Loading...
City Council Packet - 07/15/1997 T~c'F^2`,`"+~ ary-i F5;~4 sfsrr. 'F""n ~ y'~+i '}F•` r ~ ° rY >i 4 y yr ~.~,N'~'^r✓a-"r'" 2}a t ' ~ ~ ,ir1 ~ 4 ~,~f ~ ~w S `{ir• ~ r ^~~iw'~„~t~'~,x~ f~ .,s' + 4 r" a ~ t a~ a ,.a M1; ~ r , , t• ~'i' ~,3-r 1r~ e 3 ~ fr y i. c tiy~r k r' ',}ice " ~1,3i.a° s +y.`Py ~ rh h ♦ J',}z a vM+d,~^Ya j ~5i-'r. I.x' ~•'•k ~,Yk{~ y+~ Y' ~ i~•a'F,~r ~ri3'r ?Q~~1tYtf'~'d~r~ i ~(x^`~~ Y.-~.T 1~V, ~h ~2`~i "2'y~+'~t ~~"d ~1 E~~..~' iSi+r 4t, ~'.~ifrx~lJ Ys Y~, r. ' i.4zN'ie~ ~ }f ~ 4' ~N~~~r~YYti'!+1y~'~'~y~s~'~i'°i ri}F,.~Ai4a.~er ~vy~ 7~ 5~ 1 .7i~e ~ ,•~~~uttsu.f ~x s!,` eh. :~'rm~+ ~`,~~J y t t yf ti Fyv t a3 a 7P ~nw t 1 d~4. w 8'' y~,~ ~~•~e'Y'~,(t t~' S~ ~``u{~~s i~'~' ,~~~~~~f'"a'~~~~+lfi~s°~(~T~'°;~c'~'X33,~r~t'~~•~kX'~~j~'~'~"~~"~~xy,~yy~~`ar~~<< a Vii' k fre k~}~ ~ ,vf ~jk'~~" ° f .~r~,kr~~`~'~`~- s••uT++` r1~ ~s.~ vdN S ~ _ a , WIN ~mp r x f. ACS'+..r~'~'y'.4". 'a'sh ~~~A~x'S ~9 Y° t}"' pI` ,•r~ ' ~ w-''r x t y. Ya ~6 ~ µµy ~~..+.NY°' ~t,,~ • .1. f 4 IRS A _ Y 1 j 1 CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING JULY 15, 1997 6:30 PM TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 h.. PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and II 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). 1 Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: ! Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing i impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. 1 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 i. numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE AT T ACHED AGENDA " . - ` - f 9 COUNCIL AGENDA - July 15, 1997 - PAGE 1 i AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING July 15, 1997 2 6:30 PM 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1 1 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance I 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports j 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 6:35 PM 2. SOLID WASTE EFFICIENCIES TASK FORCE REPORT i . Administrative Analyst/Risk Manager 7:35 PM - ' 3. INSURANCE UPDATE - JBL&K 0 Ron Graybeal - Insurance Representative - 8:00 PM _ 4. COUNCIL DISCUSSION: BASKETBALL HOOP ORDINANCE - RIGHT-OF-WAY REGULATIONS a Assistant to the City Manager I. 8:30 PM f 5. NON-AGENDA ITEMS {I li f1 - ~ 9:10 PM 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation ' issues. 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 att-nlu ulls session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. j 9:30 PM 7. ADJOURNMENT " - i:\adm\caihy\cca\970617.doc - COUNCIL AGENDA - July 15, 1997 - PAGE 2 l Agenda Item No. L~. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of ~S- 97 ' WORKSHOP MEETING MEETING MINUTES - JULY 15, 1997 7 9 1. WORKSHOP MEETING a 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli i 1.2 Roll Call ' Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, and Bob Rohlf Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Risk Manager Loreen Mills; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; Community Services Officer Kristin Paris; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. ` 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 1 Bill Monahan, City Manager, asked to update the Council on the four way stop on Main Street. _ > The Council considered Agenda Item No. 3 at this time. 2. SOLID WASTE EFFICIENCIES TASK FORCE REPORT Mike Leichner, Pride Disposal, reviewed the Task Force report as written in the July 7, 1997 memo. He noted the background of the Task Force that was created by Council originally to 1 review and analyze efficiency suggestions from haulers and later expanded to review the solid I waste system, including cost effectiveness, service standards, quality of service, and Metro's i role. I j Mr. Leichner reviewed the haulers' efficiency suggestions and the Task Force recommended action measures. These included analysis by a consultant of a commingled residential recycling program with a two sort system, financial rate incentives to encourage easier collection access, an unlimited number of vacation credits per year for two weeks of time or more if requested in advance, preference for a County-wide Solid Waste Action Committee (SWAC) to standardize rules and regulations for haulers, waiting on the County review of drop box and compactor rates before making a recommendation, developing a three year solid waste plan, and modifying the Community Development Code to require commercial and multi-family remodel applications to modify their container enclosures for easier hauler access. I Mr. Leichner reviewed the summary of recommendations. He spoke for pushing Metro, DEQ, and the Governor to re-energize the Oregon Recycling Market Development Commission to develop a stronger recycling market. He reiterated the request to require commercial and multi- family remodel applications to modify their container enclosures. He asked for direction from Council for the Task Force to review the feasibility of County-wide management of solid waste CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 15, 1997 - PAGE I E f i 3 ' franchises through a County SWAC. He spoke to the importance of a three year solid waste plan in light of the changes in the industry due to technology and court rulings. Mr. Leichner reviewed potential impacts on Tigard of the Woodfeathers ruling on franchises, including residential rates increasing without commercial franchises, and the number of waste trucks on the streets increasing dramatically without franchising at all. He raised the issue of challenging Metro's position on flow control. While lower disposal rates would decrease customer rates, it could leave Metro without the revenue to fund its other functions of land use planning, light rail planning, etc., since Metro used its solid waste revenues to fund other 1 programs. Other issues Mr. Leichner mentioned for the three year plan included a substantial increase in commercial recycling program costs, the possibility of organics recycling which would be expensive, and weight-based rates. He reported that in the weight-based pilot program they 1 were working on refining the program tag system and installing the scales. a Mr. Leichner recommended that the Council authorize HLA to do a cost analysis of commingled residential recycling. He reviewed the specifics of commingled recycling using two sorts by the customer - paper/plastic and glass/metal. Additional sorting would be done at a hauler facility because it was better to keep the trucks moving on the street. Councilor Rohlf mentioned that there were certain targets in a recycling program. He j commented that recycling failed in Oregon not because the people did not understand its importance but because they were lazy and did not want to do that many sorts. The intent now f was to make it as convenient as possible for homeowners to recycle. Mr. Leichner explained how a weight based rate could work with the commingled recycling to reduce customer rates. I i Councilor Rohlf commented on the changing marketplace and dynamic environment in the solid j waste industry. He said that Tigard was a leader who has developed programs now used by other communities. He mentioned the direct effect Metro had on customer rates through their mandated programs. However since those programs were not enforced, Metro could not take issue with the way Tigard implemented something because they had nothing to compare Tigard a to. Councilor Rohlf said that the Task Force concluded that the best way to control the City's destiny was to continue to be a leader and set the policy first rather than follow other 111 jurisdictions. Councilor Rohlf said that Tigard has done a good job with recycling but noted that there was no market because no one was creating one. He spoke to going on record with Metro that Metro should hire a full time person to work on developing recycling markets. The state also had a responsibility to develop these markets. He recommended sending a letter to Metro requesting this action. Councilor Rohlf said that the other efficiency suggestions were attempts to control costs for the haulers. He explained how the recycling programs have created an overflow situation in multi- family and commercial enclosures that created problems for the haulers. This was why the Task t Force recommended retrofitting existing enclosures. Councilor Rohlf said that the three year plan would be Tigard's vision of how it would implement the state and Metro mandates. It would give the haulers predictability in what 3 equipment they had to buy. He spoke in support of the HLA analysis of the commingling f CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 15, 1997 - PAGE 2 ; g~g Eta i L~ 1 I program. He mentioned the benefits of the County taking the lead on solid waste management, including a stronger, unified voice at Metro and consistent regulations for the haulers. Councilor Hunt asked if a transfer station at Wilsonville was still a possibility. Mr. Leichner said that his company has its own facility in Sherwood. Others in the County were looking into something similar but Metro did not like it because it took revenues away from their facilities. 1 He mentioned that Ms. Mills and the County representative on the Metro SWAC have been 3 supportive of a Wilsonville transfer station. Ms. Mills reported that Metro staff has said that since no one in Washington County in the _ 1980s had wanted a transfer station in their backyard, they would not get one now. She said that haulers were spending money outside the franchise system to create their own facilities and try i to reduce their loads going to the transfer station through recycling. She said that direct hauling to Arlington or other facilities was cheaper than Metro's $70 per ton rate. Mr. Leichner said that other facilities charged between $35 to $45 a ton. Tom Miller, Miller's Sanitary, commented that the problem was that Metro funded programs other than solid waste from the solid waste revenues, and it did not want to lose that revenue. He said that they expected Metro to account for which funds they used to fund which programs. He mentioned hauler intentions to reduce their disposal costs by building facilities within the region. Mr. Leichner said that another benefit of close by facilities was smaller trucks that impacted the roads less and that did not have to pay the 12% federal tax. Councilor Hunt asked if the smaller haulers could build their own facilities. Mr. Leichner said . that those haulers would have to be asked that question. _ Councilor Rohlf reviewed the Task Force recommendations for Council direction. The Council agreed by consensus to change the administrative rules to allow unlimited vacation credits for a i two week time period. 11' Councilor Hunt expressed concern that the three year plan would bind a future Council. The I Council discussed his concern. Councilor Rohlf pointed out that this was no different from the I Comprehensive Plan or other planning documents that worked within the Metro and state framework. It was a way to take the lead on implementing the mandated programs and to provide certainty for the haulers in purchasing expensive equipment. Once a policy was in writing, Councils tended to follow it unless there was good reason to change it. The Council 11 agreed by consensus to develop a three year plan. Councilor Rohlf spoke for a County-wide SWAC to take the lead in setting rates and service standards. Mayor Nicoli suggested that Mr. Monahan take this suggestion to the City Managers for their information along with the issue of a full time employee to develop recycling markets. j The Council agreed to send a letter to Metro. Mayor Nicoli asked that a policy on requiring retrofitting of commercial and multi-family i container enclosures trigger different levels of action so that a $1000 remodel did not require a $5000 retrofit. Mr. Leichner reviewed the haulers' efforts to work with commercial and multi- family accounts to solve this problem. The Council agreed by consensus to direct staff to draw up a policy for Council review and I + 1 Chamber review. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 15, 1997 - PAGE 3 i ~ r °j Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, reviewed the proposals for HLA to analyze. He said that I they were holding off on the first proposal for a flat rate structure with a pickup charge based on container size. They recommended sending the commingling residential recycling program only for analysis. It would cost $15,000. Ms. Mills said that she could get funding assistance from the County but was not sure about Metro, though she would try. She suggested that the City i front the money and then ask for assistance. l The Council agreed by consensus to front the money for the commingling proposal. Staff said that they would return with a budget resolution next week, with hearings in October, a decision 4 in November/December, and implementation on January 1, 1998. Councilor Rohlf thanked the Task Force members for their excellent work. Mr. Leichner expressed their appreciation for Councilor Rohlf s contribution. 3. INSURANCE UPDATE - JBL&K Loreen Mills, Risk Manager, reviewed the services that JBL&K, agent of record for the City, performed for them. She introduced Ron Graybeal and Phil Dollar of JBL&K. Ron Graybeal, JBL&K, presented an update on property and liability marketing results using overhead projector graphics. He discussed the quotes they received from four municipal insurance carriers in Oregon: Northland, Zurich, City/County Insurance Services (CCIS), and I Reliance. The City of Tigard's insurance carrier was a combination of Northland Insurance and Zurich Insurance. Tigard had a low premium rate because its loss ratio was very low. Councilor Rohlf asked if JBL&K has looked at the possibility of self-insurance for Tigard. Mr. Graybeal said that that was looked into several years ago. He mentioned issues involved with self-insurance. Ms. Mills commented that in light of the Measure 47 funding uncertainties, staff set this project aside for the time being. She commented that in the current soft market it was cheaper for a city to buy insurance than to insure itself. It was also politically beneficial to leave i the decision regarding liability questions to an outside agent rather than to the City Council. i Mayor Nicoli asked if Northland's strategy of paying for the defense of lawsuits rather than settling out of court was a good strategy. Mr. Graybeal said yes, it was. Mayor Nicoli asked for Mr. Graybeal's evaluation of CCIS. Mr. Graybeal said that CCIS might be more malleable in doing what the City wanted done but it was a difficult factor to quantify. Councilor Hunt raised the issue of the Council having input on which legal counsel would represent them in the event of a lawsuit. Last year the Council had requested that it be part of the negotiations with the insurance carrier. Mr. Graybeal said that they did discuss the issue at length. Ms. Mills explained that later direction from the Council indicated that this issue was not a prerequisite for obtaining coverage, so, while it was discussed, staff did not include it as a decision making issue. Mayor Nicoli asked that this issue be put on the Council agenda when the cycle of negotiations next started so that Council could have some direct input. U- _ I ' I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 15, 1997 - PAGE 4 E 1 7 ij 4. COUNCIL DISCUSSION: BASKETBALL HOOP ORDINANCE - RIGHT-OF-WAY REGULATIONS y Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, reviewed that the original ordinance brought before Council on January 21, 1997, was aimed at giving the Code Enforcement Officers (CSO) an opportunity in an unsafe situation to ask that a hoop be either moved or removed as necessary. She pointed out that a problem with the ordinance lay in the title. The statement "to prevent installation/use of basketball hoops within the right-of-way" was misleading because it implied prohibition of basketball hoops within the right-of-way. The intent was simply to allow staff to ask citizens to either move or remove hoops that could or did in fact obstruct the safe travel of pedestrians or vehicles. Kristin Paris, Community Service Officer, commented that every situation was different. She spoke for giving the CSOs the authority to determine if a situation was hazardous. Mayor Nicoli concurred with the point about the misleading title. He noted that there was a i gray area between the safety issue of kids playing in the streets and the issue of kids having no place else to play but in the streets. He suggested allowing citizens to come to the Council if they disagreed with the CSO's analysis of the situation. The Mayor's concern was with the ordinance being enforced to the letter of the law, not to the intent of the law, especially with a a new officer unfamiliar with the community. i Officer Paris said that they were creating a Standard Operating Procedures book for the new Code Enforcement Officer to document the policies and procedures for how staff interpreted and enforced the Code based on direction from supervisors and the Council. She said that they were making a grammatical change to an existing ordinance in order to make it a little stronger. The i intent was to allow the CSOs to deal appropriately with a hazardous or potentially hazardous situation. She commented that they hoped to get direction from the Council and City i ' Administration on the wording of the enforcement policy, if the ordinance was adopted. Ms. Newton said that the ordinance was not aimed at the kids playing in the street; the noise j ' ! issue was a different issue. She reiterated that this concerned safety and the obstruction of pedestrian ways or roadways. The CSOs have encountered situations where they needed a little more authority to deal with hazards. Officer Paris pointed out that they needed to allow people clear access to public things in the right-of-way, such as a fire hydrant, mailboxes, etc. Mayor Nicoli said that he did not have a problem with the staff request. Councilor Hunt expressed concern that this ordinance directly contradicted a different ordinance that said garbage cans could be put on the sidewalk. Officer Paris reiterated that this dealt with hazards; garbage cans were usually not a hazard unless left out a long time. She pointed out that some of these issues the CSOs saw were more issues for mediation between arguing neighbors. Councilor Rohlf said that the only way to interpret the ordinance as written was to ban basketball hoops. Officer Paris pointed out that many ordinances did ban certain things; that ' was why they were on a complaint only basis. j Mayor Nicoli spoke for a policy that clearly indicated that the concern was the safety issue. ~J People and children could play in the streets but only when it was a safe environment to do so. 3 He mentioned that children played more games in the street than simply basketball. 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 15, 1997 - PAGE 5 p E I L.~ S A Officer Paris said that it was possible to not change the ordinance at all and just have that policy in effect. She said that the problem was that the current ordinance was simply not specific enough for basketball hoops. Councilor Rohlf pointed out that the meaning of "reasonable ! potential" was debatable. Officer Paris said that they would use the civil court definition of "reasonable" - something 51 % of the general population would consider a hazard. i Officer Paris pointed out that the City did have some liability in having an ordinance that said nothing could block the street. If something did block the street, and the City has done nothing about it, and then someone was hurt because it blocked the street, the City had some exposure. John L. Cook suggested making a stated opinion that reflectors be required on anything left out in the street overnight. Officer Paris said that posed an enforcement problem. She reiterated I that currently they operated on a complaint only basis. She pointed out that the majority of people were willing to comply with the ordinance; it was the few who made this a problem. Councilor Moore spoke to looking at the majority situation, instead of concentrating their efforts on handling the complaint of one citizen. f' Councilor Hunt asked how the general public knew what ordinances were enforced on a f complaint only basis. Officer Paris said that the public found out when they called in and asked. E She mentioned articles in Cityscape to advertise seasonal problems, and attending CIT meetings She said that a full-time Code Enforcement Officer could be more proactive. Mr. Monahan commented that the code has not been uniformly applied because the code enforcement process j has changed over the years. The intent for a full time Code Enforcement Officer was to create a routine of uninterrupted enforcement. He noted that other City departments also kept an eye out for code violations. More publicity informing the public of the purpose of code enforcement was helpful because most people were willing to comply if they knew what the rules were. The Council discussed what action to take. They agreed by consensus to direct staff to draft the ordinance and a policy addressing this situation and to bring it back for Council review prior to a public hearing. s J Mayor Nicoli opened the discussion up to the public. E i ~ A gentleman expressed his disappointment that the ordinance only addressed safety concerns. Officer Paris noted the two issues involved: the safety issue of the structure itself, and the nuisance issue of kids playing loudly. She commented that the nuisance issue was addressed by the police and the neighborhoods because it was a behavioral type issue. Councilor Moore expressed concern at the City taking over as a parent and removing accountability from parents for their children's behavior. Officer Paris reiterated that it was a neighborhood issue that the neighborhood usually had to take care of. She mentioned the Tigard i Mediation Program, free to Tigard citizens, that has successfully resolved some basketball hoop situations. Mr. Monahan asked if the noise ordinance has been effective. Officer Paris reviewed the i enforcement difficulties with the noise ordinance. When the ambient noise level of a 3 \ neighborhood was already over the regulation limit without kids playing, it was difficult to CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 15, 1997 - PAGE 6 e ~ d - - - A -1 j judge that the kids violated the ordinance when they started playing. She commented that code enforcement tended to deal with property. 1 A woman spoke in support of the children of Tigard who had few places to play anymore in light of the development trend towards smaller yards and larger houses. She commented that she saw speeding on residential streets as a greater hazard than kids playing. She pointed out that children were noisy. It was part of being a child. She said that she would rather hear noisy children playing in the streets than have them smoking pot quietly. She said that while the citizens had a valid concern, so did the children. She asked for a compromise to allow hoops out at certain times but not to take them away completely. Another woman spoke for handicapped people and those with strollers to be able to walk down j the sidewalk. Councilor Moore concurred that there was a safety concern if someone had to take a wheelchair or stroller out into the street to get around a hoop. _t Ms. Newton reiterated that staff wanted to have the ability to ask people to move a hoop obstructing the right-of-way to some other location where it did not cause problems for 9 neighbors. She said that often this was an education problem of people simply not realizing the problems they created for the neighbors. Officer Paris said that they received more complaints about sidewalk obstruction because of the strollers, wheelchairs, and bikes needing to use the j sidewalk. A woman spoke for restricting hoops to driveways where it would not be a problem. She a mentioned kids coming from several blocks away to use a "public" hoop that was in the right- of-way. A man spoke to not missing an opportunity to make this ordinance address the blocked sidewalk issue. r > INSURANCE: WORKERS COMP Phil Dollar, JBL&K, presented "Workers Comp 101 using overhead graphics. He explained that employers insured through the workers comp system. In Oregon all workers comp contracts, regardless of insurance carrier, were identical. He reviewed the changes that have occurred in the system since 1989 that have given insurance companies more ways to control costs. Now the work environment had to be a "major contributing cause" of a claim (more than ! 50%), not simply a "contributing cause." In addition there had to be objective findings; subjective complaints of pain were no longer part of the system. Mr. Dollar reviewed the results of these changes. He mentioned significant rate reductions for all municipal employers in Oregon, more competition between carriers, and group discount pricing. He explained different types of rating: experience and retrospective. He pointed out 1 that Tigard has an excellent history and therefore good experience rating. The experience rating was something that a city could work on controlling, unlike other rates. Retrospective rating was an option that had made good sense to take in the last two-three years. ? CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 15, 1997 - PAGE 7 c 3 ~ - L~ l~ N Mr. Dollar reviewed the City's premium and incurred loss histo. He said that the big upswing i ry ( and downswing reflected an increase in the City's payroll. He mentioned the importance of a f program to get injured workers back to light duty as soon as possible to reduce the major cost of i workers comp - lost time. Ms. Mills mentioned that the City did not have a risk management department to manage a proactive safety program until 1990; this was reflected in the losses a before 1989. Mr. Dollar noted the City's gross premium and net premium after discounts and retrospective j rating returns. They received an additional discount for paying their premium in one payment. Ms. Mills pointed out that the discount saved them more money than the money would have earned in interest. Mr. Dollar mentioned that it was the City's payroll that ultimately determined the premium. He explained that the rate was also based on a trend analysis of data over four years. L Mr. Dollar reviewed the risk management practices used by the City. The major element was the Safety Committee that discussed safety issues, took action to remedy problems or potential problems, and conducted walkthroughs to identify hazards. Other practices included quarterly j claims review, use of the services of JBL&K's certified occupational health specialist to identify and assess problems in a work environment, an early return to work program using the JBL&K early return specialist, and critical claims staffing with outside legal counsel to develop a i strategy to handle critical claims and to discuss claims settlement negotiations. i Councilor Hunt asked if volunteers were covered under the City policy. Mr. Dollar said that all volunteers were covered. He commented that at some point providing coverage for volunteers I I ' might become too expensive, and the City might want to go to a volunteer accident policy. Ms. j 1 Mills said that workers comp did offer protection against action against the City from outside I j the workers comp system. It did reduce the City's liability risk. i i Councilor Moore asked if there was a program to reward employees for reducing time loss. Ms. 1 Mills said that they did not have an incentive program at this time. She mentioned the importance of balancing incentive programs between the "good" of rewarding employees for reducing time loss and the "bad" of encouraging them not to report injuries. Mr. Dollar said that ( incentive programs were usually the last piece of a risk management program, and were rare in the public sector. Ms. Mills mentioned that the Safety Committee was very interested in becoming more visible and proactive in promoting safety. They have used a payroll flyer promoting safety on the job and at home as an educational device. She explained that changing the Safety Committee from individual committees for each department to a city-wide committee with department representatives (one management, one union) has been very effective, She said that they did have ongoing departmental safety training. i i } CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 15, 1997 - PAGE 8 - ~I 1 , j 5. NON-AGENDA ITEMS > Main Street Four Way Stop Mr. Monahan said that the four way stop on Main Street has received mixed reviews. Several j citizens have called in their appreciation but there have also been accidents. He distributed the plan drafted by Engineering to put in permanent stop signs and an island as a solution to the problem. He said that he had been concerned about a four way stop at that intersection because it meant a stop sign at the gas station but Gus Duenas, City Engineer, thought it would work. He also expressed concern that the stop bar was at a different point for left turn traffic than it was for straight ahead traffic. This could cause sight distance problems if a bus was stopped on f the left. Mr. Monahan said that with Engineering wanting to move ahead quickly, they should put an article in this month's Cityscape explaining the project. He said that Police, Public Works, and Engineering all thought it would work but it would not be a major expense to modify it if necessary. The Council agreed by consensus to direct staff to move ahead with the project but to bring back a report in six weeks with notice for public comment at the Council meeting. " > Undergrounding Utilities I; Councilor Rohlf asked if the general approach to development in the Triangle was to - " underground utilities rather than to collect the fee in lieu of moneys. Mr. Monahan said that the policy was the same as elsewhere in the City. Councilor Moore explained that the great majority of the redevelopment in the Triangle was undergrounding utilities as a matter of course. He recommended reviewing the fee-in-lieu of policy, stating that it did not meet the intent of the power company to keep people from having to do expensive undergrounding with minor ^ 4 development. I 6. ADJOURNMENT: 9:32 p.m. l~~-Q-'L( PLC C.U a~-Q~tii_ Attes ! Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder 4 - ayor, City of Tigard Date: ~~I a I 7 i:\adm\u1hy\ccm\970715.dm a CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 15, 1997 - PAGE 9 1 i COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 664-0360 Notice TT 8881 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising RECEIVED • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice JUL 14 1997 13125 SI1 Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit CITY OF TIGARD eAccounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) i COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss- I, t(athy_Sr_yjder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising i Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard-Tuala i n t imes i a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the I City Council =[7orksho_p t.feetinc~ a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for_9NF. successive and ~D j consecutive in the following issues: JuIN, 10,1997 f i JUL 15 1 - U 997 11 Subscribed and sworn to re me this 1 (lth day of ,Tn l y, 1997 ~ 3 97 OFFICIAL SEAL I _ c ROBIN A. BUROE43 ? /6 1 Notary lic for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ;J COMMISSION N0. 062071 j My Commission Expires: ,-tv COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 - AFFIDAVIT 1 The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full i agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall II Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639.4171. i CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING July 15, 1997 - 6:30 P.M. TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL l 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON Workshop Meeting to ics: i > Solid Waste Efficiency Task Force Report > insurance Update - Risk Management Update i > Basketball Hoops > Executive Session TTS881 - Publish July 10, 1997. 1 _ rr Agenda Item No. Meeting of - MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Tigard City Council FROM: S WETF - Solid Waste Efficiencies Task Force Voting Members: Steve Bried, Chair, John Cook, Mike Leichner (Pride Disposal), Councilor Bob Rohlf Non-Voting Members: Tom Miller, Millers Sanitary Service & Larry Schmidt, Schmidt's Sanitary Service i i DATE: July 7, 1997 f ti ! SUBJECT: First Progress Report To Council 1 j HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The Task Force was created by Council and has been meeting since January, 1997. Wayne Lowry and Loreen Mills have served as staff liaisons to the Task Force. The purpose of the Task Force was to: A. Review and analyze the Haulers' efficiency suggestions; and B. Review the solid waste system in Tigard and its role in the region 1) Cost effectiveness l 2) Service standards 3) Quality of service 4) Metro's role f r E a) tip fee b) flow control - HAULER EFFICIENCY REVIEW: Following is a list of the Hauler efficiency suggestions thats the Task Force has reviewed. Attached is a copy of the original list submitted to SWETF for review. 1 (Attachment A) ITEM # EFFICIENCY SUGGESTION ACTION TO DATE A Mandate 100% cart use in Tigard Was implemented 1/1/96 g B Commingled collection of recycling at Proposing Council authorize HLA conduct an curbside efficiency & rate analysis of a two sort system prior to considering implementation. (Attachment B - original consideration and j Attachment C - HLA's outline proposal.) C Encourage easier access for collection by financial incentives in rates D Limit vacation credits available for Was 4 credits/year for 1 week of time or more if customers. requested prior to the customer going on vacation. Recommendation: Change admin. 1 rules to allow unlimited number of vacation 1 ~ - t credits per year for 2 weeks of time or more if f requested prior to the customer going on vacation. E Special charges for accounts requiring extra Discussion occurred. Agreement reached that bookkeeping current rate structure is adequate. i F Re-establish Tigard's SWAC Discussion has centered around a preference for a County-wide SWAC. This has also created discussion about the County handling all solid waste franchises County-wide to reduce number of different rules and rates each hauler has to comply with every time they cross a jurisdictional line. G G Update and streamline drop box and County-wide review of this issue is coming to a compactor rates conclusion. All haulers in county have been a part of this review as well as jurisdictions. SWETF will review this report and forward a recommendation to Council this Fall. H Update and streamline cart use in Tigard 1-A 3-year solid waste plan is being drafted I 1-make no changes for 5 years now for Tigard. SWETF will present to j 2-adjust 60/90 gal. rates to reflect no Council at a later date. disposal fee (see Attachment C) 2-No action is anticipated at this time. - i 3-standardize on 60 gal. cart (see 3-No action is anticipated at this time. ` Attachment C) r 1 Streamline commercial collection of solid SWETF discussed modifying commercial rate f waste structure to charge for "extra service" required by items listed in Attachment D. SWETF - i determined current rate structure is adequate for "extra service" charges at $65/hour. SWETF recommendation is to modify CD Code to require commercial & multi-family remodel i applications to modify their container enclosures to achieve better hauler efficiencies. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: The following items are brought to the Council for review & direction. Underlined lan uage is the action or direction requested i o. 1. Develop stronger & more recycling markets: SWETF recommends Council encourage Metr i DEO and the Governor to (a) re-energize ORMDC (Oregon Recycling Market Development Commission); and j (b) demand stronger market development in Oregon 2. Modify Community Development Code: Change the CD Code to require commercial and multi- family customers who request a "remodel" permit to modify their solid waste container enclosures to achieve bette hauler efficiencies. Currently the CD Code only addresses new developments. i i. a j 3. Review feasibility of County-wide management of solid waste franchises with a County-wide SWAC: Authorize SWETF to conduct further review of this issue and report back to Council. t j 4. Prepare a 3-year solid waste plan for Tigard: Identify what Tigard's solid waste plans and programs are for the next three years to allow Haulers to better anticipate changes in capital equipment. Authorize SWETF to develop this plan and present to Council at a fUtu date. Currently known issues that will drive this plan are: a. Woodfeathers ruling 1) Residential rates could increase 20%+ if commercial solid waste services are not allowed to be franchised. 2) Tigard could have 50-100 garbage trucks a day collecting waste in Tigard if franchising is not allowed. 3) Should Tigard encourage a challenge to Metro's position on flow control? A substantial reduction of disposal fees could mean lower rates for the customers. 4) Will Metro (and high tipping fees) survive the current Sizemore challenge? I b. Commercial recycling program costs could increase substantially. C. Organics recycling - is it really coming? It will be expensive! - 7 r"'1 d. Weight-based rates - pilot program update. k 5. Conduct a cost analysis of Commingled Residential Recycling: SWETF requests Council authorize (at the 7/22 Council meetine) the hirine of HLA to conduct a cost analysis o 1 Approach A as outlined on Attachment C. I S WETF appreciates the opportunity to report to the Council. It has been a real learning opportunity for all members involved. It has become more apparent through the last few months of study that the solid waste industry is changing rapidly. In order for Tigard's residents to enjoy the most cost effective and efficient service delivery possible, Tigard must find ways to raise solid waste issues higher on the political agendas of all jurisdictions in the County. We look forward to our meeting with you on July 15th. i Im/1Vdocs1swctP7-15mcmo.doc . f 4 i 1 J ATTACHMENT A EX14:3IT "A" ComPILATION OF H ULFR SUGGESTIONS fall haulers a-ree on thesel • Mandate all containers at the r.ub and charge for service away from the curb; + Provide commingled pickup of recyclables & review options for less than weekly collection; • Provide for direct access and truck maneuvering space for automated pickup of the following: Commercial accounts; Multi-family accounts; and E . Drop box accounts. OTHER Si-GQFSTTONS SIIB,NTMFD BY TNDiyiDUAL HAUT.ERS 11 • Limit vacation credits to two weeks or longer; _ • Charge customers that regularly require extra bookkeeping work (i.e., accounts that are j always past due). • Re-establish the Solid Waste Advisory Committee - A SW AC process would allow the time and resources to evaluate alternatives soundly. adding to :he limited resources of full-time staff Drop Box and Compactor Fees - A. Change rental fee on Drop Boxes to a daily fee instead of a fee with a 43-hour glace pe od. B. Raise Compactor fees to cover rec;:cling cost (as Washington County is proposing). 1. Use additional revenue to do one of the following: i a. Lower drop box haul fees (15% - 20%) Q$ b. Lower commercial container rates to be revenue neutral. • Make no changes in car, size, or ma;or prom-am changes for years. to allow program costs to amortize; • Additional methods to streamline cart use in Tigard: (see attached options 1-4) `a - s~ OPTIONS TO ST FAVI .IN . -ART US F. fN TIGARD Option I - Residential - ii A. All customers receive and use roll carts (20 gal, 32 gal, 60 gal, or 90 gal) 1 1. Curb rate 2. Roll out or yard rate 3. Service charged for inaccessible carts A. Placed near cars B. Placed near mailboxes. trees, etc. B. Establish rates on a cost-of-service for 20 gal - 32 gal. I . 60 gal is disposal component only increase over a 32 gal 2. 90 gal is disposal component only increase over a 60 gal Option 2 - Residential A. All customers receive and use roll carts (60 gallon. only) I. Curb rate 2 Roll out or yard rate Service charged for inaccessible carts A. Placed near can i F B. Placed near mailboxes, trees, etc. B. Establish rate for monthly fee to cover solid waste costs 1. Per pickup fee for disposal - $2.50/60 gal E 2. 20 gal customer = 60 aal every 3 weeks 32 gal customer = 60 gal every 2 weeks 60 gal customer = 60 gal every week 3. 1 size cart lowers inventory costs - 60 aal cart 4. 1 size can = 60 aal = standard size 6. Comouterized billing is current option with RFID (computerized) tags 9 Option 3 -Residential j A. Automate curbside recvcling for paper and plastics B. Collect glass and metal one time per month 1. Gre=vBrown glass - one time per month Clear alass/Metals - one time per month OR 2. Giassafetais mixed s Papen?lastic mixed Option = - Commercial A. Standardize commercial enclosure sizes and locations, access, etc_ 1. Discount for containe with no wheels (easien'safer to service) t Credit prope- owner for recycling areas of sexing landscaping requirements in planningbuilding permir approval stage. 1 B. Recycling in Commercial sector to have oodons 1. Minimum standards per Washington County l 2. Split Wet vs. Dry recyclabies and col!ect spit loads J 1 FAX 503 639 8795 CITY OF TIGARD MIKE LEICHNER la 008 07/01(97 TUE 15:59 ATTACHMENT B -Modified -C(-minSled' Curbsirl'e ProQram~ j 1. Notify all customers of changes j A. Cityscape B. Hauler mailings C. Local paper articles 2. Two-sort collection system - when markets develop (3-9 months) 1 A. Co-mingle 3 colors of glass (clear, brown & green) with metals (tin, f aluminum, scrap) B. Co-mingle-remrainingitems a. O'NTP eta b. QCC f~~bo~o. 4 c. Magazines 4 d. Mixed scrap e. Plastic bottles r'1 C. Collect used motor oil separately-in-bottles as before 3. Benefits to customers A. Weekly service still available B. Less preparations requirements-(lower contamination concerns) _ C. Faster collection system for haulers a. More-efficient b. Less cost D. Potential for multi-family and commercial customers to have the - same system. E. Higher participation anticipated d 7 . i - l ATTACHMENT C Draft Approaches to Evaluating Solid Waste Proposals prepared by Harding Lawson Associates j for the City of Tigard Solid Waste Efficiency Committee Introduction The City of Tigard's Solid Waste Efficiency Committee (the Committee) is considering i two proposals for changes to the way residential refuse and recyclables are handled. The j proposals are summarized as follows: J • Proposal 1: Standardized Refuse Containers and Variable Collection Service - Phase in the universal use of 60-gallon carts, offer refuse collection on a less than weekly basis (for example, every other week or once every three weeks), adjust fees to reflect the frequency of pickup and the quantity of refuse set out (based on container volume and eventually by weight). • Proposal 2: Commingled Residential Recycling - Simplify the collection system and materials separation/preparation requirements by having two basic sorts, one with glass and metal containers mixed together and the other with all paper grades mixed with plastic bottles. Motor oil would continue to be kept separate. The overall purpose of these proposals is to stabilize and hopefully reduce service costs, increase the operating efficiency of the collectors, and support greater waste reduction program participation. Evaluation Approaches j In response to a request from the City, Harding Lawson Associates (HLA) has prepared four alternative approaches for assisting the Committee analyze and evaluate the proposals. The approaches vary primarily in their level of detail, analytic scope, and price, but are applicable to both proposals. Regardless of the approach, a draft and final technical memorandum would be submitted offering results and recommendations for each ! proposal. A summary of the approaches is presented below followed by a preliminary discussion of the key issues and concerns that would be addressed for each proposal. • Approach A: This is the most comprehensive approach incorporating a range of qualitative and quantitative assessments as follows: a comparison of advantages and disadvantages; results from interviews with similar jurisdictions concerning Proposals 1 and 2 and their efforts in these areas; descriptions of options to the proposals; and detailed cost models and evaluation matrices for the proposals and their associated options based on existing financial information, additional data to be provided by the three franchisees, limited time-motion observations, and experience from other communities. Estimated cost per proposal is $15,000. j 1 - C 1 I . • Approach B: This version incorporates qualitative and quantitative assessments as follows: a comparison of advantages and disadvantages; results from interviews with similar jurisdictions concerning Proposals 1 and 2 and their efforts in these areas; a cost model and evaluation matrix for each proposal based on existing financial information, additional data to be provided by the three franchisees, limited time- II motion observations, and experience from other communities. Estimated cost is $12,000 per proposal. t • Approach C: This approach includes qualitative and quantitative assessments in the j form of a comparison of advantages and disadvantages and results from interviews I I with similar jurisdictions concerning Proposals 1 and 2 and their efforts in these areas. I Estimated cost per proposal is $8,000. I k; • Approach D: This covers the most basic analysis/evaluation and consists primarily of qualitative assessments in the form of a comparison of advantages/disadvantages. Estimated cost per proposal is $5,000. Under either of the approaches noted above, HLA would meet with the Committee to clarify the content and intent of Proposals 1 and 2, focusing particularly on the anticipated or desired outcomes from implementation of the proposals. The advantages- disadvantages discussion would be organized around certain categories such as: operations, economics, rate impacts, customer satisfaction, institutional/legal barriers, waste reduction impacts, implementation needs, and others to be determined. A draft and final technical memorandum with conclusions and potential proposal modifications and/or alternatives will be produced under any of the approaches for each proposal. However, the background and rationale will vary according to the level of detail presented by the l! analysis. Issues and Concerns - Proposal l: Standardized Refuse Containers and Variable Collection Service • How will it be determined who sets out what size of container during given time " periods in order to track service levels for billing/payment purposes? - • Will larger refuse cans and the opportunity to reduce collection frequency lead to greater waste reduction? • What is the trend among other communities pursuing similar strategies? • Will residents be able to vary their collection frequency every month? • What are the pragmatic health considerations of collecting garbage less frequently than weekly? 2 I i Issues and Concerns - Proposal 2: Commingled Residential Recycling • Will more commingling lead to more participation, recovery and recycling? • Will more commingling lead to greater material contamination? • Will more commingling reduce the efficiency of processing materials into a marketable form? • What is the status of current and proposed sorting facilities and will the proposed commingled recyclables collection system support similar collection efforts for multi- family and commercial customers? yl. I j ~ • What impact will commingling have on collection time and collection equipment? { j • Why are paper grades and plastic bottles mixed together? • Wouldn't mixing plastic bottles with the glass and metal containers help prevent breakage of glass? • What will the attitude of Metro, DEQ, and Washington County be toward greater commingling of recyclables? I I 3 ATTACHMENT D Proposed Commercial Rate Structure Base Rate Additional Charges for the following: 7 7 Unlocked enclosure Pull container out of enclosure n Put container back into the enclosure Car blocking the enclosure Waiting time Gate lock Fee _ i ama • 1 ' Agenda Item No. Meeting of JBL&K INSURANCE PRESENTATION OUTLINE V July 15, 1997 f i 1. PROPERTY/LIABILITY MARKETING RESULTS FOR 97/98 2. WORKERS COMPENSATION * Changes in Oregon's system q Effect on rates and rating plans * Premium & loss history * Risk management services 3 - .j 3. QUESTIONS & ANSWERS 3 { j 1 i J D D 9' ~ 6 ®I~gLg~l~ ils Z-F I ~ e pow- "Mon. ICI i 1 Agenda Item No. Meeting of MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGA.RD, OREGON .j TO: City Council FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager; Kristen Paris, CSO; Jim Wolf, t' CSO Y DATE: July 2, 1997 t SUBJECT: Basketball Hoop Ordinance At its January 21, 1997 meeting, City Council discussed a revision to Section 10.32.200 ;a of the Municipal Code that would regulate basketball hoops in the right-of way. At the conclusion of the meeting, staff offered to prepare a memo discussing enfcrcement of the ordinance to clarify its intent. Council was clear that although they are concerned about hazards in the public right-of-way, they are not in favor of prohibiting basketball hoops altogether or severely limiting children from using the streets, where safe, for play. The intent of the ordinance is not to prohibit basketball hoops - even from the right-of- way. The purpose of the ordinance is to allow for the removal of article or material (including basketball hoop) which is hazardous to pedestrian or vehicular traffic. In an extreme example, a portable basketball hoop blew over and laid across the street blocking one travel lane completely. Obviously, that would be a hazard in need of immediate attention. In another situation, a resident who is confined to a wheelchair and motorized cart was unable to negotiate the sidewalk because of the placement of a portable basketball hoop. Moving the structure would have addressed the residents 3 concern. This ordinance would also prohibit the placement of material such as barkdust in the right- of-way if the location of the material causes hazardous conditions for pedestrian or ! ;t vehicular traffic. i F71 i . s At the January 21, meeting, Councilor Hunt expressed concern about solid waste carts. The placement of those carts is not addressed in Chapter 11 of the Municipal Code (Health and Safety) but generally the carts are not large enough to cause hazardous conditions for pedestrians or vehicles. Again, the intent of this ordinance is not to prohibit or limit basketball hoops except where the placement of the structure causes a hazard for pedestrians or the motoring public. i:laft\ izkbslmord.doc l ~i J AN- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 5 i ORDINANCE NO. f c AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10.32.200 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO PREVENT THE INSTALLATION AND USE OF BASKETBALL HOOPS WITHIN THE RIGHT- OF-WAY. 1 WHEREAS, there is a need to regulate the construction, installation and use of basketball hoops within the public right of way; and WHEREAS, presently Section 10.32.200 is being used by the Tigard Civil Enforcement Officers but that provision in current form is proving to be inadequate in those enforcement efforts; i NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Section 10.32.200 of the Tigard Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: r 10.32 200. Obstructing streets. Except as provided by Chapters 10.16 through 10.32, or any other city ordinance, no person shall install, construct, maintain, use, place, park, deposit or leave upon any street or other public way, sidewalk or curb, any article or thing or material which in r any way has the reasonable potential or does prevent, interrupts, or obstruct the free passage of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or obstructs a driver's view of traffic control signs and signals. T SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Rarnrder PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 1996. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder I t Ordinance No. ~rrr+ Page 1 rY l APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 1996. i' Jim Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney f. Date I - pceacm/900241bwkctba. or 1(8/21 /96) s _ ti f i, Ordinance No. _ t Page 2 I ,r % c.. E I LI Norl_Cc~n~~ INSTALL 4-WAY STOP ~l~j~~c~ SIGN & POST INSTALL 4-WAY STOP SIGN ON EXIT POST REMOVE PAVEMENT , _ MARKINGS = 1 _ MAIN STREET ' = STOP BARS t •t I INSTALL STOP BAR i I'll llllllllllll RELOCATE BUS STOP SIGN TO ~ A i' EXISTING POST INSTALL 4-WAY T`IIT// STOP SIGN ON INSTALL 22 L.F. OF ~ EXISTING POST G EXTRUDED CURB REMOVE SIGN AND 4-WAY STOP 8c POST SIGN & POST ~ ~ Z S lllllll.%//ll %lll/11U11/. ~ ~ ~ i cn / ~ l ~ ~ DRAWN BY: KMA ~~~p FflOF~s SHEET P~ s A II,A~//^^ V 7' ~7 CHECKED BY: qPD G q,~j5B74 e~',~ 4-VV/`I l SI ENGINEERING D PART NT e E ME DATE: 05/20/97 MAIN STREET\BURNHAM STREET ~ 13125 S.W. HALL BLVD. SCALE 1" = 30~ ,9 OREGON ry ~ TIGARO, OREGON 97223 '~'9 9 CITY OF TIGARD (503) 639-4171 OGi9~,} 19.10 PLAN VIEW oRECaN ISSUED FOR BID. 00/00/00 /N p. ~ D1A5197 DWG FILE: MISC\BURNHAM.OWG e~alaes: 1z/81/g~ Non-agenda 1 aF 1 _ - r^-=- ~ . - ~ ' If this notice appaars clearer than the AUG 2 41998 , , ~dacument, the document is of marginal ,uaiih'' I I FILMED ~ M CRO ,I~ _ INCn AIIDE N C18tk ~r_+c-x:c..„... . - ~ I. _,,.+t ~ - - 1 ~:<-__c<= _.r;_ -1 a=,:_u tsa~~ x 7s, :as _ 1.°'-m x _ ~p~I Il~(lllllllllGUllU WlllulU , IIiIIQIIIIIII~I11IHllilllf~llllflif(~II(tlrll ll~pil IIILI#(IIIIIIIII11Illfllflli~11111111([~Illfil(UIIIIIIfllilllll(tl~l~lllllJllltllllll~lll11U~111111111IOItlllillillllllil~lli I~f 1DiT I _ _ _ _ _ ~ - H - _ ~ ~ ~ - --''y'.