City Council Packet - 05/26/1992
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
MISR
y i
j
AGENDA
.t
f 3 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an
agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up
` sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be
recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that
agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be
two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for
a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or
the City Administrator.
Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by
7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda Items can be heard in anv
order after 7:30 p.m.
5:30
• BOARD AND COMMITTEE INTERVIEWS (5:30 PM)
6:30
• STUDY SESSION (6:30 PM)
7:30
1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 PM)
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
7:35
2, VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 26, 1992 - PAGE 1
k
11 ji
7:45
3. 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
C for discussion and separate action. Motion to:
3.1 Approve Council Minutes: April 28, 1992
3.2 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Summerlake restroom/shelter bid
3.3 Appoint Jodi Fuller to Parks and Recreation Board - Resolution No. 92--Z3 .
3.4 Adopt Final Order CPA 92-001 and ZON 92-001 - Robinson - Resolution No. 92---~t .
3.5 Initiate vacation proceedings for a portion of SW Greenburg Road - Resolution No. 92-
7:50
4. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0004 ('TEMPORARY
SIGNS). A proposal to consider amending the Community Development Code pertaining to t
Temporary Signs (Ch. 18.114.100); Balloons (Ch. 18.114.090); Sign Exemptions (Ch.
18.114.060); and Definitions (Ch. 18.114.015). The proposal amendments will limit the number
of temporary signs per business to one with a maximum of 24 square feet of area; require a
permit for all temporary signs; limit temporary sign permits to be issued for periods no longer
than 30 days and for a maximum of three periods per calendar year and include all temporary
signs (banners, rigid, wall) to be within the same classification. Provide for real estate signs not
classified as a lawn sign; exempt temporary real estate signs from the 10 day removal period
and specify that temporary political signs shall be removed ten days after the election to which
they pertain. (Continued from 3/24/92 and 4/28/92).
a. Public Hearing Opened
b. Declarations or Challenges
C. Staff Report - Community Development Staff
d. Public Testimony -
• Proponents (in favor of amendment)
• Opponents (oppose amendment)
e. Council Questions/Comments
f. Public Hearing Closed
g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 92-►Z
8:30
5. SOLID TASTE RATE INCREASE - Metro Pass Through and Recycling Incentives.
• Staff Report: Finance Director
• Council Consideration: Resolution No. 92-acs
j
9:00
6. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
C.
COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 26, 1992 - PAGE 2
9:10
C 7. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW/UPDATE
• City Administrator
9:20
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the
provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
9:30
9. ADJOURNMENT
s
=aO526.92
1
i
i
r
f
i
;t
7
COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 26, 1992 - PAGE 3
i
A
Council Agenda Item 3,
I
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - MAY 26, 1992
• Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Edwards.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy
Fessler, and Valerie Johnson. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly,
City Administrator; John Acker, Associate Planner; Dick
Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel;
Loreen Edin, Administrative Services/Risk Manager; Wayne
Lowry, Finance Director; Ed Murphy, Community Development
Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator;
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City
Engineer.
• BOARD AND COMMITTEE INTERVIEWS (5:30 PM)
(Postponed)
• STUDY SESSION (6:30 PM)
- Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into
Executive Session at 6:33 to 7:02 p.m. under the
provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss
labor relations, real property transactions, current and
pending litigation issues.
Driveway to Burnham Street: Council agreed that City
Engineer Wooley should proceed with process for driveway
construction to Burnham Street through City property.
Agenda Review: Community Development Director Murphy and
Associate Planner Acker reviewed the Summerlake Restroom
and Picnic Shelter Bid. Staff recommended the acceptance
of the base bid of $158,000 from Daneal Construction.
Finance Director Lowry and Administrative Services/Risk
Manager Edin reviewed the proposed solid waste rate
increase. Staff recommended adoption of a resolution and
attached schedule which would pass through the Metro rate
increase and incorporate recycling incentives.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 26, 1992 - PAGE 1 i
i
i
r.
emm
C 2. VISITORS AGENDA
Council heard a request from Mr. Rick Perkins, 11740 S.W.
114th Place, Tigard, OR 97224, for an informal workshop
with City officials and residents who are affected by the
section of the TMC dealing with front yard storage (i.e.,
recreational vehicles). Mr. Perkins is concerned about
the wording and enforcement of the provisions in this
section of the Code. (See written comments from Mr.
Perkins on file with the Council packet material.)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by
Councilor Fessler, to approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
3.1 Approve Council Minutes: April 28, 1992
3.2a Local Contract Review Board: Summerlake restroom/shelter
bid
3.3 Appoint Jodi Fuller to Parks and Recreation Board -
Resolution No. 92-23
3.4 Adopt Final Order CPA 92-001 and ZON 92-001 - Robinson -
Resolution No. 92-24
3.5 Initiate vacation proceedings for a portion of SW
Greenburg Road - Resolution No. 92-25
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0004
(TEMPORARY SIGNS). A proposal to consider amending the
Community Development Code pertaining to Temporary Signs (Ch.
18.114.100); Balloons (Ch. 18.114.090); Sign Exemptions (Ch.
18.114.060); and Definitions (Ch. 18.114.015). The proposal
amendments will limit the number of temporary signs per
business to one with a maximum of 24 square feet of area;
require a permit for all temporary signs; limit temporary sign
permits to be issued for periods no longer than 30 days and
for a maximum of three periods per calendar year and include
all temporary signs (banners, rigid, wall) to be within the
same classification. Provide for real estate signs not
classified as a lawn sign; exempt temporary real estate signs
from the 10 day removal period and specify that temporary
political signs shall be removed ten days after the election
to which they pertain. (Continued from 3/24/92 and 4/28/92).
The public hearing was continued to June 9, 1992.
5. SOLID WASTE RATE INCREASE - Metro Pass Through and Recycling
Incentives.
a. Staff report was summarized by Finance Director Lowry
which included a description of three possible rate
schedules. Rate Schedule A was proposed by City Staff;
Schedule B was a recommendation by the SWAG; and,
( Schedule C was recommended by the Haulers.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING 14INUTES - MAY 26, 1992 - PAGE 2
b. Council acknowledged the work and review by all parties
x and agreed to continue to study the rate schedules. At j
this time council consensus was to support Schedule A.
C. RESOLUTION NO. 92-26 - A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL INCREASING GARBAGE RATES DUE TO DISPOSAL SITE FEE I
INCREASES AND ADDING RATES TO ENCOURAGE RECYCLING.
d. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor
Johnson, to adopt Resolution No. 92-26.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council ?
present.
6. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None
7. ADJOURNMENT: 7:50 p.m.
y
l I
410
At es-. Catherine Wheatley, City Re rder
Mayor, City of Tigard
.wh e l C1 a
Date:
=0526.92
1
t
i
1
i
i
I
I
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 26, 1992 - PAGE 3
i
ti
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
b P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 634-0360 Notice TT 7274
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
® City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice
P.O. Box 23397 The following meeting highligghts are published for yQU: infota trop Full
o Tigard, OR 97223 e 11 Duplicate Affi ag6ndas may be obtatned'fr®m the City Recorder; 13.125'_S. Hall -
B®ulevard, Tigard, 0nrgon97.M31_or; bycalling 639=4:871
o REGULAR`CITY CGi1NzI MEETLrIG
MAY-25.1997
TIGARD CITY HALL aJN HALL .
13125 SR/ HALL BOUr E`/ARD, TIGARD flRE. ON
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 5.36 p m : ' Roard of Committee Int+.,rviews
6:30 p m :Study v_ STATE OF OREGON, as. 7:30 p m tiusrness Meenng.
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON,)
1, h lf~'1 f-11 KAGI'1T PY -
Gounot conscderaaon:
being first duly sworn, depose and sa that I am the Advertising • Sotid `1Vaste'Rsfe>
Director, or his principal clerk, of the`~igard Times
a newspaper of general circylation as defined in ORS 193.010 Public Hearing
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the o Tetppolo,
rarysxgnodeAmendrlent,
aforesaid county and state; that the .'(Continbed from CauncrI Iveetzng of 3
Regular Gity Geuneil Meeting
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for one successive and 7SOputtvw Session. Thy Tigard City ..9"C!l
will go anlo Ezecu&e:esston"coder .
consecutive in the following issues: provisions of 4~i12S 19~ 65d (1)(d);'(e), and+'
(ti) to discuss labor relafzens, real Property
May 21, 1992 Uattsg0ons, curent and p ttdrng lttlgahon
issues
Local Contract Review 13o; ~d
s
/ TT7274 iPubhsh May 21,1992
Subscribed and savor to before me this 21, day of May 1992
i
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT -
10 11
AGENDA ITEM NO. - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE:
(limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on
other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff.
Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you.
him
STAFF
NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC CONTACTED
og n o v s ors.s
111 011 111" Ili
.rye ~ OG~~
Depending on the number of person wiing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount
t of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair
may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to
supplement oral testimony.
Please sign in to testify on the following:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 DATE: 112
PLEASE PRINT
P~~~ `e Opsonr` ~Spea~Agast ~r~e 3rc►r►race
O n er.=C3A:~i Areii~rr9ertt~?1.11=fl`®~rlpor~ry Slgps)
t,... -
ITS-me Name
p ress dress
ame Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name ame
Address Address
i
Name -game
Address dress
ame 11ame
Address Address
Name '
Name
i
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
i
e
i
t
Su.br ated 42
d
Let me take this time to thank the council for the opportunity to
address this most important issue.
Voter apathy or lack of citizen involvement has allowed many
unfair and restrictive laws and codes to be enacted by
legislative bodies large and small. Due to this most harmful
attitude Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.96.060 "Storage in
Front Yard" has effectively taken away another twenty (20) feet
of private property by a small faction of people who may not be
in tune with RV or boat owners in this community.
The problem has been correctly identified by an editorial
appearing in the Tigard and Beaverton newspapers. It has been
pointed out by these newspapers that the city should protect the
health, safety, and public welfare of its citizens. That
definition would allow the city to prohibit large vehicles,
trailers or boats from being stored on a public street or used as
a permanent residence. It further states, and I quote:
"Otherwise, the storage of an RV, trailer, boat or camper in a
driveway or to the side of a front yard really isn't the city's
concern. At that point, the issue is aesthetics, an issue that
should be handled by neighborhood associations, design covenants
within a planned unit development or through neighborly
communication."
Ladies and Gentleman, in the days prior to this meeting I have
covered a wide area of this city and have found the editorial
opinion to be a general consensus of the citizens of Tigard. Some
have already written letters to you or the mayor voicing their
concerns. Some have volunteered to participate in an initiative
petition. ALL have agreed that private property must be under
the reasonable care and control of the owners or the current
resident and should not be regulated by the city further than
nuisance or sight hazards.
Therefore, I respectfully request an informal workshop with city
officials and residents who are most affected by this code to
discuss this and other guidelines governing attitudes and
responsibilities of cities and city employees.
j
f
r
:t
~Y I
Dear Tigard Resident:
My name is Rick Perkins. In recent weeks I have been attempting
to deal with the City of Tigard regarding Tigard Municipal Code
Section 18.96.060, Storage in Front Yard, which states:
"Boats, trailers, campers, camper bodies, house trailers,
recreation vehicles or commercial vehicles in excess of
three quarter ton capacity shall not be stored in a required
front yard in a residential zone."
I have had visits from the Code Enforcement Officer citing this
property as being out of compliance and have been threatened with
as much as $250.00 per day for that violation. I disagree with
the city's position for the following reasons:
1. City regulations restricting personal property on
private property.
2. Private vehicles stored (in working order) that do not
create a sight hazard.
3. Private vehicles (in working order) that do not pose a
safety hazard for neighbors or children.
4. Other city codes regulate old or unsightly vehicles.
5. This state spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to
attract tourists into this state to take advantage of
outdoor recreational opportunities while they attempt
to restrict our citizens ability to purchase and keep
those vehicles safely and inexpensively on our own
property.
6. Neighborhood restrictions should control responsible use
of private property, not the city.
I am scheduled to appear at the city council on the 26th of May
and need the support of citizens who think as I do. I urge that
you and your neighbors write a letter to the city council or the
mayor of Tigard voicing your opposition to this unfair and
restrictive code. Please send me a copy of your letter at the
address listed below so I may represent your views to the council
in a responsible manner. Thank you for you cooperation.
City council R. W. Perkins Sr.
City of Tigard P.O. Bo: /-31202
13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Or 97281
Tigard, Oregon 97223r.
May 18, 1992
City Council
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
bear Council,
I am writing in regard to Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.96.060 which addresses what
types of vehicles can and cannot be stored in a citizen's driveway. This issue was
brought to my attention by Mr. Rick Perkins who is currently contesting a ruling
involving certain of his vehicles.
While I am in favor of restricting the storage of unsightly vehicles, boats, and trailers
which would affect the appearance of streets and neighborhoods, I am also quite
concerned about government interference with regard to the freedom of use of one's
private property. If the city already has codes in glace that regulate old and unsightly
vehicles, then I feel this new code is redundant and unnecessary.
R.espectfi'11yy,
John Benassu
CITY COUNCIL
City of Tigard
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Members of the City Couacil:
For sevei:al weeks nowlIlve thought
about the ordinance you passed, no
input from cunceraed citizens, t'Zat cone=rns
recreational vehicles. The more I think atout
it, the maddk:Y I getrat the high-handed
manner thet you as a council decide what a
citizen can do au cannot do on his own
property....: ~.t ::ity pro.Derty.
1 I could a-.4 ea with a ruling against a
safety hazardor :i sight hazard but to say it
is illegal tc keep a private vehicle on your
own property is couipletely out of line and
dictatorial. We are already over-regulated
with rules and regulacionsbut it seems to and
you have over-stepped your authority. It
appears that you just cant to thruw your weight
aroundand that is not good-Ear you or the
city.
_ I would hope that Fou a~:: cit-izzals of
Tigard would realize that jrbu.ob ve Laen in
error by this action.
Since;:aly submitted,
m1arti.a E. Hill
C
f
gum
12-040 S. W. North Dakota
Tigard, Oregon 97223
May 22, 1992
Ci ty Counci I
City of Tigard
13125 S. W. Ha 1 1 Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
re: Municipal Code 18. 96. 060
Honorable Council Members:
On or about March _21 of thi= year,. my wife and I received a
registered letter from- the, Tigard Code Enforcement Officer,
charging us with violating the above Code and allowing us until
April 10th to comply.
We had recently watched the Council meeting which dealt with
this subject and in light of what we saw and heard during that
meeting, we fully expected to be contacted. What we did not
expect, however, was to be given the options we were:
1) that we secure storage elsewhere, i.e. a rented
storage facility,
2) that. Our camper be turned sideways in the
driveway, thereby blocking access to our garage,
3? that we cut down a 30 foot tall cLirly willow
tree, adjacent to Our garage, allowing the camper to be placed
outside the minimum setback, yet accessible and secure here at
home.
We have complied, with a 10 day extenGion, and as of April
20th, we now have one less curly willow tree. It is interesting
to note, however. that in an "Oregon Tres' City" we were vir tua l l y
instructed to remove that tree, isn't it.
Please understand that it was never our intent to violate an
ordinance, but be assured that we had no kind thoughts or words
for those forthright and just citi=ens who complained about Our
front yard, or for those who voiced thi err opinions at the --ounci 1
meeting we viewed in late February. If these people represent a
majority of Tigard citizens, then in Our 15 years as reHidents,
we haven ' t met marry of the ma j or i ty.
It was our intent to enjoy the Great Outdoor= cf this
wonL/er.`uI Sia to and of ter many year's, of hard Work, We? f Af,7a I I V
were abl= to afford a v&hicle with which we nay do that.
It is not, as those who testified at the me tin,; s_emeJ to
think-, pos_=1ble for all who own recreational vehicles to afford
storage for these v=hiclee. Ofi;-site and secLir-d stor=e can be
a substantial flnLncial burden, with f 2w gar-rantees against then-ft
( or wand: I i sm.
iw~!Iqgii 11 1 111
Ell
- V
It is our opinion that the Code listed above needs to be i
amended, or that the front yard setback be changed from 20 feet
to 15 feet, so that the estimated 25% of this cities' population
that have R V's, etc., on thi er property be within the Code and
not be forced to facie fines or further harassment from Tigard
Municipal employees.
. Sincere] c7~017` p~pt~lo,~i~i~ r
Robert F. & Larona M. Larsell
5
RL/rl
CC: R. W. Perkins Sr. '
f
}
t
{
1
t
i
f
i
i
- i
i
{
ti
r, ~Z3
-V
w
May 26, 1992
Members of the City Council
Tigard, Oregon 97223
I have lived at this address for the last 14 years. During this
time, there have been several recreational vehicles parked in my
driveway at different times. They have not been unsightly or
unsafe and none of my neighbors have complained until a couple of
months ago.
The complainants, however, chose not to discuss the issue with me
or any of the other neighbors with whom I've spoken. They chose
instead to coniaci city officials who move to enforce a
particular code (Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.96.060) only
upon receipt of a complaint. This creates a situation where the
city becomes a pawn in a potential harassment issue made legal by
their arbitrary, complaint-driven code enforcement.
To date, it appears as though the general consensus of our
neighborhood is- that the recreational vehicle most recently
parked in my driveway did not cause worry, inconvenience or
offense. Why then, does one anonymous party have the power to
dictate my use of my property?
If the city continues to enforce this particular code, all
residents of the city should be checked, for compliance, and
warnings, threats of fines and fine charges should be assessed
fairly throughout the city; discrimination should not be
tolerated.
Please consider revision of this code or revision of its
enforcement as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Ruth A. Johnson
11740 S. W. 114th Place
Tigard, Oregon 97223
f
i
7~(
I
mill
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3. a.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: May 26, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: May 18, 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Summerlake Park PREVIOUS ACTION: Authorization to
Restroom Picnic Shelter & Landscaping Bid
PREPARED BY: John Acker
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
ISSUE BEFO THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council award a contract for construction of a restroom,
picnic shelter, irrigation, and landscaping at the west end of Summerlake
Park.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Bids for this project will open on May 20, 1992. Staff will forward a
recommendation based on the most favorable qualified bid.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This project is included in the improvements identified in the parks levy.
In order to make the most of the improvements this summer, the proposed
project should begin as soon as possible. After the bids are open on May
20th, staff can review proposals and determine how to best proceed. A staff
recommendation will be prepared when details are known.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
None
FISCAL NOTES
Park levy funds are available for this project.
l ly
i
MEOW
3. cA-.
MEMORANDUM
C
TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator
FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director
DATE: May 26, 1992
RE: Staff Recommendation on Summerlake Restroom and Picnic
Shelter Bid
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the base bid of $158,000 and do not
Imm
accept Alternate 1, 2, and 3.
Elm
The City received four bids for the Summerlake Park project that
includes a six-unit restroom, a picnic shelter, tables, grill,
irrigation and landscaping. The bid was structured so that the
City has discretion on the scope of the contract as follows:
Base Bid Do all rough and fine grading; pour and finish all
concrete flatwork; build a picnic shelter with
picnic tables and grill; and build a six-unit
unisex restroom.
Alternate 1 Install an automatic coiling door to protect the
drinking fountain area.
Alternate 2 Install an irrigation system.
Alternate 3 Install landscaping material.
The low bid, as shown on the attached bid result sheet, was
submitted by Daneal Construction in the amount of $158,588 for the
base, $2,507 for Alternate 1, $9,145 for Alternate 2, and $7,203
for Alternate 3.
Staff recommends that the low base bid of $158,588 be accepted and
the contract be awarded to Daneal Construction because the base bid
includes the elements needed to make Summerlake Park more useable
for the community at large and the bid seems reasonable when
compared to the other bids.
Staff also recommends that Alternates 1, 2, and 3 not be accepted
because it is not crucial to complete these now relative to other
levy projects. Since the base bid includes all grading, City
personnel could temporarily seed the area with little expense.
There is also the possibility that City personnel could implement
the irrigation and landscaping plan over time.
C
spillip
BID RESULTS
C
BID OPENING: Summerlake Park - Restrooms and Picnic Shelter
DATE: May 20, 1992
BIDDERPS NAME BASE ALT. 1 ALT. 2 ALT. 3
BID
Daneal Construction $158,588 $2,507 $9,145 $7,203
Pacific Coast Const. $211,000 $2,400 $9,200 $7,200
First Cascade Corp. $165,000 $2,530 $8,000 $18,000
S&L Landscaping/ $197,593 $2,613 $7,500 $10,000
M.A. Brewer
Alternate 1 : Install a coiling door in the drinking fountain area with electric
motor linked to a timer
Alternate 2 : Install an irrigation system.
Alternate 3 : Plant landscaping plant material.
C
BR/BidrLst.YBL
C
`t
t
COMPARRISON OF BUDGET TO COSTS
COST BUDGETED AMOUNT
Base Bid .................158,588 140,000
Irrigation 9,145
Landscaping 7,203 30,000
Design 8,550
*Water Frontage Fee...... 8,158 0
Sewer Connection Fee..... 6,399 0
Coiling Door 2,507 0
200,550 170,000
$ 170,000 amount budgeted
200,550 total of all costs
30,550) difference from budgeted amount
If Alternates Nos. 2 and 3 are not accepted:
30,550) total deficit
$ 9,145 bid for irrigation
$ 7,203 bid for landscaping
$ 2,507 bid for coiling door
11,695) difference from budgeted amount
* This is a reimbursment fee to the developer who built the
public water line in Winterlake Drive. The City may not need
to pay this fee if the lots composing Summerlake are
consolidated. Staff is exploring this.
There is also the possibility that the water meter cost, which is
part of the base bid, can be reduced or eliminated through
modification in the the plans for potable and irrigation water
connection. This reduction in the contract amount could be up to
$7,705 and can be accomplished as a project reduction after bid
award. Staff is exploring this.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3'3
C CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: May 26. 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: May 5, 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appointment to PREVIOUS ACTION:
Park and Recreation Board
PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Ann Newton
DEPT READ OK CITY ADMIPi OK REQUESTED BY: Mayor's Apt. Ad. Co
-
ISSUE BEF THE COUNCIL
Consideration of the appointment of Jodi Fuller to the Park and Recreation
Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On April.28, 1992, the Mayorls Appointment Advisory Committee met to
interview individuals interested in appointment to the Park and Recreation
Board. The Appointment Advisory Committee recommends the appointment of Jodi
Fuller to fill a vacant position on the Park and Recreation Board. The
attached resolution, if adopted, approves the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee.
~r PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the attached resolution.
2. Decline action at this time.
FISCAL NOTES
C CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
i
lip
Ill I'd
MAR 17 1992
-wilt C11YOFTWORD
OREGON
CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION
Name: jo d i r7wl e ice" ti Date: M".YGLV ID r
Address (Res.): 1~1-1?2 5w OVY AVV. U16-alyd q1 Zl3T Res. Phone: "464i O
Bus. Phone: ;0 r0 ~J 27
Address (Bus.): g~GJW WAG h t~ ( , (3 a6
Ungth of Residence in Tigard. j~~'TUK 7 5 Suggested by: Ct/fM 00"U
Where did you live previously: ~L )DDY&;" . * Ti 6 rd
Educational Bac ound: '?Z- Q o tlt,fflu fi~ Ctr
VA V%i0a, i tmu . k-owb V Al _ to Wz
Occupational Status and Background: 5 2 Y* T_ V&Vz wut' L L Gi
Gl,+/lti
fi,t bi( h,i a''t,6~ -ti_ra.wu N;~ 4g 6w -5te.wuzP-~' C gNX
How long have you been employed with this firm: -~lil'1~. ~Y~J• dill 6L{~ (z
Is this Company located within your NPO area (NPO applicants only):
Previous Community Activity:
Organizations and Offices:
Other Information (General Remarks): `M I, V4 A 4-V
7W v loaa,%a- . -v~,o-w ~G and
Boards, Committees or NPO Interested in: AMA WI/ro(K -M CV-4 l/Y_..tJ - - 'AT J:R w/ VMJ C,M,vw vc,yt i u~
Date Rc=ived at City Hall Date interviewed
Appointed Board, Committee, or NPO
I~` City Outside City
bgin\liz\dtcomin
! 113125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171
a-~`
\J 0,
vytf
~w
c6O
air
.1, ovv\ftc
~s 16WO6 aA& c
r V)V t ~ pt,GC 1
-IAW
- hr
W ' t* 4 vil'. ,
lc~
idoj
CIA~
awGt G C
gm N" V'W
4n, k~'4c>Tuy'~' Ire,
W)~rw vvv" s
w end
Ollq) Yaf
oy
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: May 26. 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: May 13, 1L992
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Ado tion FinalA_ PREVIOUS ACTION: May 12 - 1992
Order CPA 92-001 & ZON 92-001 Hearing
Robinson PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff~
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy
ISSUE BE THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council adopt a final order affirming its decision to deny
amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning designation to redesignate
a 2.55 acre parcel located at 10330 SW Scholls Ferry Road (WCT4i 1S1 34AB, tax
lot 3300) from Medium Density Residential (R-12) to Medium-High Density
Residential (R-25)
w STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the attached final order by adopted.
- -
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City Council voted 3 to 1 to deny the above amendment at its regular
meeting on May 12, 1992.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
C1. Adopt the final order as attached.
2. Adopt a revised final order.
FISCAL NOTES
No direct impacts
t
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3~J
C CITY OF '.C.LGMD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: May 26, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: May 13, 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Initiation o PREVIOUS ACTION: None
Vacation Proceedings for a orti SW
Greenburg_Roa lv, PREPARED BY: Ron Pomerov VW
DEPT HEAD O - CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: City of Tigard
ISSUE BEFO THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council initiate vacation proceedings for a portion of SW
Greenburg Road?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council initiate vacation proceedings by adopting the
attached resolution.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
C!he City of Tigard, petitioner, is requesting that City Council initiate
acation proceedings for a portion of the SW Greenburg Road right-of-way
adjacent to property located at the northeast corner of SW Greenburg Road and
SW Center Street (exhibit A).
An agreement, signed by the City. Attorney's office on November 1, 1990
(exhibit B), states that the City will convey to Mrs. Davis (adjacent
property owner) that portion of the Greenburg Road right-of-way described in
exhibit B, upon completion of the Greenburg Road Realignment Project. A
legal description of the area to be vacated in attached (exhibit C).
Appropriate agencies shall be contacted for comments.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the attached resolution thereby initiating vacation proceedings and
calling for a public hearing on July 14, 1992.
2. Take no action at this time.
FISCAL NOTES
All fees and staff costs shall be paid by the City.
lvla.sum
f
C COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: May 26, 9 DATE SUBMITTED: May 13, 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Z amfnd. PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission
ZOA 92-01 recommendation Feb. 3 1992
PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy
ISS E THE COUNCIL
Should the City revise its temporary ign requirements to redefine the limits
on temporary signs?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached ordinance.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The public hearing on the proposed ordinance was set over first to April 28
and then to May 26 to allow time for more input from the City Attorney
regarding constitutional issues and more input from the NPO's and others.
The city receives numerous complaints regarding the tendency for temporary
C signs to proliferate in various commercial areas of the city. The City"s
temporary sign regulations tend to be difficult to enforce equitably because
they are poorly defined, unclear and conflicting. Uncontrolled and
unenforced temporary signs create a visual blight on the community. As a
result, amendments are being proposed to the temporary sign provisions of
the Development Code (Ch. 18.114.100). The amendments should assist in
providing equal opportunity for each business to utilize temporary siqns (one
business in a shopping center can effectively monopolize all of the square
feet now allowed), eliminate some of the clutter caused by the uncontrolled
use of temporary signs, clarify the rules, eliminate administrative cost and
simplify enforcement.
The originally proposed changes included: limiting temporary signs to a
period of 30 days (now 60 with continuous renewal) three times per calendar
year; allowing one temporary sign per business rather than the four now
allowed; limiting the area of temporary signs to 24 square feet (now 70
square feet for rigid signs and 30 square feet fbr each banner and wall
sign); requiring a permit for each temporary sign to allow for better
tracking and efficient enforcement instead of having the first sign
permitted without a permit; eliminating the distinction of a temporary,
rigid, freestanding sign by classifying all temporary signs together;
eliminating the duplication of lawn signs listed twice under 18.114.060;
providing for real estate signs not classified as a lawn sign; providing for
an exemption for temporary real estate lawn signs from the 10 day removal
period; and specifying that temporary signs be removed 10 days after the
election to which they pertain.
( Copies of the originally proposed changes were sent to a subcommittee of the
r
^_hamber of Cominerce's Public Affairs Committee. The one response received
'-was positive. NPO 1&2 offered no objection and suggested that the proposal
might help clean up Tigard. The other NPO's supported the amendments subject
to comments that are addressed by changes made in response to the City
Attorney's comments. The NPO minutes are attached.
The Planning Commission recommended the originally proposed ordinance. The
only change the Commission made from the staff recommendation to them
(attached) was to reduce the size of temporary signs permitted from 32 square
feet to 24 square feet. Staff concurs.
Based on the City Attorney's advice relative to the interpretation of the
free speech provisions of the Oregon Constitution regarding signs, anything
related to content must be eliminated from sign regulations. The City
Attorney's comments are attached. As a result, the proposed ordinance was
changed in the following manner:
Section 18.114.060 C. regarding a ten day limit for exempted signs has been
removed. This is to ensure real estate and political signs would not have to
be removed within 10 days as is now implies by the present code. It would:
appear that other exempted signs listed such as directional signs, interior
window signs, painted wall decorations etc. do not a removal period and,
therefore, the section is not needed.
Section 18.114.100 B.3. has been removed. It allowed temporary real estate
signs to be limited to 32 square feet. Under the attached and revised
C proposal, all real estate signs would now be limited to the size and time
t. requirements of other temporary signs.
Section 18.114.100 C.4. has been changed to remove the word non profit from
reference to special event banners.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Change the Development Code as summarized above.
2. Retain the Code as is and require permits for all temporary signs.
3. Change the Code to eliminate regulation of temporary signs.
4. Change the Code to prohibit temporary signs.
5. Retain the Code as is except for limiting the square footage of
temporary, rigid, freestanding signs per business rather than per
premise.
6. Make other selected changes to the temporary sign requirements.
FISCAL NOTES
There is some potential for minor increased revenue because of the number of
temporary signs without a permit. (Temporary sign fee is now $10 per sign.)
cb/Temsi.Sum
C
f
i
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Division
DATE: January 22, 1992
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to Development Code Pertaining to
Temporary Signs
OVERVIEW
Summary: The City receives numerous complaints regarding the
tendency for temporary signs to proliferate in various commercial
areas in the city. The City's temporary sign regulations tend to
be difficult to enforce equitably because they are. poorly defined,
unclear and conflicting. Uncontrolled and unenforced temporary
signs create a visual blight on the community. As a result,
amendments are being proposed to the temporary sign provisions of
the Development Code (Ch. 18.114.100). The amendments will assist
in providing equal opportunity for each-business to utilize
temporary signs, eliminate some of the clutter caused the
uncontrolled use of temporary signs, eliminate competition for the
70 square feet of temporary, rigid, freestanding shopping center
signage now allowed, clarify the rules, eliminate administrative
cost and simplify enforcement.
Policy Implications: Should the City revise its temporary sign
requirements to redefine the limits on temporary signs?
Financial Impact: There is some minor potential for increased
revenue because of the number of uncontrolled, temporary signs with
no permit. (Temporary sign fee is now $10 per sign.) There should
also be a savings due to an increase in the effectiveness of
enforcement.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Development Code
Chapter 18.114.100 be amended to: limit the number of temporary
signs per business to one with a maximum of 32 square feet of area;
require a permit for all temporary. signs; limit temporary sign.
permits to be issued for periods no longer than•'30 days and for a-
maximum of three periods per calendar year; include all temporary
signs (banners, rigid, wall) to be within the same-classification. ,
ANALYSIS
Background
i
The City continually receives complaints regarding the
proliferation of temporary signs as well as its attempts to
equitably enforce the existing regulations.
The code now allows four temporary signs per business, but only 70
square feet of temporary, rigid, freestanding sign space per
premise (shopping centers and multiple business locations). The
first of the four temporary signs is allowed without a permit. All
others are required to apply for a permit. Since temporary signs
can be renewed after 60 days, they become almost "permanent". In
shopping centers and multiple business locations, one business can
mom monopolize the allowed temporary, rigid, freestanding sign space
(70 square feet allowed) by continually renewing an existing
permit. They can effectively freeze out other businesses in the
same location from having a temporary rigid sign. This has created
considerable discontent among businesses in the same center when
the city attempts to enforce the temporary rigid sign limitation.
In sign code enforcement, where there are a number of temporary
rigid signs, the City cannot determine whose sign is the first
"free" temporary sign to be allowed versus those that must be
removed. Enforcement requires clearly defined provisions and
administrative efficiency to be-effective.
Summary of Proposed Changes
o Limit temporary sign permits to a period-of 30 days (now
60) three times per calendar year
o Allow one temporary sign-per business rather than the
four now allowed and the 70 square feet of rigid sign per
premise
o Limit the area of temporary signs to 32 square feet (one-
half a standard 4x8 plywood sheet per face now 70
square feet for rigid signs and 30 square feet for each
banner and wall sign)
o Require a permit for each temporary sign to allow for
better tracking and efficient enforcement instead of
having one sign permitted without a permit
o Eliminate the distinction of a temporary, rigid,
freestanding sign by classifying all temporary signs
together; banners continue to be included
o eliminate the duplication of lawn signs listed
twice under 18.114.060 (Sign Exemptions)
o provide for real estate signs not classified as a lawn
sign
o provide for an exemption for temporary real estate lawn
signs from the 10 day removal period
i
o specify that temporary political signs shall be removed
ten days after the election to which.they pertain
Alternatives
1. Change the Development Code as summarized above. This
will increase accountability, simplify the process, limit
temporary signs, and provide an equitable opportunity for
each business to utilize temporary signs.
2. Retain the Code as is and require permits for all
temporary signs. This will improve tracking but will not
eradicate conflict in shopping centers and multiple i
business locations.
3. Change the Code to not regulate temporary signs. This
will eliminate enforcement problems but would appear to
be counter to the City's efforts to improve aesthetics.
4. Change the Code to not allow temporary signs. This would
be simple to enforce but may prove difficult for
business.
S. Retain the Code as is except for limiting the square
footage of temporary, rigid, freostanding signs per
business not premises. This would add to the
proliferation of temporary signs and aesthetic problems.
3
f
`i
1
S
l
i
1
f
1
1
I
f
ii
i
i
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REPEAL VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO TEMPORARY SIGNS (CH.
18.114.100); BALLOONS (CH. 18.114.090); SIGN EXEMPTIONS (CH.
18.114.060); AND DEFINITIONS 18.114.015.
WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise its
Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation
and implementation of the Code; and
WHEREAS, The City of Tigard desires to eliminate unclear and
conflicting provisions relative to temporary signs;
WHEREAS, The City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the staff
recommendation at a public hearing on February 3, 3.992 and voted to
recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on March 24, 1992
and on May 26, 1992 to consider the amendment.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Community Development Code shall be amended as
shown in Exhibit "A". Language to be added in
UNDERLINED. Language to be deleted is shown in
[Brackets].
This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by
the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City
Recorder.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members
present after being read by number and title only,
this day of , 1992.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: This day of , 1991.
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
ORDINANCE No. 91-
Page 1
9
I
1
ambit A
` I
18.114,015 Definitions i
52. Temporary sign - any sign, "A" board frame, banner, lawn sign,.
or balloon which is not permanently erected or permanently
affixed to any sign structure, sign tower, the ground or
building_ [ and which is not an electrical sign or an
internally illuminated sign or one with changeable message
characteristics:]
[a. Temporary Rigid Sign - a temporary sign, other than a
lawn sign, made of rigid materials such as wood, plywood,
plastic. See Subsection 18.114.100.C;]
[b.]- Balloon - an inflatable, stationary temporary sign
anchored by some means to a structure or the
ground. Includes simple childrens, balloons, hot
and cold air balloons, blimps and other dirigibles.
See Subsection 18.114.090.C;
Banner - a sign made of fabric or other nonrigid
material with no enclosing framework. [See
Subsection 18.114.100.C.5; and]
[d.]c. Lawn Sign - a freestanding sign in residential
zones which is exempt from sign permit requirements
provided the size requirements in Subsection
18.114.050.B.2 can be met.
i
i
00
18.114.060 Sign Exemptions
A. The following signs and operations shall not require a
sign permit but shall conform to all other applicable
regulations of this chapter and the provision of
subsection (B) below:
[1. Signs of a temporary nature which meet all of the
following criteria:
[a. There is no more than one temporary sign on
the premises; for each temporary sign in
excess of the one exempted sign a temporary
sign permit shall be required as provided in
Section 18.114.100;]
[b. Wall signs or wall banners which do not exceed
a total of 30 square feet in area in
commercial or industrial zones, or]
1. a_ Lawn signs which do not exceed the maximum
allowable area on one premise regardless of
the number of signs as follows:
(i) a total of 12 square feet in single
family residential zones;
(ii) a total of 24 square feet in multi-family
residential zones- [and;]
[c. The temporary sign will be erected for a
period no longer than 60 days;]
2. Signs not oriented or intended to be legible from a
right-of-way, other property, or from the air;
3. Signs inside a building, except for strobe lights
visible from a right-of-way, other property or from
the air;
4. Painted wall decorations;
5. Painted wall highlights;
[6. Lawn signs;]
6. [7.] Signs affected by stipulated judgments to
which the City is a party, entered by
courts of competent jurisdiction;
Directional signs;
Interior window signs;
r
i
9.[10.] Nothing in this title shall prevent the
erection, location or construction of
directional signs on private property j
when such signs are solely designed to
direct pedestrians or vehicular traffic
while on the parcel of real property on
which the signs are located. No sign
permit or fee shall be required for such
signs; and
4
10.[11.] Nothing in this title shall prevent the 1
erection, location or construction of
signs on private property where such
erection, construction or location is
required by any law or ordinance, nor is
shall any public agency or utility be +
prohibited from erecting signs on private j
property when otherwise permitted. No t
sign permit or fee shall be required for
such signs.
B. All signs exempt from permit requirements under
Subsection A above shall meet the following requirements:
1. The sign shall be erected on private property with
the consent of the lawful possessor of the property
and shall not be placed on utility poles or in the
public right-of-way; and
2. At least one sign shall be permitted per parcel of
land; additional signs on such parcel shall be
spaced at least 50 feet apart in residential zoning
districts and 30 feet apart in nonresidential
zoning districts.
The sign permit provisions of this section shall
not apply to repair, maintenance, or change of copy
on the same sign (including, but not limited to the
changing of a message on a sign specifically
designed and permitted for the use of changeable
copy), or unlawfully erected or-maintained signs.
(Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20)
i
I
j
C
• r
18.114.090
C. Balloons
1. One inflatable stationary balloon or one cluster of
childrens' balloons firmly [tied down] secured
shall be allowed only if all of the following
conditions are satisfied:
a. A City of Tigard sign permit is obtained for
each;
b. Each owner or legal occupant of property or a
building shall be allowed one balloon per
year;
C. A balloon sign shall be allowed to remain up
for a period of no longer than 10 days per
year;
d. A permit issued for a balloon will serve as
one of the three sign permits allowed per
business in a calendar year.
[d.]e. Balloons may be permitted as roof signs
with a city sign permit.
[e.]f. The size of a balloon shall not exceed 25
feet in height; and
[f.]g- The balloon shall be [tied or mounted]
secured to a structure on the ground and
shall not be allowed to float in the air
higher than 25 feet above the nearest
building roof line.
1
ij~lg
i
i
t
18.114.100 Temporary Signs
i
A. Authorization
1. The Director shall be empowered to authorize
temporary signs not exempted by Section 18.114.060.
The Director shall attach such conditions to the
issuance of a permit for a temporary sign as may be
necessary to ensure discontinuance of the use of r
the sign in accordance with the terms of the
authorization, and to ensure substantial compliance
with the purpose of this title.
B. Issuance Authority
1. The Director may issue temporary sign permits which
shall terminate within [60] 30 days from the date
of issuance; and
2. No permit shall be issued for a period longer than
[60] 30 days, but a permit may be [renewed]
reissued by the Director [upon a showing of good
cause for the continuation of the temporary
permit.] for two additional permit periods (30 days
each) per calendar year.
C. Types and locations of temporary signs shall be as
follows:
C
1. The total number of temporary signs shall not
exceed [four] one for any [one] use at any one
period of time; such signs are not permitted for
single-family and duplex dwellings-
2. The total area of a (freestanding temporary rigid
signs] temporary sign [on one premise] shall not
exceed 24 square feet and no more than 12 square
feet per face; such signs are not permitted for
single family and duplex dwellings. The permitted
area for a banner shall. be no more than 24 square
feet per face with the total sign area not to
exceed 24 square feet.
[a. 32 square feet in residential zones; and
b. 70 square feet in all other zones;]
3. See Subsection 18.114.015.C.52, Temporary Signs,
for types approved.
1
4. Special event banners to be hung across public
right of ways may be permitted by the City
C Manager's designee.
i
i
nmlwwmm~
NOMIRMAM
F
t
E
I
[4. Temporary wall signs shall not exceed 30 square
feet in area;]
r
[5. Banners:
a. Banners may be allowed as temporary signs
provided they meet the dimensional
requirements for temporary wall signs (30
square feet maximum area) and a sign permit r,
has been granted where required; and] f
[6.]4. A balloon as provided in subsection
18.114.090.0.
D. Location shall be as approved by the Director.
E. Attachment:
1. Temporary signs may not be permanently attached to
the ground, buildings or other structures.
[F. Temporary Sign Summary:
LAWN SIGNAGE * TEMPORARY RIGID SIGNS
(exempted) * (with permit)
Total Area Number Spacing * Total Area Number spacing
*
Single 12 sq ft No limit 50 ft * 32 sq ft Up to 4 N/A
famY
Multi- 24 sq ft No limit 50 feet* 32 sq ft Up to 4 N/A
*
Other N/A N/A N/A * 70 sq ft Up to 4 N/A]
(Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20)]
a
f
db/Tempsign ii
i
C
1F
O'DONNUL, R"US, CREW ~ CORRIGAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BA=W & WRICHT BunDQ4c YM pLA%%J%G
1727 N.W. Hoy[ Street R
Pordand, Oregon 97209
1 ~-1992
TEfEPHON& (503) =-4402 MAY
FAX. (503) 243-2944
DATE: May 9, 1992
TO: Dick Bewersdorff, City Planner
FROM: Michael C. Robinson, City Attorney's Office
RE: Amendments to Sign Code, TDC Chapter 18.114
You have proposed several amendments to the provisions regulating
temporary signs. I have reviewed these changes for conformance
with the Oregon Constitution,' Article I, Section 8. The
Constitution prohibits the enactment of laws restricting the right
to speak, write or print freely on any subject whatever. The
Oregon Supreme Court has held that a sign ordinance regulating one
kind of speech and not another based on the difference in content
violates Article I, Section 8. Ackerly Communications v. Multnomah
County, 72 Or App 617, 696 P2d 1140 (1985). Several of the r
proposed changes run afoul of this prohibition.
Proposed Section 18.114.060.7 exempts "directional" signs from the
sign permit requirements. As long as directional signs do not
contain a message, you may regulate them differently from other
types of signs. However, if a directional sign is content based,
it may not be differentiated from other types of temporary signs.
Therefore, you must allow all types of directional signs without
respect to the message content.
Section 18.114.060(C) provides that real estate signs do not have
to be removed within ten days of their initial display. Temporary
political signs are required to be removed within ten days after
the election of which they pertained. Both of there regulations
are unconstitutional because they are based on content of the
message.
Section 18.114.100.B.3 distinguishes temporary real estate signs
from other types of signs. This is also unconstitutional.
Finally, Section 18.114.100.0.4 authorizes "non-profit special
event banners". You may authorize special event banners but they
may not be authorized only for non-profit events. Ackerly
Communication v. the City of Salem, _ Or , P2d (
There are at least two suggestions for dealing with the above
changes. First, you could ban all temporary signs if you wish.
You may also allow all temporary signs below a certain size; for
Jill
JIM
r
t
O'DONNELL, RAMI5, CREW F1 CORRIGAN
i
Memo re: Amendments to Sign Code
May 9, 1992 {
Page 2
1
example, establish a size that is the typical size of a ?
directional, real estate or political sign and exempt them from
regulation. Thus, you are not regulating based on content but on
reasonable time, place and manner restrictions which are
permissible.
I would be happy to review this memorandum with you. i
_ i
MCR/bjd 1
mCr\T19acdVL-wendorff met
i
cc: Timothy V. Ramis, Esq.
i
i
s
f
{
f
i
4
mom=
NPO 9/2 Meeting Minutes r
April 8, 1992
Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
fioll: Githens, Gott, Duffield, White present. (Quorum met) t
1. Minutes of March 11, 1992 approved, and seconded.
2. ZOA 92-0002 Korean Baptist Church. We don't see why the amendment is
necessary at this time. We thought this as too broad a zone amendment without
site discussion. = x
3. ZOA 92-0003 Planning Department, City of Tigard. Allows and recognizes gravel
areas foroverflow parking, and howthis goes with handicapped. parking standards.
NPO has no objections. T:
4. Temporary Sign Requirements. ZOA 92-0001. The NPO has no objections to
changing the Sign Code. The NPO feels it might even help clean up the looks of
Tigard.
Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, ,f
S
Dan Gott
r
PJ-R 02 92 16=59 FiouSING IND. TEA11220-1081
L jk-
NPO ##3 MIIWTES
April 1, 1992
1. Meeting called to order at 7:09 p.m.
2. Present: Bishop, Froude, Garner, Heim, Mortensen, Porter.
Absent: Hansen.
3. Minutes from March 4, 1992 were discussed and approved.
4. ZOA 92-0002 -]Korean Baptist Church request to allow religious assembly as a
_ condtional use in the Professional Commercial zoning districts.
a. In today's code, churches are only allowed in residential zones.
b. If this request is granted, each conditional requested will be heard.
c. MOTION - It was moved and seconded to approve the request for conditional use
of Professional Commercial zoned sites for religious assembly on a case by case
basis. Passed unanimously.
5. ZOA 92-0003 - Planning Department, City of Tigard amendment to the Tigard
Community Development Code to revise handicapped parldng standards and to allow
gravel parking areas in certain situations.
a. MOTION - It was moved and seconded that NPO 3 take no position on this -
request, because the information presented was confusing and unclear. Only one
member of the group received double sided copies of the memorandum from Jerry
` Offer, others were missing pages 2 & 4. Passed unanimously.
6. Proposed Amendments to the Temporary Sign Requirements. _
a. MOTION - It was moved and seconded to approve the request for changes in the
commercial area, but not to approve the changes in the residential area due to
confusing information and the limit of a 10 day use seems unduly restrictive. We are
also unaware of problems in the residential areas. Passed unanimously-
7. Other business -
a: Discussed memo from Randy Wooley regarding our request for information on the
status of the Gaarde St. extension.
b. Anderson property proposal and Traffic Anaylsis.
1. MOTION - It was moved and seconded that NPO 3 is opposed to increasing
any residential density unless there are overriding reasons. Traffic is already
congested on Bull Mtn. Rd. and Pacific Hy., so increasing the residential density will
only exacerbate the problem. Passed unanimously.
8. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
1
Respectfully submitted,
,ila Garner
TO: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
FROM: Irving L. Larson
SUBJECT: MINUTES Or N1-O # 4
-MEETING DATE: APRIL 8, 1992
STARTING TIIME: 7:30 1.M. PLACE: TIGARD CIVIC CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carl Johnson, Chairman
Irv Larson, David Peterson,
Ken Rosenfeld, Alan Roth
STAFF: John Acker
GUEST: Jennie Larson, Mrs Alan Roth
Carl Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
A quorum was present. Due notice of the meeting had been given.
Minutes of the Klarch 11, 1992 meeting were approved.
Alan Roth moved that the NPO #4 recommend to the Tigard City Council
that the current zoning of the Tigard Triangle not be changed "far now"
to the zoning presented in TIGARD FASTER PLAN Alternative D recently
prepared by The Benkendorf Associates. Irv Larson seconded the motion:
Three "Yes" and two abstain..
Re: ZOA 92-0002 KOREAN FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH (City University Prop)
Amend Section 18.64.040(A) of Tigard Community Dev. Code to allow
religious assembly as a conditional use in PC zoning district.
David Peterson moved that NPO #4 recommend the approval of the rep_uest
as submitted. Carl Johnson seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.
Re: ZOA 92-0003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT - CITY OF TIGARD Applicant requests
amendment to City of Tigard Community Development Code.to revise
handicapped parking standards and to allow gravel parking areas in
certain situations Chap. 18.22.040, 18.106. Ken Rosenfeld moved
that NPO #4 approve the amendment. David Peterson seconded the
motion. Passed unanimously.
Re: ZOA 92-0001 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TEMPORARY SIGN REQUIREMENTS
f Council Agenda Item 8 March 24, 1992 Irv Larson moved that IvPO f4
go along with Ed Mur_•phyIs request. Carl Johnson seconded the motion.
Passed unanimously.
David Peterson moved that NPO #4 request the City of Tigard to
immediately give consideration to construction of sidewalk or a
minimum of 3 foot wide blacktop path on the west side of S.W. 72nd Ave.
between Highway 99+1 and Phil Lewis School. The motion was seconded
by Alan Roth. Passed Unanimously.
The idea of barricading S.W. 72nd Avenue was suggested to save lives
and/or serious injuries but riactionken at this greeting.
John Acker announced a joint meeting of XPO #4 and the TIGARD PLANNING
Committee 5:30 P.M. Monday, April 20, 1992 TIGARD CIVIC CENTER.
The next regular meeting of the NIO #4 will be Wednesday May 13, 1992
7:30 F. TIGARD CIVIC CENTER.
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:30 li-M.
VO'k"NTELR HOURS: 20
1rv1ng L• parson, Secretary
~;+;tesi; ~arl Johnson, C_^.airnan
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #5
APRIL 15, 1992
CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by chair Craig
Hopkins. Members present were Orm Doty, Bill Hawley. Joan Pasley
and Sharon-Takahashi. Bill Bieker was excused.
The minutes of the March 18, 1992 meeting were approved as
mailed.
Agenda items:
1. ZOA 92-0002: Korean First Baptist Church (Applicant requests
amendment to section 18.64.040 (A) of the City of Tigard
Development Code to allow religious assembly as a conditional
use in the Professional Commercial zoning district.
We have no objection if this is in a commercial zone. but
it is not a specific issue but a request for a zone change.
We feel that this could be better treated with a request for
a variance as the occasion arose.
2. ZOA 32-0003: Planning Department. City of Tigard (Applicant ;
requests amendment to City of Tigard Development Code to
revise handicapped parking standards and to allow gravel
parking areas in certain situations.
We felt this would be a positive factor in erosion control
and also an environmental plus- However, we need to define
the graveling process for uniformity. This should be a
positive factor in standing water elimination. The only
negative might be the dust factor in dry weather-
3. Sign Requirements: The presentation of the changes were
adequate. We have a few questions but feel that the city
.planners and its attorney can address these as they arise.
4. SDR 92-009: Pacific Realty/MacKeAzie/Saito (Applicant
requests site development review approval to construct 3
tilt-up flex space buildings of 31,872, 22,485 and 8,995
square feet. No objection was noted.
5. Final decisions:
a. Sign code exception hearing held on 4/13
b. SDR 92-007 approved: No answer was given on the traffic
control device.
C. Hall Blvd subdivision: 30' for common access for four
houses approved. 45' half-street improvement understood
upon further development.
6. Home Occupation Permits: Steve Tom Nitsos. 8465 SW Hunziker.
cabinet shop. No objection.
7. Lot line adjustment in Ashford Oaks to create different lot
sizes than originally platted. No objection.
8. Mostul: Artistic Autobody (Parking adjustment for Hunziker
building (first on right ascending to Half
Our compliments to the englnrFr for presenting all informa-
tion :n well packa,;ed form. Nc. prc•te:t. nol.ed.
J. Nr'v joint meeting «:t.h 44 .:i!; pace on Mot.-Jay.
ZOth.
With no further business, we adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
-Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Takahashi. Secretary
s•
{ NPO #7 Meeting Minutes
April 1, 1992
1. Meeting called to order: 7:05 p.m.
2. Roll Call: Present: Woolery, Blanchard, Dorsett, Howden, McGlinchy, Gross
Absent: Cunningham
3. Approved Minutes of March 4, 1992. Minutes stand as read.
4. ZOA 92-0002 - Korean First Baptist Church. Applicant requests amendment to Section
18.64.040(A) of the City of Tigard Community Development Code. Discussion.
Motion by- . La McGlinch , to
rry y approve the request to allow amendment request made ~
by Korean First Baptist Church to allow religious assembly as a conditional use in
Professional Commercial zoning district.
Seconded: Ed Howden In favor: 6 Against: 0 J
5. ZOA 92-0003 - Planning Department - City of Tigard, applicant request amendment to City of Tigard Community Development Code to revise handicapped parking standards and to
allow gravel parking areas in certain situations. Discussion.
Motion by: Bill Gross, to approve this request to amend the Code with the conditions that
staff rewrite the language with respect to gravel parking and Section 18.106.020 A.2
Seconded: Lary McGlinchy - In favor. 6 Against: 0
6. Proposed amendments to Temporary Sign Requirements. Discussion.
Motion by: Bill Gross, to approve staff recommendation that the City Council approve
Staffs revised ordinance, ZOA 92-0001 _
Seconded: Ed Howden In favor: 6 Against: 0
7. Notices of Decision received review.
8. Other business - discussion on elections.
Motion by: Ed Howden, to elect officers.
Seconded: Bill Gross - In favor: 5 Against: 0
In favor Against Abstain Nomination of: Made by: Nom. to close: Seconded:
6 0 Cal Woolery for President Ed Howden Jim B. Bill G.
2 1 Larry McGlinchy for V.P. Jim Blanchard Jim Blanchard Ed Howden
3 1 Katy Dorsett for V.P. Bill Gross Ed Howden Larry
( McGlinchy
\ Unanimous vote for Katy Dorsett
6 0 0 Bill Gross for Secretary Ed Howden Ca} W. K. Dorsett
1
1
t
1
3. Motion by: Bill Cross, to request Staff to revise NPO V's community roster to reflect our j
current officers and members. ;
Seconded: Katy Dorsett In favor. 6 Against: 0
10. Meeting adjourned 8:45 p.m.
f
Respectfully submitted:
t
t
i
Katy Dorsett
bOn% xV"7min.492
i
V
i
1
i
f
i
i
• i
i
• F
i
jj
I
• i
i
4 •
• ti _ I
forward with initiation of a stree't' vacation. At
that time, it was important to move forward on this
request as quickly as possible because of timing of
financing. If the vacation does not become
effective before March 31, then refinancing of the
project becomes necessary which would mean
considerable expense to Progress Graphics.
Therefore, Mr. Blackmore requesting Council
approval of the vacation on an emergency basis.
In response to a question from Councilor Schwab,
C:ty Attorney Ramis advised that it was within
Council's authority to approve the vacation on an
emergency basis.
e. Public hearing was closed.
f. ORDINANCE NO. 92-09 - AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ON A PORTION OF SW CORAL STREET, IN
THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
g. Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Schwab,
to adopt Ordinance No. 92-09 and to declare an emergency:
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
C 8. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ZOA 91-0004 A
proposal to consider amending the Community Development Code
pertaining to Temporary Signs (Ch. 18.114.100); Balloons (Ch.
18.114.090); Sign Exemptions (Ch. 18.114.060); and Definitions
(Ch. 18.114.015). The proposal amendments will limit the
number of temporary signs per business to one with a maximum
of 24 square feet of area; require a permit for all temporary
signs; limit temporary sign' permits to be issued for periods
no longer than 30 days and fora maximum of three periods-per
calendar year and include all temporary signs (banners, rigid,
wall) to be within the same classification. Provide for real
estate signs not classified as a lawn sign; exempt temporary
real estate signs from the 10 day removal period and specify
that temporary political signs shall be removed ten days after
the election to which they pertain. -
a. Public hearing was opened.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - PAGE 4
. I
„
C. Senior Planner
C Bewersdorff reviewed the staff report as
submitted in the council meeting packet.
Enforcement of the provisions of the proposed ordinance
would not require additional staff.
d. Council, during discussion on this item, noted their
uneasiness with the fact that there was no one from the }
business community present to testify on these
provisions. Council consensus was to continue the
hearing-to April 28, 1992 to allow additional time for
interested parties to prepare testimony on this item. 3
Council requested staff make additional efforts to get
word out to the community on this issue. i
9. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - PARKING PROHIBITION ON SW 108TH
AVENUE
- Z
a. City Engineer Wooley reviewed the Staff Report as
submitted in the Council meeting packet.
b. Council asked several questions to determine if there had
been an-inordinate amount of problems due to the parking
in the subject area. Each Councilor present expressed
reservations and concerns about setting a precedent for
establishing "No Parkingt° areas throughout the City.
After discussion, consensus of Council present was to set
this item over to April 14, 1992, in order to allow Mayor
Edwards and Councilor Johnson an opportunity to comment a
on this issue. Council also expressed interest in
receiving comment from the proponents.
10. ADJOURNMENT: 8:14 p.m.
A es+. Catherine Wheatley, City Recor r ;
May r, i°Ey of
4Tigard
i
Date: ~~I~ ~CfZ i
I
can0324.92
r
C.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - PAGE 5
i
I
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM s
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: _ May 26, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: May 15, 1991
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste PREVIOUS ACTION. Annual Metro
Rate Increase - Metro Pass Through Pass Through 6191
& Rec clip Incentives PREPARED BY: Wayne Lowry & Loreen Edin
DEPT HEAD OK_, CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY. Wayne Lowry & Loreen Edinl
IS UE BEFORE THE COUNCIL r^ T
TMC Section 11.04.090.C notes that increases charges to the solid waste franchisees for disposal site fees imposed by
METRO may be included in consumer rates established by resolution provided they are evenly distributed among rates.
On 4121192, Council reiterated this policy.
- -
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Rate Schedule "A" which is presented based on Council's year long review and subsequent policy direction given
on 4121/92.
- - - - - - - - - -
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On pchg^n ..n
ceice -.-mLct (Meitro) will increase disposal fees on 711192 by $7.00 per ton which will make the total
I llc rvlcuvrv„w _ Tl O/`
dump fee $75.00nper ton. In order to pass the dump fee increase on to rate payers, in accordance wiili iL lls I I~,~, Council
must adopt a resolution to reflect the increase in solid waste rates.
Over the last year, the Council has been reviewing the solid waste rate structure at the request of the City's Solid Waste
Advisory Committee (SWAC) and the franchised haulers. SWAC's 1991 recommendation was to have each service line
be profitable on its own. The City hired Coopers & Lybrand to review the rate structure subsidy in Tigard. Also, the
Washington County Haulers Association hired Price Waterhouse to conduct a review of financial reporting issues this last
Fall. Both reports show that there is a subsidy to the residential customers by the commercial ratepayers.
During this time of review, the haulers have increased recycling services offered at curbside to residential customers in
r Tigard. Magazines were added 311192 and milk jugs will be recycled at curbside effective 711192. Recycling bins were ,
distributed to the residential customers during March. Since bins were distributed, there has been a significant increase
of participation in the residential curbside recycling program. The increased participation has also increased the cost of
providing that program.
Council Direction (Rate Schedule "A"): After reviewing the Coopers & Lybrand report and the haulers annual reports
from 1990 & 1991, Council stated their solid waste rate structure policy at their 4121192 meeting. The modifications to the
rate structure that follows is presented based on that policy direction:
• METRO PASS THROUGH - $7.00 per ton increase distributed to all rates equally with the addition of the 3% franchise
fee computed on the disposal increase.
• RESIDENTIAL RATES - addition of a mini-can rate, a recycling only rate, and each additional can (over 1/week) being
charged the same as the first can.
• COMMERCIAL RATES - 2nd cans charged same as the first and the addition of a 90-gallon cart.
• DROP BOX RATES - addition of 10 & 15 yard rates.
• MISCELLANEOUS RATES - set account reinstatement and NSF check fees and an hourly rate for bulky item pickup.
C
r
{
ti
3
ge- The attached Rate Schedule "A" provides a rate structure to accomplish all of the above. The addition of a mini-can rate j
necessitated the raising of residential rates by about 4% overall, after the pass through. This was necessary to compensate
the residential loss in revenue assuming that 30% of regular can users will move to the mini-can. As a result, the residential
rate for the regular can service increased by $.55 due to the pass through and an additional $.50 to compensate for mini-
can service. The difference between regular and mini-can service is the projected difference in disposal fee assuming 35
lbs. for a 32 gallon can and 22 lbs. for the mini-can.
I
SWAC Recommendation (Hate Schedule "B"): After SKIAC reviewed the Councils direction on the rate structure on t
5111192, they recommended encouraging recycling further through the rate structure by adding a "recycling credit system"
SWAC recommended the following modification to Rate Schedule "A":
• Effective 07101192. Metro disposal fee increase pass through
• Effective 10/01/92: Recycling Credit System - a rate increase of $4.00 per month for each residential customer with
a total of $4.00 credit being available monthly to residential customers who recycle at curbside. This would be
accomplished by crediting $1.00 a week for each week they recycle.
The Recycling Credit System was approved by a 4-1 vote of the SWAC Committee present. There was concern voiced i
by some participants about the cost of implementing this system and the number of staff hours that would be needed to
track this reporting requirement. Staff did not have time to review the cost of implementation of this proposal.
a
Haulers' Recommendation (Rate Schedule "C"): The Washington County Haulers' Association hired Price Waterhouse
to do a financial review based on 1990 and 1991 financial reports from haulers' businesses in Washington County. The
Association has used the Price Waterhouse assumptions to file with the City a rate proposal for Council consideration. Rate
Schedule C is based on Tigard 's haulers annual reports and works to maintain the subsidy between commercial &
residential service lines. SWAC received a synopsis of the County-wide report on 5/11192 and recommended the haulers
present the full report to the Council in the near future. Staff did not have time to review the assumptions used by Price
Waterhouse in developing this report. The attached Schedule "C" is a composit of Exhibits 4 through 8 of the full Price
Waterhouse report for the City of Tigard.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt Rate Schedule "A", per Council direction of 4121192.
2. Adopt Rate Schedule "B", per SWAC recommendation of 5/11192.
3. Adopt Rate Schedule "C", based on the Price Waterhouse report filed 5113192.
4. Give staff further direction.
- - -
- - ---Y-- FISCAL NOTES
1. Rate Schedule "A" - This rate schedule is estimated to have little impact on the existing rate of commercial subsidy
of residential service. It also assumes that this rate change will not significantly change the aggregate overall rate of
return. Due to the disposal fee pass through, franchise fees to the City are estimated to increase $6,000.
2. Rate Schedule "B" - As of 07101192, financial impact would be the same as Schedule "A'.
As of 10101192, financial impact is unknown
3. Rate Schedule "t;" -f=inancial Impact is unknown
ie/swrates.92
i
f
Exhibit "A" Rate Schedule "B"
City Of Tigard
Solid Waste Disposal Rates - July 1, 1992
C Residential Rates Effective 10/1/92
Recycling Only $4.00
Mini -Can (20 Gallon) 10.85 $14.85 $4.00 per month per
One Can (32 Gallon) 13.10 17.10 customer surcharge to
Each Additional 13.10 17.10 be credited at $1.00
On Call Service 5.10 per week if customer
recycles.
Commercial Rates
One
One Can $13.10
Each Additional 13.10
Container Service-Loose
One Two Three Four Five
Container Size
Roll out can
60 Gallon $24.08 $45.75 $66.77
90 Gallon 30.19 57.36 83.62
One Yard 74.10 140.89 205.69
Each Additional
One And 1/4 88.57 167.95 245.01 $320.78 $390.66
Each Additional 82.27 156.45 228.81 299.78 365.66
One And 1/2 102.85 201.09 293.15 379.54 465.24
Each Additional 97.45 186.09 275.15 355.38 434.94
Two yards 136.19 263.49 383.48 .496.37 607.77
Each Additional 128.09 243.49 350.48 452.17 552.87
Three Yards 249.37 359.38 521.17 672.67 830.95
Each Additional 177.49 344.38 503.27 660.66 815.95
Four Yards 236.68 455.88 673.66 877.44 1,073.44
Each Additional 240.68 447.88 661.66 869.34 1,062.54
Five Yards 283.98 556.99 823.05 1,081.83 1,324.12
Each Additional 278.78 541.67 800.55 1,053.93 1,309.12
Six Yards 326.18 639.16 946.14 1,242.92 1,536.10
Each Additional 320.08 627.16 928.04 1,213.32 1,498.10
Eight Yards 413.77 809.85 1,195.72 1,573.79 1,940.47
r Each Additional 405.50 793.85 1,171.92 1,541.89 1,900.47
1,
Container Service-Compacted
e
One Two Three Four Five
Container Size
One Yard $177.34 $336.63 $491.19 $643.35 $783.52
Two Yards 300.92 584.06 852.58 1,106.90 1,358.34
Three Yards 415.65 804.29 1,170.87 1,516.35 1,876.06
Drop Box Service-Loose
I
t
I
Drop Box Size Regular Service Occasional and Special Service s
Up To
t
Twenty Yard Box Charge $88.80 $99.40
Demurrage $4.70 $4.70
+ Disposal Fee + Disposal Fee j
+ Franchise Fee + Franchise Fee
Thirty Yard Box Charge $108.70 $119.80
Demurrage $6.20 $6.20
+ Disposal Fee + Disposal Fee
+ Franchise Fee + Franchise Fee i
Drop Box Service-Compacted
Under 20 Yds $102.00 + Disposal Fee + Franchise Fee
20 yards 106.80 + Disposal Fee + Franchise Fee
30 yards 140.65 + Disposal Fee + Franchise Fee
40 yards 161.45 + Disposal Fee + Franchise Fee
Misc Rates
Rate
Extra Garbage per Can $3.55
i
Call Backs 8.25
Return for pickup of '
inaccessible can 8.25
Extra distance
per foot after first 100 ft 0.01
Account Reinstatement Fee 10.00
NSF check fee 15.00
i
a
DROP BOX RATES
A
Existing Proposed Rates Plus
Rates Increase Disooeal Fees X 103%
Non-Compacted
10 Yard N/A
20 Yard $99.40 $25.11 $124.51
30 Yard $119.80 $30.26 $150.06
Compacted
10 Yard $102.00 $25.76 $127.76
20 Yard $106.80 $ 26.98 $133.78 j
30 Yard $140.65 $35.53 $176.18
40 Yard $161.45 $40.78 $202.23
Exchange Service
10 Yard N/A
20 Yard $88.80 $22.43 $111.23
30 Yard $108.70 $27.46 $136.16
I
Mileage charge in excess
of 12 miles. $1.10 $0.28 $1.38
Demurrage, rates per day for up to a:
20 Yard Container $4.70 $1.19 $5.89
30 Yard container $6.20 $1.57 $7.77
Drops boxes with lids, and or locks,
and where the customer requires Same rate as a compacted drop box rate
the same box (round trip).
Weekend service available for 1 .5 times the above rates and shall be arranged with the hauler prior to service.
A - Current rates do not allow haulers to recapture the franchise fees paid on disposal fees.
Increase necessary to continue operating margin 25.26%
i
SPECIAL SERVICE RATES
Curbside Discount ($1.00)
Weekly Recycling Only Service $4.99
(Urban Customers Only)
Will Call Charge $7.60 e
Call Backs $12.45
Occasional Extra Can/Bag Charge $5.50
NSF Charge $16.50
Re-Start Service Fee $10.00
1
Charge for distance greater than of 50 ft., $3.00
but less than 300 ft. I
a
Charge in excess of 300 ft. $65 PER HR.
Unscheduled Services $65 PER HR. PLUS DISPOSAL FEE
i, Tires $65 PER HR. PLUS DISPOSAL FEE
White Goods $65 PER HR. PLUS DISPOSAL FEE
(Containing No Hazardous Materials)
All calculations based on financial information providod by Bill Martin of the WCHA.
i
Ell III I ngml~I~~I ii ii I IN
Nino
Rate Schedule "C"
RESIDENTIAL RATE SCHEDULE
W URBAN
32 GALLON CAN - WEEKLY
Collection Charge $6.54
Disposal Charge 5.43
Recycling Charge 3.32
Franchise Fee (3%) 0.47
Subsidy (2.20)
Density Charge
Franchise Fee Addition/(Reduction) (0.07)
New Rate 813.50
60 GALLON CART - WEEKLY
Collection Charge $6.54
Disposal Charge 10.32
Recycling Charge 3.32
Franchise Fee (3%) 0.91
Subsidy (4.25)
Waste Disincentive 7.79
Cart Amortization 1.54
Density Charge
Franchise Fee Addition/(Reduction) (0.13)
New Rate $26.05
90 GALLON CART - WEEKLY
Collection Charge $6.54
Disposal Charge 13.76
Recycling Charga 3.32
Franchise Fee (3%) 1.14
Subsidy (5.29)
Waste Disincentive 11.59
l Cart Amortization 1.54
Density Charge
Franchise Fee Addition/(Reduction) (0.16)
New Rate $32.43
Mini-can rate is proposed at 12.22
COMMERCIAL RATES
Disposal
Existing Increase Proposed
Rates Pass-Throuah . Rates
1 Yard $70.98 $4.70 $75.68
1.5 Yard $98.17 $6.50 $104.67
2 Yard $129.95 $8.60 $138.55
3 Yard $177.13 $11.73 $188.86
4 Yard $224.20 $14.85 $239.05
5 Yard $268.38 $17.77 $286.15
6 Yard $307.46 $20.36 $327.82
8 Yard $388.81 $25.75 $414.56
' Compacted rate is 2.5 times the regular rate. Note: Compacted containers must be
(4 yards or less in size and weigh less than 500 pounds per yard.
Increase due to disposal tee pass through (A) 6.62%
1 A - Increase = (Disposal Fee Increase/(1-Franchise Fee))/1991 Actual Revenues. See Exhibit 3
111, jj~i