Loading...
City Council Packet - 02/20/1996 9 viii t i fsrw`4t c` scfi•~i.'' ,(ro.v.F` s. '.>r.4i... f,Agy~"`R''~ii r Ca'"F~R'r r' "tyh t~` Mff idl {"K,rCtd3 '94i t.a+ ipa' if 3.>xr nr f y,, •v5k +ie, L„~;'IN. } , C.rJ ~y ~[7 .F iJ'FS' i A +~;3 TQ. ~ WP441.1:.~'v1 •rr yh. ,lt: r1v y,,~nY M..i~'~ i~e. I~ ij ~ti,.t ~'~'~v+ L7~A f b ayf .ACC *C c ~.r++f y{ [B*U y d. "Tha yAY ° ,Jr-fjM~Yn.Y4+'`~. ~~~*fi t?r ,,.rcy~t, fi-'N r K t5. Y +G~.°'4SvJ~' ry ,,C,.3.g rry w~~.Ix nwst+. °>kv s'3~-''w.~~'¢~'~ rt'PN~ p. YI"~ a~o,Fr {,r< n J x ~~Y) ~ f' .Ft Y r s x~ ~ N soJw ~.."r/&.YiSi ~vk" .bisy3L acad^'~.~.a3°Sr+~a~-:.a s' 3 F a •~K ~4'r~' :s'~ ~ 9ef .i ..rS~ +~iu,•-~~s.. - .Sxf~ ¢4rkr~ e cc{ w'irY m~t `L3 w,~3'4'>< .g ~j- ..ar ~i 1 ycY w.r',c$"'r'><.51`r'~L 2,~;~ ;r*`~a v a ~ ~Y ;~'~~.r11~"h~~4~u 1~>4¢,rl~~ at'"+~J•;~s~;' ""~~<',2~srr at >*rfw r Se' ~i~,~,of akg' tY Y W~ 'gF• ~ 3t r. }r ~ t a'q ryt crsi' ~ ~a 'cx" ..e dfi.,~? ~"iUd~+eu,~`~3t Rx. r f 1" w i r 4~ i w M st . s r¢ t u t' i^r r `~'r+e s] ,s r ~ t ° t s, ~,,,La u• y, Y' .f d - ~ t ~ "~huf tei"ve ~7 4 ~ti~.''~1~ !~i ~j s ~."r~~~~~. ~ a S ~ v'~f^iF~ ~'S.•,F#'yk''r~~>a ~a y ~T f? y , J SPsn 5C r .s~ 1{ yT ' t~3 ~5~Yvv~~ Iv'°' ~ 2:k i.ri'.t~kr RM,5~' s.- { ,cfi.Ny ate. s a `rM f r M~ ,,1 v u• C. .afar }.+`fi F r x'14°` ~ h t v y..t 1 ~,~yL ~r^ t "h.» ~r~9~,},'$,` ''_f'•C1t.S~ '~S"rr~tY~ '-yL`'J~,,,i.'tc-~.~r"~ ~ ~'"4ws'rC'~,y~$'~'r~~7tei ~"~e ~Y»,~t . 'F ^'.r~"`h~r~•+ ~..y''s~'!3-'Frl~`4: ~,1~~'^i .2'. t .t d s f ~'t 4 r k]a-s1R,.'y5'7"' w. F.yit'nj}; f''i` q.'`.."Z ' t # aWN _ .M1 ~f ,(y °.~,7 gy~tr,t'n' ~~~~~~.t~p '~y.F"H'f`9s •~,++~If a~°~^u~.~~~~' r 4; $ i . 3shYrS~?i s;.nF 1 p e1. N IL 0' v 4 fq x w,, y~~; xr o-ti r Y v' ~'S} a'"xrVA 4 ~ f £ It off.. a,- 1`: d.~'6--'.b+~ .V~yYj ~~^7k ` Y ° >~Ar r '•iu} x? Y+x'~' 9f A t. "Z FjMY,I'`4" d •t~r rL 44.. WV7 aTz...y.Xa ~F~LS Q~,~.r~•pya . P 3 .vrfi. d" .w1 ~q.Ar~ ~'•a>rty~'.sl~~i~~~~}~a`,'~, ~ 3t. a 4~•3. IS~ ~~yy~j z_}}~~M c• .JY 5'{.r i ~J..1•. ~I i~~'{'~sy~'n.,7~~1, ~'.~""~S'? ~7„>4t":'~y.-~i~,a H t9^{ '~1 t e! Revised 2/15/96 WORKSHOP MEETING ITY OF TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 20, 4996 6:30 FM I TIGARD CITY HALL ~ 731125 SW HALL BLVD PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: j Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA f I i COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUAR: 20, 1996 -PAGE i i' ~ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING 4 FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - 6:30 PM AGENDA 6:30 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER - MAYOR NICOLI 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 6:35 PM 2. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (CIT) COMMUNICATIONS • CIT Members 6:50 PH 3. CITY HALL ROOF - ARCHITECT SELECTION • Maintenance Services Director 7:00 PM 4. DISCUSSION: LIBRARY LEVY • Library Director 7:20 PM 5. DISCUSSION: TRAFFIC CALMING • City Administrator and Bev Froude 7:50 PM 6. DISCUSSION: COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING • Executive Director Sheila Greenlaw-Fink - 8:10 PM _ 7. SEVERE WEATHER SHELTER STATUS REPORT • Executive Director Kim Brown 8:30 PM 8. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 95-0019/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 95- 0008/MINOR LAND PARTITION (ML) 95-0012 - FUTURE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN • Community Development Department • Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96- 8:35 PM 9. DISCUSSION: AMENDING PARK SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY AND FEE STRUCTURE (Discussion set over from the November 21, 1995 Council Meeting) • Community Development Department 9:10 PM 1 c 10. DISCUSSION: PLANNING FEES i { • Community Development Department COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 2 9:30 PM 11. DISCUSSION: NEIGHBORHOOD MEDIATION • Assistant to the City Administrator 9:50 PM 12. DISCUSSION: VISIONING PROJECT s Assistant to the City Administrator and Administrative Analyst/Risk Manager i r 10:20 PM 13. NON-AGENDA 10:30 PM 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f), at (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, current 8t pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during i this session. 10:45 PM I S. ADJOURNMENT - j =0220.96 } .71 s I _ I l i _ I V COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 3 - - - - -77 Agenda Item No. _ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of V~la~4(o 1 WORKSHOP MEETING MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 • Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli 1. CALL TO ORDER i 1.1 Roll Call Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian- - Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Asst to City Administrator; Ed Wegner, Maintenance Services Director; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; John Acker; Tim Ramis, City Attorney; Wayne Lowry, Finance Director; Dick Bewersdorff, Community Development; . Kathy Davis, Library Director; and Loreen Mills, Administrative Analyst/Risk Manager. 1.3 Council Communications/Liaison Reports - None 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Mayor Nicoli requested discussion of the Fern Street issue. 1A. DISCUSSION: FERN STREET Mayor Nicoli mentioned that the neighbors have appealed the subdivision plat on Fern Street and that Fern Street was high on the priority list for greenspace purchase list compiled by the CITs and the Planning Commission. He suggested deciding whether or not they wanted to purchase that property prior to the hearing. Councilor Moore stated that Fern Street was ranked high by the West CIT. He said that Fern Street was ranked number one by the Planning Commission at the public hearing, noting the high attendance by Fern Street neighbors f at that hearing. He said that the Commission had asked staff about this property because of the appeal and Council interest but that the appraisal was not in yet. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, said that one reason this i., property was ranked so high was because it made it possible to connect Fern Street with an additional piece of property in the Hillshire development. Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator, reported that the South CIT ranked Fern Street as number two or three but neither the Central or East CITs listed the property at all. Councilor Scheckla asked if the property had been checked for erosion following the heavy rains. Mr. Hendryx said that he has not been out to the property since the rains. Mayor Nicoli stated that he had envisioned the process as the City purchasing one or two of the highest priority properties each year for three years. He suggested that at their next meeting Council pick the first and second properties and direct staff to begin negotiations, thus possibly avoiding a problem at the hearing on the appeal later on that same evening. Councilor Hunt said that while he was comfortable with picking Fern Street, he was not comfortable picking a second piece of property. Councilor Rohlf said that he did not have a problem moving Fern Street up, since they had expected to buy it anyway. Councilor Scheckla concurred. Mr. Hendryx suggested that staff bring back a memo giving the CITs and CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 1 7 s. - t I ' Planning Commission's perception of this property and a status report of 1 where staff was on the other properties along with a recommendation to J purchase only the Fern Street property right now. Mr. Monahan confirmed to Councilor Hunt that they would bring back the asking price and the appraised price, if completed. Councilor Rohlf seconded Councilor Scheckla's suggestion to see what was left on the property after the flood before they bought it. _ 2. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (CIT) COMMUNICATIONS I 3. CITY HALL ROOF - ARCHITECT SELECTION Property Manager John Acker introduced Richard Raglund, the architect he recommended to do the preliminary design of the new city hall roof. Mayor Nicoli expressed the Council's frustration at the City being stuck j. with a leaky city hall roof ever since the building was completed. He reviewed the options Council considered, noting that they picked the most expensive one - a metal roof. He said that they were willing to pay the i price for a good job that fixed the problem and allowed a dry environment for their employees. Mayor Nicoli stated that, personally, he supported brinVing,on a consultant who would draw up a performance spec with guidelines on what the roof would look like and who would review the contractors' bids to negotiate a final recommendation for the project award. He noted that in t addition to the roof, the City had to deal with the mechanical equipment and the roof vents. Mayor Nicoli stated that he did not see the architect drawing up a final set of working drawings because roofing contractors approached jobs in their own way. He emphasized that the City had to receive a warranty on the work that they could use if necessary to insure the work was done to the City's satisfaction. Councilor Hunt asked for more information on Mr. Raglund's cheaper alternative to a metal roof. He explained that he had wanted to talk with Mr. Raglund because he had worked with Mr. Raglund on the senior Center. He said that, though the project ultimately came out fine, the final details were not handled well. He said that Mr. Raglund had assigned the project to another architect but that they couldn't get either of them out 41 to the site to work out the final details. t Mr. Raglund said that he understood that Council had around $60,000 to spend on the roof. He noted that a metal roof would cost around $100,000. He reviewed the different types of roofs available and how they were constructed, describing how they might fit on City Hall and what kind of guarantee they warranted or problems they posed for the building. Mr. Raglund said that for a long term solution either an EPEM roof or a metal roof was the City's best bet, though the less expensive SDS roof was also a pretty good roof. Mayor Nicoli stated that he would prefer to run a new roof right over the mechanical well, sloping everything to the parapets with a continuous cover around. He said that they wanted to be sure to get 100% of the water out of the building before they made repairs to the inside of the building. He stated that if necessary, the Council would consider allocating more money for a good roof. Mr. Raglund commented that with a metal roof system he would want to check with a structural engineer to make sure the building could support the weight. Mayor Nicoli noted that City Hall had been designed for a future second floor, and therefore it should hold the additional weight of a roofing system. He suggested contacting the original engineer to verify what he designed. Councilor Scheckla asked if Mr. Raglund had taken into consideration the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 2 weight added on by a heavy snowfall. Mr. Raglund explained that a metal roof shed all the water to the outside, thus reducing the potential snow „ ` roofs. He said that the current roof looked like it had been designed to accommodate a fairly good weight from snow. He stated that the mayor change in the last three years was the higher class seismic zoning in this area. He said that without talking to the engineers he couldn't say for certain that the building would have no snow problems but he didn't think it would; he would ask that question of the contractors who made bid proposals. Councilor Hunt commented that in prior Council discussions, they said that they didn't want to go half way on this roof. He said that he would like to see a strong recommendation for the metal roof, as it was apparently the one that would give them the best guarantee. Councilor Scheckla asked if there were any problems with the library roof. Mr. Raglund said that the library roof was sloped, not flat. Mayor Nicoli noted leakage in the entry way because it used the same gutter system as City Hall. Bill Monahan, City Administrator, said that Council had given them enough direction to begin but that they would bring this back next week on the consent agenda to finalize it. 4. DISCUSSION: LIBRARY LEVY Kathy Davis, Library Director, explained that all the libraries in Washington County were undersized according to the recommended minimum square footage for libraries set by the Oregon Library Association (OLA). She said that ideally Tigard should be at almost 33,000 square feet of library space but was actually at 12,000 square feet of space. , Ms. Davis stated that the Cooperative Library Advisory Board (CLAB) has _ been working on a capital construction levy since the fall of 1994. She explained that Tigard was one of the libraries whose necessary expansion costs would be covered by the levy; others who needed to build new buildings were not so fortunate. Tigard had a relatively new facility with property available for expansion. i Ms. Davis said that CLAB dropped the concept of planning 20 years out (to 2015) because the numbers indicated that it wouldn't be possible with the refunding they were going for. She stated that several cities were close to deciding not to participate at all in the levy but for the levy to work, they had to have 1001 participation by all the member libraries. i - Ms. Davis explained that each library would receive a percent of the levy i equivalent to the percent of the Washington County population contained in its service area. She said this meant that Tigard would receive almost 13% of the levy because they served almost 13% of the total county ppopulation; Tigard would receive just under $4 million dollars out of the $30 million dollar capital levy. Councilor Hunt asked how far out this projection would take the city. Ms. Davis explained some issues Tigard had with building out to 2015. She said that their lot size wasn't big enough to accommodate the needed square footage; they were looking at creative alternatives such as a three story building but the water table was a concern for a basement level. it she said that, if they stayed on this lot, she would like to expand the space to 32,000 square feet, the amount of space they should have now. Ms. Davis said that the levy would pay for an expansion to 32,000 square feet. She reviewed the methodology used to calculate the cost, stating that she used $120 per square foot to be on the safe side, though $100 per square foot was a figure based on actual building costs and new construction in the state for the last three years. Councilor Rohlf asked what the levy rate would be for Tigard citizens if the City went alone to get the $3.8 million dollars. Ms. Davis said that r she had that at the county level only: 30 cents per $1000 assessed valuation. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 3 r d • t• In response to questions from Mayor Nicoli, Ms. Davis explained that the "drop dead date" for the levy to get on the March 1997 ballot was April. 1996. Councilor Hunt stated that he would vote against participating in the levy. He said that while he favored expanding the library, he preferred going to the voters with a bond issue to build the buildings needed for the city, including the library. He said that, as the community tended to support libraries and police, removing either one of those from a bond issue would render a city bond issue less attractive to the voters, especially if it came shortly after this county levy for libraries. He said that he also did not like building to what was needed now rather than building to what would be needed 10 years from now. Councilor Scheckla noted that the Washington County measure required participation by all the member libraries. He said that if they pursued Councilor Hunt's suggestion, and the county levy passed, then Tigard would have lost an opportunity to have something in hand rather than nothing in hand in the future. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that with the county levy they received money based on a population of 47,000 rather then the Tigard population of 35,000. He said that they stood to get more money if they went with the county because they would receive money for the 12,000 people they served outside their city limits which would help pay for a facility that they used. Mayor Nicoli asked if WCCLS had a good track record in passing measures. Ms. Davis said that they had a good track record, passing all of their operating levies since 1976, except one (which passed on the second try) She confirmed for Councilor Hunt that they were not capital levies. Mayor Nicoli noted that by the time they got a building up and operating based on the passage of this levy, the City would be near the end of the five year plan. This meant that they wouldn't be building a facility and then not have the money to staff it. Ms. Davis said that the issue that they did serve more than just the Tigard population was important because a vote at the county level meant that the substantial number of county users would pay their share for the building rather than placing the entire burden on the Tigard taxpayers. She noted that Beaverton has used that argument since 40$ of their users came from outside their city limits. Councilor Scheckla commented that if Tigard citizens voted in a levy by themselves, it meant that 12,300 people would use the library completely free. Ms. Davis said that that was correct; they had a contractual agreement as part of the cooperative to provide library service to all county residents regardless of where they lived. Councilor Hunt noted that Tigard was compensated for the costs of serving non residents of Tigard through the operating levy, and therefore they f.. were not giving free service. Ms. Davis clarified that the cost of the building was free. Councilor Hunt asked if a given jurisdiction voting down the levy, though it passed on a county wide basis, would kill the library expansion. Ms. Davis said no. If it passed on a county wide level, even those jurisdictions that voted it down would get their share. Mayor Nicoli asked if there were any strings attached to the money. Ms. Davis said that the only legal "string" she knew of was a probable contractual agreement stating that the building would be used for a library and not anything else. Councilor Hunt asked what the cost per individual was if Tigard did this by themselves. Mr. Monahan said that Mr. Lowry would have to do the calculation but that he expected it would be about one third higher than the cost county wide. Councilor Rohlf commented that they got the 30 cents by looking at needs CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 4-• j - I on a county wide basis, though Tigard did not have as great a need as others. Ms. Davis stated that the levy apportionment was based on population, not need. Councilor Rohlf asked how they arrived at $30 million dollars. Ms. Davis " explained that they took the total amount of square footage needed in the county and multiplied it by $100 per square foot. She reiterated that $30 million dollars wasn't enough to cover everyone's needs, though it would work very well for Tigard. r Councilor Rohlf noted that the building might be 20% cheaper than the $3.8 million, depending on how close the actual cost was to $100 per square I foot. Ms. Davis said that the architect who drew up the conceptual drawings for her considered $100 per square foot to be a fairly accurate estimate. Councilor Rohlf asked how OLA set the standards for the proper size square footage. Ms. Davis said that they based them on 6 square foot per capita. She reviewed the OLA methodology to reach that figure. Councilor Rohlf said that he wondered how realistic that was since it didn't look like anyone was near it. Ms. Davis explained that most of Washington County's libraries were built in the 1970s prior to the considerable population growth. Councilor Rohlf said that he agreed with Councilor Hunt that it was silly to build to what was needed now and not beyond that. Ms. Davis said that building beyond 32,000 square feet was an option but pointed out that I' there were real issues of block site and water table. Mayor Nicoli asked at what point did the library stop expanding the main facility and go to branches. Ms. Davis said that with branch libraries, costs escalated, especially in personnel, because they duplicated everything. She said that modular libraries, such as one at Washington Square, were still a possibility in the future. Councilor Scheckla raised concerns about parking. Ms. Davis concurred that parking was an issue, since the library was maned out in parking. She explained how the building could be expanded without encroaching on existing parking lot. She said that they have thought about were they could get more parking to accommodate the increased numbers of people i using the expanded library. Councilor Hunt said that parking concerns were one of the reasons he contended that the library expansion needed to be part of an overall plan; it would affect everything else here. Councilor Hunt reiterated his concern that building this expansion for people not living in Tigard would affect the City's chance of passing a levy for police and a levy to increase the size o£ a building. He said that this was giving preference to the library over the police. He stated that he was dead set against it because he believed that they would hurt the overall employees of the city by doing this. Mr. Monahan commented that right now staff was at a point where they needed to go to the WCCLS Board in April to report the Council's position. He said that staff was also workinV on how to address the short term and a little longer term space problems in the city. He said that one of the scenarios might not include a separate library levy but that they were not 1 ready to ask Council for direction. He agreed that the parking situation 1 needed to be investigated along with the other needs of the various city departments. Councilor Rohlf stated that he was not prepared to make a final vote on this until he knew what the cost would be if Tigard went off on its own. He said that he would also like to see the rest of the space study work. Mr. Monahan said that they could do that between now and April. Councilor Moore stated that he would like the same information as Councilor Rohlf requested. He asked what would happen to the city's CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 5 s _ relationship to the county library system if they didn't participate. Mayor Nicoli reviewed choices they had during the budget process regarding use of space. He said that he has asked that Mr. Lowry speak to the Council on whether the City had additional unanticipated money coming in or whether they were losing money. He said that he thought that they had more money coming in and that they probably could finance a lot of their space needs over the next four to five years without going to the people. Mr. Monahan pointed out that they would not be able to use the savings of the state shared revenues for construction of facilities without clearly informing the voters of what they were doing. He said that their ballot measure title specifically said that they would extend the length of the plan if the state shared revenues were not taken away. Councilor Hunt asked if the space committee looked at space only for the needed use or space for the long run. Ms. Newton stated that they were looking 10 to 20 years out trying to identify options for addressing space needs and formulate a timeline to advise Council on when to go out for a bond, if necessary. She said that they were also factoring in the library issue. She said that all departments were represented on the committee and that they hoped to come to Council with some tentative ideas. Mr. Monahan said they would come to Council on March 19th. 5. DISCUSSION: TRAFFIC CALMING Mr. Monahan introduced Bev Froude, the citizen spearheading a grass roots movement to deal with traffic calming needs in the city. He said that officer Kelley Jennings from the police and Gary Alfson from Engineering would be the staff liaisons between her group and the city. Bev Froude introduced Pamela Moyer who was aiding her in this effort. She reviewed how she became involved in this traffic calming effort called "Awareness" and mentioned the class she had taken at PSU on traffic. She said that two to three people from each CIT and the two staff liaison people formed the Task Force leading the program. She reviewed her handout listing the purpose of the Task Force and describing the content j of their six meetings. Ms. Froude said that at the first meeting they would focus on becoming aware of when speeding has actually occurred as opposed to the perception that it has occurred and on solutions. At the second meeting, city staff would address the task force on traffic calming ideas and information on the budget process. At the third meeting they wanted the City of Tigard police to address them on enforcement issues and at the fourth meeting, they hoped to have someone from the state speak on how speed limits were set and how they could be changed. Ms. Froude said that at the fifth meeting they hoped to have people from the City, Washington County and ODOT speak to them about what was happening with the major arterials in terms of relieving the interior neighborhood problems. At the sixth meeting they would look at actual traffic calming options to assist in making themselves, the neighborhoods and the entire community aware of the importance of driving at the speed limits in the neighborhoods. Ms. Froude pointed out that once the Awareness Task Force came up with its slate of ideas, they would still need the help of the city, county and state. Mr. Hendryx mentioned that they couldn't depend on the state for much help because the state was harder hit in the pocketbook than the local jurisdictions. He said that sometimes local jurisdictions funded state projects on state rights of way because they couldn't come up with the money themselves. Ms. Froude said that she understood what Mr. Hendryx t meant but explained that they did not want to cut out the big operators. Mayor Nicoli expressed his support for the Awareness program, especially since it was citizen driven rather than city driven. He said that next year the Council would budget more money for speed bumps. He noted that CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 6 I Mr. Monahan was preparing the budget and asked for other items that the Task Force felt would be helpful, such as electronic devices to monitor speeds on the street. He noted that sometimes those devices revealed that little speeding was actually going on while other times they revealed a problem. Ms. Froude mentioned money for sidewalks or walking paths in neighborhoods, noting that it was a safety issue. She said that they intended to get people involved at the neighborhood level in this program. Mayor Nicoli said that the city could help in disseminating information through the city newsletter. He noted the probable problem that would occur on Bull Mountain when the school district put in a new elementary school outside the city limits but not sidewalks for the kids to use. He mentioned that they could look at the situation with the county on an assessment district to get sidewalks in. Ms. Froude said that the improvements on Bull Mountain from Pacific Highway to 131st did include a sidewalk and were funded through MSTIP 2. Mr. Monahan noted that sidewalks were included in the improvements on 131st between Beef Bend Road and Fischer . Ms. Froude said that those were in MSTIP 3, though she did not know which year. i Mayor Nicoli asked if staff was meeting with the task force on a regular basis. Ms. Froude said that Gary was part of their team, though they would like another city staff member to address them on the larger city issues at one of their meetings. Mayor Nicoli noted that the Task Force could update the Council once a month at the informal work session. Ms. Froude said that they also { updated the CITS. f Councilor Rohlf asked if they intended to address the issue of cut through ffr traffic from the surrounding jurisdictions. Ms. Froude said that that was one of the issues they would need to look at once they decided if a ti specific street had a problem. She said that they would need the city's ~i help in the matter. Councilor Scheckla asked the City Attorney if there was anything the City could do about preventing cut through traffic from other jurisdictions, pointing out that they might not be able to resolve the matter. Mr. Ramis said that they needed to look at the traffic system as a whole through the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan. He said that if they set a goal to minimize the impact of through traffic on the j community, the nest step was to go through the planning process to identify what they could do in the long run to adjust those issues. He said that it was a complicated issue without a simple answer. Mr. Monahan said that that was why they had to look at traffic as a system. He stated that they could do more enforcement in an area of concern but that they needed to be aware of the spin off effect of that enforcement on other parts of the system. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Ramis explained that Portland has done extensive long term studies on the impacts of through traffic on neighborhoods. They have done things structurally on local streets to divert traffic to the collectors and arterials but it was a systematic step by step approach looking at the whole system. Councilor Scheckla commented that the fire department needed to be involved to determine the effect of devices on their ability to get emergency equipment in and out. Mr. Ramis concurred. Councilor Hunt said that if they thought that the "Slow Down For Kid's Sake" signs were effective, then they should be considered in the budget. Ms. Froude mentioned the big banner Portland hung across streets and mo✓ed around to selected neighborhoods. She said that they found it effective when not left up for long periods of time. Councilor Hunt asked what "strictly enforced" meant. Ms. Froude explained CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -,FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 7 9 L2 • j that "strictly enforced" meant that speeding even only one mile over the posted speed limit garnered the speeder a ticket when the police were i patrolling that area. 6. DISCUSSION: COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, Executive Director, reviewed the Community Development Corporation (CDC) called Community Partners for Affordable Housing, directing attention to the comprehensive hand out in the agenda packet. She mentioned the organization Neighborshare that had similar goal as Community Partners, although theirs was focused on a non emergency need. Ms. Greenlaw-Fink reviewed the formation of the organization to address the problem of affordable housing in Tigard, a comprehensive problem throughout the community. She said that she was hired last fall as Director and remained the sole staff member. Ms. Greenlaw-Fink directed attention to a handout - the CDC production report - to present information on how the community development organizations were developing a total of about 6000 units in the state. Ms. Greenlaw-Fink reviewed the Community Partners project at Tiffany Court on Bonita Road. She said that this was a 100 unit complex suffering rapid deterioration from crime and from significant levels of tenant/landlord disputes over issues that have not been resolved to the satisfaction of the tenants. She said that they agreed to take on this project because no one in the private sector would, and because they wanted to improve the quality of life there while maintaining the affordability of the units. Ms. Greenlaw-Fink said that they could achieve their goals through an ambitious structuring of a financial package that included subsidy grants ! from various sources and bond financing. She said that it would take up to a year and a half to complete. Ms. Greenlaw-Fink reviewed the current status of the project. They were negotiating with the owner who has priced the property clearly over market value. They were optimistic about their second offer. She said that their plan was to do substantial renovation including energy efficiencies, improvements to the exterior drainage, and replacement of playground equipment. Ms. Greenlaw-Fink stated that they intended to hire an outside manager to run the complex based on sensible management practices. Their main goal was to maintain the affordability of the units on a permanent basis. She noted the situation in Tigard where many people who worked here couldn't afford to live here. Ms. Greenlaw-Fink stated that their work last week with Tualatin in coordinating with the Red Cross to find housing for flood victims had demonstrated that there were virtually no vacancies in larger bedroom sizes and very few in the small bedroom sizes. She said that many of the people would have to leave the community because they could not find housing they could afford. Ms. Greenlaw-Fink stated that they hoped to be a resource for the city. She said that they applauded the Council's recent denial of rezoning multi family to general commercial as an example of farsightedness. she said that they were worried about the limited amount of land available to build multifamily units. She said that they were aware of the limited resources i available to help them develop affordable housing units but that they would like to play a role in developing such units if they could. She said that they could also serve as a source of information for the City with their inventory of buildable land and multifamily units. Councilor Hunt reported that he has received two phone calls in the last week from tenants moving out from the apartment houses adjacent to Tiffany Court because the crime element was overflowing into their complexes. He said that he contacted Chief Goodpaster who set up a meeting with the tenants and landlord to try to resolve the problems caused by Tiffany Court. He pointed out that they needed to keep in mind the effect the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 8 Tiffany Court project would have on neighboring complexes. Mayor Nicoli stated that during his ride along with the police, he had asked them to take him to the worst spot in town; they took him to Tiffany court. He asked how many subsidies they needed to make this project work. Ms. Greenlaw-Fink explained that they would ask for $300,000 from HOME, $100,000 from the state housing trust fund with the bulk of the remainder done through a bond finance. They have talked to banks that did bond financing. She said that they really needed more subsidies to maintain the rents at current or lower levels after the major renovation required, even with good management practices. Mayor Nicoli asked how Community Partners would deal with the tenants who caused problems through their lack of respect for the facility. He noted that there were legitimate people living in substandard housing but that many of the Tiffany Court tenants engaged in any illegal activity they { could think of. Ms. Greenlaw-Fink explained that federal law prohibited them from evicting the troublemakers immediately. She said that the two major elements they intended to use were community policing and good management to deter illegal activity and to enforce the tenant contracts that would stipulate some basic guidelines. , Ms. Greenlaw-Fink mentioned items that the City had a role in that could help their organization such as abatement or deferral of property taxes and SDCs. She said that they could provide the City with a copy of the state statutes describing that kind of support. Mayor Nicoli asked if they have approached the county for that kind of support. Ms. Greenlaw-Fink stated that they were meeting with the county on Thursday and requested a formal letter of support from the City Council to take with her to that meeting. Mr. Monahan said that staff could draft a letter expressing the Council's support of the agency. Councilor Scheckla asked if there was any way the City could help other than funding. Ms. Greenlaw-Fink said that property taxes were one of the biggest issues they faced. She also mentioned a partnership with the police. Councilor Scheckla asked if the new owners of Tiffany Court would be liable for the existing code violations or would they be given a chance to f~ fix it up. Ms. Greenlaw-Fink said that they discussed code enforcement with the police and community development departments and how they could pursue code violations, whether or not they bought the building. Councilor Hunt commented that the fire department installed smoke alarms in houses at no cost; he thought it was likely that they would do the same for apartments. Mayor Nicoli commented that Tigard did not have a housing code like the one in Portland, which likely explained why the pressure hasn't been brought to bear more heavily on the current owner. -7. SEVERE WEATHER SHELTER STATUS REPORT Mr. Monahan introduced Kim Brown, Executive Director for Interfaith Outreach Services, and Steve Feldman, Board President of Interfaith Outreach Services. He reported that there has been a change in their plans for the severe weather shelter from being open every evening to being open on a severe weather basis. Rim Brown, Executive Director, explained that they changed their plans when they realized that they did not have the money to keep the shelter open. She cited severe cuts in county and state funds. She explained the criteria for opening the shelter - when the temperature was predicted to be below 35 degrees or the weather presented a substantial health risk to people sleeping outside. She said that she informed Mr. Monahan two weeks i ago of the change. " - CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 9 1 Councilor Hunt asked if all those needing shelter during the severe cold weather were given housing elsewhere, since the shelter had been closed at that time. Ms. Brown stated that since they knew the building would be closed, they did some advance planning and located seven spaces at their program shelter. She said that once those filled up, they sent people to Portland because the shelters there were not turning anyone away due to the severe cold weather. She said that to her knowledge, everyone in Tigard who used the shelter found housing during the two weeks that the shelter was closed. Councilor Hunt expressed concern that the Council was not notified that the shelter was closed, thus precluding the possibility of their finding some way to keep it open. He asked, if Interfaith could find places for everyone during the severe cold, why they couldn't do that on a regular basis and not have a shelter at all. Ms. Brown explained the circumstances that allowed them to place all their clients elsewhere, something that they wouldn't normally be able to do. She said that seven spaces becoming available at this time was fortunate, and that the Portland shelters overflowed their maximums to let people stay. Normally they turned people away after reaching their maximums. Councilor Hunt stated that he supported the shelter but that he had been quite unhappy to discover that the shelter was closed without the Council knowing about it. Mr. Monahan stated that Ms. Brown had advised him four to five days in advance that the shelter was going to be closed for the two week period. He said that following the two week closure, the shelter opened again. He said that Ms. Brown did inform him of the change in policy and kept staff informed of their problems. Councilor Scheckla expressed his dissatisfaction with the change in policy from a shelter open seven days a week to a shelter open just whenever. Steve Feldman Board President of Interfaith Outreach Services, stated that he did not think it was fair to say that the City was not notified when the shelter was closed. He said that they have had some personnel and administrative problems. He recounted an incident in which Interfaith was accused of not having the shelter open on a particular night, when he knew it was open because he had been there that night. He said that the criticism was unfair and inaccurate. ~t Councilor Scheckla and Mr. Feldman discussed the incident. Ms. Brown explained that the shelter doors were locked and lights turned out at 10 p.m. to let the occupants sleep and to monitor who came in and out as a security measure. Anyone wanting in after 10 p.m. would have to knock. She said that everyone was supposed to be out of the building by 6 a.m. ' f- Mr. Feldman said that currently Interfaith had a contract with the City to use the water building as a severe weather shelter with no conditions attached. He said that if the City wanted to attach conditions next year, that would be appropriate. He said that the bottom line was that Interfaith did not have the money needed to keep the shelter open seven days a week. Mayor Nicoli stated that he was aware that Interfaith was a volunteer organization operating on a donation basis, and that he did not have a problem with the way they have run the shelter. He said that he would like to see them with a stronger budget and utilize the building more - fully but that he supported their efforts to provide a service to the community. Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting. I i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 10 - - - - - 8. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 95- 0019/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 95-0008/MINOR LAND PARTITION (ML) 95-0012 - FUTURE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Resolution No. 96-09. - Resolution No. 96-09, in the matter of the adoption of the final order upon city council review of a site development review, planned 't development, minor land partition, SDR 95-0019/PDR 95-0008/MLP 95-0012, - Future shop/Christensen. The City Recorder read the resolution number and title. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted yes.") i. 9. DISCUSSION: AMENDING PARK SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY AND FEE - - STRUCTURE (Discussion set over from the November 21, 1995 Council Meeting) Mr. Monahan reminded the Council that they had a split vote on the SDC _ methodology the last time it came to them. Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, introduced Carl Goebel, chief consultant on the study. Mayor Nicoli noted that the Council had voted in two out of the three SDCs, disagreeing on the commercial SDC. He said that Councilor Hawley had favored including the commercial SDC but at a lower rate. b, J~ j Carl Goebel, Consultant, stated that generally speaking across the country, commercial activities were not typically charged for a park SDC. j He said that he thought the reason why because there was such a direct nexus between parks and the immediate residential area that other relationships that might place a burden on the park were not explored. He said that the few park commercial SDCs existing generally played a very small role in higher revenue. He noted that the commercial sector was not pleased at being charged an SDC. Mr. Goebel reviewed the rationale he thought appropriate to justify inclusion of the commercial sector in the SDCs. He said that workers in commercial activities also used the facilities but paid no city taxes to support them. Mr. Roberts mentioned the system development system study that listed two other cities in the area that recently adopted nominal commercial SDCs. Councilor Rohlf stated that the argument he found most persuasive was the one presented by the Chamber that the businesses were not using the parks. He noted that businesses contributed to the City in many other ways, citing supporting team sports as an example. He said that it did not make any sense to him to ask them for more. Mayor Nicoli stated that he opposed the SDC because he did not believe that businesses used the parks and because half the city's general fund revenue came from business taxes, and park maintenance was funded out of the general fund - therefore, businesses already heavily supported the parks. He cited examples of fees that placed a burden on businesses, such as the business subsidy of garbage collection for residential customers and a substantially higher county TIF fee charged to businesses compared to the TIF fee charged to residential users. Councilor Scheckla expressed his support of the motion, citing an example of business people using Winter Park. He said that the fee was nominal - $45 - and easily offset by businesses. Mr. Goebel commented that Tigard had a very large employment base living outside the city (21,000) compared to the total employment base of 25,000. 1 He reviewed the methodology and assumptions used to calculate the amounts ' - of time an resident employee and a non resident employee would use the F park. He said that businesses were charged for their employee base `t CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 11 i because it was the employee base that placed a demand on the existing r\ facility capacity. He said that they had tried to achieve a precise ~J calculation in terms of use and assign only the costs that could be fairly attributed as a result of the demand that that employee base referred to. Councilor Rohlf pointed out that the calculation was only fair if the assumption was correct. He said that they had witnesses testify that the assumption was not correct. Mr. Goebel explained that they were charging not on the actual use but on the capacity to use, citing water SDCs as an example. Mayor Nicoli commented that there were other ways to have a tighter link than shown in the assumptions, citing business groups reserving park shelters as an example. He suggested charging a higher fee for using the park shelters. He said that anyone could Justify anything. He said that he did not have a problem with anything Mr. Goebel prepared but that he thought the link between the use and the SDC needed to be tighter. He said that he thought it was a bit of a stretch to bring businesses in on this, and noted that the dollar amount was not that much. Councilor Hunt said that what he heard being said was that since businesses subsidized residential garbage pickup, then residents should subsidize parks for businesses. He suggested starting out with a fair division of costs in the parks SDC. He stated that he could not see any reason why the businesses shouldn't pay their fair share. He discounted the Chamber testimony because their job was to lobby for businesses. t Councilor Moore asked how much of the $440,000 listed as an annual average in the fiscal notes came from the commercial SDC. Mr. Roberts said Y $40,000 was commercial. Councilor Moore stated that he could see both sides of the issue. He said it would be great to collect an additional $40,000 yet it wasn't that much revenue in the big picture. He said that he agreed that the commercial customers probably didn't use the park system as much as the residential z customers. He said a weighty factor for him was that other jurisdictions didn't have a commercial park SDC. Mr. Roberts recommended that Council impose a slightly higher residential amount if they decided against the non residential SDC in order to collect the same amount of money. i Mayor Nicoli said that not collecting the $40,000 from residential was an option also. He reviewed the issues before the Council: whether or not to adopt a commercial park SDC and, if they did not adopt it, whether or not to cut the estimated amount by $40,000 or reassess it against residential. Mr. Roberts stated that the SDC fee was based on anticipated costs provided a given level of service in the park. To cut down on that would greatly impact the city's ability to acquire facilities. 10. DISCUSSION: PLANNING FEES Dick Bewersdorff, Community Development, reviewed the work done by staff on cost recovery by the City through increased planning fees, using a slide presentation. Mr. Bewersdorff listed the items Section 332 of the Municipal Code that required staff to look at when determining the costs of doing business. He pointed out the 1984 Council resolution suggesting that the City recover 80% of its costs; currently the City recovered under 30t of its costs. Councilor Rohlf asked why nothing was done with the detailed study completed in 1991/92. Mr. Bewersdorff said that there has been a change in staffing at the department and city administrator level since then, and that it got lost in the shuffle. Mr. Monahan said that they resurrected ^c, the study when he was hired but they held off on it until the issue of the "Son of Measure 5" was resolved. They feared the appearance that would be j CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 12 given if the City increased its fees and the measure passed. Mr. Bewersdorff pointed out that the City only recovered costs of processing an application after it was approved and the final order given. He directed attention to a table showing present fees based on incomplete direct and indirect costs compared to the proposed fees based on the direct/indirect costs actually incurred. Mr. Bewersdorff reviewed both the actual indirect and direct costs and the r methodologies for calculating them. He directed attention to a worksheet in the packet showing the breakdown in dollar amounts. Mr. Bewersdorff explained that to recover 1008 of the costs of processing an application, the City would have to raise its fees on the average 365'x. He said that in 1994, they collected approximately $42,000 or 30% recovery of costs. If they had recovered loot of the costs, they would have collected $184,000. He pointed out that present city planning fees were embarrassingly low in some instances; the proposed fees were comparable to fees charged by other jurisdictions. Mr. Bewersdorff recommended recovering loot of the direct and indirect costs and directed attention to the chart in the packet listing some possible alternatives to recover those costs, including phasing the increase in over a three year period. Mr. Bewersdorff reviewed fees allowed by state statute that the City currently did not charge but which the staff was recommending they add on i. (p, 20). These included fees for final plat, hearing postponement, pre " application fees, development code provision review, and detailed zoning analysis. Mr. Hendryx commented that there has been some discussion about rewriting the development code. He said that one way to offset the cost of that would be to earmark some of the money from increased fees to pay for the rewrite. He said that they have not yet taken this out to the community because they wanted to talk with council first to familiarize the Councilors with a proposal that would undoubtedly generate phone calls. Mr. Hendryx stated that he intended to invite the top 50 builders in the community to a presentation of the proposed fees. He said that he also would set up a meeting with the homebuilders to answer their questions on ! an individual basis. Mr. Bewersdorff commented that the homebuilders paid considerably larger fees in other jurisdictions. Mayor Nicoli said that engineers have told him that they didn't know how the City survived charging such low fees for the amount of work that was done by staff. He said that he thought there was support in the development community for the City to increase its fees. Mayor Nicoli pointed out the ease with which an applicant could get a building permit at Portland as compared to the same process in Tigard. He suggested that as they looked at raising the fees, Councilors also look at the City's standards and see if they were really necessary. He said that he was not saying that they should do that across the board or lower themselves to Portland's standards; he was only pointing out that each requirement cost both the City and the developer money and that perhaps f they could look at the broad picture of what work really needed to be l done. i Mr. Monahan pointed out that they have not recovered all the costs of providing planning services but recovered the cost of planning through appropriation of building revenue. He said that in view of the overall system, perhaps they needed to invest more in personnel and services in the building department to make sure that the end product was done properly. He said that in the budget process this year, Council would see a request from Community Development to make the building program self supporting with the funds recovered from building devoted to providing building services as opposed to supporting other services such as planning. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 13 1 dfta~ G Councilor Moore expressed concern at increasing the tree cutting permit fee, considering the difficulty they had in establishing a rate acceptable to the community. Councilor Hunt concurred. Mayor Nicoli suggested that the council set some general guidelines on cost recovery and then ask staff to form a well rounded task force comprised of staff and business people to review the fee proposal and return to Council with a recommendation for increasing the fees. In respond to a comment from Councilor Hunt, he said that if they recommended decreasing fees, Council would throw the recommendation out. I The Council discussed the Mayor's proposal. Mr. Bewersdorff pointed out that the 100% only recovered the costs of processing the application, which equated to about 30% of the time for those people; it did not include planning services. Mayor Nicoli stated that he thought there were some fees that could be increased rapidly while others would have to increase at a slower pace. He did not think that they had to start out at 100% the first year. He reiterated his proposal for a task force. Councilor Scheckla commented that increasing fees quickly would anger people used to a reduced rate. He argued for increasing the fees to 100% over a three year period. Mr. Hendryx pointed out that the fees were extremely out of date and needed updating. He said that staff could form a task force to review the fees with but he recommended that if they did so, Council set some tight parameters to contain the amount of time it took to review the proposed I fees. He said that he did not want to review the assumptions in the proposal. Councilor Scheckla spoke against forming a task force, contending that staff already had the information they needed to implement the proposal. Councilor Hunt also spoke against forming a task force because the study was already based on actual costs, and he did not want to see a group change the proposed fees. Councilor Rohlf said that he was not comfortable with the process used to calculate the costs, expressing concern that they recover only the costs and not get ahead of themselves. Mr. Bewersdorff reaffirmed that the costs were based on actual costs. Mayor Nicoli commented that he did not think it appropriate for Council to act on a staff recommendation to increase fees without some sort of public review. Mr. Hendryx explained that he intended to make the community aware of this proposal, after which they would hold a public hearing on the formal recommendation. He said that they could earmark a particular group of people to review the proposal. He suggested putting the proposal out in the community for 30 to 60 days to give the community time to think about it prior to a public meeting. Councilor Rohlf asked if a review by a task force of their peers wouldn't make it easier to sell the proposal to the development community. Mr. Hendryx said that it could do that. Councilor Moore stated that he was not a proponent of task forces. He said that recovering 100% of the City's costs made sense to him. He concurred with Mr. Hendryx's suggestion to send this to builders and the community for feedback, then hold a public hearing and decide on that basis. Councilors Hunt and Scheckla both concurred on not having a task force. Mr. Monahan said that staff could send out notices per Mr. Hendryx's proposal, and then have an open work session and invite people to attend to get their questions answered, followed by a public hearing for public input and a decision by Council 60 to 75 days later. He said they would aim for an implementation date of July 1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 14 11. DISCUSSION: NEIGHBORHOOD MEDIATION City Administrator, reviewed the people and Liz Newton, Assistant to the communities she talked with in researching the implementation of a mediation program in Tigard. She said that she and Mr. Monahan decided that this would be an appropriate time to give the Council an overview on this program. Ms. Newton reviewed the need in the police department for mediation services to handle situations that they could not resolve by legal means and to free up the Community services officers' time to spend on handling more non emergency police calls. She reviewed the need in the municipal court for mediation to settle civil infraction cases out of court; civil infractions were extremely time consuming, though there weren't that many of them any more since the Community Service office was instituted. ' Ms. Newton reported that other communities with mediation programs reported a high satisfaction among[ participants with the cases that went to mediation. She noted that a difference between litigation and f mediation was that all parties agreed to mediation and thus felt they had more control than in a courtroom; Chis increased the level of satisfaction with the settlement. Ms. Newton reviewed three possible methods that Tigard could use to •,'-,'.,,;';_'r;;;' institute a mediation program: contract out for mediation services, hire staff to develop the program, or contract out the program development to another city that already had a mediation program and then hire staff to staff the program after it was developed. She said that she preferred the third option. Ms. Newton said that the City of Beaverton was willing to contract with Tigard to develop their own mediation program. Beaverton would train Tigard volunteers who would then get experience in mediation in Beaverton and be available to mediate disputes in Tigard during the first year. Tigard would get an experienced individual to help them develop their program and an initial trainingr program, and obtain some informational pieces to advertise the mediation program to the public. Ms. Newton said that if they went with this approach they could be ready to implement a mediation program and hire a staff person by July 1997. She said that this would be a good option to consider if Council wanted to started the program next year because the City did not have the initial i staff costs in the coming fiscal year while the program was under development. In response to questions from Councilor Hunt, Ms. Newton explained that she and Mr. Monahan thought that the staff person would report to her and be involved in some of the operational site CITs, in addition to handling the mediation program. She said that this would free up her time to work on other issues Mr. Monahan wanted her to work on. Mr. Monahan commented that the costs of municipal courts have increased over the last two years. He cited an example of a situation where lk mediation early in the process might have avoided a lengthy and costly court fight. He said that he thought that as 2040 was implemented, they would see an increase in neighborhood disputes. Ms. Newton noted that several communities were beginning to use another community's mediators in disputes between the city and citizens. She said that they could develop a program to trade service with Beaverton. In response to a question from Councilor Moore, Ms. Newton stated that she would cost out the options for Council and bring that information back at a later date. Councilor Hunt expressed his support for the third option. Mayor Nicoli expressed his support for the mediation program, pointing out f that it would be primarily volunteer run and therefore cost the City less than might be anticipated. He said that he didn't think they needed to CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 15 j hire a fulltime person. Though they could look at coopting with another f ' city for help on the program, he thought that Tigard was a 'large enough city now to offer this service. He asked Ms. Newton to cost out option 3 and have a advertisement in next month's newsletter for volunteer mediators to attend the training sessions. 12. DISCUSSION: VISIONING PROJECT - Ms. Newton stated that they called this "Tigard: Thinking Beyond Tomorrow." She reviewed the benefits Tigard would receive from this program (as listed on page one of her memo). It would serve as a blueprint of desired long term results that would provide a guide for current decisions regarding funding and programs as well as changes in the codes related to how they wanted Tigard to grow. Ms. Newton said that the second benefit would be to give a broad range of the community an opportunity to be involved in setting the course for the future through setting priorities and values and communicating with Council about the things that they thought were important. She said that they planned to get all ages and sectors involved, and that they hoped to reestablish a sense of community in Tigard. Ms. Newton said that another benefit was providing an opportunity for other groups like the School District, business community, service clubs j and others to define their role in providing service. Another benefit was the Council and staff receiving direction from the community in setting priorities. And lastly, this process would identify the acceptable level of funding for the services desired by the community so that the Council and staff would know what the citizens were willing to pay for. € j Loreen Mills, Administrative Analyst/Risk Manager, directed attention to ( j the budget in the agenda packet. She said that the cost of the visioning ` process would be approximately $83,500. She reviewed the costs, including t J using consultants at specific times in the process, a visioning pin recognizing involvement in the process and one full time employee for one year. She said that they would check with Marylhurst, Lewis & Clark and PSU to see if they could hire a graduate student at a reduced rate. Councilor Rohlf stated that he wouldn't be afraid to use professional consulting help in this situation because it was a program that none of them were familiar with. He said that he preferred paying more to get the job done right. Ms. Mills said that in reviewing the process as done by other cities, they felt that the use of a consultant for the entire project was overkill. The staff person would perform clerical and reception duties also. Councilor Hunt raised the survey done four years ago by consultants. Ms. Mills said that they recommend using a consultant to design the instrument that they would take to the community. Councilor Scheckla asked how this would differ from the survey done 4 before. Ms. Newton explained that the prior survey was random with a low response rate. She said that this method invited more people across a broader range to participate. She said that they were thinking of setting something up on the Internet. She cited an example at a CIT meeting in which two citizens discovered that they had mutually incompatible views regarding infill development. She explained that this process would help the community to deal with the issues and to assign values. Councilor Rohlf commented that Tigard was being forced into action by external forces such as Metro 2040. He said that they could use this process to determine what actions to take and then come up with an action plan to achieve goals. He stated that he had not been impressed with the Tigard Talk survey and expressed hope that this method would bring more concrete results in terms of a future vision for Tigard. j Ms. Newton reviewed the process they developed to formulate a mission statement, set values and priorities, set goals and strategies to achieve v them, and develop some way to measure whether or not they were CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 16 ,r i accomplishing their goals. She noted that Tigard Talk had been an opinion survey with no way to measure success. She said that they would like staff and citizens to work together on developing tools for measuring success. Councilor Scheckla asked if the other cities who paid large sums had any net results to show for their investment. He said that they already knew that they needed things like a youth center and traffic mitigation on 99W. He contended that it would be better to use the money to start solving the problems now than to spend it on this process that would tell them what they already knew. Councilor Rohlf commented that this process would take a comprehensive look and pull the community together to help define what they wanted as opposed to the piecemeal approach they currently used. ' Mr. Monahan concurred with Councilor Rohlf's comment. He cited Scottsdale, Arizona, as an example of a city that used the visioning process and reported back to the citizens every year on where they were in accomplishing the goals. He said that the Scottsdale City Council l t.. analyzed all decisions in light of the established vision to insure that they remained consistent with that vision. Mr. Monahan pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan was somewhat similar to a vision statement; however, the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1983 when two thirds of the population of Tigard hadn't moved here yet. A review of what the people wanted for the town was appropriate at this time. He said that the most important element in this process was the two way communication over a year's time. He said that by including the ~ people in the process, they trained people in understanding what the vision was; those people could hold the City accountable and at the same time the city had educated and informed people participating in the wide variety of processes involved with the City. Councilor Scheckla commented that 40 years from now, Tigard was like to be absorbed into a Portland megalopolis. Councilor Rohl£ said that ly that was all the more reason to identify what they wanted so they could fight for it, if that became necessary. Ms. Mills commented that in her research, she found that a lot of the communities were discovering for the first time that they were actually meeting the expectations of the citizens. She said that this process drew a city together in all sectors to work together under a common game plan. She said that she would like to see Tigard have a game plan of where they were going. She agreed that they had the pieces but contended that they were missing the map to put them together. She said that she thought there were many issues in Tigard that have not been addressed because they've never been raised and recognized by the community as a problem that needed solving. She said that she realized during her research that this could be a powerful tool for Tigard. Mayor Nicoli commented that the $83,000 hit him a bit hard. He stated that he thought that the 20 to 30 goals identified at the Council goal setting session did indeed reflect what the community wanted to have. He expressed concern at spending this amount of money on a process that probably wouldn't change what they would be doing anyway in three or four Il years. He said that he thought that they had made good headway on parks, transportation and pathways. Councilor Rohlf said that right now someone else was setting the vision for Tigard's future in 10 years, and that they didn't have anything to say about that because they didn't have a vision themselves. He contended that spending $83,000 to develop that vision was well worth it. Ms. Newton pointed out that they might very well not find out anything surprising during in this process but they would have involved a lot of people who would understand where the community was going and what the - roles of government were. She said that they would have articulated goals to address issues, and set a road map. She argued that there was benefit to going through the process. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 17 r ~ ~ i Mr. Monahan commented that though they might come to the same goals they would have anyway, there would be more validation for the community that this was what they wanted. He said that through this process, the city might find more groups like Community Partners who identified an issue and sought to address it on their own, thus saving the City money in the long term. - Councilor Scheckla spoke for spending the $100,000 now on a youth center to take pressure off the police department. He contended that spending the $100,000 on this process would be a disservice to the whole area. Mr. Monahan said it was possible to build the youth center or they might discover through the visioning process an entirely different view of the + best way to create that center or where to locate it. Councilor Rohlf pointed out that all three candidates for the open council position were asked if they thought visioning was a good idea and all three said yes. He noted that the city could use volunteers with the appropriate skills and background in other areas to offset the cost of the process. He said that he wanted to set a goal and a vision for the community, and hoped that the community would become a community again as they worked through that process. Councilor Rohlf noted that the City spent a lot of money on the CITs over the past years to get citizen input and yet Council was still frustrated constantly about getting input. Councilor Moore commented that the council represented the city. He said each one of them knew what he wanted but did they really know what the citizens wanted. i i Councilor Scheckla asked why staff thought that they would get a higher rate of return on this process than they did with the survey four years I ago. Ms. Newton explained that this process was not random; it invited input from responsible parties who would give back meaningful input. I( Councilor Scheckla asked why they should pay out this money to find out what the citizens have already told them. Councilor Rohlf said that the Council didn't know what the citizens wanted. He cited the example of the tree ordinance that surprised the Council because they did not dig deep enough initially to find out what the community wanted. He said that he agreed with the need to set goals and have measurable means to determine if they were meeting those goals. He said that they need to have ongoing dialogue regarding the Comprehensive Plan that was developed when so many of the citizens today hadn't been here. He said that he thought $80,000 was a pittance for the value. Mr. Monahan said that they would bring this back to the Council for } further discussion at the March study session. 13. NON-AGENDA 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public ' records, current & pending litigation issues. 15. ADJOURNMENT: 11:03 p.m. Att s Catherine Wheatley, City Recor r or, City of Tigard ate: .3LR NP .lam CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE 18 .I COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 8 4 0 3 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 FV rl} Legal Notice Advertising 'City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • { OF TiGAUD O Duplicate Affidavit •Tigard,Oregon 97223 'Accounts Payable-Terry • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, o. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as. ,n I Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of thalaa d-m ,a 1 at-An Times 4„0+~ a newspaper of general circulation a defined in ORS 193.010 and 193..020; published at hTigar in the CirtyiConciyd[aoRshopaMeeting a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: February 1.5.1.996 Subscribed and sworn t fore me thi uary, 19.96 , Notary P c for Oregon CO r0, C_ a- My Commission Expires: ^M~ r AFFIDAVIT _ LL The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by tailing 639 4171. j CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING FEBRUARY 20,1996 TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL - 13125 S. W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON Workshop Meeting (Town Hall) (6:30 p.m.) Discussion Items: • Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs) -Update to Council • Amending Park System Development Charge Methodology and Fee Structure (Discussion set over from the Nov. 21, 1995 Coum oil Meeting) • Traffic Calming • Neighborhood Mediation • Community Partners for Affordable Housing Visioning Project - - Executive Session (Red Rock Creek Conference Room) • Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Execu-. Live Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. Local Contract Review Board Meeting TT8403 - Publ ish February 15, 1996. I I l _ a-Er oC ~'l~CG ' Q Y {~-r is 1 J 4-D 7e 1lh .1 17 J G12 C'~ CLIC~i ..CIJ L l.( 17 {l4 ~d~ yLL"~