City Council Packet - 11/12/1996
`F
F i
I
i ~ naT
e {
{ CITY OF TIGARD ~
OREGON
j.
t TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING; ~
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE
ti
a TELEVISED
i
i
I
I
I
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 MD (503) 684-2772 S
j
r
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TIGARD
BUSINESS MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 6:30 PM
TIGARD CITY HALL
13125 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD, OREGON ,97223
i
k,
PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the
appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the
Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to
be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by
contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator.
Times noted are gstimated: 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
i.
COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 12, 1996 - PAGE 1
I ~ .
L~
i
I
L~
j IG
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 12, 1996
6:30 p.m.
• STUDY MEETING
a
> Update: Mediation Program
> Agenda Review i "
> EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into
S 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
I
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.
a
7:30 p.m. i.:
1. BUSINESS MEETING f
1.1 Call to Order - City Council et 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
7:35 p.m.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) i .
i 7:45 p.m.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be f
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 Meeting Minutes: October 8, 15, and
17, 1996
3.2 Receive and File:
a. Council Calendar
j b. Tentative Agenda I
3.3 Declare a Portion of SW 66th Avenue Right of Way as Surplus -
Resolution No. 96-'j
I
COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 12, 1996 - PAGE 2
i
3.4 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement for Services Provided to the
Tigard Police Department by the Portland Police Bureau for Use of
the Portland Police Data System and Authorize the City
G
Administrator and City Recorder to Sign
3.5 Approve Budget Adjustment to Provide for Improvements to the ( d
Senior Center - Resolution No. 96 } l f f c"
3.6 Approve City Administrator's Contract
3.7 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Approve Purchase of Five Police Vghicles from Skyline Ford in
Salem, Oregon +0 cp
• 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.
7:50 p.m.
4. VISIONING PROJECT UPDATE
• Administration Department
i i
8:00 P.M.
5. STATUS REPORT - NATIONAL GUARD'S POLICY ON RENTING
ARMORY FOR EVENTS -
• Administration Department
8:10 P.M.
-
6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: GOAL 5 WETLANDS - AMEND WORK
PROGRAM BY REPLACING THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL,
ENVIRONMENTAL (ESEE) APPROACH WITH THE "SAFE HARBOR"
PLANNING ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE UNDER THE NEW GOAL 5
j ADMINISTRATIVE RULES.
i a. Staff Report: Community Development Department
b. Council Consideration: Motion to Amend the Work Program
8:40
p.m.
7. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: REPEAL ORDINANCE NO. 83-47 AND
ADOPT SECTION 1 AND 2 OF THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN
a. Staff Report: Public Works Department
b. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-
COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 12, 1996 - PAGE 3
- 8:50 P.M.
I
8. APPROVE FINAL ORDER: PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) -
1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0006/ZONE CHANGE
(ZON) 96-0001 DR. GENE DAVISMOREIGN MISSION
REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500,
i 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, Map IS 1 35AC, located southeast of Oak
j Street, east of SW 95th, from Low Density Residential to Commercial
Professional and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP. `
LOCATION: Southeast of SW Oak Street, east of SW 95th, north of
Highway 217.
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.12(2),
2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.3; Community Development Code Chapters 4.
18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660
{ Division 12.
j ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family Residential) allows single-family detached
j units, manufactured homes, fanning, family day care and conditional uses
such as single-family attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and
schools. C-P (Professional/Administrative Office) allows for business
support services, communication services, medical and dental services,
personal services, convenience sales and services and limited eating and
drinking establishments.
a. Staff Report: Community Development Department
( b. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-Denying Applicant's
Request
9:00 P.M.
9. UPDATE: SENATE BILL 122
' • Community Development Department
1 9:15 P.M.
10. UPDATE: BOUNDARY COMMISSION STRUCTURE
Community Development Department
9:20 p.m.
11. UPDATE: FANNO CREEK WATERSHED AND SUMMERLAKE WATER
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS
a. Staff Report: Engineering Department, Public Works Department and
j Unified Sewerage Agency
b. Council Discussion
COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 12, 1996 - PAGE 4
ll~
t _
9:45 p.m.
12. CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
12.10.070 - CREDIT FOR WATER LEAKS
a. Staff Report: Finance Department
b. Council Discussion
C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-x'
9:55 P.M.
13. CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 96-09 -
SECTION 70.020 OF THE PURCHASING RULES OF THE LOCAL
CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD
a. Staff Report: Finance Department
b. Council Discussion
C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-qb
10:10 P.M.
14. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
10:20 p.m.
15. 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.
10:30 p.m.
16. ADJOURNMENT
iAadm\wthy\cca\961 112.doc E
COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 12, 1996 - PAGE 5
Agenda Item No.
Meeting of ICI! I ~Ct(o
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
i.
MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 12, 1996
STUDY SESSION
> Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli
> Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, and Ken Scheckla; Councilor
r
Bob Rohlf arrived at 6:50 p.m.
> Staff Present: Citv Administrator Bill Monahan; Community Development Director Jim E
Hendryx; Asst. to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Development Review Engineer Brian i
Rager; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley.
> Update: Mediation Program
Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator, introduced Wendi Hawley, and Kelly _
Ball, Volunteer Coordinator for the Beaverton Mediation program.
Ms. Hawley thanked the Mayor, Council, and staff for their support in sending her through
the training program. She noted that the name has changed to the Beaverton Community
Dispute Resolution Center.
i Ms. Hawlev reviewed the mediation program. She explained that it was designed to help
f neighbors resolve disputes and disagreements through the services of trained volunteer
i mediators. She described the procedure for handling a complaint from the initial phone call
from the first party through the three steps of the process.
Ms. Hawley noted that the purpose of the mediation was to help both parties come to an
I
agreement that they worked out themselves (the mediators remained neutral) to resolve the
situation to the satisfaction of both parties.
Ms. Hawlev discussed the definitions of mediation, negotiation, and arbitration. She
emphasized that in mediation the mediator remained neutral. The mediator was there to
transform the positions of the parties from "my way is right" to "I have some understanding
y of your position. Let's find a compromise." The mediator was not there to dictate the 4
solution to the problem.
i
Nis. Hawley said that the program Tigard was interested in was very similar to Beaverton s. `
'd Ms. Ball reported that Beaverton handled 340 cases in 1994/95, serving 745 citizens. From 1
July through September, they opened 96 cases. i
i k
Council Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 - Page 1 F
Tigard City
I In response to questions from Councilor Scheckla, Ms. Ball said that only about two cases
per month went to the joint session. Ms. Hawley reviewed the 30 day follow up process by
which they determined whether or not the agreement was holding and what the parties
thought of the mediation process.
Councilor Scheckla asked what the top complaints were. Nis. Ball said that complaints
tended to be seasonal, although the number one complaint of barking dogs came year round.
q She mentioned complaints about heat pumps, air conditioning units, weeds blowing in from
the neighbor's yard, multiple cars parked along the street, drainage concerns, etc.
I .
In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Ms. Ball said that they did handle
landlord/tenant cases, including evictions and security deposit returns. Ms. Hawley
explained that mediators did not give legal advice or keep legal records in landlord/tenant
y
mediations.
In response to questions from Councilor Scheckla, Ms. Hawley said that if one party did not
want to participate, then the case was closed, unresolved. She mentioned Beaverton's
outstanding resolution rate of 96%. Ms. Ball reviewed the Center's hours from 8 a.m. to 8
p.m. Monday through Thursday, and 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Friday.
Ms. Hawley said that the program had 20 volunteers available, each of whom took the
40-hour training program. She mentioned continuing mediation education opportunities
also.
Discussion followed with Ms. Hawley clarifying and responding to questions posed by
Council members.
Ms. Newton reported that six cases from Tigard went to the Beaverton program. The City
paid on a per case basis. Ms. Newton asked Ms. Ball to send to her the information
requested by Councilor Scheckla on the Tigard cases.
Ms. Newton noted the three components to the program: training, staff to help Tigard set up
its own program next spring, and paving for cases. She said that the standard rate per case
was S200 (assuming phone resolution). If the case took longer, then the rate went up.
Ms. Ball expressed her appreciation for Ms. Hawley 's participation in the program. She
noted that this group was the strongest and most dedicated volunteer group they have ever l
had, taking on a wide range of difficult cases. j
> Agenda Review
Mr. Monahan requested pulling Item 3.7a from the Consent Agenda. Staff wanted to
purchase four new police vehicles rather than five; the amount was 5109,605. Councilor
Rohlf commented that he wanted this item pulled to discuss expending this amount of i
money. f
I Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 - Page 2
Abl %,Ir. Monahan stated that staff wanted to discuss the response to Measure 47 with the
Council. He suggested either a special meeting this Thursday or scheduling it for next
Tuesdav. He said that he has frozen all new hires. He said that they could hold over the
police vehicles for that discussion also, and put it back on the agenda in two weeks.
i.
The Council directed staff to schedule the Measure 47 discussion for next Tuesday. I
> Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:02 p.m. under f'
the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
> Executive Session adjourned at 7:32 p.m.
1. BUSLNESS NIEETLNG ~
Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:38 p.m.
Council Communicationsi Liaison Reports: None
Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
City Administrator Monahan asked to hold over Item 10, the update on the Boundary -
° Commission structure, until November 26.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA
Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King City, addressed the Council on the
issue of affordable housing. Mr. Monahan responded to Mr. Polans' questions relating to
the visioning questionnaire which was sent out in the Cityscape. Questions about affordable
j housing were asked in order to gain insight on the perceptions of neighborhood quality by
1 the residents.
Councilor Scheckla referred Mr. Polans to Community Partners for Affordable Housing
3. CONSENT AGENDA
The Council removed Items 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.7 for further discussion.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla for the adoption of
Consent Agenda items 3.1, 3.2 and 3.6.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Rohif and Scheckla voted "ves.")
j 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: October 8, 15, and 17, 1996
1 _
t Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 - Page 3
- o
3? Receive and File:
a. City Council Calendar
b. Tentative Agenda
3.3 Declare a portion of SW 66th Avenue Right of Wav as Surplus - Resolution No.
96-69
3.4 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement for Services Provided to the Tigard Police
Department by the Portland Police Bureau for Use of the Portland Police Data
System and Authorize the Citv Administrator and City Recorder to Sign.
3.5 Approve Budget Adjustment to Provide for improvements to the Senior Center -
Resolution No. 96-
3.6 Approve City Administrator's contract.
{1 3.7 Local Contract Review Board:
I a. Approve Purchase of Five Police Vehicles from Skyline Ford in Salem,
Oregon n
Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Dis .nce~nn
i > 3.3 Declare a portion of SW 66th Avenue Right of Way as Surplus - Resolution No.
96-69
Councilor Rohlf asked for verification that the surplus right of way wouldn't affect f
any of the toolbox items or commitments for the 1-5/217 interchange.
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, said that he understood from
the information provided to him that the this was surplus property and not needed for
widening or improvements to the 217/1-5 intersection.
> 3.4 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement for Services Provided to the Tigard Police
Department by the Portland Police Bureau for Use of the Portland Police Data
System and Authorize the City Administrator and City Recorder to Sign.
j Councilor Rohlf asked if it was worth it to spend this much money in the wake of I .
Measure 47. Mr. Monahan said that the Tigard police have been using this system
i
for three to four years because the majority of crimes in Tigard were committed by
criminals from Multnomah County or Portland. He noted that they used this system
more frequently than the Washington County Criminal Justice Information System.
It was very necessary for the police department's continued ability to access
information on suspects. _
In response to a question from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Monahan said that this was the
first time Tigard has had to pay for using the system. Mayor Nicoli commented that
Chief Goodpaster had informed him six months ago that most of the time,
j Washington County did not have the information the police needed; the offenders
j came from Portland and Tigard needed access to that data.
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 - Page 4 "
!
lam.
ACIL
Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Rohlt's concern at the price of
$16,800. He asked how many reports requested were of value to the police. Mr.
Monahan said that he did not know the numbers but pointed out the note on the
schedule of costs: it was based on 3000 reports a year (S2 per report). He said that
this was in the current budget. It could be held over for discussion with the police
vehicle purchase.
Councilor Rohlf said that he didn't feel strongly enough to hold it over if it provided
safety for police officers. [
( > 3.5 Approve Budget Adjustment to Provide for Improvements to the Senior Center -
I Resolution No. 96-
Mr. Monahan explained that these were some improvements for the Senior Center
budgeted last year but not completed. He asked for authorization to complete them
now. He said that they were not in the budget this fall and that this request was a
modification of the budget.
Councilor Rohlf asked to hold this over and not authorize spending the money right
now.
> 3.7 Local Contract Review Board: f
a. Approve Purchase of Five Police Vehicles from Skyline Ford in Salem,
Oregon
Mayor Nicoli noted that the Council agreed to hold over this item also.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Items 3.3 and f
3.4.
i Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
I.
4. VISIONING PROJECT UPDATE ~ .
j Ms. Newton reported on the visioning process activities since mid-October. She said that
thev have been concentrating on obtaining citizen feedback from the survey. The
consultants began the statistically valid phone survey the second week of November and
should be finished this weekend. r
Ms. Newton noted other venues for the survey such as the Regal Courier and the Chamber I
hotline.
Nis. Newton reviewed the work with the schools that began this week with the elementary
schools (third through fifth graders). She said that they would contact the private schools
this week to present the opportunity to them also.
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes -November 12, 1996 - Page 5
.c
qLi
_ I
Ms. Newton reviewed the immediate goals of the process: compilation and summary of the
survevs by January I and reporting survey results to the community through open houses
(tentatively scheduled for January 23 and 25.
1
i
f Ms. Newton stated that staff was beginning to compile a list of interest groups who should
be represented on the Steering Committee. They would present the list to Council for their
input.
1
Councilor Hunt mentioned the impact of the tour of do%vnto%vn redevelopment in cities
around the area. He asked if one phase of the visioning process could concentrate on the
downtown area. Mr. Monahan explained that staff expected the downtown to be an issue
that would surface during the community discussion. He said that they would it explore it
I further as one of the focus issues. k
Ms. Newton said that staff was preparing background material for the Steering Committee.
They have divided the information already gathered from the community into seven
potential focus areas, including the downtown.
5. STATUS REPORT - NATIONAL GUARD'S POLICY ON RENTING ARMORY FOR
EVENTS
^t Ms. Newton reported on the October 29 meeting among the National Guard commanders
and Armory personnel, City police, and the neighborhood regarding the problems at the
Armory. She mentioned that she and Chief Goodpaster had met earlier with the Armory
staff to suggest changes they might incorporate into their rental policy.
i
Nis. Newton stated that the Armory personnel opened the meeting by presenting a list of the
changed procedures to the neighbors along with a commitment to the neighborhood. The
eight neighborhood representatives then asked questions for more detail on the changes.
Ms. Newton reviewed the changes, noting the neighbors' main concern centered on security.
The Armorv now would select the security firm required to be present during an event and
I bill the renter; events would end at midnight; renters must present proof of the City permit
j for amplified noise; amplified music must stop at 10 p.m.
I
Ms. Newton mentioned the Armory's response to another neighbor concern of the lack of
response by the Armorv staff to neighbor complaints. An Armory staff person would be
available on site to the neighbors.
j I
{ Ms. Newton commented that the City recommended restricting the length of individual .
events to a four-hour period, similar to City park policy. The Armory also agreed to provide
a schedule of events on a monthly basis to the City and the neighborhood contact person.
Nis. Newton noted the discussion on parking lot safety. She reviewed the Armory's
i agreement to hood one of the lights to shield light from backyards and bedrooms. The ;
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes -November 12, 1996 -Page 6
I
3
Armory will also look into installing a light at the front of the property along Oak.
x
Ms. Newton said that, with respect to the issue of speeding, the Armory spoke to their
4 personnel (whom neighbors identified as the primary speeders). She said that she
recommended that the neighbors go through the CITs to request a stop sign at 70th and Oak.
Ms. Newton said that the Armory did depend on the facility rental as part of their budget.
She mentioned a follow-up meeting scheduled for January. l
In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, Ms. Newton said that she believed that the
neighbors were satisfied and that the Armory did a good job of addressing their concerns.
I Jack Polaris raised a question about the Armory providing its own security. Mayor Nicoll
reviewed the process used to handle the situation, noting that both sides have indicated s
satisfaction with the settlement.
> The Council considered Item No. 7 at this time.
6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: GOAL 5 WETLANDS - A~ IEND WORK
PROGRAM BY REPLACING THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL
(ESEE) APPROACH WITH THE "SAFE HARBOR" PLANNING ALTERNATIVE _
AVAILABLE UNDER THE NEW GOAL 5 ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, reviewed the City's attempt over the past three years to
develop an inventory planning program that satisfied Goal 5 for wetlands. He mentioned
the state grant received by the City to do the wetland inventory (which has been completed),
and the second state grant to develop a protection program for the wetlands.
Mr. Roberts explained that staff used the grant money to hire the consulting firm of
Winterowd and Associates to help them develop the protection program. He stated that the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) was in the process of
amending Goal 5 because it has proved to be too time consuming and subject to differing
interpretations for jurisdictions to use effectively.
Mr. Roberts introduced Greg Winterowd and Mark Roberts of Winterowd and
Associates. He explained that they have identified an alternate route for a wetlands
protection program called Safe Harbor (the application of state standards and definitions).
The old process was the ESEE analysis.
Mr. Winterowd commented that in his experience over the last four to five years of working
on Goal 5 ESEE studies, he found that more often than not a jurisdiction ended up with an
ordinance not very different from the state standards. He noted the expensive and `
time-consuming nature of the ESEE analysis, citing Lake Osw•ego's four-year study that still
wasn't complete.
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes -November 12, 1996 -Page 7
a
Mr. Winterowd reviewed the recommendation he made one-and one-half years ago to
Tigard on completing the ESEE analysis: his firm would perform a sample analysis on one
of the I I areas identified in Tigard to provide staff with a guideline for studying the other 10.
Mr. Winterowd explained that Safe Harbor allowed a jurisdiction to skip the ESEE analysis.
The tradeoff was less flexibility under the state standards. He said that the question for the
Council tonight was whether or not the program was too severe and inflexible.
l i
ivir. Winterowd reviewed the Safe Harbor program as it applied to the City of Tigard. This
included a 75-foot buffer setback from the Tualatin River, a 50 foot setback from
tishbearing streams, and a 25 foot setback from wetlands.
In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Winterowd said that there was a simple .
and objective way to regulate wetlands and stream corridors without going through the year- F
long ESEE analysis and public hearing process. This way also allowed enough flexibility to
avoid unwise decisions.
~ j-
j Mr. Winterowd reviewed how Safe Harbor applied to a development within the 75-foot
setback area from the Tualatin. He said that the 75-foot setback could be reduced by half as
long as the developer maintained the values identified in the Fishman study. This could
include mitigating the development in one area by enhancing the wetland in another area.
Mr. Winterowd reviewed how Safe Harbor applied to development near a tishbearing
stream corridor. He said that the Department of Forestry listed Fanno Creek as a tshbearing
stream. He explained that the City would exempt an already developed subdivision from
the 50-foot setback required for these stream corridors.
Mr. Winterowd pointed out that in many cases the streams or woods located near industrial
land have already been impacted by development for years. He said that the 50-foot setback
I could be reduced to 25 feet, the USA standard, with mitigation in another area identified by
j a biologist.
i
Mr. Winterowd said that in Safe Harbor, jurisdictions were required to preserve and protect
wetlands or non-tishbearing streams just as they were under the original Administrative
Rule. He said that the 25-foot setback could be reduced to 15 feet in certain circumstances
1 as long as a developer provided mitigation elsewhere.
Mr. Winterowd stated that his firm was meeting with DLCD next week to discuss the
language on preservation of wetlands "intact." He said that if "intact" meant to restrict
t activities on the site but not to leave it completely alone, then they would suggest allowing
modification of up to 109'0 of the existing wetland, as long as a developer provided
j mitigation to enhance the wet!and.
i - .
Mr. Winterowd said that he thought that in Tigard's situation, staff could use the flexibility
in these standards to preserve and enhance the wetlands and stream corridors that the
experts considered worth saving.
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 - Page 8
Mr. Winterowd stated that there was inflexibility in the Goal 5 Administrative Rule but
pointed out that they would not know how much until a few years down the road. He
recommended that the City proceed with a Safe Harbor ordinance-, it would save monev and
j~ staff time. He said that for he remaining amount dollars in the state grant, his firm could
! either write the Safe Harbor ordinance or do a good ESEE analysis on 1 of the I I Tigard
sites.
Mr. Roberts recommended applying Safe Harbor (adoption of state standards) to 10 of the
I isites, and continuing with the ESEE analysis on the eleventh site, Cook Park, in order to
resolve the conflicts on wetland preservation at that site.
Mayor Nicoli expressed concern about the recommendation, citing the Cook Park Task
Force already inexistence. He spoke to the possibility of an ESEE analysis and the Task F. .
j Force reaching different conclusions-, the City would have wasted money pursuing both
processes.
Mr. Roberts said that the recommendation was to not change anything regarding Cook Park.
He explained the staff recommendation to continue the conflict resolution process already
underway at Cook Park through the ESEE analysis.
The Council discussed concerns with using two processes and having different sets of rules {
for Cook Park and the other areas in Tigard. Mr. Hendrvx stated that staff felt the ESEE i
process gave the City the most flexibility with the issues facing Cook Park, which were
different than in the other areas.
i Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel, stated that it was legally permissible to have different sets of
rules for different parts of the City for the protection of different resources. He explained
that the intent of Goal 5 was to allow flexibility in adjusting the rules property by property to
j address the different degrees of protection required. He said that he could not address the
question of whether or not two sets of rules was good or bad policy.
Councilor Scheckla commented that he had a problem with a policy that tried to make
everyone happy.
j Councilor Hunt asked Mr. Winterowd why Tigard was better off leaving Cook Park under
the ESEE analysis rather than putting it on the Safe Harbor. Mr. Winterowd said that the
process used depended on the point of view. He stated that the goal was a simple objective
and understandable ordinance that could be applied fairly across the board to everyone. The i
City could achieve that goal either through the lengthy and expensive ESEE analysis for
j each of the 11 sites or through applying the state standards defined in Safe Harbor.
Mr. Winterowd reviewed the issues in Cook Park (regarding the wetlands some distance ,
from the Tualatin River) that required more flexibility than the Safe Harbor ordinance might
allow. He said that if the Council wanted to protect those wetlands without consideration
for developing the park, then they could simply apply the Safe Harbor standards. However Ou"
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 - Page 9
. ~ E
1 _
they could have an ESEE analysis performed to help them make the decision on what to do
with the wetlands in Cook Park.
j Mr. Hendryx pointed out that the Safe Harbor rules were still evolving from the state. He
said that they did not know how much flexibility there was in Safe Harbor. He said that
Safe Harbor was easier to apply in the majority of the City whereas the Cook Park situation
was confusing. He stated that staff could return with better information once the consultant
has spoken with the state.
Councilor Scheckla asked how Safe Harbor would apply to Fanno Creek. Mr. Winterowd
11 reviewed the tiered system of standards used throughout the state. He commented that
different standards would apply to the Rogue River as applied to the Willamette River
because they required different levels of protection. He said that rivers required a 75 foot
buffer, tishbearing streams required a 50 foot buffer.
l Councilor Hunt said that he was uncomfortable making a decision tonight because there
11 were so many unanswered questions on this matter. Mr. Winterowd said that there was a
eTeat deal of uncertainty about what the new Goal a rule meant. He mentioned the i
uncertainty that existed under the original Goal 5 rules as well. He stated that they would
write a Safe Harbor ordinance based on what they did know about the state standards which
he thought would give more certainty than other jurisdictions' ordinances based on an ESEE
analysis.
In response to questions from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Winterowd said that, of the two options,
the ESEE would give the City the most flexibility and be the most expensive.
Councilor Scheckla said that he was not readv to make a decision tonight. He spoke for , . .
waiting for more information to come forth from the state.
In response to a comment from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Winterowd reiterated that the Safe
Harbor process allowed the City to skip half the staff work and reach the ordinance adoption
phase the way jurisdictions could before Goal 5 required the ESEE analysis. He said that
the three levels of protection in Safe Harbor made sense to him as a professional in the field.
s
Mr. Winterowd pointed out that the City had the option of pulling any stream or wetland out
of the Safe Harbor process and doing an ESEE analysis on it. He recommended proceeding
I with Safe Harbor to get a clear and objective regulatory scheme for as much of the City as
possible, and then pulling out any areas that were controversial for further study.
1 In response to a comment from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Winterowd suggested that staff look at
Cook Park again after he met with DLCD to try to pin down the flexibility issue. Then staff
could return to Council with a recommendation on Cook Park. But in the meantime, his
firm could move ahead with writing a Safe Harbor ordinance for the rest of the city for staff
review.
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - November 12. 1996 - Page 10
r
Councilor Rohlf commented that Cook Park stood out because the Council was familiar
with the situation and how this decision could affect it. He suggested talking about how the
other 10 areas would be affected.
Mark Roberts, Winterowd & .Associates, reviewed how the Safe Harbor setbacks would
apply to Area 5 (Dairy Dell Creek and portions of Fanno Creek). He said that the only
significant change would be along Fanno Creek: a 50 foot setback instead of the existing 25
toot setback. He commented that the 50 foot setback could be adjusted down to 25 feet if
the resource were protected. i.
In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf on the effect of the standards on the existing
uses of the properties adjacent to the creek, Mr. Roberts said that Safe Harbor did not affect
existing uses, only new development. -
Mr. Winterowd explained that a resource near an existing development had no resource
value to it. Therefore there was no point in buffering a resource that did not exist.
Councilor Hunt asked how much was left of the $12,000 state grant. Mr. Roberts said about
$9000. Mr. Winterowd said that it took as much money to do a detailed ESEE analysis for
one area as it did to write a Safe Harbor ordinance for the whole city. He said that his firm
would write the ordinance and work with staff through the public hearing process for what
was left of the S 12,000.
Councilor Hunt proposed that staff write the Safe Harbor ordinance and then return to
Council for a decision on whether or not to include Cook Park. Mr, Roberts confirmed that
the City had to do either the ESEE analysis or the Safe Harbor ordinance to comply with
state regulations.
Mayor Nicoli expressed support for Councilor Hunt's suggestion as the logical approach to
take. He said that he did not want to tie up staff in a lengthy process or the general fund in
an expensive process when he could not see any advantage to the ESEE analysis approach
for the entire city. He commented that he could not see doing an ESEE analysis for the
portions of Fanno Creek that were either developed or under city control. undeveloped
portions might need an ESEE analysis.
Councilor Rohlf asked if the model ordinance language would be considered "Tigard's
language" so that courts would grant deference to the City's interpretation as opposed to the
state interpretation. Mr. Hendrvx said that staff would make sure that the draft ordinance
addressed the City's concerns, and was consistent with the language of the Code rewrite.
Mr. Ramis concurred. He said that generally speaking a city received deference from the
courts. He explained that the limits the courts put on deference were when a jurisdiction
tried to interpret the ordinance to do something that was not allowed by the state goal.
1
l 111 I
l
I Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - November 12. 1996 -Page 11
_ f-.
J . '
. ~ Y
Councilor Rohlf asked if the City's ability to make variances would be limited by the state
interpretation. Mr. Ramis said that depended heavily on how successfully they crafted their
own ordinance.
i~ Mr. Roberts pointed out that another option was the Comprehensive Plan amendment
3 process which they could use to put an area under the ESEE analysis from the Safe Harbor
ordinance. He said that thev could craft the ordinance first and decide later on which areas
to apply it to.
Councilor Rohlf asked who would pay for an ESEE analysis in the event a developer asked
for a variance. Mr. Hendryx explained that the applicant paid all costs in demonstrating that
- they met the criteria for a variance or a plan amendment.
Mr. Hendryx mentioned that there was some flexibility under the Safe Harbor provisions.
There was an encouragement to allow enhancement and mitigation, something that did not
exist in the current standards. Mr. Winterowd commented that, from the developer's point
of view, he would prefer to deal with an objective standard of a given buffer setback in
deciding how much to do for a resource area.
In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Hendryx said that he thought writing the
ordinance now was the preferable approach. He noted the amount of work required of staff
under the current approach; the City would get a standard for only one area out of I 1 in the
City; it would take more than a year to develop.
Mr. Hendryx said that the Safe Harbor approach was a good approach with standards and `
some flexibility in looking at the unusual areas of the City. He said that staff was !
committed to keeping the Council informed of their discussions with the state. II
i
Mr. Monahan asked the Council to approve going ahead with the Safe Harbor approach for
the 10 areas identified, and to defer a decision on the process for the Thomas Dairy
Ij property.
1 Mavor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt and Rohlf agreed on proceeding with the ordinance.
Councilor Scheckla said he was opposed at this time. The Council directed staff to proceed.
7. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: REPEAL ORDINANCE NO. 8347 AND ADOPT G
SECTION I AND 2 OF THE EMERGENCY MANAGElIENT PLAN
Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said that this was the
same plan submitted to the Council earlier this month; he received no comments from
Council. He asked Council to adopt the plan.
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No.
96-38.
The City Recorder read the number and title of Ordinance No. 96-38.
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes -November 12, 1996 -Page 12
j"
L~
9 ORDINANCE NO. 96-38, AN ORDINANCE OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 83-37 ADOPTING A NEW EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. j.
Councilor Rohlf complimented the staff on a job well done. The Council concurred. i .
Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mavor Nicoli, '
Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
> The Council considered Item 6 at this time. l
S. APPROVE FINAL ORDER: PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - r;,..
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 95-0006/ZONE CHANGE (ZON)
96-0001 DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION
REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700,
3800, 3900, Map 1S1 35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW 95th, from Low
Density Residential to Commercial Professional and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP.
LOCATION: Southeast of SW Oak Street, east of SW 95th, north of Highway 217.
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.12(2), 2.1.1,
6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.3; Community Development Code Chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and
Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12.
ZONE: R4.5 (Single-Family Residential) allows single-family detached units,
manufactured homes, farming, family day care and conditional uses such as
single-family attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools. C-P
i (Professional/Administrative Office) allows for business support services,
communications services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience
i sales and services and limited eating and drinking establishments.
4 Mavor Nicoli read the hearing title.
1 -
a. Staff Report
Mr. Hendryx stated that this was the final order for the October 22 Cotmcil decision
to deny the applicant's request.
b. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-70 Denying Applicant's Request
4
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt .
Resolution No. 96-70.
The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 96-70.
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 - Page 13
i
L~
ft
t'
RESOLUTION NO. 96-70, A RESOLUTION BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR
A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 96-06 AND ZONE CHANGE
ZON 96-01 REQUESTED BY DR. DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION. 1
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, j
Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
9. UPDATE: SENATE BILL 122 ,
Mr. Hendryx reviewed the provisions of Senate Bill 122, adopted by the 1993 state
legislature, which set out the provisions for municipalities to develop urban service
agreements. He said that the agreements were to address the following services: sanitary
sewer, water, fire protection, parks, open space and recreation, mass transit, and roads and
streets.
Mr. Hendryx said that Washington County received an LCDC grant to develop a model j
ordinance dealing with the coordination agreements for service providers in the county, the
first step in the three part process. He said that the urban service agreements would define
who provided what services to what areas and assign long term planning, construction, and
maintenance responsibilities.
Mr. Hendryx said that the County would take the model ordinance to the management group
and then to the different jurisdictions and agencies involved. He explained that this state
standard was applicable to all agencies within the urban growth boundary.
Mr. Hendry-, mentioned that Tigard was part of a grant working with Beaverton and
Washington County on an urban service agreement. He reviewed the study area on the map:
1 Beaverton, Tigard, unincorporated Washington County, excluding King City and the area in
eastern Washington County under discussion with Portland and Beaverton. He said that in
this area there were 13 service providers who would provide nine different services. He
pointed out that this discussion was unrelated to the discussion of providing urban services
' to Bull Mountain and Walnut Island.
Mr. Hendryx stated that storm water management and law enforcement were included in
this discussion, though not specified by the state statutes.
Mr. Hendryx noted the grant deadline of June 30, 1997. He mentioned the consulting firm
and the work they have already done in interviewing stakeholders, such as Mayor Nicoli,
and researching existing service provider agreements.
I
Mr. Hendryx said that the first level of discussion addressed who provided what services
where. The second level dealt with planning, coordination, construction, facility
maintenance, management and administration, transitioning, and a review and modification
process.
t
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 - Page 14 y
e
to Mr. Hendryx reviewed how SB 122 set up the environment for negotiation among the
` service providers. The statutes required consideration of specific items but did allow for
alternatives. He said that the consultants have worked on identifying the lead agencies for
overseeing the process. He referenced the consultant chart indicating the work needed to
complete the analysis.
Mr. Hendrvx said that the consultants recommended developing a series of Task Forces to
study the individual services, comprised of citizens and staff representatives from the 4
participating jurisdictions. He noted the Tigard staff who would work on these Task Forces.
Mavor Nicoli asked how quickly these Task Forces would move through the process. Mr.
Hendryx said that the project was funded through June 30. However some issues, such as
parks and recreation, would take longer to resolve.
. ti
Mayor Nicoli expressed concern that some of these study issues were repetitive. He noted
the plans or studies already done by Task Forces, study groups, and staff,
1
Mr. Monahan commented that this study would be more global in nature. He noted that G
while the grant deadline was June 30, they did not have to be in compliance with SB 122 by
that date. He said that the issues under discussion included those identified in the Senate j
Bill (except for storm water management and law enforcement). It was essential for the {
City to work out agreements on these issues. i
t~ Mr. Monahan cited an example of streets. He explained that right now there was no policy
on when streets in annexed territories transferred over to the City. Sometimes the streets
remained in the County, sometimes they transferred to the City at the City's request. He said
that the discussion would be on whether or not they should have a consistent policy to
decide the issue in advance of annexation.
Mr. Monahan mentioned that during the Wednesday meeting with the Citizen Involvement
Committee, both he and Charlie Cameron, the Washington County Administrator,
commented that this discussion might have to go on the back bumer if Measure 47 passed.
In that case, they would have to reallocate staff resources and might not be able to utilize the
entire grant
k ;
Mr. Monahan cited the parks and recreation service as an example. He reviewed the
questions involved: Did Tigard want to provide any recreation services, join the Tualatin
Hills Parks & Recreation District or create its a new district with other jurisdictions? He
said that he told the consultant that, in spite of parks and recreation being a high priority, the
discussion would have be deferred until the spring, after the visioning process showed staff
what the interest of the public was for recreation..
Mr. Monahan explained that staff presented this discussion so Council would know about it.
I.
However, they might need to modify some of the timelines.
i
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 - Page 15
r-77. 71
%
Mayor Nicoli expressed concern at the recommendations that might come out of this seven-
month period. He said that he was satisfied with the direction of forming a consortium of
Washington County providers. He spoke to allowing that process to work
Mayor Nicoli said that he agreed that they needed more study on the water issue but
contended that the study was already underway. He said that he was pleased with the j
direction in parks and open space. He stated that he did not think they could develop agood
plan in a seven-month period, especially in light of Measure 47. He said that he did not
disagree with Mr. Monahan's comments but he did not think that they could get valid results
in that time frame, at least with water and parks and recreation.
t Councilor Rohif commented that this process was state mandated as a result of Senate Bill
122. Mr. Monahan explained that Washington County received an LCDC grant to do a pilot
program when it offered to provide the staffing and forum to discuss the process with the t
jurisdictions as a group as opposed to individual discussions. As a result of that, the County
gave funds to jurisdictions to draft model ageements.
I
Mavor Nicoli commented that most agreed that they needed substantial study on the water f
service. He suggested letting the new water consortium oversee the study and set policy; I
those areas in which they were not involved could set policy locally. He expressed concern
i
at letting this group set definitive policy.
Mr. Monahan explained that the representatives from each stakeholder service provider
would make up the individual Task Forces. That group, not the broad group, would make
the decisions.
i:.
Mr. Hendryx mentioned that Ed Wegner expressed concerns to the committee about the I
consortium and the work already done. The committee was revising the work order to i
address those concerns.
Mr. Wegner stated that the staff representatives from Tualatin Valley, Tigard and Beaverton
all intended to make it clear at the first water service meeting that they already had a
regional water supply plan.
Mr. Hendryx reviewed the public involvement process developed by the County through a
Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee. He said that both Tigard and Beaverton have f
integrated their citizen involvement programs into that process. He referenced a matrix
showing the different public involvement elements. He reiterated that much of this would
occur in the spring when Tigard was further along in the visioning process. He noted that
1 Measure 47 left a lot of unanswered questions.
1
Jack Polaris asked to speak to staff regarding Senate Bill 122 and to receive all reports that
came in concerning it. Mayor Nicoli asked that he talk with staff tomorrow.
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 - Page 16
10. UPDATE: BOUNDARY COMMISSION STRUCTURE
This item was pulled.
11. UPDATE: >±ANNO CREEK WATERSHED AND SUMNIERLAKE WATER
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS.
Mayor Nicoli commented that he missed the opportunity to inform the residents of
Summerlake (who approached him on this issue) of tonight's update. He suggested
following up with those people, some of whom were very knowledgeable about the
situation, to give them this information and get their input.
Greg Berry presented the staff report. He introduced Mark Jockers and John Jackson of the
Unified Sewage Agency (USA). He said that the project committee was comprised of seven ti -
1 citizens and representatives from eight local and state agencies. The purpose was to provide
flood control, and improve water quality and habitat along the streams of the watershed.
I
Mr. Bert' referenced the summary sheet listing the five types of projects proposed for f
I+1 Summerlake. He said that only the first three were recommend for inclusion in the final
1 watershed plan; they were conformed to the plan requirements and were consistent with
current city policy.
Mr. Berry reviewed the three proposals: to dry up the pond during the summer to allow a
tieeflowing stream, to plant trees and other vegetation around the lake as a protective buffer
preventing nutrients from reaching the stream, and to remove the water fowl from the pond.
He said that the other two proposals were not included because of cost, uncertain
effectiven,-ss, and high maintenance. r
i Councilor Rohlf commented that taking the pond away would not be a popular solution with
1 the neighborhood.
Councilor Scheckla pointed out that the third proposal (to remove the ducks) would not be
popular either.
r_
John Jackson, USA, explained that the domestic water fowl and the people feeding them k
were causing the water quality problems at the lake. It was not a unique situation; the same
problem existed at Commonwealth Lake in Beaverton. Migratory water fowl came in the
winter and left in the spring but the domesticated birds stayed year around because people 1
were feeding them.
1vir. Jackson said that in 1991 he recommended to the neighborhood to get rid of the ducks {
as a means of improving the water quality of the lake.
Councilor Scheckla commented that people fed the ducks near City Hall also. He asked
where they would draw the line if they eliminated ducks at Summerlake. Mr. Jackson said
that they drew the line where there were water quality problems. E
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 - Page 17
1
Councilor Hunt asked what other methods could be used to get rid of the ducks, besides not
feeding them. Mr. Jackson said that they could trap and transport them to a rural area.
Councilor Scheckla commented that he thought that was a situation hard to enforce since
ducks could find their wav back from 30 miles away.
Mayor Nicoli asked if the ducks would leave eventually if people stopped feeding them.
Mr. Jackson said yes but pointed out that they would leave even faster if staff moved the
existing ducks elsewhere.
Councilor Rohlf asked how they would enforce no feeding of the ducks. Mayor Nicoli cited
the example of the pond here at City Hall. He said that posting the area with "Do not feed
the animals" signs significantly reduced the numbers of people coming down to feed the
1 ducks. It didn't eliminate it but once people understood that it was detrimental to both the
ducks and the habitat, they usually cooperated.
i
Mark Jockers, USA, spoke to educating the public to reduce the amount of duck feeding.
That would reduce the number of ducks.
f
Mr. Jackson pointed out that the water could also become a health hazard if a high enough
concentration were reached. The most prevalent bacteria was salmonella.
( Councilor Rolilf asked about the effectiveness of planting trees and vegetation around the
edges of the lake. Mr. Jackson said that certain types of vegetation discouraged duck access
to the water from the shore; ducks tended to move on. Large trees created a temperature
issue.
Mr. Jackson said that aeration was treating a symptom, not the root problem. It could
maintain the oxygen level in the water to avoid the "water" smell of an oxygen deprived t
lake. The pumps would have to run as long as there was a pollution problem, although
probably only during the warm summer months.
Mavor Nicoli noted the development cycle the City was in right now. He said that he knew f
of no way to control the upstream problem of keeping silt, etc. out of the streams. He said ; -
i that aerating the water might be one of the few things they could do because they could use
parks funds instead of the general fund to pay for the equipment, operation, and
maintenance.
i j
l
Mavor Nicoli asked if the studv USA was conducting at Summerlake would include cost
estimates for the various options and alternatives. Mr. Jackson said yes, they were in the
process of developing that information now.
Mayor Nicoli mentioned that Summerlake Park was one of two key parks in the City; it was
important to the community. He said that he thought that the Council would be willing to
spend City funds on helping with a temporary fix.
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 - Page 18
• t
I Councilor Rohlf commented that planting vegetation around the lake edge would improve
the appearance of the park as a whole. Therefore the City stood to gain from that approach
even if it didn't solve the duck problem. In the meantime, the City needed to consider
aeration or other methods to reduce the water quality problems.
Councilor Scheckla asked how the Summerlake situation differed from other lakes in the
area that had domestic wildlife at the ponds, such as Murray Hill. Mr. Jackson explained
that the vlurray Hill lake was a larger lake and could stand a larger pollutant load without
fouling the water. C
Mr. Jackson said that any pond in the Tualatin River basin created problems. First, it was a
sink in the summer for anything that floated in from above. Then when the rains started and
flushed out the lake, the pollutants traveled downstream.
Councilor Scheckla commented that Portland had bigger problems than Tigard since their
sewage went right into the Willamette River. Mr. Jackson agreed that Portland had bigger
problems but emphasized that Portland's problem was a human waste problem. The
Tualatin River basin did not have any combined sewers. The bacteria pollution in Portland
was worse but it came from a different source.
Mr. Jockers said that the funding of the projects would be worked out between the City and
USA. He commented that both collected storm water SDCs. He concurred with the
statement on using City funds for a city lake.
Mayor Nicoli reiterated that they had park SDCs that they could use for aeration. He
mentioned a concern of Mr. Van Kamp regarding the proliferation of weeds across the pond.
He asked how serious this was.
Mr. Jackson reviewed the stages of evolution in the life of a pond: clean deep water to
swamps to a dry plain. He said that the weeds indicated that the pond was approaching the
"swamp" stage, and the presence of nutrients. He said that this was a matter of aesthetics
and use of the lake by humans.
I
! Councilor Rohlf asked how much of the nutrient build up in the water resulted from the
runoff carrying lawn fertilizer to the pond. Mr. Jackson said that Fanno Creek didn't have
the same problems as other urban streams. But some urban streams carried double the
amount of phosphorous they should. All urban streams in the northwest carried lead, zinc,
and copper.
Mr. Jackson said that they addressed this problem through public education programs. They
recommended moderate amounts of fertilizer and judicious use of herbicides and moss
controllers. Councilor Rohlf suggested a series in Cityscape educating the public about
fertilizing.
Mayor Nicoli raised the issue of public input. Mr. Jockers explained that this process was
j driven partly by the resource people and partly by neighborhood concerns. He said that
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 - Page 19
I
Am-
- ` Tigard was well represented on the project committee with Tigard citizens tilling two of the
three citizen spots. He mentioned the open houses scheduled for property owners in the area
with land adjacent to streams, they sent out 3500 notices.
I Mr. Jockers commented that the project committee was trying to balance values and
technical solutions. He noted the value expressed tonight: the lake was an important part of
the community. He said that after 10 months of work, the committee took these options out i
to the neighbors. In the next 4 to 6 weeks they would make selections for the draft
recommended plan.
Mr. lockers said that he was willing to coordinate with Tigard staff to hold a meeting for the
Summerlake neighbors to discuss the options. He explained that while the draft
recommended in December was not set in stone, USA did base their budget on it. The final
plan would come in March.
i Councilor Hunt asked if it was possible to flush the lake during the summer instead of
draining it. Mr. lockers said that was a possibility but they would have to look at the
watershed.
Mr. Jackson mentioned a possibility of letting the lake go to pasture during the summer
months and letting the winter storm flows flush it out. Councilor Rohlf said that he saw no
support for that option, it would leave the neighborhood with a muddy public nuisance.
Ivfr. Wegner commented that there was a philosophical difference between USA and the
neighborhoods: USA looked to managing a natural resource in the watershed while the
neighborhoods looked to managing a city park. He said that the best approach was to sit the
two groups down together to reach a compromise solution.
Mayor Nicoli thanked the USA staff for their help in this situation. He noted that the City
did not have the trained staff to deal with it and expressed the City's appreciation for USA's
technical expertise. He mentioned the excellent working relationship between the City and
USA.
Mr. Jackson commented that they hoped to extend that good working relationship to
working with the neighbors to find the best combination that would fit everyone's needs.
12. CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDIING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 12.10.070 -
CREDIT FOR WATER LEAKS ~
Wavne Lowrv, Finance Director, presented the staff report. He explained that the rates {
for water collection adopted by Council a year and a half ago were not working very well for
water leaks. He noted the staff discussion of the process in September. He recommended a
' policy in which the person with the leak only paid for the wholesale cost of the water that
was lost (Exhibit A).
i
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 - Page 20
_J
f In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Lowry explained the process in
which the customer had 10 davs from the date of notification of a leak in which to fix the
leak. He said that the customer did have a responsibility for the leak since it occurred on
hisrher side of the meter. He said that if the customer did not repair the leak within the 10
days, and still warted credit for the leak, heishe needed to go to the Intergovernmental
Water Board.
t
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance No.
96-39.
The City Recorder read the number and title of Ordinance No. 96-39.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-39, AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 12.10.070 AMENDING THE POLICY FOR R
CREDITS FOR WATER LEAKS.
Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, I
Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
13. CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 96-09 - SECTION 70.020
OF THE PURCHASING RULES OF THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Lowry presented the staff report. He explained that this was an attempt to streamline
the process for contracts for personal services under $10,000 (consultant type contracts).
In response to concerns from Councilor Scheckla on the lack of the competitive bid process,
Mr. Lowry reviewed the formal competitive bid procedure for contracts over $25,000, and
the informal bid process for contracts under 525,000. He said that the intent of this
amendment was to make the process for contracts under S 10,000 even easier.
Mr. Lowry said that while this was not the competitive bid process in which the City sought
the lowest price, neither did staff simply hire whomever they wanted to. Staff established a
list of qualified service providers who could do the work, and chose from them. He said
that the intent was to avoid requiring the consultants to put together a huge proposal.
Councilor Scheckla asked who awarded the contract. Mr. Lowry explained that Mr. h
Monahan currently approved all contracts under 525,000. He said that this amendment did
I not change the authority process, just the selection process.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance No.
9640.
The City Recorder read the number and title of Ordinance No. 9640.
j f -
l
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 -Page 21
77
ORDINANCE NO. 9640, AN ORDINANCE ANIENDING ORDINANCE 96-09, EXHIBIT
A. SECTION 70.020, SCREENING AND SELECTION POLICY FOR PERSONAL
SERVICES CONTRACTS.
Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
i
14. NON AGENDA ITEMS
15. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:30
p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real
property transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
16. ADJOUILNMENT: 11:45 p.m.
4
Attes
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder l
ayor, City of)Tigard
Date:
a:\ce 1112(m icrosoftworks)
:i
1 1
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 - Page 22
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 8 67 0
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising j 41
• City of Tigard •
_ ❑ Tearsheet Notice :.!,y Of tIGAKI:
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
• Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
• Accounts Payable •
- AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, ) i.
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss.
l Kathy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising w~
Director, or his principal clerk, of thdP; gard-m„a 1 a+; n m; mes
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Ti garcl in the
" aforesaid county and state; that the
r~ y ro ncil Businc~c Afaating - -
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:
j November7,1996
i ;
Subscribed and savor before me this7th da of November, OFFICIAL SEAL
ROBIN A. BURGESS
NOTAR ' LIC -OREGON
No Public for Oregon COMM '.024552
PAY '
S101' c. , .ES MAY 16.19E
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
`j
i
f
I!
i
The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full
agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171.
CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
November 12, 1996
TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL
13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON
Study Meeting (Red Rock Creek Room) (6:30 P.M.)
• Update: Mediation Program
• Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive e.
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 ) (d), (e), & (h) to
discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and
pend- ing litigation issues.
• Agenda Review
Business Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P.M.)
• Consider Amending Work Program: Goal 5, Wetlands by Replacing I
the Economic, Social, Environmental (ESEE) Approach with the l
"Safe Harbor"Approach
• Status Reports
Visioning Project f
-
Events at Armory
Senate Bill 122 t
Boundary Commission
Fanno Creek Watershed & Summerlake Water
Quality Improvement Options
• Consider Final Order: Comprehensive Plan Amendment - CPA -
96-0006/Zone Change (ZON) 96-0001- Dr. Gene Davis/Foreign
i Mission
F
• Consider Ordinances:
Amending Purchasing Rules of the Local Contract Review
Board
Amending Tigard Municipal Code, Section 12.10.070 - Credit
for Water Leaks
Adopting Portions of the Emergency Operations Plan
T178670- Publish November 7, 1996.
i
i
i
i L
i y
i
l~
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON C
' AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed `
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard ) f
14 begin fast duly sworn, on oath, i u.
depose and
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance
Number (s) V
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated q (1P copy(s)
of said ordinance(s) being h reto attached and by reference ma e a part hereof, on the _
a day of '~I btu M1~4D-V- , 19Q (o
1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
3. Tigard Water Department 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon
ell
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~10, day of
i
I n ~ f
/VA ~ l 1 L
OFFICIAL SEAL
CONNIE MARTIN Notary Public for Oregon
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON _
COMMISSIONNO 055532
I MV CO!d1AISSION EXPIRES JULY 07. 2000 My Commission Expires: 9000
f
L•12dmljoXa[Ipmt.doc ~ .
now
S
I
CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 96--L5
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 83-47,
ADOPTING A NEW EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard's Emergency Management Plan was originally adopted in October of 1983
and has been outdated for many years; and
~ C
j WHEREAS, the City wishes to formalize its policies and operational plans for emergency response by City
i
i staff and volunteers as well as defining roles and responsibilities for such responses.
i NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: x
s
SECTION 1: Ordinance No. 83-47, which adopted Tigard's original Emergency Response Plan, is i
hereby repealed in it entirety
SECTION 2: Pursuant to ORS 401.305, an Emergency Management Agency for the City of Tigard is
hereby established. Subject to the appointment by the City Administrator, the Public
Works Director shall serve as the Emergency Program Manager, at the will of the City
Administrator, who shall have responsibility for the organization. administration and
operation of the Emergency Management Agency during an emergency in accordance
with the provisions of the Emergency Management Plan.
SECTION 3: The City Council shall adopt Sections 1 and 2 of the Emergency Management Plan,
attached as Exhibit "A" hereto. These sections will serve as the policy direction for
emergency operations. Section 3 and beyond of the Plan address operational direction,
hazard specific plans, resources lists and call lists. The Emergency Program Manager is
authorized and directed to work through the Emergency Committee to make any
necessary changes, additions or deletions to the Emergency Management Plan. The
Emergency Prottram Manager shall file copies of the necessary modifications to the
1 Planwith the City Council. _
SECTION 4: The Emergency Program Manager is authorized to negotiate any necessary and
appropriate agreements between the City and other public agencies and private parties i =
in the furtherance of the policies set forth in the Emergency Management Plan.
! SECTION 5: In the event of an emergency, a declaration of emergency shall be declared in
{I accordance with the procedures and chain of command set forth in the Plan. Whenever
a state of emergency has been declared to e:tist within the City, the plan outlines
measures to be taken in the interest of public health, safety and welfare.
ORDINANCE No. 96-3C'
' Page 1
i
i
SECTION 6: An emergency could arise at any time and an organization and action plans for
providing emergency operations is necessary for the peace, health, safety and welfare of i
the people of the City of Tigard, and therefore an emergency is hereby declared to exist I
and this ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption by the Council and
signature of the Mayor.
E
PASSED: By Ll AIM vote of all Council members present after being read by number and
title only, this l21h day of November, 1996.
I ~
- { f f
~atherine Wheatley, City Recorder I
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this 12th day of v 1996.
I s Nicoli, Mayor
Appr ved as to form:
Ci . Attorney
Date
- - Ueitywiddemerpln/ceord 11.12
ORDINANCE No. 96-3
Page 2
t4
%
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 96---2A
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
12.10.070 AMENDING THE POLICY FOR CREDITS FOR WATER LEAKS
WHEREAS, The credit for water leak section of the Tigard Municipal Code has been discussed by the
Intergovemmental Water Board at their September 11, 1996 meeting, and
of
WHEREAS, The M approved a motion to amend the credit for water leak policy to enhance the ability
staff to provide good customer service.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Section 12.10.070 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be amended as set forth in the k
attached exhibit "A".
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the
Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By Q/17rntW vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title
J1~- , 1996.
only, this id+!` day of
'ftherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this /C `day of 1
s Nicoll, Mayor
proved as to form
Attorney
1t~i2~~L
Date
kakoTdAoc
ORDINANCE No. 96 t
Page 1
Y E,
17.
i
EXHIBIT "A"
Ind
12.10.070 Credit for Water Leaks.
When a water leak occurs on the customer's side of the water meter resulting in
an unusually high water bill, customers may apply for a credit. The credit is
limited to the difference between the average wholesale cost of water multiplied
by the number of water units estimated to have leaked, and the total amount of
the water bill less normal usage. The average wholesale cost of water is the per
unit average cost of water as established by the Intergovernmental Water Board
at the beginning of each fiscal year. I
The application to the City for the credit must be in writing and must include
proof of the leak being fixed within 10 days of discovery of the leak. i
F
Any applications for credits greater than this code section allows will be
considered by the Intergovernmental Water Board. (Ord. 96-02;Ord. 93-34)
t
i
l
!
Ordinance 96-
Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 1
• i
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 96-4I-)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 96-09 EXHIBIT "A" SECTION 70.020,
SCREENING AND SELECTION POLICY FOR PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS.
j '
j WHEREAS, The City Council approved ordinance 96-09 on February 27, 1996 E
established purchasing rules of the Local Contract Review Board,
and,
f
WHEREAS, Section 70.020 of such rules sets forth screening and
selection policy for Personal Services Contracts, and,
WHEREAS, The City Council finds it desirable to add a Direct
Appointment Process for contracts under $10,000.
i THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: i
SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review
Board, does hereby amend Ordinance 96-09 as shown in the
I attached Exhibit "A".
_ I
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by
the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City
Recorder.
PASSED: By uY1CtYYlYYI vote of all Council members
after being read by number and title only, this aL- present
of A42Vo.nh~L , 1996. day
n
Catherine Wheatley, City Re rder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this 10( da of
1996. y
s Nicoli, Mayor
Approved as to,form:
ty Attorneys
Date'
ORDINANCE No. 96- `tD
Page 1
EXHIBIT A
70.020 Screening and Selection Policy for Personal Services Contracts
It is the City's policy to select as expeditiously as possible the best
qualified consultant available. The City has, therefore, established the i
following selection procedures:
1. Formal Selection Procedure
~ I
This procedure will be used whenever professional services
{ of the type governed by this rule are required and the
I estimated fee to the consultant exceeds $25,000. Exceptions
to this procedure is specified under subsection (2) ,(3) and (4) k
of this section. The City may on smaller projects elect to use
the Formal Selection Procedures whenever it determines that
it would be prudent and advantageous to do so.
! a. Announcement
The City will make at least one public announcement of
its need for personal services in an appropriate trade
periodical or newspaper of general circulation. The
announcement shall include a description of the
proposed project, the scope of the services required,
project completion dates, and a description of any
special requirements, if present. The announcement
shall invite qualified prospective contractors to indicate
to the requesting department their interest in performing
the services required. The announcement will specify a
closing date by which the statement must be received
by the appropriate department.
i
b. Application '
Prospective contractors must submit a statement which
describes their capabilities, credentials, and
performance data sufficient to establish their
qualification for the project.
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 96- 44D
Page 1 of 5 I
-95-
i
C. Initial Screening
The Department Head or designee shall evaluate the
qualifications of all applicants responding to the
announcement by the closing date, and select from
among the respondents a minimum of three i
prospective contractors whose statements evidence the
highest level of qualification. Should fewer than three
statements be received, then each prospective
contractor submitting a statement which meets the
' department's minimum qualifications will be
i interviewed.
d. Final Selection Procedure
i (a) Interviews
j
(i) The Department Head or designee will
hold discussions with the three finalists
selected for initial screening. Applicant
capability, experience, and compensation
requirements shall determine the
department's final selection.
(ii) Award of Contracts
The Department Head or designee shall
make the final selection and make a
recommendation to the Board for award
of the contract to the selected consultant.
2. Informal Selection Procedure
a. This procedure may be used when the estimated fee to
the consultant does not exceed $25,000.
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 96-U t
Page 2 of 5
-96-
1
b. Selection
The department will contact a minimum of three
prospective contractors with which it has had previous
successful experience or which are known by the
department to be qualified to offer the sought-after
i services. A projected fee will be requested and a
selection made by the Department Head or designee
based upon the consultant's capability, experience, j
project approach, and compensation requirements.
3. Direct Appointment Procedure
a. A qualified consultant may be appointed directly from
the City's current list of consultants, another public
contracting agency's current list of consultants pursuant
to an interagency or intergovernmental agreement
entered into in accordance with ORS Chapter 190; or
from consultants offering the necessary services that
the City reasonably can locate. Direct appointment
procedure may be used when:
(1) The consultant's estimated fee does not exceed
$10,000; or j,
(2) When the project consists of work which has
been substantially described, planned, or
otherwise previously studied or rendered in an
earlier departmental contract, provided that the f,.
original selection procedure used for the project
was a formal procedure and the consultant's
estimated fee does not exceed $25,000.
b. A direct appointment pursuant to subsection 3(a) of this
rule, shall be competitive to the extent practicable and
may be based on the consultant's availability,
capabilities, staffing, experience, compensation
requirements and the project's location.
EXHIBIT A E
ORDINANCE NO. 96-_!jL0
Page 3 of 5 {
E -
-97-
1
4. Emergency Appointment Procedure
Nothing in this rule shall be inferred to prohibit or otherwise
impede the Department Head's or designee's right to make
direct consultant appointments when conditions require a
prompt action to protect life or property. In such instance, the
recommended appointment and a written description of the
conditions requiring the use of this appointment procedure
shall be submitted by the Department Head or designee to
the City Administrator or designee for action. The City
Administrator or designee will determine if an emergency t
exists, declare the emergency and, when appropriate,
approve the appointment.
I 5. Responsible Parties' Actions
1
a. Professional Consultants
(1) Submit qualifications, credentials, and
performance data relating to their capabilities to
the appropriate division in response to project
announcement.
b. Division/Department
(1) Determine that the work on a project requires the
services of a consultant.
(2) Announce project as required by this section.
(3) Request the City Administrator's approval of the
required actions.
(4) Determine appropriate selection/appointment
procedure.
I~ (5) Select consultant/candidates as specified under
this rule.
j
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 96-4D
Page 4 of 5
-98-
i
f.
i
(6) Interview the top candidates and make the final
selection.
(7) Execute contracts and awards to consultants,
with the City Administrator's prior approval.
(8) Maintain a file on the selection process.
4
(i) The method and copy of announcement. i
I
j
(ii) The names of firmsrndividuals and cost
estimates considered.
(iii) A justification of need for the contract. `
i (iv) The basis for selection
(v) Rationale by which rates were i
established.
(vi) How reasonableness of price was
determined.
(vii) A copy of the resulting contract.
C. City Administrator
(1) Approves each project's scope and budget as
necessary.
(2) Makes direct and emergency appointments are
required.
(3) Approves/disapproves Personal Services Contact
and all subsequent amendments unless the
amount of the contract requires the Board's
approval.
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 96-_
Page 5 of 5
I
-99-
i
j
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA - PAGE 2 DATE:
Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
"Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from
you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns
through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you.
I
STAFF
NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE T#111 ~1 CONTACTED
/0" ~C{E QD` ~~f irNr$ I~`~ ~~7PYtl0Ck~lr1
m
r
iAadmyo\visitsht.doc
now
OUT
- _ ~ ~ CAN WORK [T
'W16 CPL
- {EP RE 0IUro0 d'ucRfy.
S TO
10 EAS S
with tfie Pc F1cet
r-"` lion
~.(y, Conecrsa ststeptores°Iution.
1. T1(yi DIRE is theRr lain)'°urconhe Uihe of
a sif a>> e, sue of con the phone to <xP hat the of
imohcd [n th ak owr assume tans tfUta.!
What r1?en Reached 4scetotactorsctfulmanne~. n°nthemtounder h
s. and rtspe Help dasolutionY°4b0
of positi a re of Y°ur concern °u Cm
A$reela n is Ndiation? problem exists andinri ethemtohdpY a
14e h. om<m to
Through canlic<w' find a <onaeni<nt m th°tough
OD • fIF1E. h time tot a both lx g{~
w[A Otn' and aulict plaoc<A:here tan other
ties in Z' CIlDO wh e nthe
{ will assist Pa bring np to talk in a 4 a time
e red. Consider sh somMne as the)
center
ion. 'fry unimcrroP Dont ambu
Th Llons• discuss r®r~p
i e\plering other op legal OT <omfortsble and t se<ePtita. nc as
person will be ftom avrk. nod'
muosaYi O~
liences, arri:c home
eonseq Icat'eot Thnkab°"ttshatY°Ow cstionstousc
ThCTe are no arty' 3 p( lV AHEAD. r1t your concerns and aroblem as You see
2 for either p nu° ccsPeaice-th<F
otherwise, YoumoY mexP{am Y° P <
%
,guide.Try other
14071410"? how it atSccts Y°'a SE. Actwmli, th on and f
o hcu i
WhyTrY a. DOoTRt*slE~RdACerfSrCUh'mhat o
uhact1baeS
make on' (Serent
acdsnd UIZ
person ancetns. Fa
O Confidentiality emain open zo he
ma"'Wily°urc ,p9 You. R hss, it ,(Sects or imP stn z
our own. interp ret the other 1Xr
persP<ctite than" \ Don't
'
D{fiCICIICY ° GIVE ItiFO&~/ATIO•• nst to make me hen
k'ng my dAS'ea•'aY °Ur oz¢nfecGnRs-k
ior: "You are bla' th,(ns° b<causel antgotto wcr ] I
einSormstionwi tangly e$igne
O sati"faCLLOn they bahas' ig°
before (nst<ad,8i` m¢drizcaaY• AYOgraftt tt t0 to
tries
(gpUCeS your arblaks to explain his er her
owes d that requires iduals and bu$
4lediatioll res nn time." other p<nunachance crown (edings
kel of seriousness or the courts. . G(,.<the ,nashare m' lUidt~ ores t tY01l~t the
rCRCII a le C, LISTEN . their "In concerns, cti:e. e .
JisP .
ohce, attorney view, de"'I under their Penile h you ma) resol
it1ea volume Y
l1sC of P Parties to create their y(vG, Ahhoug1 tbAY°n resolve
the p ymhzmnanl YOU kRE1d TE.' ' ng tellth<n of tra lia $
' •ni''sT other pyou ate erson is aad to be discussing the
11 al10vV5 P 7. SHO th wbstth< t ou agree witfi vices tng(
and that can tfist 5 mus, tpY
;v'1Cdtatt0 prOblems• not a8ree wt ems d
hex their 't"stening does not m ,solution y°u
O~Vn so itilOnS to er. U In order to fm
, W tih prnblem t°get (rt of `'its
des UtCS quick" and the speaker s F° the 'o I'm oll the
referrals
re501VC5 p creative an understand oustart,getgvtnseemss`es
anon an d f`vt aTd
Ivied. 311011 morC tint fully utt' IROUGIi. OnccY the psrtthat s in g
I for able p,,;tignore one's port Corm
ALL'n
otentia Often avail g, 1'A illbedurableifeeery Contact the City o
the p restllt5 than ate and feelings out in the°P°StesoWtionzs' g171
'ditflcult'or"minor"Y an ou hac usudallthe at 63
5at(Sfyin$ addressed, edisc
C11CCOUrtS. srvesareconsideredd ou can
.`hT011i in
sand improves 9 kwORKOV AsoL ION. undersan,slandin8 of the issues you
rou
m op{e cooPerat'n8 to
eacom soot more Pe one pcnnn Services prowiRed th Cent
TVC l dshu on
C t
nLi011 prese fofessiona concerns an on,solmioaT` fteaieetfipIIandict(ude $OlU
much more e
lytCdl l and P (gin to foc"s a Ee specific' fdnight Beaverton Dispute lOn
t<,tivo soluti°nac ,cfiang• ptC
ing t make mus, ottat (nce on 0U o,- 4
le person' find
m 5
aluab 755
+175
y demandint the other ,I ssill turn Y the
tlOnSh,tps• -Imes for all asks. 'ceen(n8s' "i will b tsdaY motninpo Qp Bo,- 4755 4755
rela and Saturday our toots onTh OR 97076
, FnP,E/ on rriday t:(1(b[ingY
Rs~ t 11 ,.al Beaverionr 526-2523
lS \wedne ya
sda « pails. hen and hots' YC11, s ( l
503 -
~lCdlati011 Mediators? wean make the Ame onw Commumcxg
1w 1tfROCGit. g our Pt08ress. of fiavi
the fOLLO othn to mOmmr y solutions are n ether
Who are ho are cwl, in with each chan&0.- if your wotkin9
embers t°g
immediatcty ab,,,ut any n awlate Youtselccs ior
d r<sults.
d community m the city Of the des([< hf
Dedicate he ore oWe the Proem(
d
traine td belines set by t
professionall ndyer the S fission.
Beaverton u
Oregon Dtspute Resolution Comm
- l
14oWDOESMEp1AT10N v
p eration
HoLlCS of p An individual or business involved i a
Resoluti on
resented to an
tdote from the May°r The Dispute Resolution Center Friday 1 Adispute contacts the Dispute
en Monday Center, the problemisP d
arri recognizes that tnediation \ rty of Beaverton is op intake specialist +vho for++'arstheissue
The Ciry of Tig a FREEt r C8 to $ PM
henueen to a mediator.
services offer er benefits parties.
r referral, call the
our citizens os or more information o oil
aiterttative to handle d uptoes 71, xt. 314
tro rmn at 2• A mediator will contact y first, and
After careful consideratiare st chose to offer TO, of Tigard: 639-41 erson(s) involved in the
the concerns,
these services through the existing ( g Jvlonday: $ AM 4 PM then all p
the City of Beaverton. This rllotss Tigard
ANl $ P1vI (after dispute to understand c` lain the
eo mediation services TuesdayFriday: $
ci trained 314) identify issues involved and '•'P
tizets to takead,a}a Tigard has
11639 6556, hone process.
itnnrediately- ce set a its stun program. 5 PM ca (P
me:iiatars,'1'ignrdnra)' P Saturday: 12 PM - $ PM
639-6556, x314) 3• You may then choose to
seer T Pstto
resolution on your own ( ith
Resolution)-Manypeoplefindta lit
JamesNicoli,htayor a little
What Disputes are helpful information CnN res~±lve
the Dispute encouragement, they if ou V. ,
Problems themselves, or,
` What is Mediation? Handled by center')
Otiation Process where Resolution the mediator will contact the p erson(s)
~Icdiation is a neg work `with a involved to learn and their concerns,
d invite
andork hborhood disputes including: briefly explain your
v
people inolved i(a adis ute Nei? you in mediation
neutral person pets, Trespassing them to Work with y
❑ Noise, Fences,
together to soh'e the problem.
Maintenance 4• When all parties involved in the dispute riht a property reed to participate in mediation,
A mediator does no ementtor force sany Of have ag arties in resoling
or V;tong in a disag agreement. L, Vandalism a mediator assist p
the disputing parties to reach risibility of the _ their disputes.. The mediator will ~ not
is the responsib
and mutually agree Students and Teac ers decide tvho is rg
Acmediation,it ht or +vronS, arties to negotiate an
parties develop to their" enant disputes only belp the p to n dlordlT
agreement on their oN+'n•
upon a realistic solution money or Personal
disagreement. The Mediati one attofnthe n l,Clan aims involving
this process. Over 90 P Property not reached, the
5. If an agreement is loring
people who come to mediation hoblthe Center will assist parties in exp
blems, le ,,:ho u ConsumerlMerchant dispute resolutio
ro Fe°P
of the courts. n.
solve their own P disputes other options of intervention
,each agreement at mediation are twice as p Contract disputes r.
those agreements than those
likely to fieep
who go to court. 13 14arassment
reached at the
a on all legal options ate 5t
I f no g all legal options are st
mediation session, disputing parties.
available to the
,
~12~q(o
11 ESEN ,4TIONTO TlgAR(l) CITT COyNCIL
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
WENDI CONOVER HAWLEY, VOLUNTEER
& KELLY BALL, VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR
BE"ERTON DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER ti
ADDRESSES AND THANK YOU TO COUNCIL -
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAM
DEFINE MEDIATION - A TRANSFORMATIONAL PROCESS
BRIEF DISCRIPTION OF BEAVERTON'S PROGRAM
I
EXAMPLES OF CASES
VALUE FOUND IN THE PROGRAM
PARTIES
PERSONAL
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
R~ f
H.G. IVii aison Armory Information
Fact Sheet
Revised H.G. Maison Armory Operating and Rental Procedures
✓ All leases will require a refundable security deposit.
✓ No amplified music or sound is permitted without a verified noise permit from the
City of Tigard. k
✓ Alcoholic beverages will not be served without a verified license from the Oregon
1 Liquor Control Commission. i
✓ With the issuance of a verified noise permit by the City of Tigard, the amplified C
music or sound will terminate at 10:00 PM.
✓ With the issuance of a verified OLCC permit, security will be coordinated by the
Armory Manager and charged back to the renters.
✓ All activities and events will terminate at 12:00 PM.
j ✓ The Armory will purchase a decibel meter to assist in monitoring the noise level -
of rental events.
✓ When alcoholic beverages are provided by the leasee the City of Tigard Police
Department will be notified in advance of the scheduled event.
✓ During evening and weekend events the Armory Lease Agent will be located in
the office directly to the left of the main entrance as you enter the Armory. The
phone number is: (503) 557-6062
_ j
Point of Contact: Phone:
LTC Robert S. Tomasovic (503) 557-6002
Brigade Executive Officer
MAJ Gerry L. Kitzhaber (503) 557-6031
{ Headquarters Commander
Mr. John Kilby (503) 557-6025
Armory Operations Manager
Lease Agent During Special Events (503) 557-6062
' I
1
Council Agenda Item 3. bi rt
1 For Agenda of 1 f r lei ill
MEMORANDUM
j CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bill Monahan, City Administrator
DATE: November 5, 1996
SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, November 1996 through January 1997
Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can
proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars.
November
9 Sat Tour of Downtown
11 Mon Veteran's Day Holiday (City Offices Closed)
*12 Toes Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.)
j Study Session
Business Meeting
I 15-17 Fri-Sun League of Oregon Cities Conference - Jantzen Beach, Portland
*19 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.)
*26 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) -
Study Session
Business Meeting
j 28-29 Thurs-Fri Thanksgiving Holidays (City Offices Closed)
December
3 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session
Business Meeting
7-10 Sat-Tues NLC Conference (December 10 Council Meeting Cancelled)
*17 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.)
i *24 Tues Council Meeting Cancelled (Christmas Eve)
25 Weds Christmas Holiday - (City Offices Closed)
January
7 Tues Special Council Business Meeting (if necessary)
*14 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.)
> State of the City
> Executive Summary
> Elect Council President - 2 year term
> Reception f
*21 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) f
*28 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) f
Study Session
Business Meeting j
i:\ad m\ca lhy\co u n ci1\cccal.doc
I
mummim-
1
Agenda Item No. IJ
Meeting of I ! ! it
Updated 11/05/96 by t
C. Wheatley
TENTATIVE COUNCIL AGENDAS
Date: November 19, 1996
Type: Workshop (No TV
Start Time: 6:30 p.m.
i
j Workshop Meeting Topics:
1 > CIT Communications (Liz)
> Update: Metro 2040 (Jim)
1 > Consider Long-Range Plan for Development and Maintenance
of City Streets (Ed, Engineering)
> Report: Update Engineering Fees: Schedule Date for Council
Ratification (Engineering)
> Joint Meeting with the Library Board
including discussion of WCCLS Capital Levy
> City's WEB Page: Discussion of Council Page Information
i
SF ;
1
1
40.
Date: November 26, 1996
Type: Business (TV) i
Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting
7:30 p.m. Business Meeting
s
Study Session:
> Agenda Review
> Rgport molovee Wellness Program (Sandy)
t
i Consent Agenda: r
> Approve Council Minutes
> Approve IGA - Washington County Year 7 Waste Reduction
Plan (Loreen)
> Approve IGA - Consortium Long-Range Regional Water
Supply Plan
Business Meeting:
> Update: Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (Citizens
Committee, Police Department, Engineering Department,
Community Development Department)
> Update: Balloon Festival (Stan Baumhofer)
> Solid Waste Task Force Presentation (Loreen)
i
I
i
1
- 1
Date: December 3, 1996 (December 10 Meeting Cancelled - NLC
Conference)
Type: Business (No TV)
Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting
7:30 p.m. Business Meeting
1
Study Session:
> Agenda Review
i Consent Agenda:
> Approve Council Minutes
Business Meeting:
> Visioning Project Review
> Workshop - Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment - CPA _
96-0008/ZON 96-0008/ZCA 96-0005 (Nadine)
> Public Hearing - Walnut Island Annexation
1 -
17,
i
i
.
Date: December 17, 1996
1
Type: Workshop (No TV)
Start Time: 6:30 p.m. i
F _
Workshop Meeting Topics:
> CIT Communications (Liz)
> Update: Metro 2040 (Jim)
> Status: Council Goals (Bill)
> Report Feasibility of Contracting for Water Meter Reading
(Ed)
> Public Hearing - Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment -
CPA 96-0008/ZON 96-0008/ZCA 96-0005 (Nadine)
1
i
Y
j _
f,
o
G
Date: December 24, 1996
Type: Business (TV)
ljo,
CANCEL MEETING: CHRISTMAS EVE....
f
V
• I Y„
E'
1
-t
Date: January 7, 1997 - t
{ Type: Business (Special Meeting Date Reserved - No TV)
Start Time: 6:30 p.m.
l
Workshop Meeting Topics: E. \
- 1
f
t i
_ i
~.4
! i
r
i
J4 t-,
~J
1
zAlb-
I P
Date: January 14, 1997
Type: Business (TV)
Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting
7:30 p.m. Business Meeting
r.
Study Session:
> Agenda Review k
i
Business Meeting:
> Oaths of Office 3
i > State of the City I
i > Executive Summary
f
> Elect Council President - 2 year term
> Reception
i
}
_ r r
l
I
Alft-
Date: January 21, 1997
Type: Workshop (No TV)
Start Time: 6:30 p.m.
i
Workshop Meeting Topics:
> CIT Communications (Liz)
> Update: Metro 2040 (Jim) i
> Community Development Standards
i
p
~ t
i
F -
t
11
- - -
j Date: January 28, 1997
I I Type: Business
(TV)
"I
Start Time: 6:30 p.m.
C.
Workshop Meeting Topics:
i -
y
i
=t
Lam:
X 4':
ITEMS PENDING - DATES TO BE SCHEDULED
• Public Hearing:: Complete 99W Analysis, Adopt Findings and Design
Standards (Jim)
• Finalize Long Range Plan - Cook Park (Bill, Jim)
• Transportation Comprehensive Plan Changes (Jim) 4
• Surface Water Quality Treatment Facilities - Staff Report on Information
Requested by Council on September 1995 (Engineering Dept.)
• TPOA Contract Negotiations - approval of new contract (Sandy) If
• Dartmouth LID Financing Hearing (Gary, Wayne)
• Items to be scheduled after City Vision Statement process is completed by
Council:
> > • Half Street Improvement Policy (Engineering)
(
j January 1997:
• Integrate Council into Computer System (Paul DeBruyn) I
• Develop Long-Term Water Resources (Ed, Bill)
• Review City's Street-Light Policy (Engineering)
• Schedule Council Goal Setting Session
1 June 1997:
• Rewrite Tigard Development Code - Buffering (Jim) _
• Engineering Fees (Engineering Dept.)
• Finalize Visioning Process - Implement (Liz, Loreen) i
• Evaluate Use of Traffic Calming Devices - S.W. North Dakota (Engineering)
• Finalize Sewer Extension Program (Engineering)
Ongoing (as needed)
• Consider Issues of Affordable Housing
• Support Passenger Rail Service Planning through Tigard
• Define/Develop_Z rd's Approach to Working Deali g with Metro
• Secure Long-Term Water Supply
Note:
CIT facilitators and resource teams meet with Council for 1 hour at the work session
meetings in January, May and September.
All Workshop Meetings - schedule a time for CIT updates and Metro 2040 Updates.
First Meeting of Each Month: Visioning Project Review -
is\adm\cathy\council\tcntagen.doc f
i,
t
F
l•
f
AGENDA ITEM # J I
~ I
FOR AGENDA OF November 12, 1996
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY € .
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE SW 66th Avenue: Surplus Right-of-Way
PREPARED BY: Brian Raeer DEPT HEAD OK ~h CITY ADMINOK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Declaring a portion of SW 66th Avenue right-of-way as surplus. ;
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1 Staff recommends the Council adopt the attached resolution which will declare the subject portion of right-of-
way as surplus.
1
INFORMATION SUMMARY
ending Investment Company has applied for and received site development review (SDR 96-0019) approval to
onstruct a four-building office complex on a portion of property previously owned by Farmers Insurance, Inc.
Gerding has inquired of the City and ODOT about obtaining a portion of right-of-way for SW 66th Avenue that
is currently unused.
In 1981, ODOT entered into an agreement with the City of Tigard (see attached) whereby ODOT relinquished
!I its interest in right-of-way for SW 66th Avenue, which was previously used by ODOT as a frontage road to
Interstate 5. The 1981 agreement provides that in the event the City no longer wishes to utilize all or a portion
of the right-of-way, the City shall convey said portion back to ODOT. The portion of right-of-way in question
is just south of the intersection of SW 68th Parkway and 66th Avenue. The roadway south of this intersection
presently serves as a private driveway into the Farmers Insurance property and does not serve a public interest.
The City's Transportation Plan also it _iicates no future need for this right-of-way. ;
By adopting the attached resolution, which was prepared by the City Attorney, the right-of-way will revert back
to ODOT, who will then offer the property to Gerding for purchase.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
FISCAL, NOTES
~~q~ ide sum dot
i
i
t •
i
P. 2/5
CK:pf y
6/5/80 k
I AGREEMENT If
i
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF
OREGON, by and through its Department of Transportation, Highway Division,
hereinafter called "State"; and the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation,
by and through its City Officials, hereinafter called "City".
1 WITNESSETH
RECITALS
1. The S.W. 66th Avenue Frontage Road, westerly of and parellel to
the Pacific Highway, State Primary Highway No. 1 within the corporate limits
of the City of Tigard, is under the jurisdiction and control of the Depart-
ment of Transportation, Highway Division, as shown outlined in red and
referred to as Unit A on the-map attached hereto and by this reference made
a part hereof.
2. Pursuant to ORS 373.010, whenever the route of any state highway
passes through the corporate limits of any city, state may locate, relo-
cate, reroute, abandon, alter, or change such routing when in its opinion
the interest of the motoring public will be better served,
3. Pursuant to ORS 271,330, the State or any political subdivision
within the State may relinquish title to any of its property not needed by
it for public use to any other governmental body or political subdivision
within the State, providing such property shall be used' and continue to be
used for public purposes.
4. It is the purpose and the plan of the parties hereto that said Unit
A as shown outlined in red on Exhibit A be eliminated as a part of the
Pacific Highways and the state highway system{ that Unit A pass to and vest
in City and be maintained by-the City as part of its city street system.
Unit A is described approximately as follows:
UNIT A
i
All the land within the right-of-way boundaries of
the-S.W. 66th Avenue Frontage Road lying westerly
of and parallel to the Pacific Highway, State
! Primary Highway No. 1, from approximately opposite
j Highway Engineer's Station 63+30 to Station 85+30
i of said Pacific Highway, lying in Section 1, Town-
ship 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian,
Washington County, Oregon.
! NOW, THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing
RECITALS, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:
iLi i a _1, o lu __6iii: r..E:! I . F. -1 P. 3/5
THINGS TO BE DONE BY STATE
1. State approves the RECITALS herein, Exhibit A, THINGS TO BE DONE
BY CITY, and all other provisions of this agreement.
2. State shall, by resolution, formally eliminate Unit A as part of
the Pacific Highway and state highway system, and all right, title and
interest which state has in-the right-of-way of said Unit A shall thereupon
pass to and vest in City.
3. State shall, under ORS 271,330, relinquish by separate document to
City any deeded property located within the boundaries of Unit A as heretofore
described.
4. State shall retain that portion of the right-of-way of the Pacific f
Highway and that real property acquired by State for highway right-of-way
and other public purposes, shown outlined in green on Exhibit A.
I
Ji THINGS TO BE DONE BY CITY I
f 1. City, by execution of this agreement, hereby approves the RECITALS,
THINGS TO BE DONE BY STATE, and all other provisions of this agreement.
2. City shall accept all of State's right, title and interest, and
assume all jurisdiction and control over Unit A as shown outlined in red
on the attached Exhibit A, and shall maintain the Unit at its sole expense
as part of its city street system.
i
i
3. City shall provide State an easement for access to adequately service
an existing lighting control cabinet and underground electrical conduit at
right angles to and opposite Highway Engineer's Station 85+10 of the Pacific
Highway, State Primary Highway No. 1, located in Unit A as shown colored in _
blue on Exhibit A.
. -2-
3
U
12 '96 10:,tFl1•I kEvICiI I P%Id P. 4/5
-
4.• City shall pass an ordinance or resolution, as the case may be,
authorizing the Mayor and Recorder to enter into the agreement on behalf
of City, and the same shall be made a part hereof and attached hereto,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed. I
their seals as of the day and year hereinafter written. '
The Oregon Transportation Commission, by a duly adopted delegation order,
authorized its Chairman or Vice Chairman to act in its behalf in approving. this agreement. Approval was given for this agreement on
by awRIMANTHONY MRR1 which appro a is on file in
the omm ss on records. The delegation order also authorizes the State High-
way Engineer to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
RECOMMENDED BY STATE OF OREGON, by and through a
its Department of Transportation,
Highway Division
Fegion Engineer
rsi N• s. cow/fir
State Highway Engineer
j CITY OF TIGARD, by and through
its City Officials
/,C.C~[/
By
Mayor
:yJ By Recorder
1
i
-3- f
j ~ -
AGENDA ITEM # 3,L
For Agenda of November 12. 1996
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Intergovernmental Agreement - Portland Police Data
f
System _Service-
PREPARED BY: Ron Goodpaster DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
N.
An agreement for services provided to Tigard Police Department by the
{
Portland Police Bureau for use of Portland Police Data System (PPDS), a law
enforcement information system.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
j Staff recommends approval of the intergovernmental agreement and authorize
the Mayor and City Recorder to sign.
06
INFORMATION SUMMARY
For the past 1 1/2 years we have used the PPDS regional records system as
our records system. This request is an annual renewal of the contract
between us and the City of Portland. The system allows us to enter data and
extract information concerning cases, suspects, and crime locations, and we
currently have thousands of entries into the system. In addition, PPDS
reports the required statistical information to the State of Oregon
LEDS/CUCR, including criminal histories and crime data. Training and "E
manuals are also provided as part of this agreement.
i
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED j
None.
I
FISCAL NOTES
Funds for this annual renewal of the PPDS system are provided for in the
budget.
I
f
~ , ~pT1wNA C1 1 I OF .
VERA KATZ, MAYOR
~ x Charles A. Moose, Chief of Police
PORTLAND, OREGON 1111 S.W. 2nd Avenue
_ Portland, Oregon 97204
BUREAU OF POLICE
ras%
October 4, 1996
Gary Schrader I
City of Tigard Police
13125 SW Hall Blvd"
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. Schrader:
Enclosed please find three copies of a contract for PPDS services with our bureau. If you approve, please
sign all three copies and return to my office at Portland Police Bureau, Fiscal Services, 1111 S.W. Second
Avenue Room 1202, Portland, Oregon 97204.
If you have any questions concerning the contract or its language, please contact Bill Wesslund at 823-0300
or myself at 823-0362
Sincerely,
Q. utb"a
r
Elizabeth A. Urbana
Senior Administrative Specialist
Enclosures: 3 Contracts,
c: Bill Wesslund, PPDS
File k
7ski
r'
ti
, t
- A
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
City Govemment Information TDD (for hearing and speech impaired) 823.6868
- l
,
.
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
This agreement for services (Agreement) is between the Bureau of Police, City of Portland, Oregon
(Provider), 1111 SW Second Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, and the (Receiver) City of Tigard Police
Department.
RECITALS:
The Provider and the Receiver desire to enter into this agreement by the terms of which the Provider, I
through its Bureau of Police, will provide access to its Portland Police Data System (PPDS), a law
enforcement information system, to the Receiver, on the terms set forth in this agreement. f
AGREEMENT:
1. SCOPE OF PROVIDER SERVICES
a. Provide access via computer terminal for full entry into the computerized data base files 1
of the PPDS system.
b. Provide the necessary programs, access, and data storage so that Tigard Police cases
and related information can be entered into PPDS files.
C. Produce standard PPDS reports for Tigard Police data; and other reports as mutually
agreed.
d. Provide standard Oregon Uniform Crime Reporting (OUCR) data for Tigard Cases to the
State of Oregon LEDS/OUCR via magnetic tape.
e. Provide access via computer terminal to related criminal justice services as mutually
agreed.
f. Provide manuals and training to Receiver staff regarding utilization of the computer
terminals and procedures for access to information.
g. Perform services related to PPDS access such as liaison with vendors for maintenance
{ service calls, etc.
i
2. SCOPE OF RECEIVER SERVICES
a. The Receiver agrees that all its personnel will perform only those PPDS functions
authorized, and that it, or its personnel, will not attempt any programming, program
modifications, or similar activities within the PPDS system unless specifically authorized
in writing by the Portland Police Bureau. j
1 b. The Receiver agency agrees, pursuant to the directions of the State of Oregon Law i~
1 Enforcement Data System (LEDS) and Part IV of the National Crime Information Center
(NCIC) Computerized Criminal History, Program Concepts and Policy, dated October 20,
j 1976, that the Portland Police Bureau shall establish policy and exercise management
control over all operations of the PPDS system.
C. In the event of violation of the provisions of this agreement, or violation of the security
policy by personnel of the Receiver, the Provider shall have the authority to restrict or
1
-
l
prohibit access to the PPDS system by the Receiver agency terminals until resolution of
the problem to the satisfaction of the Provider. The Receiver shall be notified in writing of
such action, and there shall be no charge for access during any time that access is
prohibited.
d. The Receiver agency shall perform data entry of its data into PPDS and shall conform to I'I
the standards and procedures established by the Provider regarding such data entry. f
3. COMPENSATION
The Receiver, as a "full entry" user of PPDS, shall pay to the Provider the amount as set out in
Exhibit A: Schedule of Costs.
4. BILLING AND PAYMENT PROCEDURE
The Provider shall invoice the Receiver quarterly. The Receiver shall submit payment within 30
days of receipt of the invoice from the Provider.
5. EFFECTIVE AND TERMINATION DATES
This agreement shall be effective as of January 1, 1996, and shall terminate as of June 30, 1998. j
t
i 6. PROVIDER CONTACT PERSON
For information concerning PPDS services provided under this Agreement, contact should be made
with Bill Wesslund, Data Processing Division, Bureau of Police, 1111 S.W. Second Avenue, Room
1156, Portland, Oregon 97204, 823-0300.
7. RECEIVER CONTACT PERSON
ae+ For information concerning PPDS usage by the Receiver, contact should be made with Lt. Gary
Schrader, Tigard Police Department, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
8. NOTICE
Any notice provided for under this agreement shall be sufficient if in writing and delivered personally
to the following addresse or deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, certified mail,
return receipt requested, addressed as follows, or to such other address as the receiving party
hereafter shall specify in writing:
If to the Provider. Nancy Dunford
Bureau of Police
I Fiscal Services
1111 S.W. Second Avenue, Room 1202
Portland, Oregon 97204-3232
If to the Receiver. Gary Schrader I -
Tigard Police Department I
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223 f .
l -
i
i
t
9. AMENDMENTS
The Provider and the Receiver may amend this agreement at any time only by written amendment
executed by the Provider and the Receiver. Any change in Number 1, SCOPE OF PROVIDER
SERVICES, or in EXHIBIT A, SCHEDULE OF CHARGES, shall be deemed an amendment subject
to this section.
10. EARLY TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT /
This agreement may be terminated by either party on 30 days written notice of such termination
to the other party.
it. PAYMENT ON EARLY TERMINATION I.
In the event of termination under Number 10, EARLY TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT, hereof,
Receiver shall pay the contractor for work performed in accordance with the agreement prior to the
termination date. '
t
12. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
In connection with its activities under this agreement, the Provider shall comply with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Specifically, the Receiver agrees to comply with the PPDS Security Policy with regard to security
and privacy regulations affecting usage and dissemination of criminal history and investigative
information.
13. OREGON LAW AND FORUM
a. This agreement shall be construed according to the law of the State of Oregon.
b. Any litigation between Receiver and the Provider arising under this agreement or out of
work performed under this agreement shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Multnomah
County Court having jurisdiction thereof, and if in the federal courts, in the United States
court for the District of Oregon.
~c
14. INDEMNIFICATION
i ff
The Receiver shall hold harmless, defend, and indemnify the City and the City's officers, agents,
and employees against all claims, demands. actions, and suits (including all attorney fees and
costs) brought against any of them arising from the Receiver's activities under this agreement
i
15. ASSIGNMENT
The Provider shall not assign this agreement, in whole or in part, or any right or obligation I`
hereunder, without the prior written approval of Receiver. `
` 16. ARBITRATION
a. Any dispute under this agreement which is not settled by mutual agreement of Receiver
and the Provider within sixty (60) days of notification in writing by either party shall be f
submitted to an arbitration panel. The panel shall be composed of three (3) persons, one I
of whom shall be appointed by the Provider, one of whom shall be appointed by the
1
t
" Receiver, and one of whom shall be appointed by the two arbitrators appointed by the
1 Receiver and the Provider. In the event the two cannot agree on the third arbitrator, then
the third shall be appointed by the Presiding Judge (Civil) of the Circuit court of the State
of Oregon for the County of Multnomah. The arbitrators shall be selected within thirty (30)
days of the expiration of the sixty (60) days period. The arbitration shall be conducted in
Portland, Oregon, and shall be as speedy as reasonably possible. Receiver and the r ,
Provider shall agree on the rules governing the arbitration (including appropriation of i
costs), or, if Receiver and the Provider cannot agree on the rules, the arbitrators shall r
adopt rules consistent with this section. The arbitrators shall render their decision within f
forty-five (45) days of their first meeting with Receiver and the Provider. Insofar as
Receiver and the Provider legally may do so, they shall be bound by the decision of the
panel.
b. Notwithstanding any dispute under this agreement, whether before or during arbitration, `
the Provider shall continue to perform its work pending resolution of the dispute and
Receiver shall make payments as required by the agreement for undisputed portions of
the work. `
ttf ii
17. INTEGRATION
This agreement contains the entire agreement between Receiver and the Provider and supersedes
all prior written or oral discussions or agreements.
ity of Tigard
PROVIDER: City of Portland REVEIVER
ey: BY:
ra Katz Na es Nic i
Name: Ve
Title: Mayor Ttl or
Date: Date: November 12, 19966
~y'Le4/
By: By: CCU 111E
Name: Barbara Clark Name: Catherine Wheatley V
Tige: Auditor Title: City Recorder
Date: Date: November 12, 1996
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney, City of Portland
Date: Date:
j
4 }
1.
•
EXHIBIT A
SCHEDULE OF COSTS
The City of Tigard Police Department (Receiver), as a "full entry" user of the Portland Police Data System
(PPDS), shall pay to the City of Portland (Provider) the following monthly amount for PPDS services.
Unless other arrangement are made, the Receiver will be billed quarterly.
System Usage Charge $250.00
Telephone Line Charge $150.00
Data processing and data storage ~1 QQ~Q is
Total Monthly Costs $1,400.00 E.'
j
(Note: This schedule of costs is based upon entry by Tigard Police of approximately 8,000 crime reports
per year).
i
i
i
i~
i
i
j
i
L
{ AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF November 12. 1996
i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
i ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE filly Administrator Employment Agreement
PREPARED BY: Bill Monahan DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council approve a revised Employment Agreement with the City Administrator.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve a revised employment agreement with the City Administrator
incorporating amendments approved by Council.
t.
{ INFORMATION SUMMARY
Council met with the City Administrator in executive session on October 15, 1996, and agreed to various j
Changes to the Employment Agreement. The changes have been incorporated into a new draft.
I.
OTHER ALTATIV .S CONSIDERED
Allow the existing agreement to continue until November 14, 1997.
FISCAL NOTES
The agreement extends the term of the agreement through November 14, 1998 and incorporates changes to
financial benefits.
is \cirywide\sum\ad min.doc
1
w-
- -
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: William A. Monahan, City Administrator
DATE: November 5, 1996
RE: Employment Agreement i
blw
Attached is a draft Employment Agreement incorporating the changes that we discussed
in executive session on October 15, 1996. Each of the changes which were presented in
my October I 1 memorandum (copy attached) which were approved by Council are
reflected in the draft as follows:
1. Retirement - Exchange of 1% retirement for 1% salary adjustment is in Section h
5A. Future adjustments are addressed in Section 6A.
1i 2. Cost of Living Adjustment - The 1996 adjustment is covered in Section 5A. A
new Section 5B covers future adjustments.
3. 2% Salary Increase - This is applied as the final adjustment in Section 5A
1 (after the 1996 COLA and adjustment due to reduction in retirement).
4. Automobile Allowance - Section 7B.
5. Life Insurance - Section 6C was adjusted to allow for flexibility, incorporating
my suggestions and the Council's input. Please check this section carefully to -
determine if it reflects Council's intent.
6. Sick Leave - A new Section 5E was added. As of the date of this memo, the
Finance department was unable to locate records of my prior sick leave accrual
from 1988. If records are not found to provide an accurate total, I suggest that
I be credited for 2\3 of the maximum accrual - that is, 8 days for each 12 earned.
I am confident that my sick leave usage was well under 4 days each year.
7. Starting Date - Recognition of my prior terms of service is noted in Section 1.
The draft agreement also contains several minor changes correcting dates, capitalization,
etc. The vacation section, section 5D, was shortened, however, no change was made to
vacation accrual.
Please note that my title could be changed before this agreement is approved by Council.
If the Charter amendment passes changing my title to City Manager, a revised contract
reflecting this change will be available on November 12.
- ~ II
If you have any questions pertaining to the proposed terms of the agreement, please call.
- i
1
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: William A. Monahan, City Administrator
i DATE: November 5, 1996
RE: Employment Agreement
j Attached is a draft Employment Agreement incorporating the changes that we discussed
in executive session on October 15, 1996. Each of the changes which were presented in
my October 11 memorandum (copy attached) which were approved by Council are
reflected in the draft as follows:
1. Retirement - Exchange of I% retirement for I% salary adjustment is in Section k _
5A. Future adjustments are addressed in Section 6A.
i 2. Cost of Living Adjustment - The 1996 adjustment is covered in Section 5A. A
new Section 5B covers future adjustments.
3. 2% Salary Increase - This is applied as the final adjustment in Section 5A r
(after the 1996 COLA and adjustment due to reduction in retirement). f
4. Automobile Allowance - Section 7B. f
5. Life Insurance - Section 6C was adjusted to allow for flexibility, incorporating !
my suggestions and the Council's input. Please check this section carefully to
determine if it reflects Council's intent.
6. Sick Leave - A new Section 5E was added. As of the date of this memo, the
Finance department was unable to locate records of my prior sick leave accrual
from 1988. If records are not found to provide an accurate total, I suggest that
I be credited for 2\3 of the maximum accrual - that is, 8 days for each 12 earned.
I am confident that my sick leave usage was well under 4 days each year.
7. Starting Date - Recognition of my prior terms of service is noted in Section I .
The draft agreement also contains several minor changes correcting dates, capitalization,
etc. The vacation section , section 5D, was shortened, however, no change was made to
vacation accrual.
Please note that my title could be changed before this agreement is approved by Council.
If the Charter amendment passes changing my title to City Manager, a revised contract
reflecting this change will be available on November 12.
If you have any questions pertaining to the proposed terms of the agreement, please call.
F
jj
l
f:.
' _ I V
iVIENIORANDUM
{ CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
! FROM: William A. Monahan, City Administrator
DATE: October 11, 1996
SUBJECT: Employment Agreement - Benefits Discussion
Mayor Nicoli advised me that I had the opportunity to provide you with a list of suggested
changes to my Employment Agreement. Following are my suggestions for discussion:
1. Retirement - Council determined that the retirement benefits for all Management
staff should be reduced from 14%. As a result, the City's contribution towards
my retirement was reduced from 14% to 13% on July 1, 1996. The benefit will
further be reduced consistent with the benefit provided to other Management
personnel. On the effective date of the retirement reduction, all Management
employees other than the City Administrator were granted a I% salary increase ! .
i to offset the reduction in retirement contribution. The question for discussion is
1 whether Council intends to increase my salary in exchange for the reduction in j
retirement. If Council desires to adjust my salary, I suggest my salary be
adjusted by 1%, retroactive to July 1, 1996, and my contract be changed to
indicate that any future adjustments of salary given to Managers in exchange for
reduction in retirement benefits be granted to me, effective the same time as
4
granted to other Managers.
2. Cost of Living Adjustment - Council granted a 3% cost of living adjustment to
Managers on July 1, 1996. My contract does not provide for automatic cost of
living adjustment coincident with that granted to other Management employees.
If Council desires for me to receive the same cost of living adjustment as
granted to other Managers, I suggest Council grant me a 3% cost of living,
retroactive to July 1, 1996, and a change to my Employment Agreement which
grants me the same cost of living adjustment on the same effective date as
vi granted to other Management employees in the future.
I
L_ ,
- i
Memo to City Council
October 11, 1996 i
Page Two I
Ii
3. Automobile Allowance - Automobile allowance is set at $250 per month. This
is the same monthly allowance that has been provided for the last several years.
I would like to discuss increasing the automobile allowance to $300 per month,
effective November 15, 1996. .
4. Vacation Accrual - Presently I receive vacation accrual at the rate of twelve ; .
hours per month. The maximum accrual for a City employee is sixteen hours
per month. I would like to discuss increasing my vacation accrual from twelve
to sixteen hours per month, the maximum accrual allowed under the City
Personnel Rules, effective November 15, 1996.
5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield - Presently I pay $121.76 per month to be a participant
in Blue Cross Plan IVA for myself and my family. The City pays the cost of
Plan H. I would like to discuss the possibility of the City picking up some or
all of the employee contribution.
6. Life Insurance - Section 7C of my Agreement calls for the City to purchase a
$150,000 term life insurance policy, with a cost not to exceed $1,000 per year. e
I would like to discuss the possibility of the City paying me a lump sum of $500
per year to use toward purchasing term life insurance. The reason for this
request is that the IRS states that the value of the additional $100,000 of
coverage over the base $50,000 coverage is $678. While the City cost of
providing the insurance policy is $463.50, I paid $290 in taxes on the "$678
j benefit" last year. I would like to be taxed on the actual cost of the insurance
received.
1 ~
7. Sick Leave - I would like to discuss restoration of my sick leave accrual for the
' i
period of my employment of August, 1982 through January, 1988. I recall that
I had a significant accrual of sick leave at the time of my resignation. If
Council is willing to restore some or all of the sick leave accrual, I would
suggest a condition within the contract that says that I will never be eligible for
any benefit allowing for the cashing out of unused sick leave, eith er as cash,
for the purpose of calculating retirement, or for any other purpose.
8. Starting Date - I would like the City records to recognize my prior service to
the City. As a result, I would like the Agreement to direct Human Resources,
for the purpose of establishing my "years of service for length of service only"
j to recognize my service from August 2, 1982 through January 1, 1988, and
~s August 1, 1994 to November 14, 1994. For instance, if this prior service is
added to my present period of employment, my length of service to the City is
approximately seven years and nine months.
L~
Memo to City Council
October 11, 1996
Page Three
I would be please to discuss these benefit issues with Council during Executive Session on
October 15. Thank you for your consideration of these discussion topics.
WAM/jh i.
i
i
` I:IAD%UILL%101196.3.DOC -
s
I
{
y
i
L. . r
w_
i
AGENDA ITEM # 3•
FOR AGENDA OF
SCJ cif-Z~L
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON -p 11 (o
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Purchase of five 5(.) police vehicles
PREPARED BY: Ronald D. Goodpaster DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE, BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall City Council approve the purchase of five (5) police vehicles.
i
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
I
Staff recommends approval of the purchase of five (5) 1997 Ford Crown Victorias. j
INFORMATION SUMMARY k
These vehicles were approved for purchase in the FY 1996/97 budget. These vehicles will replace Patrol
ivision vehicles which are due to rotate out of the fleet.
i -
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve staff recommendation.
i f
2. Not purchase vehicles.
FISCAL NOTES
The fleet purchase price for Crown Victoria is quoted at $20,338 per vehicle, which is a total of $100,790 for E
the five vehicles. In addition, there are fees of $77.50 per vehicle ($42.50 for license and title, and $35 for
administration fees), totaling $387.50 in fees. The amount for vehicles included in the FY 96/97 budget is
$130,330.
PURCHASE FORM
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SW Hall Blvd. Date: 10/24/96
Tigard, Oregon 97223 From: Capt. R. Wheeler
(503) 639-4171 Fax (503) 639-6795 Dept: Police - 1120 f
_ I
i
TO: Skyline Ford PO#: PO Date:
2510 Commercial St. SE PO Auth.. by: Cone. PO?
Salem. OR 97302-4487 PO NUMBER REQUIRED ON ALL PACKAGES
Ph: (503) 581-2411 Fax: (503) 371-8146
DELIVER TO:
® 13125 SW HALL BLVD ❑ 8720 SW BURNHAM STREET
❑ 12800 SW ASH STREET ❑ 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET.. .
Vendor Item Dept/Account Unit Extended
Qty No. Description No. Price Price
j
5 ea. 1997 Ford Crown Victoria 10-1120-703.000 $18,197 $90,985
4-door sedan Police Inceptor w/1 20 P package
PRDER #P 71
1
ea. KM KM - Moonlight Blue Color 157 785
5 ea Seat Type Cloth Front BucketsNinyl Rear Bench 58 290
5 ea 153 Front License Plate Brackets 0 0
(CONTINUED ON
SEPARATE SHEET)
S&H
- TOTAL - -
i
APPROPRIATION BALANCE: 330' AS OF: PURCHASING AGENT:
APPROVALS:
(IF UNDER $50) SECTION MANAGER/PROF AL S FF:
(IF UNDER $2500) DIVISION MANAGER: i
(IF UNDER 57500) DEPARTMENT MANAGER: 7 ti
(IF UNDER $25000) CITY ADMINISTRATOR: -
"~VER $25000) LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD:
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note important additional terms and conditions of this order on the reverse side. All of these terms and conditions are a part of e
~i
this order and are contractually binding.
a
F-7
1 _
Vendor Item Dept/Account Unit Extended
,Qty No. Description No. Price Price
5ea. 127 Heavy Duty Rubber Floor Mats 23 115
sea. 13V Vinyl Luggage Compartment Trim 0 0
5 ea. 21A 6-Way Power Seat 321 1605
5 ea 589 Electronic AM/FM Stereo Radio 165 e25
sea PLN Auxiliary Fuse Panel, 10-gauge wire 38 190
(not to exceed 50 amp)
sea PLA Lamp, Courtesy, Inoperative 12 so
5ea PLP Power Door Lock Linkage and Knobs 1z so
5ea PW8 Windows Controlled by Driver & 12 so
Passengers
Ve PRS Roof Reinforcement 56 280 PR8 Radio Interference Bonding Tape 60 300
PLC Spot Lamps 1aa Tao PW7 Wiring Package 56 280
5ea PDD Decklid Release Switch 33 165
5 ea PCD Silicone Hoses 169 845
r
5 ea 553 Anti-Lock Braking System 596 2980
1 ea Shop maintenance/Repair Instructor 89 89
1 ea Emissions 136 136
S&H .
TOTAL 20,338 100,790
I
i
I r1 / 1~;~ ~ ti; 6
H.G. Maison !Armory Information
Fact Sheet
Revised H. G. Maison Armory Operating and Rental Procedures
✓ All leases will require a refundable security deposit. - '
i ✓ No amplified music or sound is permitted without a verified noise permit from the
City of Tigard.
✓ Alcoholic beverages will not be served without a verified license from the Oregon
Liquor Control Commission.
✓ With the issuance of a verified noise permit by the City of Tigard, the amplified
s music or sound will terminate at 10:00 PM.
✓ With the issuance of a verified OLCC permit, security will be coordinated by the
Armory Manager and charged back to the renters.
✓ All activities and events will terminate at 12:00 PM.
✓ The Armory will purchase a decibel meter to assist in monitoring the noise level
of rental events.
✓ When alcoholic beverages are provided by the leasee the City of Tigard Police
Department will be notified in advance of the scheduled event.
✓ During evening and weekend events the Armory Lease Agent will be located in
the office directly to the left of the main entrance as you enter the Armory. The
phone number is: (503) 557-6062
Point of Contact: Phone:
LTC Robert S. Tomasovic (503) 557-6002
Brigade Executive Officer
MAJ Gerry L. Kitzhaber (503) 557-6031
Headquarters Commander
Mr. John Kilb f
Y (503) 557-6025 f
Armory Operations Manager i
Lease Agent During Special Events (503) 557-6062
w
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 10/25/96
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Goal 5 Wetlands
PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK . CITY ADMIN OK LO`
uo
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
j
To amend the City's work program for completing Goal 5 by replacing the Economic, Social, Environmental,
Energy (ESEE) approach with the "safe harbor" planning alternative available under the new Goal 5 c
administrative rules.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the new "safe harbor" approach to Goal 5 planning for most Tigard wetlands.
J~ INFORMATION SUMMARY 1
foal 5 is a statewide planning goal that covers several natural and cultural resources. The city has completed all of
the requirements of Goal 5, except one. This remaining requirement is to complete a wetlands Goal 5 ESEE i - '
analysis and planning program. Last year, the city was awarded a $12,000 grant by the Division of State Lands to
provide funding for this work. However, because of changes in the planning process then under consideration by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission, the city and consultant delayed the completion of this
lengthy and complex program. The new rule provisions adopted as a result of the commission's Goal 5 review
j provide a streamlined alternative to the ESEE process for wetlands called "safe harbor".
A memo from the city's consultant discussing the "safe harbor" option and the advantages to Tigard of this new
approach is attached. Attached also is informational material prepared by DLCD summarizing the newly adopted
revisions to Goal 5 and its administrative rules.
As discussed in these materials, safe harbor is a "cook book" approach, which simply protects wetlands and fish
bearing streams and prescribes standard setbacks. The current city setback for these resources is 25 feet. Under
safe harbor, the standard is 50 feet, which may be reduced to 25 feet by restoring or enhancing the wetlands.
Another feature of this option is that it includes a variance procedure for any lands rendered not buildable by the
application of safe harbor.
Safe harbor applies to wetlands identified as "significant" according to criteria adopted by the Department of State
Lands. Virtually all the wetlands located in Tigard meet this criteria. Because they are located within 750 feet of
the "water quality limited" Tualatin River, this includes the Thomas Dairy wetlands.
I
J
1
1
e city has a choice of proceeding under safe harbor for all or some of its streams and wetlands. In the case of the
omas Dairy, the city may choose to rely on the standard ESEE process. ESEE is a methodology for reaching
decisions about whether to allow, limit, or prohibit the development of a resource. Using the ESEE approach
would allow the city to resolve the present conflicts about uses in and adjacent to the Thomas Dairy wetlands. For
other areas of the city safe harbor, among other benefits, would provide a simplified, safe, and streamlined route
for achieving Goal 5.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do not change approaches for completing Goal 5 for wetlands.
FISCAL NOTES
According to the city consultant, adoption of the new, streamlined approach will save 25 weeks of full-time
staff work.
ilcitywidclsum.w'ct 1
i
t f
%
I
! WPS Memorandum
! TO: Duane Roberts, Project Manager
! FROM: Greg Winterowd, Mark Roberts
SUBJECT: Safe Harbor vs. ESEE
DATE: September 19, 1996
r
As discussed at our meeting August 20, WPS proposes to amend its contract with the City of
Tigard to write a "safe harbor" ordinance using the new Goal 5 process. We believe that the
"safe harbor" option offers distinct advantages to the City of Tigard over the traditional ESEE
analysis approach to Goal 5. }
The amended Statewide Planning Goal 5 and its implementing rule (OAR 660-23) came into
effect on September 1. The most significant change relating to wetlands and riparian corridors is f
the option to adopt a "safe harbor" t ordinance to protect significant wetlands and streams. This i+
option precludes the need for extensive ESEE analysis of the individual resource sites and
represents huge savings in time and resources to comply with the Goal. The safe harbor option
protects significant wetlands and prescribes standard protective buffers around fish-bearing
riparian corridors and adjacent wetlands. Where wetlands are located within the riparian buffer
zone, the buffer "balloons" around the wetland, incorporating it.
The table below shows the standard of protection that would be achieved in Tigard under safe
harbor:
DL
IiI±ER.
- RESOURCE-
Fish-bearing streams 1000 cfs) and 50 feet (may be reduced up to 50% if no d
associated wetlands adverse impact on resource)
Isolated wetlands and non fish-bearing streams 25 feet (existing USA setback)
I
At first glance, the safe harbor approach seems inflexible. However, there is reasonable latitude
within the rule to allow limited development and protect the resource. An ordinance can allow
up to 50% of the riparian area to be developed, providing that the developer can demonstrate
equal or better protection of the resource by restoration of riparian elements and vegetation.
i
j Currently in Tigard, 25 foot setbacks are in place for protected wetlands and streams due to
Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) regulations, "Safe harbor" would maintain the current USA
setbacks (25 feet) as a minimum standard, while increasing the maximum buffer to 50 feet for
LCDC uses the term "safe harboe, to mean safe from the rigorous and time-consuming requirements, and the f
uncertainties, of the ESEE process.
Land Use and Resource Planning - Growth Management - Site Development
Suite 385, Hayden Island Plaza - 700 North Hayden Island Drive - Portland, OR 97217
Tel.' (503) 735-0853 Fax: (503) 7354622 e-mail. • wpslanduse@aol,com
h
J
i
WPS Memorandum
r~ Page 2
fish-bearing streams in undisturbed areas. The flexibility of safe harbor means that a developer
may "win back" developable land in disturbed areas (up to the 25 foot minimum setback) by
enhancing the resource. Existing development would be made exempt from the setback
requirements of the "safe harbor". By incorporating clear and objective standards and mapping I
significant wetlands and streams, developers, neighborhood groups and the City would know in
advance, and with certainty, which wetlands and streams would be protected, and to what extent.
i
The main advantage of the safe harbor option is in reduced cost. The new rule will enable WFS
j to produce a final product (a new ordinance) incorporating clear and objective standards rather
f than volumes of analysis. The proposed budget allows for participation in the process right up to i
Council adoption. We estimate that this will save approximately 1000 2 hours of staff time.
Option I
j Under the current contract, the ESEE analysis option, WPS would produce a generic
I analysis of the ESEE consequences for each general type of land use (e.g. industrial,
i commercial, residential, public) and one model sitaspecific ESEE analysis. City staff
would then have to follow this model and complete separate, site-specific ESEE analyses
for all of the other significant resource sites.
Option 2
Within the same budget, WPS can write a "safe harbor" ordinance that contains clear and
objective standards, that increases the level of resource protection with minimal depletion
of buildable lands, and that is easy to administer. In addition, WPS will work with the
City through the hearing process, or conduct site-specific ESEE analyses, if required, for
more contentious resource areas.
As the table below illustrates, the ESEE route is far more labor intensive. With
Option 2, WFS
-
can use the existing budget to produce a state of the art ordinance. With Option 1, the City
would have to invest considerable staff time to finish the ESEE analysis process. Even after the
analysis stage is complete, more time and resources would be needed to respond to public
comment on the ESEE process, to make necessary changes, and then to produce and adopt a
resource protection ordinance,
= The amount of staff time required to complete the ESEE proem is based on 100 hours for each of the additional .
10 resource sites. 1000 hours is equivalent to 25 weeks of full-time staff work.
• I
~d
L~
~ WPS Memorandum
Page 3 k
i i
GO ~4 1 t S
.....v' _ .:r •1'
1. Resource inventory Completed Completed t
! 2. Identify significant Criteria to be determined and Follow DSL significance I i
resources adopted. criteria
3. Identify conflicting uses Consultant, in coordination
with City.
4. Conduct ESEE analysis for Consultant provides generic 4
I
each resource site. ESEE analyses and I site
i specific model ESEE analysis. f
j City staff complete ESEE I`
analyses for 10 remaining
resource sites based on
j consultant model
S. Develop program to City writes resource Consultant drafts "safe
achieve the goal -adopt protection ordinance. harbor" resource protection
new resource protection ordinance.
ordinance.
6. Adopt program to achieve City works through hearings Consultant works with City
the Goal. process. through hearings process.
k J,-
i
j Amendments-to LCDC's Goal 5 and Related Rules on
Planning for. Natural and Historic Resources
•A Summary from Oregon's -
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) '
September 1995 I
i
On June 14, 1996, Oregon's Land Conservation and Why amend Goal 5 and its rules?
Development Commission (LCDC) completed a LCDC amended Goal 5 and its rules in response to
major revision of Goal 5 and its administrative rules. three main complaints:
The project took over two years and was the subject • It was too costly and time-consuming for local
of many public hearings. This bulletin summarizes governments to apply the goal and rules;
the main features of the revised goal and rules. • Certain resources were not adequately protected I f
by local plans; t
What Is Goal 5? o The goal and rules had not kept up with changes
Goal 5 is a broad statewide planning goal that covers in various state laws and programs.
more than a dozen resources, including wildlife LCDC therefore took action to make the task of
habitats, historic places, and aggregate (gravel). It applying Goal 5 more streamlined and to provide
was originally adopted by LCDC in 1974. Goal 5 better protection for key resources.
and related Oregon Administrative Rules (Chapter "
660, Divisions 16 and 23) describe how cities and What will be the main effects of the new f
counties are to plan and zone land to conserve provisions? 6
resources listed in the goal. The biggest benefit from the new goal and rule
provisions will be ease of use. They will simplify the
Goal 5 and its rules establish a five-step planning Goal 5 process for landowners, permit applicants, and
process for Oregon's cities and counties: local planners. They are expected to save time and
1. Inventory local occurrences of resources listed in money and reduce litigation. Note that LCDC's
Goal 5 and decide which ones arc important. revisions do not establish a new state program. Quite
2. Identify potential land uses on or near each the contrary: they refine and streamline a program
resource site and any conflicts that might result, that has been in place for 20 years.
3. Analyze economic, social, environmental, and
energy (ESEE) consequences of such conflicts. An important element of the new Goal 5 rules is the
4. Choose one of three policies toward conflicting "safe harbor" for local governments. A safe harbor is ;
uses at each site: prohibit the conflicting use, a special provision that ensures compliance with
allow the use fully, or put some limits on it. Goal 5. For riparian areas, wetlands, and wildlife
5. Adopt measures such as zoning to put that policy habitats, a city or county can choose the safe harbor
into effect. or follow the five-step process. The standard process
gives a local government more flexibility, but also
This five-step Goal 5 process was established by takes more work and heightens the risk of litigation. I
rules adopted in 1982, and LCDC's recent revisions
don't alter its basic steps. Rather, the 1996 revisions An example of a safe harbor is found in the rule
tailor the process to the individual resources covered provisions for riparian corridors. The rules specify
by the goal. For some resources, the revisions give that along a major waterway, a local government may
local governments a choice: use new expedited adopt a setback that prohibits development within 75 e
procedures, or follow the standard five-step process. feet of the waterway's bank. If it does that, the local
The rules for the new procedures (OAR 660, Division government will automatically comply with Goal 5's
23) replace the old rules in Division 16 except for
cultural (archeological) resources. (more on next page. . .
a)
t
t
t
i ~
L~
requirement for protection of that particular resource. riparian zones, and wildlife habitats.
The government doesn't need to do any elaborate • The rules reduce duplication by letting local
studies to justify its decision, and its risk of litigation governments rely on current state or federal
is lessened. If the local government wants to use programs for several resources, including
I something other than a 75-foot setback, it may. But wilderness areas, Oregon recreation trails.
in developing an alternative to the safe harbor, it groundwater, and wild and scenic rivers. In
would have to complete the standard Goal 5 process, effect, the new rules say that if such resources
I which would take more work. are protected under other programs, that's I
enough to satisfy Goal 5.
What about the Goal 5 work already done by • The rules clarify terms and procedures in the
local governments? Goal 5 process that have caused confusion and
LCDC's action on June 14 does not require cities and litigation. For example, OAR 660-23-040 spells
counties to go back and start over in planning and out steps that local governments are to use when
zoning for Goal 5 resources. It validates the work analyzing ESEE consequences. This makes it
already done, while establishing new Goal 5 easier for local governments to know what is
procedures to be used in the future. Generally, it expected of them and lowers the risk of
j requires cities and counties to use the new procedures litigation over vague terminology.
in the next periodic review or when they amend their • The rules make new local inventories voluntary
current land use plan or ordinances. for scenic resources, historic places, and open
spaces. The rules specify how local governments t
When do these changes take effect? are to proceed if they choose to inventory such
The June 14 amendments to Goal 5 and its rules resources in the future, but don't require them to
officially go into effect on September 1, 1996. But do such inventories.
since cities and counties don't have to apply most of • The rules alter the process for dealing with
the new provisions immediately, the answer to the aggregate sites. Previously, local governments
question "When will all this take effect?" is "It all had to inventory and zone all existing and
depends." It depends on when a local government potential quarries and gravel sites in their
enters periodic review, finds new information on jurisdictions. But it was hard to know where
Goal 5 resources, or wants to plan and zone new those sites might be, which ones were important,
resource sites. and when they might begin to operate. The new
rules eliminate this expensive and difficult
One part of the new rules has already gone into obligation for local governments. Instead, they
effect. Called the "owner-consent provision," it can now deal with such issues one site at a time,
enables owners of historic places to have them whenever they receive an application for a
removed from a plan's inventory. The 1995 legisla- mining permit.
ture passed a law requiring this provision. LCDC • The rules establish separate provisions for each
adopted a temporary rule in September 1995 to type of resource listed in Goal 5. That will make
comply with that law. LCDC's adoption of the owner- it easier for local officials and others to
consent provision as part of the new Goal 5 rules understand and apply the rules. For a closer
makes that temporary rule permanent. look at how the new rules affect individual
resources, see the table on the next page. ,
How are the new rules different from the old?
The new rules bring some important changes to the How can I get more information on the new
Goal 5 process. The main changes are summarized Goal 5 rules?
below. In most cases, they will have their greatest To get a copy of the Goal 5 amendments and the new
effect at a city or county's next periodic review. rules or to get more information about them, contact
• The rules call for more emphasis on the DLCD at the address shown below. If you have
inventory and conservation of three resources: questions about how Goal 5 will affect a specific
wetlands ( primarily within urban areas), piece of property, contact your local planners. ❑
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) ;
C
1175 Court Street NE, Salem OR 97310 a 503373-0050
1
i
R
I
j KEY PROVISIONS OF GOAL 5 RULES ADOPTED BY LCDC IN JUNE 1996
i
j Resource Rule Main Key Provisions
Effect
Riparian 660- Requires Defines "riparian corridors" and requires local inventories. Provides
corridors 23- inventory "safe harbor" definition and protection provisions: a standard setback
090 and pro- for structures and certain land uses. Does not regulate grazing,
tection of fences, farm or forest practices. On farm and forest lands, local
riparian government may defer determination of corridor boundary until
resources permit requested. j
Wetlands 660- Requires In urban areas, requires local governments to inventory wetlands
23- wetland based on DSL rules. Requires local governments to make decisions
100 inventories in advance about whether wetlands will be protected. In rural areas,
i and land use counties may rely on existing state inventories but must notify DSL
decisions about proposed development affecting inventoried wetlands. All local
inside UGBs governments must coordinate with DSL regarding inventories of
wetlands and local decisions that affect inventoried wetlands. j
Wildlife 660- Requires Defines "wildlife habitat" and requires local governments to update
I habitat 23- updated local habitat inventories using information from state and federal agencies. _
110 habitat Governments must determine significance of habitat areas, through
inventory either standard Goal 5 process or "safe harbor." The safe harbor i
and provides objective criteria for identifying habitat significance. Local I
protection land use plans must include decisions about habitat areas, and must be !
programs coordinated with key state and federal agencies. i
Federal wild 660- Simplifies Removes requirement for local inventory, since these rivers are
& scenic 23- Goal 5 designated by the federal government. Local government must
rivers 120 process for designate such a river as a significant resource, identify the wild and
local scenic river (WSR) corridor as the "impact area," and make the local
governments plan consistent with the federal management plan for the river.
Oregon 660- Simplifies Calls for local governments to designate any Oregon scenic waterway
scenic 23- Goal 5 as a significant Goal 5 resource. They need not complete the Goal 5 i
waterways 130 process for process for such a waterway until the Oregon Parks and Recreation I
local Commission (OPRC) has adopted a management plan for it. For
governments waterways with such a plan, local governments may develop a
program to achieve the goal using the standard Goal 5 process, or
they may use a "safe harbor." The safe harbor is a combination of
plan and implementing ordinances "necessary to carry out the plan
adopted by the OPRC." After OPRC adopts a management plan, the
local government must make its local plan consistent with OPRC's
plan by the next periodic review.
Ground- 660- Requires Requires local governments to protect 3 types of significant
water 23- protection groundwater resources: critical groundwater areas; groundwater-
resources 140 for a few limited areas, as designated by the Oregon Water Resources i
sites; Commission; and certain large wellhead protection areas, as j
exempts all designated by the Oregon Health Division. Exempts all other
others groundwater resources from the provisions of Goal 5.
i
l~
E
Oregon 660- Simplifies Provides that local governments need not inventory such trails but
recreation 23- Goal 5 must designate all state approved-recreation trails as significant Goal
trails 150 process for 5 resources. Local governments may rely on state programs to pro-
local sect such trails or develop additional protections using the Goal 5
governments process. 4
Natural 660- Simplifies Defines natural area as any site on the state's Register of Natural
areas 23- Goal 5 Areas. Such sites are deemed "significant" under Goal 5. At periodic
160 process for review, local governments must determine whether new natural areas
local have been listed. Any new area must be addressed through the
governments standard Goal 5 process. ,
Wilderness 660- Relies on Says that local governments must recognize federally designated
areas 23- protection wilderness areas as significant resources in their local plans. They
170 provided by may rely on the federal protection provided to these areas. That is.
federal they need not apply other provisions of Goal 5, unless they choose to t. "
programs establish additional local protections for a wilderness area.
Mineral & 660- Advance Calls for local governments to determine significance of aggregate
aggregate 23- inventories sites only in response to individual plan amendment requests. The
resources 180 no longer rule has special pro" sions to protect certain high-quality farmlands
required; from aggregate mining. It contains clear, objective criteria to
provides for determine significance of aggregate sites. For significant sites, local
case-by-case governments determine within 180 days whether mining is to be
review permitted, based on criteria from rules. Sites where mining is to be
i _
permitted must be protected from future conflicting uses. Plan must
specify end-uses of mining sites.
Energy 660- Simplifies Requires local plans to rely upon, and be consistent with, energy
sources 23- Goal 5 facility siting decisions made by Oregon's Energy Facility Siting
190 process for Council (EFSC). For sites not covered by this process, the standard t
local Goal 5 process guides local decisions. S
governments
Historic 660- Carries out Allows property owners to opt out of local inventories. New inven-
resources 23- statutory tones are optional for local governments. Requires a local ordinance
200 "owner to regulate demolition and major exterior alterations of designated
consent" historic sites. Ordinance must meet US government-recommended
provisions standards and specify at least 120-day demolition delay.
i Open space 660- Local Enables local governments to use Goal 5 process to designate open
23- governments space if they choose to do so. If they do, they must complete the
220 not required standard Goal 5 steps. Allows a list of open space sites for acquisition
to inventory without having to apply Goal 5 to the sites unless the sites are
new sites regulated before they are acquired.
Scenic views 660- Simplifies Enables local governments to use Goal 5 process for significant new
& sites 23- Goal 5 scenic views and sites if they choose to do so, using the standard Goal
230 process for 5 steps. No new inventories of scenic views are required.
local
governments
J
L~
I
{
6
I ,
AGENDA ITEM # rI
J FOR AGENDA OF 11 /12/96
~'^1
f
j CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
j COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Emergency Management Plan Adoption
PREPARED BY: Weg>_ner/Mills/Goodpjster_ DEPT HEAD OK~ CITY ADMINOK V f^
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL, 1
Does the City Council wish to adopt a current Emergency Management Plan for the City as discussed at the
work session of 10/15/96, and repeal the outdated 1983 plan which is currently in affect.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION h:
The Emergency Committee, (comprised of P.W. Director, Chief of Police, and Risk Manager) who is charged
with the responsibility for the development and periodic review/ updating of the Emergency Management Plan,
recommends adoption of the attached ordinance.
f'
INFORMATION SUMMARY
l The City's first Emergency Operations Plan was adopted by the Tigard City Council in October of 1983. It was
written by the Police Department with little input from other departments. This plan has been out of date for a
long period of time. The new plan has been developed with input from the State of Oregon and Washington
Oounty Emergency Management staff, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue and with input from all City departments.
This plan outlines the duties and responsibilities of the City and its staff in responding to emergencies and is
based on an integrated system of departmental operations. The City staff is being trained at all levels of the
organization to implement this plan through the use of the Incident Command System model for response.
Council is being asked to adopt Sections 1 and 2 by ordinance which are the policy portions of the plan. Sections 3
through 9 of the plan are presented for Council to "receive and file" and are hazard specific plans, resource lists,
call lists, etc. which will be updated periodically by the Emergency Committee, approved by the City
Administrator, and filed with Council. COUNCIL'S PACKET WILL NOT INCLUDE ANOTHER COPY OF f
THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN. PLEASE REFER TO THE COPY YOU RECEIVED FOR THE j. .
10/15/96 COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Adopt the attached ordinance & be responsible for handling emergencies within the City
Give further direction to the Emergency Committee.
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
iaci ywidc\cmcrpln\ccsum.doc
AGENDA ITEM # U
For Agenda of November i 1996
i
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE _Comprehensive Plan Amendment and on Chancre CPA 96- j
0006/ZON 96-0001 .Davis/FQre crn Mission I
PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK_
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
City Council denied the proposed comprehensive plan amendment on October 22,
1996 and now the City Council needs to approve the Final order, denying the
proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
J STAFF RECOMMENDATION
i1 Staff and Planning Commission recommended denial. City Council issued a
denial of the plan amendment on October 22, 1996.
y
INFORMATION SUMMARY
j The proposed plan map amendment and zone change concerned a parcel located
,5n S.W. Oak Street, between S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Hall Boulevard.
he applicant requested the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change to c,
construct a 6,000 square foot restaurant and re-orient an already approved
hotel on the adjacent parcel. Washington County recommended denial of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change, the plan amendment is
not conditioned limiting the number of vehicle trips allowed. Staff did not
recommend that the City become involved in conditioning plan amendments.
Enforcement of conditional plan amendments is difficult; conditional plan
amendments add another layer of regulation that the City is currently not
prepared to track or enforce. From a legal liability standpoint, a
comprehensive plan amendment with conditions can put the City in the
position of giving inaccurate information regarding allowed land uses. The i
applicant's submittal included a narrative and transportation impact
~ analysis.
FISCAL NOTES -
No direct fiscal impact to the city.
P .
v -
U
AGENDA ITEM #
For Agenda of November 12. 1996
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change CPA 96-
0001:D° s/Foreman Mission
PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
TqSUR BEFORE THE COUNCIL
City Council denied the proposed comprehensive plan amendment on October 22,
1996 and now the City Council needs to approve the Final order, denying the
proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
iSTAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff and Planning Commission recommended denial. City Council issued a
denial of the plan amendment on October 22, 1996.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The proposed plan map amendment and zone change concerned a parcel located
n S.W. Oak Street, between S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Hall Boulevard.
,5he applicant requested the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change to
construct a 6,000 square foot restaurant and re-orient an already approved
hotel on the adjacent parcel. Washington County recommended denial of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change, the plan amendment is
not conditioned limiting the number of vehicle trips allowed. Staff did not
recommend that the City become involved in conditioning plan amendments.
Enforcement of conditional plan amendments is difficult; conditional plan
amendments add another layer of regulation that the City is currently not
prepared to track or enforce. From a legal liability standpoint, a
comprehensive plan amendment with conditions can put the City in the
position of giving inaccurate information regarding allowed land uses. The
applicant's submittal included a narrative and transportation impact 1,
analysis.
i
{
FISCAL NOTES
No direct fiscal impact to the city.
V
t
L~.
17-
AGENDA ITEM #
For Agenda of November 8, 1996
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Senate Bill 122 Update
PREPARED BY: Jim Hendrvx DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
I -
Washington County, Beaverton, and Tigard are working cooperatively towards f"
completion of Urban Service Agreements as required by Senate Bill 122.
Staff wants to update the City Council on the status of the project and get ( _;k,_"
input on the action plan. j"
STAFF RECOMMENDATIO
No action required.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The 1993 State Legislature passed Senate Bill 122, the Urban Services Bill,
odified as ORS 195. The legislation requires that units of government and
•~pecial districts that provide an urban service within an urban growth
boundary must enter into urban service agreements. The urban services
subject to agreements include: sanitary sewers; water; fire protection;
parks; open space; recreation; and streets, roads, and mass transit.
The County coordinated a grant application that included Beaverton, Tigard,
and Service Districts affecting the three jurisdictions. Washington County
received the grant from the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) !
Program, which is managed by the Oregon Department of Transportation. The
purpose of the grant is to develop urban service agreements for the
Beaverton-Tigard area of eastern Washington County. Within this area, there
are 13 service providers representing nine services.
The first milestone in the project is the development and adoption of an
action plan that identifies how these urban service agreements will be
} developed. The action plan is a product of research conducted by the
project consultants Cogan Owens Cogan.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
FISCAL NOTES
one
_ Ate.
%
r
fi
DRAFT
ACTION PLAN
_ I
Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project
October 21, 1996
Cogan Owens Cogan
10 NW 10th
Portland,OR 97209-3120
i
j Tel: 503-225-0192
T FAX: 503-225-0224
i
i
l
COGAN f
OWE\5
I COGA\
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Background 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan Summary
2
I'
Public Involvement Strategy 5
Guiding Principles 6
ACTION PLAN - SANITARY SEWERS AND STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT 10
ACTION PLAN - WATER 13
ACTION PLAN - FIRE PROTECTION
17
ACTION PLAN - PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 19
ACTION PLAN - ROADS AND STREETS 23
ACTION PLAN - MASS TRANSIT 26
ACTION PLAN - LAW ENFORCEMENT 28
Appendix 30
i
COGAN
OWENS
COGAN
U
10/21/96 Draft
n ACTION PLAN
BEAVERTON-TIGARD AREA
URBAN SERVICES PROJECT
Background
The 1993 Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 122, the Urban Services Bill, codified as
ORS 195. This legislation requires that units of local government and special districts
that provide an urban service within an urban growth boundary must enter into urban
service agreements. Urban services subject to agreements include:
a) Sanitary sewers
b) Water
c) Fire Protection
d) Parks
e) Open space
f) Recreation, and
g) Streets, roads and mass transit
Urban service agreements must define who will provide the service in the future,
establish the functional role of each provider, establish the service area of each provider
and assign responsibilities for planning, coordination, constructing and maintaining `
facilities as well as other activities and functions. ORS 195 establishes a number of
"agreement factors' for consideration in establishing urban service agreements which
include such factors as financial capacity, physical factors related to service provision,
the feasibility of creating new entities for providing the service, and so forth (see the
Appendix for a copy of ORS 195).
Washington County applied for a grant from the Transportation and Growth
Management (TGIvi) Program managed by the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) to develop urban srvice agreements in the Beaverton-Tigard area of eastern `
Washington County. Within this area, there are 13 service providers representing nine
services. The nine services include storm water management and law enforcement, not
required by ORS 195 but added by Washington County.
The first milestone in the project is the development and adoption of an Action Plan
that identifies how these urban service agreements will be developed. The Action Plan
is a product of research conducted by project consultants Cogan Owens Cogan.
Interviews of stakeholders, a workshop and independent research of existing
intergovernmental agreements and the status of each service provide the background
for the Action Plan. Documentation of these efforts is contained in three reports:
Action Plat 1 COCAN t
OWEN5
COGAN
t
10/21/96 Draft f
e Washington County Urban Services Project Stakeholder Questionnaire Results
September 12, 1996 Workshop Report
♦ Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Service Project Status Report
Action Plan i "
The ultimate objective of the legislation is to define where and how services will be
provided and by whom in the future so that growth and development within urban
growth boundaries can take place in an orderly, economic and efficient manner without l
"turf wars" - dissension and disagreement among service providers. As described
above, ORS 195 provides a number of agreement factors for consideration in
establishing urban service agreements. To address all factors for each service could be
potentially very expensive and time-consuming, and in many cases, unnecesary. The l
authors of the legislation recognized this and provided that the extent to which any of
I these factors is addressed be a matter of "local government and special district
discretion". In other words, if the parties agree that certain factors are not relevant or
necessary, they need not be addressed.
i
The Action Plan establishes the environment for negotiation of urban service
agreements at the conclusion of this project. Each service has its own Action Plan, and
in two cases, services have been grouped (e.g., sanitary and storm water management, f
and parks, open space and recreation) rather than having a separate action plan for
each. Issues have been identified for each service or group of services. These issues J
indicate what factors under ORS 195 are relevant to address in an urban service
agreement(s) among the parties. The Action Plan for each service then spells out the
recommended process to be followed to develop the "essential provisions" for an urban
service agreement.
The Action Plan identifies a general approach, including the alternatives, if any, that
should be the subject of the investigation. Tasks are outlined, specifying who will be
responsible for undertaking the work. In most cases, it is proposed that the work be
shared by the consultant team and local government staff, with the degree of
participation by each varying from one service to another depending on the
issues/factors that need to be addressed. In some cases, no consultant involvement
may be necessary (e.g., fire protection, mass transit). [
Action Plan Summary
The level of effort needed to adequately establish the environment to proceed with `
development and negotiation of urban service agreements varies considerably from one
! service to another, based upon the research and identification of issues.
In one case - fire protection - no particular issues have been identified. Therefore, the B
parties can proceed to negotiate urban service agreements and make findings in the J a j
Action Plan 2 OWENS
OWE%5 F
COGAN
L~
10/21/96 Draft
agreement that none of the factors in ORS 195 are necessary to address because Tualatin
Vallev Fire and Rescue is the sole provider of fire service and no other party has
declared an interest to provide this service in the future. In fact, it may not be
necessary to develop an urban service agreement for fire protection because there is
only one provider, but the parties may wish to do so anyway to address a number of
planning and coordination interests of the parties.
Mass transit is another service that may not require an urban service agreement. No
other provider in the study area has declared an interest in providing transit service.
Furthermore, Tri-Abet is currently engaged in a process to address many of the issues
that the parties in the study area have concerning transit service. ;
Parks, recreation and open space is proposed to undergo review of all agreement
factors under ORS 195. Some clear and far-reaching alternatives for this group of
services have been identified for study. The work will involve a partnership between
the parties and the consultant team. The product will be a report identifying the
{ feasibility of each alternative. This may be adequate for moving forward with a t_
decision and an urban service agreement. It is also possible that the results will be so
far-reaching that the parties will want to investigate one or more alternatives more
thoroughly before making a decision.
A completely different approach is recommended to address sanitary sewers and -
storm water management. The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) already has service s
agreements with each city within its boundaries, including Beaverton and Tigard.
These service agreements could be modified rather easily to meet the requirements of
ORS 195. At the same time, there are some topics that the parties would like to evaluate
first - some of these are already addressed in the existing service agreements and some
are not. Because USA's service area extends beyond the boundaries of the studv area, it
will be difficult to isolate it to address all agreement factors in ORS 195. Furthermore,
the agency is interested in maintaining some consistency among urban service
agreements. Therefore, it is proposed that the Beaverton-Tigard area be a case study
for analysis and evaluation of some important topics. The results of this analysis and
evaluation could be a model on how to approach these and other issues with the
remaining cities and eventually modify service agreements. i
This work will also be a partnership between the local government staff and the
consultant team. The consultant will facilitate discussions between the agency and the
two cities and assist with technical evaluation where an outside, objective third-party
viewpoint could be important. j
Water service is the most complicated issue to address in this project. There are six
water providers in the study area - seven, including USA. They are making significant
efforts to cooperatively develop new water sources, provide interties between svstems
and cooperate in other areas of operation and management. The study area has seen f
Action OwEN5
COEAction Plan 3
cocAN
MEW
10/21/96 Draft {
t
ffi
several major changes in water service in the past five years and most parties agree that i
there could likely be further changes in the future. However, because of the dynamic t
situation, none of the parties feel comfortable addressing the issue of ultimate service I
provision directly at this time. Instead, they would like to evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of a "status quo" situation and the concept of a coalition of water
providers. The coalition concept would provide an environment and framework for
continued discussion and evaluation of alternatives for ultimate water provision. The
approach to address these two alternatives will be similar to that for parks, recreation
and open space. All the agreement factors will be addressed in terms of strengths and
i weaknesses. The outcome of this effort could either be a decision to maintain the status
I quo, or agree to form a coalition for continued discussion of alternative service
provision in the future.
I
Streets and roads are unique from the other services for a variety of reasons. There are
no distinct service areas, but a layering of jurisdiction and responsibility. General
authorities and responsibilities are established by state statute. The need here relates
more to sorting out and resolving specific issues and responsibilities which are
impeding effective and efficient provision of these services, including examining
cooperation efforts that could increase efficiency of service and reduce costs. It is
proposed that the County, cities and State convene a task group to work on these issues
as they develop urban service agreements. The consultant team can provide technical
assistance if needed on some limited issues, but consultant assistance may not be
needed.
1i -
Table 1 summarizes the Action Plan according to the level of effort needed to develop
urban service agreements. As the table demonstrates, no further study is required to
proceed with urban service agreements for fire protection and mass transit, if these
agreements are required under state statute or the jurisdictions wish to develop
agreements even if they are not required. Some work is required for sanitary sewers,
storm water management, roads and streets, and law enforcement. Substantial work is
required for water service and parks, open space and recreation.
The table also summarizes the responsibility for undertaking the work required, with
} "C" representing work to be undertaken by the consultant team and "S" representing
work to be undertaken by local government staff. In several cases, a joint effort will be
needed by the consultants and staff, indicated by C/S.
Each Action Plan indicates the data and information needed. This is a preliminary
indication, but will be refined and revised based on the specific methodology that will
be developed for each. The consultants will coordinate data and information requests
! to avoid duplication of effort and assure consistency. For example, we will select one 1
set of population and demographic figures to use for all services.
J ~ .
Action Plan 4 COGAN~J
1 OWENS F
1 COGAN
_ d _
10/21/96 Draft
Public Involvement Strategy
The level and type of public involvement in this Action Plan should vary with each
service and the types of issues that are addressed. This was the consensus of a meeting
between the consultants and the Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) on
October 2, 1996. The CIAC's comments are reflected in our public involvement strategy
for each service.
It is difficult for citizens to understand the topic of urban services and urban service
agreements unless there is something specifically important to them. In most cases, the
issues that will be examined and the likely results will have little or no outward affect
on service levels or costs. In one or two instances, however, the question of who will
provide the service and where will be very important to citizens, particularly those in
the unincorporated areas.
Our recommended overall strategy is designed to help citizens comprehend and
respond to the general topic in a meaningful way, while placing special emphasis on
those services likely to be of most interest to citizens.
Among all the services being studied, parks, open space and recreation are those the
CIAC and we believe will be of greatest concern to citizens due to the fact that they are
popular and well-used and the far reaching effects of the range of alternatives that will
be evaluated. We propose that they be the centerpiece of the public involvement
program for the entire project
The major proposed activity is a set (2-3) of open house-style public meetings in early
spring, 1997 to give the public the opportunity to review and comment on the park,
open space and recreation alternatives under consideration. Information also will be
disseminated on the other services under study, with opportunity for feedback on
these, too. It will be important that all the services and providers be represented at
these public meetings.
As described in the Action Plan, additional activities are also planned for parks, open
space and recreation including a questionnaire, fact sheets and media releases.
For services other than parks, open space and recreation, the primary strategy is to
inform citizens about the work at key points in the study. The primary medium for
distributing this information will be utility bills and other appropriate print media.
The consultants will write the articles and design and write information brochures for
utility providers to include in billings in the early part of 1997. These information
pieces also will publicize the open house(s). A format for fact sheets will be designed
for use by all partcipants at the open house(s).
Action Plan 5 ow vs
COGAN
10/21/96 Draft
The consultant team will also train local government staff and officials to make
presentations on any one or all of these services to community groups such as the
Community Participation Organizations (CPOs), Neighborhood Association
Committees (NACs), Public Involvement Teams (PITs), Chambers of Commerce and 10
other organizations. It is expected that the parks, open space and recreation topic will
be of most interest
~ j
Table 2 summarizes the public involvement strategy for each service. Activities are
i
identified as either "passive" or "active". Though passive involvement is primarily to
keep citizens informed about the process and issues, it may also include feedback such
as a questionnaire where the answers would be helpful and meaningful to the study.
Active involvement requires more direct involvement and opportunities to influence
the decisions under consideration. Planned activities are noted by a checkmark y
and optional activities are with an asterisk Parks, recreation and open space will
benefit most from a full range of involvement opportunities while for most of the
others, participation at the open house(s) and providing information through other
venues should be adequate.
Guiding Principles
A workshop for the participants was held on September 12, 1996. In addition to
identifying specific issues related to each service, the group brainstormed "guiding
principles" for this project - principles that could become the criteria for eventual J
decision-making. The consultants compiled these ideas into an overall list that
embraces the range of concepts developed into a list of proposed guiding principles.
TTre Configuration for Urban Services in the Beaverton-Tigard area should.-
o be cost effective without compromising the quality and level of service provision.
♦ be sensitive to the environment and topography.
♦ have boundaries that respect how services work. I
1.
♦ maintain some flexibility to accommodate unknowns. 111
i~ ♦ ensure that services are accessible and responsive to users.
. 1 ,
♦ have the commitment of leaders and the public to implement the outcome.
TTre Urban Service Agreement stud) process should.
♦ maximize opportunities for community involvement by including and informing E
citizens eariv.
Action Plan: 6 COGAN
OWENS l
COGAN f
10/21/96 Draft
♦ be responsive to citizen needs and preferences regarding neighborhood and
community identity while examining the full scope of service provision.
♦ identify and include current and future service providers.
1 ♦ emphasize logical, reasonable provision of each individual service.
♦ consider local and regional long-range goals, plans and build-out capacity.
i
♦ consider capacity of service providers under current and projected demand
scenarios.
♦ consider economies of scale as well as coordination and pooling of resources for
expenditures and delivery systems among and between service providers.
♦ identify alternate service providers and funding possibilities where appropriate.
1
i
Action Plan 7 COGAN
OWENS
. COG.AN
10/21/96 Draft l'
Table 1
1 Action Plan Summary
Beaverton-Tigard Urban Services Project
Level of Effort Needed to Prepare for Urban Service
Agreements
No study Some study Substantial Task Group Responsibility
required required study Recommended
Service
required
Sanitary Sewers and ✓ Yes C/S
Storm Water
Management i
Water Service ✓ Yes C/S
Fire Protection ✓ No S
Parks, Open Space ✓ Yes C/S
and Recreation
Roads and Streets ✓ Yes S
Mass Transit ✓
No S
Law Enforcement ✓ Yes S/C
S = Staff
C = Consultant
S H R
1. z l Action Plait g
5
r7,
i
10/21/96 Draft
Table 2
Public Involvement Strategy
Ilea verlon= Tigard Urban Services Project
Passive Involvement Active Involvement i
Service utility Bill Fact Sheets Media Speaking Response Open House
Inserts; Releases Engagements Questionnaire Participation
Articles
Sanitary Sewers
and Storm Water
Management ✓ ✓ ~ 91E ~ ✓
Water Service ✓ ✓ ✓
Fire Protection ✓
Parks, Open
Space and
Recreation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
i
Streets and
Roads
Mass Transit
Law Enforcement ✓ ✓
✓ Planned Activities
Optional Activities
non -
I = RI Arlion 1'len 9
.®b riY was! --fthft O MIA
NEW
•
I J,
- 5
ACTION PLAN FRAMEWORK
Service Issues Approach Involved Parties Affected Citizens
Sanitary Saver and • Alternatives roles for Form task group to evaluate Unified Sewerage Agency All residents and businesses s
Storm Water agency and cities in each issues in a "case study" Beaverton in study area
Management USB, including approach with possible Tigard
maintenance applicability to the rest of Washington Count
• Distribution of revenue USA's jurisdiction
• Collection and use of i
SDCs
• Master and watershed
planning
• Role of Integrated Water
Resource Management
Approach
Water • Multiple providers Form task group to examine: Tualatin Valley Water Dist. I.AII residents and
• Need for more water I.Status Quo West Slope Water Dist. businesses in Beaverton
sources 2.Coalition concept Raleigh Water Dist. USB
• USA has become a major Beaverton 2.AII residents and
water provider (reuse) Tigard businesses in Tigard USB
• Possible dissolution of Tigard Water District 3.All residents and
Raleigh and West Slope Unified Sewerage Agency businesses in study area
water districts Washington County
Fire Protection None Proceed with Urban Service Tualatin Valley Fire and All residents and businesses
Agreement Rescue in study area
Beaverton
Tigard
Washington County
CMAN
ORVFNS
1 CMAN
i
-
ra:
Service Issues Approach Involved Parties Affected Citizens
Parks, Opcn Space • Examine alternatives for Form task group to examine: Tualatin Hills Park and • Beaverton USB residents
and Recreation Tigard and north !.Alternatives for park Recreation District outside THPRD district
Beaverton urban service provision: Washington County boundaries
boundaries • THPRD in Beaverton Metro • City of Tigard residents
• Roles and responsibilities USB; City of Tigard in Tigard • Metzger LID residents
for land acquisition, Tigard USB Beaverton .pull Mountain residents
development and • THPRD for both • Walnut Island residents
maintenance • THPRD for Beaverton Coordination needed with: . Residents within T[iPRD
• Status of Metzger Park USB; new district for Tualatin boundaries
LID with annexation to a Tigard Sherwood
city • Tigard contract for Tigard and Beaverton
• Role of school districts recreation services from School Districts
• TIIPRD in land THPRD
development process 2.Role of Metro
Roads and Streets • Roles and responsibilities Form task group to Washington County All residents and busincs3cs
• Road transfer after examine: ODOT in study area
annexation !.Roles and responsibilities Beaverton
• Transfer of street lighting for road system in each Tigard
after annexation USB
• Development review 2.More consistent process
processes for road transfer after
• Methods to reduce costs annexation to each city
3.Ways to reduce road costs
Law Enforcement I.Duplication of services Form task group to examine Washington County Sheriff All residents and businesses
2.Cooperation in providing transition of Sheriff patrol Beaverton in study area
` services with city annexation Tigard
3.Transition of patrol after
annexation
i
C(K;AN `
OWENS
2 CfK;AN
f
Service Issues Approach Involved Parties Affected Citizens
Mass Transit Suburban transit Give low priority; wait the Washington County All residents and businesses
s outcome of the Transit Beaverton
in the study area
Choices project Tigard
i Tri-Mct
i
t i
t
i
3 '
CMAN
o%Vr.NS I- _ -
000AN
r p _ '
111 11 INS I
BEAVERTON-TIGARD AREA URBAN SERVICE PROJECT
STATUS REPORT
Senate Bill 122 (SB 122), the Urban Services Bill was passed by the 1993 Legislature and codified
as ORS 195. The purpose of the legislation is to improve coordination and planning of urban
services within cities and counties and to determine the most appropriate configuration for
urban services within urban growth boundaries. Two kinds of agreements are required under
ORS 195 - cooperative agreements (also called coordination agreements) and urban service
agreements. Cooperative agreements have already been drafted by Washington County and
the participating jurisdictions and will soon be signed by the participants. The subject of this
project is the development of urban service agreements.
The statute requires urban service agreements to be developed for seven types of services. In
addition to this list of seven, the County and the participants have added storm water
management and law enforcement Standards for what must be contained within urban
services agreements is provided in the law. The law also lists those factors that must be
I considered in developing urban service agreements - "agreement factors". However, the
extent of consideration of each agreement factor is a matter of local government and special
district discretion. (ORS 195.070). We can speculate that the proponents of the legislation
realized that the not every factor is relevant or necessary to address in order to reach agreement I
on what, who, where and how services will be provided in the future, the ultimate objective.
f -
-,e major product of the initial set of tasks in this project is to develop an Action Plan, which
`tu"'entifies how to carry out the balance of the work scope. The Action Plan will cover each !
service and identify the specific tasks that need to be addressed to fulfill the requirements of SB
122. Before the Action Plan can be developed, we need to identify what issues should be
addressed in developing urban service agreements, and, therefore, which factors are most i
important in addressing each service. The Action Plan will be based upon those relevant
factors.
The following is a status report of each urban service that is the subject of this project This
status report follows stakeholder interviews, the September 12, 1996 workshop and our
independent research.
Our report is organized by service. For each service, we have identified:
• Who provides the service within the study area and how it is provided.
• Relevant (SB 122-related) intergovernmental agreements that currently exist between service
providers and how well they meet the requirements for an urban service agreement
• Our analysis of the relevant urban service issues that should be the subject of SB 122 j
intergovernmental agreements with a discussion of how these should be approached in the
Action Plan. j
• A recommendation on how to proceed in the Action Plan. Il
s
Status Report - Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project
F7
e
r
1
r
Washington County conducted an extensive urban service background study in 1994-1995. We
attempted not to duplicate the work that was already completed, but to provide information .
and analysis that would help the County and the participating jurisdictions decide how to
proceed.
E _
{ We have been impressed with the degree of cooperation that exists among service providers in
eastern Washington County - so much so, that in some cases it has been difficult to determine
relevant issues that should be addressed at this point in time. In fact, a number of those we
interviewed expressed a strong interest that whatever approach is taken it not interrupt this f
degree of cooperation that has evolved, but rather, it contribute to a long-term goal of
continued cooperation. In virtually every service area, significant benchmarks have been
achieved in a wide variety of cooperative efforts, ranging from reducing the number of service
providers to joint use of equipment
We take each service in the order in which it appears in ORS 195 and include the discussion of
storm water, a service not required in the statute, with sanitary sewers. Law enforcement, also
not required in the statute, is discussed last.
SANITARY SEWERS AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
i
The study area is within the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA or "Agency") boundaries, which
extend to the entire urban area within the urban growth boundary (UGB) of Washington
County and beyond in some locations. Sanitary sewage and storm water management are joint
responsibilities of the Agency and cities. For example, the Agency is responsible for the
construction, operation and management of all treatment facilities and trunklines 24" in
diameter and greater. It is also responsible for the collection system under 24" within the
unincorporated area. The cities are responsible for the collection system of lines under 24". In ,
regard to storm water facilities, the cities are responsible for the "closed system" (pipes) and the EE
responsibility varies on the "open system" of creeks and ditches. For example, in Beaverton,
the City is responsible for all of the closed and open system with the exception of Fanno Creek,
which is the responsibility of the Agency.
Existing Agreements and SB 122: Since the Agency's inception in the early 1970's, it has
operated under intergovernmental agreements with the cities and County within its boundaries
specifying the relationship between the Agency and these entities. The agreements were
amended in 1990 to expand the Agency's authority into storm water management and provide
for similar assignments of responsibility between the District, cities and County. A separate
agreement entered into by the Agency and all the cities establishes an interagency committee to
review matters of common concern.
We studied these agreements as they pertain to Beaverton and Tigard to see how they meet the
j requirements of SB 122 (ORS 195). For the most part, we found that these agreements meet the
test of an urban service agreement under ORS 195, with one possible exception. The
~ f
i LCX;A% l
Status Report - Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project Z
i
FT-
regiments do not address the issue of "planning and coordinating provision of the urban
~rvice with other urban services", one of the requirements.
i
However, we are aware that there is considerable coordination of sanitary sewers and storm
water management with land use planning under the umbrella of the Metro Water Resources
Policy Advisory Committee (1VRPAC) as it examines the 2040 Growth Concept.
A cooperative agreement has been drafted that stipulates the parties to an urban service
agreement for wastewater (sanitary sewers) and surface water (storm drainage). The
agreement, not yet signed, would require three urban service agreements involving the parties
within the study area: - 1) with the District, County, Metro and the Cities of Hillsboro and
Beaverton; 2) with the District, County, Metro, and the cities of Tigard, Beaverton, Durham,
King City and Tualatin; and 3) with the District, County, Metro and the cities of Tualatin,
Tigard, Durham, King City, Lake Oswego, River Grove, and Sherwood.
Current Issues: From our interviews, the workshop and our own analysis, some issues related
to sanitary sewage and storm drainage have been identified. Most, if not all of these, are j
agency-wide, not just affecting Beaverton and Tigard. These issues involve examining `I
provisions within the existing agreements concerning respective roles and responsibilities and
how revenue (connection fees, monthly service fees and systems development charges) are
allocated between the Agency and the cities.
th regard to roles and responsibilities, the primary question that the Agency raises is
whether the current arrangement, which has been unchanged for over twenty years, is still the
most cost effective and efficient means of assigning responsibility for construction, maintenance
and operation of the collection system, particularly in light of increasing annexation to cities ff
and a decrease in Agency responsibility. Both the agency and Beaverton have raised the issue E
of distribution of revenue, which has been a long-standing issue.
Since 1993 USA and the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) have been discussing sanitary
sewage, storm water management and municipal water within a context of "total water
management' or "integrated water resource management."- consolidating and combining
existing functions to manage all aspects of water resources within the Tualatin River Basin. In k
May, 1994, the Board of the Unified Sewerage Agency adopted a resolution supporting the goal
of consolidating water management functions in the Tualatin River Basin. The two agencies
have been pursuing the joint use of space as a first step to perhaps a large transition.
From what we have been able to determine, Tigard and Beaverton have not been involved in
the discussions of a water resource management agency. Some have a concern about how the
decision might eventually be made and how that will impact them.
Conclusion and Recommendation: It may be unnecessary to consider drafting comprehensive
urban service agreements behveen the Agency and cities given the existing agreements which
?t most of the provisions of ORS 195. We believe it is possible to insert a clause in the
pre mbles of these agreements to indicate that they are urban service agreements as required
i
Status Report - Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project
t~
L~
~ l .
3
6
by ORS 195. The agreements should also include a new provision related to how the agency
will involve the cities in the discussion of a comprehensive water resource management i
approach (this may be covered by how water itself is addressed in the Action Plan). j
In terms of the general issue of roles and responsibilities and the distribution of revenue, we l
recommend that the Beaverton/Tigard area be considered as a case study to examine
alternative scenarios for local sewer collection system over the long term for each urban service
boundary. This would be a survey analysis of data concerning historical and existing costs and
revenues to determine to what degree there have been changes in service levels and costs, and
how revenues have been distributed and used. The urban service agreements with the cities f
j could either incorporate changes that would stem from this analysis, or outline the process that
could be used to examine them agency-wide, the most likely outcome.
n
WATER SERVICE
The study area contains six water providers - two cities and four water districts.
In the Beaverton urban service area, the City of Beaverton, TVWD, West Slope Water District I
(WSWD) and the Raleigh Water District (RWD) are providers. The three districts purchase
most of their water from the City of Portland with its source in the Bull Run watershed east of
Portland. The City of Beaverton receives all of the water it provides as part of its system from
the Trask River and Barney Reservoir in the Coast Range. In 1994, TVWD joined the joint
Water Commission, formed in 1979 with Forest Grove, Hillsboro and Beaverton, and bought an
interest in the Barney Reservoir expansion project and the major transmission line from the
treatment plant that serves Hillsboro and Beaverton'. The new transmission line is now under
construction.
Within the Beaverton city limits, the City of Beaverton provides water to about 75% of the city; 4
TVWD provides water to about 20% of the city; and WSWD and RWD provide water to about Ills
5% of the city. j
Within the Tigard area, the City of Tigard, the Tigard Water District and TVWD are providers.
For all practical purposes, the Tigard Water District only exists on paper until the City
completely annexes district territory, at which time it will cease to exist The City now manages
all the districts assets and provides service under contract to the unincorporated area. Tigard
also provides water on contract to King City and Durham. A five-member Intergovernmental
Water Board, with representatives from each jurisdiction, provides broad decision-making
authority. The TVWD provides water to about 30% of the city and the City of Tigard provides
1 the balance. Tigard receives most of its water on contract from Lake Oswego with its source in
the Clackamas River. As discussed above, TVWD's primary source is water it buys on contract f
from the City of Portland with its source in the Bull Run Reservoir. !
I USA also brought an interest in the Barney Reservoir expansion project to provide flow augmentation for the
Tualatin River. t
i
COGAN
Status Report - Beaverton -Tigard Area Urban Services Project " F` -
i F r
' t
t
isting Agreements: As the Appendix demonstrates, there are several intergovernmental
....,,,reements between and among water providers in the study area.
i
The eight intergovernmental agreements involving Beaverton fall into two sets - those that deal
with its participation in the joint Water Commission, and those that deal with defining water
service responsibility within the city limits. Concerning the latter, Beaverton has agreements
with TVWD and WSWD. In 1990, at the same time it drafted the agreement with WSWD, the
City drafted an agreement with RWD but the district chose not to sign it2
Beaverton's relationship with TVWD is fairly complicated and the master intergovernmental
agreement adopted in 1990 addresses many factors. The City has areas that are served by the
City, areas that are within TVWD's boundaries and served by the district, and areas that are
outside the district's boundaries and served by the district The agreement addresses all three
circumstances in terms of ownership, maintenance, water rates, billing and other matters.
Furthermore, it stipulates that the City will not withdraw further territory from the district
upon annexation. Another agreement adopted in 1993 addresses long-range planning and
cooperative ventures.
The City's agreement with WSWD is much simpler and essentially provides that the City will i .
not withdraw territory from the district upon annexation.
The City of Tigard has an intergovernmental agreement with Durham, King City and the i -
Vgard Water District, discussed previously. "
Not listed in the appendix are a number of agreements that the districts and cities have for -
water purchase and interties. For example, TVWD, WSWD and RWD have long-term
agreements to purchase water from the City of Portland. .
SB 122: We examined the agreements that Tigard has with the Tigard Water District; King City
and Durham, and those that Beaverton has with TVWD. They go a long way toward meeting
SB 122 requirements. As with sewer and storm water management these agreements do not
address how planning for these services will be coordinated with planning for other services.
However, as with sewer and storm water, water resources have been coordinated with land use
planning for the region under the Metro WRPAC.
Cooperative agreements for water providers have been drafted but not yet signed. Three
agreements pertain to the study area and each provides for parties to an urban service I
agreement: 1) RWD, the County, Metro, Beaverton and Portland; 2) WSWD, the County, Metro,
Beaverton and Portland; 3) TVWD, the County, Metro, Beaverton and Hillsboro; 4) TVWD, the
County, Metro, Beaverton, Hillsboro, Portland and Tigard; and 5) TVWD, the County, Metro,
Beaverton and Tigard.
- I
v e are told that this agreement in now under discussion and may be signed in the near future.
Status Report - Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project
f
t
f
We question why there is not an agreement(s) planned among the TVWD, RWD and WSWD.
As we discuss below, there are potential issues that could develop between these districts and
the City of Beaverton.
j Current Issues: Without doubt, water service is the most complicated of the service issues.
Service areas of the providers do not follow easily understood boundaries. The boundaries
reflect circumstances of geo-political history more than any other factor. Furthermore, the
boundaries of TVWD and the Tigard water service area extend outside the study area.
We have been unable to find a unanimity of opinion among the water providers about water-
related issues. The range of opinion is extensive, from some believing that there are a large
number of issues to some believing there are none. Some believe there are issues, but do not
think this is the right time to raise them.
All providers do agree that there is a fairly high degree of cooperation among them. This has
been fostered by their participation in the Regional Water Supply Study begun in 1490 and
which has now evolved into a consortium for long-term implementation. TVWD's joining the
joint Water Commission is an example of this new era of cooperation, a step that would j
probably not have been possible before the Regional Water Supply project was initiated. It was
also fostered by TVWD and Beaverton coming to agreement in 1990-1993 on several long- '
standing issues.
Some have raised the issue, also discussed above, about the possibility that TVWD and USA
could merge to form a water resource management agency. It is not clear to the other water
providers how that would affect their ability to plan and provide municipal water.
As objective evaluators looking from the outside, we can identify two issues, that had some
support in our interviews and at the workshop, that should be addressed at a minimum to
comply with SB 122 These issues are:
j 1. The eventual fate of RWD and WSWD. If and when Beaverton annexes the entirety of these
i districts, ORS 222.510 provides that they would automatically dissolve and the City would
take over all district assets and provide water service. Under this scenario, an agreement
outlining their final disposition may seem unnecessary. However, another possible scenario
that has not been anticipated, and has not been suggested by anyone we talked to but quite
evident to us, is the possibility that one or both of these districts could merge with TVWD at
some time in the future before the City actually annexed all of the district territory. This !
circumstance would forestall city dissolution of the district after complete annexation, if this
is desired. Therefore, it would seem prudent for the City and the three districts to discuss
j who - the City or TVWD - should be the eventual service provider.
2. Agreement between Tigard and TVWD. A significant portion of the City of Tigard lies
within the TVWD. At this time, there is no agreement indicating a long-range provider and
the City's position on withdrawal from the district at the time of annexation.
{
Status Report - Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project
I .
L~
L~
There are some who have indicated that there are too many water providers within a relatively
7~all geographic area, and that water service generally is unnecessarily complicated. There
might be economies of scale by pooling resources, including water supplies, water rights, etc.
and this could help keep rates down and water quality high. We agree that this is a major
j issue, but it is beyond the scope of this study partly because more territory than that involved
I in the study area would be affected.
i
Conclusions and Recommendations: Water service within the study area is complicated. Many
issues go beyond the scope of this study. The participants will need to determine what issues
are appropriate to be addressed in this project At a minimum, we recommend that the issue of
future disposition of WSWD and RWD, and an agreement between Tigard and TVWD, should
be undertaken.
The agreements Beaverton has with the joint Water Commission and TVWD are generally
adequate to address SB 122. Similar to the USA agreements, they could be revised to indicate
compliance with ORS 195.
An equally valid approach is to review general advantages and disadvantages of other
alternative configurations for water service within the study area, while recognizing that there
would be effects to areas outside the study area and that such an evaluation would unlikely be
conclusive. Further discussion with the water providers is necessary to determine whether this
is a worthwhile effort
E SERVICE
The entire study area is served by one fire service provider - Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue
District (T'VF&R, or "District"). The district extends beyond the study area and also includes
the cities of Tualatin, Sherwood, Durham, Wilsonville, King City, River Grove and Lake
Oswego, as well as portions of unincorporated Washington County and Multnomah County.
Beaverton was annexed to the District effective July 1, 1996, although the City and District had
operated under an "operational consolidation" for several years before the annexation During
the year prior to the annexation effective date, a seamless transition was made, bringing all
Beaverton fire department personnel under the organization of the District
Existing Agreements: Washington County, the City of Beaverton, the City of Hillsboro and the i
District entered into an intergovernmental agreement in November 1995 to establish the Office
of Consolidated Emergency Management (OCEM) in Washington County. The purpose is to _
improve the level of disaster and emergency coordination and preparedness within the
boundaries of the participating jurisdictions. The agreement provides that each participating
organization contribute staff to the OCEM housed at District headquarters. Tigard is not a
member of the OCEM.
SB 122: A cooperative agreement has been drafted that stipulates the parties to an urban service
-eement for fire and life safety purposes. The agreement, not yet signed by the affected
i
CMAN
Status Report - Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project
I
L~
e
parties, would require three urban service agreements involving the parties within the study
area: - 1) the District, County, Metro and the Cities of Hillsboro and Beaverton; 2) the District, -
County, Metro, and the cities of Tigard, Beaverton, Durham, King City and Tualatin; and 3) the
District County, Metro and the cities of Tualatin, Tigard, Durham, King City, Lake Oswego,
j River Grove, and Sherwood.
1 According to ORS 195.065, urban service agreements are required for "units of local ,
government and special districts that provide an urban service to an area within an urban
growth boundary that has a population greater than 2,500 persons, and that are identified as
appropriate parties by a cooperative agreement under ORS 195.020." Furthermore, fire Ik
protection is a specific service that is subject to urban service agreements in ORS 195. Once the
cooperative agreement has been signed, urban service agreements will be required of the
parties stipulated in the agreement as described above. However, in reading the statute
j carefully, it is unclear that it is necessary to prepare urban service agreements for fire protection {
in this case because the District is the only provider.
Current Issues: None of the stakeholders we talked with could identify any fire-related issues
1 that should be subject to study in this project The District, however, did indicate its interest in
seeing a boundary established between Tigard and Beaverton so that it would know which ii
entity to work with in land use planning, development review and planning for new fire
C
facilities. This need is best fulfilled by the two cities and it is not something that the District -
needs to be a party to since it provides fire service to both.
Since the district is constituted under Oregon laws governing special districts, and the cities are
not delegating this responsibility under an "ORS 190" arrangement, an urban service agreement t
appears unnecessary. Furthermore, the parties within the study area are not interested in
examining other alternatives to providing fire protection, believing that the existing district
provides very satisfactory service to its customers, including the cities and county.
At the same time, some of the requirements of the law relate to "how" an urban service is
provided. For example, "planning and coordinating provision of the urban service with other I
urban services" is one of the provisions of an urban service agreement (ORS 195.065 (1) (.A)).
This provision would appear to address some of the interests the District has in having a
j boundary resolved between Tigard and Beaverton. Once such a boundary is settled on, for
example, the district would know which service providers, particularly which entities that have I . .
land use planning and development review authority, it would need to work with.
There is some question about fire and life safety plan review and inspection. The preamble of
the draft cooperative agreement states that ORS 455.150 requires local governments to specify
how the Uniform Fire Code will be considered in the review process of the design and i
construction phases of buildings or structures. From what we have been able to determine, the
District provides this function and service to Washington County and Tigard but not to
Beaverton. With the annexation of Beaverton to the District, the City of Beaverton retained fire s.
and life safety plan review and inspection under the Uniform Fire Code within its Building l
Division. J € =
Status Report - Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project .
x
i
~nclusion and Recommendation: It appears unnecessary to develop urban service agreements
between the District, Beaverton and Tigard because the District is the sole provider of fire
j protection. However, it is probably desirable to develop an agreement(s) to address issues
related to coordinating planning for fire service with other urban services if not addressed in
the cooperative agreements.
I "
PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
There are four providers of one or more of these services within the study area.
The Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD) provides park, recreation and open
space services to the entire City of Beaverton and for a large portion of the surrounding d
unincorporated area outside the City of Beaverton within its urban service boundary. At one I'
time, the City of Beaverton considered itself a parks provider, and still owns some park land, 4
but it has delegated all of its parks and recreation responsibilities to THPRD.
THPRD has developed a strong relationship with the Beaverton School District in providing
parks and recreation activities. In the past, THPRD has jointly purchased property with the
school district to allow for a larger site than a school would normally need so that a park and
playing fields can be developed that will jointly serve both districts. This arrangement has
worked well within the portion of the school district that is within Beaverton and the
.'incorporated land around Beaverton. However, the school district extends into the City of
Tgard as well, but THPRD's boundaries do not. Therefore, THPRD does not have the same -
relationship with schools in the Tigard.
The City of Tigard provides park and open space services within its city limits. It does not
provide recreation programs. i
The Metzger Park Local Improvement District (LID) owns and operates the Metzger Park in the
Metzger community. The LID pays for its operation by Washington County.
Unincorporated areas within Tigard's urban service boundary outside the Metzger LID do not f
have park, open space and recreation services. 4
Metro is a provider of open space within the study area. As part of the Metro Greenspaces
bond issue, Metro is acquiring open space within the studv area, as is THPRD and the cities of
Beaverton and Tigard. It is not entirely clear what the disposition of these properties will be,
i.e., whether all those being acquired by Metro will be owned and operated by Metro, or
whether Metro intends to turn them over to local entities for ownership, operation and
maintenance. In the case of Beaverton, acquired lands will likely be turned over to THPRD for
maintenance, if not ownership.
1i
I
Status Report - Beaverton. -Tigard Area Urbaa Services Project
I _
F
t
i
Existing Agreements: There are no urban service-related agreements between service providers 1
in the study area, except for agreements THPRD has with the Beaverton School District The
agreements with the school district provide for joint use of property for school and park use, as
well as recreation programs within and outside of school buildings.
SB 122: A cooperative agreement has been drafted that stipulates the parties to an urban service
agreement for parks, open space and recreation. The agreement not yet signed by the affected
I parties, would require three urban service agreements involving the parties within the study p
area: -1) the District, County, Metro and the Cities of Hillsboro and Beaverton; 2) the District,
County, Metro, and the cities of Tigard, Beaverton, Hillsboro and Portland, and 3) the District,
j County, Metro and the cities of Beaverton and Tigard.
j
{ As with fire protection, THPRD is the sole provider of parks, recreation and open space services
within the City of Beaverton. One could interpret, therefore, that an urban service agreement is
not required between Beaverton and THPRD. On the other hand, there was a time that
Beaverton provided some park services in addition to those THPRD provided, and the statutes
do not preclude the City from also providing these services again in the future. Therefore, it is
probably advisable to develop an urban service agreement between the two entities.
Current Issues: Of all the services we have examined, parks, open space and recreation are the -
most substantial in terms of issues that SB 122 contemplated. -
When THPRD was formed in the 1960's, it was with the idea of providing services to the City of `i
Beaverton and the area encompassed in the city's comprehensive plan at the time. The
comprehensive plan boundaries also reflected, generally, the boundaries of the Beaverton
School District In fact, state law provides that when Beaverton annexes land that is not already
within THPRD, it is automatically annexed to the district Since that time, Beaverton reduced I' - -
the scope of its comprehensive planning to the city limits and Washington County has been j
responsible for all planning in the unincorporated area. Adoption of the Beaverton urban
service boundary in 1993 is a step toward regaining planning and service responsibility for an
area larger than just the city limits. The urban service boundary extends to the Metro urban
growth boundary to the north of Highway 26. A large portion of this area is still outside the
THPRD boundaries. When Beaverton eventually annexes all of this land area, those areas that
are not already within THPRD will automatically become part of the district
The district has had a master planning process underway during the past year. The master
plan encompasses district territory and anticipates some possible expansion of its boundaries in
the future. There is some concern by the district whether it can provide services effectively and
f efficiently to the entire Beaverton urban service boundary.
s
Notwithstanding this concern, there is also some pressure on the district to consider expanding
south into Tigard. The City of Tigard has established its own parks and open space program as
part of its package of services. However, it does not provide recreation services and demand is
growing for this type of service. Neither does it have the same relationship with the Tigard J
j School District that THPRD has with the Beaverton District Furthermore, there is a problem
Status Report - Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project F"
~J
3 those patrons of the Beaverton School District that are not within THPRD. These students
~_~mnot participate in THPRD sponsored recreation programs in the schools or elsewhere
{ without paving extra fees because they reside out of the park district This causes some public
relations problems for THPRD as well as depriving some Tigard residents of services enjoyed
{ by other children attending the same schools.
4 The unincorporated residents within Tigard's urban service boundary do not have any park ~
and recreation services. Some would say this is how it should be until they annex to Tigard
when they could start receiving these services as part of the package of city services.
Nonetheless, it has been an issue for many years.
The Metzger Park LID is an unusual entity. It is about 1,280 acres in size and includes about
6,730 people. The LID is able to pay for the operation and maintenance of one park. About half _
the population within this district is within the City of Tigard and the other half is outside. A
very small piece (100 people) is in the City of Portland. Those residents that reside within both
the LID and one of the two cities ostensibly pay for park services both to the LID and to the city
`
they reside in. y
Washington County provides the maintenance and operation services for the Metzger Park.
However, the County is attempting to decrease its neighborhood level services and concentrate
on county-wide services. It does not have any other neighborhood parks to maintain. -
erefore, there is a serious question about whether this is an effective method of providing the
vice.
A number of parties are interested in examining the future of parks, open space and recreation
services in eastern Washington County. In particular, there is strong interest in determining
whether THPRD should provide services to Tigard, either through annexation of the city to
THPRD or through contract The Metzger LID is also an element in the equation. While the .
LID is strongly supported by the residents, most others view it as an inefficient method of
providing the service, especially as the area grows and changes.
There is also interest in what Metro's eventual role will be in parks and open space. Current i
issues relate to disposition of Greenspaces properties. i' .
Finally, THPRD is concerned with becoming more involved in the development process so that
it can influence the provision of parks in new development If possible, this is probably more
appropriately dealt with in the cooperative agreements.
Conclusions and Recommendations: There are four distinct alternatives that should be
examined for this set of urban services:
1. Two providers: THPRD within Beaverton 's urban service boundary; and City of Tigard 4
within its urban service boundary.
2. One provider: THPRD for both Beaverton and Tigard urban service boundaries.
~ j
CM;A%
F\ti
Status Report - Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project
t .
J
-
3. Two providers: THPRD within Beaverton's urban service, a new park and recreation
district that would include Tigard's urban service boundary and could also include the
urban service boundaries of Tualatin and Sherwood. 14
4. City of Tigard contract with THPRD for recreation services for the Beaverton School District
i residents or all residents of the City.
While school districts are not participants in this project, there needs to be some consideration
of Beaverton School District's historical role with THPRD in examining these alternatives.
f -
STREETS AND ROADS f
Within the study area, there are five providers of streets and roads - Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT), Washington County, the Urban Road Maintenance District, Beaverton !
i and Tigard. i
4
State statutes set out the basic authority and responsibility for each type of provider - the state,
i
counties, cities and special districts - including funding mechanisms. The state is responsible
for state highways, the counties for county roads, and the cities for streets and roads that are
neither state highways nor county roads but are dedicated to the cities as public rights-of-way.
Special districts can be established to provide either county or city level services.
Notwithstanding statutory provisions, there is still considerable latitude in the specifics of how
these services can be provided, including cooperative arrangements between these various
levels of government such as permitted under ORS 190. Furthermore, statutes allow the
transfer of jurisdiction of specific streets and roads from one entity to another. Thus, for
example, state highways can become county roads or city streets, and county roads can become
state highways or city streets.
Road jurisdiction is a major confusion to the public. Unlike other urban services, providers of
roads and streets are not necessarily contained within a particular boundary. State highways
can be any place and usually run through multiple jurisdictions. County roads can be in or
outside cities, and can also run through more than one municipality within the county. The
general level of responsibility relates more to the function of the roadway than any particular
geographic area that is serves.
With this complex web of roads and streets and entities all providing these facilities within the
1 same geographic area, it is easy to call into question economy and efficiency in development
III and maintenance of the road system.
In the past several years, there has been some sorting out of responsibility in Washington
County. For example, the County established the "county-wide road system" - the system of
roads and streets that serve multiple jurisdictions and are important to the overall movement of {
people and goods around and through the county. The County established a policy of retaining ~ .
roads and streets of county-wide importance instead of transferring jurisdiction to cities after
1j .J
Status Report - Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project
_ I
~gnexation. On the other hand, local streets, not of county-wide significance, are encouraged to
transferred to city jurisdiction after annexation.
! Local streets within the unincorporated area have low priority for county maintenance funding.
The County created the Urban Road Maintenance District for the urban unincorporated area.
This district provides local road maintenance funding at a higher level than would occur
without it
ODOT has also done some sorting out of the road system. Some state highways that at one time
served a "farm to market" function of great importance to the economy of the state are now
serving more of an urban function. ODOT has been willing to transfer some state highways to
county and city jurisdiction, such as Scholls Ferry Road and Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway.
Another issue ODOT has been addressing in some areas of the state is cooperative operation
and maintenance programs. For example, ODOT has delegated authority to Beaverton to
maintain and operate all state traffic signals on state highways within the city and immediately
outside. In other parts of the state, ODOT is making agreements with local governments to
provide sharing of equipment and reciprocal maintenance to prevent duplication of effort, e.g.,
using only one jurisdiction's snowplow to plow both state and local roads instead of both using
them.
Washington County and its cities have cooperated and coordinated for many years on long- -
Dge transportation planning issues and project development This cooperation and
coordination has taken place under the auspices of the Washington County Transportation
Coordinating Committee (WCTCC). The WCTCC has both a policy committee of elected
officials and a technical committee of staff from the member jurisdictions. The committee
reviews transportation issues and projects and makes recommendations to its members, Metro,
ODOT and Tri-Met on a wide range of topics. It is credited with raising the level of public
awareness in the county about transportation matters generally and has been successful in
securing more funding than was likely to be gained without this mechanism. For example, the
WCTCC has sponsored three serial levies in the past ten years for transportation improvements,
all three of which were approved by the voters. In addition, the County and cities have
developed a uniform set of street improvement standards.
Existing Agreements: Most intergovernmental agreements that exist for roads and streets are
special agreements for particular capital projects. We are aware of only two agreements that
are broader service related agreements - one among ODOT, Washington County and
Beaverton, and the other between Washington County and Beaverton. Both relate to the
delegation to Beaverton for operation and maintenance of traffic signals within the Beaverton
city limits. j
Even though the WCTCC has existed for 14 years, it has operated under a set of bylaws
adopted by the board of commissioners but without an intergovernmental agreement
f
L-AN
Status Report - Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project
;
€
J
i
d
SB 122: Cooperative agreements for roads and streets have not been drafted. According to ORS
195, all current providers would have to be part of an urban service agreement
Current Issues: It has been difficult to determine a list of specific issues to be addressed under
SB 122 because the broader topic of transportation dominates everyone s agenda.
I
While no one raised it as an issue, it is significant to point out that the WCTCC process that has
worked so successfully for many years has not been formalized in intergovernmental
agreements. I
I.
As discussed previously, there has already been a fair amount of sorting out of roles and
responsibilities during the past ten years. However, there are still some "rough spots" that
some of those we talked with would like to see addressed. Those are:
1. The need for a more consistent policy and process of transfer of county roads to city
jurisdiction after annexation. Beaverton has consistently requested transfer of local roads
from the County to the City after annexation, and there are no local roads within County
jurisdiction within the city limits. In Tigard, however, an estimated 10-15% of local roads
are still within County jurisdiction.
j 2. The need for a policy and procedure for transferring street lights from county street lighting
districts to city jurisdiction after annexation. The two cities pay for street lighting in a
different manner than County residents pay.
3. The intergovernmental process for reviewing development proposals for traffic impacts.
4. Ways to reduce road improvement and maintenance costs through cooperative efforts.
Some of the parties believe there may be economies and efficiencies that can be gained by
pooling efforts and resources.
In addition to these issues, the impact on the urban road maintenance district of major
annexations to cities could become an issue. Some residents are concerned that commitments
that the County made be honored by the cities at the time of annexation.
Conclusions and Recommendations: An intergovernmental agreements to formalize what has
already been standard operating procedure and policy for some time would be an appropriate
step to take to address SB 122 requirements for roads and streets. The issues listed above can be
i addressed in the process to develop this agreement There may be alternative ways to address
these issues which can also be identified at that time.
3
MASS TRANSIT
i The entire study area is served by Tri-Met which, at this time, is the sole provider of transit
services. As with fire protection, there is some question as to whether an urban service
agreement is required under ORS 195 because it is a sole provider. I
' There are some issues associated with transit service in the study area, but these are fairly
common issues throughout the transit district These issues relate to the adequacy of local bus
COCAN
Status Report - Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project TAF.
ervice in the suburbs, and not just to downtown Portland. Some feel that their communities do
It receive the benefits of the payroll tax that Tri-Met receives.
These issues and others will be addressed by Tri-Met through a program called "Transit
{ Choices for Livability". Tri-Met intends to engage local communities around the region in
identifying needs for transit service, particularly as they work to implement the Metro 2040
Growth Concept
Conclusions and Recommendations
We recommend the County give low priority to mass transit in the current process of
developing intergovernmental agreements. The outcome of the transit choices project may
provide direction on new alternatives for providing transit service in the region, including
within the study area. That would be the appropriate time to develop an urban service
agreement with Tri-Met
LAW ENFORCEMENT
There are four providers of local law enforcement services in the study area - Washington
County, Beaverton, Tigard and the Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District (ESPD). The ESPD is
operated by the Sheriff for the urban unincorporated area through a special operating levy.
This allows urban unincorporated residents to receive a higher level of patrol services than they
uld receive under the county-wide program, but it is not as high a level as they would
T*ceive in one of the two cities.
Existing Agreements:
The County Sheriff has a number of agreements with cities? These range from "handshake"
agreements to formal agreements, and cover topics ranging from drug enforcement to mutual
aid. Other agreements are in a draft form and have not been finalized.
SB122 f{
Law enforcement is not a requirement of SB 122. Therefore, there is considerable leeway in the
type of intergovernmental agreements that local jurisdictions can enter into.
Current Issues:
i
The Washington County Sheriff has been discussing a project to examine policing services in
Washington County, extending beyond the study area for this project for the Beaverton-Tigard
area. According to the proposal developed by Portland State University (PSU):
of the date of this report, we have not received copies of these agreements to analyze and include in the i "
ndix
i
Statics Report - Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project 15, f
i
t
• "There are instances of service delivery in which individual agencies provide the same or
similar types of services within each of their own jurisdictions.
• There are also instances of service delivery in which several agencies work cooperatively to
provide services across jurisdictions.
j • There are currently mechanisms providing for certain consolidated record keeping and
administrative tasks.
• It would be desirable to identify additional services and support tasks which could be
provided cooperatively throughout the county in order to further reduce costs and increase
program effectiveness and public safety."
It is our understanding that this proposal is "on hold" until after the November, 1996 election, i
just weeks away. After the election, the scope of work may be modified.
A particular issue that has been raised for our study has been the method of transition of
County Sheriffs patrol under the ESPD to cities after annexation. Of particular concern would
1 be large annexations that would withdraw a large portion of assessed value from the district at
one time. There needs to be a plan to transition patrol officers from the County to the cities in
this event.
Conclusions and Recommendations: Given the resources that are potentially available to
conduct a more comprehensive study of policing services through the PSU study, we
recommend that a limited scope of work be undertaken under this project until the outcome of
the other proposal is known. This project could focus on the issue of transition of patrol
services from the ESPD to the cities with annexation of large areas to the cities.
9 -
J
C„1:A.
Status Report - Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project ~,6j`
APPENDIX
CURRENT URBAN SERVICE-RELATED AGREEMENTS
WITHIN BEAVERTON-TIGARD STUDY AREA
Topic Agreement Parties
Emergency Intergovernmental Agreement Office of Consolidated Tualatin Valley Fire and
Mgmt. Emergency Management in Washington County Rescue, Washington County,
Cities of Beaverton and 1.
Hillsboro
Sewers and Agreement Between Unified Sewerage Agency and City USA and Beaverton
Storm of Beaverton, July 1990
Water
Mgmt
Agreement Between Unified Sewerage Agency and City USA and Tigard
of Tigard, July 1990
Intergovernmental Agreement For Sanitary Sewerage. USA and Washington County
Storm and Surface Water Management Functions, Tune
1990
Amendment No. 1 to Intergovern mental Agreement For USA, Washington County and
Sanitary Sewerage, Storm and Surface Water Urban Road Maintenance
Management Functions, June 1990 District
Agreement between USA and Washington County USA, Beaverton, Cornelius,
Cities establishing the Interagency Committee, July 1990 Forest Grove, Hillsboro,
Sherwood, Tigard and Tualatin
i
Water Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Tigard and Tigard Water
j Tigard and the Tigard Water District for Deliverv of District
Water Service to Territory with the District Boundaries,
January 1994
joint Water Service Agreement (Hillsboro-Forest Grove- Hillsboro, Forest Grove and
Beaverton), April 1979 Beaverton
Intergovernmental Agreement between Wolf Creek Wolf Creek Highway Water
Highway Water District and City of Beaverton, District (TVWD) and Beaverton
February 1990
Addendum to agreement between TVWD and Beaverton and TVWD
i
Beaverton, February 1990 I!
An Intergovernmental Agreement Between the Citv of Beaverton and WSWD
f
Status Report - Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project.';
F
Topic Agreement
Parties
Beaverton and the West Slope Water District fuly 1990
Memorandum of Agreement June 1993 Beaverton and TVWD
Hillsboro-Beaverton-TVWD foint Water Transmission Beaverton, Hillsboro and
Agreement of September, 1994 T'VWD
Hillsboro-Beaverton Point Water Transmission Beaverton and Hillsboro i
Agreement, April 1979
oint Osvnershi Agreement - Barney Project Rev 6-08. Forest Grove, Hillsboro,
+I Beaverton, TVWD, USA
i Agreement for Water Su vlv ul p
- P J Y1995 TVWD and Tigard .
1
r'
i
1 -
1
Status Report - Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project "QpxENS
Washington County
Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project
REPORT OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
October 4,1996
i
? SUMMARY
Background
In 1993 the Oregon legislature passed Senate Bill 122 (SB 122) to provide a mechanism
for increased cooperation and coordination of urban service delivery agencies within
urban growth boundaries.
As a first step in the process to identify and resolve remaining urban service issues
within the scope of SB 122 for the Beaverton-Tigard area in Washington County, Cogan
Owens Cogan conducted 30 stakeholder interviews in September and early October,
1996. The purpose of conducting these interviews was to assess key urban service
issues and obtain ideas and direction for the Action Plan, including public involvement
approaches. Key findings are summarized below, followed by questionnaire results
organized by question.
1. Existing service configurations and plans for change
In order to identify outstanding issues to be addressed during the course of this study,
providers of the following services were interviewed:
o Three providers of sanitary sewer. Unified Sewerage Agency, the City of
Beaverton and the City of Tigard,
e Three providers of stormwater management services: Unified Sewerage Agency, the
City of Beaverton and the City of Tigard,
♦ Four providers of parks, open space and recreation: Tualatin Hills Park and
Recreation District (THPRD), the City of Tigard, Washington County and METRO,
♦ Fou: providers for road and street services: the City of Tigard, the City of Beaverton
and Washington County and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT),
♦ Tri-ivfet, the sole mass transportation provider in the study area,
♦ Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, the sole provider for fire protection, and
o Three providers of local law enforcement services in the study area: the Washington
County Sheriffs Office, the City of Beaverton and the City of Tigard. f
Several of the providers interviewed indicate that they do have plans for expanding
existing services or adding new services in the future. These service changes range
from expansion of specific services, such as taking over road maintenance, to
expectations of providing higher levels of service generally.
" COGAN
OWENS
Report of Stakeholder Intervietos 1 co
cAN
• t
II. Focus of the Study
j
Half of the jurisdictions interviewed state that their primary interest in this study is
developing urban service agreements for both short and long term issues. Several other
jurisdictions report that their primary interest is in providing the best services possible.
Other individual responses include getting relevant information to citizens,
maintaining a sense of neighborhood involvement including special districts in the
planning process and negotiating cost effective agreements. i
Key Issues C
Service area boundaries is the key issue that most respondents identify as appropriate j
for the focus of this study. Many respondents report that there is a level of confusion
regarding service provision and that it would be easier for the jurisdictions to work
together if boundaries are clearly determined. Others note that "turf" problems are a
hindrance to effective service provision. Several respondents addressed parks and
recreation issues, providing a variety of comments regarding future provision, goals
j and capacity of parks, recreation and open space services, and service providers.
f! Respondents are divided on whether or not the question of water service and water
source issues should or could be resolved within the scope of this project.
Several comments urge greater coordination among providers of law enforcement
services and that there be better definition of a process of road and street transfer.
Individual stakeholders identify a number of other issues which need addressing in the
process of this study.
The one issue that respondents feel does not need revisiting in the course of this study
is fire protection with Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. A few respondents feel that the
Beaverton-Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District annexation policy should not be
revisited.' Some are not interested in seeing any changes with the Local Improvement
j District for Metzger Park.
Citizen Involvement
1
i
The question of citizen interest in this topic generates a wide range of responses, from
not at all interested to very interested. Some respondents feel citizen interest will be
I highest with issues related to fees or rates and annexation.
Suggestions for citizen involvement include using "all avenues available":
i Neighborhood Watch newsletters, open houses, public heUings, the media, Citizen `
i Involvement Teams, direct mail, cable access and videos. One respondent suggests
F
I According to state law, when Beaverton annexes territory that is outside the THPRD, that territory is
automatically annexed to the district at the same time.
COGAN
Report of Stakeholder lntervietas 2 CCOCAN
- -
presenting to citizens comparisons of costs and benefits to facilitate the decision-
making process.
Outcomes of the Process
Most of the stakeholders interviewed want to see service providers and boundaries
clearly identified. Others would like to see all of the parties at the same table, clear
communication, better relationships and agreements made that are in the best interest
of citizens with the least disruption in service. Other desired outcomes include finding
the most efficient, workable solution possible; ensuring broad involvement of the
public and service providers; developing an annexation plan; creating a process for
resolving service issues and providing greater predictability for planning and building.
4
r
i
i
i
i
i ~
I
cocAN i
Report of Stakeholder lntervieu~s 3 COOCAN I " -
r
_ E
Washington County
Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project "
STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONNAIRE
RESULTS
Questions 1 and 2 are specific to service providers and did not appear on the Citizens'
Stakeholder Questionnaire.
1. Which of the following services does your agency provide within the study area?
(Sanitary sewer, parks, streets, roads, storm water management, municipal water,
open space, mass transit, fire protection, recreation, law enforcement: responses
j vary by jurisdiction)
Jf ~
2 Is your agency considering expanding existing services or adding any new
services from this list in the future? If so, what are they and in what geographic
areas? "
1
s Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) has mutual aid agreements. Nothing in
the works for annexation.
♦ Washington County is considering transitioning some services to Tigard. Unified
Sewerage Agency (USA) and water agencies are still looking at some kind of J
i integrated water resource agency, probably looking at consolidation at some time in
the future.
♦ Taking over County roads when annexation occurs.
♦ Regarding annexation, Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD) is
considering moving west into a "no man's land" toward Hillsboro. They have some
ownership outside of the district and some extraterritorial land areas. t
♦ The City of Tigard would want to add recreation programs but not necessarily
directly.
♦ USA looking at sharing resources with Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD).
Merger may not occur for some time if ever. There needs to be discussions with the
cities.
♦ The West Slope Water District, started in 1922, now extends into Beaverton, up to
Sunset and almost to 217, South site near Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway. Most of the
area is now expanding with infill. Some 12,000 people currently could eventually
become 17,000 people. (Note: the 1996 Street of Dreams was in the West Slope
Water District) j
♦ Relationships among districts and future direction. Relationship with West Slope
Water District and Raleigh not likely to change. Any changes would come from y
them, people, boundary commission. k
♦ Raleigh Water District sees no reason to expand; simply maintaining current system. "
j9 J
COGAN
j OwENS
Report of Stakeholder Interviews 4
COG""
~ ~ lttlOr.n• L . .
n•
p
n
! 3. In developing urban service agreements per SB 122, what is your or your
organization's primary interest? (#1 on Citizens Stakeholder Questionnaire)
i
♦ Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue doesnCt stand to lose anything. They are concerned
with providing very best service they can. They are very citizen-oriented and want
participation.
♦ Washington County's primary interest is that processes go smoothly and lead to "
agreements regarding urban services and territory that will be annexed to cities.
That what gets decided is cost effective and provides neighborhoods sense of
control in whatever City they go to. Include a role for special districts.
♦ By statute the Washington County Sheriffs Office runs the jail, search and rescue,
emergency management; civil processes including garnishing wages, divorce k
papers, restraining orders, writs of execution, misc., etc.
♦ Establishing boundaries between TH.PRD and Tigard and Hillsboro.
♦ The City of Tigard is working well with other special districts and cities. They don't
have any problems with them and can resolve issues as they come up. Is concerned
that the process doesn't destroy the systems we have now.
♦ Who is responsible for providing services in the long run? Especially when it is
extremely difficult to plan and predict capacity needs,
♦ Cooperative (urban service) agreements, annexations. THPRD is completing a 20
year Master Plan, and they need to know where to make investments. They
generally want to be involved in planning. I'
♦ Make clearer what the relationships are so we don't have misunderstandings.
♦ Finalize boundaries with cities so TVF&R knows who it should be working with to
plan future stations, etc. Also, wants to provide meaningful input to planning
process. i
I ♦ West Slope Water District has no special expectations.
♦ Tualatin Valley Water District is looking at six items with Beaverton; i.e.,
consolidating maintenance and other functions. Still talking with Unified Sewerage
Agency and three cities about closer management
♦ The Metzger area has historically been opposed to annexation. Issues include: clean
water via Tualatin Water District; they are satisfied with USA for sewer. Regarding
Metzger Park, want to see the Local Improvement District (LID) continued under
the current agreement with Washington County. The park gets a lot of use, has
community character, is clean and peaceful and has good managers.
♦ Getting balanced information to citizens, helping them to make informed choices,
providing information to citizens. Making sure the agreements make sense and
"bargaining" between Hillsboro and Beaverton results in the best situation for
unincorporated areas.
♦ Tualatin Valley Water District is looking at six items with Beaverton; i.e., I
consolidating maintenance and other functions. Still talking with Unified Sewerage j
Agency and three cities about closer management !
COGAN f
OWENS 1
Report of Stnhelrolder Interoieros 5 COCA" `
J
1
` J
L~
i
F
}
♦ Raleigh Water District is in business to sell water. Are concerned about increased 1 ?
density, but are prepared. Does not see a big role in SB 122 issues. j
4. What role is your organization playing in this urban services study? Are you f`
satisfied with the way it has been set up? f
I
♦ Burton Weast (Western Advocates) is representing districts.
♦ Washington County as the project leader is satisfied.
♦ The Washington County Sheriff's Office was not aware of this study.
♦ The City of Beaverton wonders how much information will be needed and whether
they can get this information.
♦ THPRD is a member of the Management Oversight Committee (MCA. Andy
Priebe and Jim McEhinny are part of the Technical Advisory Committee. i
♦ The City of Tigard participates on the MCC committee. They are satisfied with set
up. A little confusing about diversion to Portland/Beaverton urban services ; .
boundary (USB). MCC has had poor participation f "
♦ Washington County established the county's policy encouraging annexation of
urban areas to cities.
♦ Washington County is leading the process; they secured a grant to do so.
♦ Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue is a member of the MOC.
♦ Western Advocates is very involved, meets regularly with special districts - "The
Consortium". They invite the districts, County and cities to regular meetings. "
♦ West Slope Water District is coordinating with the usual partners; 50 miles of `J
distribution lines will not change much. They get along well with the Tualatin
Valley Water District
♦ As a citizens organization, they are trying to educate themselves on current laws,
codes, and changes, trying to get as much information as possible out through the ?
Citizen Participation Organization (CPO). Their vice chair, Ward Rader,
participates in the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI), an umbrella
organization for the CPOs. Also been participating on the SB 122 Citizen
Involvement Advisory Committee (CIAO).
♦ CPO 6 Representative is on the CIAC. The CPOs should have a significant role in
the process of setting the Beaverton-Hillsboro USB in the Aloha area. Satisfied so .
far but concerned about the next steps. f
♦ Our study might elevate some questions among all districts, particularly the smaller (i
districts; certainly not a hindrance; we could (achieve) faster boundary agreements;
New administration in Beaverton has improved the climate of cooperation.
♦ METRO has a broad interest in seeing that services are provided where needed. If a
district can not serve the anticipated growth, METRO looks to the county which
would need to insure that agreements are in place to build facilities. METRO's
functional plan is the principle vehicle to move forward with the County. Deficits
in future urban service agreements could precipitate a coordination action.
i ♦ Wants to keep Raleigh Water District doing what it does.
i F
I ~
Report of Stakeholder Interviews 6 cOCAN
L~
Ash-
F-7. !
I ♦ Would like to see people buying or building homes in district knowing who their
service provider is - too much confusion.
5. What current agreements do you have with other units of government within the
study area concerning services that are the subject of this project? Can we receive
a copy of these? (Citizens' Questionnaire: Are you familiar with. existing
agreements between units of government regarding urban services?)
♦ Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has mutual aid agreements.
♦ The City of Beaverton fire consolidation has not had any opposition - had lots of
communication - no negotiations - city council wanted to hang onto fire.
♦ TVF&R doing a good job.
♦ Several with the Sheriff's office: 4
- Multi-agency SWAT team (handshake agreement)
- Drug team (draft)
- Gang team (draft)
- Crash analysis reconstruction team (draft)
- Mutual aid (written)
- Pursuit policy (draft)
- TRIAD Seniors and law enforcement together
r"'1 ♦ The City of Beaverton has agreements with USA on sanitary and stormwater,
agreements with West Slope and TVWD.
♦ Most parks are now maintained by THPRD. They have an intergovernmental
agreement (IGA) with schools.
♦ The City of Tigard has an intergovernmental agreement with Tigard Water District
IGA with TVWD for water purchase.
♦ Have a number of agreements; will give these to us. Unified Sewerage Agency is
talking to Beaverton and Hillsboro about how to serve the area between them and to
the north; believe analysis will show USA can manage and maintain cheaper than
cities can - could provide special expertise and equipment Also have cooperative
programs in storm water management; e.g. Fanno Creek.
♦ Washington County expanded the agreements that the Sheriffs office has with
smaller jurisdictions to provide services; thinking of ballot measure for special
levying in 1998.
♦ Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has intergovernmental agreements for the Office of
Consolidated Emergency Management Washington County, Hillsboro, Sheriff's
Office, Beaverton and TVF&R. They are sharing resources with Sheriff's office on
water rescue.
♦ Portland and Beaverton have basic agreements with the West Slope Water District
They have some agreements with TVWD, do things mostly on handshake.
e Washington County/City of Tigard Bull Mountain agreement, where the City of j .
Tigard is assuming planning and permitting responsibilities as of January, 1997.
Concerned that for the Metzger unincorporated areas, Tigard would impose its
COCAN
cocNN
Report of Stakeholder Intervieuis 7
I "
minimum density standards on the Metzger area in line with METRO's infill and
development goals were the City of Tigard to take over zoning responsibilities.
♦ Aware that some agreements exist such as: the joint Water Commission provides /
water to Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Beaverton and part of TVWD; USA agreements
with cities sharing various surface water and sewer responsibilities; joint and
reciprocal purchasing agreements such as one unit of government using anther's
contract for purchasing copy paper, etc.; Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District (ESPD) f
agreements with some cities to patrol isolated unincorporated areas; TVF&R
i agreement to serve the Sylvan area until they are annexed to the TVF&R fire district;
j mutual aid agreements between fire protection providers.
♦ Tigard does get significant service from Tualatin Valley Water District TVWD and
Wilsonville are working together for a plan for the Willamette River. Also working
on an acquisition support program. Tigard gets 1.9 million gallons/day from k
TVWD; could go to six by next spring; maybe more later. -
o Have Light Rail and Transportation agreements with Washington County which are
facility oriented; like the west side light rail. Urban planning agreements are in
effect but don't involve METRO; Washington County has the "parent' role in these
agreements; METRO may be a party to specific urban planning agreement e.g.
Town Hall centers.
o Raleigh Water District is in the process of signing an agreement with the City of
i Beaverton Their attorneys are still reviewing it, patterned after the West Slope -
agreement. Provides that the Beaverton annexation does not immediately acquire
the annexed areas. Sees both Raleigh and West Slope becoming part of Beaverton in
5 years. Expects to complete agreement within one month. Also have an agreement
with Portland on long range water supply; getting ready to sign agreement for
regional water.
6. What provisions of these agreements would you like to see retained?
I ♦ Would not like to see sense of cooperation and teamwork diminished.
♦ Happy with what there is; those agreements cover all local agencies. The
Washington County Sheriffs office will monitor alarm points for Hillsboro only by
special agreement
♦ Satisfied with current agreements in sanitary; for the City of Beaverton, distribution
of revenue is an issue.
♦ Operations are resolved, but not water source, which is outside of this project The
! City of Tigard is happy with TVWD agreement on water supply. Also would like to
see the Beaverton-Tigard Boundary unchanged.
♦ Unified Sewerage Agency has been looking at partnering opportunities e.g. for a
geographic information system (GIS), fleet maintenance, etc. with other
jurisdictions. Have worked out goals for SB 122 with the Board.
♦ Washington County feels that we may not need water agreements.
♦ Don't try to solve all of the problems; e.g. cannot expect to resolve Tigard's water -
problems.
a
F AN j
Report of Stakeholder Interviews 8 COGAN 6P
1
I -
i
U
n ♦ The West Slope Water District considers the agreements okay.
♦ USA agreement, Tualatin Valley Water District Metzger Park LID agreement with
i Washington County, TVF&R.
♦ Would like to see the following:
a) continuity of service
b) in general, no reduction in service level
c) appropriate cooperation
d) plenty of notice to citizens of changes
e) include agreements with citizens such as service levels; agreements with citizens
on these issues should be included in the Urban Service Agreements and should
contain some'enforceability' and should include incentives.
♦ 80% of Tigard's water comes from Lake Oswego; looking for sources. Lake Oswego
is cutting Tigard off, reducing each year. Tigard needs to average over 13 r
maximum.
t
7. What provisions would you like to see changed?
♦ Would like to accelerate transfer of land use planning and permitting to cities.
Region 2040 needs to be coordinated between cities and county.
♦ Provisions to be added: Common form for warrants and criminal investigations on
behalf of whole county, crime prevention and education, report writing unit for
telephone complaints of loss, property storage for evidence. Talking to Portland
`.J State University (PSU) regarding SB 122 and what law enforcement should be (Dave
Blanchard, Public Affairs department; PSU). The Washington County Sheriffs office
is considering purchasing within county or even region, training cooperatively,
hiring and recruitment, look for ways to improve flow of information.
♦ The City of Beaverton would like to see a more formalized process of transferring
County roads. Distribution of revenue from USA for sanitary services.
I ♦ THPRD wants to see changes in planning process with the County in terms of
development Help them get dedications, acquisitions. Also would like to get
preapplication information from the City. Want to influence outcome.
♦ Need to look at revenue splitting in existing agreement System development
charges are not addressed. USA feels that revenue/cost sharing formula needs
revision. Need to consider the impacts of 2040. Have to work out approach to 1
I making system development charges (SDCs) equitable from one jurisdiction to
another, figuring out how to be equitable. i
♦ One of primary parameters is that it is a short distance from where we are now to j
where we want to be. Resolve city boundaries and determine how special district
service providers fit in. County is deeply committed to having unincorporated
areas be annexed to cities. Governance and boundaries. Controversies: Beaverton-
Hillsboro line. Can get governments to agree, but how to get public reconciled to
annexation is a problem. May have to take water issue to Management Committee.
v Merger of TVWD and USA would be good idea but there is not a big push from
either agency. There are some small cities that probably can't provide police patrol
COGAN
OWENS
Report of Stakeholder Interuietvs 9 CCO
GAN j
d_ _
k
t
t
services very efficiently. Maybe metropolitan level services like SWAT services.
Some transitional issues such as contracting with Beaverton to provide patrol to t
unincorporated areas. May not be worth the risk, however. Sheriff and police f
chiefs may need to be involved in a planning committee. Primary goal is least !
disruption to services in interest of furthering annexation. Couple of alternatives -
lots of examples in Beaverton - Tigard. Off-limits: fire, no sweeping alternatives in
Sheriff's patrol, Aloha incorporation, Cedar Mill incorporation.
♦ Set up the process to gradually accept the inevitable. t
♦ West Slope Water District would not like to see any provisions changed.
♦ Nothing, except were Tigard to assume planning and permitting responsibilities
from the County, then the density would not increase above the current 7,000 square
i foot minimum, enhanced Sheriff's patrol, more stop signs at intersections; more bike
and walking paths; Metzger has a clean, quiet and self-sufficient community
character that it would like to see maintained. {
♦ Sensible and cost effective boundaries. Also geography, roads, etc. may mean that
the fire district boundary may not make the best sewer boundary.
♦ Want to have a consortium where Tigard and others in the "SE group" come to
agreement on 25-30 million gallon treatment plant TVWD has water rights in the f
Willamette River which needs to be exercised. Looking to a new agreement with
Wilsonville to build a new plant
♦ Other than the Beaverton/Portland litigation; there are non that are known
8. What are the key issues that should be the focus of this project? What makes
them key? Which ones are controversial?
♦ Biggest issue is potential annexation by Portland and loss of territory and tax base.
Will make it easier for the two fire departments to work together if the boundary is
set
♦ Raleigh and West Slope needs to be resolved. The City of Beaverton has an
j
excellent relationship with TVWD; are combining some functi ons, i.e. billing,
i purchasing. There are some differences; however, e.g., TVWD doesn't loop its
system and has property taxes. Could agree to serve certain areas, and what not to
serve.
♦ Who provides services where. How to arrange transfers of personnel with
annexation. Law enforcement transfer of personnel main issue. Opportunities and
linkages for cooperation in operational areas.
♦ Turf issues, e.g. could have less than 13 police agencies, but which one? Uniform
patrol without a visible force, how will a community support and pay for services?
Mistrust of different layers of government
♦ THPRD Board wants to be the park provider for Washington County, but is that
practical? Not in a position to do now. The 20 year plan makes it clear that THPRD
is not able to keep up with growth. Don't have a readily acceptable way to gain
i '
COGAN
Report of Stakeholder Interviews COGAN
10 OWENS
1
1 u.....ur.n. i
I
1
park land during development process. Provide long run review of providing
service to Tigard and North of the urban growth boundary.
♦ Transit - on a collision course, not happy. Tri-Met wants to put in more buses which
j wont help. Buses are chewing up roads without shoulders, poor roadbeds, no
sidewalks. Fire - no problem. Water - no problem. Parks and recreation - a
j problem for Tigard. People want more parks and don't have recreation facilities.
Look at THPRD annexation, or something similar to THPRD, perhaps with
Tualatin. Law enforcement - the police chief is frustrated with Portland not sharing
information with suburbs. Cant access Portland's data base system on criminals.
Police chief in long term sees something like TVF&R - some activities need to be
done on a regional basis - example: drug units, detectives; leave patrol with City.
Turf problems a hindrance. Cities need to stay in contact in a cooperative manner.
Tigard, Tualatin and Beaverton work very well together and do a lot jointly. r
Tigard boundary with Portland will eventually be an issue in 5 -10 years.
Parks - final disposition of properties. Nail down Greenspaces properties in the
City (Beaverton). Sewer - distribution of revenue is an issue, as are system
4
development charges. Street lights and traffic signals - Beaverton maintains all
traffic signals (108) but only 54 are the City's. Want to have ownership of all
signals. On street lights, need to resolve transition from county to city, when land
annexes. Bridges - do they come with county road transfers? What is a bridge, a
culvert? The City might be interested in arterial streets - also a revenue issue. _
Assume that anything is open on water systems. Need to deal with Raleigh and
West Slope because statute says they go away if City annexes all territory. Need to
look at partial and full annexation. Transfer of records from county to city on
annexation such as roads when transferred.
♦ Basic principle is that it is "A short distance to get where we need to be"; e.g., build
on what we already have resolving the boundaries of the cities and how the special i
districts interact The County is deeply committed to accomplishing the policy of '
moving unincorporated areas into cities. The Beaverton-Hillsboro line is important
Sub text deals with the schools; governments may be one place, citizens might be j
another. Not sure how that will play out
♦ Water is the big issue; Gene Seibel is gone, Kevin Hanway is going to work for
TVWD. What happens to TVWD is a key; stay on track with physical infrastructure
is the right course. Tigard needs to get out of water; TVWD and Wilsonville have
the funds to be players, although Wilsonville is in the greatest need of new water
supply.
♦ Water: West Slope Water District does not really see any benefits of consolidation.
In fact, West Slope lost a good fire station and service when it consolidated.
♦ How do you even talk about this subject? It is very confusing. Already determined
where Tigard and Beaverton will be. Role and responsibilities on local sewer }
service, especially where sewer lines cross jurisdictions. Parks, open space, and 4
recreation - Greenspaces program not handled well and county has absolved itself
of getting parks. Look at THPRD as an option and a Tigard Park and Recreation k
District People in the Beaverton school district living in Tigard cannot use THPRD f
I
Report of Stakeholder Interviews 11 c C.I\ K
r.,
6
services. The boundary between Beaverton and Tigard in the West Scholls corridor.
Law enforcement - now in enhanced Sheriffs patrol. Must be agreements in place
for mutual response. Streets and roads. Underbuilt roads biggest issue, then causes
problems on local streets. Intergovernmental authority does not work - need one
entity so there is no finger pointing. Mass transit - not convenient in suburbs. Need
smaller buses that go to transit centers and transfer to larger buses.
♦ Convenience should not be the goal, quality should be. Should be better service, not
less. Is the City of Tigard equipped to handle all the planning and services that the 4
county currently provides to Metzger?
I ♦ In Aloha, the unique issues that must be addressed are:
a) Previous unsuccessful Aloha incorporation effort - Residents that remember this
4 effort need to understand why this is no longer an option and may need to vent
before they can participate effectively.
j b) Park district boundary - Many of those in THPRD love it and dolt mind paying
for it Many of those not in THPRD dolt miss it and don t want to pay for it
c) School district boundary - While most active CPO members understand that
school boundaries are not effected by this discussion or city annexations, most
average citizens don t understand this.
d) Address changes - unclear about the rules on this but it will be a concern
Hillsboro has not followed the Portland centered address system, but Beaverton has f
followed it Will addresses need to be changed?
e) Community identity - Which city is more willing and/or has shown a
willingness to promote community identity of areas that will be or have been
annexed? G
f) Which city can cost effectively provide appropriate service levels of the most
obvious services including: street lighting, police, local road maintenance, etc.
g) Which city can cost effectively provide appropriate service levels of the less i
obvious services including: development permits, neighborhood watch support,
nuisance abatement, etc.?
h) Which city is willing to provide and/or work with citizens on issues including:
city council district boundaries, neighborhood association boundaries and
responsibilities, local library, etc.? Agreements with the citizens on these issues
should be included in the Urban Service Agreements and should contain some
enforceability and could include incentives.
I) Sidewalks - Aloha unincorporated area doesn't have many. Some people want j
them and some people do not want them. Which city may be more willing to
provide them where they are wanted/needed and listen to the citizens about areas
that may not need them?
j) In addition to the above, there is an area west of 185th and south of Baseline, I
3 Willow Creek area, that is likely to be particularly difficult Hillsboro has annexed E
property to the east but this area is in THPRD and they seem to love it
k) Other organizations related to the cities such as the chambers of commerce also
need to be included and provided an opportunity to present/discuss their services
and advantages. J '
ccx:,.
3 Report of Stakeholder Interviezvs 12 c°(%eF:'
!'1 ♦ Continue to work with Beaverton and Tigard. Barney agreement
♦ The 2040 growth concept needs to be brought into any study of urban service; e.g.
the town center study needs to take the issue of increasing density into account
METRO is interested in how the capacity of infrastructure will be planned for
f realistic densities to provide for growth.
♦ Raleigh Water District is especially interested in regional water supply issues.
Problem is to add capacity to Bull Run.
9. What information will help you understand these issues and take a position on
an appropriate approach to providing these services in the future ?
♦ Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue doesn't think really is anything that needs to be
i done. Greatest need is to look at effects of METRO 2040.
♦ Look for ways to improve the flow of information.
♦ Regarding development, THPRD wants to know where development is going
j especially in the County. Regarding boundaries, need to know level of interest;
what facilities are, etc. Need some financial analysis to determine
financial/political feasibility. May have to look at some transition
♦ Police - would take an in depth analysis, including legal. Parks and Recreation -
should be done on a multicity level (alternative of establishing a district). Has been
recent discussion with Tualatin about ideas; also community of interest with t - _
Sherwood. Tigard already has a volleyball league.
♦ Level of service comparison and cost between THPRD and Tigard. THPRD needs
financial analysis on whether to move all the way north to the Urban Growth
! Boundary, and if Tigard is an option, the same.
i ♦ Nothing really stands out Probably don t need new information Financial
analysis of the Tri-Met issue. Parks issue would need financial analysis.
♦ FOCUS had a look at integrated water resource analysis; hydraulically, financially
j and politically.
♦ Find research work on "economy of scale" as applied to labor intensive services.
{ ♦ Road maintenance, law enforcement overhead (role of Sheriffs office and services to
h cities) - duplication of forensics, training, SWAT teams, major crime investigation
A new county levy will go on the ballot in 1998.
♦ Tigard operates on a series of short term agreements with Lake Oswego and others
to use water from Clackamas River; the program is underfunded and unstable; i
would make sense for Tigard to be a player in bringing the needed 60' main South
to Wilsonville.
♦ Sewer issue is one with all jurisdictions - would take a major review. Street -
location and schedule of lights. Water - of whether city can serve part of West Slope {
upon annexation? Need information on how the system works. The City of
Bea,.,:rton can serve Raleigh. Questions about capacity to serve. Also need to ask
Pore and if they want to continue to serve West Slope. Signals - need information on 1
signal types and maintenance, number and age, type of detection. Bridges - where
they are, maintenance records, current staffing levels and cost 1
c
COCAN c
Report of Stakeholder Interviews 13 ~ X•,
i.
1
♦ West Slope is a low maintenance, debt free district - so do not really need anything.
♦ Easy to understand factual information that lists services/issues and information
from each city.
♦ Being at the discussion table between county and city as volunteer citizens of CPO
and Metzger Park should be input from these two groups.
♦ Some agencies, like USA, are already doing work on the implications of growth in f
specific centers. f
♦ Would like to know what the thinking of other water districts is and what they
1 want
j
10. To your knowledge, are there any SB 122 related issues that have already been !
resolved and should not be re-examined in this study? h
I.
♦ Beaverton -Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue merger.
♦ Don't want to re-open possibility that County will provide neighborhood level
services. Should be open to reconsidering what county road system is.
♦ Policy that when Beaverton annexes, THPRD also annexes at the same time (where
they aren t already there). Don't want to re-examine relationship with school '
district
e Water, fire. Boundary with Tigard and Beaverton is probably okay.
♦ THPRD cant think of anything.
♦ Fire service, Tigard Water District, Beaverton authority and responsibility of USA
and cities.
♦ Impressed with how well the USA Inter-agency Committee actually works; also use
the Washington County Managers meeting for coordination.
e Fire and police might be okay. Aloha might logically become part of Hillsboro.
♦ Fire district
i ♦ Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue annexation of Beaverton to the district last year.
♦ The fire district is probably in good shape as far as their agreements are concerned.
♦ Fire and Parks.
♦ West Slope Water District feels that practically all problems are solved or being
solved. If there are problems, they got worked out just resolve the Portland-
Beaverton boundary. : -
♦ USA contract with the county, LID park agreement with county, sheriff service.
♦ Water in Tigard area.
! ♦ Hillsboro urban services boundary west of Cornelius Pass Road. Any areas already
annexed to Beaverton or Hillsboro probably should remain with those cities. Any
islands should probably join surrounding city.
♦ Only the Beaverton agreement with the Raleigh Water District which is in the 4 .
works. j
♦ There is an (SB 122?) intergovernmental agreement in the works, signed by other
j water districts. J
y l 1
r
! E
07 f
Report of Stakeholder Interaiems 14 0~` E
i
i
r
1
L.~
- J
11. Is there any particular background information that our consulting team needs to
have as we investigate these urban services issues? Can you provide us with any
of this information (verbal, reports, studies, etc.)?
♦ Letter that went out to neighborhood from CPOs; they have put information
together comparing service levels and costs.
! ♦ Have a law enforcement council - meets once/month - have bylaws - Sheriff is Chair
right now.
♦ Yes. Get the THPRD Board's perspective.
♦ Information from Integrated Water Resource Analysis.
♦ Will send articles by Warner Hirsch from UCLA on economy of scale.
♦ Storm Drainage study completed, City of Beaverton.
Charlie Cameron is on top of the issues and really knows what is needed. r,.
♦ Metzger CPO supplied CPO meeting minutes regarding SB 122, a list of citizens to
interview in the Metzger community, information regarding Metzger Park and
Metzger Park Hall.
♦ 1) Urban Services Agreements - Introductory Meeting, May 15, 1995. Copies of j
overheads from the first information to the Board and to CCL Linda Gray can send I
a copy of this. 2) Urban Service Boundary/Annexation Open House Information
Packet; May, 1996. Prepared by METRO for the open houses that were held for
residents in the Beaverton-Portland areas. This was well done and Cogan Owens -
Cogan might find the format; types of information useful. 3) Annexation - What's
the cost? City of Beaverton and City of Portland, May 1995. Two sided single
sheets prepared by Carol Gearin of CPO 1. Also attainable from Linda Gray, OSU
j Extension.
i ♦ Will send a pile of material: agreements, newsletters, etc.
I ♦ Greenspace policy. Greenspace measure doesn't give METRO any special role
except METRO does purchase land which is offered to THPRD on a first refusal
basis. Could be involved in level 2 agreements. Relevant to open space planning.
♦ Raleigh Water District buys 100% of their water from Bull Run.
♦ The Raleigh Water District system is in good shape with four days of storage. They f
have the lowest rates in the region.
12. How interested are the citizens in this topic? What do you believe would be
their key interests?
♦ Public does not fully understand. The unincorporated area wants to be left alone, j
but except for Aloha, most people are coming to the realization that they will be
{ part of a city. i
4# ♦ Very interested in who they will be annexed to, when and what say they will have
in it Average citizen may be confused with 2040 issues.
♦ Two groups are organized: In-house, the Sheriffs Patrol District Advisory
Committee: the Sheriff appoints members, holds meetings, they advise on budget,
meet once a month, total of 13 people. The second group is the jail Advisory
Report of Stakeholder Interviews
15 c«;~~
i
Committee which advises on issues regarding the jail. Community leaders sit on
this committee, advise on a wide variety of issues.
o Interested. Is confusing now because several units of government are providing the
same services. Especially interested if there are tax savings. Want to see
I
cooperation.
♦ Very little. A few people have strong ideas. Public doesn't see any need to do
anything differently.
♦ Some interest `
♦ Not very interested. Parks issue could spark interest So could storm drainage.
♦ Not very interested, depends on topic area. Citizens would be concerned with USA
losing oversight capability. A few citizens are intently interested.
♦ Sewers: not much interest regarding sewers; fire: a lot of interest; some citizens are
interested in SB 122, USA has USA advisory commission, broad based group to
review policy. Work with several county groups, e.g. Tualatin River Watershed
j Council.
♦ Impressed with how well the issue of annexation policy has gotten out to the
populace, especially in unincorporated areas. Public is impressed with County
stance about getting out of urban services. Opposition doesn't seem to stand up. `
Need to be careful of "bread and butter" issues; e.g. parks, fire, law enforcement,
etc.
♦ After Portland\Beaverton boundary resolved, interest will drop off. Use cable
(Walt Peck), mailings, and other meetings. Jim Craven - American Electronics ~i
Association 362-7611. Hot button is the line between Portland and Beaverton;
getting that resolved eliminates a big controversy along with public interest
s Not a lot goes on, do the public information thing with mailers to customers to keep
them up to date. Don !t want to cause any false alarms. All West Slope Water
District monthly Board meetings are public, but hardly anyone comes.
♦ Very and easily inflamed-
* Most people do not understand.
♦ Until an issue hits home, not very: issues that do get a reaction are property taxes,
schools, annexation, Metzger park Local Improvement District
♦ Only time TVWD hears from the public is during water short periods; don't even
hear when rates go up. Noticed some confusion when combined bills with USA
went out 2 years ago.
♦ Regarding Washington County station area physical; e.g. Sunset and Cedar Mills
there way bi-adverse neighborhood reaction; METRO way bi called in to count at
staff level.
♦ The Raleigh Water District sends out periodic newsletters to customers, their j
I '
customers are happy with the district If the choice is to annex, Beaverton is
preferred over Portland.
1 1
" CMAN
Report of Stakeholder Interviews 16
i
13. Do you have any particular ideas on how to involve the citizens in this process?
o Will depend on reaction of citizens. May have to do a comparison between
Beaverton and Tigard just like was done with Beaverton and Portland. METRO
may have to make a decision.
s Make good use of all avenues available. Think creatively about how to get the word
out (public meetings, etc.)
♦ Publish Neighborhood Watch newsletter each month, send deputies to Citizen
Participation Organizations (CPOs) each month - sometimes Sheriff goes.
♦ Standard ways we do it work pretty well - meetings with the CPOs and the
Neighborhood Association Committee (NAC); public hearings, media distribution.
In many cases, does not need their participation
♦ Good luck. It is hard to generate interest There is so much other stuff going on that ; G
diverts attention.
♦ Publicize at CPOs and NACs. Identify movers and shakers.
♦ Open house concept with people staffing stations. City newsletter could include f
article. Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs) could be utilized. Also the City of Tigard
visioning process.
♦ CIACs sole function is to focus on SB 122 public involvement work from 2
standpoints; advising on public involvement techniques and serving as a sounding
board on study options.
♦ Direct mail and cable access - particularly the 30 minute videos; the regular
~J meetings required by the County; the CIAC is okay as a group to act as a policy
advisory committee.
o West Slope Water District has everything needed. t
♦ Survey all residents. Language must be approved by CPO and LID board members, 44
CPO meetings, have a big meeting at the local elementary school about SB 122
♦ Open houses like was used in Portland/Beaverton urban service boundary process.
Washington county is sending out 6,000 flyers in Bull Mountain/Walnut Island
area. Use a smaller group process.
o People are very busy, but this issue is important We must use a variety of
approaches to reach as many people as possible. The CPO and Aloha Business
Association (ABA) are obvious but we must reach further. The SB 122 video is a
good introduction. The new ABA directory is supposed to include a list of local
organizations; each organization should get at least a letter including an offer of
speaker and a copy of the video. At least one open house should be scheduled.
Perhaps a'schedule of the order of areas to be resolved would help. What area is
next?
♦ Tualatin Valley Water District does public opinion polls periodically. People want
more independence from Portland. Do booths at the Fair and Air Show. Thinking i
about possibly opening up web site.
i
CCR7AN t
e\g
Report of Stakeholder Interviews otv
17
r
14. What would you like to see as the outcome of this process? !
t
♦ Would like to see outreach to citizens and provided information on options. Would
like to see Beaverton and Tigard put forth their proposed boundaries and see an
amicable relationship.
♦ Getting the parties to the same table; want to do what's best for citizens and most
efficient.
♦ If a whole lot of people have been informed and involved, if agreements between f
{ participating jurisdictions are sound and workable and a lot of issues resolved.
♦ Concludes there is a lot of duplication and the number of agencies should be
'i reduced - some of these are very small - could be as few as three; consolidate the
rest - need to forge law enforcement agencies into one. Would like a mobile .
booking service so all arrested individuals don't always have to come to Hillsboro.
Aware of the urbanized vs. non-urbanized policy of the county.
♦ Urban service boundary issue between Portland and Beaverton resolved. Primary
parks service provider identified,
♦ See a short report with possibilities of improving services, areas that have been i
overlooked. t
♦ A clear understanding of who the service provider is. Clear understanding of
annexation.
♦ Map of the city and district boundaries in future. Clearer agreements and better
relationships.
♦ Core business elements addressed - a map that shows who does what where; e.g.
sorting out the most efficient way to deliver low cost services to rate payers; need to I
resolve the differing needs for predictable, defined roles and responsibilities
(Beaverton) and a more loosely defined set of understanding (Hillsboro).
♦ Want to be least disruptive of services, particularly fire and police, want the cities to j
provide services; lots of opportunities for cities to add services in their jurisdiction; `
water could be a problem, may not be able to resolve.
♦ What would spell success; who's going where, when? Dori t need water agreement
♦ Finalized boundaries. Way for district to be meaningfully involved in planning
process of each city.
f ♦ Establishing a process for resolving service issues and laying to rest those that are
t resolved; need to get Tigard into consortium with Beaverton, Portland and
Wilsonville for water.
i ♦ Better predictability for planning and building. Ability to put forth an annexation j
plan. f
♦ Could clear up boundary disputes, but they have been minor. Not in favor of I
consolidation, not interested in that This West Slope Water District is big enough to
1 be efficient enough size to be economical.
♦ Interview more citizens, many people. Metzger remains independent, there is not
i support for higher density infill because they are already at the bottom of the Fanno
Creek watershed and face more problems to structures because of the wetness.
- I COCAN P -
OWENS
cOCAN 1
Report of Stakeholder Irrtervierus 18 €
n ♦ The County has made it clear that they want to see annexation plans and expects
j them to get their way. First, urban service boundary line needs to be drawn and
agreements made. Once line is drawn the least controversial step would be to
require annexation to THPRD for developments on the Beaverton side of the urban
service boundary. Another option might be that the County would contract with the
city for urban services inside their urban service boundary similar to the agreement
county is negotiating with Tigard. Hope Aloha ends up with a commitment to
develop a library, increased sidewalks, connectivity, support for community
identity including road signs.
♦ Washington County has become more cooperative. Most parties are working
together.
♦ Anticipate that this will go well particularly with Washington County and USA
support n .
15. Is there anything more you would like to tell us?
♦ Law enforcement needs to be included. `
♦ Not as excited about this study; think things can be worked out; Beaverton will
provide police for areas that are annexed; special districts are strong and generally
well managed; people will resist giving police away; agrees to do specific things -
good law enforcement people came four years ago in Tigard, Beaverton,
Washington County. Supports county urbanization policy - but will be a struggle to
keep up with building and planning assistance.
I
o Other law enforcement agreements in the county; Tualatin Police Department
(P.D.), Sherwood P.D., King City P.D., Hillsboro P.D., State Police. Issues to resolve:
need a way to open up communication in the County so all dispatchers know when
a car from one jurisdiction goes into another; i.e. have ability to send car from one
jurisdiction in another; the cars need to advise the dispatcher when they travel from
zone to zone.
♦ Take a carrot and stick and be liberal with both. Going to have to be some positive
and negative incentives. A good process! Will personally support the process. Not
interested in competing with private providers. (e.g. athletic clubs).
♦ Tigard will be providing service (planning, building) to Bull Mountain area. So
j Tigard is prepared to assume policy approach advanced by County. Difficulty
{ talking with METRO - City and citizens mistrust METRO. They think they can
! solve all these problems better than the cities. Concern that METRO will step in and
interfere and try to solve the problems.
f ♦ Pleased that County took this on, expect to learn a lot
♦ Washington County Managers Meeting; Unified Sewerage Agency Committee
(USAC) - advise board on policy related issues.
♦ USA/TVWD: considering locating in one space. Goal to merge might happen in a
few years. Boundaries are different, USA is bigger. Overriding concerns: manage
u on a holistic basis; supply a large percentage of wastewater for reuse; manage
COGAN
OWENS f
Report of Stakeholder hiterviews 19 COGAN
F
J
i
G
reservoirs more efficiently, add a more watershed focus including agency and f
industry needs; start managing Hagg Lake.
♦ Makes a lot of sense to combine administrative services of law enforcement e.g.
training, purchasing, etc. Would make sense to transfer patrol services from Sheriff
to a municipality which annexes an area. Agree that sheriff and police chiefs need
to be involved in planning. Suggests attending the SB 122 Manager's Group and the
Washington County Managers Committee meetings every so often. The services
sheriff can provide to cities are substantial - lots of opportunity here; e.g. training,
major crime investigation, etc. ,
♦ Regarding consortium - recommend attending one meeting and maybe occasionally
thereafter. Washington County Managers meeting monthly. CIACs sole task is to
advise on citizen involvement on SB 122 Could also be a sounding board, but some {
risk as long as they understand their role in the process. Have to be sensitive to
different approaches to citizen involvement in the different cities. Can get involved
in technical issues to a certain degree.
♦ Don t try to resolve all issues but set up a process to discuss and resolve issues over
time. How to involve and inform Durham and King City (water). Schedule
briefing with Special Districts Consortium in Washington County.
♦ Beaverton is working with League of Oregon Cities to change annexation procedure
to trigger vote by affected voters; could reduce the percentage required to initiate,
might go to the 1997 legislature as a bill. West Slope and Raleigh Water Districts are
j not part of the consortium of special districts in Washington County; Beaverton
annexation case is in the West Slope District. Wants to market this process to other
parts of the state. Don't make mistakes made in Damascus, Oak Lodge, Happy
Valley to deal with sewer and water districts; two districts and city split off and not
working with the others; even developed their own 911 service. .
♦ West Slope has a 25 year contract with Portland for water and a 20 year contract
with Beaverton. i
♦ 90% of all West Slope customers have indicated that they did not want to annex to
Beaverton or Portland.
♦ After the Aloha incorporation effort was shot down by the Boundary Commission,
the City of Beaverton conducted some aggressive annexation efforts which
generated some negative perceptions. These efforts included having a person on
staff to promote and organize annexations and conducting surveys of residents
i where a "maybe" was taken to be a positive response as interested in joining
Beaverton. These "positive" respondents were then included in annexations
presented by Beaverton to the Boundary Commission without further notice to the
residents. Hillsboro has taken a more laid back approach which has been well
received. Drawback is that it has been difficult to get them to send a representative
to meetings in Aloha to discuss annexation. Important that the two cities be I
presented relatively equally. Beaverton is clearly ahead in citizen involvement
programs, although Hillsboro making progress. Hillsboro is making progress in k
terms of community identity. !
' ♦ Hope some of these ideas are usable and won't just be ignored.
~ E
i
COGAN
Report of Stakeholder Interviews 20 ""';AN
i i
L_
♦ Current county rules do not impede homeowners from having pets, which are very
important to Metzger residents; birds, chickens, pigeons, cats and dogs. Pet
ownership issues will have to be addressed if Tigard takes over planning
responsibilities.
♦ TVWD attorney, Clark Balfour, also represents other districts.
♦ METRO signs every cooperative agreement and reviews every urban service
agreement METRO's particular interest would express itself in specific-situations
of concern; e.g. Raleigh Hills and other town centers vis-&-vis 2040,
♦ METRO is now considering development of policies to deal with approved entities,
e.g. Portland/ Beaverton disagreement; resolution of this dispute will provide some
guidelines to a policy to guide how it proceeds with future agreements.
♦ METRO regularly attends the Washington County Managers' meetings but not the
SB 122 meetings.
i
C
i
,
i
Report of Stakeihotder Interviews
COCAN
21 crx:.%N
f
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN SERVICES PROJECT
STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONNAIRE
List of Questionnaire Respondents
Name Agency/Affiliation
Steve Baker Operations Manager, City of Beaverton
Charlie Cameron County Administrator, Washington County
Larry Conrad Senior Polic Planner, City of Beaverton
Bob Cruz Engineering Department Manager, Unified Sewerage
Agency
Rob Drake Mayor, City of Beaverton
Bev Froude Bull Mountain CPO
r.
Bill Gaffi General Manager, Unified Sewerage Agency
Carol Gearin Board Member, Tualatin Valle Fire and Rescue
John Jackson Planning Division Manger, Unified Sewerage Agency
Jeff Johnson Fire Chief, Tualatin Valle Fire and Rescue
Noel Klein Western Advocates j'
Mark Knudson Board Chair, Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation
District
Jesse Lowman General Manager, Tualatin Valle Water District E
Roger Meyer General Manager, West Slope Water District
Robert Mitchell Board Chair, Tualatin Valle Water District
Bill Monahan City Administrator, City of Tigard
Jim Nicoli Mayor, City of Tigard
i
Linda Peters Chair, Board of Commissioners, Washington County
Andy Priebe Project Planning Coordinator, Tualatin Hills Park and
Recreation District
Tim Raphael Executive Analyst, METRO
Larry Shaw Senior Assistant Counsel, METRO
Judv Skinner Chair, Aloha CPO "
Jim S inden Sheriff, Washington County Sheriffs Office
Von Walter Manager, Raleigh Water District
Burton Weast Western Advocates
Pat Whiting Chair, Metz er Progress CPO '
j Ron Willoughby General Manager, Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation
i District
j David Winshi Senior En eer, City of Beaverton
a
C (X7. AV
Report of Stakeholder Interviews 22
°
ccx:,w r
k'
Washington County
Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project
j WORKSHOP REPORT
September 12,1996
P
On September 12, 1996
, Washington County held an urban services workshop for the ~
Beaverton-Tigard area for interested elected officials, staff, the SB 122 Management
Oversight Committee and the SB 122 Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee. The
purpose of this meetings, designed and facilitated by Cogan Owens Cogan, consultants
to the project, was to identify issues associated with urban services that should be
studied by the consultant and staff as well as the appropriate citizen involvement
strategy. Twenty six service providers, city and county staff and citizen participation r
organization members attended this workshop. In the first half of this workshop,
trained discussion leaders facilitated small group discussions concerning guiding
principles for the study. Consensus was reached on a number of issues. In the second
half of the workshop, participants gave their input on three of eight of the service
categories of their choice in order to define the most important issues for theses services
in the context of formalizing agreements. The eight services considered included fire
protection, law enforcement, parks and recreation, public outreach, sanitary sewer,
stormwater and transportation and transit issues. In the latter part of the second half of -
the workshop, participants "voted", using colored dots, for two issues in each service
category to identify the issues most important to them. Following are the guiding
principles identified by participants followed by prioritized lists of issues and votes
j received for each service category.
1. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
'Wiat guiding principles should be considered in this study?"
Group (Table) #1
♦ Overall cost efficiency with quality of service.
♦ Coordinate to share costs/services and shared delivery.
♦ Not "geographic boundary" limited.
♦ Responsive to citizen needs:
-both measurable and subjective
-both service and governance. !
♦ Identify long range goals.
I ♦ Reflect regional and countywide studies.
♦ Where eventual annexation line is the issue, prioritizing services may drive total
` picture. s
Keep neighborhood/communities together.
COGAN .
OWENS
Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project Workshop Report 1 COGAN
1
~F
♦ Effective communication and education with community for effective involvement.
♦ Sensitive to preferences and concerns of neighborhoods.
♦ There will not necessarily be a pure technical/ financial solution.
P
Group (Table) #2
♦ Quality of service (how well managed, variety, etc.).
♦ Boundaries that respect how service works, i.e., topographical implications for r
storm water management
♦ Cost (related to level of service).
♦ Logical, reasonable provision of service.
♦ Community identities/cultural differences.
v.
♦ Financial capacity, economies of scale.
I ♦ Public involvement, open communication.
♦ Responsive to community.
♦ Capacity to meet service demands.
♦ Provide equity in school-related recreational programs.
♦ Service providers must be at the table.
♦ Citizen preference should also be a factor.
Group (Table) #3
♦ Identify current or future service providers.
♦ Codes need to be workable among all jurisdictions and services providers.
♦ Transition should not impose undue difficulties and changes on citizens.
♦ Do not change land use patterns.
♦ Long term thinking reflected in solutions.
♦ Flexibility in solutions to accommodate unknowns (growth, where, when..)
insure adequate and economical water supply over the long-term: ;
-Insure adequate capacities, and connectivity long term in transportation arterials.
-Work out parks and recreation issues; varying:
-sizes
-services
-boards.
♦ Involve the citizens starting right now:
-massive effort to educate and then allow in decision process.
♦ Be cost sensitive.
o Identify sources of funding:
-keep status quo except be innovative to identify sources for parks and
transportation.
♦ Handle each service independent of the other services. Each is unique:
j -Water and sewage are okav now
COCAN
O W ENS
Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project Workshop Report 2 COCAN
-Fire, police, parks, and transportation need work (Master Streets Transportation
J Improvement Programs (MSTIP) is good).
e Recognize role and impact of current/future schools.
♦ Determine logical progress of expansion of urban services in the face of growth
(status quo versus incremental growth of services) to maintain quality of life.
e Service providers need to be involved in this process.
j ♦ Pool maintenance resources within services and, if possible, across services.
Group (Table) #4
♦ What is in the best interest of the people served.
♦ How to keep citizens happy; most value for their dollar.
♦ Provide service level that is really needed - possible evaluate on demographics of -
area, or use "standard" indicators, i.e. number of sheriffs/capita, response time).
♦ As study is conducted, assess what residents feel is their "jurisdictional identity"
and respect that identity; i.e. city, special districts, historical communities; Aloha,
Reedville, Metzger.
i ♦ Balance with previous principle: What is ease with which existing services can be
extended - what is the "economic reality"? (May also included consideration of each
entities' relative capacity to incur/absorb the economic "burden' of extending
services).
♦ Must have better coordination of all service providers, especially in areas like
approving tax increases. (May be outside specific venue of SB 122, but essential
where areas may be served by several overlapping districts with separate boards).
♦ Aim agreements at true long-term solutions. Do not assume existing "obstacles"
(high emotional areas) should be "worked around" with a short term solution -
does not exclude transitional steps.
Group (Table) #5 `I
♦ Quality of service.
♦ Right-sized services
-Examine whether or not present service levels are the paradigm for the future.
j ♦ Positive government support of citizen participation programs.
♦ Cost effectiveness.
♦ Cooperation/coordination between all units of government
♦ Ease of access to service. i -
♦ Long term focus on ultimate condition of community at build-out
♦ Ability of citizens to affect policy decisions.
♦ 2040 Plan as context for long term urban services planning on a joint basis in
affected areas.
♦ Leadership commitment to implement outcome.
`J' ♦ Public involvement process should be comprehensible and jargon-free. j
COCAN
OWENS .
Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project Workshop Report 3 co"
1
♦ Public commitment to implement outcome.
♦ Willingness to accept new thoughts, new ways of doing things.
♦ Expectations must be clearly explained to the public at the neighborhood level.
♦ Preservation of local identities where possible.
♦ School district boundaries to define communities.
t
y Group (Table) #6
s
Group 6 coded their principles into four categories: 1) socio-political, 2) economic, 3) - ` _
physical, 4) organizational:
♦ The least disruptive: long term planning picture/dependability - reliability. (1, all)
Z ♦ Maintain a sense of community. (1)
♦ Agencies and people must feel they have been heard fairly and considered to I
maintain future cooperation. (1) : -
♦ Examine economies of scale. (2)
♦ Low cost may not be the best measure of service. (2)
♦ Equity vs. equality issue - level of service. (2)
i ♦ Sensitivity to the environment (2)
♦ Capacity of organization to absorb additional areas and project and identify current
j environmental, social, and cultural impacts. (4)
♦ Consider topography - basin area. (3)
♦ Evaluate political boundaries and physical constraints. (3)
♦ Privatization? (2)
♦ Alternative service providers. (2)
♦ Maximize opportunity for community involvement (1)
♦ There are limits to what providers can deliver. (3,4)
`r
11. IMPORTANT ISSUES:
"What are the most important issues that should be addressed for each of the following services: r
fire protection, law enforcement, parks and recreation, public outreach, sanitary sewer, storm
water, transportation and transit issues and water?" I
1. FIRE PROTECTION
Number Issues
t of Votes
i ~
j (15) Assurance needed that service levels will be equal in all parts of S
merged/consolidated jurisdiction at the same tax rate.
( (8) Ensure equity of community service and prevention programs.
t (8) Technical rescue, hazardous materials, water rescue, training, arson
COGAN -
OW ENS
coc""
Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project Workshop Report 4
l
. J
investigation, can all be regionalized.
j "D (5) Potential for disparity in emergency management exists, i.e. Beaverton
has own planner, is part of Office of Consolidated Emergency
I Management, Tigard is not
1 (3) Explore intergovernmental cooperation in such areas as fueling, 1
I insurance overhead, bulk purchasing, other administrative services. {i
(1) Service provider must maintain relationship/ liaison with newly
annexed areas.
{ (1) =:t, Coordination to ensure special teams are available throughout the area.
No votes: Nature of service lends better to regional merger than issues in which
community wants more direct control -i.e. law enforcement
2. LAW ENFORCEMENT
Number Issues
of Votes
j
(13) What will the long-term role of the Sheriffs Office be? 1) Forensics, 2)
Records 3) Coordinating specific beams vs. City Providers?
(11) Coordination of services among providers.
(7 Quality of Service: Does not want to lose current level of quality -
provided by Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District
(4) Assurance that high quality of law enforcement is provided.
(4) Different service levels and how it affects outlook of citizens in terms of
service boundary for annexation.
(3) Prevention services needs emphasized.
(1) Transition of officers maintains investment in personnel, morale of
officers.
i (1) Contract issues:
- Transition equipment and officers
- Allocation of existing resources.
(1) Need to identify the range of services provided by police agencies
involved.
(1) Training and conduct standards.
i
O 1 ~ Service level comparisons.
(1) Effect of light rail on law enforcement capacity.
No Votes:
Indicate/ quantify the numbers of officers from one jurisdiction to the
next
Clarification of the roles between the Sheriff versus city, state.
Coordination/ identification of services - avoid duplication.
COGAN
OWENS
Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project Workshop Report 5 COGAN
1
E
3. PARKS AND RECREATION
Number Issues
of Votes
(9) Coordinate land acquisition; make early strategic acquisitions.
(7 School district/park district boundaries creates disparity of access to
recreation programs.
(6) How will park/open space providers respond to changing
demographics? (i.e. aging population, increased density, etc.)
(6) Maintain high levels of services proportionate to resources.
(6) Make strategic acquisitions in areas that will annex or urbanize.
(5) Natural resources and streams know no jurisdictional boundaries;
their values must be protected with a coordinated approach.
(2) A new park/recreation provider district in Tigard/Bull Mountain area
I should be considered; or an extension of Tualatin Hills Park and t
Recreation District (THPRD).
i (1) Understand relationships between park providers and school districts.
' (1) What is/will be the role of METRO (regional government)? I
(1) Development should have the responsibility to provide parks. I
(1) Washington County should address Goal 5 in the development process.
Local share dollars should be spent in the Bull Mountain area.
(1) There needs to be stewardship in neighborhood of parks/open spaces.
(1) Preservation of a neighborhood park: can Metzger Park stay in the
Washington County Maintenance Program? Issue of double taxation;
keep Metzger Park Board involved in the process.
(1) Lack of county system development charge (SDC) prevents acquisition
of public open space as areas urbanize/annex.
No Votes: for
-Facility Development
1 -Facility Maintenance
j -Recreation services
Responsibilities should go to agencies best able to provide them.
Identify all opportunities for cost effective services and high service
i levels.
How will Goal 5 lands/ open spaces be dealt with during transition?
(i.e. Bull Mountain)
Assuring neighborhood access to parks and open spaces and
recreational programs.
Service needs to be responsive to changing needs.
What will parks be like in Bull Mountain area? Steep slopes.
Greenspaces program will only provide natural areas/open spaces, not
playgrounds and ball fields.
COGAN
OWENS
Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project Workshop Report 6 cocAti
e
Opportunity for park/recreation space at new Beef Bend Road
Elementary School.
1 What are costs to taxpayer from various service providers?
There are four methods of park/open space provision. Each is
managed/ financed distinct from other.
Creation of a new park district may create inequitable distribution of
parks/ recreation services.
4. PUBLIC OUTREACH
Number Issues
of Votes r..
(12) Create uniform public outreach message with understandable
language that is engaging.
i (8) Develop a strategy for public outreach: build confidence/ trust; build
reassurance into message; humanize and personalize the message
without jargon and acronyms.
(7) Clear expectations/options; people are still at the refusal level; define
options.
(3) Strategize by meetings with each provider in advance, audience gets a
unified message; builds trust and credibility.
(3) Explain how services will change (levels, options, etc.). j
(3) Who current service providers are for citizens and some providers; i.e.
police.
(2) Define clear points for public input for different providers early on in ?
the planning stage.
(2) Ten years ago - decision made - minor adjustments only - address E
incorporation.
(1) Public Information/Public involvement: Look at existing services.
(1) How to retain local area facilities (i.e. Metzger Park).
(1) Integration of unincorporated citizen involvement organizations into
new "community" or city.
(1) Local government support of the citizen involvement program f
(including funding). J
(1) Make public information provocative and interesting (no jargon).
(1) Coordinate pilot project with SB 122; explain clearly and consistently. ;
(1) ~ Citizen involvement must be community based.
No Votes: Technical accuracv.
Vernacular - variety of levels.
Different messages - different audiences/customers.
"Annexation is in your future" - within 10 years. l
F AN
OW6N5
COCAN
Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project Workshop Report 7
l~
Different open houses.
Message inside a cookie-blitz the neighborhood.
Catchy slogan - start invading public consciousness; kids. `
Web site.
Program to the schools (government classes, etc.).
Elementary; colorful maps; "here" is your school; there is your town;
where will your town be next year? color; fun.
School carnivals; develop a character; i.e. "annexation aardvark",
"outreach ostrich'...
Business (corporate) cooperation.
j Encourage media participation.
11 Change from "SB 122" to "Annexation - 10 years"; communicate with
the public. `
Information to the public in other languages. }
1 Tailor the message (culture, renters, rural, etc.).
i "Train the trainees" program; FCL? etc.?
Identify resources beyond staff to get the message out
Create common/comparable service levels; ie. officers/thousand. `
Look at a broad spectrum of publics.
Spectrum of publics need different outreach.
Clearly define the map and project area.
S. SANITARY SEWER
Number Issues
of Votes
i (12) Coordination with water service provider; comprehensive water
resource management plan.
(7) Continue current service levels.
i (T) Funding for system rehabilitation (may also impact annexation
desires/ timing).
(6) Concern regarding possible evolution of Unified Sewerage Agency
(USA) into a regulator out of touch with service providers.
(5) If all areas are annexed, does USA lose the economy of scale and `
degrade service level as a result? l
4 (3) Coordination with 2040 "in their face" (METRO needs to pay attention 4
to the special service districts); i.e. utilities. !
(1) Coordination for downstream improvements is necessary - allow for
funding options.
(1) Recognition that USA may not be only service provider
("privatization").
(1) Re-examine city-USA intergovernmental agreements for conformity
i
. COCA.
Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project Workshop Report 8 C`(SAN
_ I '
and equity.
No Votes: Governance issue - perhaps separate from Washington County.
6. STORMWATER
` i
I Number Issues
of Votes:
(10) Needs to be a district responsibility not a city responsibility because
water doesdt follow political boundaries (economy of scale is
important).
(9) As annexation occurs should Unified Sewerage Agency (USA)
1 maintain a role? (i.e. big picture planning, regulations, inspections) also
! National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
compliance?
(4) Need flexibility to allow cities/neighborhoods to allow lot size
{ designations to assist in stormwater management.
(4) Providing same or improved level of service after annexation
(continuous vs. discontinuous).
(3) New development should be more responsible for impacts (not
consensus on this issue).
(3) Who is responsible for creating flooding caused by new development
(i.e. building roads, bridges?).
(2) Correction of downstream problems is not funded because impacts are
felt in different jurisdictions (i.e. King City problem caused by Bull
i Mountain development).
(2) Stormwater is a water resource; capture to save, treat; use; keep
directly out of streams as a long-term goal.
(1) Manage on a watershed level; include Portland (i.e. Fanno Creek).
(1) Past problems vs. newly created problems: who pays and in what
proportions?
(1)' Use of stormwater? Send it to the ocean or keep it to water vegetation,
recharge aquifers? { -
(1) Need agreements requiring fees collected to solve the impacts despite
jurisdiction difference.
(1) Pay fees but no stormdrains are in existence - what is the service
provided?
{ No Votes: Region 2040: growth causing downstream and downslope problems.
Economy of scale: larger district because scale of stormwater issue is
i large. I
Sharing of costs to correct problems.
Give back all detention/ water quality facilities to USA.
Land use vs. water management: which takes precedence to
prevent/correct stormwater issues? Region 2040 rules, local plans,
COGAN
OWENS (
ct Workshop Report 9
Beaverton-Tigard Area Urbmt Services Proje COGAN
I
L
s
t
local ordinances.
Interaction of wildlife in stormwater management: are we paying
attention?
Smaller is not better in this service.
i USA role in NPDES permit after annexation? Shared liability with the
cities; maintain "umbrella" permit
Develop/ maintain working relationships between USA/cities.
Do something.
Will this situation (of payment of fees but no stormdrains are in
existence - what is the service provided?) be resolved when an
annexation occurs?
Will cities require capital improvements to correct deficiencies prior to
annexation?
Need for leveraging resources between USA and Parks for water
quality/quantity-
7. TRANSPORTATION/TRANSIT
Number
of Votes Issues
Both Transit and Non-transit Related:
(6) Whole system has to "work" to have individual elements function
properly.
(2) How do we get connectivity?
(1) What is the role of METRO and Regional Transportation Plan in this k .
SB-122 discussion? f
Transit Related: i
(8) Local jurisdictions and Tri-Met need to work together to develop local a
service and funding for the system.
(6) Need neighborhood transit connections to transit corridors and transfer
points.
I (6) Look at other service providers (e.g., private, co-operative).
' (6) Post-Westside light rail transit (LRT) bus service needs to be
reconfigured.
(1) Need better South-North transit service; better feeder service.
(1) Develop and integrate employer transit and uses of Tri-Met transit
centers, and park & ride.
No Votes Transit Issues:
How transit service equates with payroll tax?
Commuter rail ...who provides?
Express bus service is not always "good" service.
Small neighborhood buses, shuttles, etc. take advantage of Tri-Met
Cf X;A N:
Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services project Workshop Report 10 <x N
process ("Transit Choices").
Commuter Rail /Light rail transit: need all the help we can get
Integrate SB 122 work with "Transit Choices" work by Tri-Met
Brings schools into the transit discussions; other uses of their
j equipment
Greater use of small buses; especially in neighborhoods.
Coordinate with seniors transportation service providers.
More express routes and more frequent service.
Buses need to use pull-outs.
Need to understand how transportation is funded and that there are
-
inequities; annexation for gas tax can mean a bigger share.
Transit safety and law enforcement
Roads and Streets:
i
(4) Joint efficiencies (Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT)/County/City) pooling on maintenance.
(1) Need for South-North facility west of Hwy 217.
(1) Better capacity would help the study area.
(1) How to maintain what we have as federal transportation funding
declines?
(1) Develop a routine process to transfer jurisdiction upon annexation.
(1) Which roads stay and which ones go with annexation?
J No Votes Roads and Streets:
Road jurisdiction once transferred should not change back
Road jurisdiction should not be automatic with annexation, except local
streets.
Should urban road maintenance district go away with annexation?
Will there be a long-term need for Master Streets Transportation
Improvement Programs (MSTIPs)?
Turn some ODOT facilities over to local jurisdictions.
Rethink collectors that function as neighborhood streets; retain
neighborhood street function; could have a jurisdictional element
One jurisdiction having jurisdiction at an intersection.
"Truth in lending" - need to be straight about what we are proposing.
Need more interjurisdictional cooperation on funding to meet the
needs of growth.
Do roads need to be at a certain standard before transferred or
annexed? Who pays for this?
Cities offer higher standard for neighborhood streets; more responsive j
to neighborhood needs.
Contracting for service issues: G
- who with?
- staffing
- transfer at what point?
Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Pro'ect Workslio Report
/ P 11 ~~x.~.
• _ t
- what happens to assets of special districts? 1
What happens to street lighting districts and transfers?
8. WATER
1 Number Issues
of Votes
(11) Are sources/supplies adequate for current and future needs?
f
(11) Long term supply/source/water rights.
(7 Role of water providers in integrated water resource management
(4) Role of providers with Unified Sewerage Agency in comprehensive
water planning.
(3) Total annexation - Dissolution of district
(2) What are alternative sources for future?
{ (2) Comparative financial viability and planning horizon of suppliers.
(2) Potential economies of scale and menu of service delivery structures?
(2) Use Regional Water Supply Plan and METRO's Water Policy Advisory
Committee studies.
(1) Water quality issues - including impacts of mixing sources.
(1) Conservation planning relation to regional water delivery structure.
No Votes:
Condition of system (distribution and treatment).
Rates (current and future prospects).
Storage capacity to meet needs at demand peaks and dry periods.
Rate structure and levels.
Relative financial data - rates, bonded indebtedness, etc. i
Deferred maintenance issues.
Potential economies of scale.
Watershed boundaries.
Coordination with irrigation districts.
{ Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project Workshop Report
O1
I P 12 «x:..
t~
l 'U
BEAVERTON/TIGARD AREA
i URBAN SERVICES PROJECT WORKSHOP
Attendance Sign-in Sheet
II September 12,1996
1 '
Name Agency/Affiliation
Larry Conrad Beaverton
Jesse Lowman TVWD
Beverly Froude CPO #4 Bull Mountain/Tigard WA. County =
Alec Jenson TVF&R I.
N
John Lee per SB 122 CIAC
1) Laurie Nicholson Tigard
Leb Huff ODOT
Peggy Lynch CPO #3
Bill Gaffi USA
Terri Ewin OSU Extension Service
Charlie Cameron Washington County
Noel Klein Western Advocates, Inc.
Pat Dod e City of Hillsboro
Liles Garcia CPO #6, Aloha
Forrest Soth City of Beaverton, CIAC
Don Bohn Washington County
Linda Peters Washington County Board of Commissioners
Kyle Wagner ABA Washington County
Richard Schacht SB 122 CIAC
Bonnie Has TVWD
Kathy I-ehtola Washington Coun , Land Use and Transportation
Bill Monahan Citv of Tigard
Linda Grav OSU Extension Service j
Guy C. Stephenson CIAC
Pat Whiting CPO #4, Metzger
iol
Luke McCleary Sheriffs Office
j
_ I
Beaverton-Tigard Area Urban Services Project Workslco Report
P 13 ((x:\\
f I
Bea e
J/
{ Tigard
Knq Cty
. `
Urban Service Agreement Study Area,..: , m,.,
for the BeavertonMnarrl vipinit„
1
(
i
AGENDA ITEM # i
FOR AGENDA OF _ 1 I I a le-1 LP 4
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update: Fanno Creek Watershed
i " ' ~~/gyp
PREPARED BY: GregBerry DEPT HEAD OK U~~TY ADMIN OK ~ WW
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Update Council on the Fanno Creek Watershed Plan.
I ;
{ STAFF RECOMMENDATION f
The purpose of this discussion is to give Council an opportunity to Comment and give direction to staff on the
proposed projects.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This planning effort of Unified Sewerage Agency has reached the point of selecting the types of projects that
should be considered in the final Fanno Creek Watershed Plan. These projects are intended to improve water
quality and wildlife habitat throughout the basin by reducing water temperature and preventing nutrients from
reaching streams. Any projects proposed for Summerlake Park pond are of particular concern because of the
otential of changing the character of the pond and because of interest of surrounding residents in improving the i
uality of water in the pond. Types of projects that could be considered and are offered for Council discussion
include:
• Regrading the pond so that during the Summer, flow would be confined to a small stream and the pond i
would be allowed to dry. During the Winter, higher flows would refill the pond. This would result in a
natural habitat area and reduce the amount the water is warmed during the Summer. I
• Plant trees and other plants along the edge of the pond to provide shading of the water and prevent nutrients
from reaching the pond. This would be a natural area surrounding the pond that would not be mowed.
• Remove waterfowl from the park to prevent waste nutrients from reaching the pond.
• Aerate the water.
• Remove weeds.
Any direction from Council concerning these proposed projects will be taken to the Project Committee for
further evaluation and inclusion in the draft report expected to be completed in December. An opportunity to
comment on the draft report will follow before the report is finalized in January.
FISCAL NOTES
This is a USA-funded project.
i;\c ityw ide\sum\usa5.doc
I
( I
" e
r.•.,) AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF Nov 12.1996
CITY OFTIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Amend TMC'12 10 070 Credit for Water Leaks
f ~
PREPARED BY:_ Wayne DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
1 , `Y
Shall the City Council amend the Policy dealing with credits for water leaks in TMC section 12.10.070
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends amendment of this section shown as exhibit A in the attached ordinance.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In January 1996, the Council created TMC section 12.03 dealing with utility billing and collections. At the same
time, the Council amended the water rules and regulations including section 12.10.070 which deals with credit
for water leaks. The current code allows staff to grant one half of the billing for a water leak up to a maximum
of $165. Any customers not happy with the $165 are referred to the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) for
3rther consideration.
In May 1996, a customer with a very large water leak was allowed to pay only for the wholesale cost of the lost
water and was credited for the balance of the bill. The logic behind this ruling by the IWB was used by the
j Board for several other customers with leaks throughout the summer and fall.
The IVvrB discussed the policy for water leaks during their regular meeting on September 11, 1996. At that
meeting, the IWB approved a new policy for credits for water leaks in which the customer is required to pay for
the average wholesale cost of the water lost and is given a credit for the balance of the bill. The IWB made a
4 motion to recommend that the City Council amend the TMC to reflect the new credit for water leak policy.
s
The new policy will result in better customer service because the staff will be able to give a much larger credit
without having the customer wait for and attend an IWB meeting. The attached ordinance and exhibit "A' -
reflect the IWB proposed policy.
ji OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Leave the credit policy as it is.
444 Create a different policy and then approve.
j FISCAL NOTES
Fiscal impact is considered minimal as lost revenues due to leak credits will not be significant and it is generally thought =
that any costs are offset by customer service benefits.
~JJ
I.
i
i
i
EXHIBIT "A"
12.10.070 Credit for Water Leaks.
When a water leak occurs on the customer's side of the water meter resulting in
an unusually high water bill, customers eatj- may apply for a credit. The credit is
limited to the difference between the average wholesale cost of water multi,I Led
by the number of water units estimated to have leaked, and the total amount of
the water bill less normal usage. The average wholesale cost of water is the Pe
unit average cost of water as established by the Intergovernmental Water Board
at the beginning of each fiscal year.
j
a iiFflely Fnamf9ef-
The application to the City for the credit must be in writing and must include
proof of the leak being fixed within 10 days of discovery of the leak
Any applications for credits greater than this code section allows suet-!£#65-will
be considered by the Intergovernmental Water Board. (Ord. 96-02;Ord. 93-34)
1 5
i
1
Ordinance 96-
Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 1
^ AGENDA ITEM # a
w^ 1 FOR AGENDA OF Nov 12, 1996
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Amend Purchasing Rules Ordinance f. .
PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCII.
Shall the City Council approve an ordinance to amend the purchasing rules to allow for the direct appointment of
i consultants for personal service contracts under $10,000?
I C r,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City Council adopted Ordinance 96-09 in February of 1996 which approved a major revision of the City
purchasing rules. After several months of experience with the new rules, the Engineering department has
recommended the amendment of section 70.020 of the new rules dealing with the screening and selection of
Personal Services Contracts.
The current rules provide for a Formal Selection Procedure for contracts over $25,000 and an Informal Selection
Procedure for contracts less than $25,000. The Engineering department would like to add a third procedure to
be used for selecting consultants for contracts under $10,000. Known as the Direct Appointment Procedure, this
method allows consultants to be hired for small projects without going through the process of contacting a
minimum of three prospective contractors. Instead, contracts under $10,000 can be let to consultants on the
City's list of firms.
~ i
The language of the new section and related changes to the rest of section 70.020 is included as Exhibit "A" of k
the attached ordinance.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1)Amend the proposed language then approve.
2)Make no changes to the rules at this time.
FISCAL NOTES f
N/A
t+~r.;a~.oaa
!
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
j ORDINANCE NO. 96-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 96-09 EXHIBIT "A" SECTION 70.020,
SCREENING AND SELECTION POLICY FOR PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS. 1
WHEREAS, The City Council approved ordinance 96-09 on February 27, 1996
which established purchasing rules of the Local Contract Review Board,
and, 4
WHEREAS, Section 70.020 of such rules sets forth screening and
selection policy for Personal Services Contracts, and, i'
k
WHEREAS, The City Council finds it desirable to add a Direct
Appointment Process for contracts under $10,000.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review
Board, does hereby amend Ordinance 96-09 as shown in the
' attached Exhibit
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by
the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City
Recorder.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present
after being read by number and title only, this day
of 1996.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of ,
1996.
!
James Nicoli, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
ORDINANCE No. 96-
Page 1
I.
EXHIBIT A
70,020 Screening and Selection Policy for Personal Services Contracts
It is the City's policy to select as expeditiously as possible the best
qualified consultant available. The City has, therefore, established the
following selection procedures:
a
a1. Formal Selection Procedure
This procedure will be used whenever professional services 1
of the type governed by this rule are required and the ,
estimated fee to the consultant exceeds $25,000. Exceptions G.
to this procedures is specified under subsection (2) ,(3) and
Mof this section. The City may on smaller projects elect to I
use the Formal Selection Procedures whenever it determines
that it would be prudent and advantageous to do so.
(4a.) Announcement
The City will make at least one public announcement of
its need for personal services in an appropriate trade
periodical or newspaper of general circulation. The
announcement shall include a description of the
proposed project, the scope of the services required,
! project completion dates, and a description of any
f special requirements, if present. The announcement t
shall invite qualified prospective contractors to indicate
to the requesting department their interest in performing
the services required. The announcement will specify a
closing date by which the statement must be received UP,
by the appropriate department.
(212.) Application
I
Prospective contractors must submit a statement which
describes their capabilities, credentials, and
performance data sufficient to establish their 6
qualification for the project.
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 96-
Page 1 of 6
I
95 i
L.
- i
now
Initial Screening
The Department Head or designee shall evaluate the
qualifications of all applicants responding to the
announcement by the closing date, and select from
among the respondents a minimum of three
prospective contractors whose statements evidence the
highest level of qualification. Should fewer than three
statements be received, then each prospective
contractor submitting a statement which meets the }
department's minimum qualifications will be
interviewed.
(4d.) Final Selection Procedure
(a) Interviews
(i) The Department Head or designee will
hold discussions with the three finalists
selected for initial screening. Applicant
capability, experience, and compensation
requirements shall determine the _
department's final selection.
(ii) Award of Contracts
i The Department Head or designee shall
make the final selection and make a
recommendation to the Board for award
of the contract to the selected consultant.
2. Informal Selection Procedure
i
a. This procedure may be used when the estimated fee to
the consultant does not exceed $25,000 ef- at the
Department -Head's eF-designee's-dissfetiea-wtaea t#e
prejeetsen6i6ts Of-werk-whish has-been substantially
dessfibed, planned, er-athemise preyieusty studied of
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 96-
Page 2 of 6
-96- `
e
.
b. Selection `
The department will contact a minimum of three
prospective contractors with which it has had previous
successful experience or which are known by the
department to be qualified to offer the sought-after
services. A projected fee will be requested and a
selection made by the Department Head or designee
based upon the consultant's capability, experience,
project approach, and compensation requirements.
3. Direct Appointment Procedure
a. A qualified consultant may be appointed directly from
the City's current list of consultants, another public
contracting agency's current list of consultants pursuant
to an interagency or intergovernmental agreement
entered into in accordance with ORS Chapter 190: or I
from consultants offering the necessary services that
r the City reasonably can locate Direct appointment
procedure may be used when: "
(1) The consultant's estimated fee does not exceed
$10.000: or
(2) When the project consists of work which has
been substantially described, planned or
otherwise previously studied or rendered in an
earlier departmental contract. provided that the
original selection procedure used for the project
was a formal procedure and the consultant's
estimated fee does not exceed $25.000
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 96 _
Page 3 of 6
I
-97- !
F.
l
s_ _
t
b A direct appointment pursuant to subsection 3(a) of this
rule shall be competitive to the extent practicable and may
be based on the consultant's availability, capabilities staffing,
experience, compensation requirements and theprgject's
location,
34. Emergency Appointment Procedure
Nothing in this rule shall be inferred to prohibit or otherwise
i impede the Department Head's or designee's right to make
direct consultant appointments when conditions require a f
prompt action to protect life or property. In such instance, the f
recommended appointment and a written description of the f
conditions requiring the use of this appointment procedure
shall be submitted by the Department Head or designee to
the City Administrator or designee for action. The City
J Administrator or designee will determine if an emergency
exists, declare the emergency and, when appropriate,
approve the appointment.
45. Responsible Parties' Actions
a. Professional Consultants
(1) Submit qualifications, credentials, and
I performance data relating to their capabilities to
the appropriate division in response to project y
announcement.
b. Division/Department
(1) Determine that the work on a project requires the E
services of a consultant.
(2) Announce project as required by this section. .
~
(3) Request the City Administrator's approval of the
required actions.
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 96-
Page 4 of 6
-98-
O l
4 Determine appropriate selection/appointment
procedure.
(5) Select consultant/candidates as specified under
this rule.
(6) Interview the top candidates and make the final
selection.
(7) Execute contracts and awards to consultants,
with the City Administrator's prior approval.
I i ~t
j (8) Maintain a file on the selection process.
(i) The method and copy of announcement.
(ii) The names of firms/individuals and cost
estimates considered.
(iii) A justification of need for the contract.
(iv) The basis for selection
(v) Rationale by which rates were
established.
(vi) How reasonableness of price was
determined.
(vii) A copy of the resulting contract.
C. City Administrator
(1) Approves each project's scope and budget as
necessary.
(2) Makes direct and emergency appointments are
required.
EXHIBIT A
- ORDINANCE NO. 96-
Page 5 of 6
-99- j
i
10, (3) Approves/disapproves Personal Services Contact
and all subsequent amendments unless the
amount of the contract requires the Board's
approval.
80.010 Emergency Contracts
1. Pursuant to ORS 279.015(3)(a) and (4), the City
Administrator or designee may, in the Administrator's or
designee's discretion, authorize or let public contracts without
competitive bidding if an emergency exists and the
emergency consists of circumstances creating a substantial
risk of loss, damage, interruption of service, or threat to public .
health or safety that could not have been reasonably
foreseen and requires prompt execution of a contract to
remedy the condition.
2. The City Administrator or designee must declare the
existence of an emergency, which shall authorize the City to
enter into an emergency contract with a price under $25,000
and make detailed written findings describing the emergency
conditions necessitating prompt execution of the contract. A !
copy of the findings together with the amount of the contract .
and the name of the contractor shall be immediately
forwarded by the City Administrator to the Board. f
3. Any contract awarded under this exemption shall be awarded }
within 60 days following declaration of the emergency unless
an extension is granted pursuant to ORS 279.015(4).
80.012 Emergency Contracts Under ORS 279.015(2)
I
1. The City may enter into a public contract without competitive
bidding when circumstances that could not reasonably be
anticipated, require prompt establishment and performance of the
contract in order to preserve public funds, property, or the
uninterrupted provision of government services. In exercising its
authority under this class exemption (ORS 279.015(2)), the City
shall:
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 96-
Page 6 of 6
J
-100- {
I
1