The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 09/24/1996 o 1 rt CITY OF TIGARD rA OREGON 3 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL t { MEETING I SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 i COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE ~ TELEVISED a ) i I ti. 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. Tigard, 02 97223 (503) 639-4171 MD (503) 684-2772 3 J I dft OR TIGARD CI'TY COUNCIL CITY OF TIGARD BUSINESS MEETING I PUBLIC NOTICE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 6:30 PM Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda TIGAiRq CITY MALL item should sign on the appropriate sign- 13125 SW HALL OREGON 97'BLVD223 TIGAR up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the h beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two j 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 any order after 7.30 p.m. 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: • 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, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA 1 v COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 1 AGENDA I n Council Meeting - September 24, 1996 Tigard City . STUDY MEETING > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), ex (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and 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 this session. k ? > Discuss of Annexation Analysis Option for the Walnut Island > Discuss Solid Waste Task Force Assignments > Agenda Review 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council ex Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) i 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 for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes - August 20, 1996 3.2 Receive and File: Planning Commission Bylaws and Rules of Procedure 3.3 Approve Updated Water Rate Structure - Resolution No. 96- 3.4 Approve Dedication of Property at SW Burnham Street and S.W. . Main Street to the Public as Right of Way - Resolution No. 96- i COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 2 - I I 3.4 Approve Dedication of Property at SW Burnham Street and S.W. r Main Street to the Public as Right of Way - Resolution No. 96- 3.5 Approve the Interest Rate for 1996/97 to be Applied to All Reimbursement Districts Formed During the Year- Res. No. 96-_ • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING - FORMATION OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 8 a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Public Works Department d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution 96- 5. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0005 SANDERS ANNEXATION REQUEST: The owner requests annexation of one parcel of 0.33 acres into the city and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-5 to City of Tigard Low Density Residential/R-4.5. LOCATION: At Southeast Corner of Johnson Street and 106th Drive. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity, 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-5. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution 96-_ sZ Ordinance 96- COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 3 a 6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI JUDICIAL) ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0006 HATCH ANNEXATION REQUEST: The applicant requests annexation on behalf of the owner for four parcels of land with a total acreage of 2.52 acres into the City and a change of the zoning from Washington County R-5 to City of Tigard R-4.5. LOCATION: West of 114th Avenue and South of Gaarde St. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-5 a. Open Public Hearing n... b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g- Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution 96-_ at Ordinance 96- _ 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96- 0006 TIGARD FEED STORE REQUEST: A request to remove the historic overlay designation and permit the demolition of the Tigard Feed and Garden bu,lding, designated as historically significant by the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12355 SW Main St. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and 3.7.1 and Community Development Code, Chapter 18.82 ZONE: CBD a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96- COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 4 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 1 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), at (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and 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 this session. { 10. ADJOURNMENT - is\adm\cathy\cca\960924p.doc i ' S t COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 5 Agenda Item No. ~ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of a 14(.0 MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 . Y STUDY SESSION - > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Council President Paul Hunt. > Council Present: Council President Paul Hunt, Councilors Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Acting City Engineer Greg Berry; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; - Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Administrative Analyst Loreen Mills; - Asst. to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > Discussion of Annexation Analysis option for the walnut island Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, presented the staff report describing four options available to Council. He mentioned { that this issue came to the Council as a result of septic tank problems on James Street. He reviewed the methods of annexation available: double majority, island, and health hazard. He noted on a map where the problem was located. Mr. Hendryx explained Option A, a cherry stem annexation, involving only "Area A." The Council could direct staff to initiate an island annexation or to request the neighbors to request a double majority annexation. Mr. Hendryx explained Option B which involved a larger area of 49 acres with just under 100 parcels (all the developed land west of SW 121st). He commented that with a larger group, an island annexation % by the City might meet more opposition from those uninterested in r-~ annexation. He recommended having a financing plan in place to - t3 extend the sewer and pointed out that they could make a good case 1 for annexing a subdivision that already had sanitary sewer. ff Mr. Hendryx explained option C, the alternative of annexinV the entire Walnut island (225 acres with 441 lots of varying sizes and i development). He said that the critical factor in an island annexation was proving that the city had a plan in place and the ~ capacity to meet a specific need; with this size of annexation, doing so would be a challenge to the City. Mr. Hendryx explained Option D, a modification of Option C to delay annexation of the large undeveloped parcels until they developed. Acting City Engineer Greg Berry commented that the cost estimates in l the staff report were the overall costs that could be expected; they did not include any potential challenges. Mr. Hendryx noted the j estimated costs for each annexation: Option A - $600,000; Option B - $860,000; and Option C - $3,900,000. - Finance Director Wayne Lowry noted that the revenue expenditures were based on an update of the 1993 assumptions which had included a review of the storm water system. He said that the cost of dealing with the lack of a storm water system in the area would outweigh the revenues received from the area for quite some time. He said that the general fund expenditure of providing police protection was pretty equal to the revenues received. Mr. Hendryx recommended going with either Option A or B, both of which would meet the James Street neighborhood's immediate needs. Council President Hunt expressed concern that City sewer fund money would be used to pay for this extension to those who have not been j paying City taxes. He noted that citizens who have been paying City taxes were in need of sewer extensions also. He supported an LID where those receiving the extension paid for it. . CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 1 ' i L~ i I Mr. Berry salid that all the options were open, and that with the /-'N, larger parces in Option C, the developers might pay for sewer hookups. He said that the area was large enough to make an LID feasible. He said that an LID in Option A was also feasible though more marginal. Mr. Hendryx said that the staff intent in its recommendation was that the property owners would pay for the extension. In response to a question from Council President Hunt, Mr. Berry , said that the cost estimates were for sanitary sewer only and did not include the storm system. He explained that it was difficult to put in a storm system without street improvements, especially curbs, whereas a sanitary sewer system could be put in at any time. Mr. Hendryx noted that a substantial cost would be added if they tried to put in the sanitary sewer and storm systems at the same time because of the need for a sidewalk collection system. Councilor Rohlf asked if staff checked with the neighbors in option fV B. Mr. Hendryx said that staff has not done any canvassing. He suggested holding an open house to inform the residents in Area B of what was happening and to determine interest. Mrs. Tibbetts said that she canvassed the neighbors primarily on James, Alberta and Marion Streets. She commented that the people realized that annexation was inevitable and that neighbors on James Street fear a tragedy in the future because of the pollution level. City Administrator Bill Monahan suggested starting with Option A, since they did not have evidence of 50W support in Area B, and _ holding the open house to determine interest in Area B. j Council President Hunt commented that timeliness was extremely important but preferred getting both areas if it wouldn't slow the process too much. Councilor Scheckla asked if they had evidence of better than 50t `J support in Area A. Mr. Hendryx said that the evidence of support came from Mrs. Tibbetts' efforts and that the City had no formal petition from the neighborhood. I Mrs. Tibbetts stated that she did not canvass every house but said that the pollution was so bad in her neighborhood that this could not be a situation where people could say no. She described the polluted and unhealthy living conditions currently existing in the neighborhood. She said that if the County was forced to deal with this as a health problem, people would be evicted from their homes. Councilor Scheckla expressed concern that Mrs. Tibbetts' neighbors did not attend the Council meetings to show their support. Mrs. Tibbetts explained that the neighbors were not informed that this was the meeting to attend. Councilor Scheckla commented that the people wouldn't want this until they knew the price tag. Mrs. Tibbetts said that the situation was irreversible and that the price tag was irrelevant, commenting that they knew the City did not put in sewers based on an unlimited budget. She reiterated her concern for the health of the children. i Council President Hunt suggested that staff see how fast the City could move on Options A and B. Councilor Moore commented that, given the history of the cold reception in the Island to proposed annexations, he wanted to make sure that the City was welcomed by the homeowners. He concurred with starting with Option A and moving on to Option B if there was sufficient acceptance in the neighborhood. ` Councilor Scheckla asked if the City had any authority to alleviate 1 unhealthy conditions. Mr. Ramis said that the City was authorized by statute to allow an annexation to take place because of a health hazard, and therefore could apply for a health hazard annexation. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 2 - - U i . 1 j ^ Mr. Berry explained that if there was a problem, they could bring in f health officials to verify the need for a health hazard annexation. Mr. Monahan reviewed Council direction which was to hold a neighborhood meeting for Areas A and B to determine interest. Mrs. Tibbetts stated that Gearhart Mathias at the County was fully aware of the situation. Mr. Monahan suggested asking Mr. Mathias for background information at the neighborhood meeting. Councilor Rohlf stated that he was biased in favor of bringing in bigger chunks of the Island at a time and encouraged the James and Marion Streets neighbors to work with those on Alberta and Tibbett Place to bring Area B in at the same time. He said that he was opposed to bringing in Area A just by itself. Councilor Moore concurred with bringing in more people at one time, noting that doing so lowered the cost to the individual homeowner. > Discuss Solid Waste Task Force Assignments Loreen Mills, Administrative Analysis, referenced the September 26 staff memo. She reported that Councilor Rohlf, the Council liaison to the Solid Waste Task Force, suggested broadening the scope of the study to include not only the haulers' efficiency recommendations but also examination of the cost effectiveness of the franchise operations, consideration of City participation in hauler business decisions, examination of current service standards, development of service measurement criteria, and discussion of regional issues and Tigard's role as a regional player. Ms. Mills noted regional issues such as the difference in the tipping fee between the Metro transfer sites and other transfer sites and whether or not Metro had the right to require that cities in the Metro region use their facilities. ` Councilor Rohlf commented that he wanted the time spent on the Task J Force to be worthwhile for the members and that looking at only the hauling efficiencies was too limiting for the Task Force. He suggested looking at the larger issues that affected the rates and garbage hauling methods in the City. He expressed concern that the Task Force lacked residential and commercial customer r j representatives. Councilor Moore, as a newer Council member, commented that he did not know much about this topic. Ms. Mills stated that an educational element for the Task Force members would be included in the expanded scope. She said that there was a standing invitation to the Council from the haulers to ride along with a truck. I A hauler, who was present at the meeting, asked for clarification on the objective of the Task Force. Councilor Rohlf said that he proposed to review the efficiency suggestions and make recommendations to the City along with looking at regional issues and discussing Tigard's role. A second hauler, also present at the meeting, commented that if Council understood the issues and problems the haulers dealt with, then Council could better answer citizen questions on rate increases or program changes. I The Council agreed to direct staff to expand the role of the Task Force and to add more members. The matter will be placed on the October 8 Consent Agenda. > Agenda Review Mr. Monahan reported on the vandalism by juveniles at the Windmill j{+ on Friday. He said that the fire damage was limited; the City had a $1,000 insurance deductible but the insurance company should pick up the rest. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 3 q - 1 ► Mr. Monahan noted that the Council needed to elect a voting delegate and alternate to the National League of Cities Conference in s November. Mr. Monahan noted the staff recommendation to discontinue the public hearing on the Tigard Feed and Seed store and referred to the state / statute dealing with removal of historic designations. d Mr. Monahan noted Councilor Rohlf's request to discuss calling up - the Hillshire Hollow subdivision for review to consider the issue of private streets. Mr. Ramis cautioned that Council could not accept testimony on this matter if the Council decided to call it up for review. Mr. Hendryx mentioned that the Planning Commission wrestled with the issue of private streets, eventually conditioning the application to put property owners on notice through the Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs) that it was a private street and that they had maintenance responsibility. Council President Hunt concurred with Councilor Rohlf on calling up the application up to discuss the issue of private streets. He said h. that he'd like to see private streets prohibited or built to city standards if allowed. > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:20 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, j current and pending litigation issues. > Executive Session adjourned at 7:35 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING e Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Council President Hunt called the business meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. e Council Communications/Liaison Reports Council President Hunt reported that the Cook Park open house meeting has been postponed until the consultant produces plans more in accordance with the committee's objectives. He said that in his ;j opinion they had asked the consultant to find a way to preserve the wetlands while at the same time still allowing the City use of the property; the consultant had returned with plans that allowed no use of the dairy property the City was purchasing. Mr. Hendryx stated that ample notice of this meeting would be j provided once the date was set. • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: ) City Administrator Monahan noted Councilor Rohlf's suggestion to discuss whether or not the Council wanted to call up the Hillshire Hollow subdivision for review. > Council President Hunt noted three proclamations: October 1996 as Crime Prevention Month, October 1996 as Disability Employment Awareness Month, and Recycling Awareness Week. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA - „ John L. Cook, 12314 SW Millview Court, Chamber of Commerce representative, expressed the Chamber's support of the visioning process initiated by the City. He commented that he has heard only positive feedback from the Board and from Rotary Club members on staff's presentations to the groups. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 4 Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator, reported on the status of the presentation phase of the visioning process, noting that they had 30 presentations scheduled for the next month with more groups in line. In response to a question from Council President Hunt, Ms. Newton said that - they were working with the schools to develop appropriate activities for 1 3rd, 4th graders and 7th graders and high school juniors to participate in the process. There is a contest underway at the Tigard High School to design the logo for the visioning project. Mr. Monahan commented that the meetings were accomplishing the purpose of getting people involved who have not been involved before. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Council President Hunt asked for confirmation that the approval of the I Planning Commission bylaws would not negatively affect the issue of the roles of the CITE and the Planning Commission in the CIP process. Ms. Newton reviewed the process whereby that issue was being resolved, noting ` that the CITs wanted to report their comments directly to council, and not go through the Planning Commission, h Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") I 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: August 20, 1996 I - 3.2 Receive and File: Planning Commission Bylaws and Rules of Procedure 3.3 Approve updated Water Rate Structure - Resolution No. 96-58 - 3.4 Approve Dedication of Property at SW Burnham Street and SW Main { Street to the Public as Right of Way - Resolution No. 96-59 3.5 Approve the Interest Rate for 196/97 to be Applied to All - _ Reimbursement Districts Formed During the Year - Res. No. 96-60 J . - ~ 4. PUBLIC HEARING - FORMATION OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 8 " 4 a. Council President Hunt read the hearing title and opened the public C hearing. b. Staff Report t Greg Berry, Acting City Engineer, presented the staff report. He noted that this was the first sewer extension project in the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program (Council Goal 6). He reviewed - the specifics of the project to extend the existing sewer on SW 170th Place approximately 335 feet along Tigard Street to serve four parcels. He said that each property owner has requested the extension with two of them anticipating immediate connection. He noted that the contractor was available to begin construction upon Council approval. Mr. Berry explained that in this Reimbursement District, the property owner would pay a fair share of the total project costs at the time of connection to the sewer. The property owner will not be required to connect to the sewer once it was installed or pay any j fee until connected. He reviewed the estimated costs of the project. In response to questions from the Council, Mr. Berry said that the City would recover all its cost over a 15-year period if all four connected. He said that construction could be done by the end of the week with only one traffic delay on Tigard Avenue. Councilor Scheckla requested advance signage in the area to warn motorists of the traffic delay in order to allow them opportunity to find i alternate routes. Council President Hunt asked if there were other sewer extension L% requests waiting to be processed. Mr. Berry said that staff was CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 5 L~ " working on two others at this time and talking to other interested n property owners. - C. Public Testimony: None d. Staff Recommendation Mr. Berry recommended approval of the Reimbursement District and direction to proceed with the construction. " e. Council Questions: None f. Council President Hunt closed the public hearing. j ' g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-61 RESOLUTION NO. 96-61 - A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER I - DISTRICT NO. 8. 4 - - Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt f Resolution 96-61. 4F r Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted eyes.,.) 5. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0005 E - SANDERS ANNEXATION REQUEST: " The owner requests annexation of one parcel of 0.33 acres into the city and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from the city and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-5 to _ City of Tigard Low Density Residential/R-4.5. LOCATION: At Southeast Corner of Johnson Street and 106th Drive. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies _ e-\ 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, ' boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-5. a. Council President Hunt read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None C. Staff Report Nels Mickaelson, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He j reviewed the specifics of the annexation request, noting the parcel location on the map and the single-family house located on the southern portion of the lot. He said that the owners were i requesting annexation by double majority to obtain sanitary sewer; their request met all the applicable annexation criteria of the City and the Boundary Commission. He noted a correction to an error in the original proposal; the parcel already had a Comprehensive Plan designation of low density residential. Mr. Mickaelson stated that the parcel was adequately served by City facilities and services. He reviewed the notices sent out and reported that they received no objections from citizens or private or public agencies. He recommended adoption of the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the proposal to the Boundary Commission. He said that staff would send letters to adjacent property owners encouraging them to add to this annexation at the - Boundary Commission level. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Mickaelson stated that the application for annexation came from the new owner. `J CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 6 1 a - a T1 d. Public Testimony l 1 PROPONENT Steve Sanders, 12390 SW 106th Drive, applicant, stated that they wanted annexation to hookup to the sewer. He commented that others r in the neighborhood were interested as well. Councilor Scheckla noted that the streets in that area were recently paved and expressed his disappointment that the sewer installation could not have been timed to occur prior to the County repaving the roads. 1 t In response to a question from Councilor Moore, Ms. Wheatley stated that the City sent notification to have the franchise fees changed upon annexation. e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Mickaelson recommended annexation of the parcel. f. Council Questions - Councilor Rohlf asked how much it would cost the City to have this approved. Mr. Mickaelson said $225, explaining that the rate was based on acreage. He noted that if other property owners tagged onto this request after Council approved it, the fee was not increased. Mr. Hendryx said that there were approximately 1,000 parcels in the Walnut Island. Councilor Rohlf requested a separate policy discussion to encourage larger groups of the walnut Island parcels to annex at the same time so that the City could avoid incurring the fees over and over again in a piecemeal approach; it was the current taxpayers who bore that cost, not the applicants. Mr. Hendryx explained that staff did contact property owners to see if there was any interest in annexation but that they did not hold up a request in the hope that others would "hop on." f Councilor Rohlf requested a cost study comparing the cost of i annexing the optimum number of parcels at one time as opposed to the piecemeal approach. g. Council President Hunt closed the public hearing. h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-62 and Ordinance No. 96-35 The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 96-62. RESOLUTION NO. 96-62, A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT AND ILLUSTRATED - IN EXHIBIT B (ZCA 96-0005). Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No. 96-62. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. j (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted eyes.") i The City Recorder read the number and title of Ordinance No. 96-35. ORDINANCE NO. 96-35, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS _ - TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 96- " 0005). Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-35. 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 7 I i Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. r\ (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted J „yes.") 6. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0006 HATCH ANNEXATION REQUEST: The applicant requests annexation on behalf of the owner for four parcels of land with a total acreage of 2.52 acres into the City and a change of the zoning from Washington County R-5 to City of Tigard R-4.5. LOCATION: West of 114th Avenue and South of Gaarde Street. APPLICABLE - REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are ' Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: - Presently, Washington County R-5. a. Council President Hunt read the hearing title and opened the public t hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None ti c. Staff Report j Mr. Mickaelson presented the staff report. He reviewed the specifics of the annexation request, noting the parcels' location on the map and the single-family house located on the middle parcel. He said that the owners were requesting annexation by double majority to obtain sanitary sewer; their request met all the applicable annexation criteria of the City and the Boundary Commission. Mr. Mickaelson stated that the parcel was adequately served by City facilities and services. He reviewed the notices sent out and reported that they received no objections from citizens or private - or public agencies. He recommended adoption of the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the proposal to the Boundary Commission. He said that staff would send letters to adjacent property owners encouraging them to add to this annexation at the Boundary Commission level. d. Public Testimony Council President Hunt read the hearing criteria. PROPONENTS Nick Stearns, 4035 Douglas Way, Lake Oswego, applicant, requested the annexation primarily to obtain sewer so that he could develop the properties in the future. He said that he agreed with the staff jl findings. Councilor Rohlf asked if the owners of the two properties adjacent to the parcels were interested in annexing to the City. Mr. Stearns said that he did not know but that he understood they refused annexation opportunities before. In response to a comment from Council President Hunt, Mr. Monahan i said that the Council could discuss forced annexation of those two properties and add them to the recommendation they send to the i Boundary Commission; the property owners would have the opportunity at the Boundary Commission hearing to object. Council could also forward the request on without adding the properties and the Boundary Commission on its own motion could decide to include them. Brad Wright, 14235 SW 115th, spoke to the Council discussing a more aggressive annexation policy to bring in the Walnut Island, pointing t out that piecemeal annexation led to a scattered service area for i police. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 8 E - % L e. Staff Recommendation r Mr. Mickaelson recommended annexation of the parcels. I _ f. Council Questions Councilor Scheckla asked the City Attorney for his opinion on the ramifications of forced annexations. Mr. Ramis stated that historically the Council has avoided forcing island annexations but that they had the authority to revisit the policy and take a more aggressive approach. Mr. Monahan noted the ramifications in public relations, pointing out that citizens forced into the City could be unhappy citizens who expressed their discontentment at the ballot box. Councilor Scheckla commented that while the City might win in the short term over forcing annexations, it could lose in the long term if unhappy citizens voted down city ballot measures. Mr. Hendryx commented that there were statutes and procedures that governed the annexation process, pointing out that while the City could initiate an annexation request, the Boundary Commission had to approve it. Mr. Ramis concurred that the City did not make the ultimate decision on annexations. Mr. Wright concurred that issues existed at the ballot box regarding forced annexation but argued that economically it didn't make sense to do it piecemeal. He reiterated his suggestion that the Council consider a more aggressive policy and annex those parcels that were surrounded by annexed properties within the island. He said that there was recourse for people to object. He commented that the Boundary Commission looked not only at economic issues but prudent f planning also. Mr. Wright concurred that some people would be upset but contended that the City would save the taxpayers considerable money by cutting its costs by bringing in several parcels at once. g, Council President Hunt closed the public hearing. r h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-63 and Ordinance No. 96-36 The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 96-63. RESOLUTION NO. 96-63, A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT AND ILLUSTRATED } IN EXHIBIT B (ZCA 96-0006). Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Resolution No. 96-63. f Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. I (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted f "yes.,, The City Recorder read the number and title of Ordinance No. 96-36. ORDINANCE NO. 96-36, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 96- 0006). j Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-36. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted '-yes. > Mr. Monahan announced that Mr. Mickaelson has accepted a position with Washington County to work on their GIS system. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 9 i i i 7. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-0006 TIGARD FEED 1 STORE A request to remove the historic overlay designation and permit the demolition of the Tigard Feed and Garden building, designated as historically significant by the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12355 SW Main Street. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and 3.7 and Community Development Code, Chapter 18.82. ZONE: CBD Mr. Monahan noted that the application tonight was to remove the historic overlay designation on the Tigard Feed and Seed Store building. He explained how the passage of ORS 197.772(3) by the legislature in 1995 preempted the cities' authority in the historic designation process; if a property owner requested removal of the historic designation, the City had to grant it. He cited the City Attorney's opinion given to the City of Milwaukee. Mr. Monahan said that he explained to the Chamber what had happened and I that the Chamber chose to ask for suspension of the city's proceedings and { to come under the new statute and DLCD administrative regulations, which., mandated a 120-day waiting period prior to issuance of a permit for demolition. He said that he understood they were willing to have someone { step forward during that 120 days and remove the building rather than demolish it. Mr. Monahan noted that this matter was an administerial decision which must be granted upon request. a.`• Councilor Scheckla asked for staff analysis on Ms. Fessler's letter. Mr. Monahan noted that Judy Fessler and her husband were the only opponents at the Planning Commission hearing staff advised her of the change in state law. He explained that he understood from her letter that she realized the City had to follow the new regulations. She requested that the City complete its process since the application was made under the old I rules. { J Mr. Monahan said that while he thought that completing the process was a discretionary on the City's part, he saw no reason to mislead the public by having a hearing and implying the right to appeal. In response to Mrs. Fessler's suggestion that the Chamber bear the full cost of demolition following the 120-day waiting period, he commented that the City has always understood that the Chamber would pay full cost of demolition in any case. Council President Hunt noted that Mr. Cook from the Chamber indicated his agreement. Mr. Ramis stated that in his opinion the City did not have the ability to conduct a hearing because the state preempted authority in this area and established the simple rule of granting removal of the designation upon request. He noted Mrs. Fessler's alternate interpretation of when to start the 120 days but gave his opinion that the staff's interpretation { was reasonable and would provide 110+ days for someone to come up with another solution. Mr. Monahan reviewed the agreement between the City and the Chamber, noting that the Chamber agreed to remove the building within six months of purchase or the City would have the option of buying the building and removing it. He recommended that the Council direct staff to amend the - agreement to allow the Chamber the time it needed to comply with the statute, but noted that the City could exercise its option to buy the building and take full responsibility for its removal. Councilor Rohlf suggested that the City invest some money in advertising the availability of the store in hopes of finding a party interested in saving the building; he cited the interest of a segment of Tigard citizens in saving the building as justification for spending a little taxpayer money on the possibility of saving it. Mr. Monahan said that staff could research how they handled the Gaarde building, which was a City-owned building that found another home. { - f Mr. Monahan commented that once the 120 days was up, the Chamber had control over when the building was demolished or turned over for removal { S j CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 10 f# - j ~ - s to another site. He noted that the Chamber has been accepting inquires y from people interested in saving the building. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to accept the staff recommendation that because of the existence of ORS 197.772(3) and the advice of the City Attorney that the City die continue the process of the land use hearing at the request of the Chamber of Commerce. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") Councilor Rohlf asked John Cook, Chamber representative, if anyone was interested in the building. Mr. Cook said that they did not want to actively publicize the building until the historic overlay was removed but that they have been talking privately with some interested groups. He noted an interested party who was looking for a site for the building. Councilor Rohlf asked if the chamber would be willing to contribute the i cost it would have paid for demolition towards the cost of removing the ` 1 building. Mr. Cook said that he could not speak for the Chamber Board on that question but that they would entertain the idea. He said that they f have discussed writing a press release to advertise the building's availability, noting that physical possession could not occur until after 120 days. Mr. Cook explained that the Chamber had always intended to take between 30-90 days to demolish the building once the designation was removed, and that they would be willing to offer that same timeframe to anyone who wanted to remove the building, especially since the 120 days were up in January. He asked for a 12-14 month period in the contract to allow time for removal or demolition. Councilor Scheckla referred to the construction report which said that the building was contaminated and asked if the ground was also contaminated. Mr. Monahan said that the City had an ESEE analysis done on the property prior to its involvement in the purchase; the consultant reported that the { ground was fine but expressed concern about the building which had been 11 used to store chemicals and pesticides. He commented that precautions were still required in the demolition and/or removal process. Mr. Cook explained that the Johnsons had removed most of the chemicals in accordance with Metro regulations, and that the Chamber intended to use j the same process to remove the containers still remaining. Councilor Scheckla said that he wondered because a Halloween party had been held in that building about a year ago. Mr. Cook said that the Johnsons had owned the building at that time. He said that the Chamber Board has closed the building to all activity except showings to prospective purchasers. The individuals who had signed up to speak at the hearing in opposition, Jim Griffith and Gary Lass. Both stated that in light of the new i information they had no comments. Mr. Monahan suggested that staff work with the Chamber to write something up for the Cityscape and possibly share the costs of advertising elsewhere. The Council concurred. Council President Hunt asked if the Council established an historic designation, did they then have the authority to make the owners maintain the property in a presentable condition, citing the peeling paint on the Tigard house. Mr. Monahan pointed out that a property owner could simply request removal of the designation, which reduced the City's ability to require maintenance of an historic roperty. He said that the City liaison to TAHPA was Kathy Davis, Cipty Librarian; this budget cycle included money to repaint the structure. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 PAGE 11 - n 8. NON AGENDA ITEMS > Hillshire Hollow subdivision. Mr. Monahan reviewed that Councilor Rohlf requested discussion of calling this property up for review because it included a private street, an issue of concern to the Council. Council President Hunt said that he favored Councilor Rohlf's suggestion but asked how fast Council could deal with this issue. Mr. Monahan said that staff has not moved quickly on this, as Council had indicated that it wanted the policy reviewed in conjunction with the Code update. Mr. Ramis confirmed that the Council could legally call this application up for i review but advised them that their discussion would be limited to - interpretations under the existing rules referencing the question of private streets. Concerns noted could provide the basis for future discussions possibly leading to Code amendments. Mr. Monahan said that staff did not want to mislead Council into thinking that simply calling up the application for review meant that they could change something when in fact the rules might dictate otherwise. He noted Mr. Hendrxx's comment that the Planning Commission discussed this in depth, which was an indication that the provision of private streets was discretionary on the part of the City without any strict standards mandating particular actions. Mr. Ramis concurred. Councilor Rohlf asked that the applicant come prepared to speak to the issue of private streets. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to pull up the Hillshire Hollow Subdivision for review. Councilor Moore said that while he agreed with discussing the issue of private streets, he did not think that this 100-foot street, given the Planning Commission conditions, was a big enough issue to hold up the application. He stated that he would oppose the motion. Motion was approved by a 3 to 1 voice vote of the Council present. (council President Hunt, Councilors Rohlf and Scheckla voting "aye"; Councilor Moore voted "no.") Mr. Monahan noted for the record that the 120-day waiting period for the demolition permit requested by the Chamber began today. He would notify the Chamber and Ms. Fessler by letter. % 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None 10. ADJOURNMENT: 9:05 p.m. t i% u V E Attes : j a erine eat ey, it Recor er I T City o Tiaga~r / Dla CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 12 - e COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 8 6 3 4 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 } ► Legal Notice Advertising ❑ Tearsheet Notice t % OF oCity of Tigard • (IGqkfi; 13125 S[J Hall BLvd. oTigard,Oregon 97223 • [3 Duplicate Affidavit 0 oAccounts Payable i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. ,„aeiD r"• 1, Kathy Snytler being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising. Director, or his principal clerk, of Zhe`'j gard- t ua1 ati in Times a newspaper of general circuI ion as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published ar / Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; at the City Council Business fleeting a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the - entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and C e'„ consecutive in the following issues: September 19,1996 l J` r, n T r ermIT- Subscribed and sworn t ore m th day of Seotemb it OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BU t RGESS j .04152 Notary blic for Oregon r NOTAR 'LIC -OREGON ' COMnj 10.024552 My Commission Expires: +•1'~ "SIOIa Ex+'iRES MAY 18,1997 AFFIDAVIT I. ' j. 3 j t j • The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full g agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall 9 Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. I CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING September 24, 1996 TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL t 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 1 ' Study Meeting (Red Rock Creek Room) (6:30 P.M.) 1 Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Execu- tive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. • Discussion of Annexation Analysis for the Walnut Island • Agenda Review l Business Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P.M.) _ Proclamations: t October as Disability Employment Awareness Month 1 October 5-12 as Recycling Awareness Week Public Hearings: ! Annexation: Consider forwarding to the Boundary Commission a request to initiate annexation of one parcel (0.33 acres) located at the southeast corner of S.W. Johnson Street and 106th Drive. • Annexation: Consider forwarding to the Boundary Commission a request to initiate annexation of four parcels of land with a total acreage of 2.52 acres into the City and a change of the zoning from Washington County R-5 to City of Tigard R-4.5 located j west of 114th Avenue and south of Gaarde Street. 1 • Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Consider a request to remove the historic overlay designation and permit the demolition of the Tigard Feed and Garden building designated as historically sig- nificant by the City of Tigard. • Consider formation of a sanitary sewer reimbursement•district at j S.W. Tigard Street. M634 - Publish September 19, 1996. J .5.:'.r... .fi':.~.::-.. - -.__-.....r.. err...'. + Y I. J COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. L6ga, P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 694.0360 Notice TT 8 6 2 6 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 I.. V t- Legal Notice Advertising • ❑ Tearsheet Notice'' ` l ~y9L I •City of Tigard 13125 S69 Hall Blvd. • ~F (IGAKI: •Tigard,Oregon 97223 ❑ Duplicate Affidavit Accounts Payable s AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION J;~l 3 is STATE OF OREGON, )as COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) C 3 Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising o Director, or his principal clerk, of theTigard-Tualatin Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at m; ga rd in the aforesaid county and state; that the Pubic Hear, ng-ZCA96-0006 Hatch Annexation FF a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for OtIE successive and r` consecutive in the following issues: j September 12 1996 ; Subscribed and sw n to befo a me thisl`2th day of September,1996 i OFFICIAL SEAL Notary Public for Oregon JACQUELINE ARELLAN0 NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON I 1 My Commission Expires: MY COMMISS COMMISSION NO. ION EXPIRES JUNE 91 AFFIDAVIT 1997 - d:-, U = i • ~ 1 1 The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Se tem- her 24, 1996, at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center-Town Ha , 131 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Both public, oral and written tes- timony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the re- quest or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the t+ decisionmaker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling (503) 639-4171. i PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4 ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96.0006 HATCH ANNEXATION REQUEST: The applicant requests annexation on behalf of the owner for four parcels of land with a total acreage of 2.52 acres into the City and a change of the zoning from Washington County R-5 to City of Tigard R-4.5. LOCATION: West of 114th Avenue and South of Gaarde St. AP- PLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-5. t L! F r 1 H GAARDE S_T -r Z -a i I t i J,i R, 1 r ' M626-Publish September 12, 1996. S ` r , :f 1 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal Notice TT 8627 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising J ~ygrr *City of Tigard • 4 Tearsheet Notice -~y OF TIGAR 13125 SW Hall Blvd. •Tigard,Oregon 97223 • O DuplicateAffidavit *Accounts Payable • t AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, )ss ( t COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, Kathy5nvder i up being first duty sworn, depose and sayy that I m the gdvenising Director, or his principal clerk, of theTigar-Tualatin 'lames a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the i aforesaid county anind statenPthat6 A9the0007 Tigard Feed Store Public Hear- i j 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: t' September 12,1996 <7) ra j Subscribed and swor to before me this 12th day of September, 1996 SEAL J Notary Public for Oregon JACQUELINE ARELLANO NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON @ COMMISSION OFFICIAL NO. 023140 My Commission Expires: MY COfdMISS1014 EXPIRES JUNE 9. 1997 AFFIDAVIT - s- j 7. t 1 The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Setem_- ber 24 1996 at i:30 P.M. at the Tigard Civic Center -Town Hall, 13125 S.W. Hall Bou evar , ~gaid, Oregon. Both pubiic, oral and written tes- timony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with thu rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, 1 i and rules and procedures of the City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the re- quest or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from 1 the Planning Division at 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling (503) 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 960007 TIGARD FEED STORE REQUEST: A request to remove the historic overlay designation and permit the demolition of the Tigard Feed and Garden building, designated as historically significant by the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12355 S.W. Main St. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive f Plan policies 2.1.1 and 3.7.1 and Community Development Code, chapter 18.82. ZONE: CBD. Vv i . I SITE )1 { F : 1 t 1 TT8627-Publish September 12, 1996. 1 f Ago- I AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE :-3gptember 24.1996 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from I 1 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. STAFF NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE C TOPIC CONTACTED - - i 'S~~~ Sly i ' . IJ~✓ ~ C'1. `l~ ~5 , ~.u r'ti`1 /1.~ /+i= ti f 1:ladmVo1v1x1tshtdoc I ...vim. - ' r / t , 1 epending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of [[.b. ~'me 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. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 DATE: September 24, 1996 j PUBLIC HEARING - FORMATION OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. S u. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS 1 1. 1 - I 1 I _ - AGENDA ITEM NO. _4- PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. + q G Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. i Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. i,. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Ism-- - - i. ; epending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of _me 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. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE: September 24, 1996 PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0005 SANDERS ANNEXATION' REQUEST: The owner requests annexation of one parcel of 0.33 acres into the city and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-5 to City of Tigard r Low Density Residential/R-4.5. LOCATION: At Southeast Corner of Johnson Street and 106th Drive. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement, 10.1.1, service delivery capacity, 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-5. PLEASE SIGN W TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS I I f f ENDA ITEM NO. 5_ PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. pct C" Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. • Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. n ' Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. i f ame, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. j I i - - ~epending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of ane 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. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 DATE: September 24, 1996 I i PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI JUDICIAL) ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0006 HATCH ANNEXATION REQUEST: The applicant requests annexation on behalf of the owner for four parcels of land with a total acreage of 2.52 acres into the City and a change of the zoning from Washington County R-5 to City of Tigard R-4.5. LOCATION: West of 114th Avenue and South of Gaarde St. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria f in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service I delivery capacity, 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1..3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-5 PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS Ii 1 I. 1 -AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 PLEASE PRIN T Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. lhx~ CXJv bi o(L Name, Addr d Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. J cz 1 i Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. tt j 1 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ame, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. j Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. - Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 1 .bl r. pending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of e 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. E AGENDA ITEM NO._ 7 DATE: September 24,,.1996 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-0006 TIGARD FEED STORE REQUEST: A request to remove the historic overlay designation and permit the demolition of the Tigard Feed and Garden building, designated as historically significant by the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12355 SW Main St. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and 3. 7.1 and Community Development Code, Chapter 18.82 ZONE: CBD PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS f E I U s I 41 I i AGENDA ITEM NO. _Z PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I, - ame, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 1 1 1 Agenda Item No. Ses~ on Meeting of Slay lGlo M E M O R A N D U M 3 a 1 DATE: August 20, 1996 ;j TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx and Ray Valone RE: Walnut Island Annexation Analysis r.. At the study session of June 18, 1996, the Council directed staff to prepare an alternatives analysis for annexation options regarding the Walnut Island. The following analysis covers four scenarios - annexation of the James and Marion Street area, annexation of the developed area from 121st Avenue to the west, annexation of the entire island, and delayed annexation of the undeveloped western area (see Exhibits A-D). It includes discussion about methods of i annexation, potential impacts and risks, and a planning level benefit/cost t analysis ,J ANNEXATION METHODS I There are several methods the City can use to initiate annexation of the territory under the three scenarios. Some methods are subject to remonstrance of the voters in the affected area. These actions include City-initiated resolution and petition by owners of at least one-half the land area. Other methods not subject 1 to remonstrance by voters are 'double majority', 'island' and 'health hazard'. 'Double majority' is the method staff currently uses for owner-requested annexations. An advantage to this method is the inclusion of properties to the request whose owners do not sign the petition but which are necessary to create a viable area for provision of services. Under the 'island' method, the City can define the boundaries of the territory to be annexed to fulfill its purpose, e.g. to more efficiently provide sewer service. The 'health hazard' method involves several steps involving the County health department, State Health Division and the State Environmental Quality Commission. This method is explained in detail in the memo to Council dated June 18, 1996. ANNEXATION SCENARIOS James and Marion Streets (Area A) Area A is approximately 25 acres and contains 52 parcels of land. All but two parcels have single-family residences. All residents are currently on a septic system. This scenario is included in the analysis because a resident, Kathleen Tibbets, reported to the City that there are numerous and serious septic system ~ r s n problems in the area, and that there is considerable owner interest in annexing and obtaining sewer service. In order to be eligible for sewer service and long-term financing of same, properties must be in the City. Staff met with Mrs. Tibbets on July 9 to assess the existing situation and discuss possible options. She has identified approximately 20 property owners, mostly along James Street, who wish to annex to be eligible for sewer service. Staff will continue to work with Mrs. Tibbets and the area residents to annex the area if the Council chooses to 0 pursue this option. Annexing this area would involve a cherry stem annexation that includes 121st Avenue from the north. The Boundary Commission has accepted cherry stem annexations in the past for the Walnut Island area. The Commission understands the situation with the island and acknowledges that the boundary j may need to become more irregular before the entire island comes into the City. Recommendation: If the Council chooses this option, staff recommends that the 'island' method of annexation be used. This method would enable the City to include the appropriate number and location of properties in order to ensure an efficient and cost-effective sewer extension project both for the City and the II residents. The Council also might want to consider annexing the properties i adjacent to 121 st Avenue from the north in order to include these properties in i any reimbursement district that may be formed. 4 West of 121st Avenue (Area t31 f - - _ - At the June 18 meeting, the Council directed staff to analyze annexation of the western portion of the island, excluding the large vacant parcels. This area is ' - approximately 49 acres and contains 99 parcels of land. All but three parcels .f i have single-family residences. The area includes Area A described above plus the Canoga Park and Tippet Place subdivisions, eight parcels near the 121st Avenue and Walnut Street intersection, and three parcels northwest of Alberta Street. Thirteen of the 96 households have sewer service, ten of them located i along Tippet Place. Annexation of this area would meet the City requirement of being contiguous to the boundary. It could be annexed by any of the methods described above. The 50% property ownership or double majority methods might be difficult to accomplish, however, if there are a substantial number of owners who do not sign the petition. The Council could use the 'island' method, though the risk of opposition increases with more property owners. This opposition might translate to modification of the proposal by the Boundary Commission, possibly excluding many properties. I Recommendation: If the Council chooses this option, staff recommends that the j 'island' method of annexation be used, with the provision that a plan for financing and extending sewer service be in place, and that a good case be made for annexing the Tippet Place subdivision which is already sewered. t 2' is Entire Island (Area Cl This area is 295 acres and contains 411 parcels. There are approximately 362 households with an estimated population of 833. Approximately 323 of these households are not currently receiving sanitary sewer service or do not have access to sanitary sewer. Exhibit E shows the proposed lines required to serve ` these areas. i If the Council decides to annex the entire Walnut Island, the 'island' method would be used. Under state law (ORS 222.750), the Council can initiate the C annexation by adopting an ordinance or resolution with or without the consent of any owner or property within the territory or resident in the territory. The resolution or ordinance is subject to referendum by the City's residents only. The Boundary Commission (BC) would hear and make a decision on the proposal. While property owner consent is not needed under the 'island' method, the Council should be aware that approval by the BC is problematic, especially if there is resident opposition. Though the BC must consider such criteria as preventing illogical boundaries and promoting efficient and economic extension of urban services in its deliberations, the Commission also heeds any opposition j to proposals; in particular, forcing island residents into a city has not been looked upon favorably by the BC in the past. Recommendation: If the Council chooses this option, staff recommends that a _ plan for the provision of services be in place, especially options for financing and ' extending sewer service. j Undeveloped Western Area (Area D) Area D includes all the unincorporated territory west and south of Area B. It is approximately 90 acres and contains 17 parcels. The Council requested staff to research the possibilities of delaying annexation of this area until it is developed. When territory is annexed to the City, there is a one-time increase to the tax base from the additional assessed valuation of the new land (A/V x tax rate = tax base). If undeveloped territory is annexed, the increase to the tax base is much V less than if the land is fully developed. BOUNDARY COMMISSION DECISION CRITERIA Among the many criteria the BC considers in its decisions is whether urban services, including sewer, are available within a 'reasonable' time and at a 'reasonable' cost to the property owner(s). 'Reasonable' time might be 6 months or so. The City may meet this criterion by showing that a plan is in place to serve the annexing area; and that a mechanism and process is available that will be used to implement the plan, e.g. a Local Improvement District or Reimbursement district. This criterion must be considered with any of the above scenarios. If the City decides to annex the entire island, for example, it would likely have to show how it can be served and a time line for providing service. - 3; E . r " 777 SEWER PLAN Prior to initiating annexation, the City should have preliminary sewer plans in place to indicate how it is to serve the portions of the Island it intends to annex. The Engineering Department has prepared a planning level analysis of sewer for each scenario (Exhibit E). The estimates for providing sanitary sewer service to each of the areas is as follows: Area "A" $600,000 a Area "B" $860,000 ' Area "C" $3,900,000 i REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES In order to estimate the potential revenues and expenditures involved with F annexation of scenarios A, B, C and D above, information was obtained from the Engineering, Public Works, Police, Finance and Community Development departments. Exhibit F shows the results of the analysis. I CONCLUSION It is staffs recommendation that the City Annex Area A or B via the 'island' method. Many of the residents in this area need sewer service, without it, they could be facing serious problems including health hazards and possible eviction. ` Starting with this area will also show the city's willingness to work with island j t residents. This would make it easier to annex the rest of the island. It is also staffs recommendation that Area D be annexed after it is developed. As , indicated in the Area D analysis this would result in a larger increase to Tigard's tax base than if the land is annexed undeveloped. f. . i "Ci t_ q ILL L ru 231 w g - y`!•-IiOtb lz~T (6 X = _ v~\ ~ l I I I I ~ N4113MV i r = f r - - LL CO V~VHLZJ 14 I_ _ - 1 I i' FT Li 4keta EE -I r iF I.f--I / r 1 ELF 5 \I , _.__._.J Q - 75 ~ f ~J Walnut Island Annexation Analysis Exhibit "C' I FOWLER aav sr,_ SCHOOL ` w SCN AREA "C' O N I Jill - I~ \ s - F ZI7 wawur I I f f z I~. I I -FTT S J n Anaiysis ss~ooL ~ , cz~ r WET ; _ ~ \ -71 I Walnut island Annexation Analysis Exhibit "E"~ r- 1 FOWLER SCHOOL ZiL-Lj PROPOSED SANITARY 1 \ - - - m i _ ~--T-- -1 SEWER LINE I _ " _ _ _ _ - - - r ` I { `t f EYJSTINGSANITARY N SEWER LINE - - r r- 'ICPR~St ~ 'l ~ - - F6NER w- - ~ ~i'µ eMnES ~ ~ ~ f a I j' I I N EXHIBIT "E" WALNUT ISLAND SANITARY SEWER ESTIMATES p 5-Scp-96 ALTERNATE"A" UNIT PRICE COST LENGTII OF PIPE IN STREET (FT)= 4300 $75.00 $322,500 - , LENGTH OF PIPE OFF STREET (FT)= 600 EI00.00 560,000 " + EASEMENT REQUIRED(SQ. FT.)= 9000 $2.00 518,000 ' - 20 % CONTINGENCY $400,500 580,100 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $480,600 15% ENGINEERING/CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION $72,090 10% EASEMENT ACQUISITION $48,060 ' ' a ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $600,750 SAY 5600,000 ALTERNATE"6" UNIT PRICE COST f - LENGTH OF PIPE IN STREET (FT) = 5700 $75.00 $427,500 LENGTH OF PIPE OFF STREET (FT) = 1140 $100.00 5114,000 EASEMENT REQUIRED (SQ FTJ = 17100 $2.00 $34,200 " 20 % CONTINGENCY $575,700 $115,140 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $690,840 r ' IS% ENGINEERING/CUNTRACT ADh11NISTRATION $103,626 _ r.- 10% EASEMENT ACQUISITION 1. _ III E69.OR4 C•STIMATC•D PROJECT COSTS $863,550 SAY $860,000 ALTERNATE "C" - - UNIT PRICE COST LENGTII OF PIPE IN SI'REFF(FT)= 22800 $75.00 $1,710,000 LENGTH OF PIPE OFF STREFF am = 6655 $100.00 $665,500 - EASEMENT REQUIRED (SQ. FF.)= 100500 $200 $201.000 20%CONTINGENCY S2,576,500 - _ $515,300 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $3,091,800 j 1.5% ENGINEERING/CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 5463,770 _ IO;o EASEMENT ACQUISITION 5309,180 _ ESTIMATED PROJECT CO STS $3,864,750 SAY 53.900.000 1 Exhibit "F" General Fund Revenues Area A Area B Area C Area D I Property Taxes $14,278 $29,379 $114,616 $3,746 I Franchise Fees $3,450 $6,630 $24,990 $690 Shared Revenues $1,955 $3,757 $14,161 $391 Total General Fund $19,683 $39,766 $153,767 $4,827 Expenditure Estimates Police $11,960 $22,984 $86,632 $2,392 911 Services $294 $565 $2,130 $58 Total $12,254 $23,549 $88,762 $2,450 S Street Funds Revenues State Gas Tax $5,094 $9,789 $36,899 $1,018 County Gas Tax $483 $928 $3,497 $96 $5,577 $10,717 $40,396 $1,114 Expenditure Estimates 1 Street Maintenance •J Major Repairs $3,475 $6,678 $25,173 $695 F Total $1,404 $2,698 $10,169 $280 ' $4,879 $9,376 $35,342 $975 a I Other Funds i Revenues F. Storm Fees $1,397 $2,660 $11,046 $457 j Estimated Expenditures I Storm Maintenance $6,900 $13,260 $49,980 $1,380 Street Sweeping Total $348 $669 $2,522 $69 $7,248 $13,929 $52,502 $1,449 ~ r Pagel t _1 1 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Bill Monahan, City Administrator FROM: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director & } Loreen Mills, Senior Analyst ! DATE: September 20, 1996 SUBJECT: Solid Waste Task Force Assignments BACKGROUND: During the last week, City staff met with Councilor Rohlf and John L. Cook to discuss the proposed work plan for the newly created Solid Waste Efficiencies Task Force. Councilor Rohlf has expressed interest in expanding the focus of the task ! force from just reviewing haulers' suggestions for efficiency to reviewing many of the larger policy issues surrounding solid waste management. Also, Councilor Rohlf would like to add two more people to the voting member status on the task force; representing residential-customer and commercial-customer interests. A partial list of issues which were raised during our discussion are as follows: REVIEW OF REGIONAL ISSUES: • What role should Tigard play in regional solid waste issues (before Metro & the Legislature?) l • Metro tip fee and flow control issues. i _ SOLID WASTE EFFICIENCIES: i . Hauler efficiency recommendations would still be reviewed as previously directed by Council. ! • Cost effectiveness of franchise operations - at what level should the City participate I in business decisions with the haulers? (i.e., parameters for expenditure decisions, capital replacement decisions, services to be provided, etc.) • Service standards & service measurement review. { ISSUE FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Staff needs further direction from Council I as follows: Does Council wish to broaden the scope of the Solid Waste Efficiencies Task Force? If so, what is the scope of study, who should be on the task force, and what timeline does Council desire? • AGENDA ITEM # 3 FOR AGENDA OF Lay lGto CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Rules of P ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Commission Planning w 1 PREPARED BY: Mirk $ DEPT HEAD OK A& CITY ADMIN OK l . ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL. Should the City Council accept the Planning Commission's adopted Bylaws and Rules of Procedure? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council accept and file the attached Bylaws and Rules of Procedure. INFORMATION SUMMARY j In work sessions with the Director, the Planning Commission expressed the desire to have clear meeting i -Drocedures to which they could refer. Staff prepared a draft set of Bylaws that was reviewed by the _,)ommission and then adopted with revisions at the July 15, 1996, Planning Commission meeting. The Bylaws and Procedures incorporate the purpose, objectives and responsibilities delineated in the TMC Chapter 2.08. This chapter establishes the powers and duties of the Commission. The document then describes the duties of Commission officers and meeting procedures. The Planning Commission bylaws supplement the provisions of Chapter 2.08 and provide further direction and clarity for Planning Commission actions. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Suggest revising the document and return to Planning Commission for review. G - f FISCAL NOTES i NA i i:icwplnWicklpcb}1awsum ~R116/96 10 04 AM I 1 _ A RESOLUTION ADOPTING REVISED BYLAWS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE 4 J ORGANIZATION OF AND CONDUCT OF BUSINESS BY THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON: The following bylaws, rules, and regulations are hereby adopted by the Planning { Commission for the transaction of its business: ARTICLE I General Section 1. Explanation and Interpretation A. A nine member City Planning Commission has been established Chapter 2.08 of the Municipal Code. This chapter was enacted by the City Council pursuant to the authority of the home rule Charter of the City of Tigard. The Council has also adopted other ordinances, resolutions, and policy statements relating to the organization, powers, duties, and procedures of the Commission. The Commission is empowered to adopt and amend rules and regulations, to govern the conduct of its business consistent with the Charter and ordinances of the City, and official policies promulgated by the Council. ~J j B. It is the intention of the Commission to set forth in this resolution not only rules and regulations governing its organization and procedures, but also certain other provisions relating thereto, now contained in various ordinances, resolutions, and other documents. The intent is to set forth in one document the essential information relating to the Commission's organization and procedures for the benefit of the Commission, applicants, and the general public. ARTICLE II Responsibilities of Commission Section 1. Responsibilities. The purpose, objectives, and responsibilities of the City Planning Commission shall be as delineated in TMC Chapter 2.08.100, Powers and Duties of the Commission and include: i A. Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The Commission shall carry out duties assigned to it by the Council relating to development, updating, and general maintenance of the Plan. B. Capital Improvement Program. The Commission will assist the Council in the formulation of a Capital Improvement Program and, after adoption of said Program, may submit periodic reports and recommendations to the Council relating to the integration and conformance of the Program with the Tigard Area Comprehensive Plan. I . . C. Application of Development Regulations. Except for those matters which may be delegated to the Planning Director, the Commission shall review and take action on quasi judicial I r. b r V n and legislative matters, and other proposals which result from the application of development regulations contained within the Development Code on specific pieces of property and uses of I land, buildings, etc. The Development Code shall be followed in holding hearings and taking - required action. D. Coordination and Coo erp ation. The Commission shall endeavor to advance cooperative and harmonious relationships with the City Council, Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs), other Planning Commissions, public and semi-public agencies and officials, and civic and private i organizations, with a view to coordinating and integrating public and private planning and 1 developmental and policy conflicts. The Commission may, and is encouraged to, exchange research, information, ideas and experiences, participate in joint meetings, develop programs and undertake such other formal and informal actions to facilitate cooperation and coordination. E. General Welfare. Upon its own initiative or direction of the Council, the Commission k." shall study and propose in general such measures as may be advisable for promotion of the public interest, health, morals, safety, comfort, convenience, and welfare of the City of Tigard and its environs related to its particular area of responsibility. F. Rules of Procedure. The Commission shall adopt and periodically review and amend rules of procedure. Rules of procedure shall govern the conduct of hearings and participation of Commission members on all matters coming before the Commission. These rules shall be consistent with State law and City ordinances relating to the same matters. ARTICLE III Officers Section 1. Officers. The Officers of the Commission shall be a President and Vice-President. The City Community Development Director shall be the Secretary of the Commission. In the event the Secretary is absent from any meeting, the Secretary may send a designee. Section 2. Election. A. The President and Vice-President shall be elected at the first meeting of each odd I numbered year, and shall serve until their successors are elected and qualified. The term shall start i with the first meeting in January, following election. B. If the office of the President or Vice-President becomes vacant, the Commission shall elect a successor from its membership who shall serve the unexpired term of the predecessor. C. Nominations shall be by oral motion. At the close of nominations, the Commission shall vote by voice vote upon the names nominated for the office. If requested by any member, written ballots shall be used for voting purposes. -2- f n Section 3. President. A. Except as otherwise provided herein, the President shall have the duties and powers to: 1. Preside over all deliberations and meetings of the Commission; 2. Vote on all questions before the Commission; 3. Call special meetings of the Commission in accordance with these bylaws; 4. Sign all documents memorializing Commission action promptly after approval by the Commission. The power to sign reports and other documents of the Commission may be delegated, in writing, to the Secretary. u. B. All decisions of the President as presiding officer shall be subject to review by a majority of Commission members present upon motion duly made and seconded. Upon a majority vote of the members present, the Commission may overturn a decision of the President. Section 4. Vice-President. During the absence, disability, or disqualification of the President, the Vice-President shall exercise or perform all the duties and be subject to all the responsibilities of the President. In the absence of the President and Vice-President, the remaining members present shall elect an acting President. Section 5. Secretary. A. The Secretary shall: 1. Maintain an accurate, permanent, and complete record of all proceedings conducted before the Commission; 2. Prepare the agenda and minutes for all Commission meetings; 3. Give all notices required by law; 4. Inform the Commission of correspondence relating to Commission business and conduct all correspondence of the Commission; 5. Attend all meetings and hearings of the Commission or send a designee; 6. Compile all required records and maintain the necessary files, indexes, maps, and plans. B. The Secretary shall maintain records indicating all applications, appeals, hearings, continuances, postponements, date of sending notice, final disposition of matters, and other steps taken or acts performed by the Commission, its officers, and the Secretary. -3- C. The Secretary shall perform such other duties for the commission as are customary in that role or as may, from time to time, be required by the Commission. ARTICLE IV Meetings ' Section 1. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon, or at such other places as may be determined by the Commission, at 7:30 p.m., or other time as determined by the Commission. Meeting dates are normally chosen for timely action on applications submitted for the Commission's consideration and are held at least once a month or as necessary. At regular meetings, the Commission shall consider all matters properly brought before it without the j necessity of prior notice thereof given to any members, t{ Section 2. Special Meetings. The President of the Commission upon his or her own motion may, or upon the request of a majority of the members of the Commission shall, call a special meeting of the Commission. Unless otherwise specified in the call, all special meetings shall be held at the regular meeting place and time of the Commission. Notice of special meetings shall be given personally or by mail to all members of the Commission and the Secretary not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance thereof. In case of an emergency, a special meeting may be held upon such notice as is appropriate in the circumstances; provided, however, that reasonable effort is made to notify all members of the Commission. Section 3. Open Meetings. All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public, except that the Commission may hold executive sessions, from which the public may be excluded, in such manner and for such purposes as may be authorized by law. Representatives of the news media shall be allowed to attend executive sessions under such conditions governing the disclosure { of information as provided by law. I Section 4. Notice of Meetings A. In addition to notice required to be given to Commission members and the Secretary, public notice of all Commission meetings shall be given in a manner reasonably calculated to give actual notice to interested persons. The notice shall consist of the time and place of the meeting i. " and an agenda or summary of the subject matter to be considered. B. Notice shall be posted on a bulletin board in the City Hall and disseminated to the City Recorder, local news media representatives, and other persons and organizations as provided by law. At the discretion of the Secretary, notice may also be provided to persons and organizations known to have a special interest in matters to be considered by the Commission. C. Notice shall be given not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of a meeting; provided, however, that in case of an emergency, a meeting may be held upon such public notice 4 as is appropriate in the circumstances. D. Failure to provide notice as specified in this section, shall not invalidate any decision or proceeding of the Commission. i -4- i Section 6. Auenda: Order of Busines. A. The order of business at all meetings shall be determined by the agenda which shall be composed generally of the following items: 1) Call to order; f 2) Roll call; 3) Communications; 4) Minutes of previous meetings; 5) Old business - continuances; 6 New business; 7 Other business; 8 Adjournment. B. Any item may be taken out of order by direction of the President. C. Actions of the Commission are not limited to the prepared agenda. D. Public hearings will be stopped at 11:00 P.M. unless there is a motion from the commission to extend the time of the hearing in progress. In the absence of that motion, the issue will be taken up at the following meeting. E. The Commission shall not consider a new item after 11:00 p.m. unless there is a motion by the Commission to extend the time for the agenda item. Section 7. Attendance. If a member of the Commission is unable to attend a meeting, he or I she is expected to notify the Secretary. If any member is absent from 6 meetings within one calendar year or three consecutive meetings without reasonable cause, upon majority vote of the Commission, " that position shall be declared vacant. The Commission shall forward their action to the Mayor and Council, who shall fill the vacant position. Section 8. Quorum. At any meeting of the Commission, a quorum shall be a majority of E. the current members of the Commission. No action shall be taken in the absence of a quorum l except to adjourn the meeting and to continue public hearings to a time and place certain. For the purposes of forming a quorum, members who have disqualified or excused themselves from participation in any matter shall be counted as present. In the event a quorum will not be present at any meeting, the Secretary shall notify the Commission members in advance of that fact, and all items scheduled before the meeting shall be automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting. The Secretary shall post notice of the continuance on the door of the Council Chambers notifying the public of the continuance and specifying the date and time when the matter will be before the Commission. F Section 9. Votine. A. The concurrence of a majority of the members of the Commission present at an open meeting shall be necessary to determine any question before the Commission. A tie vote causes the motion to fail. B. When a matter is called for a vote, the President shall, before a vote is taken, restate the motion and shall announce the decision of the Commission after such vote. 1 C. Voting shall be by voice vote. All votes, whether positive, negative, or abstentions, shall be recorded in the minutes. l D. Voting "in absentia" or by proxy is not permitted. 4 E. A motion to reconsider can be made only at the same meeting the vote to be reconsidered was taken. Suspension of this rule is not permitted. Further, a motion to reconsider may only be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side of the issue. Section 10. Continuances, Remands. A. Any item before the Commission may be continued to a subsequent meeting. A motion j to continue an item shall specify the date or event upon which continuation is to be based. If a matter which originally required public notice is continued without setting time and place certain, ~-J the public notification must be repeated when time and place are made certain. A list of continued items, showing the date at which an item was continued, or the event upon which continuance is based, shall be recorded and kept by the Secretary and made available to the public. B. Unless otherwise provided by the Council upon remand, any item remanded by the Council for reconsideration by the Commission shall be treated as a new item and proceedings shall be provided for as if the matter were initially before the Commission. C. A member absent during the presentation of any evidence in a hearing may not participate in the deliberations or final determination regarding the matter of the hearing, unless he or she has reviewed the evidence received. Section 11. Rules of Procedure. All rules of order not herein provided for shall be determined in accordance with the latest edition of "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised". However, the Commission has an obligation to be as clear and simple in its procedure as possible. Section 12. Minutes. A. The Secretary or a designee shall be present at each meeting and shall cause the proceedings to be stenographically or electronically recorded. A full transcript is not required, but f written minutes giving a true reflection of the matters discussed at a meeting and the view of the participants shall be prepared and maintained by the Secretary. Executive sessions are excluded ! - ~•J from published minutes. _6_ E a 0 B. Minutes shall be available to the public, upon request, within a reasonable time after a n meeting and shall include the following: 1) Members present; 2) Motions, proposals, measures proposed and their disposition; 3) Results of all votes, including the vote of each member by name if not unanimous; and 4) Substance of any discussion of any matter. 5) If the minutes are not yet approved by the Commission, if requested, draft minutes, if available, may be provided. i C. The Secretary may charge a reasonable fee for copies of minutes and other materials relating to Commission matters. - D. Commissioners are expected to vote for approval of the minutes based on the accuracy of representation of events at the meeting. If there are no corrections, the President may declare the minutes approved as presented, without the need for a motion and vote. A vote in favor of adopting minutes does not signify agreement or disagreement with the Commission's actions memorialized in the minutes. E. Any Commissioner not present at a meeting must abstain from voting on approval of the minutes of that meeting. ARTICLE V Advisory Committees Appointment. Advisory committees to the Commission may be appointed by the Commission, with the concurrence of the Commission members, for the consideration of special assignments. ARTICLE VI Publication and Amendment of Bylaws and Rules of Procedure Section 1. Publication and Distribution. A copy of these approved bylaws and rules of procedures shall be: A. Placed on record with the City Recorder and the Secretary of the Commission; B. Available at each Commission meeting; C. Distributed to each member of the Commission; and j' D. Available to the public for the cost of duplication. 1 U Section 2. Amendment and Suspension. _7_ l . jj A A' r t ~ A. These bylaws, rules, and regulations may be amended by approval of a majority of the members of the entire Commission at a regular or special meeting, provided notice of the proposed amendment is given at the preceding regular meeting, or at least five (5) days written notice is delivered to, or mailed to the home address of each Commissioner. The notice shall identify the section or sections of this resolution proposed to be amended. B. Notwithstanding subsection A above, any rule of procedure not required by law may be suspended temporarily at any meeting by majority vote of those members present and voting, except the rule on reconsideration. L Adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard, Oregon, with a quorum in attendance at its regular meeting of and signed by the President in authentication of its adoption this day of Planning Commission City of Tigard, OR { Adopted by the Council this day of . t I Ayes: Nays: i:\cdadm\j erree\mst\bylaws. doc - r i i 1 _8_ % I` - - - AGENDA ITEM # 3.3 For Agenda of September 29. 1996 } CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Implement changes to the water rate structure. PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK L- CITY ADMIN OK V a"q~ ` r ISSUE BEFORE THE OUNCI Shall the City Council change the water rate structure to delete the minimum charge and to charge individual classes of customers on a cost of service basis? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the approval of an updated water rate structure as reflected in the attached resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY Chapter 12.10.130 of the Tigard Municipal Code provides that fees and charges for water and water related services be established by resolution of the City I; Council. Resolution 93-67 was approved by the Council in December 1993 establishing the current rates charged for water services. A water rate study was commissioned by the City in 1996 at the recommendation of the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB). The results of the study were - discussed with the IWB on April 10 1996 and May 15, 1996 and briefly at a - study session with the Council on April 16, 1996. The final water rate study report was issued by CH2M Hill in June 1996. The rate model used in the final report has been updated since its issuance to reflect the final Council adopted budget for 1996/97. The report as updated indicates that no rate increase is necessary to carry on the water operation. The report recommends the City no longer charge customers for minimum water 3 usage but instead, establish a customer charge for each account and a usage charge for every unit of water consumed. The usage charge shall be charged on a cost of service basis and therefore will be different for each class of customer. This water rate structure will provide encouragement for customers to conserve water because they are charged for each unit they use. In addition, this structure will provide some relief to customers that typically use less than the minimum because they will only pay for the amount of water they use. The City's current volume charge for all customer classes is $1.32 per unit. The recommended updated rate structure retains the $1.32 per unit for residential single family users and changes the per unit rates for all other _classes as follows: MNEW- S Multifamily 1.30 ( bmmercial 1.53 "Industrial 1.27 Irrigation 1.63 ■ The current fire service charges will remain unchanged. The booster charge for the Bull Mountain zone will be increased from $3.00 per period to $3.13 per period. The current larger meter charges are deleted from the rate structure. r The recommended rate structure is much simpler than the current structure and is designed to reflect the cost of serving the various classes of customers. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED K 1) Continue with an updated minimum charge. ' 2) Implement a conservation rate structure. FISCAL NOTES The proposed rate structure is designed to be revenue neutral. Most residential, multifamily and Industrial customers will have lower water bills, while Commercial and Irrigation customers will have higher water bills. E J is A r to City of Tigard Cost-of-Service Water Rate and System Development Charge Study Submitted by CH2!&AHILL Portland, Oregon June 1996 i t.3 ® k~~~!!'~ Engineers m J Planners Pa Economists Scientists 10 Portland Office June 3,1996 ` 132328.A0.01 r Mr. Wayne Lowry t Finance Director 4 City of Tigard :.1 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 1 i :J Dear Mr. Lowry: r r Subject: Cost-of-Service Water Rate and SDC Study Enclosed are twenty copies of CH2M HILL's water rate and SDC study final report for the City I of Tigard. This report includes an analysis of the cost of providing service to the water system's { customers, proposed water rate alternatives, and proposed system development charges to be assessed to new system connections. The proposed rate alternatives are designed to equitably recover the water system's projected costs from the system's users. The proposed system development charges have been developed in accordance with our wlderstanding of the legal requirements of the State of Oregon relating to the assessment of these charges. _ We would like to take this opportunity to thank you, Ed Wagner, and Mike Miller. Your j efficient and professional assistance significantly improved the quality of this study and was greatly appreciated. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service to the City of Tigard. I Sincerely, CH2M HILL f i Robert J Tomlinson Economist i i. Enclosures Serving Oregon and Southwest Washington from two locations: PoAland Office 825 N.E. Multnomah, Suite 1300, Portland, OR 97232-2146 503.235.5000 503.235.2445 FAX Corvallis Office 2300 NW Watnut Blvd.. Corvallis. OR 973343538 503.752.4271 503.752.0276 FAX y< Lam: _J j Contents .4 J Section Page l Executive Summary »..ES-1 # 11 ' i 1 Introduction 11 Authorization and Purpose - 11 Scope - Background -1 Report organization ........................................................................................................1-2 f k Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................1-2 2 General Overview of the Water Rate Determination Process »»».2-1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................2-1 ..........................2-1 System Revenue Requirements . Revenue Requirements from Rates ......................................................2-4 Cost Allocation Procedures .............................................................................................2-4 Design of the Rate Structure ............................................................................................2-5 3-1 3 User Characteristics Introduction .......................................................................................................................3 1 3-1 Accounts 3-1 Equivalent Meters r Annual Water Use ............................................................................................................3 3 Consumption Patterns ~.J Peaking Requirements 3 4 Revenue Requirements 1 J Introduction Operation and Maintenance Costs .................................................................................41 Capital Outlays .................................................................................................................43 Nonrate Revenues .............................................................................................................43 43 Total and Net Revenue Requirements Cost Allocations . . 5-1 r i 5 51 Introduction Cost Allocation Procedure ...........................................................................................5-1 i Capital Cost Allocations ..................................................................................................5 1 u Operation and Maintenance Cost Allocations ..............................................................5 2 Cost Allocations to Customer Classes ............................................................................5 2 J U 132328.A0.01 PDX16F2A.DOC 111 ,n Contents (continued) Section Page 1 6 Water Rates »»...6-1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................6-1 - Existing Rates ....................................................................................................................6-1 ~r New Rates ..........................................................................................................................6-1 Seasonal Conservation Surcharge ...................................................................................6-4 Impact on Typical Bills Projected Revenues ...........................................................................................................6-5 7 System Development Charges ».7-1 V Introduction 5............................... - System Development Charges: An Overview 7-1 Legislative Considerations 7-2 Overview of Methodology ..............................................................................................7-3 ` Proposed System Development Charges .......................................................................7-7 SDC Recommendations 8 Summary of Recommendations 8.1 Rates ` System Development Charges ........................................................................................8 1 rr . V.. J Recommendations ............................................................................................................8-1 C J PDXI6FZA.DOC - iv 132328.A0.01 'z-.n.._..-_._-._.__.._. Am- S Contents (continued) Tables Number Page 2-1 System Revenue Requirements .......................................................................................2-1 ...........2-4 2-2 User Revenue Requirements 3-2 3-1 Accounts Summary by Customer Class 3-2 Projected Water Demand by Customer Class (ccf) 3-4 i 3-3 Estimated Peaking Factors by Customer Class .............................................................3-6 41 Operation and Maintenance Costs .................................................................................42 J 42 Capital Improvement Program .......................................................................................4-4 4-3 Nonrate Revenues .............................................................................................................4-5 I: 44 Net Revenue Requirements From Rates ........................................................................46 J " 5-1 Plant Investment Allocation Percentages ......................................................................5-3 5-2 Allocation of Net Plant Investment to System Parameters .........................................5-4 5-3 Allocation of O&M Costs to Major Unit Process-Summary .......................................5-5 5-4. O&M Allocation Percentages to Functional Parameters .............................................5-6 1 5-5 Allocation of O&M Costs to Functional Parameters ....................................................5-7 ; J 5-6 Allocation Percentages to Customer Classes ................................................................5-8 5-7 Allocation of Total Costs to Customer Classes .............................................................5-9 t r 6-1 Current Rates .....................................................................................................................6 2 6-2 Proposed Cost of Service Rates 6-6 6-3 Residential Conservation Surcharge (Jul-Aug-Sep 94/95) ..........................................6-7 6-4 Typical Bill Comparisons-No Booster Charges ............................................................6-8 6-5 Volume Rate Plus Minimum Customer Charge-Rate Revenues 6-9 6-6 Current Rates-Total Rate Revenues .............................................................................6-10 7-4 7-1 SDC-Reimbursement Fee 1 7-2 SDC-Improvement Fee ....................................................................................................7-6 7-3 SDC-Combined Fees ........................................................................................................7-7 .J Figures f Number Page 2-1 Schematic Development of Water Rates ........................................................................2-2 2-2 Allocation of Costs to User or User Class ......................................................................2-3 . ' PDXI6FJA.DOC V 132328.AO.01 r 3 f Executive Summary Introduction This report contains an analysis of the City of Tigard's water facilities, capital and operating costs, revenues, and water service characteristics. This analysis has been used to develop cost-of-service water rate alternatives for the City. In addition, water system development charges (SDCs) have been developed that are in accordance with our understanding of the State of Oregon statute relating to the implementation and assessment of SDCs. Existing Rates The City of Tigard currently charges a bi-monthly minimum charge ($14.30) plus a uniform volume rate ($1.32 per ccf) for all customer classes. In addition to this, the City charges a booster charge for higher elevation service areas, a meter charge for larger meter sizes, an outside district charge, and fire service charges. The City's current rates and charges are shown in Table ES-1. The bi-monthly minimum charge includes the initial 8 ccf per billing period. Any water consumption beyond the initial 8 ccf in a billing period is charged at the J volume rate. The analysis showed that the existing rates are sufficient to meet net revenue requirements from rates for the 5-year study period with only a slight modification to the ~-1 water utility's financial plan. New Rate Structure Two cost-of-service rate structure alternatives were developed for this study: volume rates r plus a minimum customer charge and volume rates plus a minimum service charge. Both rate designs would still include a bi-monthly booster charge and the fire service charges, as J needed. The proposed volume rates vary between customer classes because of their different costs of service. The proposed volume rates plus minimum customer charge recover customer costs in the base minimum charge. Flow-related costs are included as volume rates. The proposed volume rates plus minimum service charge recover customer costs plus the initial 8 ccf of water consumption in a billing period in the minimum service charge. The volume rates under this alternative are applied to any water consumption beyond the initial 8 ccf. PDXI6FLA.DOC ES-1 - ' r Table ES-1 t CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL CURRENT RATES i_. Within Outside Item Meter Size District District r, - Bi-Monthly Minimum Charge (Includes 8ccf) $14.30 $14.30 Volume Rate ($/ccf) $1.32 $1.32 `i Bi-Monthfy Booster Charge $3.00 $3.00 y Bi-Monthly Meter Charge 5/8" X 3/4" $0.00 $0.00 $8.80 $8.80 , 1-1/2" $22.00 $22.00 2" $59.40 $59.40 " 3" $121.00 $121.00 4- $213.40 $213.40 6" $303.60 $303.60 ` 8' $427.90 $427.90 Bi-Monthly Outside District Charge 5/8" X 3/4" $5.50 l " 1 ` $8.80 1-1/2' $13.20 " 2` $22.00 3` $33.00 4" $41.80 i 6' $61.60 j " 8' $83.60 Within District Fire Service Charges: Booster I One-Time Connection Fee $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 "i Bi-Monthly Fire Charge 1-1/2" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00 2' $30.00 $35.00 $33.00 3' $30.00 $35.00 $33.00 4" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00 6" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00 I 8" $40.00 $45.00 $43.00 1 ES-2; ILL. b w_1 n .r Proposed Rates The rate structure alternatives are for the period of fiscal year 1 proposed y (FY)1996/97 through FY2000/01. As shown in Table ES-2, all users under the volume rates plus minimum customer charge would pay a base charge of $3.89 per bimonthly billing period. 77 The water consumed would be charged a different rate for each customer class where _ single-family residential users would pay $1.35 per ccf, multifamily users would pay $1.33 per ccf, commercial users pay $1.56 per ccf, industrial users pay $1.30 per ccf, and the irrigation customer class would pay $1.67 per ccf. The volume rates plus minimum service charge includes the same customers costs of $3.89 per bi-monthly billing period plus the initial 8 ccf of water demand in the billing period. j j The volume charges, which are the same as those above, are added to the base charge for { any water demand greater than 8 ccf. ^ Seasonal Conservation Surcharge j The City of Tigard and the Intergovernmental Water Board are considering the implementation of a water conservation program. The program would include a seasonal conservation surcharge for single-family residential users and irrigation users. A surcharge was developed for the single-family residential users as part of this study. Data was not available for the irrigation customer class. A proposed seasonal surcharge would be added to the bills of single-family residential users who demand more than 50 ccf per bi-monthly billing period (25 ccf per month) during the months of July, August, and September. The 1 revenues collected by the surcharge would be beyond the cost-of-service revenue I requirements identified in this study and could therefore be used to fund a conservation education program. Table ES-3 shows alternative surcharges and the amount of revenue , that would be generated by the surcharge. Impact on Typical Bills Table ES-4 shows the impact that the proposed rate structures would have on the bills of some typical users. The table shows the current water rates and the two proposed rates. ! Compared with current rates, single-family residential users with low water demand (less than 8 ccf per billing period) would pay less under the proposed volume rates plus j minimum customer charge while users with higher water demands would pay slightly more. A single-family residential customer with a bimonthly water demand of 20 ccf would have a volume rate plus minimum customer charge bill of $30.90, or a volume rate plus minimum service charge bill of $30.97, compared with a current bill of $30.14. System Development Charges An analysis was prepared of the cost of providing capacity in the water system to serve future connections. System development charges were then calculated to recover these costs from new connections as shown on Table ES-5. The charges to a new, single-family PDX16F2A.DOC ES-3 1. . 1 EY1 i residential equivalent dwelling unit (EDU in the 410-zone service area would increase from $845 to $986 under the proposed fee schedule. The SDC for an EDU in the Bull r , Mountain service area would increase from the current charge of $1,000 to $1,500. The fee structure for all other users with larger meter sizes is based on 5/8- by 3/4 inch equivalent water meter values. Recommendations a 1 CH2M HILL recommends that the City of Tigard: Adopt the proposed combined SDCs for the two separate service areas as shown in Table ES-5. ` • Consider the proposed cost-of-service volume rates plus minimum customer charge or minimum service charge rate structures shown in Table ES-2. • Consider implementing a conservation education program funded by a seasonal ' conservation surcharge. s, r i; I ~ y l J . 1y PDX16F2A.DCC ES-4 1 i 71 1 - 1 Table ES-2 I ri CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL 1 PROPOSED COST OF SERVICE RATES ITEM CHARGE 1 n Bi-Monthly Base Charge $3.89 Bi-Monthly Booster Charge $3.13 ` j Volume Rate ($/ccq: Residential $1.35 Multifamily Residential $1.33 i e Commercial $1.56 Industrial $1.30• 1 Irrigation $1,67 Average $1.39 r i Bi-Monthly Base Charge $14.77 Includes Initial 8ccf of Demand tom' Bi-Monthly Booster Charge $3.13 Volume Rate ($/ccQ: C' Residential $1.35 Multifamily Residential $1.33 {f{{ t~~ss Commercial $1.56 1 l~ Industrial $1.30 Irrigation $1.67 Average $1.39 i U , ES-5 I. !xJ . . Table ES-3 CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION SURCHARGE (JUL-AUG-SEP 94195) Number of Accounts Total3-Month Demand Elasticity Demand Consumption Blocks Accounts Percent Demand Percent Ad'ustment Percent Y t Oto 50ccf 6,861 77.2% 318,540 55.5% 318,640 56.3% ` 50ccf & More 2.614 22.8% 255,300 44.5 % 247.640 43.7% i~ Total 11,475 100.0% 573,840 100.0% 566,180 100.03% Seasonal Conservation Consumption Blocks Surchar a Revenues J ($/ccf) (a) 50ccf & More $0.25 $61,910 - $0.50 123,820 J $0.75 185,730 $1.00. 247,640 Y $1.25 309,550 $1.50 371,460 $1.75 433,370 $2.00 495,280 g• i. (a) Use seasonal surcharge revenues to finance a conservation education program. ^t % ES-6 . I I L.; Table ES-4 CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL TYPICAL BILL COMPARISONS - NO BOOSTER CHARGES Vol Rate + Vol Rate + Bi-monthly Current Min Customer Min Service Char e Customer Class & Meter Size Use ccf Bill Charge (a) (b) (b) Single-Family Residential (5/8'x 3/4") 5 $14.30 $10.65 $14.77 ~j Single-Family Residential (5/8'x 3/4") 8 $14.30 $14.70 $14.77 Single-Family Residential (5/8'x 3/4") 20 $30.14 $30.90 $30.97 Single-Family Residential (5/8'x 3/4") 30 $43.34 $44.40 $44.48 7 Single-Family Residential (5/8'x 3/4") 40 $56.54 $57.90 $57.98 _ Commercial (1") 20 $38.94 $35.13 $33.51 Commercial (1") 40 $65.34 $66.37 $57.98 Commercial (1") 60 $91.74 $97.60 $84.98 Commercial (1') 80 $118.14 $128.84 $111.99 Commercial (1") 100 $144.54 $160.07 $138.99 Industrial (2") 20 $89.54 $29.92 $30.39 Industrial (2") 40 $115.94 $55.95 $56.41 Industrial (2") 60 $142.34 $81.97 $82.44 t Industrial (2") 80 $168.74 $108.00 $108.47 3 Industrial (2") 100 $195.14 $134.02 $134.49 Il9 Irrigation (1-1/2") 20 $52.14 $37.23 $34.77 ! Irrigation (1-112") 40 $78.54 $70.56 $68.11 Yj Irrigation (1-1/2") 60 $104.94 $103.90 $101.44 v Irrigation (1-1/2") 80 $131.34 $137.23 $134.77 Irrigation (1-1/2') 100 $157.74 $170.56 $168.11 w~ t (a) If applicable, add $3.00 per bill for the Booster Charge. } - (b) If applicable, add $3.13 per bill for the Booster Charge. U 1 , } ES-7 :.J Table ES-5 CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL SDC - COMBINED FEES Item System-Wide 410 Zone Bull Mtn S stem Reimbursement SDC per EDU $671 $671 $663 Net Improvement SDC per EDU $426 $315 $844 J Combined SDC per EDU $1,097 $986 $1,507 f' Current SDC per EDU N.A. $845 $1,000 r J I, I i t - . .j J r 17 u ES-8 S l LLJ Li Section 1 Introduction Authorization and Purpose In July 1995, the City of Tigard authorized CH2M HILL to conduct a water system cost-of- service rate and system development charge (SDC) analysis. The purpose of the study was - to develop water rates and SDCs that were fair and equitable for the City's user groups and sufficient to recover anticipated water system operating and capital costs. uj This technical report presents the results of the water rate and SDC analysis for the City of Tigard. It presents projected rates for the 5-year period of fiscal year (FY) 1996/97 through i r FY2000/01, as well as proposed SDCs for the City's water system. Scope J The scope of the study involved the following major tasks: • Review the City's current and projected water utility costs, system and customer characteristics, and current user rates. Conduct a cost-of-service analysis to determine the costs of providing water service to each of the City's customer classes. • Develop alternative rate designs to recover system costs. • Develop system development charges for recovery of costs associated with capacity provided for future system growth. • Prepare draft and final reports presenting study assumptions, methodology, and If findings. • Assist in presenting the study results to the Intergovernmental Water Board and the City of Tigard's City Council, as needed. Background The City of Tigard's water service area has been experiencing moderate growth over the last several years and growth is expected to continue at about the same rate for several more years. The City's water supply includes its own wells plus major purchases of water from j the Cities of Portland and Lake Oswego. The city currently has no major water treatment facilities and none are planned within the time period of this study. The capital improvement plan (CIP) includes construction of two new reservoirs within the next 5 J years. PDX16EZA.DOC 1 1 t i - .s kc1 Report Organization r ( Section 2 provides a general overview of the methodology that was used to calculate the Li cost-of-service water rates presented in this report. Section 3 summarizes customer class user characteristics and the basis for projections of user demands for FY1996/97 through FY2000/01. The calculation of system revenue requirements and net revenue requirements from rates is discussed in Section 4. The allocation of system costs to functional parameters and then to customer classes is presented in Section 5. Section 6 presents proposed rate structure alternatives for water service. The section includes a discussion of the impacts of the proposed rate alternatives on typical user bills. Section 7 summarizes the legal requirements relating to the calculation of SDCs, and the methodology used to calculate - these charges for the City of Tigard. Section 8 presents a summary and the recom- mendations of the study. f Acknowledgments t . CH2M HILL gratefully acknowledges the assistance we received from the City of Tigard. In particular, we would like to ' express our appreciation to Wayne Lowry, Ed Wagner, and Mike Miller for their extra efforts in this regard. l PDX16F1A.DCC 1-2 I Section 2 General Overview of the Water Rate Determination Process introduction n The purpose of this section is to describe the major steps involved in generating cost-of- service water rates for the City of Tigard's water system. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 schematically illustrate the following basic steps in this process: • Determination of annual water system revenue requirements (costs) ' Determination of revenue requirements that must be recovered from user charges (rates) 'r • Analysis of water demands and use characteristics for each customer class ` • Allocation of revenue requirements to customer service characteristics • Allocation of revenue requirements to customer classes by service characteristics • Development and design of rate alternatives f SyW-.- Revenue anir ...,w The first element of information required for a rate study is an estimate of system revenue requirements. For this study, the cash basis of accounting was used to determine revenue requirements. The essence of the cash basis is that utility revenues must be sufficient to recover all cash needs of the utility as they come due, for the period for which the rates are intended to be adequate. System revenue requirements under the cash basis consist of _ operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses, debt service, and any capital outlays funded directly from rates. Table 2-1 presents system revenue requirements in tabular form. ,i Table 2-1 System Revenue Requirements ($/year) 1 _ Operation and maintenance costs + Debt service + Capital outlaw = System revenue requirements PDX16F2A.DCC &1 _ _ - ...._...__r .nom r. { 3 Water Utility Revenue Requirements L-j ;Q 1 Revenues to be Recovered I Other System from User Charges I Revenues J Allocation of Costs of Service to Cost Functions Base Costs _ Maximum. f Extra Day Costs i Capacity Costs Maximum- I" Hour Costs Allocation of Costs to user or User Class 1 Annual Cost Customer Costs per Equivalent LDFSIGNOF R RATES Equivalent f - Meter Service I ' I. f. Number of Actual f _ Customers Services - - i _.i Figure Z-1 Schematic Development of Water Rates CH2ROHILL z-2 t 9 F User or User Gass Water Demand and Service Characteristics Annual Water Projected 40 of Base Costs of 3 Demand Total Annual Base Base Service for User cubic meters) x i Water Demand Costs costs or User Class S User or User Class Peaking Factors Maximum Maximum Maximum Day Costs of Service for User q Day Day Costs or User Class Maximum Maximum-Hour Costs Hour Maximum of Service for User Hour Costt or User Class Number of Customers Equivalent Annual Cost per Customer Costs Meter Service X Equivalent Meter = Allocable to User Service or User Class Number Annual Cost Billing Costs Allocable of Bills X per Bill to ' - User or User Class i _ Total Costs Allocable to User Class: User or User Class Cost of Service Figure 2-2 j Allocation of Costs (f to User or User Class 9 z 3 CH2MHILL s n A water utility's O&M expenditures are typically characterized by unit process expenditure categories; these categories include water supply, reservoirs and storage, transmission, distribution, and pump stations, customer services, and general administration. t Revenue Requirements from Rates The portion of annual system revenue requirements to be recovered through rates depends on a water utility's financing policy and other sources of income. To determine the amount of revenue that rates must generate annually, nonrate or other system revenues are subtracted from total revenue requirements. Nonrate sources of revenue vary among systems but typically include such items as miscellaneous charges, system capacity charges, and unrestricted interest earnings on fund balances. Capital reserve funds and government grants may also provide revenue to offset costs of capital improvements. As illustrated in Figure 2-1 and outlined in Table 2-2, nonrate revenues are used to offset a portion of system J revenue requirements. E Table 2-2 i User Revenue Requirements k ($/year) f1 System revenue requirements J =Mflrrstem~v~II1l~. Revenue requirements from rates 1 Cost Allocation Procedures Determination of the costs of service by customer class is a three-step process. First, a water utility's O&M costs and capital assets are usually divided into unit processes, such as water supply, reservoirs and storage, transmission, distribution, and pump stations, meter and billing services, and general administration expenditures. Second, the costs are allocated to I customer service characteristics, such as base (or average) demand and maximum-day demands. Finally, the requirements by customer service characteristic are allocated to j customer classes in proportion to their use of each service characteristic. The sum of all i.. ! requirements allocated to a class is its costs of service. _ i Allocation of Costs to Customer Service Characteristics The assignment of costs to customer service characteristics varies with the allocation method used. This study relies on the base-extra capacity cost allocation method. The base- - ; extra capacity method is recommended by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and is generally accepted throughout North America. The method assigns O&M costs to base, extra-capacity (maximum-day), and customer service categories. eDx16F2A.DOC 2-4 6 3 f An allocation of system plant investment serves as the basis for allocating the system's n annual capital costs to service characteristics. The allocation of system costs to customer service characteristics is shown graphically in Figure 2-1. Base costs are costs that vary with water use under average demand conditions. Base costs represent the costs that would be incurred if water consumption occurred evenly from day y to day and from hour to hour, so that the system did not need extra capacity to meet peak- period demands. Extra-capacity costs represent costs incurred to meet water demands that exceed average " levels of use by system customers. Extra-capacity costs are incurred because of water use variations and peak demands of customers. Storage facilities, for example, are designed and constructed to meet demands during peak periods. ;.J Customer costs are the costs expended in serving customers regardless of water demand. Meter reading and maintenance, billing, and customer services are examples of customer costs. Each customer class has potentially differing levels for use of each of these characteristics. For example, one class might represent 50 percent of the average demand of the system but only 25 percent of the peak-day demand. Because the percentages of use for each 1 characteristic tend to differ among classes, the cost responsibilities differ as well. To account for these differences in the cost-of-service analysis, costs are allocated to customer service characteristics. Aliocatioit of Costs to Customer Gasses The costs by customer service characteristic are allocated to each customer class according to its proportionate responsibility for that service characteristic. Base costs are allocated on the basis of annual demand of each class, which is determined or estimated from historical billing records. Maximum-day costs are allocated to classes in proportion to the extra demands put on the water system beyond average daily water use. Customer costs are j allocated in proportion to the number of customers or bills in each class. i Y Water consumption records are usually available for customer classes on a monthly, f bimonthly, or quarterly basis, but seldom on a daily or hourly basis. Published information, ! 1 - augmented by professional judgment, is often applied to determine maximum-day _ customer class consumption characteristics. These characteristics are usually expressed as ratios of respective peak demand to annual average demand. These ratios, called peaking factors, are used to determine the costs of service by customer class. Design of the Rate Structure y The last step in the rate development process is the design of the water rate structure. Many types of water rate structures have been used in the past and are currently in use. These rate structures include declining block rates, uniform volume rates (accompanied by a monthly V service charge), increasing block rates, flat charges, and seasonal charges. j M.~ PDX16F2A.DCC 2-5 The most important concerns addressed by rate structures usually include adequacy of the rates to recover the net revenue requirements, rate equity among the customer classes (that is, cost-based rates), consistency with state and federal laws, and defensibility if challenged. i Conservation objectives, such as supply enhancement through conservation rates, are _ becoming increasingly important in many communities throughout North America. For this study, a uniform volume rate plus bimonthly service charge and a seasonal surcharge were considered and evaluated, as well as the City's current water rates. The rate structure alternatives presented in Section 6 of this report were designed to meet the objectives of the City of Tigard and the Intergovernmental Water Board. The end result of this cost allocation and rate determination process is an equitable distribution of system user charge revenue requirements to system users. The process is called cost-of-service ratemaking, f F 77 u i i. i, PDX16F2A.DDC ' 2-6 tt l1 _ 1 Section 3 User Characteristics I ' Introduction To allocate user charge revenue requirements equitably to water system users on the basis of their average and peak demands, annual and monthly water use for each user class must first be identified or estimated. The current customer classification structure used by the a City for rate setting consists of separate classes for single-family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and irrigation users. These classes are further ' _i differentiated by categories of. inside-city or outside-city; inside-booster zone (Bull Mountain service area) or outside-booster zone (410 main system); and by meter size. Fire y service connections are also categorized separately. These customer class categories help to differentiate usage patterns and therefore costs. This section contains projections of water accounts and annual water demands by customer class. This information will be used in Section 5 to distribute system revenue requirements to the customer classes, and will be used in Sections 6 and 7 to develop water rates and SDCs. i - Accounts ~I The City of Tigard currently provides water service to 13,032 customers. Of these accounts, 11,881 or 91 percent of total accounts are single-family residential customers, and 541 or 4 percent are multifamily residential customers. The City also provides service to 526 (4 percent) commercial accounts, 8 (.001 percent) industrial, and 76 (.01 percent) irrigation customers. - The number of accounts within the area currently being served by the water system is projected to increase at a 3.5 percent compound annual rate for the first 2 years of the 5-year study period and then by 3.25 percent for the last 3 years. Table 3-1 lists the number of 1 accounts and the number of equivalent meters projected to be served by the City for FY1996/97 through FY2000/01. The total number of accounts served by the water system is V projected to increase from 13,032 currently to 15,362 in FY2000/Ol. Equivalent Meters i j The amount of water that can pass through a user's water meter varies with the size of the i meter. Equivalent meter factors that equate the hydraulic capacity of meters of different sizes are used to calculate the total number of 5/8" by 3/4" equivalent meters connected to the water system. In this analysis, an equivalent meter is synonymous to an equivalent 1 dwelling unit (EDU) which is equal to the water demand of a single-family residential customer. Table 3-1 shows the projected equivalent meters (or EDUs) by customer class for PDX16FZA.DOC 3-1 J L___1 ,i 17 1 C i r Table 3-1 CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL ACCOUNTS SUMMARY BY CUSTOMER CLASS CUSTOMER CLASS 1995/96 1996/97 1997198 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Water Meters (Accounts): Residential 11,881 12,296 12,727 13,141 13,567 14,008 Multifamily Residential 541 560 579 599 617 637 Commercial 526 544 562 597 597 618 Industrial 8 8 8 8 8 8 Irrigation 76 79 83 84 88 91 w Total 13,032 13,487 13,959 14,429 14,877 15,362 N Annual Increase N.A. 455 472 470 448 Percent Increase 485 N.A. 3.5/0 3.5/0 3.4% 3.1% 3.3% .3% f Equivalent Water Meters: Residential 12,403 12,835 13,288 13,719 14,162 14,621 Multifamily Residential 3,068 3,158 3,249 3,341 3,430 3,522 Commercial 2,481 2,545 2,606 2,733 2,733 2,808 Industrial 82 82 82 82 82 82 Irrigation 288 299 315 317 333 344 Total 18,322 18,919 19,540 20,192 20,740 21,377 Annual increase 652 548 637 N.A. 597 621 Percent Increase N.A. 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 2.7% 3.1% ON I tI m t~ A tt _ MOM V F7 the 5-year study period. These numbers are used for allocations of costs to the customer n classes in Section 5. Annual Water Use The projected annual water demands by customer class for 5-year study period are shown in Table 3-2. The City meters its water use in units of 100 cubic feet (ccf) which equals 748 gallons. Single-family residential customers are projected to consume approximately 1.5 million ccf 77 (55.9 percent) of water in FY1996/97. Multifamily residential and commercial customer classes account for about 23.8 percent and 16.3 percent of total water consumption, respectively; industrial users account for about 1.3 percent of the total while irrigation customers account for about 2.7 percent. Total water demand is projected to be about 2.8 million ccf in FY1996/97 increasing to about 3.2 million ccf by FY2000/01. Consumption Patterns The City's peak water demand has historically occurred in July, August, and September. - The cyclical rise in consumption is a result of higher irrigation use, customers watering _ their lawns, washing their cars, and other activities that use more water. The seasonal consumption pattern in the City is normal for systems of similar size. in the Pacific - Northwest. 1 The City is considering adoption of a seasonal conservation surcharge to lower the peak use during the 3 summer months and thus reduce the need for expanded system capacity. A seasonal conservation surcharge is presented in Section 6 of this report. 1 Peaking Requirements j _ The cost of providing water to customers depends not only on how much water they use, but also on how that use occurs over time. The maximum-day and maximum-hour peaking requirements of a water utility's customers have an important effect on the utility's costs. ! Because water utilities attempt to meet all of the water demands of their customers, water y systems are sized to meet their customer's peak requirements. In addition, some facilities may only be used primarily during the system's peak season. Therefore, during off-peak periods there are usually significant costs associated with the unused capacity and facilities. " To develop equitable rates, these costs must be allocated to the customers in proportion to each user's contribution to the system peak. For maximum-day demands, the peak rate of use relative to the average rate of use for each class is determined. This ratio is called a { peaking factor. For this analysis, peaking factors are developed for maximum-day rates of use by customer class. Data to determine maximum-hour rates of use were not available. If water meters recorded both daily and hourly flow rates for each customer, more refined information could be obtained on peaking factors. Clearly, this is not feasible because the enormous cost f } that would be imposed on the City could not be justified. Therefore, the peaking factors 1 PDX16FZA.DOC 3-3 P 1 t ~~~~111 7m7 ti r tL- L L-J L] a t Table 3-2 CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL a PROJECTED WATER DEMAND BY CUSTOMER CLASS (ccf) t 1r CUSTOMER CLASS 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000i01 TOTAL { Residential 1,482,100 1,540,400 1,598,600 1,656,600 1,715,100 1,773,300 9,766,300 I Multifamily Residential 630,400 655,100 679,900 704,600 729,400 754,200 4,153,600 Commercial 432,300 449,200 466,200 483,200 500,200 517,200 2,848,300 Industrial 34,500 35,800 37,200 38,500 39,900 41,200 227,100 Irrigation 72,700 75,500 78,400 81,200 84,100 86,900 478,800 Total (ccf) 2,652,000 2,756,000 2,860,300 2,964,300 3,068,700 3,172,800 17,474,100 Residential 55.9% 55.9% 55.9% 55.9% 55.9% 55.9% 55.9% Multifamily Residential 23.8% 23.8% 23.8% 23.8% 23.8% 23.8% 23.8% Commercial 16.3% 16.3% 16.3% 16.3% 16.3% 16.3% 16.3% Industrial 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% Irrigation 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% i ` i r. L r LL ' J! estimated in this analysis are the expected peaking factors for each customer class during the system's maximum day. The following equation shows the calculation of maximum- day peaking factors for each class: (Class i consump. during system max. month x (System peak -day rate of flow) ■ irJ (Ave. month for Class i) (System max.-month rate of flow This equation provides a general approximation of maximum-da YPeaking factors by f class. j It is the best estimating technique available in the absence of more specific information on ~J particular subsets of the customer base. The peaking factors of each customer class are shown in Table 3-3. Irrigation users have the highest peaking factors of any user group reflecting the seasonality of these users. Commercial users have uncharacteristically high peaking factors while, as expected, industrial users have the lowest peaking factors reflecting even water use throughout the year. J I ~yJ 1~I J 1 YJf , ~ PDX16FZA.DOC 3-5 w r. : _ w Table 3-3 CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL ESTIMATED PEAKING FACTORS BY CUSTOMER CLASS AVG BASE MAXIMUM CUSTOMER CLASS FLOW DAY Residential 1 2.52 u~ MultHamily Residential 1 2.43 Commercial 1 3.33 Industrial 1 2.35 d Irrigation 1 3.73 System 1 2.87 J ` f .-J - J Y 3-6 F ~j - Section 4 jn Revenue Requirements Introduction The purpose of this section is to present system revenue requirements and identify the a 4' portion of those requirements that must be recovered through water rates. For this analysis, system revenue requirements have been developed under the cash basis of accounting and ratemaking. Under the cash basis, system revenue requirements consist of cash outlays (expenditures) and other system financial commitments (such as debt service coverage or reserves) that must be met through system operating revenues and other revenue sources. In this study, system revenue requirements consist of the following k " j • O&M expenditures j • Non-debt-funded capital outlays • Additions to reserves "t Depreciation expense is not considered a water system cash expenditure, and therefore is not included in the calculation of system revenue requirements for this analysis. It is j prudent, however, for the City to set aside funds for reserves and replacement of any aging system assets and equipment. Additions to reserves have been included in the revenue requirements. System revenue requirements have been projected for a 5-year period, FY1996/97 through j FY2000/01. Nonrate revenues and other sources of funding, such as interest income, other water system charges, and planned uses of water fund reserves, are deducted from system ' revenue requirements to determine the amount of revenue that must be generated through water rates. -1 All historical water system data were obtained from the City of Tigard's financial state- ments and from other data provided by the City. Cost projections are based on historical 1 requirements of the system, inflationary trends, engineering estimates of future capital -1 requirements, population and water demand projections, and budget estimates. Operation and Maintenance Costs Table 4-1 shows the City of Tigard's projected O&M costs for FY1996/97 through FY2000/01. Projected system O&M costs were inflated from the FY1995/96 budgeted expenditure levels. In addition to annual inflation increases, two new employees are . , assumed to be hired over the 5-year study period. An O&M contingency fund of $300,000 is assumed to be totally funded before the 5-year study period with no draw-downs during j the study period. The largest component, materials and supplies, include purchased water i costs of nearly $2.3 million in FY1996/97. These assumptions result in total system O&M -.at• costs of $4,094,400 in FY1996/97 increasing to $4,573,600 in FY2000/01. I } Itt PDX76F2A.C10C 41 i MI S u-3 c:t' I Table 4-1 CITY OF TIGARD I WATER RATE MODEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS ; f ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED 96/97-00/01 1tp ITEM 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 TOTAL P Personnel $766,100 $774,000 $805,000 $837,200 $928,700 $965,900 $1,067,300 $5,378,100 Materials and Supplies 1,757,000 2,389,300 2,786,100 2,668,100 2,697,400 2,805,300 2,917,500 16,263,700 Capital Outlays 63,100 81,000 84,300 87,700 91,200 94,800 98,600 537,600 Interfund Transfers 338,000 402,900 419,000 435,800 453,200 471,300 490,200 2,672,400 Contingencies 292,000 300,000 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 Total O&M Costs $3,216,200 $3,947,200 $4,094,400 $4,028,800 $4,170,500 $4,337,300 $4,573,600 $25,151,800 j t I f t a . is F i i i iw"~iiiii lb m' 116 m" I I'm law N e A _ • Capital Outlays System capital costs consist of debt service requirements and capital outlays not financed from other sources. Debt Service („i The water system currently has no outstanding long-term debt and none is planned during h the 5-year study period. Capital Improvements I u ~1 Table 4-2 summarizes the water system's planned capital improvement expenditures for FY1996/97 through FY2000/01. Major capital expenditures include construction of 2 water x j reservoirs and construction of water lines and pump stations to provide improved service to existing areas or additional service to developing areas. Total capital outlays are projected to range from a low of $429,338 in FY1999/00 to a high of $3.9 million in FY1997/98. Total capital improvements for the 5-year rate-setting period equal nearly $7.2 million with approximately $2.4 million or 34 percent of the improvements required to support system expansion for new users. r. w Capital Reserve Fund A capital reserve fund is included in this analysis in accordance with City policy and in lieu of a depreciation expense. These funds are expected to be held for financing future capital construction projects and amount to $500,000 annually. g r, Nonrate Revenues Nonrate revenues are shown on Table 4-3 and amount to $604,500 in FY1996/97 and range from a low of $512,300 in FY1998/99 to a high of $3.2 million in FY1997/98. A capital reserve of $2.7 million is included in FY1997/98 which is used to finance the construction of ~J the Menlor Reservoir in the same fiscal year. Other sources of nonrate revenues include interest income, fire service charges, meter installation fees, developer revenues, and other revenues. - l Total and Net Revenue Requirements U j Table 4-4 summarizes the total and net revenue requirements. About $4.9 million is needed from all revenue sources in FY1996/97. Approximately 82.9 percent of this total is for O&M expenditures; the remaining 17.1 percent is for capital-related costs. The net requirement from rates is $4.0 million in FY1996/97 after subtracting nonrate revenues and net SDC revenues. The net revenue requirements from rates for the 5-year study period is $22.5 million. This is the amount of revenues that need to be recovered from rates over the 5-year v rate-setting period. P 1 PDX16P-A.DOC 4-3 9 , w ~J 1 r sV;1 ~ 5 7y~ W Q 3 Q ~1 g t p E g a ooo°°°° °ooo°°ooooo I %°o°°° m - ~ ~ ~oooo ~ ~omoo ~ ~oboooooo~oo m ~oooooo ~ g i - m ooo ~ S~ooo ~ X00000000000 ~ ~oooooo ~ ~ Itt ' 3 R F 0 ^J A ' ..rte ~oooo M 00000 0 o n ~y - i 1 y m a s<i m~ s Ul Sfiyfics88ss ~3 fi~ E i ~ as ~~SS$ s.fi5fi3igss3~ >Ra~s y ~ ow aeon st~8~p:§:t~a~r~zb e~ey a' 20 1 g ~ ~ S: e S 4ao.~a`a~ i $q3 ~ 4-4 p rY tit 777 t ~f Table 4.3 CITY OF TIGARD i WATER RATE MODEL NONRATE REVENUES i r ~ i BUDGETED PROJECTED Escalation ITEM 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Rate Interest Income $175,000 $250,000 $138,000 $142,100 $146,400 $150,800 3.0% Other Water Sales 6,000 6,200 6,400 6,600 6,800 7,000 3.0% Fire Service Standby Charge 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 0.0% Meter Installation Fees 152,300 152,300 158,000 157,300 150,000 162,400 3.0% Total Developer Revenues 173,000 150,000 154,500 159,100 163,900 168,800 3.0% Misc Revenues 18,500 19,000 19,600 20,200 20,800 21,400 3.0% Capital Reserves (Mentor Res) 0 0 2,700,000 0 0 0 0.0% Total $551,800 $604,500 $3,203,500 $512,300 $514,900 $537,400 ;r i 7 '-7 -77 L.. r7m c i Table 4-4 F CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL I NET REVENUE REQUIREMENTS FROM RATES PROJECTED ITEM 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999100 2000/01 Total Revenue Requirements: Operation & Maintenance Costs $4,094,300 $4,028,700 $4,170,500 $4,337,300 $4,573,600 $21,204,400 Revenue Financed Capital Costs (a) 340,400 3,096,100 189,400 103,900 1,070,700 4,800,500 Debt Service Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capital Reserve Fund 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000 j Total Revenue Requirements $4,934,700 $7,624,800 $4,859,900 $4,941,200 $6,144,300 $28,504,900 rn Less: Nonrate Revenues $604,500 $3,203,500 $512,300 $514,900 $537,400 $5,372,600 Net SDC Revenues (b) 329,300 0 21,000 103,900 167,300 621,500 Net Revenue Requirements $4,000,900 $4,421,300 $4,326:600 $4,322,400 $5,439,600 $22,510,800 (a) CIP expenditures allocated to existing users. (b) SDC revenues less CIP expenditures allocated to future users. ~ i i t r x' Section 5 Cost Allocations t_ ry Introduction The fundamental principle for developing an equitable rate structure is to ensure that all s "J users pay, through user charges, connection fees, taxes, or other fees, for their share of the total costs imposed on the system. O&M expenditures and normal capital expenditures should be paid through user charges. Some of these expenditures are a function of water use; others are a function of peak demands placed on the system. Some are associated with i i 1 serving customers regardless of the amount of water consumed or the extra-capacity demand characteristics. I y Before water rates can be developed, system net revenue requirements from rates (system costs not offset by other revenues) must be allocated to the customer classes. In this section, the information from previous sections regarding net revenue requirements from rates and J water service characteristics will be used, together with the cost allocations presented in this section, to determine the total cost of providing service to each customer class. Cost Allocation Procedure The allocation of system costs to the customer classes is a three step process. First, the f system capital investment and annual capital and operating costs are distributed to the k n water system's unit processes: water supply, reservoirs and storage, transmission, lll( distribution, and pump stations, and general and administration. The second step involves the allocation of these costs to the functional parameters: base demand, maximum-day n demand, and customer services. In the third step, the estimated costs by functional parameter are used in combination with the estimated customer class water demands to distribute the net revenue requirements to r each customer class. The costs distributed to each class are based on each class's propor- tionate share of the total demand for each functional parameter. Billing service costs are distributed on the basis of the number of bills for each customer class; general and f administration costs are distributed by the weighted percentages of the other categories. For this analysis, the costs associated with pumping water to the higher elevated Bull Mountain service area were also identified and allocated to those customers in that service area as an additional "booster charge". The summation of these cost allocations to the customer classes is considered the cost of providing service to each class. Capital Cost Allocations An allocation of the water system's investment in plant and equipment is used as the basis for allocation of the system's annual net capital costs to the functional parameters. The capital investment in each unit process is allocated to the parameters of base and y t t FDX16F2A.DOC 5'1 Ifft k } maximum-day demands according to the design and function of that unit process. As shown in Table 5-1, the capital investment in water supply and transmission, distribution, and pump stations are allocated half to base demand and half to maximum-day demand because these unit processes are sized in relation to the quantity of flow they carry both on average and on peak days. The capital investment in reservoirs and storage is allocated 30 percent to base and 70 percent to maximum-day because these facilities are designed to provide peak day demand. General plant investment is allocated based on the weighted average of the other categories. j Table 5-2 shows the allocation of the water systems noncontributed depreciated plant f investment to the functional parameters. Based on this analysis, 47.8 percent of the system's total capital investment is allocated to base demands and 52.2 percent is allocated to °i maximum-day demands. These allocation percentages are applied to the annual net capital costs to derive the allocations to the functional parameters it- Operation and Maintenance Cost Allocations Annual system O&M costs for FY1996/97 through FY2000/01 are redefined by major unit processes in Table 5-3. Before being allocated to the customer classes, the O&M costs are A first separated into unit processes, and then allocated to the functional parameters. The Ii costs associated with each functional parameter are then distributed to the customer classes, c based on their proportionate share of those parameters. F° The separation of the O&M costs into the unit processes is based primarily on estimates ; from City of Tigard staff on the portion of system operating expenditures incurred for each unit process. These unit process costs are then allocated to the functional parameters by the f"•. allocation percentages shown in Table 5-4. The costs associated with water supply and IJ transmission, distribution, and pump stations are allocated 50 percent to base demand and 50 percent to maximum-day demand. Reservoirs and storage costs are allocated 30 percent to base and 70 percent to maximum-day, while booster costs are allocated 100 percent to booster demand and billing service costs are allocated 100 percent to customers. General and administration costs are allocated to the functional parameters based on the weighted rn1 average of the other categories (not including booster costs). Table 5-5 summarizes the allocation of O&M costs to the functional parameters of base demand, maximum-day demand, booster charge, and customer costs for FY1996/97 through FY2000/01. I Cost Allocations to Customer Classes Capital and O&M costs are allocated to the customer classes by multiplying the costs associated with each functional parameter by each customer class's projected demand on - that parameter. Table 5-6 lists the allocations to customer classes for the various functional parameters. Table 5-7 presents the resulting total cost-of-service allocations to each cus- tomer class. As shown in Table 5-7, $2.3 million or 58 percent of system net revenue j ~ - PDXI6FZA.DOC 5-2 , L_,.~.... . Table 5-1 t; CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL PLANT INVESTMENT ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES t:.J ,qqqq AVG BASE MAXIMUM l ITEM FLOW DAY TOTAL j Water Supply 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 97p( Reservoirs & Storage 30.0% 70.0% 100.0% a f' Transmission, Distribution, & Pump Stations 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% General & Administration (a) 47.8% 52.2% 100.0% t;9 : r (a) Weighted average of other categories. s I r 61 felt i I ~i 5-3 I - Table 5-2 CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL ALLOCATION OF NET PLANT INVESTMENT TO SYSTEM PARAMETERS pq AVG BASE MAXIMUM t ITEM FLOW DAY TOTAL f;:9 Water Supply $0 $0 $0 Reservoirs & Storage 635,000 1,481,700 2,116,700 Zd 't'ransmission, Distribution, & Pump Stations 8,523,900 8,523,900 17,047,800 Booster Costs 0 0 0 n General 8, Administration 946,200 1,033,700 1,979,900 - - - - - - $10,105,100 $11,039,300 $21,144,400 Percent 47.8% 52.2% 100.0% 1901 C~ r - bd _ ,opt - `i .1 c. u _ 5-4 c r7 u7t~' La'.Y.u+rY- Fr: . va~:'.La.! c-a~.`..,.Y 1..u'vs„+aY:'1..tiul".5.•SL"~i~ C d- -;•,,,~5,~;: w-.1_+~..:, .re~~-,. 1:4- il.. .1 v ` . - ~ ~ ~ X41 ~.J ~ e..-.3 ~ v=-•, cry-- ~ i } Table 5-3 ! CITY OF TIGARD j J WATER RATE MODEL j ALLOCATION OF 0&M COSTS TO MAJOR UNIT PROCESSES - SUMMARY f ! i ITEM 1996/97 199798 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Total Water Supply $2,341,900 $2,214,500 $2,225,700 $2,314,700 $2,407,300 $11,504,100 t Reservoirs & Storage 8,500 8,800 9,200 9,600 10,000 46,100 Transmission, Distribution, & Pump Stations 128,000 133,100 138,500 144,000 149,800 693,400 Booster Costs 49,300 51,200 53,300 55,400 57,600 266,800 Meter Service & Billings 192,100 199,800 215,100 223,700 240,600 1,071,300 General & Administration 1,374,500 1,421,200 1,528,700 1,589,900 1,708,300 7,622,600 Total O&M Costs $4,094,300 $4,028,600 $4,170,500 $4,337,300 $4,573,600 $21,204,300 f ~ 1 C77 J I • 11 1 S lj~ 1 L 1 _w il 1 1 ~~tl/-ss r~ r1 Table 5-4 1 7 CITYOFTIGARD e.7 WATER RATE MODEL O&M ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES TO FUNCTIONAL PARAMETERS r j~ i AVG BASE MAXIMUM BOOSTER CUSTOMER ITEM FLOW DAY CHARGE CHARGE TOTAL n Water Supply 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Reservoirs & Storage 30.0% 70.0% 100.0% Transmission, Distribution, & Pump Stations 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Booster Costs 100.0% 100.0% l Meter Services & Billings 100.0% 100.0 General & Administration (a) 45.9% 46.1% 0.0% 8.1% 100.0% (a) Weighted average of other categories (not including booster costs). L 5-6 .r r} Table 5-5 1 CITY OF TIGARD ''',<v WATER RATE MODEL ALLOCATION OF O&M COSTS TO FUNCTIONAL PARAMETERS 1 i i AVG BASE MAXIMUM BOOSTER ITEM FLOW DAY CHARGE CUSTOMER TOTAL 1996/97 Water Supply $1,171,000 $1,171,000 $0 $0 $2,342,000 Reservoirs & Storage 2,600 6,000 0 0 8,600 Transmission, Distribution, & Pump Stations 64,000 64,000 0 0 128,000 Booster Costs 0 0 49,300 0 49,300 Meter Service & Billings 0 0 0 192,100 192,100 General & Administration 631,000 633,000 0 110,600 1,374,600 f Total $1,868,600 $1,874,000 $49,300 $302,700 $4,094.600 S 1997198 $0 $2.214,600 Water Supply $1,107,300 $1,107,300 $0 Reservoirs & Storage 2,700 6,200 0 0 8,900 " Transmission, Distribution, & Pump Stations 66,600 66,600 0 0 133,200 Booster Costs 0 0 51,200 0 51,200 Meter Service & Billings 0 0 0 199,800 199,800 General & Administration 652,500 654,500 0 114,400 1,421,400 Total $1,829,100 $1,834,600 $51,200 $314,200 $4,029,100 r 1998199 j Water Supply $1,112,800 $1,112,800 $0 $0 $2,225,600 Reservoirs & Storage 2,800 6,400 0 0 9,200 r` Transmission, Distribution, & Pump Stations 69,200 69,200 0 0 138,400 Booster Costs 0 0 53,300 0 53,300 Meter Service & Billings 0 0 0 215,100 215,100 General & Administration 701,800 704,000 0 123,100 1,528,900 r u Total $1,886,600 $1,892,400 $53,300 $338,200 $4,170,500 1999/00 { Water Supply $1,157,300 $1,157,300 $0 $0 $2,314,600 Reservoirs & Storage 2,900 6,700 0 0 9,600 f Transmission, Distribution, & Pump Stations 72,000 72,000 0 0 144,000 Booster Costs 0 0 55,400 0 55,400 Meter Service & Billings 0 0 0 223,700 223,700 General & Administration 729,900 732,100 0 128,000 1,590,000 4 Total $1,962,100 $1,968,100 $55,400 $351,700 $4,337,300 2000101 Water Supply $1,203,600 $1,203,600 $0 $0 $2,407,200 Reservoirs & Storage 3,000 7,000 0 0 10,000 ! Transmission, Distribution, & Pump Stations 74,900 74,900 0 0 149,800 Booster Costs o 0 57,600 0 57,600 i ' Meter Service & Billings 0 0 0 240,600 240.600 i General & Administration 784,300 786,700 0 137,500 1,708.500 _ Total $2,065,800 $2,072,200 $57,600 $378,100 $4,573,700 a 1 5-7, t Table 5-6 " CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES TO CUSTOMER CLASSES (a) art Base Maximum-Day Customer / CUSTOMER CLASS Demand Demand Costs ~I Residential 55.9% 52.9% 91.2% tny# Multifamily Residential 23.8% 21.7% 4.2% tai Commercial 16.3% 20.4% 4.0% a Industrial 1.3% 1.1% 0.1% c 3 Irrigation 2.7% 3.8% ° 0.6 /0 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (a) Booster costs are allocated 100% to the customers in the booster service area. v r. t U r: i 5-8 l f_ `i Table 5-7 CITY OF TIGARD C WATER RATE MODEL ALLOCATION OF TOTAL COSTS TO CUSTOMER CLASSES CUSTOMER CLASS 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Total Total Costs of Service: Residential $2,310,700 $2,544,200 $2,502,600 $2,506,400 $3,124,400 $12,988,300 ` Multifamily Residential 842,200 934,900 908,600 904,700 1,152,900 4,743,300 Commercial 681,600 757,200 735,800 732,600 934,100 3,841,300 Industrial Irrigation 44,700 49,700 48,200 47,900 61,200 251,700 121-800- 135,400 131,500 130,900 167,100 686,700 cn . Total $4,001,000 $4,421,400 $4,326,700 $4,322,500 $5,439,700 $22,511,300 it Percent: Residential 57.8% 57.5% 57.8% 58.0% 57.4% 57.7% Multifamily Residential 21.1% 21.1% 21.0% 20,9% 21.2% ° ' Commercial 21.1 17.0% 17.1% 17.0% 17.0% 17.2% 17.1% Industrial 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% Irrigation 3.0% 3.1% 3.0 3.0°% 3.1°k 3.1% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% I i I i { 5 3 i h - , WN 1-' I a requirements from rates in FY1996/97 are allocable to single-family residential users, IzJ 21 percent to multifamily residential, 17 percent to commercial users,1 percent to industrial users, and 3 percent to irrigation customers. t i + IY ~i n G: I.j . ra,i i- +n ji r { of 1~. l.J i. PDX16FZA.DOC 5-10 - :i •P 7i Section 6 Water Rates - z Introduction tMa The cost allocations described in Section 5 resulted in estimates of the costs of providing r) water service to each of the customer classes. The rate structure alternatives developed in this section are designed to recover the costs allocated to each customer class from the users composing that class. The proposed rate structure alternatives are designed under conditions of normal weather, gradual system growth, and existing economic conditions. Significant changes in any of these variables would probably require a reassessment of the ! rates. In addition, the rates calculated under the proposed alternatives are based on a i r? specific financial plan of the water system's current O&M budget and capital improvement plan The assumptions underlying the financial plan and, in particular, financing of capital improvements, are significant to the overall financial position of the City. If these assumptions change, annual revenue requirements may be altered depending on the I j magnitude of the changes. Therefore CH2M HILL recommends that the City give careful consideration to these assumptions when deciding on proposed policies and water rates r- and charges. r`. Existing Rates The City's current rates are shown in Table 6-1. The City -of Tigard currently charges its 9 customers a bimonthly minimum charge of $14.30 which includes the initial 8 ccf of demand per billing period plus a volume rate of $1.32 per ccf for additional demands 3 beyond 8 ccf. The system's multifamily residential customers are charged the same r"1 bimonthly rates for each equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) in a complex. Customers in the higher elevated Bull Mountain service area are charged $3.00 bi-monthly for the additional costs of pumping water to higher elevations. Users with larger meters are charged an additional amount based on meter size for the increased potential demands placed on the system. Outside district customers are charged an additional amount based on meter size r" for the liability the City assumes by serving them. Customers with fire service connections - are also charged an additional amount for that service. New Rates Two alternative volume rate plus minimum charge cost-of-service rate structures were considered in this analysis. A seasonal conservation surcharge and the current fire service charges were also analyzed. In each case, the rate structures are designed for the 5-year rate-setting period of FY1996/97 through 2000/01 and are assumed to become effective on July 1, 1996. These 5-year average rates are based on the assumptions of this analysis and should be reviewed whenever significant changes to these assumptions occur. PDX16F2A.DOC 6-1 - 7 1 r^ Table 6-1 1 i CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL CURRENT RATES Within Outside Item Meter Si,. District District Bi-Monthly Minimum Charge (Includes 8ccf) $14.30 $14.30 rj Volume Rate ($/ccf) $1.32 $1.32 i 6 } Bi-Monthly Booster Charge $3.00 $3.00 f x• n } Bi-Monthly Meter Charge 5/8' X 3/4" $0.00 $0.00 $8.80 $8.80 r- i 1-1/2' $22.00 $22.00 ' 2" $59.40 $59.40 3" $121.00 $121.00 rl 4" $213.40 $213.40 8' $303.60 $303.60 $427.90 $427.90 Bi-Monthly Outside District Charge 5/8" X 3/4" $5.50 i $8.80 1-1/2" $13.20 r 2" $22.00 3" $33.00 L. 4' $41.80 6" $61.60 ff 1 8" $83.60 33 Within District i~ Fire Service Charges: Booster One-Time Connection Fee $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 _ Bi-Monthly Fire Charge 1-1/2" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00 2" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00 3" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00 4" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00 9 6" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00 8' $40.00 $45.00 $43.00 ;J • 6-2 i1 y ti i 177 j The proposed cost-of-service water rates are shown in Table 6-2. The volume rates plus n minimum charge are calculated for each customer class over the 5-year study period. The first rate alternative assumes that the minimum charge only includes customer costs. The second rate alternative assumes that the minimum charge includes the same customer costs plus the initial 8 ccf of water demand in a billing period (bimonthly). A single weighted volume charge was calculated for all customer classes' initial 8 ccf to use in the minimum charge calculation. The individual customer class's volume rate is added to the minimum service charge for all water demand greater than 8 ccf. In both rate alternatives, a booster r charge is added to each bi-monthly bill of those customers residing in the higher elevated 1 Bull Mountain service area. This analysis also assumes that the current bi-monthly fire service charges and one-time fire service connection fees are continued for the 5 year study period. i i_ Volume Rate plus Minimum Customer Charge j The 5-year average volume plus minimum customer charge rate structure was calculated I for each customer class. The minimum customer charge of $3.89 is based on the total customer costs for the 5-year period. The volume rates vary between the customer classes 1 based on each classes' 5-year costs-of-service (net of the minimum service charge) and total I ` 5-year water demand. The volume rate ranges from $1.30 per ccf for the industrial class to r $1.67 for the irrigation class. Single-family residential customers would pay a bi-monthly _ y bill of $3.89 plus $1.35 times their total bi-monthly water demand. Multifamily customers would pay the minimum plus $1.33 per ccf and commercial customers would pay the F_ minimum plus $1.56 per ccf. i Volume Rate plus Minimum Service Charge a t The second cost-of-service rate alternative simply takes the initial 8 ccf of bi-monthly water demand and includes it in the minimum service charge of $14.77. The $14.77 also includes the bi-monthly minimum customer charge of $3.89. Any water demand beyond the initial 8 ccf would be charged $1.35 per ccf for a single-family residential user. Including 8 ccf in the minimum service charge increases the revenue stability of the utility throughout the year. Rate revenue collections without the initial volume included, as proposed above, are more cyclic and would be lower during low-use winter months and higher during high-use summer months. A disadvantage of this rate option is that users with water demands of less than 8 ccf per billing period pay for water that has not been used which in-turn encourages unneeded water use. i - Booster Charge A cost-of-service booster charge of $3.13 per bi-monthly billing period was calculated for the higher elevated Bull Mountain service area. This is an additional charge added to the volume rates plus minimum charges discussed above. The purpose of this charge is to recognize the additional pumping costs associated with servicing higher elevations of the water system. ~u PDXI6F2A.DOC 6.3 I . i Fee Service Charge r The water utility has to provide sufficient capacity in the water system for fire fighting. The costs associated with providing fire service lines and additional fire service capacity are j recovered through the fire service charges. These costs are allocated to the customers with e 7 fire service connections. CH2M HILL recommends that the current fire service charges v shown on Table 6-1 be continued for the 5-year study period. Seasonal Conservation Surcharge W. The Intergovernmental Water Board and the City of Tigard are considering implementation of a comprehensive water conservation program. The program should be designed to 1 decrease single-family residential and irrigation customers' peak summer water demand during the months of July, August, and September. The other customer classes' water c" demand is more evenly spread throughout the year and should not be charged a conservation rate. The volume rate plus minimum customer charge discussed above is a 7 fast step toward a conservation rate in that users are charged for only the amount of water J. used in a billing period. This rate design would be a good signal to all users that they j should start watching the amount of water that they use. rl A seasonal conservation surcharge was identified for the single-family residential customer class. that could be included as part of this program. Data was not available for the irrigation customer class. The conservation surcharge would only be charged during the 3 summer months and the revenues collected would be in addition to the cost-of-service revenue requirements identified in this analysis. These additional revenues could be used to fund the conservation education program. Table 6-3 shows alternative single-family residential seasonal conservation surcharges and the additional revenues collected by each surcharge. An elasticity of demand adjustment was made to the estimated water quantities demanded to account for the assumed decrease - in water consumption at the higher surcharge rate. An analysis of the available water use i data suggested that 50 ccf per bi-monthly billing period (25 ccf per month) was an appropriate point to start charging the surcharge. Any single-family residential customer that used more than 50 ccf in a billing period would be charged an additional amount for g all water use over 50 ccf. u Impact On Typical Bills Table 6.4 indicates the impact that the proposed FY1996/97 through FY2000/01 rates would have on the bills of some typical users. As shown, a residential customer discharging 5 ccf would pay $14.30 under current rates as compared to $10.65 under the proposed volume rate plus minimum customer charge and $14.77 under the proposed volume rate plus minimum service charge. Higher water use in the single-family { residential class results in about the same bill amount for all three rate designs. This shows I that the proposed volume rate plus minimum customer charge would benefit low-use (less ,v than 8 ccf per billing period) single-family users. In general, industrial customers would " g PDX16P2A.DOC &-4 k. E j tend to pay less under the proposed rates while commercial and irrigation customers would tend to pay more under the proposed new rates. This implies that industrial V customers are subsidizing these 2 other customer classes under current rate designs. Also t note that the commercial class would pay somewhat less with the proposed volume rate plus minimum service charge compared to the proposed minimum customer charge because the 8 ccf included in the minimum service charge is charged at a lower weighted average rate ($1.37 per ccf) than is the cost-of-service volume rate for the class. Projected Revenues Table 6-5 compares the net revenue requirements (costs-of-service) with projected rate revenues collected for the 5-year study period. The new rates generate sufficient revenues to cover system net revenue requirements for the entire 5-year study period as a whole. However, the proposed rates generate excess rate revenues in the first, third and fourth years of the study period while a rate revenue shortfall occurs in the second and fifth years. Excess revenues should be held in a rate stabilization account until they are needed in the years with revenue shortfalls. J Table 6-6 shows the projected customer class rate revenues collected under current rates. ~ 9 Note that the rate revenues are not sufficient to meet the total 5-year system net revenue requirements as assumed in this analysis. However, approximately $81,000 could be subtracted from the total capital reserve fund resulting in sufficient current rate revenues. This indicates that with a minor adjustment to the water system financial plan, current rates { could be extended for the 5-year study period. I T'~f PDX16P2A.DOC 6.5 rr! i Table 6.2 i CITY OF TIGARD S WATER RATE MODEL PROPOSED COST OF SERVICE RATES 1 ITEM CHARGE r r1 Bi-Monthly Base Charge $3.89 i BI-Monthly Booster Charge $3.13 r Volume Rate ($lccf): Residential $1.35 Multifamily Residential $1.33 Commercial $1.56 Industrial $1.30 Irrigation $1.67 Average $1.39 i BI-Monthly Base Charge $14.77 Includes Initial 8ccf of Demand Bi•Monthly Booster Charge $3.13 Volume Rate ($1ccf): 7 Residential $1.35 Multifamily Residential $1.33 Commercial $1.56 r✓'1 Industrial $1.30 Irrigation $1.67 Average $1.39 ~t 1 ~ i. i. 14 ( 6.6 _ 1, y ~ Table 6-3 CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION SURCHARGE (JUL-AUG-SEP 94/95) Number of Accounts Total 3 Month Demand Elasticity Demand Consumption Blocks Accounts Percent Demand Percent Adjustment Percent (-.03) 0 to Soccf 8,861 77.2% 318,540 55.5% 318,640 56.3% 50ccf & More _ 2,614 22.8% 255,300 44.6%[- 247 640 43.7% f Total 11,475 100.0% 573,840 100.0% 566,180 100.0% o l.J Seasonal Conservation V n Consumption Blocks Surcharge Revenues ($/ccf) (a) 50ccf & More $0.25 $61,910 $0.50 123,820 $0.75 185,730 u $1.00 247,640 , $1.25 309,550 r $1.50 371,460 $1.75 433,370 _ $2.00 495,280 r (a) Use seasonal surcharge revenues to finance a conservation education program. •-ti i' I i I ~.J 6-7 I t"r 1 f- Table 6.4 f CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL TYPICAL BILL COMPARISONS - NO BOOSTER CHARGES Vol Rate + Vol Rate + Bi-monthly Current Min Customer Min Service Customer Class & Meter Size Use Bill Cha a Charge (a) (b) (b) Single-Family Residential (5/8'x 34') 5 $14.30 $10.65 $14.77 Single-Famity Residential (5/8'x 3/4') 8 $14.30 $14.70 $14.77 Single-Famity Residential (5/8'x 3/4') 20 $30.14 $30.90 $30.97 J Single-Family Residential (5/8'x 314')' 30 $43.34 $44.40 $44.48 Single-Family Residential (5/8'x 314') 40 $56.54 $57.90 $57.98 r-7 Commercial (120 $38.94 $35.13 $33.51 Commercial (1') 40. $65.34 $66.37 $57.98 f Commercial (1') 60 $91.74 $97.60 $84.98 Commercial (1') 80 $118.14 $128.84 $111.99 - Commercial (1') 100 $144.54 $160.07 $138.99 Industrial (2') 20 $89.54 $29.92 $30.39 Industrial (2') 40 $115.94 $55.95 $56.41 Industrial (2') 60 $142.34 $81.97 $82.44 Industrial (2') 80 $168.74 $108.00 $108.47 _ Industrial (2") 100 $195.14 $134.02 $134.49 ' Irrigation (1-1/2') 20 $52.14 $37.23 $34.77 Irrigation (1.1/2') 40 $78.54 $70.56 $68.11 Irrigation (1-1/2') 60 $104.94 $103.90 $101.44 Irrigation (1-1/2') 80 $131.34 $137.23 $134.77 Irrigation (1-1/2') 100 $157.74 $170.56 $168.11 (a) If applicable, add $3.00 per bill for the Booster Charge. (b) If applicable, add $3.13 per bill for the Booster Charge. t. 6-8 LLL 7-7 F I;: I L -3 Table 6-5 CITY OF TIGARD s WATER RATE MODEL I VOLUME RATE PLUS MINIMUM CUSTOMER CHARGE - RATE REVENUES IF- CUSTOMER CLASS 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Total Residential $2,417,100 $2,507,500 $2,597,500 $2,687,800 $2,778,500 $12,988,400 Multifamily Residential 882,100 915,400 948,600 981,900 1,015,300 4,743,300 Commercial 714,300 741,300 768,200 795,200 822,200 3,841,200 Industrial 46,800 48,600 50,300 52,100 53,900 251,700 Irrigation 127,700 132,500 137,400 142,200 147,000 686,800 Total $4,188,000 $4,345,300 $4,502,000 $4,659,200 $4,816,900 $22,511,400 Net Revenue Requirements $4,000,900 $4,421,300 $4,326,600 $4,322,400 $5,439,600 $22,510,800 Revenue Excess (Shortfall) $187,100 ($76,000) $175,400 $336,800 ($622,700) - $600 j , 1 i ~~Yyr ~ f....~ C:~~ C.:._'. C~.J f. ~ ! ~ J I~ ! f. f::_~ f _ f.:-~ C.) L 1 f _.7 _.~1 - , .r Table 6-6 ` - E. C CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL CURRENT RATES - TOTAL RATE REVENUES (a) CUSTOMER CLASS 1996/97 1997198 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Total Residential $2,411,500 $2,501,500 $2,591,100 $2,681,100 $2,771,500 $12,956,700 I Multifamily Residential 829,300 860,700 892,200 923,700 955,100 4,461,000 Commercial 558,500 579,700 601,000 622,200 643,400 3,004,800 Industrial 46,800 48,600 50,400 52,200 53,900 251,900 Irrigation 94,700 98,300 101,800 105,400 109,000 509,200 Subtotal $3,940,800 $4,088,800 $4,236,500 $4,384,600 $4,532,900 $21,183,600 Total Other Charge Revenues (a) $235,300 $242,200 $250,600 $255,400 $262,600 $1,246,100 o Total Rate Revenues $4,176,100 $4,331,000 $4,487,100 $4,640,000 $4,795,500 $22,429,700 Net Revenue Requirements $4,000,900 $4,421,300 $4,326,600 $4,322,400 $5,439,600 $22,510,800 Revenue Excess (Shortfall) $175,200 ($90,300) $160,500 $317,600 ($644,100) ($81,100) I (a) Does not include fire service charges. } F Lmimimaimm w I bho 4- 1 Section 7 System Development Charges t r' Introduction a One of the principal sources of revenue for financing water system expansions is a one-time W initial charge for connection to the system. This charge is generally referred to as a connection fee, impact fee, capital contribution fee, and/or SDC. In some communities, j these fees are designed to recover only the costs incurred by the utility to install the connection and, if needed, to extend the water line to serve the new user. For other communities, these fees also include recovery of all or a portion of the capital investment i _ made by the water system to provide sufficient capacity in the system to serve these new users. i V - The City of Tigard currently assesses an SDC that is intended to reimburse current users for { the costs they have incurred to provide capacity in the system to serve future users. The City will begin construction on 2 reservoirs and several other capital projects in the next 5 years that will change the unit costs for the capacity provided in the system to serve future r7 users. In this section, the underlying assumptions and calculations of revised water SDCs for the City of Tigard are discussed. Charges for installation of the connection or extension of a water line should be assessed in addition to the SDCs calculated in this report. System Development Charges: An Overview Capital improvements needed to provide new capacity in a water system must generally be constructed in large increments; therefore, system expansions are often constructed years in 9 advance of when the added capacity will be fully utilized. As a result, current system users 1 are often forced to pay rates that are partially used to pay for a portion of the system to serve future users. SDCs, designed to recover the water system's investment in this extra capacity, are often assessed, either to avoid charging existing users for these extra capacity costs or to partially compensate the existing users for the costs they have previously incurred to provide this capacity. Revenues generated through the assessment of SDCs are generally used to directly offset the costs of a system expansion or to repay any debt issued to finance the system expansion. The revenues may also be held to offset the costs of future system expansions. Use of these revenues to offset these debt service costs reduces the amount of revenue that needs to be } generated through the water rates assessed to existing users. In this way, the SDC revenues 1 can be used either to directly finance plant expansions or to reimburse existing users (through lower rates) for the costs they have incurred to provide capacity for new users. SDCs are typically assessed when a new user or developer connects to the water, when a new development permit is issued, or when a user changes the usage of his or her property. There are a number of alterative SDC structures: a simple charge per connection, charges E j that vary with the number of fixture units (water drains), new charges per equivalent 9 ` PDX16F2A.DOC 7.1 4 r residential unit, and charges that vary with the water meter size for the new connection P ~n (that is, 5/8- by 3/4-inch equivalent meters). The City currently assesses SDCs on an equivalent dwelling unit basis for all users. n Legislative Considerations J a In 1989, the State of Oregon enacted legislation that applies to any SDCs in effect on or after r July 1, 1991. The bill authorizes local governments to define and assess SDCs and places r, limits on the ways revenues generated through SDCs can be used. j An SDC, as defined in this bill, is an amount charged to a new user at the time of j i connection to the water system in excess of the cost of inspecting and installing the connection. The SDC does not include fees assessed or collected through local improvement " districts. The legislation further breaks down the SDC into an improvement fee or a h, reimbursement fee. The improvement fee is a fee for the cost of capital expansions to be constructed. The reimbursement fee is a fee for the costs of capital improvements already constructed or under construction. The SDC may consist of an improvement fee, a reimbursement fee, or a combination of the two. The legislation specifies that the reimbursement fee must be established by an ordinance or i ! resolution that sets forth the methodology that will be used to calculate the charge. It j further specifies that the methodology must consider the cost of existing facilities, prior contributions by existing users, value of unused capacity, ratemaking principles employed to finance the capital improvements, and other relevant factors. The objective of the methodology must be that future system users contribute no more than an equitable share I of the cost of existing facilities. The improvement fee methodology must also be specified in an ordinance or resolution that considers the cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of the system. The legislation further requires that a credit be provided for the construction of qualified public improvements (contributions). A qualified public improvement is one required as a condition of residential development approval, identified in the system's capital improvement program, and not located on or contiguous to the property being developed. Revenues generated through the reimbursement fees must be spent only on capital improvements to the system or repayment of debt on those improvements. Revenues a generated through the improvement fees are dedicated to capacity-increasing capital JI improvements or repayment of debt on capacity-increasing capital improvements. An increase in capacity is established if the improvements increase the level of performance or 1 service provided by existing facilities or provide new facilities. The portion of such improvements funded by improvement fees must be related to current or projected ' development. j Other provisions of the legislation require that: J PDX16F2A.DOC 7-2 0 J • A local government implementing an SDC must develop a capital improvement program (CIP) or comparable plan that lists the improvements that may be funded with improvement fee revenues and the estimated timing and cost for each improvement. • SDC revenues must be deposited into dedicated accounts, and local government must provide an annual accounting of revenues and expenditures. J • Local government must provide for an administrative appeal procedure whereby a citizen or other interested party may challenge an expenditure of SDC revenues. • No legal action challenging the methodology used to calculate SDCs may be filed after 60 days from enactment of or revision to the SDC. • The provisions of the legislation are invalidated if these provisions are construed to impair the local government's bond obligations or the ability of the local government to issue new bonds or other financing. y. _ . Overview Of Methodology The SDCs calculated in this study were prepared in accordance with CH2M HILL's understanding of ORS223.297-314. The SDCs developed for this analysis consist of a r^ reimbursement fee, an improvement fee, and a combined fee. The City of Tigard's SDCs were calculated on a system-wide basis and divided into 2 separate service areas; the 410 zone main service area and the Bull Mountain service area. The City's current SDCs are based on the 2 separate service areas with different SDCs reflecting the additional costs ~,vJ incurred to serve the higher elevated Bull Mountain service area. -I Reimbursement Fee J The methodology used in this analysis to calculate the reimbursement fee involves dividing r~ the system's noncontributed depreciated plant investment in the water system components by their respective capacities. The resulting investment per mgd of capacity is then converted into an SDC that is based on a charge per EDU for single-family residential connections. The resulting SDCs are based on the estimated requirements for capacity associated with new users' potential demands on the system. The reimbursement SDCs calculated in this study result in charges that are equal to the new user's proportionate share of the depreciated investment by the utility in plant and equipment to serve new users. The steps taken in this study to calculate these SDCs, as shown in Table 7-1, are as follows: • Determine historical system cost as measured by the noncontributed depreciated original cost of the system's investment in the system plus current cash reserves less outstanding debt on these improvements, to derive the net system investment in these improvements. i • Divide investment in system facilities by estimated system capacity of the system components in mgd and gpd to derive charges per unit of capacity. J PDX16F2A.DOC 7-3 LI 7 Table 7.1 CITY OF TIGARD - i- WATER RATE MODEL SDC - REIMBURSEMENT FEE ' - ~ i Water Resarvoirs8 Transmission Su Store 8 Distrbuton Total _ `..J Bull Mountain System a 19.7% r, Current Fixed Asset Value - $ $0 $279,900 $2,254,000 $2,533,900 lass: Current Outstanding Debt Principal (a) 0 0 0 0 - - ' - _ - Plus: Current Cash Reserves (a) 0 58.900 473,800 532,700 Net System Investment $0 $338,800 $2,727,900 $3,066,600 r 1 Y • J Current System Design Capacity (mgd) 0.0 4.7 3.6 - - 1 Net Investment per mgd $0 $82,600 $757,700 Net Investment per gpd $0.00 $0.08 $0.76 - Maximum Day Water Demand (gpd) (b) '789 789 789 - Reimbursement SDC per EDU $0 $63 $600 $663;' ' =,r, Reservoirs 8 Trensmission ' 410 Zone . 80.3% Store a 8 Distribution Total Current Fixed Asset Value - $ $0 $1,138,800 $9,170,300 $10,309,100 - . Less: Current Outstanding Debt Principal (a) 0 0 0 0 _ Plus: Current Cash Reserves (a) 0 239.500 1,927,800 2,167,300 - Net System Investment $0 $1,378,300 $11,098,100 $12,476,300 - Current System Design Capacity (mgd) 0.0 16.8 14.4 Net Investment per mgd $0 $82,000 $770,700 Net Investment per gpd $0.00 $0.08 $0.77 Maximum Day Water Demand (gpd) (b) 789 789 789 1- . Reimbursement SDC per EDU $0 $63 $608 $671 Water Reservoirs & Transmission Wide-100% Su Store 8 Distribution Tole) Current Fixed Asset Value - $ $0 $1,418,700 $11,424,300 $12,843,000 Less: Current Outstanding Debt Principal (a) 0 0 0 0 ' Plus: Current Cash Reserves (a) 0 298.400 2,401.700 2,700,000 Net System Investment $0 $1,717,100 $13,825,900 $15,543,000 Current System Design Capacity (mgd) 0.0 20.9 18.0 Net Investment per mgd $0 $82,200 $768,100 - - Net Investment per gpd $0.00 $0.08 $0.77 Maximum Day Water Demand (gpd) (b) 789 789 789 Reimbursement SDC per EDU $0 $63 $608 $671 (a) Total is distributed to major unit processes using same proportions as current fixed assets. - w ' (b) Estimated system total maximum day demand divided by total equivalent meters. "V J 74 } j • Multiply resulting total charge per unit of capacity by the estimated capacity requirements of a typical single-family residential user or equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). The charges for all other users are based on their meter size relative to a 5/8" x 3/4" EDU meter. These steps result in reimbursement SDCs that distribute system capital costs equitably r' between current and future users. In addition, these charges will equitably recover those costs allocable to future users in proportion to their estimated potential demands for water service. Improvement Fee The improvement fee methodology used in this analysis to calculate the SDCs is to divide the expansion capital project costs (inflated) from the CEP by the new capacity being added . r to the water system. The resulting unit cost of new capacity per mgd and gpd is then converted into an SDC that is based on a charge per EDU. The resulting SDCs are based on the estimated requirements for capacity associated with new users' potential demands on the system and the unit costs per mgd of additional capacity. The improvement SDCs calculated in this study result in charges that are equal to the utility's costs to provide additional capacity for new users. The steps taken in this study to calculate these SDCs, as shown in Table 7-2, are as follows: _ • Determine the inflated value of CEP expansion projects to be allocated to new users (see Table 3-2). • Divide the CIp expansion project costs by the additional water system capacity being added by the CEP expansion projects. • Multiply the resulting charge per unit of capacity by the estimated capacity F r requirements of an EDU or typical single-family residential user. The charges for other user classes are based on their meter size relative to a 5/8" x 3/4" EDU meter. _ • Subtract a debt service credit, if any, for the expansion-related CIP costs that will be debt financed. This is needed to ensure that new customers are not double-charged through debt service payments included in the rates. These steps result in SDCs that distribute additional system capacity costs equitably to future users. In addition, these charges will equitably recover those expansion capital costs allocated to future uses in proportion to their estimated potential demands for water service. ' Combined Fee The combined fee methodology for calculating SDCs is the addition of the reimbursement fee and the improvement fee. The resulting combined SDC, as shown in Table 7-3, is based on the estimated requirements for capacity associated with new users, the potential demands on the system, and the unit investment per mgd of existing system capacity plus . the unit costs per mgd of additional system capacity. PDX16M.DOC 7_5 r • E~ Table 7.2 I CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL SDC - IMPROVEMENT FEE Water Reservoirs 8 Transmission Bull Mountain System =19.7°/ Su 1 Store a 8: Distribution Total CIP Value Allocated to New Users $0 $406,800 $658,700 $1,065,500 Additional System Design Capacity (mgd) 0.0 1.0 1.0 n Unit Cost of New Capacity per mgd $0 $406,800 $658,700 i Unit Cost of New Capacity per gpd $0.00 $0.41 $0.66 Maximum Day Water Demand (gpd) (a) 789 789 789 Improvement SDC per EDU $0 $323 $521 $844 Debt Service Credit per EDU $o $0 $0 $0 Net Improvement SDC per EDU $0 $323 $521 $844 Water Reservoirs & Transmission { r 410 Zone = 80.3% supply Store e 8, Distribution Total 4 CIP Value Allocated to New Users $0 $264,400 $1,105,400 $1,369,800 Additional System Design Capacity (mgd) 0.0 3,5 3.5 I Unit Cost of New Capacity per mgd $0 $75,600 $315,800 Unit Cost of New Capacity per gpd $0.00 $0.08 $0.32 Maximum Day Water Demand (gpd) (a) 789 789 789 Improvement SDC per EDU $0 $63 $252 $315 Debt Service Credit per EDU $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Improvement SDC per EDU $0 $63 $252 $315 - - I Water Reservoirs & Transm ssion k System-Wide 100% S S upptv e & Distribution Total i CIP Value Allocated to New Users $0 $671,300 $1,764,100 $2,435,400 Additional System Design Capacity (mgd) 0.0 4.5 4.5 i Unit Cost of New Capacity per mgd $0 $149,200 $392,000 1 Unit Cost of New Capacity per gpd $0.00 $0.15 $0.39 Maximum Day Water Demand (gpd) (a) 789 789 789 Improvement SDC per EDU $0 $118 $308 $426 Debt Service Credit per EDU $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Improvement SDC per EDU $0 $118 $308 $426 . J (a) Estimated system total maximum day demand divided by total equivalent meters. ~f r. 7-6 Table 7-3 W CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE MODEL SDC - COMBINED FEES Item S stem-Wide 410 one Bull Mtn System i Reimbursement SDC per EDU $671 $671 $663 j Net Improvement SDC per EDU $426 $315 $844 i Combined SDC per EDU $1,097 $986 $1,507 Current SDC per EDU N.A. $845 $1,000 1 { i u J J 7-7 Id The combined system-wide SDC for a single-family connection is $1,097. The SDCs for the 2 separate service areas are $986 for the 410 zone and $1,507 for Bull Mountain. These SDCs compare with the current SDCs of $845 and $1,000, respectively, as shown on Table 7-3. SDC Recommendations We recommend that the City implement the 2 new SDCs for the 410 zone and Bull Mountain service areas as shown in Table 7-3. This SDC methodology is easy to administer, is simple to understand, provides a reasonable approximation of the relative water ` demands of various new customers, and does not regWre the City to monitor changes in other user activities. We also recommend that the City: • Establish or continue to maintain an account for the SDC revenues and an accounting system to track the receipt and expenditure of these funds. • Establish or continue to maintain an administrative procedure whereby a citizen or _ other interested party may challenge an expenditure of SDC revenues. • Identify in the City's capital improvement program which capital improvements may be financed from revenues generated through SDCs. into the SDC 3 u • Incorporate the SDC calculation methodology used in this report ordinance. r J f -71 , PDX16F2A.DOC 7.8 Section 8 Summary and Recommendations Rates This study uses a cost-of-service analysis to determine the actual costs involved in serving l each of the customer classes. The results are based on the assumptions, available data, and current estimates of future costs for the 5-year rate-setting period of FY 1996/97 through FY 2000/01. These results show that current water rates are sufficient to meet system fi.•tancial requirements. However, CH2M HILL recommends that the City consider the cost-of-service t rates developed in this analysis. The cost-of-service approach is a step toward a water 1 conservation rate and eliminates any concerns users may have over the equitable distribution of system costs and the rates charged to recover those costs. We recommend that the City of Tigard adopt water rates that are consistent with the ` financial requirements of the system. This will result in rates that are adequate to meet the system's revenue needs. System Development Charges A reimbursement SDC, an improvement SDC, and a combined SDC were calculated for this j study. CH2M HILL recommends that the City of Tigard adopt the 2 service area SDCs for new customers connecting to these water systems. These SDCs are equitable and charge new users their appropriate share of the investment the City has or plans to have in the water system. i Recommendations The water rates presented in this report are for the 5-year rate-setting period of FY1996/97 ` through FY2000/01. We recommend that the proposed cost-of-service volume rate plus minimum charge structures be considered by the City as an alternative to the current rate structure the City has in effect. The cost-of-service rate structures would eliminate the outside district charge and the large meter demand charge but would maintain the booster charge and the fire service charges. We also recommend the adoption of a seasonal conservation surcharge during the 3 summer months of July, August, and September for single-family residential users and for irrigation users when data for that class become available. We finally recommend that water rates be reviewed annually to help maintain adequate revenues and equitable rates. A _ PDX16F2A.DOC 8.1 AGENDA ITEM # 3 y FOR AGENDA OF - September 24.1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Dedication of roomy at SW Burnham Street and W Main Street to the public as right-of-way PREPARED BY: John R. Hadley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BFFORF THE COUNCIL . h Dedication of the property at the intersection of SW Burnham Street and SW Main Street to the public as right- of-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution authorizing the dedication. J INFORMATION SUMMARY _ ',_,,he property at SW Burnham Street and SW Main Street was obtained by condemnation for right-of-way for the widening of SW Burnham Street. The Stipulated Judgment of Condemnation did not identify the use of the property and the Washington County Assessor has identified the property as a tax lot owned by the City of Tigard. In order to remove the property from the tax rolls, it is necessary to dedicate the property to the public as right- of-way. The attached Resolution will authorize the city Administrator to dedicate the property described in Exhibit "I" to the public for right-of-way. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED i FISCAL NOTES TY%MDEITAVERN SUM " ' f; AGENDA ITEM # 3. 5 For Agenda of September 24, 1996 I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Interest Rat for Reimbursement district annual fee adjustment for 1996/97. PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK ~e- CITY ADMIN OK vy ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Tigard City Council approve the recommendation of the Finance Director for the interest rate for 1996/97 to be applied to all reimbursement districts formed during the year? STAFF R . O NDA ION Staff recommends approval of the recommended rate included in the attached resolution. _ INFORMATION SUMMARY Tigard Municipal Code section 13.09.115 (2) requires the Finance Director to recommend an interest rate to be used in determining the annual fee /.--adjustment for reimbursement districts. The code states the council shall consider the recommendation of the Finance Director and shall adopt an interest rate to be used in determining the annual fee adjustment. The rate adopted by the Council is then applied to all reimbursement districts formed during the fiscal year for which annual fee adjustments are approved. t Because the life of a reimbursement district shall not extend beyond fifteen years, We recommend using the United States Treasury Bond rate for a fifteen year maturity. That rate is currently 7.37%. We therefore recommend that 7.37% be used for 1996/97 as specified in TMC 13.09.115 (2) OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Establish the rate using some other method. FISCAL NOTES Interest on the share of the improvements will be only be realized by the City for City constructed projects if and when connections to the improvements are made by citizens. II~ 11 r e AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF September. 24. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 0 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE _ Formation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 8 j PREPARED BY: G.N. Berry DEPT HEAD OK A, 7B CITY ADMIN OK . ISSUE BEFORE. THE COUNCIL Formation of a reimbursement district to construct a sewer as part of the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY ur owners on SW Tigard Street requested to be provided with sewer service through the Neighborhood Sewer `-extension Program. Staff prepared contract documents and requested bids for construction. On August 15, 1996, bids were received for the construction of the sewer. If this resolution is approved, a notice of award for the construction of the sewer will be issued The amount of the contract is less than that requiring approval by the Local Contract Review Board. The purpose of the proposed reimbursement district is to enable the City to recover a portion of the cost of constructing the sewer providing this service The engineer's report attached to the proposed resolution provides additional details. F OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Direct that the resolution be revised. 2. Reject the reimbursement district. f 1 FISCAL. NOTES 1 ACITYN DEN,SUKR EIMBS. DOC S AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of September 24. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY 1 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Zone Change Annexation ZCA 96-0005 -Sanders PREPARED BY: Nels Mickaelson DEPT HEAD OK /i~~~`EITY ADMIN OK-~ ' ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL 1 \ . Should the City Council forward to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary F_ Commission a request to initiate annexation of one parcel consisting of 0.33 acres located at the Southeast corner of Johnson Street and 106th Drive? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation request to the Boundary Commission and to assign a zone designation to the properties in conformance with the city comprehensive plan. j INFORMATION SUMMARY Because the ownership of the subject property changed after annexation forms were submitted, this item was set over from the September 10th public hearing before the City Council to the meeting on t September 24th. This was to allow the new owner to obtain the required signatures to initiate ' annexation. The proposed annexation consists of territory comprised of one parcel of land totaling 0.33 acres. Because the territory is located within Tigard's active planning area and has already been assigned a comprehensive plan designation of Low Density Residential, the City Council only need assign a Tigard zone designation to the property. Attached is a resolution initiating annexation and an ordinance to change the zone designation from Washington County R-5 to Tigard R-4.5. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Deny the request. - I. FISCAL NOTES Since the territory is within Tigard's active planning area, the city is responsible for the Boundary Commission application fee of $225. k e; AGENDA ITEM # n For Agenda of S ptember 24. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY f CA 96 OOQ6 -IJ ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Zone Annexation Z - - a PREPARED BY: Nels Mickaelson DEPT HEAD OK !'11 ITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL i i Should the City Council forward to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission a request to initiate annexation of four parcels consisting of 2.52 acres located south of Gaarde Street and west of 114th Avenue? I i STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation request to the Boundary Commission and to assign a zone designation to the properties in conformance with the city comprehensive plan. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed annexation consists of territory comprised of four parcels of land totaling 2.52 acres. - Because the territory is located within Tigard's active planning area and has already been assigned a N. comprehensive plan designation of Low Density Residential, the City Council only need assign a i Tigard zone designation to the properties. Attached is a resolution initiating annexation and an i ordinance to change the zone designation from Washington County R-5 to Tigard R-4.5. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Deny the request. FISCAL NOTES Since the territory is within Tigard's active planning area, the city is responsible for the Boundary Commission application fee of $225. i %-J:ICITYWIDEISUMIZCA96-06.SUM I i 7 7 ~ AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 9/24/96 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON d COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Feed and Garden _.one Change Tigard Request 8 PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK Ldf V ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL I Should Council deny a request to remove the historic overlay designation on the Tigard Feed and Garden property as recommended by the Planning Commission? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council take action on the attached ordinance approving the zone change request. t INFORMATION SUMMARY [t On September 9, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a pubic hearing to consider a request by the Tigard Chamber of Commerce and the City as a co-applicant to remove the historic overlay designation on the Tigard Feed and Garden property. With one abstention, and one vote to approve, a Commission majority voted to ~-Tecommend the Council deny the request. The reason cited by the majority was lack of an independent -...,valuation of the condition of the building by qualified professional(s), including cost figures for its rehabilitation. The staff report to the Commission had recommended approval of the request. Copies of the full reports submitted by three building contractors who have inspected the building are attached. 1 The staff report included only summaries of these reports. The City Building Official has reviewed the reports and concurs with their conclusions. It should be pointed out that paragraph four on page seven of the staff report contains a misstatement. This is that the development code does not give the city the authority to impose conditions when considering an application to remove a historic district overlay designation. The correct information is that, according to 18.32.250.F, "a quasi- judicial decision [which includes a decision related to a historic overlay zone change request, such as the one under consideration] may be for denial, approval, or approval with conditions...." With regard to the type of conditions that may be appropriate in the case of a zone change request, the code refers only to "conditions necessary to carry out applicable provisions of the Tigard comprehensive plan..: ' OTHER ALTERNATIVES ONSID R D 1. Deny the request. 2. Table the request until additional, independent evaluation information with cost estimates is provided by the applicant. .i FISCAL NOTES decision to accept or deny the request will have no fiscal impact on the City. 1 1 1 May 16, 1996 SABRE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY f Ms. S. Carolyn Long Executive Director Tigard Chamber of Commerce 1242 S.W. Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Ms. Long: This letter. is to report the findings of my inspection of the "Tigard Feed Store" building on May 10th, 1996. At your request, I inspected the building to consider the feasibility of relocating the building and restoring it to be used as the new Chamber of Commerce office building. Please review the following brief report and conclusions regarding this project. Building Description - Wood frame construction. Poorly braced for seismic and/or wind conditions. - Concrete pier footings without a perimeter foundation. No apparent seismic restraint. - Raised wooden floor. Uneven with water damage. Appears to be subject to fertilizer, chemical and/or oil spills. - Floor beams may be undersized for the spans as built. Will need structural review. - Wood siding with blistered paint. Some siding is damaged and it is very brittle. This will require new matching siding which may be a custom mill product. - The metal roofing is corroded with loose fasteners. It is very loose in places and it could present a threat to surrounding property or persons under wind conditions. Roofing will need to be replaced. It is leaking badly and is causing damage to the roof structure and floors. - The roof structure is a combination of wood rafters and trusses constructed on site. The rafter spans may exceed the maximum spans for the size and grade of the lumber. (This will need i' inspection by the structural engineer to determine the grade and stress rating since it appears to have not been graded at the mill.) The roof structure and spaced board sheathing does not have shear bracing. 7235 SW Bonita Road • Ti¢ard. OR 97224 • PO Box 231026 • Pcrtland. OR 97281 • Phone 503/639-5151 • Fax 5031620-6005 i o Page 2 - The building needs gutters, downspouts and connection to the storm sewer. - The windows are not insulated and they are poorly sealed. Several are broken. New custom windows or inside storm windows will be required. - The doors will require major reworking or replacement. If reworked, they will not be energy efficient and they will need considerable routine maintenance. - The building is not insulated and it will require ceiling, wall j and floor insulation. Some of the exterior walls have interior 1 sheathing which will have to be removed. The building will need to be completely rewired. The building will need to be completely plumbed. The existing sink drains through the floor onto the ground under the building. (You should investigate under the building to determine if chemicals or pesticides exist where the sink drained. - There isn't any existing heating or cooling system currently and this will be required along with ventilation. Work required to relocate and upgrade to the current code requirements. - The building must be jacked up and moved. - Requires new foundation and floor structure modifications. - Requires public water, sewer, storm sewer, electrical service along with telephone and natural gas service. - Entrances and doorways must be modified to meet the ADA requirements. The entry may require a ramp. - - Requires new restrooms designed to current ADA standards. - Require seismic upgrades, siding-, insulation, interior sheathing along with interior partitions and modifications. - The south and west sides will require siding and structural work after the sheds are removed. - New electrical outlets and lighting will be required to meet the current codes and/or to make useable as an office. - The wood floors will need to be leveled, sealed or replaced. The chemical odors must be removed. Floor coverings, base mouldings will be needed to provide a workable environment. i - The existing roofing will need replacement. Seismic and shear bracing or plywood may be required. Damaged or rotten framing will need to be replaced. Additional rafters along with framing clips may be required. E - Cleaning, scraping/pressure washing and priming will be required prior to painting. Extreme care will be required to blend the new materials with the existing materials. - Other finishes such as millwork, cabinetry, dropped ceilings, fixtures and related items will be required to complete the interior. - The site will require parking, sidewalks, landscaping and half the street improvements. w n Page 3 r Conclusion - This is a very interesting question the feasibility. project and a noble cause, but I . While it may be possible to preserve a portion of the building at a great expense, it is doubtful that it will be possible to fully meet the requirements for a functional office or Chamber of Commerce Center. If the existing building is utilized, it will need to be substantially changed to meet the current codes and requirements for use as a public office building. I am also very concerned about the possibility of chemical odors remaining in the building after it is remodeled. - If you want to look into this project in greater detail I recommend that you assemble a team consisting of an Architect, Structural Engineer and Environmental Engineer/Analyst to thoroughly inspect, and analyze the building. If you decide to relocate and renovate the building, I expect the costs to be 200% to 300% of the cost of new construction. My conclusions are based upon my 17 years of general construction and renovation experience. Please contact me if you have any specific questions regarding this report. Sincerely, SABRE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY John Bouti nen Building Consultant JB/krw f F:\JOHN\CITYTIGD.REP I d.b . P.O. Box 2301 30 'noARD. OR 9728 1 (503)639-6237 May 1, 1996 S. Carolyn Long Executive Dizcctor Tigard Chamber of Commerce 12420 S.W. Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tigard Feed Store ` Dear S. Carolyn: At the request of the Tigard Chamber of Commerce we have again reviewed the Tigard Feed Store located at 12355 S.W. Main Street, Tigard. The last time we visited the Feed Store the Johnson's were still occupying the space. Lots has changed since then. It was a good opportunity to see the rest of the building since it is nearly empty now. Unfortunately what we saw (and smelled) was not very appealing. The ' building over the last few months has been taking a real beating. The day we were there I couldn't tell if it was raining harder inside than outside or if the drops were just bigger. The roof has some serious leaks that have not helped the interior wood. Much of the unprotected wood inside the building has swelled begun to decay due to the moisture problem. In some areas the floor is so full of moisture the floor has warped and buckled. I suspect that even on drying days the humidity inside the building is doing as much damage as the leaks on rainy days. Other than fire not many things damage a building as fast or as bad as water can. Without tearing the building apart it is difficult to tell how much of the structure that we can't Y see is damaged as well. Much of the building that we might have beeri able to save during our previous visit is no longer salvageable. Though the idea of saving the Feed Store is a noble idea, it is our opinion that about the only thing left to save are photos and memories. i Sincerely, i Jac Rae President arland r 1 • enderson - n onsttuction 12900 S.w. Pacific Hwy, suite 29 Tigarci, tkagon 97223 i t (503)639-2419 May 10, 1996 S. Carolyn Long Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 SW Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Demolition of Tigard Feed Store in Tigard, Oregon Dear S. Carolyn: In support of constructing a new office facility for the Tigard Chamber, I offer the following sound _ objectives in support of the demolition and removal of the Tigard Feed Store. This building has no hue merit. In my opinion, there are no advantages to retrofit it for an office facility. As a feed store, it was neglected and has needed serious repair for several years. The lack of a heating and ventilation system has added greatly to its degeneration. By not having a real t. heating system to dehumidify and circulate the air, the building has become laden with dust and saturated with airborne chemicals from the storage of hazardous herbicides and pesticides. To convert the use to office from agricultural, much of the existing surfaces will need to be either coveted, sealed or completely encapsulated, making many, if not all surfaces, unusable. Even though the building was built with reinforced frame members, the overall condition is poor, weathered and worn. Due to the time lapse, from business closure to present date, the structure has deteriorated even further due to the extreme weather conditions, as of late, coupled with the lack of proper heating and ventilation to dry it out. The exterior drop-lap siding is not water tight, especially on the southwest faces; the windows are beyond repair, the roof needs to be totally replaced. The building was set on individual posts, on top of the ground, that were above frost line and have been heaving ever since it was built. Today's building codes require foundations to be a ' minimum of 18 inches below grade to prevent the movement of ground heaving problems. ' i „ f t _ Unfortunately, this building will need to be moved from its original foundation on the railroad easement. This will further weaken the main structure. There exists no seismic bracing which would leave the building more out of plumb, square and level. This building was never plumbed, wired or fire protected properly. No advantage of existing utilities exists. In summation, the condition of the building and its prior use do not lend positively toward the conversion to an office facility. Remodeling an 86 year old feed store, with present day building codes and environmental requirements, is not practical or economical. , it RespectfVy"', and Henderson r; i. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1 j ORDINANCE NO. 96- v✓' AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A TIGARD ZONE ® CHANGE REQUEST BY THE TIGARD AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THE CITY OF F TIGARD (ZON 96-0006) WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a zone change from Central Business District (Historic Designation) to Central Business District on approximately 0.4 acres of property located at the northeast corner of Main Street and SW Tigard Street; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the proposed zone change at its meeting of September 9, 1996, and recommends denial of ZON 96-0006. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposed zone change is consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted in the attached staff report Exhibit "A"; SECTION 2: The City Council concurs with the staff recommendation and approves the request to designate the parcel illustrated on the attached map (Exhibit "B"). _ SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. I PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and ' title only, this day of 1996. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 1996. James Nicoli, Mayor ORDINANCE No. 96-_ Page 1 r. ~ Approved as to form: City Attorney Date i:kityµ•idebrdinanc.fccd. ~ i i l 4 i. } i i ORDINANCE No. 96-_ Page 2 I £XH31T A CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY THE TIGARD AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THE CITY OF TIGARD. I The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearing on September 24, 1996. The City Council approves the request based on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Zone Change ZON 96-0006 REQUEST: The applicants have requested removal of the historic overlay designation on the Zoning District Map to the Tigard Feed and r' Garden Store property - APPLICANTS: Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 SW Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 'I - City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard j Tigard, Oregon 97223 OWNERS: same COMPREHENSIVE PLAN j DESIGNATION: CBD j ZONING DESIGNATION: CBD (HD). LOCATION: 12355 SW Main (WCTM2S1, Tax Lot2AB5400A1). 2. Vicinity Information: Tigard Feed and Garden Store is located on the north side of SW Main Street in the Central Business District. The property is bordered on the east by Burlington Northern STAFF REPORT ZON 96-0006 Page T • and Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and on the west by SW Tigard Street. The Pacific i Highway viaduct right-of-way borders the site on the north. 3. Site History: The Washington County Cultural Resource Inventory provides the following background i information on the Tigard Feed and Garden Store: "In 1924 August Schubring and his j partner and nephew, Wilbur Biederman, built the Tigard Feed and Garden store as an j adjunct to their existing grocery store on Main Street. As a graduate of the Oregon f Agricultural College (now OSU) Biederman took responsibility for managing the feed store and Schubring continued to operate the grocery store. For twelve years Biederman used his technical knowledge to ground feed to order for his Tigard customers. In 1936 he and I his family moved to Wisconsin leaving Schubring to operate the warehouse by himself. The feed and garden store was sold in the late 1930's to the partnership of Gray and Rasmussen. The feed store was moved forward to its current location to make room for the Highway 99 1 overpass during the Grey-Rasmussen ownership period. The overpass was constructed in 1939-40. The Tigard Oregon Electric depot located in front of the feed store, and the Portland Gas and Coke Company Warehouse, located behind the store, were both razed at this time. According to Neva Root, long time resident of Tigard, it was during this time that the east facade of the store was used as a screen for showing outdoor motion pictures. ' After K.P. McLean purchased the store in 1941, he constructed the two additions that I ' gave the building its current appearance and size. The business was sold to the Harvest Milling Company in 1948, and then to the current owner, Hal Johnson, in 1954. Johnson's ' earlier experience of having served as a chief store keeper in the Navy, and in merchandising feed, were put to good use when he became owner of the feed store. Little f has changed either the interior or exterior of the building in keeping with Johnson's belief I' that modernization would cause the store to lose its identity. After nearly thirty years of successfully operating the Tigard Feed and Garden Store, his philosophy rings true. The I store is significant to the City of Tigard in its association with the variety of colorful owners since constructed in 1924, and as the only wood frame building on Main Street that has not been significantly altered." The site is identified in Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan as a historically significant resource worthy of protection. On February 4, 1986, The Tigard Planning Commission assigned the Historic District Overlay to the site. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description: There is a gravel parking lot between the front of the store and SW Main Street. A three J foot loading dock is located behind the building. There are no landscaped areas on the I site. j The applicant has requested a zone change to remove the historic district overlay on tax lot 2S1 2AB 540OA1 A written narrative has been submitted by the applicant in support of STAFF REPORT ZON 96.0006 Page 2 ti the request. If the proposal is approved, the applicant has expressed a desire to demolish the feed store building and to construct a new building and parking lot on the site. There n, are no plans or submittals, however, pertaining to demolition of the existing building or to the erection of a new building as part of this application. 5. Agency Comments "I've had a chance to review our inventory information on it [the Tigard Feed and Garden Store Building] and to look over the provisions of your ordinance. If, as it appears, the owners are arguing that the designation imposed an unreasonable financial hardship on them, they should present supporting evidence, such as comparative bids, rather than a simple assertion. I do not mean to imply that no hardship exists, but rather that it is not demonstrated in the materials you have forwarded to me. With regard to historic significance, I believe the building continues to meet the criteria for designation. Its current condition, although regrettable, in my opinion would not enter into consideration. Finally, this sort of building represents a diminishing historic resource type. Feed stores served historically as important central gathering places for their communities. Today not many of them remain. My understanding is that some effort has been made to find an alternative to demolition, such as moving. That would be preferable from our point of view, and if there is anything I can do to facilitate that process, please contact me [David j r Skilton] at extension 260." The Tigard Area Historic and Preservation Association has reviewed this proposal y and has offered the following comments: "The Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Association does not feel that the Chamber of Commerce has provided sufficient cause to have the Historic Overlay Designation removed from the Tigard Feed Store. First of all, during City Council meetings last summer, Chamber representatives stated as a matter of public record that they were aware that the costs of rehabilitating the Feed Store building would be significantly higher than the cost of erecting a new structure, but that they were willing to make the investment if the City would help them acquire the land, and if TAHPA would give the Chamber control and ownership of the building. Both the City and TAHPA agreed to those terms. In their letter requesting removal of the Historical Designation, the Chamber reveals the true reason for the request: "We would like to build a new structure on the front portion of that site..." Second, the Chamber states in their request that because the building is now vacant, it is somehow no longer historically significant. While it is true that the past owners have contributed to the historic value of the Feed Store with their colorful character, the building itself remains as one of the last reminders of Tigard's agricultural past, and has outlived all but its last owner. The Feed Store is older than probably 90% of Tigard's current i population, and that alone makes it significant. STAFF REPORT ZON 96-0006 Page 3 F': Even though the years have not been kind to the Feed Store building, we at TAHPA feel that it deserves the protection afforded by the Historic Overlay Designation. We feel that n the Chamber has not offered sufficient grounds to grant the removal of the designation, i and that the removal of that designation should be denied." The Tualatin Historical Society has reviewed this proposal and has offered the 1 following comments: "An alternative to the demolition of this obvious historically significant building, would be to dismantle it, document it, and store it for future restoration; although a site may not be available now, one will surely come later. j The Tualatin Historical Society had a similar situation in 1988, when an 1875 farmhouse t - was due for demolition, the owners gave us permission and time to remove it, with _ volunteer labor we dismantled it and stored it in an onion barn, donated by one of our f members. Today, the restoration of this house is a definite reality, on a parcel of land recently acquired by the city, we intend to raise this house again as an interpretive center. Please keep me informed of hearings, etc. I would be happy to share our experiences with you." B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 5, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1 and 3.7.1, and Community Development Code Chapter 18.82. COMPLIANCE WITH STATEWIDE GOALS: The Planning Division concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based upon the following findings: 1. Goal #1 (Citizen Involvement) is satisfied because the City has adopted a citizen I involvement program. All public notice requirements related to this request have been satisfied, including advertising the hearings in the Tigard Times. 2. Goal #5 (Natural and Cultural Resources) is satisfied because OAR 660-16-000 (5)(b) outlines a process for the identification and protection of historical resources in Oregon. Where conflicting uses are identified, the economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) consequences of protecting, partially protecting or not protecting a significant j. resource must be determined. In 1986, the City conducted the required ESEE Analysis for the Tigard Feed and Garden building, and on February 4, 1986, the Tigard Planning Commission assigned the Historic District Overlay to the site. In conjunction with the formal review of the present application to remove the overlay, the City has updated the „ STAFF REPORT ZON 96-0006 Paged - ESEE Analysis for this historic resource in compliance with the provisions of the Goal 5 rule. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: The Planning Division concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies based upon the following findings: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 (Citizen Involvement) is satisfied because the City has provided broad public notice and is conducting two public hearings on this request in accordance with the requirements of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. 2. Policy 3.7.1 (Historic Preservation) is satisfied because the City has developed an index of historic structures and has attempted to promote the preservation of these structures to the extent feasible. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: i The Planning Division concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable Community Development Code Sections based upon the following findings: Section 18.82.035 of the Community Development Code sets forth criteria for removal of historic overlay district designation. A recommendation or a decision to approve or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on the following j standards: L. A. Removal of an historic overlay district designation shall be made when the City Council finds than any of the following criteria have been met: 1. The original historic overlay district designation was placed on the site in error; 2. The resource designation with the historic overlay district designation has ceased to I' exist; 3. The resource designated with the historic overlay district designation is no longer of significance to the public; or I 4. This historic overlay district designation is causing the property owner to bear an unfair economic burden to maintain the property as an historic or cultural resource. I The development code does not fully define economic burden. Based on the commonly _ accepted, dictionary definition of the words, staff concludes that criterion four is met, the chamber and city have adequately documented that the building is not useable in its present condition and that only at undue expense could be brought to a level that would make it useable. i STAFF REPORT ZON 96-0006 Page 5 - 1 t The chamber has submitted separate written reports from three building contractors who <''1 have inspected the building in recent months. One report asserts that "while it may be possible to preserve a portion of the building at a great expense, it is doubtful that it will be possible to fully meet the building code requirements to convert it to an office or other non- agricultural use." According to a second report, the building's "lack of a heating and ventilation system has added greatly to its degeneration. By not having a real heating system to dehumidify and circulate the air, the building has become laden with dust and saturated with airborne chemicals from the storage of hazardous herbicides and pesticides. 1 To convert the use to office from agricultural, much of the existing surfaces will need to be either covered, sealed or completely encapsulated, making many, if not all surfaces, unusable." A third report concludes that since the vacation of the building by the previous owner in 1995, the 86-year-old feed store has suffered extensive water damage and is now unsalvageable. None of the contractors who inspected the building were able or willing to develop specific cost estimates or bids for its rehabilitation. In order to provide accurate estimates, as one contractor pointed out, it would be necessary to assemble a team consisting of an architect, a structural engineer, and an environmental engineer to thoroughly inspect and analyze the I building. This lack of bids, contrary to what some would suggest, does not equate to a lack of evidence. Rather, as the contractor narratives make abundantly clear, it reflects the particularly bad condition of the building. How bad? In the opinion of all three it is unsalvageable. Beyond this, it does not seem necessary to go. - L J As mentioned, the code does not provide a quantitative guide or standard for determining hardship. Although quantitative definitions are widely used, in the present situation it does not seem necessary to require bids in order to prove hardship. The reports leave no doubt that it would be exorbitantly expensive to restore the feed building for commercial purposes. ii C. DECISION The City Council APPROVES the requested Zone Change ZON 96-0006 based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions. 1 Approved as to form i City Attorney Date Ulrnp/duane/zc-007 { I STAFF REPORT ZON 96-0006 Page 6 G Cu Q sites bj. ISO, Cu CU H ~G i Vicinity Map Note: Map is not to scale FEED STORE ~ N i i a LL Agenda Item: 5.1 UU Hearing Date: 919196 - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON cmoFnoAao SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: Tigard Feed and Garden Store Zone Change ZC 96-006 [ne: CPA 96-007] f PROPOSAL: The applicants have requested removal of the historic overlay designation on the Zoning District Map to the Tigard Feed and Garden Store property APPLICANTS: Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 2420 SW Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 ~ City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 i OWNERS: same COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: CBD ZONING ` DESIGNATION: CBD (HD). t LOCATION: 12355 SW Main (WCTM2S1, Tax Lot2AB5400A1). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter 18.82, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 and 3.7.1, Statewide Goals and Rules 2 and 5. STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 1 °t 'J SECTION II: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: j Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the proposed overlay removal will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. a SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: i The Washington County Cultural Resource Inventory provides the following background l information on the Tigard Feed and Garden Store: "In 1924 August Schubring and his partner and nephew, Wilbur Biederman, built the Tigard Feed and Garden store as an adjunct to their existing grocery store on Main Street. As a graduate of the Oregon Agricultural College (now OSU) Biederman took responsibility for managing the feed store and Schubring continued to operate the grocery store. For twelve years Biederman used his technical knowledge to ground feed to order for his Tigard customers. In 1936 he and i his family moved to Wisconsin leaving Schubring to operate the warehouse by himself. The feed and garden store was sold in the late 1930's to the partnership of Gray and Rasmussen. y The feed store was moved forward to its current location to make room for the Highway 99 overpass during the Grey-Rasmussen ownership period. The overpass was constructed i j in 1939-40. The Tigard Oregon Electric depot located in front of the feed store, and the Portland Gas and Coke Company Warehouse, located behind the store, were both razed at this time. According to Neva Root, long time resident of Tigard, it was during this time that the east facade of the store was used as a screen for showing outdoor motion ' pictures. After K.P. McLean purchased the store in 1941, he constructed the two additions that gave the building its current appearance and size. The business was sold to the Harvest . i Milling Company in 1948, and then to the current owner, Hal Johnson, in 1954. Johnson's earlier experience of having served as a chief store keeper in the Navy, and in merchandising feed, were put to good use when he became owner of the feed store. Little has changed either the interior or exterior of the building in keeping with Johnson's belief i that modernization would cause the store to lose its identity. After nearly thirty years of successfully operating the Tigard Feed and Garden Store, his philosophy rings true. The store is significant to the City of Tigard in its association with the variety of colorful owners i since constructed in 1924, and as the only wood frame building on Main Street that has not been significantly altered." The site is identified in Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan as a historically significant resource worthy of protection. On February 4, 1986, The Tigard Planning Commission assigned the Historic District Overliiy to the site. I STAFF REPORT CPA 96r Page 2 z Vicinity Information: Tigard Feed and Garden Store is located on the north side of SW Main Street in the Central Business District. The property is bordered on the east by Burlington Northern and Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and on the west by SW Tigard Street. The Pacific Highway viaduct right-of-way borders the site on the north. Site Information and Proposal Description: C There is a gravel parking lot between the front of the store and SW Main Street. A three foot loading dock is located behind the building. There are no landscaped areas on the site. The applicant has requested a zone change to remove the historic district overlay on tax lot 2S1 2AB 540OA1 A written narrative has been submitted by the applicant in support of the request. If the proposal is approved, the applicant has expressed a desire to demolish i the feed store building and to construct a new building and parking lot on the site. There are no plans or submittals, however, pertaining to demolition of the existing building or to the erection of a new building as part of this application. SECTION IV: OTHER STAFF COMMENTS ^ The Building Department has reviewed this application and has offered no J comments or objections. The Operations Department has reviewed this application and has offered no comments or objections. I The Engineering Department has reviewed this application and has offered no comments or objections. f SECTION V• AGENCY COMMENTS i z The State Historic Preservation Office has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: "I've had a chance to review our inventory information on it [the Tigard Feed and Garden Store Building] and to look over the provisions of your ordinance. If, as it appears, the owners are arguing that the designation imposed an unreasonable financial hardship on them, they should present supporting evidence, such as comparative bids, rather than a simple assertion. I do not mean to imply that no hardship exists, but rather that it is not demonstrated in the materials you have forwarded to me. } i STAFF REPORT CPA 96• Page 3 [ With regard to historic significance, I believe the building continues to meet the criteria for designation. Its current condition, although regrettable, in my opinion would not enter into r ` consideration. Finally, this sort of building represents a diminishing historic resource type. Feed stores served historically as important central gathering places for their communities. Today not many of them remain. My understanding is that some effort has been made to find an I alternative to demolition, such as moving. That would be preferable from our point of view, and if there is anything I can do to facilitate that process, please contact me [David Skilton] at extension 260." The Tigard Area Historic and Preservation Association has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: . "The Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Association does not feel that the Chamber " of Commerce has provided sufficient cause to have the Historic Overlay Designation removed from the Tigard Feed Store. First of all, during City Council meetings last summer, Chamber representatives stated as a matter of public record that they were aware that the costs of rehabilitating the Feed Store building would be significantly higher than the cost of erecting a new structure, but _ that they were willing to make the investment if the City would help them acquire the land, and if TAHPA would give the Chamber control and ownership of the building. Both the - City and TAHPA agreed to those terms. In their letter requesting removal of the Historical Designation, the Chamber reveals the true reason for the request: "We would like to build a new structure on the front portion of that site..." Second, the Chamber states in their request that because the building is now vacant, it is somehow no longer historically significant. While it is true that the past owners have I contributed to the historic value of the Feed Store with their colorful character, the building itself remains as one of the last reminders of Tiigard's agricultural past, and has outlived all but its last owner. The Feed Store is older than probably 90% of Tigard's current k population, and that alone makes it significant. i Even though the years have not been kind to the Feed Store building, we at TAHPA feel 1 that it deserves the protection afforded by the Historic Overlay Designation. We feel that I the Chamber has not offered sufficient grounds to grant the removal of the designation, and that the removal of that designation should be denied." The Tualatin Historical Society has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: "An alternative to the demolition of this obvious historically significant building, would be to dismantle it, document it, and store it for future restoration; although a site may not be available now, one will surely come later. The Tualatin Historical Society had a similar situation in 1988, when an 1875 farmhouse G was due for demolition, the owners gave us permission and time to remove it, with F STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 4• f volunteer labor we dismantled it and stored it in an onion barn, donated by one of our e members. Today, the restoration of this house is a definite reality, on a parcel of land recently ' acquired by the city, we intend to raise this house again as an interpretive center. Please keep me informed of hearings, etc. I would be happy to share our experiences with you." SECTION IV: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 5, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1 and 3.7.1, and Community Development Code Chapter 18.82. COMPLIANCE WITH STATEWIDE GOALS: The Planning Division concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based upon the following findings: 1. Goal #1 (Citizen Involvement) is satisfied because the City has adopted a citizen involvement program. All public notice requirements related to this request have been ` satisfied, including advertising the hearings in the Tigard Times. it 2. Goal #5 (Natural and Cultural Resources) is satisfied because OAR 660-16-000 (5)(b) outlines a process for the identification and protection of historical resources in Oregon. Where conflicting uses are identified, the economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) consequences of protecting, partially protecting or not protecting a significant resource must be determined. In 1986, the City conducted the required ESEE Analysis for the Tigard Feed and Garden building, and on February 4, 1986, the Tigard Planning Commission assigned the Historic District Overlay to the site. In conjunction with the formal review of the present application to remove the overlay, the City has updated the ESEE Analysis for this historic resource (see attached) in compliance with the provisions of the Goal 5 rule. i COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: i I The Planning Division concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the } . applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies based upon the following findings: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 (Citizen Involvement) is satisfied because the City has provided broad public notice and is conducting two public hearings on this request in accordance with the requirements of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. ' STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 5 2. Policy 3.7.1 (Historic Preservation) is satisfied because the City has developed an index of historic structures and has attempted to promote the preservation of these structures to the extent feasible. i COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: The Planning Division concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable Community Development Code Sections based upon the following findings: Section 18.22.035 of the Community Development Code sets forth criteria for removal of historic overlay district designation. A recommendation or a decision to approve or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on the following standards: A. Removal of an historic overlay district designation shall be made when the City Council finds than any of the following criteria have been met: 1. The original historic overlay district designation was placed on the site in error; 2. The resource designation with the historic overlay district designation has ceased to exist; 3. The resource designated with the historic overlay district designation is no longer of significance to the public; or 4. This historic overlay district designation is causing the property owner to bear an unfair economic burden to maintain the property as an historic or cultural resource. 1 The development code does not fully define economic burden. Based on the commonly i accepted, dictionary definition of the words, staff concludes that criterion four is met, the chamber and city have adequately documented that the building is not useable in its present condition and that only at undue expense could be brought to a level that would make it useable. 3 The chamber has submitted separate written reports from three building contractors who . ' have inspected the building in recent months. One report asserts that "while it may be I possible to preserve a portion of the building at a great expense, it is doubtful that it will be possible to fully meet the building code requirements to convert it to an office or other non- agricultural use." According to a second report, the building's "lack of a heating and 3 ventilation system has added greatly to its degeneration. By not having a real heating system to dehumidify and circulate the air, the building has become laden with dust and saturated with airborne chemicals from the storage of hazardous herbicides and pesticides. j To convert the use to office from agricultural, much of the existing surfaces will need to be either covered, sealed or completely encapsulated, making many, if not all surfaces, j unusable." A third report concludes that since the vacation of the building by the previous STAFF REPORT CPA 96• Page 6 i A x owner in 1995, the 86-year-old feed store has suffered extensive water damage and is now f unsalvageable. None of the contractors who inspected the building were able or willing to develop specific cost estimates or bids for its rehabilitation. In order to provide accurate estimates, as one contractor pointed out, it would be necessary to assemble a team consisting of an architect, a structural engineer, and an environmental engineer to thoroughly inspect and analyze the i building. This lack of bids, contrary to what some suggest, does not equate to a lack of i evidence. Rather, as the contractor narratives make abundantly clear, it reflects the I particularly bad condition of the building. How bad? In the opinion of all three it is unsalvageable. Beyond this, it does not seem necessary to go. As mentioned, the code does not provide a quantitative guide or standard for determining hardship. Although quantitative definitions are widely used, in the present situation it does not seem necessary to require bids in order to prove hardship. The reports leave no doubt u' that it would be exorbitantly expensive to restore the feed building for commercial purposes. i Suggestions have been made that the city, as a condition for approving overlay removal, require the owners either to: (1) relocate the feed building to another site, (2) dismantle and store the building, and/or (3) incorporate design features of the building into any future building that may be constructed on the site. The answer to all these suggestions is that the r code does not give the city the authority to impose any conditions when considering an j application to remove a historic district overlay designation. As with any other zone change amendment request, the scope of the overlay review process is limited to the application of a . different zoning designation. The scope does not extend to review of any subsequent action that may or may not be contemplated by a land owner if the zone change is or is not granted. C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the removal of the historic overlay ~ designation based upon the foregoing findings. City Council review of this application is tentatively scheduled for September 24, 1996. September 3. 1996 PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts, AICP DATE i Associate Planner September 3. 1996 APPROVED BY: Nadine Smith DATE Planning Manager STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 7 s_ I ~ p t ~l i v vi ~ Z r~ o (D City of _Tigard Planning Department _ - - _ - ® s lew V~ -41MMM O-IMI= MONA Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Analysis ! Tigard Feed and Garden Building Address: 12355 Main Street i Resource Tvoe : Commercial Zone: CBD Description: Erected in 1911, the original building is rectangular in plan, one and one-half stories high, and has a gable roof covered with corrugated tin. A metal cupola projects from the gable ' ridge. There is an interior metal flue on the northeast gable slope. The building is clad with tongue and groove siding, and finished with corner boards. In 1941 two additions were built onto the store. A one-story, low pitched roof is attached to the rear elevation. On the west elevation there is a one story, flat roof attachment. Prior to the addition, there had been a drive up ramp on this side to facilitate customer pick UPS. A shed roof porch, supported by three square posts, stretches across three quarters of the I front facade. Side stairs lead to the two foot porch platform. One of the entries on this facade has hinged double doors, each having three wood panels and a single light. Another door has four lights and three panels. Track sliding doors are located on the east and west elevations. Fixed windows of three and six lights are seen throughout the 3 building. The foundation is constructed of concrete piers and wood posts . The feed and garden store is sited to the northwest, off of Main Street, between SW Tigard Street and several sets of railroad tracks. In front of the store is a gravel parking lot. A three-foot loading dock is located behind the building, and Pacific Highway passes above and behind the property. Other commercial buildings are sited along Main Street. Zonina The site is zoned CBD, Central Business District. The CBD zone is intended to provide for a concentrated, central commercial office and retail area. Civic, high density residential, and mixed uses are allowed. Industrial and single family uses are prohibited. The desired character is a predominately built-up area, with buildings close to and oriented towards the street. 1 Uses allowed in the CBD zone include all civic and commercial categories and multi-family residential. The following uses are allowed through the conditional use process in the CBD zone: Adult Entertainment; Automotive and Equipment Sales; Drive-up windows; Utilities; STAFF REPORT CPA 46- Page 9 J Heliports', Hospitals; Spectator sport and entertainment facilities; Vehicle fuel sales; and i Wholesale, storage, and distribution. Possible conflicts have been identified as: incompatible alterations to the site or building ' exterior, neglect, and demolition. Economic Consequences s J The building is vacant at the present time. As it applies to this particular site, the CBD zone allows for 85 percent coverage of the site area and a nonresidential building height of 80 feet. The dimensional requirement for residential uses allow for 80 percent site coverage and a height of 60 feet. In this case, the existing commercial building utilizes i less than 50 percent of the commercial development potential of the site. S The feed store has been examined by three separate building contractors. All conclude that the store is a highly substandard structure, requiring rehabilitation at exorbitant I expense. The restriction that the building must be restored in order to use it, creates an ` adverse economic consequences for the building owner. 1 Since no reasonable economic use can be made of the building in its present condition and only at great expense can it be brought to a level that would make it useable, continued imposition of the historic overlay is likely to cause the building to remain vacant and undergo further deterioration. Should this occur, it would have the consequence of creating an eyesore that would adversely affect the image and character of Main Street. Recent efforts 1 to improve the business climate of the downtown area, such as the reconstruction of Main Street and the installation of planters and benches, would be undermined. i Social Consequences The building is significant in its association with a variety of colorful owners and as only f wood frame building on Main Street that has not been significantly altered. { In general, the urban environment of Tigard's downtown is enhanced by protecting historic resources. The downtown area is the historic center of the city and today contains the largest number (four) of surviving historic properties. Protection of the downtown's individual properties enhances the historical qualities of the area. { The City Center Development Plan calls for the protection of significant historical and cultural resources. Protection of this resource supports this policy. On the other hand, the overall goal of the plan is to eliminate blighted conditions and to create a sense of place and identity as the heart of the city. The feed store is a blighted structure, in terms of building and health codes, and removal of the overlay supports the policy of eliminating j - blight. ` tg STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 10 - J - Environmental Consequences t Tigard has completed a city-wide inventory of Goal 5 natural/open space resources. Significant environmental areas have been protected. This site is not located within an inventoried natural/open space area. Energy on guences The State Transportation Planning Rule requires local zoning and planning actions which will lower the vehicle miles traveled per capita within urban areas. The provisions of the I CBD zoning district comply with the state rule by encouraging transit-oriented } development. This location on Main Street is a major transit street. The site is well served by transit. If the site was re-developed, the cost of demolition and re-construction would require energy resources. Clearance of such a large building would consume a substantial 1 amount of energy. Also, the energy initially spent to construct the building would be lost. { Older structures, such as this one, do not rate high as energy efficient structure. However, they can be retro-fitted to improve their energy efficiency. There are not significant energy consequences associated with protecting or not protecting this resource. ? Summary f 1 i Due to the extremely poor and contaminated condition of the building, protection of this { resource creates severe economic consequences for the building owners. Additionally, the blighted condition of the building adversely affects the image of the downtown as a place to do business. I Removal of the historic protection does not create adverse energy consequences since the site is well served by transit and a higher density is allowed. The development of a high-density commercial project in its place would be a more efficient use of the transit I available at this location. I Removal of historic protection does create adverse social consequences. Social values i are enhanced by the protection of historic resources. Protection of this resource j reinforces the historic qualities of Tigard's traditional downtown. Removal of the overlay supports the policy of eliminating blight. No adverse environmental consequences are associated with protecting or not protecting this resource. In conclusion, the adverse economic consequences of protecting this building outweighs any other values. This resource should not be protected. I STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 11 L~ 1 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Griffith said he would like to see facts and figures to show what kind of financial burden this building was putting on the owners. He said he would like to see a private evaluation done, that it was not appropriate for the City to use their own people for estimates. Commissioners Holland said he would like to see somebody who deals with historical buildings do the evaluation, so it could be determined if this has historical F , j significance. President Wilson remarked that the question was about financial " burden, not historical significance. He also said that having the City as a co- 11 applicant taints the process. j Commissioner Anderson said she would like to see more information about environmental contamination inside the building. She said that one statement from , k. one contractor was not sufficient to convince her that it was economically unfeasible to bring the building up to standard, where it is habitable for some purpose. Commissioner Holland said he would like to table the issue until more information was provided. He did not want to make a wrong decision about a historical site a f that could be gone forever. President Wilson asked staff if the building could be relocated or dismantled without first removing the overlay designation. Duane Roberts answered that the building could be relocated on the same tax lot, but couldn't be relocated off-site without going through a review process. President Wilson then asked if there were restrictions on what type of alterations can be made on a historic building. Roberts answered yes. I Roberts advised that the feed store is not a state or nationally designated historic structure - it is only locally designated, but it is a recognized Goal 5 resource, adopted as part of our Comprehensive Plan. He said that, because of this, we have to go through an ESEE process to remove the designation. Commissioner Neff noted that the applicant might like to ask the Commission to move for a continuance, in order to have time to provide more information. Commissioner Padgett said that it was up to the applicant to decide what type of evidence to present to show economic hardship. He said the burden of proof was on the applicant and they had to provide documentation that the Commission could either accept or reject. John Cook (applicant from the Chamber) said that they had provided what information they had to the City Council. He said he was not willing to hire an . ' PLANNING COh 1MISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 9, 1996 - Page 4 I independent consultant to look at the building; that if the City wants to do so, they can. Commissioner Holland remarked that no one from the City had testified and that the Commission had not seen the reports, so they had nothing to go on. Duane Roberts noted that he had highlighted the reports in his staff report. Commissioner DeFrang said she did not feel that the applicant had shown economic hardship. She then mcved to forward a recommendation for denial of the application. Commissioner Holland seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a 7 to 1 vote (Commissioner Padgett abstained). I { Commissioners Anderson, Collson, DeFrang, Holland, Neff, Scolar, and Wilson { voted for the motion. Commissioner Griffith voted against the motion. .k I , OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 9, 1996 - Page 5 F 4 MEMORANDUM CITY 01- TIGARD i TO: Members of the City Cou c FROM: William Monahan DATE: September 20, 1996 \ SUBJECT: Tigard Feed and Seed f ~ Attached is a legal opinion from the City Attorney stating that the City must remove a historic property designation if requested by the property owner. As a result, the City does not have authority to apply the approval standards of Section 18.82.035(A)(1) through (4) of the Development Code. I have advised John Cook of this opinion. John has requested that the City take no further action on the application before the Council on Tuesday night. Instead, the Chamber requests the City remove the - . designation pursuant to ORS 197.772(3). The City can act on that request administratively. I am prepared to issue a letter stating that this administrative request is ` approved. The Chamber will then need to wait at least 120 days before removing the structure. The Chamber is in agreement with the 120 day holding period. In fact, it allows for the possibility that someone may step forward and request the opportunity to move some or all of the structure to another site. The Ciq Attorney will he present to advise Council at the study session portion of the meeting Tuesday evening. Those individuals who participated in the Planning Commission hearing on this matter will be notified of this change in process prior to the meeting. A copy of ORS 197.77' is attached. t 1 _ I 1 • li SEP 20 10:41AM 0 'DOrTE1L. RRMIS P.2 O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH ATTORNM AT L►w . 1727 KW. Hcyt ghee! r~oee~.nam 17itpa ~~atos DATE: September 20, 1996 TO: William A Monahan, City Administrator FROM: Paul C. Elmer, City Attorney's Office RE: Tigard Feed and Garden - historic Overlay Impact of ORS 197.772 and OAR 660.23.200 ' Earlier week you and I discussed the impact of the above statute and rule on a pending applicati n for•removal of the Historic Overlap designation on the Tigard Feed and Garden store. As I it, the Chamber of Commerce (which presently owns the Feed and Garden building U d1W)) has applied to the City under the terms of Tigard Municipal Code MAC) Section 8.82.035 for removal of the historic overlay district designation on the Building with an eye tow s demolishing the structure in the near future. The hearing on the Chamber's applicati is presently set before Council at its next meeting. However, there is now a question as to a hearing on this matter need occur inasmuch as the above statute and rule arguably ` obviate t Le need for the hetni S. As you aware, the 1995 Legislative Assembly canted SB 588 which was codified as ORS 197.772. Under both its terms, and the terms of recent DLCD rules, a local government is MQtzired to allow a property owner to remove from the property a historic property designatin that was imposed on the property by the local government." ORS 197.772(3). There is no pro 's'on in either statute or in the rule (OAR 660-23-200) for the imposition of additional local r prior to a property owner's exeuise of the right to remove the historic designate in. The property owner does not, in other words, have to comply with any additional requirem s that may be Imposed by the local government through its own regulations - the statute's anguage is, in our judgment, a clear mandate. In light o that mandate, there seems to be little utility in holding a hearing, the only purpose of which w be to address the criteria set out in Section 18.82.035(A)(1) through (4). These considera ions are, as pointed out above, no longer relevant or enforceable. Therefore we believe it advisab a to tell the Council that the hearing is unnecessary and therefore should be canceled and that ey can only take one (essentially ministerial action to remove the historic designate n j i { 1 r 4 "t SEP 20 10:42AM O'DOKrELL, W"IS P.3 OTO2Y ELL RAMIE CREW 1 COBRI b BACHRAm -S n r Memo r : Tigard Peed and Garden - ITistoric Overlay Sep*_ er 20, 1996 Page 2 q ~ Alternati y, the Chamber could withdraw its Chapter 18.82 application and file a um request pursuam to ORS 197.772(3). The City would then simply act upon this application 1 administ y. There would clearly be no need for a hearing. { As a cop Mary to the above opinion request, you also asked for an opinion as to the impact of the provisio found at OAR 660-23-200(9) which imposes a minimum 120-day delay on the issuance i of dent 'on permits measured from the date a property owner requests removal of historic resource designation from the property." The question is complicated by the fact that this rule became on September 1st and thus post-dates the original request for removal of the Historic edgy District Designation made by the Chamber. Specifically, you wanted to know when t "cloW on the 120 day period begins. :i There ar four (4) possible outcomes if the Chamber proceeds with its present application and one (1) if it ects to withdraw its present application and file a new request under ORS 197.772. I If the C er elects to withdraw its present application, and proceed under ORS 197.772(3), the date w d, of course, be measured from the data of that request. Howev if the Chamber elects to continue with its present application, the matter is not to clear: 1. I could be argued that the right to demolish is a substantive one which accrued at the time the origit al application was made this past summer and is one concomitant with the unfettered j right to ve the historic designation removed under ORS 197.772(3). As such, the right cannot now be ected by the latter enactment of a rule limiting its effectiveness (Le., timing) and is subject y to lawful limitations existing at the time of the application (Ke., none). The City's atteinpta impose its own procedures through TMC Chapter 18.82 were void ab hd to since the statute enrolled; as that statute had no titning limitations on demolition the property owner had the right exercise demolition whenever he/she choose. The Chamber need not comply with any time imitation and can demolish now. 3 2. It could also be argued that although the right to demolish the structure is a substantive one, the Chamber's failure to exercise it prior to the effective date of the newly imposed "proced " restriction, of OAR 660-23-200(9) makes that right now subject to the limitation. y As such, other substantive rights in other areas of the law, this fight becomes subject to new protect restrictions that come into play prior to its exercise, ie., a minimum 120 day wait to be } measured from the rule's effective date of September 1. t I L~ SEP 20 10:42faM O'DOMELL, RRMIS P.4 ODO ELLRAMIS CREW s COBRI H BACHRACH ]Memo : Tigard Feed and Garden - Historic Overlay Septethl er 20, 1996 Page 3 I 3. could also be argued (although I believe less forcefully thanNo. 2 above) that the 120 day rule "relates back" to the time of the original application and will run sometime in November (assn the application was made in early August). " 4. y, the 120 day period could start to run from the date of the Council meeting where the Cow cil performs the ministerial act ofremoving the designation pursuant to ORS 297.772. Of the options, I believe the most conservative is No. 4, since under that one everyone gets the protection afforded by the statute and rule in terms of timing. The most aggressive is No. lWith two and three being both of the more moderate approaches. The City will need to weigh risk of challenge whey determining which come to select. Please feel flee to call if you hav any questions or would like to discuss this matter further. a: Pam Beery, Esq. Tiro . Ramis, Esq. Tim endryx - ~ t I t y COhIPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING COORDINATION 197.772 hearings authority shall reopen the record (b) Meets the requirements of subsection pursuant to subsection (7) of this section. (2) of this section. 1 (d) A continuance or extension granted (2) A public facilities strategy adopted pursuant to this section shall be subject to under subsection (1) of this section shall: the limitations of ORS 215.428 or 227.178, (a) Include a statement of purpose that unless the continuance or extension is re- limits the public facilities strategy to situ- quested or agreed to by the applicant. ations in which clear and objective standards (e) Unless waived by the applicant, the demonstrate that: local government shall allow the applicant (A) There is a rapid increase in land de- at least seven days after the record is closed velopment in a specific geographical area; i to all other parties to submit final written and arguments in support of the application. The (B) The total land development would applicant's final submittal shall be consid- exceed the planned or existing capacity of ered part of the record, but shall not include any new evidence. public facilities; i (b) Include a detailed description of ac- c (7) When a local governing body, plan- tions and practices a local government may j ning commission, hearings body or hearings engage in to control the time and sequence officer reopens a record to admit new evi- I 1. 1 dente or testimony, any person may raise id development approvals in response to the new issues which relate to the new evidence, identified deficiencies in public facilities; and testimony or criteria for decision-making (c) Set forth the procedures, notice and which apply to the matter at issue. findings that allow the local government to (8) The failure of the property owner to Proceed under this section. 11995 e463 §51 receive notice as provided in this section 197.770 Firearms training facilities. (1) shall not invalidate such proceedings if the Any firearms training facility in existence on local government can demonstrate by affida- September 9, 1995, shall be allowed to con- vit that such notice was given. The notice tinue operating until such time as the facil- provisions of this section shall nut restrict ity is no longer used as a firearms training the giving of notice by other means, includ- facility. mg posting, newspaper publication, radio and ()For purposes of this section, a "fire- d television. arms training facility" is an indoor or out- (9) For purposes of this section: door facility that provides training courses i " and issues certifications required: ysis Argument" means assertions and (a) For law enforcement personnel; analys regarding the satisfaction or via { lotion of legal standards or policy believed (b) By the State Department of Fish and i 1 relevant by the proponent to a decision. Wildlife; or "Argument" does not include facts. (c) By nationally recognized programs 1{ (b) "Evidence" means facts, documents, that promote shooting matches, target shoat- I data or other information offered to demon- ing-em-eefety. 11995 1 - strate compliance or noncompliance with the - , 197.772 Consent for designation as standards believed by the proponent to bG . . historic property. (1) Notwithstanding any relevant to the decision. 11989 e.761 §10a (enacted other provision of law, a local in lieu of 197.762). 1991 c817 §31: 1995 c595 121 ! government - ( shall allow a propert-v owner to refuse to Note: 197.763 was enacted into law by the Legislq- consent to anv form of historic property des- _ tive Assembly in lieu of ORS 197.762 which was n ignation at any point during the added to or made a part of ORS chapter 197 or any s - P g designation ries therein by legislative action. See Preface to Ore.-op process. Such refusal to consent shall remove I Revised Statutes for further explanation. the property from any form of consideration - 197.765 (1973 c.482 §a: repealed by 1977 c665 §241, for historic property designation under ORS 197.767 (1987 x729 ,1: repealed by 1969 c.837 3341 358.475 to 358.545 or other law except for consideration or nomination to the National 197.768 Local government adoption of Register of Historic Places pursuant to the j public facilities strategy. (1) A local ov National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, erament may adopt a public facilities si rat as amended (16 L°.S.C.§470 et seq.). egy as described in subsection (2) of thiA (2) No permit for the demolition or mod- section. A public facilities strategy may b ification of property removed from consider- implemented if it: ation for historic property designation under (a)(A) Is acknowledged under ORSi subsection (1) of this section shall be issued 197?51; or 1 during the 120-day period following the date (B) Is approved by the Land Conservation! of the property owners refusal to consent. and Development Commission under ORS' (3) A local government shall allow a 197.628 to 197.646; and property owner to remove from the property Title 19 Pal 2 (1995 Edition) x. 1 l; z ~1 t 197.805 MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS t 1 a historic property designation that was im- 197.815 Office location. The principal posed on the property by the local govern-i, office of the board shall be in the state caps- ment. 11995 c693 4211 tal, but the board may hold hearings in any 197775 11973 c.482 411; repealed by 1977 c665 4241 ' county or city in order to provide reasonable j 197.780 11973 c482 412; repealed by 1977 c.665 4241 opportunities to parties to appear before the i 197.785 11973 c.482 413; repealed by M7 c.665 4241 board with as little inconvenience and ea- pense as is practicable. Upon request of the 19•,•.790 11973 e.482 414: repealed h• 1977 c.665 4241 board, the county or city governing body 197.795 11973 c.432 410; repealed by 1977 c.665 4241 shall provide the board with suitable rooms for hearings held in that city or county. 11963 j LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS_ c.82 4291 197.805 Policy- on review of land use 197.820 Duty to conduct review pro- decisions. It is the policy of the Legislative ceedings; authority to issue orders. (1) Assembly that time is of the essence in The board shall conduct review proceedings reaching final decisions in matters invoking upon petitions filed in the manner prescribed land use and that those decisions be made in ORS 197.830. consistently with sound principles governing (2) In conducting review proceeding: the judicial review. It is the intent of the Legis- members of the board may sit together or i lative Assembly in enacting ORS 197.805 to separately as the chief hearings referee shall 197.855 to accomplish these objectives. 11979 decide. x572 41a 1983 ce27 4281 (3) The chief hearings referee shall ap- 197.810 Land Use Board of Appeals; portion the business of the board among the j appointment and removal of members; members of the board. Each member shall 1 qualifications. (1) There is hereby created a have the power to hear and issue orders on _ Land Use Board of Appeals consisting of not petitions filed with the board and on all is- i is- more than three members appointed by the sues arising under those petitions. i Governor subject to confirmation by the (4) The board shall adopt rules governing % Senate in the manner provided in ORS the conduct of review proceedings brought 171.562 and 171.565. The board shall consist before it tinder ORS 197.830 to 197.845. 11979 of a chief hearings referee chosen by the c.772 42a 19s3 c.827 42sb1 referees and such other referees as the Gov- ernor considers necessary. The members of 197.825 Jurisdiction of board; limita- the board first appointed by the Governor tions; effect on circuit court jurisdiction. shall be appointed by the Governor to serve (1) Except as provided in ORS 197.320 and 1 for a term beginning November 1, 1979, and subsections (2) and (3) of this section, the i ending July 1, 1983. The salaries of the Land Use Board of Appeals shall have ex- members shall be fixed b the Governor un- elusive jurisdiction to review any land use less otherwise provided for by law. The sal- decision or limited land use decision of a 1o- ary of a member of the board shall not be cal government, special district or a state reduced during the period of service of the agency in the manner provided in ORS f member. 197.830 to 197.845. t (2) The Governor may at any time re- (2) The jurisdiction of the board: I move any member of the board for ineffi- iai Is limited to thu>e cases in the ciency, incompetence, neglect of d"t% petitioner has exhausted all remedies avail- malfeasance in office or unfitness to render effective service. Before such removal the tole by right before petitioning the board for Governor shall give the member a copy of review; the charges against the member and shall fix (b) Is subject to the provisions of ORS j the time when the member can be heard in 197.850 relating to judicial review by the defense against the charges, which shall not Court of Appeals; be less than 10 days thereafter. The hearing (c) Does not include those matters over shall be open to the public and shall be con- ducted in the same manner as a contested which the Department of Land Conservation i. and Development or the Land Conservation l case under ORS 183.310 to 183.550. The deci- review 1 sion of the Governor to remove a member of and author Development ORS Comfmission ission , has s review the board shall be subject to judicial review i in the same manner as provided for review 197.455, 197.628 to 197.644, 197.649 and 1 • ~ of contested cases under ORS 183.480 to 197.650; I 183.550. (d) Does not include those land use deci- (3) Referees appointed under subsection sons of a state agency over which the Court if (1) of this section s'ib:i `r memocrs i.. h-_s j.risd:^: inn; for standing of the Oregon State Bar. 11979 c 72 review under ORS 183.400, 163.482 or other i ; M 1989 x827 428&1 statutory provisions; I !6 Title 19 Pnee.2G i199:: Edition) l~ f! September 24, 1996 To Tigard City Council - r1n From Judy Fessler Re: Tigard Feed Store Historic Designation and Demolition SEP 2 41 }?w JUL- ~ u i L'._. Not knowing how the City of Tigard and the City Council will decide on the new information in regard to - ` the State Statute interpretation on preservation that took effect Sept. 1 , 1996 I would like to offer the following concerns and comments: 1. Using the New State statues on Historic Preservation the City of Tigard must be consistent or risk a I challenge. In my opinion, The City and the Chamber started the process with a Public Hearing Sept. 9, 1996, at the Planning Commission and notification of a Public Hearing on the issue September 24, 1996 i at the City Council. Both dates after the effective date of the State Statue took effect. City of Tigard I in my opinion decided to use the current TDC procedures to do this. - 2. Looking through the options and interpretation from the attorney's office It appears that the automatic 120 day demolition from the date of application is a fair interpretation of the new statute BUT.. After receiving a copy of the initial application and letter from the Tigard Chamber of Commerce, there is no official received (date) stamp from the City of Tigard - thus, in my opinion, not an official document. i 3. Due to the this lack of official date stamp on the application, I would recommend that the City require the Chamber of Commerce reapply to avoid a challenge. The 120 day clock would start new. . ~ I 4. I testified at the Planning Commission that they deny this application and they did, but I was also hopeful that they would also recommend that the Building be publicly advertised to get the best exposure to find anew home and owner. For example, siting the Gaarde house. Where the City purchased the property it was put out for public bid and new owners did come forward to move it. The Gaarde house wasn't a city designated historic property at that time. 5. 1 further recommend that if the building doesn't get a new home or owner, after the 120 days, that the C of C pay the full amount for demolition, etc. Testimony at the Planning Commission indicated the demolition could run $50K. 50% coming out of taxpayers money. TAHPA was going to have to pay for ALL the demolition. Equal opportunity doesn't appear to exist to any or all non-profits. The city of Tigard could also offer a bounty of 25K to move the building if they are going to pay for demolition to the potential new owner. Would the funds come from the Downtown Merchants Association (taxpayers money)? Thank you for your consideration. Judy F'essler a ' 11180 SW Former - Tigard, OR 97223 CC: City Administrator, City Attorney Paul Elsner, Tigard Times, The Oregonian September 24, 1996 ~-To Tigard City Council SEP ~From Judy Fessler 4- 19S6 t .L u tL, . Re: Tigard Feed Store Historic Designation and Demolition Not knowing how the City of Tigard and the City Council will decide on the new information in regard to the State Statute interpretation on preservation that took effect Sept. 1 , 1996 I would like to offer the following concerns and comments: 1. Using the New State statues on Historic Preservation the City of Tigard must be consistent or risk a A { challenge. In my opinion, The City and the Chamber started the process with a Public Hearing Sept. 9, 1996, at the Planning Commission and notification of a Public Hearing on the issue September 24, 1996 at the City Council. Both dates after the effective date of the State Statue took effect. City of Tigard in my opinion decided to use the current TDC procedures to do this. . t 2. Looking through the options and interpretation from the attorney's office It appears that the automatic 120 day demolition from the date of application is a fair interpretation of the new statute BUT.. After ` l receiving a copy of the initial application and letter from the Tigard Chamber of Commerce, there is no j official received (date) stamp from the City of Tigard - thus, in my opinion, not an official document. C,Due to the this lack of official date stamp on the application, I would recommend that the City require the Chamber of Commerce reapply to avoid a challenge. The 120 day clock would start new. 4. I testified at the Planning Commission that they deny this application and they did, but I was also hopeful that they would also recommend that the Building be publicly advertised to get the best exposure to find a new home and owner. For example, siting the Gaarde house. Where the City . 7 purchased the property it was put out for public bid and new owners did come forward to move it. The f Gaarde house wasn't a city designated historic property at that time. i 5. I further recommend that if the building doesn't get a new home or owner, after the 120 days, that the C of C pay the full amount for demolition, etc. Testimony at the Planning Commission indicated the demolition could run $50K. 50% coming out of taxpayers money. TAHPA was going to have to pay for ALL the demolition. Equal opportunity doesn't appear to exist to any or all non-profits. The city of f' Tigard could also offer a bounty of 25K to move the building if they are going to pay for demolition to the potential new owner. Would the funds come from the Downtown Merchants Association (taxpayers money)? Thank you for your co ideration. Judy Fessler 'r j 11180 SW Fonner Tigard, OR 97223 - CC: City Administrator, City Attorney Paul Elsner, Tigard Times, The Oregonian r: SE 1 /4 SEC. 34 T1 S, R1 W, WM CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON NORTH DAKOTA ST. ~ a c TIGARD ST T ~ N Q~ ID6}5 s34oo sot sT' KATHERINE ST. Is1 }aoD eoo PUBLIC SEVER AVAILABLE ON 108TH AVENUE NOT TO SCALE LEGEND PRNOOADORESBSE PROPERTIES INCLUDED N 1sl 3400 soz ® REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT J a .l a ~ Eti--- EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINES J 10805 SW TIGARD BT. I~ J 151 3400 400 O 10895 SW TIGARD ST, ~ 1s1 3aoD zoo ISI 3400 }00 ; PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINES Q ON PUBLIC SEWER (n U 3 N r t I E -7~ SW TIGARD ST. - ~ EXHIBIT "B" SW TIGARD STREET SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NOTE: ALL PROPERTIES IN THE REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT ARE ZONED R-4.5. U9/'14l9ti Res. #9661 1 of T + c I ~ ~ 1998 I If this notice nppaars clDm•er than the p~~ 2 4 document, the document is of macginnl ,uaiiq~' ± MICROFILMED • T!T TT1i~1i;l~i[i1fTl lI l1 t_.~I'lt_l~f•t14till`I.I TTkI ~ ,~G~_~~~ .Kf~1Tf!I,~ • ~ ~ :,I ~ 11-1(.F. [ i _I;LIT; ~ (~1~1- I_l l ,1'( lI?I~T~i' ~1~~,_ ~ . ^ , ~ ~ ,~~.5~ INCH ~ MADE IN CHINA- ~ , ' ~ -r - I ~t a. - a - a - :6 , s to ::n Ir ..u r• . I{. • is . to m is ts- is - _ zs--==;~- - ei w ~~thm~mduiirludiiiaiildilillimliliiliiidullli«~iiii~li{uti~mdmilmifulaltllhm~~irlim~i~iihualilihlli~mdila~mibliloralulllililllmmtdim~mlfiiliuml~t~ii `riii'i~ll I(Rl[Ili gil(III{llltlllpllpllllfl ~Illllll tlllli[Ilil~! • i_ M _,,.yi .