope
stabilization proposals.
3. A statement from a registered engineer supported by factual
data substantiating:
a. The validity of the slope stabilization proposals;
b. That other off-site problems will be mitigated;
C. Stream flow calculations ;
d. Cut and fill calculations; and
f. Channelization measures proposed.
18 84.100 Landscape Plan
A. The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale of the Site
Analysis plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall indicate:
1. Location and height_ of fences, buffers and screenings;
2. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas and
common open spaces, where applicable; and
` 3. Location, type and size of existing and proposed plant
materials.
B. The landscape plan shall include a narrative which addresses:
1. Soil conditions ; and
2. Erosion control measures that will be used.
IV-36
Ca® certified public accountants 2700 First Interstate Tower in principal areas of the world
Portland,Oregon 97201 t6
&LV/ rand telephone(503)2278600
f
t
F
f
June 7 , 1983
t
t
Ms. Jerri Widner
Finance Director
City of Tigard
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Jerri:
Enclosed is the addendum to our audit contract for the
engagement for the year ending June 30, 1983. Please sign two copies
and return them to me.
If you have any questions, please call. We appreciate the
opportunity to be of continuing service to the City of Tigard.
Very truly yours ,
l
JLS:bb
Enclosures
O'DONNELL. DATE Jure 23 , 1983 LAWYER/CLIENT
SULLIVAt: & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO City of Tigard - 72nd Ave. LID File
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
t503) 222.4402 I FROM EJS
RE Telephone Conversation with Mr. Meyer
on June 22, 1983 at 4: 40 p.m. , I returned Mr. Meyer' s phone call
of approximately one-half hour earlier. Mr. Meyer's telephone
number is 654-9284 and he indicated to me that he represent "MCIA"
which was asked by the city' s insurer to review the claims of
Columbia Excavating Co. for possible additional monies under its
construction contract with the city.
Mr. Meyers said that the preliminary investigation he was
starting would probably result in a recommendation to the
insurance company that no action be taken until a formal claim
was filed by Columbia Excavating. I indicated to him that the
last significant rights-of-way for the project had now been
acquired and told him that both Susan Schneider and I would
assist him as much as he needed in the event that this matter
ripened into a claim. The matter was left at that.
cc: SKS ULi._ :L_dI�j'
Bob Jean
EJS:mch
6/23/83
r �k
KV
7
CITYOFT167ARD
WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON �.
June 17, 1983
Richard F. Thompson
13355 S.W. Chimney Ridge Court `
�r
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. Thompson:
I am responding to your letter. ef June 10, 1983 concerning S.W. 135th Avenue .
and other concerns.
The City of Tigard,and, I'm sure Washington County, are also dissatisfied with
the condition of S.W. 135th Avenue. The facts are however, that the LID is
in the process of being formed. The responsibility for maintenance of the
road does fall within the jurisdiction of the county even though the city and
county are working jointly for formation of the L.I.D.
Delays in overlaying this road have been judgement calls in the past in an
effort not to needlessly spend badly needed maintenance dollars in an area
where impending construction would result in tearing up the new overlay to
accommodate the new street (LID) .
Please be assured that your city and county governments are working together
to help solve this obvious problem.
Completion and acceptance of the feasibility study will start the formal
process of public input. I expect this to occur this summer.
This is a complicated and frustrating problem. I can only ask that you bear
with the process and we'll try to keep you updated on the progress.
Sincerely,
Frank A. Currie, P.E.
Public Works Director
t t){if ���lf�! '•. '.' I'!1 639 -11 ;1
------ ---- 12755`i.W A511 I,,() BOX 2:339 1 It:IU it
80A�_ ftl I,
01\_
qmpg OREGON SCHOOL BOARDS
CMU\
0 1201 COURT STREET N.E.
O PHONE(503)588-2800
SALEM,OREGON 97301 ✓
MAILING ADDRESS:P.O.BOX 1068
SALEM,OREGON 97308
City Administrator Bob Jean
OFFICERS city of Tigard
PRESIDENT P.O. Box 23397 June 24, 1983
Douglas P.Cushing.
Medford TiCard, Oregon 97223
PRESIDENT ELECT
William Scott,
Portland
VICE PRESIDENT
William Cramer,
Dear Mr. Jean,
Harney ESD
SECRETARY-TREASURER
Joanne Stern,
Salem The Oregon School Boards Association opposed extending Oregon's
PAST PRESIDENT experimental vote-by-mail elections at the 1983 Legislature. Much
Wayne Chambers,
Linn-Benton Comm.College of our oppositione fact that local governing bodies
stemmed from th
voice in the decision to conduct elections through the
DIRECTORS do not have a Tigard
K.A.Daugherty, mail . Consequently, I was very interested to read about the T
Grants Pass City Council 's reaction to the County's decision to hold the final
Sam S.Fujishin.
Adrian three special elections through the mail , as reported in the one
Thelma Gunderson, 24th edition of the Oregonian.
Woodburn
Jean Haliski,
Parkrose I would very much appreciate receiving a copy of the minutes of
Raymond Kaser, n othe
Silverton the Council 's di�scussion this matter, as well as a copy of ton County Elections Department.
Donna Kernuti, letter sent to the Washing
Eugene
Edith Lippert.
Hillsboro it was my understanding that the Washington County Commission,
Carol Moore.
Centennial at the request of the Election Coordinator, had made the deion
il elections. The newspaper caisrticle
Mickey A.Moore, to proceed with the vote-by-ma
South Umpquabe final , however, and I Would
Pat Munkres, indicated that the decision may not
Bethel like to know which issues raised by the City Council could cause
Jacqueline Reding, its mind. I offered several amendments during
Neah-Kah-Nie the County to change
Ronald Stevenson, the hearings on the vote-by-mail bill to allow local districts to
Pendletonhave a voice in the decision-making process, but none of them were
EX OFFICIO DIRECTORS seriously considered. Perhaps your Council has identified some
Ken Stanhope.Presidentme at the time of my testimony.
Oregon Association problems that did not occur to
of School Executives
Larry Coady,President Thank you for your assistance. I will continue to follow the
Oregon Communityery closely.
College Association proceedings in Wash inton County v
Barbara Klein.
NSBA Directors
Lee Baggett,chairman S I/nc e
ESD Board Members
Clifford L.Freeman,Chairman
Oregon Board of Education
James C.Ulum,President m Redden
Confederation of Oregon
School Administrators Legislative Consultant
* 0 0
Thomas Rigby,Executive Director
i
2
c �" f ,
e {
�r
{ s
�� r r
pC>ti 5 _ - �- !/�
j 1
� A
a to �
t u1. 1.1. A
x {�t ga �„ �t C9.-
' u W3 ri ia'
`tet f ° I. i"a .SP o.
ti} a ,1d 4pJ G+ ;
c
r +
-A�
#-! :A O ti"
sX':� r:
�sr �t
' ` r �' :
rt
si.:� �'
r q t S Ft 1^t [�+
�? i
.Ix ts3 t<� SJY o-3 1: C b� O 6�4: O .� C
O 'W to a
fI. a�}.i; } 1 p• .�. A -A• C.F" tL $-0_S62 - 1+. 9G
S{_,^.'Y ry C y, ; ,/�1' y� � �..YY 4& r LYS
�'. -FSR{ttig l_,/ { } ,V , it }j• _. '=j 1"a /Yf
I -ill' r
�f
ya
x a5, -
1.
4 �.
t � _ O 47 C as 67 71 O b
P. i C"1 !� r
�,�-,° - -
v a 1 4 r ;{ A 4� t� 6? fel V 1� v ti CY ----w
'kt s R 1y
* nf rS b! moi_. '�;�;O9 t.i �'
2 �� ? $� � `-. fi.11
x' -
-#g4. 1k s t wq
I. in £ �? e r -11
•� ll-11 11 ti
a n '[3
#�7 2 N z - . s1 iC O 3C a� .„ 1.,, a.
lw
ti 1. �r
A ;g *} `� ': moi'- iaS W i7 w "
W, >. to x _ E -
vz; t. Q7 O $ 3 ms f l 3n is kyr
k s� *"- h-r ` .,. 4 9.0 �r 4�'-';y� 7 .? ''t F'� .. � l't'd4`J:
f a z f ? i2 Ca ski Lia\ ? a
,, u ww 4 r J`r _ � :�n. }�j[ 3�� vaT kG7a - ry vti � � w
PO. `! S " L + TFC Y'�! k 'F '.YLrOi :� orf W 44 :� f 4. 'IW .e, ...n•{Y -6T:+ +�. "5. -
P �:_> i d "y, t ,. z.L ::, t h' _��u�"ary''".'c-s.`?:�Y§°.S4?" o.,"d ".Lu i�a"r •^T dC„a.
.r Iww t ip� P+;`r �'.s _A -„4'r`a�tc .s•••=; .�t..3m1 a �t'�_a
rt, ` ' I -N,' ;- '+.`_. } M`a,4 1 rp Y +���, L i'`' '^ j2e ?�J �'
!S"'— }- >JY F'. D- i �” ' �
PR�
r�msec -€. 3" .K -� ,rYp + r
'�,,y 'I
ar.,-•
y iAF� r'7s;=,tib t� ,c r�"di y�i y„q.'S ;' .tiPIL
_ �If 'mak.'. Sr