Loading...
City Council Packet - 05/26/1998TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 26, 1 998 COUNCIL MEETING ILL NOT BE TELEVISED I:ladmljolccpkt9.doc 13125 SW Hall B!vd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 "Revised 5/21/98 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 cojntacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-x1171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - lolIIAY 26,1998- PAGE 1 'e AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING MAY 26, 1996 - 6:30 PM 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM STUDY SESSION > TRAINING SESSION: COUNCIL, BOARD AND COMMITTEE ROLES FOR CITY ELECTIONS 0 City Attorney > CITY FACILITIES PLANNING REVIEW 0 City Administration > 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 attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 8:15 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & 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 8:20 PM 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 8:30 PM 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Authorize the Mayor to Sign an Agreement Allowing the Tigard- Tual?*.n School District to U-twa Ci y Property to Develop an Environmental Garden Adjacent to Woodward School Property 3.2 Approve the Appointment of Lonn Hoklin to the Library Board - Resolution No. 98- COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 26,1998- PAGE 2 • Consent Agenda - Items Removed L-r 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. 8:35 PM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: RENAMING STREETS IN APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION a. Open Public Hearing: Mayor Nicoli b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Engineering Department d. Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions 9. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 98- 8:45 PM 5. REVIEW AND CONSIDER OPTIONS - LAKE AT SUMMERLAKE PARK • Staff Report - Public Works & Engineering Departments • Council Direction: Selection of Option 9:05 PM 6. REVIEW OF STATUS OF SUMMER CREEK AT SW 121ST AVENUE WETLAND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT • Staff Report: Engineering Department • Council Discussion • Council Direction: a. Should a final design for construction of the improvements be prepared? b. Should the City request that Unifies! Sewerage Agency include this project in the Surface Water Management Master Plan? 9:15 PM 7. DARTMOUTH LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER BY CITY COUNCIL The Dartmouth Local Improvement District has reached the assessment stage. Tigard Municipal Code Se-'"-m 13.04.060 requires that a proposed assessment be prepared and presented to the City Council in a resolution. The resolution, upon approva the Cib+ Council adopts the proposed assessment, directs that property owners be no ifice, c:` the proposed assessments and that a public hearing ba set to consider objections. COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 26,1998- PAGE 3 On May 12, the public hearing was closed and the City Council considered the matter. a. Staff Report: Finance Department, Legal Counsel & Consultant b. Council Deliberation: Ordinance No. 98- l.)- 9:30 PM 8. UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN • Engineering Department 9:45 PM 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10:00 PM 10. 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 attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 10:30 PM 11. ADJOURNMENT I: W DM\CATHY\CCA\980526.DOC COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 26,1998- FAGS 4 r Agenda Item No. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of -7 ~qS MEETING MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Legal Counsel Jim Coleman (Study Session); City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; City Engineer Gus Duenas; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; Legal Counsel Chuck Corrigan; Library Director Melinda Sisson; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; and Brian Rager, Engineering. > TRAINING SESSION: COUNCIL, BOARD AND COMMITTEE ROLES FOR CITY ELECTIONS Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel, used overhead graphics to review the elections laws and operations in Oregon and the restrictions on advocacy. He explained that over the past 20 years City elections have come under State jurisdiction and statutes with certain Charter provisions still applicable. He noted that Cathy Wheatley was the City Elections Officer. He mentioned case law which has established rulings primarily on ballot titles. Mr. Coleman said that election dates were now set by statute with jurisdictions paying the election costs for elections except for May or November. He reviewed where the authority lay for various types of measures, such as candidate election, money, and charter amendments. He mentioned the Constitutional right to the initiative, referendum and recall processes. He said that a unique provision in the Tigard Code called for a vote of the people on an urban renewal plan. Mr. Coleman reviewed the requirements for money measures, including local option levies and general obligation bonds. He mentioned the need for double majority voter approval to exceed the property tax limitation (unless the election is in November). He noted the two kinds of local option levies: capital and non-capital. He said that GO bonds were limited to capital construction/ improvements per Measure 5 and Measure 50. Mr. Colema:i explained that the initiative and referendum processes could be used to create laws but not to direct administrative action. He said that the City Council could refer either legislative or administrative matters to the voters. He mentioned that case law has built up over the years distinguishing legislative from administrative matters. Mr. Coleman reviewed the initiative and the referendum processes, including the pre-signature gathering procedures. He explained the single subject rule, and the local appeals process in Tigard that went to the Council. He sain Ludt the Council cc,,,d approve a citizen-initiated legislative measure or send it to the voters. He explained how the Council could refer a competing measure to an initiative petition. He nwntioned that the City of West Linn did this and was then responsible for reconciling the two measures when they both passed. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 - PAGE 1 Mr. Coleman reviewed the process when the Council initiated a measure for referral to the voters. He mentioned that ballot titles were regulated by statute. Mr. Coleman noted that pre-elections challenges to a ballot measure occurred infrequently. Challenges are forwarded to the Circuit Court system, except in Tigard where citizen-initiated or Council-referred measures went first to the Council. Mr. Coleman reviewed the state statutes restricting advocacy [ORS 264.32(2)]. He cited a letter from the Secretary of State's Office and an opinion from the Attorney General that further explained how these statutes operated. He said that a public employee, while on the job during working hours, could not be involved in a political campaign. He pointed out ORS 294.100 which prohibited a public official from spending money for any other purpose than provided by law. Mr. Coleman said that public employees are defined as anyone who works for the City, including Volunteer Board and Commission members. Elected Officials and contractors are not considered to be public employees including volunteer Board and Commission members. He advised using "common sense" to distinguish when a volunteer was or was not working for the City, as it was not clearly defined by statute. He emphasized that an elected official could not request a staff member to work on a campaign during working hours. Doing so violated both the advocacy restriction statute and the use of public funds statute. Mr. Coleman said that staff could prepare "fact" sheets on issues that were neutral on the topic. He mentioned the Secretary of State's Offrec 's "Factors to consider in preparing a fact slieet" which served as a useful guide. He mentioned the exceptions granted to public employees on the advocacy restrictions: they could wear political buttons and discuss political issues on their work breaks. Mr. Coleman said that "on the job during work hours" included regular work hours and city meetings or other meetings attended on behalf of the City, such as a County meeting where a volunteer represented the City. Mr. Coleman reviewed ORS 260.432(1) which prohibited a person from requiring a public employee to work on advocacy activities in a campaign. He said that "person" included volunteers as well as elected officials. He said -hat elected officials could advocate for or against any candidate or measure at any time but they could not use public resources to do so (either people, property, or money). He noted the personal liability of the elected officials in these . ituations. At the request of a Library Board member, Mr. Coleman explained that if Library Board members declared at a meeting that they were not there as Library Board members representing the City but as private individuals, then they have clarified their role for the purposes of the statute. He conceded that the distinction became somewhat artificial but reiterated the importance of a public r . ,yee or volunteer disassociating him/herself from his/her public role in advocacy issues. Mr. Coleman said that someone writing an article for a newspaper as a private individual who also was the Library Board Chair did raise the issue of the applicability of the statute. He commented that he hoped doing so on the individual's own time and resources did not violate the statute but there were no clear answers. He pointed out that the Secretary of State's Office CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 - PAGE 2 expansion of "public employee" to include volunteers indicated that they would broadly interpret the statute. He said that he was not familiar with any court challenges on this particular issue. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, noted that these restrictions on advocacy did not apply until the measure has been filed with the County elections office and actually became a measure. Mr. Coleman agreed that the restrictions did not apply to the work occurring prior to the date of filing. Mr. Coleman reviewed the Tigard Charter provisions for filing for the position of Mayor and Councilor, mentioning the different timelines. He noted the requirement to comply with state campaign finance laws, the limitation on multiple lucrative offices, and the requirement to resign if the individual sought another office with an overlapping term. He mentioned the Charter provisions regulating a Council vacancy. He referred the Council to Ms. Wheatley to answer questions on campaign financing. Mr. Coleman said that there were many election offenses listed, some as obscure as a Constitutional restriction not to hold office if the person has either accepted or issued a challenge to a duel. He said that the restrictions on advocacy and use of public funds were the most important, involving civil and criminal penalties. Councilor Hunt asked for clarification on a Council referral to the voters. Mr. Coleman said that the Council could bind itself either through legislative or advisory questions sent to the voter. He commented that while he was not certain that the Council could bind itself not to perform an administrative action, it would have a practical impact. > CITY FACILITIES PLANNING REVIEW Mr. Monahan reviewed the history of this effort to evaluate the City's space facilities and to determine a possible course of action to resolve the space issues. He noted the formation of the Space Committee, comprised of staff, four citizen representatives (two appointed by the police chief and two by the library director), and Councilor Hunt. He recounted the Committee's work in studying the issVe and discussing the alternatives. He reported the Committee's preference to build a new library building and a new police facility on the civic center property. He referenced an early draft rendering of a possible siting of the buildings on the property. Mr. Monahan reviewed the recommended use of space, given a new two-story library building and a new two-story police building. He explained that Administration would move into the old library; Finance, Engineering, Building, and Community Development would move into the civic center building and police building; and Public Works would move to the Water Building. Pie explained that the total project cost of $17,687,000 included $7,651,000 for the library, $5,800,000 for the police building, and the rest for additions and remodels of the current civic complex, contingency, and bond financing. Mr. Monahan reviewed the tax rates for the bonds: 51 cents per $1000 of assessed valuation over 20 years or 79 cents per $1000 of assessed valuation over 10 years for the total $17 million cost. If the City waited on the police building, a $13 million bond would calculate to 38 cents per $1000 of assessed valuation for 20 years or 59 cents per $1000 assessed valuation for 10 ,years. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 - PAGE 3 Mr. Monahan noted the survey Council had commissioned to determine voter reaction to building new facilities. The City has not gone to the public about the review of City facilities to determine space needs. Mr. Monahan suggested that one interpretation of the survey results was that with an education campaign, passage of the bond measure was possible. He mentioned support for both police and library in the survey. Councilor Hunt asked Mr. Monahan to explain what they would do if they did not build a new police building. Mr. Monahan said that they would continue to use the land where the new police building would have been sited for police department parking. He mentioned the need to acquire the building on the front of the civic center property. He explained that not building a new police building impacted the overall program because they could not move Building and Engineering into the main building and vacate their modules in order to turn that land into more library parking. Neither could they develop a long-tern solution for Community Development and the public counter. Councilor Scheckla asked what would happen to the current Public Works property once the department moved into the Water Building. Mr. Monahan reviewed the options for the property, including selling it as a package with the Interfaith Outreach building property to help pay off the debt or using it for oilier city purposes. Councilor Scheckla suggested using it as a community center for youth. Mr. Monahan agreed that that was a possible use. He mentioned that if the downtown renewal took place in the next several years, that property could become quite valuable. Councilor Scheckla asked how much new square footage would this option bring. Mr. Monahan said that it added 64,000 square feet while eliminating the modules (3,500 sq.ft.) and the Niche (2,000 sq.ft.). He clarified that the library currently had 13,000 sq.ft. bvt needed an additional 29,000 sq.ft. In essence the project would triple the size of the library. Mayor Nicoli asked the Space Committee and Board members for their input on the plan. Lonn Hoklin, Library Board, commented that the survey did not give crystal clear guidance on the best alternative but it did indicate strong support for a new library with less support for a new police building. However both buildings on the same measure showed a very close election which he contended they could win with an educational campaign. Tammy Gustin, Library Board, pointed out that 52% of the survey respondents have lived in Tigard for tort; to ten years. She said that newcomers are looking for a place to settle with their families and build a good community. This was a positive element in support of the bond measure. Larry Beek, Library Board, reported that Grants Pass overwhelmingly passed library and police bond measures in May, although they failed under double majority. He spoke to going out in the November election because double majority did not apply, and historically, library and police bond measures did well in Oregon. He mentioned the intense voter interest in transportation and public safety issues as they related to community livability. George Burgess, Budget Committee, noted that he was also President of the Friends of the Library. He pointed out that, since the civic center was built over 10 years ago, 52% of the people (who have moved to Tigard in the last 10 years) did not know that it was the "new" civic center. He said that people who went to the library knew that they needed more space, citing the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 - PAGE 4 small 6 x 6 cubicles staff and volunteers worked in and crowded shelving conditions. He noted that, even without publicity on space needs, the survey showed a fairly even split. He agreed that with the right kind of campaign the bond measure should pass. He supported going out for the whole package. Craig Dirltsen, Budget Committee, agreed that anyone who worked with the City knew that staff needed more space. He said that, while he supported going out for the whole package, developing a long-term plan to present the funding in increments might be more palatable to the voters. He commented that he knew from experience that voters found large numbers frightening. Gene Farnstrom concurred that voters found large numbers frightening but pointed out that traditionally libraries had better support than other ballot measures. He argued that if they split the library and police buildings into separate measures, the library would probably pass but the police building would not. He expressed concern about the parking requirements for the additional square footage. Councilor Scheckla concurred with Mr. Farnstrom's comments. He noted that 74% of the survey respondents did not have school age children and might not support the whole package. He commented that the survey was rather vague. Ms. Gustin mentioned that the 74% included people with pre-schoolers. Councilor Moore concurred that the survey was vague and did not provide solid direction. He said that, while he supported the new buildings, he did know that the most pressing issue to citizens was transportation. He explained that he was concerned about passing a $17 million bond and then needing to pass a road improvements bond in a few years to address the impact of growth on the transportation system. He expressed his appreciation, for the Committee's comments. Councilor Hunt pointed out that the survey indicated that the need for a road bond measure after the facilities measure would not affect how people voted on the facilities measure. He agreed that the survey did not give much direction. He supported going for the whole package. Mr. Famstrom asked when was the last time that the City went out for a bond measure. Staff indicated that the last road bond was in 1989 and the park levy in 1992. Mr. Farnstrom argued t -at a reasonable measure 7,tood a good chance of passing, as it has been some titre since the City has asked for money. He held that asking for separate bonds for library and police in quick succession could be difficult. He supported the whole package also. Mayor Nicoli said that he could support either the whole package or just the library at this time. He mentioned that if they split out the police department, he would consider setting up the police to go in another five years as an incremental project. He expressed his concern that the plan did not provide ample parking, noting that they might have to move the library offsite in 10 to 15 years because of insufficient parkinb. Mayor Nicoli commented that he berieved that in the next two to four years the City had to address the library, a transportation package, and development cf a recreational district, all items that would tap the voters' pocketbook. He pointed out that the current road bo::3 of 50 cents per $1000 would be paid off shortly but these other needs would probably increase the to • levy by $1. He said that the survey and last week's election results indicated that they could pass the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 - PAGE 5 library without too much difficulty. Councilor Rohlf said that the primary conclusion he drew from the survey was the need to educate the voters. He said that they would need to explain the broader space needs of the City if they went for the $17 million. He argued that it was a major mistake not to include transportation in the measure, as traffic was people's primary concern. He said that those who worked with the City knew that the City needed more space but the average voter saw the problems caused by traffic congestion on a daily basis. Pat Repp, Space Committee, pointed out that if they split out the police building to 10 years, it would cost much more to build that facility. She spoke in support of the whole package. Mr. Burgess commented that in 5 years at a 3% inflation rate the police building would cost an extra $1 million. Mayor Nicoli reiterated his concern about adequate parking. He spoke to taking a second look at the issue. Mr. Hoklin commented that the Space Committee discussed the parking issue at great length and examined a number of options. Mr. Monahan mentioned options such as a parking structure (with a cost of $10,000 per space), building parking under the buildings, parking employees offsite, and alternating activities that generated high traffic. He reviewed pros and cons of using the various surrounding properties for parking, (such as the GTE property, the Water Building, the bus property across the street, and the church parking lot). He mentioned possibly moving the Municipal Court over to the Water Building auditorium. He said that staff could work more on these options if they knew the long-term direction. Councilor Hunt pointed out that the City had to do some mitigation when they moved the modulars out. Mr. Monahan agreed but said that there was the potential for 60 to 70 parking places in that area. He said that the Community Development staff indicated that their parking plan would work. They needed 240 spaces and could get 254 on site. If something changed and they needed 318 spaces, they could get the additional 60 over at the church without using the water property. He mentioned an option for a lot-line adjustment to use Fanno Creek Park to comply with the landscaping requirements. The Council discussed when they needed to make a decision. Mr. Monahan said that tentatively staff had to have the draft ballot title with final cost estimates by July 15. The Council agreed to continue discussion on this topic at the June 9 meeting. > EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 8:02 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. > Executive Session adjourned to Study Session at 8:30 p.m. 1. BUS-1i"IESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Rev V ~ Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 8:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 - PAGE 6 1.3 Council Communications/Liaison Reports Councilor Hunt asked for clarification on the WWSA memo requesting Council approval for the budget. Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, explained that the memo was for the cities who were not participating in the water treatment plant preliminary engineering study. 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Councilor Moore asked to discuss a request from McKeever Morris for support of a request to the Metro Growth Management Committee to postpone the decision on Title 3. He also asked to discuss a School District annual report on fields. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA 3. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt the consent agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 3.1 Authorize the Mayor to Sign an Agreement Allowing the Tigard-Tualatin School District to Use City Property to Develop and Environmental Garden Adjacent to Woodward School Property. 3.2 Approve the Appointment of Loan Hoklin to the Library Board - Resolution No. 98- 26. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: RENAMING STREETS IN APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges There were none. c. Staff Report Brian Rager, Engineering, presented the staff request to rename five streets in the Applewood Park subdivision in accordance with ORS 227.120. He explained that the traditional number names for these north-south streets did not work well with the County grid system. He sairi that the Post Office and Police Department expressed concern that the names would be confu;, `.;r their people. He pointed out tl at this was a timely opportunity as no one yet lived in this Matrix subdivision. He noted the Planning Recommendation for approval of the name changes as outlined in the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 - PAGE 7 Old name New name SW 86 h Terrace SW Macintosh Terrace SW 88th Avenue SW Applewood Avenue SW 89`" Terrace (south of Bellflower) SW Empire Terrace SW 89th Terrace SW Criterion Terrace (between Lodi Lane and Braeburn Lane) SW 90th Terrace SW Parkland Terrace Mr. Rager confirmed to Councilor Hunt that staff would make sure that the future street names in Phase 3 of the subdivision matched up correctly. d. Public Testimony e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Rager recommended adopting the ordinance. e. Council Questions Councilor Scheckla asked if the developer or staff submitted the names. Mr. Rager said that staff asked Matrix to submit names which staff then checked out against the County's available names. E Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing g. Council Deliberation: Ordinance No. 98-11 Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No. 98- 11. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 98-11, AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE NAMES OF THE FOLLOWING STREETS WITHIN THE APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION: SW 86TH' TERRACE TO SW MACINTOSH TERRACE, SW 88TH AVENUE TO SW APPLEWOOD AVENUE, SW 89TH TERRACE -OUTH OF SW BELLFLOWER STREET TO SW EMPIRE TERRACE, SW 89TH TERRACE; BETWEEN SW LODI LANE AND SW BRAEBURN LANE TO SW CRITERION TERRACE, AND SW 90TH TERRACE TO SW PARKLAND TERRACE. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 5. REVIEW AND CONSIDER OPTIONS - LAKE AT SUMMERLAKE PARK Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, presented the staff report on the purchase and operation of a boat for use in cutting the vegetation in the Summerlake - -A .;.~.d.. He said that staff still had concerns about this but has located a contractor in Coos Bay who had the equipinent and would do three cuttings this summer for $4000 each. At that time staff would evaluate his CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 - PAGE 8 equipment in consideration of the City purchasing its own custom equipment. He mentioned the additional costs of $1000 to rent a crane to lift the boat into the lake and $58 per ton (c. $500) charged by Grimm's to haul the dried vegetation away, for a total cost per cutting of $5500. Councilor Hunt asked what the cost of a boat was. Mr. Wegner said it was $45,000. He explained that contracting this job out initially would give staff an opportunity to see how maneuverable a craft would be in the lake. The Council discussed the logistics of the cuttings. Mr. Wegner said that the limnologist recommended the first cutting at the end of May. He mentioned that the contractor would do one to three cuttings for $4000 each, and the City would need at least a second cutting because of the time lag in manufacturing the boat (if staff evaluated the process after one cutting and made its recommendation). Councilor Hunt asked about sending a diver down to check out what was in the lake. Mr. Wegner said that it would cost $450 to do so, which staff would do on Council recommendation to move forward. Councilor Hunt asked who had the liability if the City checked out the lake, missed something, and the contractor tore up his equipment hitting something in the lake. Mr. Wegner said that the contractor had the responsibility. He confirmed that such a provision could be written into the contract. Mayor Nicoli invited the public to address the Council on this issue. Van Camp stated that this was a good plan. He concurred that the City should not have any liability and should write a contract to protect the City. The Council agreed by consensus to proceed as recommended by staff. Councilor Moore suggested contacting other agencies in the area to see if they also needed the equipment. Mr. Wegner said that they have talked to USA and the Lake Oswego Lake Corporation. 6. REVIEW OF STATUS OF SUMMER CREEK AT SW 121sT AVENUE WETLAND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Gus Duenas, City Engineer, introduced Brad Moore and Mire Paeya from KCM, the consultants who worked on this project. He mentioned the Council direction to proceed with off-line ponds to meet DSL and Corps of Engineers requirements. He asked for Council direction to complete the final design concept and plans to get the project ready for bid as soon as possible. He mentioned that the total project cost estimate of $260,000 included completion of the design, contract administration, and contingency construction costs. Mr. Moore reviewed the photos in the Council packet -hovdng existing conditions and the concept plan. He commented that a project goal was to --nhance and improve water quality by making selected modifications to the lake. He explained how the channel would work under routine and storm event conditions. He mentioned the need for permits from DSL and the Corps and for 40 foot easements from six properties on the east end. He reviewed the timeline, noting that they hoped to get their DSL and Corps permits by the end of July. Mr. Duenas mentioned a second step of Council authorization for staff to request inclusion of this project on the USA master plan. He explained that doing so made the project qualify for CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 - PAGE 9 surface water management funds. He said that while staff would ask for the total project amount, it was questionable whether USA would include the money already spent ($30,000). Councilor Rohlf asked if the design with two ponds showed a worst-case scenario. Mr. Moore that said that the design showed a normal tsi~$ a out with that they were designing the chtannelto send the pointed ponds would dry out with no water to the ponds during even small summer storm events. Councilor Moore asked if this design would protect the landowners from having a swampy backyard during heavy rain periods. Mr. Moore said that the design maintained the 100 year flood plain elevation. Mayor Nicoli invited the public to address the Council on this topic. contact Ron Wridge mentioned that eanvaseld his neighborhood last neigh ek with the on ept drawings process. He this project. . He reported that each understood and heard no th i g although l fi st neighbors cho ce had been restorat on of th dam buththey commented that at the neighborhood's and the costs would have been that it would not d permitted heig bors' concern for wa er quality prohibitive. Mr. Wridge reported that Mr. concept design addressed the neighbors' Gallagher found that the neighbors who had to give a conservation easement on their property were receptive to the idea; the land was usually under water anyway. The Council discussed whether to proceed with the final design and to ask USA to front the money. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that this work and the work on Summerlake was within the USA drainageway. He held that USA should contribute funds to the projects. Mr. Duenas said that they could ask USA but he did not know how successful they would be. The Council agreed by consensus to proceed with the staff recommendation. 7. DARTMOUTH LOCAL IROVEMENT DISTRICT - CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER BY CITY COUNCIL The (Dartmouth Local Improvement District has reached the assessment stage. Tigard Municipal Code Section 13.04.060 requires that a proposed assessment be prepared and the City presented to the City Council in a resolution. The resolution, upon ap bre notified of the Council adopts the proposed assessment, directs that property proposed assessments and that a public hearing be set to consider objections. On May 12, the public hearing was closed and the City Council considered the matter. Chuck Corrigan, City Attorney, noted that this was a continuation of the May 12 meeting on hearing that close was said N the proposed assessment fo id t'he Dartmouth Martin residence from the LID cons s. He tent with the remaining issue dealt w the other exemptions granted in 1984. He reported that staff sent out preliminary and final draft findir. is. No substantive changes were requested. Mr. Corrigan noted the Martin requethat to have , Lotal of 6.7 acres exempted. Hc said .5 acres should be exempted, qual to the highert staff reviewed the request and concluded o the two exemptions requested in 1984 (.2 and .5 acres). Mayor Nicoli said that he had .5 acres in mind when he asked the Council to consider it. BERM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 - PAGE 10 Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance 98-17 The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 98-12, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, SPREADING THE ASSESSMENTS AGAINST BENEFITED PROPERTIES IN THE DARTMOUTH LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE CITY LIEN DOCKET, AND THE COUNTY LIEN RECORDS AND SETTING THE INTEREST RATE FORD DEALING WITH INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Councilor Rohlf stated that he would abstain, as he had not been party to the earlier proceeding. Motion was approved by majority roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore and Scheckla voted "yes." Councilor Rohlf abstained.) Doug Van Dyk requested to raise issues with regard to the Dartmouth LID. The Council discussed the request, expressing concern at re-opening testimony after they have given ample consideration to the matter. The request was denied. 8. UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN Mr. Duenas presented the quarterly update on the progress of the Council goal to prepare a Comprehensive Public Facilities Plan. He reviewed the status for each infrastructure element: streets and bridges, sanitary sewer, water, and storm drainage. Mr. Duenas explained the problem they ran into with the Transportation System Plan update. The Metro traffic-volume projections in their model were low because they did not include traffic from Newberg and McMinnville. He reviewed the staff and consultant work to obtain accurate numbers. Mr. Duenas mentioned the contract with a data management services firm to update the City's Pavement Management System to help staff with long-term planning for corrective and preventative maintenance of the street system. Councilor Rohlf asked about the bridges and street connections and alignments. Mr. Duenas explained that the bridge system was addressed under a different program, as ODOT rated the bridges. He reviewed how the Pavement Management System would help staff avoid expensive street reconstruction's by monitoring the existing system to identify streets before they fell to that level. Mr. Duenas reviewed the traffic calming program included in next year's CIP. He explained that he changed the name from "Speed Hump program" to "Traffic Calming program" to indicate his intent to broaden the program to include more traffic calming elements and to evaluate streets within the context of the surrounding street system to avoid harmful impacts to other neighborhoods. Mr. Duenas said that they created a sanitary sewer master plan. He said that he included $25,000 in the CIP for a flow monitoring program to examine the areas in more detail where staff had a concern. I'le mentioned that staff highlighted areas for potential extensions. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 2b, 1998 - PAGE 11 Councilor Hunt asked if a long-term goal to sewer the City 100% was unreasonable. Mr. Duenas said that currently over 50% of the City was sewered but since areas were not conducive to sewer, a goal of 100% was unreasonable. He referenced the map identifying what was sewered, what was not sewered, and where staff thought sewer could be extended. He explained that this map would help with a program to implement upgrades to sewer systems with insufficient capacity. He said that staff wanted to verify independently that the areas where USA has told them they needed to upgrade capacity did in fact need those upgrades. Mr. Duenas commented that the City developed the Neighborhood and Commercial sewer extension programs as a tool to implement the Council decision that residents should pay for new sewer extensions. He said that annexing Walnut Island would help make the sewer system work better, noting the many calls for sewer extensions that staff received from that area. Mr. Duenas suggested that Council annex the road system leading up to the Walnut/Tiedeman intersection from all directions in order to facilitate the review process by keeping it in the City. Once the City owned the roads, then they could extend sewer through there as an encouragement to the Walnut Island residents to annex to get the sewer. Staff would install the water system at the same time. He recommended annexing the land once the consultant got to 30% with a definite alignment and identification of right-of-way needed. Councilor Hunt asked when Council discussion of the annexation policy was scheduled. Mr. Monahan noted the Council direction in the discussion earlier this year to revisit the issue after the Boundary Commission disbanded and staff had a clearer picture of the resultant process. Councilor Hunt asked to move forward the Council discussion on this issue, expressing concern at the number of jurisdictions passing voter approval on all annexations. Councilor Rohlf pointed out that since there were no such initiative petitions brewing in Tigard at this time, it was unlikely that the issue would go to the voters this year. Councilor Hunt concurred but spoke to being in position to move as quickly as possible with a policy and procedures after December 31. Councilor Moore expressed concern that if the City owned the road, then the City paid for the improvements, rather than the County. Mr. Duenas said no, noting the County MSTIP 3 project on Walnut Street from SW 121St to SW 135`h. He said that he had considered using the County TIF funds ($500,000) that the City got through the Urban Services Management Agreement on this intersection but decided to use that money on other projects instead. Mayor Nicoli commented that in the past the state and county have paid cities to take over their rights-of-way. Mr. Duenas said that staff would ask but he did not know that the County had any money to do so. Mayor Nicoli spoke to annexing the properties adjacent to the roads at the same time because those properties would receive direct beil:efit frwn the improvement of the intersection. He pointed out that the intersection improvements answered the question of Walnut Island residents opposing annexation on what the City was doing for them. He proposed setting up a timeline to annex those properties by September (in keeping with Mr. Duenas' schedule). Mr. Monahan pointed out that if they waited to annex the properties after December, they did not have to go through the Boundary Commission process. Mr. Buenas noted the County was so backlogged on design review that the City could not begin construction until spring or early CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 - PAGE 12 summer anyway. He said that he would like to finish the design at this time but they could wait on construction. Councilor Hunt asked what the process was if the Boundary Commission denied their request to annex the street. Mr. Corrigan explained that until Metro adopted procedures and standards to handle annexations following dissolution of the Boundary Commission, staff did not know what procedures would be in effect. Mr. Duenas reported that they were still in the preliminary phases on the storm drainage element. He said that he intended to add the sidewalk module to the Pavement Management System next year to aid staff in determining where to make sidewalk connections. He mentioned that staff included funding in the operations budget for street lights, including refurbishing deteriorating steel poles. He noted the target date for completion of the Public Facilities Plan as June 1999. He cominented that few cities had true Comprehensive Public Facilities Plans. Mest were primarily transportation system plans. 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS > Growth Management Caucus request Councilor Moore reported that McKeever Morris, the City's representative on the Growth Management Caucus, has asked for direction on whether or not to support a request by other agencies that Metro's Growth Management Committee postpone its decision on Title 3 (stream corridor setbacks). He recommended supporting the request to delay the process. Tile Council agreed by consensus to do so. > School District Annual Facilities Report Councilor Moore referenced the report distributed by John Anderson at the Budget Committee meeting. He noted the statement that the City of Tigard was working with the Tigard-Tualatin School District and other interested agencies on a partnership in approving funding agreements designed to create a flow of money to existing school district facilities for youth sports activities. He asked how this related to the Atfalati Recreation District. Mayor Nicoli mentioned the City identifying school properties to serve as neighborhood parks and committing the same funding to those properties as they would to other neighborhood parks. He noted that the formation of a recreational district to meet the needs of the athletic ;people was a long-term goal of all the interested agencies. Mr. Monahan reported that Ed Wegner and Jeff Munro have been working with the youth league and Atfaiati representatives. He mentioned Mr. Wegner's perception that Tom Kirk, the School District field manager, did not have much input into the report, and his concern that he has n-t Talked to him yet regarding the District's position on it. He said that star nad some concerns about some of the representations that were made in the report without conversations with the City on coordination. He spoke to the City, the School District, and the youth leagues discussing these matters to reach a common ground. Mayor Nicoli said that, as he understood it, the plan was to form the Recreational District in CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 - PAGE 13 November, wait until January to promote the plan, and in a year have a vote on District funding. He commented that the intent at this time was to identify costs and who was paying how much, and to develop a budget. He pointed out that the work to form this district has been performed by volunteers. He mentioned that the School District has started charging the youth leagues for field use either through a cash fee or through capital improvements, and the leagues were concerned that the rates kept increasing. Mr. Monahan asked to revisit the issue after the Public Works staff had a chance to review the report fin-ther and talk to the School District. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:43 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. 11. ADJOURNMENT: 10:07 p.m. Attest* ayor, City of Tig Date: lay PlZ,I ►'i..e Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998 - PAGE 14 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit • Accounts Payable • Legal Notice TT 9135 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. 1, Kai-h~ SnVrar being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti garrl-Tua 1 at i n Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti q;; rrl in the aforesaid county and state; that the City Council Me-e i-i ng a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for nrtF successive and consecutive in the following issues: Play 21, 19 9 8 Subscribed and sworn toAefor6 me th 1998 GC/k OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS No' Public for Oregon N07ARY PUBLIC OREGON My Commission Expires: COMMISSION NO, 062071 to j COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT 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. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING May 26, 1998 - 6:30 P.M. TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON • Public Hcaring: Street Name Changes - Applewood Subdivision • Consideration of Proposed Ordinance: Dartmouth Local Improve- ment District Assessments • Update: Pubuc Facilities Plan • Executive Session M135 -Publish May 21, 1998. COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 6840360 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising City of Tigard ° ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,Oregon 97223 a ❑ Duplicate Affidavit 0 Accounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' I, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theT? garr1-Taal :3t-in mimes 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 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for nNF. successive and consecutive in the following issues: May 21,1998 Subscribed and sworn My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT Legal TT 9136 Notice 1998 OFFICIAL SEAL ROSIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON *COMMISSION NO. 062071 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 18, 2001 The follow og will be considered by the Tigard City Council on May 26, 1998, at 7:0P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. Both public oral and written tes- timony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of ORS 227.120, Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and any rules and procedures adopted by the "Tigard City Council, or rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.30. Fail_:~ 'a raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the Hearings Authority and all the parties to respond on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appee!s based on that issue, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information is available at City Hall and may be obtained from the. Engineering Depart- ment at the same location, or by calling (503) 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARING The City Council will review a recommendation from the Planning Com- mission to renatine five streets within the Applewood Park subdivision. The name changes are as follows: from SW 86th Terrace to SW McIntosh Terrace, from SW 88th Avenue to SW Applewood Avenue, from SW 89th Terrace (south of SW Bellflower Street) to SW Empire Terrace, from SW 89th Tt-rrace (between SW Lodi Lane and SW Braeburn lane) to SW Criterion Terrace, and from SW 90th Terrace to SW Parkland Terrace. T179136 - Publish May 21, 1998. CrrY OF TIGARID, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I ZAIA I, begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose ands : That I posited in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) C~ `a- which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated copy(s) of said ordwance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _ AA ev day of , 19 Ck 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 Subscribed and sworn to before me this qAL day of , 19 TV" ti ~Y C4-F-ICIAL SEAL M JO ANN HAYES NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGGi. COMMISSION NO. 042148 MY COMMISSION' t-Y.PIRES MAY os. 19gj r1r~ • ~ Notary Pub ' for Oregon My Commission Expires: Mac, h%ndm\Jo\oitpost.doc Council Meeting of May 26, 1998 Please Sign In G 5; 5 C' o u 2 !3 b G t 7 Coat FG SZ/~I ci • AENDA ITEM NO. 2 !VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : May 26, 1998 (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 Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. k%admUo%vtsitsht.doc . Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written conunents are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 DATE: May 26, 1998 PUBLIC HEARING: RENAMING STREETS IN APPLEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS i AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (S In Favor) O nent - (S - a Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. NAP, Address and Phone No. 1 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 1 Name, Address and Phone No. a B U R N H A M O J co J J x CITY OF TIGARD - CIVIC COMPLEX SITE MAST ERPLAN STUDY avg. WT M SC&E fth DRAj-`I k DRAFT EI C l) ca E cc E a) U cn a) E 0 U® 8ss 0 LM 0 ■ c®~ 0 0 A q~ cu ED ■LM ® Y cc v 0 cr) CO) CO) 0 m~ 0 FORM a) 0 L a) cu C-C V C~1,/ 0/ cu cu U) 0 U) c r 0 V a) ..e W N Cl) l`W ~ Cl) to a) cu m 0 cu 0 cu 0 U) c V I E cn C cu i V cu r~ • cu 0- E cu 0 C El F- Li~ 3 mmi "Mm J O N O Nr N t~ Cl) O L O Fl--l C) O C.~ U 0 C~ i! C. Ca C) O 1 i Cl) C 0 O Q c O !!J cn cu C E O co O U LiJ cu C 2 r_ U Qy L~ .o~ U cu E 0 cn cu 0 cn cn U cn a) co O cu m ea) d a) cn E O .&-a a) a) cu U c O cn O U Z O to m AQ CD U CL O CL ui a) E V, a) co L O cu U ~7 11 C E-10 0 CM) U L ~ C) W L cc ® o ~d O Co Cf) C0 t13 ~ C.) ~ E E C/) Iv- ocn a) c ® 0 c~ CD Co ~CN Ca ~q w L.e. V_ ca 0 V c cu a) a) co c~ -C 3: U a0 5-< i~~ v, o ~i 0 co E o a ra > r N aCU m cop) 0 C: co 0 : ~ s CL co o 0 o _W w o V /V U C., co S~ cu $ Q- 4 a) N CU CU a 1 7 2 0 0 a) a) 4-0 O CL cc C O C cc L.. w vd 0 co (D ® ® ~ v~ ® 0 C4 (D , E co ® a ® 2 0 Co E ® e co QD CD ~ L- 0 a) r ca - ® > ~ a ® 0 _j c P ® a) Co a) > ® 43 (D ® (D c: -a 5 . Co c " ® . ® - C o a) to c 0 ® c) cu X CO j cu - 0 0 0 0 CD CD [ ) E cu 0 E c co LO co C G a M~ AW cc 11 v E ILI' a) 0 cz cz h- . L~ 0 C 0 CJ 1cr L- 0 C N 0 cu C) 0 0 Tl- m E E c/ 0 C5 cn LO N 0 a) CD E 0 '^a CO ~s 0 cm as x e ~ a) cn r~'r/j Lem cn a) a) C: :E S V~ p-q `u E E = Lo co x co CD N 0 * L- 04 E o v ~p~ (D ~e ®s V 0 E 0 Im 0 c~ • E x ca cu E E cn a e x 45 cn s V ®a _ r _ V C E P co ~S C' J W 0 L w Ei ~d a~ z: C) CU CL ~o ~ z E . ® • P ) V co ® CL Q) W ~ CU 4.. C) A) co Q C. a~ ~V rz Q~ ~ o w CO cri 4.. ® O w Z3 CZ W 2.1 ® V Q :bb °bW - S-: ° V CO) cri W CT3 ~o Cl /V .cz 010 Q.) zs :tz W _V CL V Q~ CQ 'C.) t w ~ c ~ ~/p.. c u , • Q) ~V ® ~O ® CL C' 1 r^ CQ C, C:L 1~°J cr) C El El w a E Lu Cl) L- 0 V a cu cu C, COI ca co Cl) cc rz N cu ® Wo " -C) 0) N CN iEE ~oit O ® -0 0 Z>, (1) .o CO W C: ~ v) :3 o oD o C o ® E ~ U cc co tc) ~cv~ o AL, o V O co Co C C) ~c® CL C cu CL 0.0 ®.®c0 CU CU ~cUU.) r CL U CLN a) E cu ) C5 ® o - C C : 0 L ~ U (D c/) -0 cn Z' 00 cu E . ® ~ a. E o® 5 O o Z3 co ~ ® o ~ 0 a ~ ~ 11 Cl) 0 E cts QU CT3 C0 C) Cl) CU cl) CO Cl) L- U CU cc :3 CO -CT3 r U O a) a) cu E co 4-0 C: Z% 00 0 E L- ft-.. •7 ® ~y O (D -Co L) o = C~ < Stu o cad ®rN0C7 M m` - 6 W V O C, E CO W ® h ® cl) _Y Cl) a~ ® rz a+ co ~r Y I ® cu co ® 0 o CO CO tz= 'a CL •(D 0) CU CO co CL ® Q E 0 Aft Akk %mi a CM) ~d cu O L. -6 E a) • s 0 VI L 0 L) cu ca E cn FE A~`e -1.-a u CD c a) E cu cu cu •c cm E cu = cn 0 C: CU C: U rCo V E cn E • a CO a) CO a) T,~ J L- U ~ 4-0 • 0)(. cu _ 75 u E L.. s0 E a) E 0 0 -i-1 cu cu L- 0 40-cu U cu a) 0 0U ~1 cc • s -cu ® o z N ® ` a 4 V C/) cn • a) M E 4- F ~ a) CO a) r V :3 • cn L- E c S cu ~p 2 i/ `~LJ J allow Casio cm) C O C~ "L3 g -0 O O cn cn (D (n co CO) o ® O • cn M cn .O :.O 'O ~ cn U ® e0., c> O V Q. O eS U %I-- U O ~ O O c,4 cn cn 114- 4-a ~ CU 0 cn E c: cn 0 C/) O E N N N cn O ko O 40- L cn Q) E CL N® C O N O ® O~ a) c: ® CQ > (n to cu O -6-f E 6 O ~..~vi O C O O a CU C O> '0 0-Z7 O$ N O O cu O a to :3 (D . _ 4 0.- Cc T d»R.rr:.r raw . n:::%::,v:•: q:::g;:; " _ 11 cc cu CD 0 . wr Cl) 0 CL ~o 0 C I, ca a .nm V a) Cl) w ca 0 cu 4. cu w® x cu 4-1 Cl) a- 0 nV, W /6~ N. CD °J E lr~ o~ cu CD ~.s Ti'l .....n . e.as C E •o u PO V L- cu 2 `~60 cu to C) cu Q' cu .v cu CU V ■ v 0 C: cu Ve cn r ~d . co 1q~ L. r cp V W E El I LIM s~ AO ftL %Mj cli c 0 V cu Cl) q~ "7I CD .0 co LO cz~ CD E cu Q. C ® Z u L 0 Cl) ca 0 Cl) cu a O a cli Cf) C6 0 ca .$nd 7I I cu LO C) C/) ■ s c cu E CD cn 0 cn c E 0 cu cu cu 6P~d^I •cn w~ cu o i--+ 0 0- cu cn llq- rrN vJ E E 0 M a 2 OFFICE. OF THE. SF.CRFTARY OF STATE. PHIL KEISLING SECRETARY OF STATE January 28, 1998 Dear Local Official: ELFcnbc' I)NNIOC COLUMN SEALOCI' DIRY.(.TOR 141 STATE CAnrOL . OREGON 97310.0732 ELRMO\' - 0031 9Rb-1518 In recent years there has been a significant increase in the number of alleged election law violations investigated by the Elections Division. In a number of cases our office finds a violation and imposes a fine. Our goal is to reduce the number of complaints and violations by helping educate all Oregonians about these important laws. Attached is information about major election laws administered by my office. I hope you will find it useful in appropriately discharging your official duties. I want especially to direct your attention to Section A of the attached memo, which discusses ORS 260.432, solicitation of public employees; activities during working hours. This law prol~.ibits public employees from spending time during working hours to promote or oppose candidates, petitions or ballot measures. Oral, written, and broadcast efforts all fall under this provision. I urge you to pay special attention to the attached discussion, and to consult with your legal counsel or our office if you have questions. Sincerely, PL,-l `~L Phil Keisling Secretary of State Attachment M OFFICE. OF THE. SECRETARY OF STATE. PHIL K.I:isl.ING SECRETARY OF STATE. January 28,1998 TO: County and City Governing Bodies, State Agency Administrators FROM: Phil Keisling, Secretary of State SUBJECT: Election Law Reminders For 1998-1999 Elections EV.O oms Dwis.ON C(IIIEF.\ Spwxxx MRI.CT(1R 141 STATR CAFITOL SALFN, C)Rwov 97310.0722 F.uxrnov, - (503) 9815.1518 In the past, the Secretary of State's office has received many written complaints and inquiries concerning alleged election law violations involving the provisions of ORS 260.432 (activities of public employees during working hours) and ORS 260.522 (identification of source of political publication). The purpose of this memo is to provide a reminder of the requirements of Oregon election law and to help prevent unintentional violations from occurring. The following discussion of election law is intended to highlight some areas of concern. If you need any further information or have questions about specific circumstances, please do not hesitate to call the Elections Division at (503) 986-1518. Our facsimile number is (503) 373-7414. RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES A. ORS 260.432, SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES DURING WORKING HOURS: Please find enclosed the text of ORS 260.432. Legislative changes effective November 4,1993, added language to ORS 260.432 to include "the gatl'.ering of signatures on an initiative, referendum or recall petition." School Districts, please note ORS 332.118 was amended in 1993 to include public employee political campaigning restrictions, which apply to several types of petition processes affecting school districts. The authority of the election laws commence when the prospective petition is filed with the county clerk. 1. Concerns about on-the-job political activities by public employees: ORS 260.432 (1) and (2) state that public employees (inclvriing school admin!Ltrators. city managers, police chiefs etc.) may not be involved in promoting or opposing any initiative, referendum or recall petition, ballot measure or candidate "while on the job during .vorking hours." This statute does not apply to elected public officials eut (does apply to all other public employees including the staff of elected public officials. Public officials who are not elected, whether paid for their service or not, (such as members of appointed boards and AWL commissions), are considered to be "public employees" for purposes of this statute and they may not promote or oppose petitions, measures or candidates while on the job during working hours. 1998 Election Law Reminders page 2 of 6 This statute forbids, among other activities, the preparation of materials used in either support or opposition as well as their distribution during regular working hours. A public 40 employee may provide only impartial, factual information related to a measure or candidate as a part of the employee's job on work time. In addition, a public employee or other person (including elected officials) may not require or direct public employees to prepare or distribute information that expresses. such support or opposition. Public employees may not be involved in activities such as collection of funds, receipt and distribution of advocacy materials, or recruitment correspondence for political action committees while on their work time. For instance, public employees may not prepare candidate filing forms, voters' pamphlet filings, contribution and expenditure (C&E) report forms or related correspondence during their work time. Lunch hours and breaks when the employee is considered to be off duty may be used for political activity, dependent on other employer lunch/break policies. A public employee may be involved in campaign activity during the employee's personal time in the evenings and on days off. Political buttons may be worn at any time subject to applicable employer policies. Regarding the use of public buildings and other facilities: If the governing body allows one political group to use public facilities, all groups should have the same opportunity. The same building policy should be used for everyone, including charging the same fee. Election law does not directly address use of public buildings, however other laws may apply (ORS 294.100). If any public employee makes public presentations or speeches regarding an initiative, referendum, recall petition, candidate or ballot measure while on their work time, or in an employee's "official capacity," they must make sure the speech is only factual and neutral in its presentation. The criteria discussed in this memorandum concerning written material (A.3.) applies here. A public employer can tell employees about the possible effects of a measure, such as possible layoffs; but the public employer must not threaten employees with financial loss if they vote one way or another (see ORS 260.665, Undue hifluence, for more detail). Some administrators' work time is not as easily measured as that of hourly workers. Administrators must be careful during all appearances both after normal work day hours, as well as during working hours. They must not advocate on behalf of or against a petitiun, measure or candidate ii they are considered to be in their "official capacity." If the employee applies for e. perse reimbursement for the friction, it would indicate that they were "on duty." If complaints of this nature are received by the Elections Di vision, this office will investigate whether or not the activity was undertaken in the employee's official capacity. Personal note-keeping by such employees is suggested. One way to ascertain whether an administrator is in their "official capacity" is to record when the administratur is or, and off duty. Also the administrator may choose to specifically announce to the audience in what capacity the administrator is speaking at public appearances if the administrator makes any AIL statements advocating a position on a petition, a vote on a measure, or a candidate. 1998 Election Law Reminders page 3 of 6 2. Elected officials: An elected official may advocate for or against candidates or measures on the official's work time. (ORS 260.432(4)(a)). However, caution must be taken to not involve public employee's work time in any activities that could be construed to be supporting or aidhng an advocacy campaign effort, such as preparing advocacy material on behalf of an elected official (i.e. speeches, letters, advertising pieces). For instance, support staff can not prepare press releases or constituent mail that advocates a vote, candidate filing forms, voters' pamphlet filing forms, contribution and expenditure (C&E) report forms or related correspondence during their work time. If a body consisting of elected officials votes to support or oppose a measure, a public employee's work time may be used in an incidental way to record the vote if that is part of the employee's normal work duties. Activities beyond that related to the elected official's vote, or that are to help in implementing a campaign strategy in some way, are not allowed on the public employee's work time. For example, the public employee's work time can not be used to perform any related activities such as producing or distributing political documents advocating a vote for or against a measure, or news releases announcing the elected official's support or opposition to a measure, or the production or distribution of a letter to other jurisdictions announcing support or opposition. 40 It is not an election 'Law violation for public employees is use work time to perform their standard job duty of taking the minutes of a public meeting, including the elected official's discussion and reasoning for adopting a resolution or voting to support or oppose a measure. In addition, the follow-up maintenance of the public record and making it available for copies upon request from the public, in the same manner as staff would process any other similar citizen request, is permitted. 3. Concerns about written material relating to measures: Written material prepared or distributed by public employees must be impartial. "Impartial" means equitable, fair, unbiased and dispassionate. The material needs to contain a balance of factual information. This means that the material can t lead the voters to support ur uppose the measure by selective use of factual material, even if the material does not expressly urge a yes or no vote. The material may be determined to be advocacy if, when read in its entirety, it appears to be intended to generate votef '-)r or aganst the measure. A reader should finish reading the i_nft•Lmation a-nd think, "I have lez- _,2d something about the measure," not, "Now I know why I should support (or oppose) the measure." This office may need to rc '.,w indi.vidu:'ly any document t_ at is brought into question to determine if it must m considered advocacy mairerial. if public employee:, provide serV~ces which support or oppose a measure, a`ien those employees may be in violation of ORS 260.432. 1995 Election Law Reminders page 4 of 6 Enclosed is a letter from the Attorney General dated October 5. 1993. It states that the Attorney General has concluded "that public bodies may use public funds to inform voters of facts pertinent to a measure, if the information is not used to lead voters to support or oppose a particular position in the election." It goes on to state, "However, we also have pointed out that 'informational' material may be found to 'promote or oppose' a measure even if it does not do so in so many words if the information presented to the public clearly favors or opposes the measure and, taken as a whole, clearly is intended to generate votes for or against a measure." The best method for interested citizens to support or oppose a measure is to form a political committee(s) with the appropriate elections filing officer. A political committee can legally produce and publicly distribute advocacy materials on a petition or ballot measure. Otherwise, all information presented and paid for by tax dollars must be impartial. Some factors that will be considered in making the determination of whether the material is advocacy include, but are not limited to, the following listing. Any of the factors listed below (except "j"), in and of themselves, may not be sufficient co reach this conclusion. However, taken as a whole, the combination of factors may indicate that the material is campaign advocacy. a) The timing of the publication relative to the election. b) The balance of factual information and whether any negative (or positive) facts are mentioned at all. This does not necessarily mean an equal number of facts on either "side" must be mentioned. If the measure proposes to affect taxes or fees, the specific cost of the measure to an average individual taxpayer or consumer should be included. Also adding to the balance of such a document is the inclusion of possible alternatives if the measure does not pass. An explanation of costs involved and how funds would be used is considered factual information. Note: Ballot titles prepared by a governing body for certain taxing measures now have statutory requirements to include a reasonably detailed, simple and understandable description of the use of the proceeds. (ORS 250.035). c) The overall impression a reader gets after reading the material should be an impression that neutral facts have been presented and it is up to the reader to decide row to vote, rather than that they should vote in favor or aLainsi the measure. The overall impression should be that, the material is being presented to info.m the voter rather :han perstilde C:exr d) The article should not include only statements as to the possible favorable (or unfavorable) effects that passaga of the measure would have. Overall, the tone should be described as dispassionate rather than enthusiastic for one side of the measure. e) The sertd=ik.t: uz ad as headings etc. should not lend a posit=ive (or negative) tone to the material, in favor or opposition to the ballot mea.,.",,. T.1 is also applies to the usage of positive or negative connotations given by words or phrases. 1998 Election Law Reminders page 5 of 6 Agh f) The document should not, in most contexts, use the word "will" in describing the results of passage of the measure. The word "would" is a better alternative as it suggests that voters have a choice. The use of the word "will" suggests a preordained outcome of passage of the measure, a "done deal." g) The document should not, in most contexts, use the word "need" in describing the purpose of the measure. The word "need" seems to equate the "need" of the governing body with the "need" to pass the measure, and the encouragement of that support. Often times the word "need(s)" is more emotionally charged and can be interpreted to be a favorable statement about the measure. h) The quotes used should not allbe favorable or unfavorable to the measure, of all from members of a political committee supporting or opposing the measure. i) Information about how to contact the supporting or opposing political committee (PAC), such as listing the PAC's phone number, may imply a connection between the governing body and the petitioners or supporters of the measure. If all PAC's are listed, both supporting and opposing, it may lend to the balance of the document. j) The contents of the document must not explicitly urge a yes or no vote for the measure in that there should be no "vote yes" or "vote no" type language. For example, the document should not include phrases such as: • "Vote Yes on Measure 99," • "Support for Measure 99 is encouraged," • "Measure 99 asks ABC County voters to authorize a temporary fee increase," • "The County is asking voters to approve funding that will maintain... and • "Why Should I Vote for Measure 99?" 4. Conclusion about restrictions on puniic employee political activity: Finally, this office caunons all government entities, elected officials and public employers to be vigiL,..:t in ensuring that no public employee work time is used in any activity that could be construed as support of or opposition to a candidate, initiative, referendum or recall petition, or ballot measure, apart from the expression of personal political views. While it is understood that a government entity may have much at stake in matters relating to an election, it has a responsibility to ensure that its activities and those of its employees comply with election laws. One additional statute that all public bodies should be aware of is ORS 294.100. It is Aft "unlawful for any public official to expend any money in excess of the amounts, or for any other or different purpose than provided by law." However, this is not an election law and these complaints are to be filed with/by the District Attorney or by taxpayer shit. See v. Blumenauer. 299 Or 55 (1985). 1998 Election Law Reminders page 6 of 6 S. Public Notice required by ORS 260.432(3): ORS 260.432(3) states: "Each public employer shall have posted in a conspicuous place likely to be seen by its employees the following notice in printed or typewritten form: ATTENTION ALL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES: The restrictions imposed by the law of the State of Oregon on your political activities are that "No public employee shall solicit any money, influence, service or other thing of value or otherwise promote or oppose any political committee or promote or oppose the nomination or election of a candidate, the gathering of signatures on an initiative, referendum or recall petition, the adoption of a measure or the recall of a public office holder while on the job during working hours. However, this section does not restrict the right of a public employee to express personal political views." . It is therefore the policy of the state and of your public employer that you may engage in political activity except to the extent prohibited by state law when on the job during working hours." A copy of this notice is enclosed. You may make copies of this notice to distribute and post if you have not already done so. It is the same language as the copy of the notice distributed in 1996. It is required to be posted in all appropriate places where public employees work. B. ORS 260.522; IDENTIFICATION REQUIRED ON POLITICAL MATERIAL: Aft Also of importance to public bodies and state agencies may be the identification requirement for published material (written or broadcast) that relates to a candidate or measure at an election (ORS 260.522). The United States Supreme Court ruled in the spring of 1995 that an Ohio statute similar to ORS 260522 was unconstitutional as a violation of First Amendment rights. Because of that ruling this office will not institute any enforcement actions under ORS 260522. However, this office strongly suggests that identification voluntarily be included on political publications in order to provide the public with the important knowledge of who is authorizing the publication. enclosures Rev.1-26.48 Saved: AG Oph*m, "ORS 260.432. Local Of cial, 98' CJ 141 STAre CAIIrML SALEM. OI<FCo% 97310-0732 ORS 260.432(1) states: "No person shall attempt to, or actually, coerce, command or require a public employee to influence or give money, service or other thing of value to promote or oppose any political committee or to promote or oppose the nomination or election of a candidate, the gathering of signatures on an initiative, referendum or recall petition, the adoption of a measure or the recall of a public once holder." ORS 260.432(2) states: "No public employee shall solicit any money, influence, service or other thing of value or otherwise promote or oppose political committee or promote or oppose the nomination or election of a candidate, the gathering of signatures on an initiative, referendum er recall petition, the adoption of a measure or the recall of a public office holder while on the job during working hours. However, this section does not restrict the right of a public employee to express personal political views." ORS 260.432(3) states: "Each public employer shall have posted in a conspicuous place likely to be seen by its employees the following notice in printed or typewritten form:" (see attached notice) ORS 260.432(4) states: (a) 'Public employee' does not include an elected official. (b) 'Pub::.: employer' includes any board, commission, committee, department, division or institution in the executive, administrative, legislative or judicial branch of state government, and any county, city, district or other municipal corporation or public corporation organized for a public purpose, including a cooperative body formed between municipal or public corporations." c.Q CL 4 L' THEODORE R. KULONGOSIG ATTORNEY GENERAL OOMAS A. BALMER .iPITPY ATTORNEY GENERAL 100 Jusdco Bud"I; 1162 Court Sweet NE Salem, Oregon 97310 FAX: (503) 378-3784 TDD: (503) 378-5938 Telephone: (503) 378-4620 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GENERAL COUNSEL DIVISION October 5, 1993 Colleen Sealock, Director Elections Division Office of the Secretary of State Room 141 State Capitol Salem, OR 97310 RE: Statutory Restrictions on Promoting or Opposing Ballot Measures Dear Ms. Sealock: Oregon voters will face a number of contentious ballot measures at upcoming elections, and some of these measures will effect, directly or indirectly, the operation of state and local government. You have asked what restrictions may apply to public officials promoting or opposing ballot measures. 1. Statutory Restrictions on Public Employee Political Activities ORS 260.432'/ prohibits political activities by public employees while "on the job during working hours." In addition, ORS 294.100(1) makes it unlawful for "any public official" to spend public funds for any purpose not authorized by law, and subsection (2) of that statute makes public officials personally liable for money improperly spent. This statute has been found by Oregon courts to apply to public officials who used public fiends either to support or oppose measures which were before the voters. ORS 260.43221 provides, in relevant part: (1) No person shall attempt to, or actually, coerce, command or rege;r~z a public employee to influence or give mP=Y- service or other thing of value to promote or oppose any political committee or to promote or opposs the nomination or election of a candidate, tht adofltion of a measure a the recall of a public office holder. (2) No muUc employee shall solicit anv monev. influence service or other thing val or otherwise promote any political committee or 12rornote or p=se the Colleen Sealock Page 2 October S, 1993 nomination or election of a candidate, the adoption of a measure or the recall of a public office holder while on the job during working hours. However, this section does not restrict the right of a public employee to express personal political views. (4) As used in this section: (a) "Public employee" does not include an elected official. (b) "Public emplover" includes any board. commission-committ department, division or institution in the executive. administrative. legislative or judicial branch of state government, and any county, city, district or other municipal corporation or public corporation organized for a public purpose, including a cooperative body formed between municipal or public corporations. (]Emphasis added.) Thus, ORS 260.432 prohibits "public employees" from promoting or opposing the adoption of a measure while on the job during working hours. It also prohibits "any person" from requiring or attempting to require a public employee to give money, service or anything of value to promote or oppose the adoption of a measure. 2. Who is a "Public Empinee" Subject to theg Restrictions? dCi•7 We believe that "public employee," as used in ORS 260.432, includes not only rank and file employees but also supervisors, appointed agency administrators and appointed board and commission members at both the state and local government 11evel ai ORS 260.432(4) provides that "public employee" does not include elected officials. The implication of'this definition is that "public employee," for purposes of ORS 260.432_ does include all state and inccal governmeal. public employees and officials other than elected o; :ls. nor example, apROintee Hers of state. boards and commissions are included within this defi=ion, vua le ected local school board members are not included. This result is consistent with the Attorney General's conclusion in a 1968 opinion that a member of the industrW' Accident Advisory Committee, a public appointee, is a public employee for purposes of ORS 260.432. 33 Op Atty Gen 473 (1968). Thus, only elected officials lawfully may engage in advocacy for or against a ballot measure while on the job during working hours. • However, even elected officials may not "coerce, command or require a public employee to influence or give money, service or other thing of value to promote or oppose * * * the adoption of a measure." ORS 260.432(1). AML Colleen Sealock Page 3 October 5, 1993 3. Penalties The penalty for failure to comply with ORS 260.432 potentially is quite severe. ORS 260.995 authorizes the Secretary of State to impose a civil penalty of up to $250 for each violation of ORS 260.432. However, the more significant potential°l penalty is found in ORS 294.100(1), which provides: (1) It is unlawful for any public official to expend any money in excess of the amounts, or for any other or different purpose than provided by law. ORS 294.100(2) makes public officials who violate subsection (1) civilly liable for money improperly spent, and authorizes suit by the district attorney or taxpayers to seek recovery of that money from the officials who authorized the expenditure. Oregon courts on several occasions have found this statute to apply to public officials who used public funds either to support or oppose measures which were before the voters. In Porter v. T_ iffanv, 11 Or App 542 (1972), the Court of Appeals held that members of the board of directors of the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) were personally liable under ORS 294.100 for EWEB funds spent in connection with two ballot measures. One of those measures authorized the sale of bonds to be used by EWER to acquire a partial interest in a nuclear power plant. The EWEB funds were used for television, radio and newspaper advertising, voter surveys and other materials to support a favorable vote on the measure. The other measure would have delayed the construction of a nuclear power plant for four years. 'WEB used its funds for advertising, polls and other materials in opposition to this measure. The court found that the board had no authority to authorize payments for these activities, and ordered the board members personally to reimburse EWEB for the amount expended in promoting or opposing the measures. Burt v. Blumenauer, 299 Or 55 (1955), involved a taxpayer suit under ORS 294.100 against the county commissioners, the county executive, and two county health officers for unlawful expenditure of public funds. The money was used to pay the salaries for persons, including one of the health officials, who staffed a "fluoridation public information project," and to pay for advertising, posters and polls to promote the benefits of fluoridation. This "information project" was undertaken at a time when an anti-fluoridation .ieasure was on the City of Portland ballot. The court, citing ORS 260.432, found that if the officials estabiishc~Y the "information project" wits, the purpose of opposing adoption of the anti-fluoridation measure, they would be subject to personal liability for public funds spent to oppose the measure. The case was remanded to the teal court to determine whether the expenditures were, in fazt, made for the purpose of opposing the measure. Note that in both of these cases some of the defendants were elected officials. OILS 260.432(4) was amended to exclude elected officials from the definition of "public employee" after these cases were decided. Nevertheless, this change in the law would almost certainly not have changed the results of these cases. We believe that the exclusion of elected officials from the Colleen Sealock AIL Page 4 October 5, 1993 definition of public employee permits elected officials to give speeches or interviews in which they urge support of or opposition to ballot measures, ever when those activities take place "on the job during working hours." We do not believe, however, that elected officials may direct that public resources, including use of public employee's time, be used to support or oppose the measure. This would appear to result in violation of ORS 260.432(1) by the elected official and ORS 260.432(2) by the public employee. 4. Permitted Activities This is not to say that public officers and employees must remain entirely silent with regard to measures pending before the voters. The Attorney General has concluded that public bodies may use public funds to inform voters of facts pertinent to a measure, if the information is not used to lead voters to support or oppose a particular position in the elections' ee 35 Op Atty Gen 169 (1970), discussing use by a school district of district funds to inform voters of facts relevant to a school budget election. However, we also have pointed out that "informational" material may be found to "promote or oppose" a measure even if it does not do so in so many words, if the information presented to the public clearly favors or opposes the measure and, taken as a whole, clearly is intended to generate votes for or against the measure. Letter of Advice OP-3322 to Ray Robinett, Washington County District Attorney, July 24, 1975. Moreover, ORS 260.432(2) specifically states that it does not restrict the right of public employees to express their e~ political views. Thus, public employees may campaign for or against measures or candidates in their individual, as opposed to official, capacity while off the job. The Department of Justice also has concluded that the last sentence of ORS 260.432(2) authorizes public employees to express their Rmgnal political views while on the job, through such activities as wearing campaign buttons, subject to limited regulation by the public employer to the extent necessary to avoid interference with the employee's duties and the employer's mission. Letter of Advice to C. Gregory McMurdo, Deputy Secretary of State, October 10, 1984 (OP-5750). We also believe that a public employer may establish policies restricting expression of personal political views by employees where such expression reasonably may be interpreted by others as officially endorsed by the public employer. For example, an agency might have policies prohibiting its rece-ndonist from &Dlacing a political poster in his or her work area in view of the general public, or prohibiting unformed emplcyees from wearing any badge, insignia or button, political or otl`,-xse, which is not an authorized -the unifbn a. Of course, an agency or other public body also must have legal authority for any expenditure of public funds. That is, the expenditure must be for the purpose of carrying out a task or program gi•. en to the public body by the legislature or by its charter. or other enabling act. When there is a question :whether the expenditure: may be for the purpose of affecting the vote on a measure, there is some indication that Oregon appellate courts will apply a strict standard in determining whether the agency has iegal authority to make the expenditure. In Porter v. Tiffany, supra, for example, EWEB was authorized by the city charter to "improve, extend, enlarge, and acquire water and AM, Colleen Sealock Page 5 October 5, 1993 electrical utilities systems * * * The court held that this language did not authorize EWEB to support a ballot measure to raise money to extend electrical service, because the power to raise money for this purpose was given to the city council, rather than to EWEB. Likewise, the legislature and the Governor have the responsibility for assuring adequate funds for operation of state government agencies. Thus, even purely informational activities related to a ballot measure should be carefully examined to ensure that the public body has statutory or other Iega! authority to engage in those activities. 5. Conclusion In summary, public employees, including non-elected officials, may not support or oppose measures pending before the voters "while on the job during working hours." Public employees may campaign for or against measures or candidates while off the job, in their individual capacity. They may express their personal political views while on the job through such activities as wearing campaign buttons, subject to limited regulation by the employer to avoid disruption of the workplace or suggesting to members of the public that the employee's personal political views are endorsed by the public employer. In addition, public bodies generally may provide information to the public concerning their ac" vities. However, when the information relates to a measure before the voters, special care should be taken to ensure that the information is fairly presented and is not used to lead voters to support a particular position in the election. In view of the potential financial penalties for violation of ORS 260.432 and 294.100, we urge agencies to consult with counsel before embarking on any informational program related to a ballot measure. Sincerely, Is, ~iy•.i:1 iJ C. AIMMOLD Donald C. Arnold Chief Counsel General Counsel Division DCA:bjs/JGG07C41 c: Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorrcy Genend 11 Federal law z:so limits the political activities of certain state and local government employees. See 5 USCG § 1501 et, sea. These statutes apply generally to officers and employees of state and local government executive branch agencies, boards, commissions or deg^rtments which are financed in whole or in part by fede_al loans or grants, bw excluding educaticnal and research agencies. The restrictions in these statutes are si nib- to, aithough in some respects stricter than, the provisions of ORS 260.432. Colleen Sealock Page 6 October 5, 1993 21 This statute was amended by Or Laws 1993, ch 493, § 106 to add "gathering of signatures on an initiative, referendum or recall petition" to the list of activities referenced in ORS 260.432(1), (2) and (3). This amendment is effective November 4, 1993. 31 The Oregon Court of Appeals has held that ORS 260.432 applies to both state and local government employees, and that it preempts any inconsistent local government ordinance. William,,. v. City of Asto^a, 43 Or App 745 (1979). 41 ORS 294.100 is found in a chapter relating to county and municipal finances, yet it is applicable to "public officials" generally. We believe it is likely that the statute would be found to apply to all public officials. Even if it does not, however, other statutes which lead to the same result clearly do Wly to state officers. ORS 293.515, for example, authorizes the Governor to withhold the salary of state officers or employees who fail to settle accounts with respect to disposition of public funds or property when use of those funds or property is questioned by the Secretary of State during his audit of the agency. Similarly, ORS 293.260 authorizes the Secretary of State to require persons who have received moneys or property belonging to the state for which they have not properly accounted to return the money or property to the state. c 51 Oregon election law recognizes that certain public bodies may provide informational material cony g measures which they have referred to the voters. OILS 260.522(3)(b) provides an exemption from certain requirements for identification of the source of a political publication for (b) Any written matter relating to a measure at any election prepared under the direction of the governing body of the city, county or district that referred the measure if the written matter is impartial, neither supports nor opposes passage of the measure and contains the name and address of the city, county or district. x: '~rJ AGENDA ITEM # 3, I FOR AGENDA OF 5/26/98 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Environmental PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OKJ IC/ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the city enter into an agreement allowing the school district to use city property to develop an environmental garden? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor to sign the easement agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY At last month's joint Council-School Board meeting, school district staff discussed a Woodard School parents group's interest in constructing a small "environmental" garden. The proposed site is land located on the east side of the school's entry driveway. Although, up to now, this land has been treated as part of the campus grounds, tax lot records show it actually belongs to the city. At the joint meeting, Council was supportive of granting as easement to allow the garden to be constructed on the proposed site. The city attorney's office prepared the attached easement agreement. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None, as Council previously voiced support for granting the easement. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Approving the agreement will meet the goal of School-City cooperation and collaboration and the strategy of ipcreasing rec..atic,nal opportunities. FISCAL NOTES The city will incur no cost by granting the easement. i/citywide/sum/ttdis.eas BATE: April 9, 1998 FROM: Ron Hudson, Facilities Manager SUBJECT: Board Report - Easement granted by the City of Tigard to the Tigard- Tualatin School District for an Environmental Garden The attached document provides a description and conditions for an easement requested by the District from the City of Tigard. The area of this easement is on the east side of the entry driveway. It will be utilized as an Environmental Garden for educational purposes. With the limited scope, I believe the easement would not have a negative impact on the District. Also the City is providing this easement at no cost to the District. I therefore recommend the District sign the easement so as to improve the educational opportunities of Mary Woodward Elementary School. AFTER RECORDING, RETURN TO: Attn: Dominic G. Colletta O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach LLP 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 \1~ UNTIL A CHANGE IS REQUESTED, ALL TAX STATEMENTS SHALL BE SENT TO THE FOLLOVV1NG ADDRESS: EASEMENT AGREEMENT J L 00 J ~ THIS ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made the c n day of Affil 1998, by and between the CITY OF TIGARD, an Oregon municipal corporation ("Grantor") and the TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J ("Grantee"). RECITALS A. Grantor is the owner of certain real property more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. B. Grantee is the owner of adjacent real property more particularly described on Exhibit "B"_ attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. C. Grantee desires to obtain, and Grantor desires to grant, a temporary non-exclusive easement for access to a portion of the property of Grantor and for the installation and maintenance of a professionally designed environmental garden. for the use and benefit of stun'^^ts of Mary Woodward Elerneniary School upon the terms and conditions described herein. (-YRAleiT OF EASEMENT i Grgait Of Easement. rJr,^tor hercoy b;"nts to Grantee, for the use of its administrators, facul*.y, students, contractors, vests and invitees, a temporary, exclusive easement for access to and use of the nropeny descnbed in Exhibit "r" and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Easement Property") for the purpos . of installatior, and maintenance of a professionally :signed environmental garden. The easement grant°d herein is for the benefit of Grantee, and is not appurtenant to Grantee's property described on Exhibit "B" and does not run-with 'age 1 - EASEMENT AGREEMENT C:10RCCXDGCITIGARD\=hooi.eaLwpd(nak) the land. 2. Conditions Precedent to fight to Use of Fmement. Grantee agree that its right to use the Easement Property is limited to the purposes described in Section 1 of this Agreement. As a condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement, Grantee shall obtain the prior written approval of Grantor to a site plan and design for the garden proposed to be installed and maintained on the Easement Property. Grantor may condition or withhold its consent and approval of the site plan and/or design in its exclusive discretion. Grantee agrees that it shall not enter onto the Easement Property prior to approval of the site plan and design by Grantor. 3. Termination of Ea ement and Restoration of Easement Property. The easement granted by this Agreement may be terminated at any time by Grantor effective six months from the date of written notice of termination delivered to Grantee in the manner hereinafter provided. Upon notice of termination by Grantor, Grantee agrees to remove all improvements and plantings placed by Grantee on the Easement Property, and to restore the Easement Property to its condition at the effective date of this Agreement. 4. Maintenance of the Easement Pro2CM. From and after the date of Grantor's approval of the site plan and design for Grantee's use of the Easement Property, Grantee shall, at all times, maintain the Easement Property, and all plants and improvements thereon, in such a manner as to prevent excess surface water run-off across, erosion of, and trespass to the property of Grantor described in Exhibit "A" and not included within the Easement Property, and shall not permit waste nor cause or permit a public or private nuisance to exist on the Easement Property. 5. Indemnity. Grantee shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold Grantor and Grantor's elected officials, employees and agents harmless from and against any and all actual or potential claims, proceedings, lawsuits, liabilities, damages, losses, fines, penalties, judgments, awards, costs and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys fees and costs, that arise out of or relate in any way to Grantee's use of the Easement Property, including those which may arise from the storage, transfer, generation, disposal, or discharge of Hazardous Materials in connection with Grantee's use of the Easement Property. This indemnity shall survive the termination of this Agreement. As used in this Agreement, "Hazardous Materials" means: 5.1 All substances, waste, ponutants, contaminants, and materials now or hereafter regulated, or defined er designated as hazardous, extremely or eminently hazardous, dangerous, or toxic, under the following Federal Statutes and their state counterparts, as well as the implementing regulations thereof: the Comprehensive Environmental Response, compensa*.ion and liability act of 1980, 42 USC § 9601 et seq.; the "ed-al insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7 USC § 136 et seq.; the Atomic Energy Act of 19541 42 USC § 2011 et seq.; and the Hazardous Material Transportation Act, 49 USC § 5101 et seq.- and 5.2 Any additional s-bstances or materials that are now or hereafter become defined as Page 2 - EASEMENT AGREEMENT C.\ORCCOWTiGARD\schcol.eas.wpd(nak) ,o "hazardous substances", "hazardous waste", "toxic substances", or "toxic waste" under any other federal law or under any state, county, municipal or other law applicable to the Easement Property or under any regulations promulgated under any such law; and 5.3 Petroleum and petroleum products including crude oil and any fractions thereof; and 5.4 Asbestos; and 5.5 Natural gas, synthetic gas and any mi=res thereof. 6. Notice. Any notice required or permitted to be given by any party hereto to another shall be deemed to have been given when sent via facsimile, overnight air courier, or deposited in the United States mail certified, with first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: If to Grantor: City of Tigard Attn: Duane Roberts 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 If to Grantee: Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J or addressed to a party at such other address as such party shall hereafter furnish to the other party in writing. 7. Attorney Fees. In the event suit or action is instituted to interpreter enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party such sums as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees at trial or on appeal or review of such suit or action, in addition to all other sums provided by law. 8. No e i m n . This Agreement may not be assigned by Grantee by operation of law or otherwise, and any atte.^-pted assignment in violation hereof shall be null and void and constitute an, act of default of this Agreement. 9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, integrates all of the terms and conditions m-n*ionad herein or incidental hereto, and ,age 3 - EASEMENT AGREEMENT C:IORCCIDG,CMGARDIuhool.ae wpd(nak) supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the parties or their predecessors in interest with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. GRANTOR: CITY OF TIGARD, an Oregon municipal corporation By: Its: _m rt,~,,.1sr- STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss County of IAlash l n4p n ) GR:INTEE: TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J By: Its: This instrument was acknowledged before me on this < day of ~M a-!: , 1998, by oLr~.~s N ttol: the _ IT) C«t."' of the CITY OF TIGARD" an Oregon municipal corporation, on behalf of such corporation. OFFICIAL SEAL CATHERINE Y; HEATLEY NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON . COMMISSION NO. 042176 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY to, 1999 STATE OF OREGON County of ss This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of 1998, by , the _ of the TIGARD-TUALATEN kHOO L DISTRICT 23J, on behalf of said school district. C~,~' -emu ~ w NOTARY PUBLIC for Oregon My commission expires: 5-T/ of qq NOTARY PUBLIC for Oregon My commission expires: Page 4 - EASEMENT AGREEMENT C:.ORCC\DGC\TiGFUZD\school.eu.wpd(n3k) AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMA:Y 3.;~, June 9, 1998 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Appointment to the Library Board PREPARED BY: Susan Koepping DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL An appointment to the Library Board STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution reappointing Lonn Hoklin to the Library Board. INFORMATION SUMMARY On May 1, 1998, the Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee interviewed candidates for vacancies on the Library Board. Attached is a resolution which, if adopted, would approve the appointment recommended by the Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Delay action on the appointment VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Goal: City will mLximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our Community. FISCAL NOTES none LLITYWIDSWOKUKDOC AGENDA ITEM # 4 FOR AGENDA OF May 26, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Renaming of Streets In Applewood Park Subdivision PREPARED BY: Brian Rage DEPT HEAD OK 1:Na - CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the streets listed below within the Applewood Park subdivision be renamed to avoid confusion for mail delivery and emergency services personnel? SW 86th Terrace to SW McIntosh Terrace SW 88th Avenue to SW Applewood Avenue SW 89th Terrace (south of SW Bellflower Street) to SW Empire Terrace SW 89th Terrace (between SW Lodi Lane and SW Braeburn Lane) to SW Criterion Terrace SW 90th Terrace to SW Parkland Terrace. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Staff requests that Council conduct a public hearing to consider the Planning Commission recommendation. 2. Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached ordinance to rename the streets. INFORMATION SUMMARY Staff was contacted by the Post Office and emergency services with regard to confusion between existing numbered streets in the area, the addressing grid system and the numbered streets in Applewood Park. Attached is a copy of the staff report submitted to the Planning Commission on May 18, 1998 with additional information. The Planning Commission recommended that the street names be changed as proposed by Staff. Per state statutes, the City Council is required to hold a public hearing to consider the Planning Cc aimission's recommendation. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Assign new addresses for all of the lots within the Applewood Park subdivision. 2. Rename SW 88th Avenue south of the site and assign new addresses to existing homes. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY n/a FISCAL NOTES There will only be a minor cost in updating City address. naps. Street signs have not yet been placed. iAcitywide\sum.dot AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF May 26, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Surrn_mer Creek at SW 121 st Avenue Wetland Enhancement Project PREPARED BY: G. N. BerryX* DEPT HEAD OK Oj~ CITY MGR OK 1 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL 1. Should a final design for the construction of the improvements be prepared? 2. Should Unified Sewerage Agency be requested to include this project in the Surface Water Management Masterplan? STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council direct staff to proceed with the final design of the project and request Unified Sewerage Agency to include this project in the Surface Water Management Masterplan. INFORMATION SUMMARY As directed by Council, a preliminary plan for this project that is expected to meet the requirements of regulatory agencies as well as account for concerns expressed by the surrounding owners, has been prepared. An aerial view, schedule and cost estimate of the project is attached. The currently proposed plan features restrictions in the stream that cause ponds to form during periods of high flow. The proposed pond will require an easement for the six owners along Merestone CT. that will allow the pond to inundate about 40 feet of each lot along the creek and prohibit disturbing vegetation planted as part of the project. Including this project in the Surface Water Management Masterplan is required for funding of the project by system development charges. Staff of the consulting firm that prepared the plan will present the details of the plan and will be available to answer questions. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED VISION TASK_ FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Urban and Public Services Goal #3: Preservation and restoration of wetlands and open spaces. FISCAL NOTES Orce included in the Surface Water Management Masterplan, this project will be eligib.e for finding by system development charges. Beng%greg1parMl21 st-s2.doc ` C5.',' rt 1 rs II DRAFT CITY OF TIGARD 121ST AVENUE WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COSTS (DRAFT) Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost ?viobilization (10% of total) 1 LS $19,420.00 $19,400 Grading 4.3 AC $20,000.00 $86,000 Landscaping 3 AC $10,000.00 $30,000 Stream Bio-engineering 1,440 LF $30.00 $43,200 Stabilization of Creek Constrictions 2 EA $6,000.00 $12,000 Protections of Existing Sanitary Sewers 400 LF $20.00 $8,000 Access Road (Place and Remove) 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Erosion Control 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000 Traffic Control 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000 Construction Subtotal Estimate $213,600 Contingencies (10% of Construction Subtotal) $21,400 Construction Total Estimate $235,000 Final Bid Documents (Plans and Specifications) $11,600 Construction Administration $10,700 Non-Construction Total Estimate $22,300 Annual Landscape Maintenance (3 years) 3 Yrs $6,000.00 $18,000 Estimate o~N4S Filename: COSTEST.XLS Print Date: 5/14/98 o May 13, 1998 KCM Submittal on Construction Cost, Schedule, Preliminary Design for Council Approval • May 28, 1998 Council Approves Construction Cost and Preliminary Design • June 17, 1998 KCM 90% Plans Submittal with DSUCorp. of Engineers Joint Permit Application and a Engineers Estimate for Construction • June 26, 1998 DSL and Corp. of Engineers Comments or Approval on Application KCM AGEND ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF May 26, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Summer Creek at SW 121 st Avenue Wetland Enhancement Proiect PREPARED BY: G. N. Berax* DEPT MEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL 1. Should a final design for the construction of the improvements be prepared? 2. Should Unified Sewerage Agency be requested to include this project in the Surface Water Management Masterplan? STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council direct staff to proceed with the final design of the project and request Unified Sewerage Agency to include this project in the Surface Water Management Masterplan. INFORMATION SUMMARY As directed by Council, a preliminary plan for this project that is expected to meet the requirements of regulatory agencies as well as account for concerns expressed by the surrounding owners, has been prepared. An aerial view, schedule and cost estimate of the project is attached. The currently proposed plan features restrictions in the stream that cause ponds to form during periods of high flow. The proposed pond will require an easement for the six owners along Merestone CT. that will allow the pond to inundate about 40 feet of each lot along the creek and prohibit disturbing vegetation planted as part of the project. Including this project in the Surface Water Management Masterplan is required for funding of the project by system development charges. Staff of the consulting firm that prepared the plan will present the details of the plan and wil'. be available to answer questions. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMIT i EE STRATEGY Urban and Public Services Goal #3: Preservation and restoration of wetlands and open spaces. FISCAL NOTES Once included in the Surface Water Management Masterplan, this prqjc- will be eligible for funding by system development charges. i:%wV%grep\perkl.21 st•sldoc I CL ~ ce, Ral, O t t;' b Ry. a r` ,~~~7,+ {v• fi'r' DRAFT CITY OF TIGARD 121ST AVENUE WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT PRELIMINARY ESTATE OF COSTS (DRAFT) Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Mobilization (10% of total) 1 IS $19,420.00 $19,400 Grading 4.3 AC $20,000.00 $86,000 Landscaping 3 AC $101000.00 $30,000 Stream Bio-engineering 1,440 LF $39.00 $43,200 Stabilization of Creek Constrictions 2 EA $6,000.00 $12,000 Protections of Existing Sanitary Sewers 400 LF $20.00 $8,000 Access Road (Place and Remove) 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Erosion Control 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000 Traffic Control 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000 Construction Subtotal Estimate $213,600 Contingencies (10% of Construction Subtotal) $21,400 Construction Total Estimate $235,000 Final Bid Documents (Plans and Specifications) $11,600 Construction Administration $10,700 Non-Construction Total Estimate $22,300 Annual Landscape Maintenance Q years) 3 Yrs $6,000.00 $18,000 Estimate Filename: COSTESTA S Print Date: 5/14/98 • May 13, 1998 KCM Submittal on Construction Cost, Schedule, Preliminary Design for Council Approval • May 28, 1998 Council Approves Construction Cost and Preliminary Design • June 17, 1998 KCM 90% Plans Submittal with DSL/Corp. of Engineers Joint Permit Application and a Engineers Estimate for Construction • June 26, 1998 DSL and Corp. of Engineers Comments or Approval on Application KCM AGENDA ITEM # V] FOR AGENDA OF 05-26-98 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE DARTMOUTH LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - FINAL ORDER PREPARED BY: C. Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK j CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Consider proposed ordinance spreading the assessments against benefited properties in the Dartmouth Local Improvement District, directing the entry of the assessments in the City lien docket and the County lien records, and setting the interest rate for delinquent installment payments and declaring an emergency. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the proposed ordinance by finalizing the Proposed Final Assessment Roll (Exhibit A) and approving the findings to support the method for spreading the assessment (Exhibit B). INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed ordinance, as drafted by our legal counsel is attached. Chuck Corrigan of the City Attorney's office will be present on May 26 to review the ordinance and exhibits. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Amend the ordinance as necessary to reflect the Final Order by the Tigard City Council. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEC I n/a FISCAL NOTES n/a 1:44DM\CATHYI000NCI UDARTSUM.DOC FAX TRANSMITTAL Date May 26, 1998 Number of pages including cover sheet 11 To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: Co: Fax Co: Fax Ph Cathy Wheatigy. City Recorder City of Tigard 684-7297 639-4171. Ext. 309 SUBJECT: Exhibit B to Dartmouth Ordinance (Final Order) MESSAGE: Here are new pages for Exhibit B for the Dartmouth LID ordinance. This agenda item was sent to you in your Council newsletter that was mailed out on Friday. Chuck Corrigan advises that this new Exhibit B contains mirror changes primarily of a grammatical nature. He will be present at the meeting to answer questions. 1:\ADMICATHY\000. ICIL\FAXDART.DOC i:WowAx.oot PARCEL UNE 36CD 1700 1 A 401 PARCEi DESIGNA N / B T 10 36CD 1800 / , DWNEPSHIP BOUNDARY 36CD 1900 ~ ~ BO!' /~'C LIO ~NDARY , 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ WETL4%JDS IAPPROXIMA>•El W ~ ~ lr ~ 36CD 2004 ~ ~ ~ - ~'l ~ \ ~ 36CD 2000 UFO ~ I ~ , ~ o ~ _ ~ I - zoh ~;G ~ ~ 36CD 2200 ~ p ~ pQ ~ GENERAL PROFESSIONAL ~ 36DC RCIAL MM ~ 3 ~ 4 COMME .0 ERCIAL ~ Ln~ 36DC 4500 750 ~ ~ 36DC t - - - - _ 0 2503 ~ ~ ~ - ~ _ ~ ~ ~ 1 0 36DD 7500 36CD - _ ~ _ ~ 4300 36CD 4400 _ - 36DC 4402 3 , 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y6DC 4700 36DC 4600 ~ ~ 36DD ?600 4200 ~ ~ S, . _ 36DC 4400 ,4/ 36C ~ ~ ~ \ OgA,T MOUTH - , IBA 2D0 IBA 101 ~ SST - 1 ~ _ --SW DAR>-MDU1-H ST IBA 100 - ~ lAA 2800 ~ - 1A . J B roD ~ i ~ 1 - i IBA 300 ~ ~ ~ 2900 IBA 401 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ' I ~ ~ e ~ ~ I s ~ I . ~ . ~ . r O 5200 SW µgpDAM AVENUE, 9UIfE 500, PORRPND, OR 97201 03/07/97 (sos) zz~-1131 PAx (soa) zz1-im Assessment Map SW Dartmouth Street LID T~gar~, Oregon LEGIBILITY STRIP a < ~ a ~ e a io ii ,x ,3 .a ie ie ,a .o z. zz x~ xs .a z, za .s 3_ z o ,,I,I~I.I I I I,i ~ a c ,p oz - .v.__.:..__1J.: I I~I~ li !i...ll E 1~ 'i,'; I 17, ~i~ill oz J ~L ~ I I I,Id;1~. ~ Id I i ~ IJ l ilildi 1 l!:'.~'.i~ . . PARCEL LINE ~ ~ 36CD ! 1700 ~ IBA 401 PARCEL DESIGNATION 36CD 1800 ~ , - WNERSHIP 0 BOUNDARY 36CD 190 o~ ~ ~ ~ ° L!D BOUNDARY ~ r~L 9~1 I , ~ , e ~ v ~ 9 I ~ ° ~ " WETLANDS (APPROXIMATE) ~ I ~ s I ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ 36CD 2000 ~ 1~ F ~ I ~ ' , PU P zl I - I ~ ~ ~ ~ I . _ ZONING I 36CD 2200 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I QI I 0 , I GENERAL PROfESSlONAL I 3I ' ~ , I 36DC 2504 COMMERCIAL COr1MERClAL I ~ 36DC 4500 I f~- ~ 1 I 360C I ~ . ; ~ I 2503 ~ ~ _ - ~ ° ~ Q I - `,c 36CD 1 Q Z ~ 36DD 7500 I - _ - I ~ _ _ - 4300 36CD 4400 36DC 47 0 ° l _ ~ - _ 13 ~ ° ~ 36DC 4402 3 I " 1 r-°--.°~n 36CD G200 'f I ~ SW ~ ~^~T ~ 36DC 4600 - ' I ~ I I I ~ 36DC 4400 ~ ° 36DD 7600 _I/ I 1 M ~Ur ~L~~ ~ y S ~ ~ - - 8A 200 I : 18A 101 j ~ _ _ SW DARIMOUrH SL - - - IBA 10 - - - - ~ I . ~ - JAA 2800 I J 1A8 100 I - i. r ~ i ~ I F I I - I IAA ~ IBA: 30 0 ° ► ~ I 2900 l 'BA 401 i - - ~ _ _ I _ I I Assessment Ma P SW Dartmouth Street LID 5200 SW yAfJt}ey AVENUE, SUITE 580, PORRAND, oR 9MO, Tigard, Or eg o n 05/8/98 (soa) zz,-„a, FAX (503) 221-1171 - - - - 1"-~ _ _ LEGIBILITY STA,➢ 2 ~ c e ~ e a io ~i iz is is ie i i is zo xi zz 2~ .a .s xs z. ao .s - ~ - - I - ~ ~ I ~~',~,'~I~l'!il:! I W.~.~lul i i ~~61di➢1dtl~lilil 1 i i I i~hLL~.IaIIdIItId~WIUhhI~fJii ~ i~ ~.i_:,~:1:;~ ~ ~ i I i i. i i il!.~Ia~hL.l_I L.~I_~li~._ FAX TRANSMITTAL Date May 26, 1998 Number of pages including cover sheet 11 To: Honorable Mayor & City Council Co: CA" From: Cathy Wheatley. City Recorder Co: City of Tigard Fax 684-7297 Ph 639-4171. Ext. 309 Fax SUBJECT: Exhibit B to Dartmouth Ordinance (Final Order) MESSAGE: Here are new pages for Exhibit B for the Dartmouth LID ordinance. This agenda item was sent to you in your Council newsletter that was mailed out on Friday. Chuck Corrigan advises that this new Exhibit B contains minor changes primarily of a grammatical nature. He will be present at the meeting to answer questions. I:=MACATHYICOU NCILIFAXDART. DOC Post-ir Fax Note 7671 Date f~ Cj aiyas® To Fro Co./Dept. Co. Phone # Phone # Fax -2 S -7 Fax fi 1:1OIGIPAXOOT 05/26/98 11:32 V503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD IM 001 a::~xx~~:~xaax~s:~ctsxx*s:es:exssa:~e es~ a ACTIVITY REPORT s~aa~assxz:esx~sa~~zz~x~s~sa TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. 2925 CONNECTION TEL 503 684 8787 CONNECTION ID START TIME 05/26 11:25 USAGE TIME 07'11 PAGES 11 RESULT OK FAX TRAPdSMITTAL Data May 26, 1998 Number of pages including cover sheet 11 To: Honorable Mayor & City Council Co: Fax: From: Cathy Wheatley. City Recorder Co: City of Tclard Fax 684-7297 Ph 639-4171. Ext. 309 SUBJECT: Exhibit B to Dartmouth Ordinance (Final Order) MESSAGE: Here are new pages for Exhibit B for the Dartmouth LID ordinance. This agenda item was sent to you in your Council newsletter that was mailed out on Friday. Chuck Corrigan advises that this new Exhibit B contains minor changes - primarily of a grammatical nature. He will be present at the meeting to answer questions. I:v.OAmCAI'HY%000NCILIFAXDART.00C CITY OF TIGARD DARTMOUTH LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT FORMULA FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 1. The Dartmouth Local Improvement District (LID) was formed by the City pursuant to Ordinance No. 84-14 and Ordinance No. 84-17 to construct a roadway within the area bounded by Interstate Five, Highway 217, and Pacific Highway, an area commonly known as the "Tigard Triangle." 2. The Martins were the only property owners within the LID to remonstrate against its formation. They were unsuccessful. 3. The Martins filed a lawsuit challenging the LID formation and the LID pre-assessments. The circuit court ruled in favor of the City on all issues, and the Martins appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals. 4. The Court of Appeals upheld the City's formation of the LID. But the court found, on its own, that the City had included among its assessed costs charges for improvements on land outside the LID boundaries. On that basis, the Court of Appeals set aside the original pre-assessment as void and remanded the case to the City, with permission to assess for up to the full cost of the improvement. Martin v. City of Tigard, 78 Or App. 181, 714 P.2d 1115 (1986). 5. In 1987 and 1988, the City held heari -s on whether, and how, it would proceed with the LLD. By Ordinance No. 88-08, the City reaffirmed its decision to proceed with the LID. Pursuant to the same ordinance,.the City changed the timing of the assessment from a pre-assessment process to a final assessment process. Under the final assessment process the LID assessments are determined and levied after the completion of construUien. 6. In 1994 Dartmouth Street had been constructed and the City was finalizing ►ts acquisition of the right-of-way upon which the street was constructed. Because the completion of that Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 98-- Page 1 acquisition would allow the City to determine the total cost of the LD), the City turned to an analysis of the assessments by which the LID costs would be spread. The City determined that it did not have the staff expertise necessary to analyze whether the proposed assessment formula set out in the Preliminary Engineer's Report was still sufficient or proper. In an attempt to resolve the assessment formula issue in a matter satisfactory to all major affected property owners, the City proposed and the property owners agreed to a process whereby, with the City's assistance and partial funding, the property owners could develop and recommend to the City their own agreed-upon assessment formula. 7. Beginning in late 1994, and running into 1996, the City and the property owners, sometimes with a mediator and sometimes without, using various negotiation devices, attempted to develop an agreed-upon assessment formula. All of the major affected property owners proposed assessment formulas different than that contained in the Preliminary Engineer's Report. Ultimately, the property owners could not agree among themselves as to an assessment formula and the negotiation effort was abandoned. 8. Having determined that it did not have sufficient staff expertise to review and analyze the assessment formula proposed in the Preliminary Engineer's Report, and because all of the major property owners had proposed their own formulas different than that in the Preliminary Engineer's Report, the City decided to obtain the services of an outside consultant. That consultant, the engineering firm of Harper Righellis, was retained to develop a proposed assessment formula. The principal consultant working on the report, Anthony Righellis, has considerable experience with various types of local improvement district assessment methods, having worked as Wasningion County's Road Engineer and as private consultant. The City gave no direction to Harper Righellis as to whether or not it should recommend the formula proposed in the Preliminary Engineer's Report or some other formula. 9. Harper Righellis analyzed the assessment of costs for the LID, and independently developed and recommended an assessment method that fairly distributes the LD7's costs in proportion to the benefits received for each property within the LID. The City received the Harper Righeilis Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 98-- Page 2 Report ("the Righellis Report") on March 7, 1997. (Assessment Analysis Report Review Version). 10. The City did not move to the assessment phase of the project until 1998 because it needed first to complete acquisition of the Martin right-of-way, which it ultimately did via settlement of its condemnation lawsuit against the Martins in late 1997. 11. The assessment method proposed by Harper R.ighellis differed from that contained in the Preliminary Engineer's Report. The Harper Righellis formula was challenged by the Martins on a variety of procedural and substantive bases. 12. The City Council approved Resolution 98-11 on February 17, 1998, adopting proposed assessments consistent with the Righellis Report and setting the date for a public hearing on March 17, 1998. The Council heard testimony on March 17, 1998, continued the hearing to April 14, 1998, and continued the hearing finally to May 12, 1998. The purpose of the hearing was to consider written and oral objections to and comment on the proposed final assessments. Public testimony and evidence were taken at the first two hearings, and the Council provided for the submission of written materials after each of the first two hearings. The record was closed at the May 12 meeting. 13. The Council ands that the only applicable standard to be considered in adopting the assessment formula for the Dartmouth LID is found at TMC 13.04.060(c)(6), winch provides, in part, that "The council shall determine the amount of assessment to be charged against each lot within the local improvement district according to special and peculiar benefits accruing thereto from the improvement." 14. Prior to the March 17 hearing, the Martins submitted substantial written mates ials. At the March 17 hearing, their attorney cnd consultants presented lengthy testimony. Tony Raghellis wa., present for that presentation. The Council granted the requests of the property owners supportive of the Reghellis Report to submit written responses to the Martins' materials and presentation. Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 98-- Page 3 The Council further agreed to accept from the Martins any written reply they might have to the proponents' response. A "briefing schedule" was established. The Council also agreed to continue the hearing to April 14 to receive additional testimony. 15. The City's consultant reviewed the Martins' materials and presentation and responded to the key points at the Council hearing on April 14. Property owners supportive of the Reghellis Report also testified. Most of the testimony received after the Martins' initial submittal was rebuttal, and for the most part did not raise new issues. 16. Over the course of the three meetings, and in the process of reviewing the written submissions, the Council weighed arguments raised by the opponent's experts, and countered by proponents' experts and the City's consultant, Righellis. The following is a brief summary of the most important is,•,ues raised by the Martins and answered by Righellis and the proponents. This summary is not intended to be all inclusive. The City has adopted the Reghellis Report and the rationale therefor as testified to by Tony Reghellis, and that report and testimony are incorporated herein as if set forth verbatim. a. Proximity Zone Method The opponents raised many technical issues to support using the proximity zone method, as originally proposed in 1984 by R.A. Wright. One of the issues raised was assessment exemptions for areas close to existing and future intersecting streets (corner parcels). Righellis said, as detailed in the Righellis Report, that these corner parcels should be assessed because the benefit provided by Dartmouth Street is overwhelming compared to the benefits provided by the intersecting streets. Another issue raised was that the extension of utilities is more expensive for deeper parcels, and the proximity zone method helps to equalize those differences. Righellis noted that the LID was formed to pay for public improvements whereas the utility costs referred to are private improvements. Further, Reghellis found no supportable rationale for the 3:2:1 "ratio" incorporated into the proposed proxi,:iity zone method. b. Trip generation The assessment method contained in the Righellis Rep ,rt includes a trip generation adjustment based on zoning. Opponents argued that Dartmouth Street is needed for development regardless of the intensity of the use. Righellis countered by saying it is valid to assess based both on need and ^n use. While all the parcels need the street Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 98-- Page 4 improvements, uses allowed on General Commercial lands can be more intense than those allowed on Professional Commercial lands, so that general commercial properties should be assessed more because they will be receiving more benefit through use. Wetlands The opponent's engineer, Ed Christensen, stated that the wetlands located on the Martins property may restrict development and thus reduce the benefit from the street improvement. As Righellis pointed out, all of the properties in the LID contain wetlands, which areas were exempted from assessment. d. Through Traffic The opponents claim that much of the traffic using Dartmouth Street is passing through to other areas. This is a public street, and regardless of where the traffic goes, the properties in the LLD still benefit. Without this street, the through traffic would find other routes but the properties that have direct benefit from Dartmouth Street have no alternative. Righellis noted it is common for property owners within an improvement district to fully fund major street improvements that do not serve solely their direct interest. e. Proximity to Existing Roads --The opponents claim that the Harper Reghellis formula fails to make a reasonable adjustment in recognition of the fact that the Martin properties abut 72 "d Avenue and, thereby, benefit less from Dartmouth Street and the other properties. The Council was persuaded by the Harper Reghellis analysis that, without Dartmouth Street, there would not have been significant development in the Tigard Triangle, and all properties within the LID benefitted, regardless oftheir location in relation to pre-existing streets. No Special Benefit to Highway 99 Properties The opponents objected to the Harper Reghellis finding of no special benefit for a 10,000 square foot portion of a tax lot Ic mted on Pacific Highway. The Council was persuaded by the Harper Reghellis Report that Dartmouth Street did not provide a special benefit to those properties on Pacific Highway. g. Fairness Righellis agreed with the opponents that "cost should be spread in proportion to benefit received." All of the issues cited above (a-f) relate to the issue 3f fairness. Again the Council notes the approval standard requiring that properties be assessed accor~-ng t.. the special and peculiar benefits accruing thereto from the improvement. Righellis told +tie Council he evaluat°-4 seven different methods of assessment in preparing his report, including the "Pl o-Al-ity Zone Method" originally proposed for this District in 1984. For the reasons discussed in the report, Righellis recommended using the "Net Developable Area Method with Zoning- Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 98-- Page 5 Based Traffic Generation Adjustment." As opponent's engineer, Jerry Palmer, testified in writing and at the March 17 hearing, there is no right or wrong method of assessment, only the search for The Council was convinced by the analysis in the Righellis Report that the method in 1984 was no longer the best assessment method, in part because the conditions in the area have changed. 17. In all of these issues, the Council finds that the expert arguments presented by Righellis, orally and in the Righellis Report, are reasonable and convincing. We paid attention to, but are not swayed by, the opponent's experts, whom we find to be no more believable than Righellis. The Council notes that Righellis has no direct interest in assessing one property or another, while the opponents clearly have a vested interest in supporting the method that will cost them the least amount of money. Without meaning that the opponents were in any way disingenuous in their efforts, this is a factor in our choice to rely our neutral expert where there is conflicting evidence The Council also heard from representatives of other land owners in the LID, who testified in writing and at the hearing in support of the Righellis As with the opponents, these proponents have a vested interest in supporting the method that will cost them the least amount of money. The Council considered their arguments along with those of the opponent and the City's expert. To the extent the proponents' submissions are consistent with the City's decision, they have been relied upon and are incorporated by this 11). In summary, the City hired a competent, qualified consulting firm which developed a fair and reasoned method of assessment as set forth in the Righellis Report. The opponents have raised several issues, supported by consultants whose job it was to find flaws with the method proposed in the Righellis 2eport. We accept the Righellis Rerort because It considers and explains the City's options, and is reasonabie and fair in reccriu.;ending the method of assessment the Council Exhibit B of Ordinance No. Page 6 20. The Martins have contended that, Ordinance No. 88-08 created a legally binding commitment requiring the City to spread the L® assessments pursuant to the Preliminary Engineer's report, which report was "adopted" by Ordinance No. 68-08. The City has concluded otherwise for several reasons. First, by converting the assessment mechanism from a pre-assessment process to a final assessment method, the City Council by necessity was delaying the initiation of an assessment process until after constructior, (which had not started in 1988) was finished. Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 13.04.060(b)(2), which reads today as it did in 1988, provides that the final assessment process "begins after the project is completed and is based on actual cost." (Emphasis added.) Further, TMC 13.04.060(b)(3) allows for the issuance of short term construction financing and provides, in part, "Upon the completion of the improvement, the benefitted property owners will be finally assessed proportionate to the benefits derived from the improvement, (Emphasis added.) Pursuant to these provisions, no method for spreading the assessments could have been established prior to completion of the project. 21. The second reason that the City was not legally obligated to spread the assessments pursuant to the proposed formula in the Preliminary Engineer's Report is found at TMC 13.04.060(c)(2), which provides that after City staff presents the proposed assessments to the Council, the Council "may make modifications." Thus, even if staff had presented assessments calculated pursuant to the proposed formula in the Preliminary Engineer's Report, the City's code (in 1988 and today) provides that the Council may "make modifications." Assuming, for the sake of argument, that when the Council "adopted" the Preliminary Engineer's Report it "adopted" the proposed assessment formula, that action cannot be considered as a waives of the code provision allowing the Council to make modifications to the assessments, once their dollar amounts were determined by the application of a given formula to the total cost of the project. Nothing the Council did in 1988 could be fairly interpreted as a guarantee that the proposed assessments it would ultimately adopt by resolution, and cirru!ate for comment and hea►ing, were to be pursuant to the proposed formula found in the Preliminary Engineer's Report. 221 The third reason the the City wus not !egally *ed to spread the assessments pursuant to the proposed formula in the Preliminary Engineer's Report is found at TMC 13.04.060(c)(3)--(ti). Exhibit 13 of Ordinance No. 98-- Page 7 Those code sections provide the mechanism whereby the proposed assessments, as initially created by staff and after any modification by the Council, are circulated to the property owners for review and comment. TMC 13.04.060(c)(6) requires that after circulation of the proposed assessments: The council shall hold the public hearing on the proposed assessments to consider those objections filed in writing and may adopt, correct, modify or revise the proposed assessments. The council shall determine the amount of assessment to be charged against each lot within the local improvement district according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing thereto from the improvement. Thus, in 1988 it was a stated legal requirement that, whatever formula the staff and Council ultimately relied upon to create proposed assessments, any proposal had to be circulated to the property owners, and the Council had to consider the property owners' comments on and criticism of that formula. After receiving the written and oral presentations of the property owners, their attorneys and consultants, the only standard by which the Council could determine the final assessments was, and is, "according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing thereto from the improvement." Nothing the Council did in 1988 could fairly be interpreted as a guarantee tat its final determination as to the assessments would be pursuant to the proposed formula found in the Preliminary Engineer's Report. In 1988, the City Council simply did not have the legal authority to establish a final assessment formula before the property owners had an opportunity to be heard. The fourth reason that the City was not legally obligated to spread the assessments pursuant to a formula proposed in the Preliminary Engineer's Report is that 0 of the affected piopcrty owners, asked by the City to present a formula that they supported, offered formulas that were different than that in engineer's report. =4. The Martins have raised a series of objections based upon their reading of the requirements of .-article 1 1 § 1 l b. of the Oregon Constitution (Measure 5). The 1991 legislature interpreted and implemented the provisions of Measure 5 through a sCries of statutory additions. Or. Laws Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 98-- Page 8 Chapter 459. Measure 5 places a maximum allowable property tax that can be imposed by governments other than schools of $10 per $1000 of real market value. The Martins assert that the assessment proposed for the Dartmouth LID is a property tax which is subject to the $10 per $1000 limitation. Measure 5 excludes from the property tax limitation assessments for "local improvements." For an assessment to fall within that exclusion fi•om the property tax limitation it must be for a capital construction project, the costs of which are assessed in a single assessment upon completion of the project, the assessed costs must not exceed the actual cost incurred in the designing, constructing, and financing the project, and the taxpayer must be able to pay the assessment in installments over a period of at least ten years. 25. The Martins do not contest that the project is a capital construction project as defined by Measure 5, or that the costs are being assessed in a single assessment at the completion of the project. 26. The Martins object to the assessment on the basis that the City has included attorney's fees within the assessment costs. Attorney's fees are specifically allowed to be included in the cost to be assessed against property in an improvement district by the City's Code. TMC 13.04.060(a)(1)(G). ORS 310.140(13), added to the ORS by 1991 Or. Laws Chapter 459, defines "actual costs" which can be assessed and excluded from the property tax limit to include all direct and indirect costs incur.-.-d by a government to undertake a capital construction project. Attorney's fees are an indirect cost of the project. It is the City's position. tiiat it is authorized by TMC and this statute to include attorney's fees within the costs assessed, and that attorney's fees, therefore, are within the scope of "actual costs" for the purpose of the Measure 5 tax exclusion. 27. The Martin's also assert TMC 13.04.070(a)(3)(A), requiring them to waive all irregularities in the proceedings in order to take advantage of the installment payment method, is a limitation which removes this assessment `i-on.. fie ;oca, improvement exclusion ')f Measure 5. The requirement to waive irregularities in the TMC is virtually the same as the language of ORS 223.215(i)(a). If those persons who take advantage of installment ;financing do not waive their rights to object to irregularities in the proceedings, the co% .cil has beer. informed by its bona Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 98- Page 9 - counsel that it will be impossible for the City to sell the necessary financing instruments to allow for the long term financing of the debt incurred through this assessment district. The Legislature, through its implementation of Measure 5 in 1991, chose to not. repeal ORS 223.215(1)(a). The Council concludes from this that it is the position of the State of Oregon that the requirement of a waiver, as a precondition for installment financing, is not inconsistent with the requirements of Measure 5 allowing the assessment to be excluded from the tax limitation. 28. As shown by the Martin's Exhibit No. 17, at the February 13, 1989, deposition of Robert A. Wright. who authored the Preliminary Engineer's Report, the Martin's attorney inquired as to which assessment formula would be used when the LID project was completed. The City's attorney objected to the question as calling for "rank speculation." He stated that "The City Council will determine that after the project is completed." He also said to the Martins' attorney, "you're asking him to say what five elected officials are going to decide sometime in the future." The Council finds that as of February, 1989, if not sooner, the Martins were on notice that it was the City's intention to establish an assessment formula after the project was completed. 29. When the LID was formed in 1984, the City did not include two parcels located within the LID boundaries. Those properties were not included because they were residences that the Council deemed would not benefit from the construction of Dartmouth Street. The Council has decided to treat she Martin residence similarly and it will be excluded from the LID assessment. Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 98-- Page 10 % MAY 26 '98 02:48PM O'DONNELL, RAMIS O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACH ACH, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Straet Portland, Oregon 97209 TELEPHONE (503) 222-4402 FAX (503) 243-2944 P.I THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONSIST OF ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED BELOW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. _THANK YpU. DATE: May 26, 1998 CLIENT NO.: 90024-07 TO: Cathy Wheatley FAX NO.: 684-7297 TELEPHONE NO.: 639-4171 FROM: Anja Mundy FAX NO. (503) 243-2944 DESCRIPTION OF DOCUN ENT TRANSMITTED: Revised LID assessment ordinance. COMMENTS: Chuck will have the original and ten copies with him tonight. ..2--PAGE(S) TO FOLLOW, EXCLUDING COVER SHEET. W YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL THE UNDERSIGNED AT (503) 222-4402 THANK YOU. SIGNED: Anja Mundy [ ] AN ORIGINAL IS BEING MAILED [ ] AN ORIGINAL IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST MAY 26 '96 02:49PM O'DONNELL, RAMIS P.2 CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN ORDINANCE OF TREE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, SPREADING 11M ASSESSMENTS AGAINST BENFFITTED PROPERTIES IN THE DAR'T'MOUTH LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE CITY LIEN DOCKET AND THE COUNTY LIEN RECORDS; AND SETTING THE INTEREST RATE FOR DELINQUENT INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that: The Dartmouth Local Improvement District was created by Ordinance No. 84-14, adopted in February 1984, , and Ordinance No. 84-17, adopted in April 1984, and amended by Ordinance No. 88-08 in May 1988. The Local Improvement District was created for the purpose of financing street improvements in or near I-5, Highway 217 and Pacific Highway. 2. The improvements were made in accordance with the City's plans and specifications for the project and are now complete. 3. The total cost of the improvements is $4,576,837.01. By Resolution No. 98-17, adopted on February 24, 1998, the City Council determined that the benefitted properties would pay one hundred percent (100°/x) of the total cost or $4,576,837.01. 4. An assessment roll has been prepared listing the assessment for the properties benefitted by the improvements. Notice of the proposed assessment was mailed to the owner of each lot to be assessed pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code Section 13.04.060(c)(3). A public hearing was held to consider objections to the proposed assessments on March I7, April 14 and May 12, 1998. NOW. THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The final assessment of each property is as shown on the assessment roll, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "_4". The assessments are spread by tax lot in order to arrive at a just and reasonable apportionment of the cost of $4,576,837.01 between the ber.-l"'Ted properties. The City Council determines that the amount of assessment has been made according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing theretc r,, , th7-improvement. Section 2. Within ten days of the adoption of this ordinance, the Finance Director shall send a notice of assessment to each property owner shown on the assessm.;rct roll in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code Section 13.04.070. Section 3. "rhe Finance Director shall enter the assessment for each tax lot in the City's lien docket pursuant to Tigard Municipal Cade Section 13.04.080 and shall record a lien for each assessment in the County records pursuant to ORS 93.643. ORDINANCE NO. 98- Page 1 ° . IL MAY 26 '96 02:49PM O'DONNELL, RAMIS P.3 Section 4. Pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code Section 13.04,070(b), within ten days after notice of assessment, the owner of property assessed may file a written application to pay the assessment in installments. Interest will begin accruing on any unpaid portion of the assessment on the 31 st day after the Finance Director has entered the assessment in the City lien docket. The interest rate shall be 9% per annum. Section 5. The Finance Director shall Be a copy of the ordinance forming the local improvement district and the ordinance spreading the assessment with the director of records and elections of Washington County. Section 6. The City has prepared findings to support the method for spreading the assessment adopted pursuant to this ordinance. The City Council hereby adopts those findings which are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B". Section 7. The City Council finds that it is necessary that the provisions of this ordinance become effective immediately. The interim debt financing for the project is due and payable no later than December 1, 1998. The City needs as much time as possible to refinance these notes. The refinancing into a permanent long term debt instrument will save substantial sums in financing costs. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist, and this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by the City Council and signature by the Mayor. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 1998. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 1998 Jim Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Bate ,imdstctnMOO24Ai damcm. or2(5/22!99) ORDINANCE NO. 98- Page 2 &In AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF May 26, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive Public Facilities Plan Status Update PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK " ~CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Briefing to Council on the status of the development of the Comprehensive Public Facilities Plan. No action required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION None. Status update briefing only. INFORMATION SUMMARY One of the major City Council Goals is to develop a Comprehensive Public Facilities Plan that includes construction, management, funding and maintenance for streets, sewers, sidewalks and streetlights. The status update on each infrastructure components of the Comprehensive Plan is as follows: Streets: The Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update study by DKS has been projecting significantly lower future traffic volumes than expected. The study is using information provided by Metro for these traffic flow projections. The discrepancies appear to be in land use for certain areas in Tigard. The City is currently reviewing and verifying the land use in the Tigard Triangle and in several ether areas in Tigard, and has been providing more reliable information to DKS for use in the study. We have processed an amendment to the contract with DKS to allow for this additional work. DKS will convert the land use data collected and create a computer model using the updated information. The final product will be an updated Transportation System Plan that would identify improvements that need to be constructed to accommodate the current and future traffic projections. This work will be ongoing over the next several months and should be completed within 6 months. The Engineering staff is currently in the process of contracting for update of the City's DOS-based Pavement Management System and for re-rating of the City streets to update the existing database. The contract for the upgrade and updating of street-related information is expected to be executed by the end of May 1998. From this system update and review of City street conditions will come a long-term plan for preventive and corrective maintenance on the City streets. This plan will be a key component of the public facility plan for the streets. Sanitary Sewer: Since the February update, the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan has been further refined to highlight potential projects for sewer extension and to identify areas of concern for further detailed study. The entire system appears to be in good condition. The problem areas identified by Public Works wastewater crews have mostly been addressed through repairs funded by the annual Sanitary Sewer Major Maintenance funding in the CIP budget. The flow monitoring program to verify existing flows in the areas of concern will be initiated next fiscal year through the Capital Improvement Program. This flow monitoring program will provide data for future flow projections. The flow projections will tell us what line segments need to be upgraded to accommodat-- the anticipated flows. Storm Drainage, Sidewalks, and Streetlights: The storm drainage, sidewalks and streetlight plans are still in the preliminary stages. However, the projected schedule for completion of the facility plan for each infrastructure element is still as originally submitted. The Pavement Management System software has an optional sidewalk module that we intend to incorporate next fiscal year after the basic system is installed and fully operational. The sidewalk module will capture information on the existing sidewalks throughout the City and provide the basis for development of long-term maintenance and sidewalk extensions Citywide. The initiation of a 5-year program for refurbishing of existing steel streetlight poles is included in the streetlight budget for FY 19989-99. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The Comprehensive Public Facilities Plan for streets meets the Transportation and Traffic Goal Improve Traffic Flow, Strategies Develop a Program to Implement the Comprehensive Plan and Lookfor Additional Points of Connectivity. It also meets the Goal Improve Traffic Safety, Strategies Discourage Through Traffic on Local Streets and Encourage Through Traffic on Major Collectors and Arterials. FISCAL NOTES Funding for development of portions of the Comprehensive Publ e facilities flan will be from the annual CIP budget and from the operating budget. I:\ci*-Mdelswn\cpfps .doc April 23,1998 tam No For Council Newslever Qe HL- kAAM - ~rn k- 1 Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/981:02 PM Page 1 of 25 S~ Table of Contents . History of the Facility and Fields Advisory Council Page 3 Facility and Fields Council Roster Page 4 Council Activities - outdcors Page 5 Council Activities - indoors Page 6 Summary of Youth Sports group expenditures' Page 7 April, 1997 through February, 1998 Council Improvement Projects planned for the next twelve months Page 8 Issues facing the outdoor community-based sports groups Page 9 Proposal from the Facilities and Fields Advisory Council Page 10 Sample Official Ballot Page 13 Next Steps Page 14 Appendix Page 15 Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/981:02 PM Page 2 of 25 Organizational History of the Facility and Fields Council The Facility and Fields Advisory Council to the Tigard-Tualatin School District Board evolved "rom the discussions conducted in the Winter and Spring of 1997 by Tom Kurt. These discussions involved representatives of many of the community-based youth and adult sports organizations. The discussions centered around the School District's need to offset an ever increasing maintenance cost for the fields and facilities used by school children during the day and community-based adult and youth sports groups after school and on weekends. A core group of representatives from several youth sports groups met through the Spring to explore a more comprehensive solution to the various issues raised during the discussion sessions. The culmination of these efforts came on May 15,1997 when the School District Board of Directors approved a proposal by the core group to form the Advisory Council. The Council held its organizational meeting on June 19,1997. It elected as co-chairs Dr. Russ Joki and John R. Anderson. At its next meeting, the Council decided to organize two standing committees: the Outdoor Standards Committee and the Indoor Standards/ Scheduling Committee. Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/98 1:02 PM Page 3 of 25 llllmrr Facility and Fields Council Foster Kali Burris TTS Indoor Soccer 7625 SW Cedarcresl, Portland, 97223 date Association 245-9651 (Home), none (work), none (FAX), elected email: none 5/97 Leo Johnston Tigard Recreational Soccer 11980 SW Elemar Ct., Tigard, 97224 3/98 Club 624.5682 (Home), none (Work), none (FAX) "Committee A" email: ljohns8311@aol.com John R. Anderson Atfalati Recreational 14468 SW Scarlett Place, Tigard 97224 5/97 District 590-5356 (Home), 350-7301 (Work), 524-5869 (FAX) "Co-Chair" email: JohnRAnderson@compuserve.com Race Bly Tigard-Sherwood 14730 SW 144th. St., Tigard, 97224 5/97 "Committee C" Basketball Association 590-6868 (Home), none (Work), 224-0155 (FAX) email: Bly@millnash.com OR Richard Crook 11145 SW Novara Court, Tigard, 97223 "Committee B' 620-9235 (Home), none (Work), none (FAX) 5/97 email: none Tina Lloyd Tualatin Soccer Club 22488 SW Pima Ave., Tualatin, 97062 5/97 691-0834 (Home), none (Work), none (FAX) email: none Kathryne Kent Tualatin Youth Football 21227 SW Yachats CL, Tualatin, 97062 5/97 Association 691-0368 (Home), 625.8236 (Work), 653-3767 (FAX-W) email: kkent@sherwood.k12.or.us Tom Kent Tualatin Little League 21227 SW Yachats CL. Tualatin, 97062 5/97 Baseball 691-0368 (Home), none (Work), 653-3767 (FAX-W) "Committee A" email: tkent@ttsd.kl2.or.us Jan Mellinger Tualatin Junior Baseball 10280 SW Ladd Ct, Tualatin, 97062 5197 691-0804 (Home), none (Work), none (FAX) email: none Wes Muir Tigard Youth Football 13042 SW Timara Lane, Tigard, 97224 1/98 684-8233 (Home), 227-6000 (Work), none (FAX) email: none Mike Peyton TTS United Soccer Club 5135 SW Joshua, Tualatin, 97062 1/98 692-6176 (Home), 872-3611 (Work), 238-2663 (FAX-W) "Committee C" email: mpeyton@northpacific.com Cindy Anderson Tigard Little League 14468 SW Scarlett Place, Tigard 97224 1/98 590-5356 (Home), none (Work), 524-5869 (FAX) email: JohnRAnderson@compuserve.com Tedd Brownrigg Tualatin Youth Basketball 5246 SW Greenwood Place, Tualatin, 97062 5/97 Association 691-2621 (Home), 612-2394 (Work), 800-274-3299 (FAX) "Committee B" email: none Jack Palmer Tigard Junior Baseball 16355 SW Sylvan Court, Tigard, 97224 1/98 598-3931 (Home), 794-9004 (Work), none (FAX) email: none Brian Bennett. Tigard Babe Ruth basebai: 1916 NW 24'"., Portland, 97210 1/98 227-1888 (Home & Work), 221-3955 (FAX) email: none Gary Surgeon Tualatin Youth Soccer 5257 SW Greenwood Place, Tualatin, 97062 1/98 691-2174 (Home), 22548443 (Work) OR 1/98 Tim Robinson 21S77 SW Mandan Court, Tualatin, 97062 "Committee A" F91-9660 (Home), 329-1214 (Wont), 692-6114 (FAX-H) email: tirn,-h@worldnet.alt.net Tom Kurt Tigard-Tualatin School 1'.: 13/ SW Pacific Hi5hway, Tigard, 97223 5/97 District 684-2192 (Work), 684-2193 (FAX) email: tkurt2ttsd.kl2.or.us Mike Stock rnember at large(ferrnerly: 13240 SW Brittany Drive, Tigard, 97223 5/97 Tigard Recreational Soccer 524-6247 (Home), none (Work), 524-6247 (FAX-ur, first) Club) era::: mstock@teleport.com Chris Carpenter member at large(formerly: 5610 SW Wichita, Tualatin. 97062 5/97 Tualatin Youth Soccer) 692-9767 (Home), 778-6281 (Work), 778-6467 (FAX-W) email: cmcarpenter@escozorp.corr. Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/981:02 PM Page 4 of 25 Council Activities - outdoors The Outdoors Committee launched a "field assessment" process as its first action. This assessment was conducted by Tom Kurt and Rick Martin (Tigard-Tualatin School District), John R. Anderson (TTS United Soccer Club), and Mike Stock (Tigard Recreational Soccer Club). The assessment team completed their work on June 3, 1997. A summary of their report is found in Appendix IV. They surveyed the grounds of each of the following schools: Major Projects Completed in 1997 by Various Youth Sports Groups Tigard Swim Center: $11,500 in-ground sprinkler system installed. 50% funding from TTS United Soccer Club. Completed early Summer, 1997. Twality Middle School: $11,800 in-ground sprinkler system hnstalled, field leveled and re-seeded. 50% Funding from TTS United Soccer Club, Tigard Recreational Soccer Club, Tigard Youth Football, Tualatin Youth Soccer Club. Completed Summer, 1997. Fowler Middle School: Extensive landscaping and sprinkler system overhaul at the main field by Tigard Youth Football at an approximate cost of $6500. Completed Summer, 1997. Tualatin High School: '.1500 tipper soccer field re-mediation work by TTS United Soccer Club. Completed Spruig,1997. Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/981:02 PM Page 5 of 25 M Council Activities - indoors The indoor clubs have worked closely with the Tigard-Tualatin School District to design and then fund the security and maintenance programs required by the School District as a condition for use of the indoor recreational facilities. There have also been some small projects to help design better storage for the property of the indoor groups. Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/27_/981:02 PM Page 6 of 25 Summary of Youth Sports group expenditures; April, 1997 through Fehritary, 1995 $ 5,000 TTS United Soccer Club for Tigard Swim Center (paid to Project Tigard ]-sigh) $1,500 TTS United Soccer Club for Twality football field $ 3,000 Tualatin Youth Soccer Club - donated surplus to School District $1,500 Tigard Recreational Soccer Club for Twality football field $1,500 Tigard Youth Football for Twality football field $12,500 Total-direct cash payments to Tigard-Tualatin School District $ 3,000 TTS United Soccer Club $13,500 Tigard Little League $10,000 Tigard Recreational Soccer Club $ 5,000 Tigard Youth Football $ 5,000 Tigard Babe Ruth $ 500 Tigard Junior Baseball $ 3,000 Tualatin Youth Soccer Club $ Tualatin Youth Football $ Tualatin Junior Baseball $ Tualatin Little League $40.000 Total-estimated cash expenditures by clubs toward School District facilities 50 TTS United Soccer Club 500 Tigard Little League 300 Tigard Recreational Soccer Club 200 Tigard Youth Football 100 Tigard Babe Ruth 200 Tigard Junior Baseball 50 T ualatin Youth Soccer Club 150 Tualatin Youth Football 200 Tualatin Junior Baseball 500 Tualatin Little League 2,250 Total-estimated volunteer labor hours NOTE: TTS Indoor Soccer Association and Tigard-Sherwood Basketball Association pay a yearly 4~1A to the School District to cover all district costs associated with those two programs. Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/98 1:02 PM Page 7 of 25 N Council Improvement Projects planned for the next twelve months Council members have identified the following projects as being critical to maintain the usability of the facilities they utilize. This list is not complete, but illustrates the level of activity already being planned by the various youth sports group-s. i ° 6 ie o museum Fowler • seed back field Tigard Babe Ruth Scheduled for add batting cage Summer, 1998 investigate drainage for rear fields Durham share expense of in- ground sprinklers s participate in field overhaul 0 Extend existing field on east side of school approx. 300' south onto the old PGE lot. Fill dirt has been hauled in; level area; remove fence and small trees; seed filled area. Lot could not be used until Spring 1999. Tigard Rec. Soccer Club, Tigard Little League, TTS United Soccer Club Scheduled for Fall, 1998 Tigard High O share expense of in- ground sprinklers, large field at rear of school Twality • install goal posts Metzger • share expense of in- ground sprinklers • participate in field overhaul Avery Property may become property available for field building (Tualatin). projects in 1998 Tigard Rec. Soccer Club, Project Tigard High Tigard Youth Football Tigard Little League, Tigard Rec. Soccer Club, TTS United Soccer Club Various clubs Scheduled for Summer, 1998 Scheduled for Summer, 1998 Scheduled for Summer, 1998 Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/98 1:02 PM Page 8 of 25 low_ FWA GM Issues facing outdoor community-based sports groups The critical issue facing sports groups using School District outdoor playing facilities is the growing shortage of useable fields for playing games and for practices. It is beyond the financial ability of any one sports group to adequately fund continuing improvements for the facilities they use. As shown in the above "Sunnnanj of Youth Sports group expenditures: April, 1997 through February, 1998", significant amounts of money are spent each year by the youth sports groups. But, those expenditures can be likened to the "little Dutch boy and the leaking dike". School District fields have been deteriorating for several years due to increased usage by the community at large and decreased maintenance on the part of the School District. The decreased maintenance is a result of school budget cutbacks that began in the early 1990's. This Council believes that the field deterioration situation has been accelerating for the past several vears due to the continued population growth in the area served by the Tigard-Tualatin School District. The field situation is not being made worse by more school children using the fields during school hours, but rather the rapid increase in the number of children using the fields after school hours and weekends. This Council believes that the Tigard-Tualatin School District has become the de facto "recreational district" for the outdoor youth and adult sports activity in the Tigard-Tualatin area. This unplanned role is being pushed onto the School District because of a lack of sports fields and facilities and the continued rapid population growth of the communities served by the Tigard-Tualatin School District. This Council believes that it is not within the "mission" of the Tigard-Tualatin School District to provide the supporting structure for the communities' youth athletic needs. Although there is a history of large, school-supported athletic programs in the elementary and middle schools, Oregon voters sent a message many years ago that they are not willing to spend education dollars on elementary and middle school athletic programs. This Council recognizes that the primary purpose of the Tigard-Tualatin School District is the education of children. The evolution of the School District into a "de facto" recreational district is due to: 1. The School District owns the acreage necessary to support large playing surfaces and has historically made those fields available to community users at little/no cost, 2. Schools are a natural focal point for community-based youth sports groups, and, 3. The relative paucity of city parks in the communities served by the School District. The Council has discovered that the Tualatin-based sports groups are beginning to experience many of the field availability problems that have plagued the City of Tigard for several years. F lthough the City of Tualatin has invested in various parks and recreational areas e.g. Atfality Park, Ibach Park, Tualatin is also experiencing rapid population'-owth. If the new Tualatin High School facility and its extensive sports fields were not present, Tualatin would be in almost an identical condition to that of Tigard. It is the belief of this Council thai the Tualatin situation should be given equal attention with Tigard in order to prevent existing 'fualatin facilities (schoo' and community) from su ering the fate of overuse and deterioration already being experienced at Tigard recreational facilities (school and communitt This Council believes that the current quality of the Tualatin community youth sports facilities and fields cou'_l serve as a relative "benchmark" to which the Tigard community must strive to reach for its youth. Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/981:02 PM Page 9 of 25 km Proposal from the Facilities and Fields Advisory Council Our Council is proposing a "stop-gap" solution and a long-term solution. The proposals offer a short-term solution while creating the foundation for a permanent solution. an annual "use fee" to be collected by the School District NOTE: THIS FEE PROPOSAL IS SUBJECT TO THE RESULTS OF BALLOTING BEING CONDUCTED DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL, 1998. The following fee scenario assumes: 1) The fee is "stop-gap"; it is designed to prevent fields from falling below a safety net. 2) The Tigard-Tualatin School District will continue to expend approximately $140,000 annually to mow, fertilize, and seed its various properties. 3) The Facility and Fields Advisory Council recommends an annual per player/per season user fee in the amount of $10.00. The fee will be reviewed by the Facility and Fields Advisory Council on an annual basis. This fee does not replace expenditures already being made by each Club in support of their chosen maintenance and/or improvement projects. 4) The annual use fee will be deposited in accounts maintained by the Tigard-Tualatin School District: 50% in the Facility and Field Capital Improvement Account 50% in the Tigard-Tualatin School District Facility and Field Maintenance Account. PROJECTED Facility and Field Capital Improvement Account Collections (assumes no growth from current annual registration of approximately 7,000 players): $ 35,000 Year one $ 35,000 Year two $ 35,000 Year three $105,000 Total for three years As this report has previously stated, the youth sports groups have historically invested their own money directly into the facilities they use. They will continue to do this. 50% of the proposed annual use fee is specifically designed to permit "targeting" of those facilities needing immediate re-mediation . Without such re-mediation, the School District may be forced to remove those facilities from use due to safety and liability considerations. The members of the Facilityy and Fields Advisonj Council Wish to strongly communicate to the Sch-7 District and the City of Tigard that the above ,'proposal is SHORT TERM and is designed only to preserve tJ,,, staflis-quo of the fields until.7 permanent solution is found. If a permanent solu~,on is not reached within two years, this Council believes that it will be beyond the financial capabilit,,7 of the youth sports grow f;s to continue paying the annual use fee because they will be forced to divert their expenditures towards those project, that have bee., "put off" while waiting for a long term solution. in some instances, youth sports groups may be forced to serve fewer youths and offer diluted programs with less practice and playing time. Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/98 1:02 PM Page 10 of 25 NNW. Pro osal om the Facilities and Fields Advisory Council (continued) Proposal for a long-tenor solution An example of how one local community created a long-term solution for its recreational needs was covered in the December 2,1997 Metro section of The Oregonian. The City of Gresham, after failing to get voter approval for a bond issue, has "partnered" with a private firm to build a S4.5M sports complex. The private firm gets its investment back by operating a "pay for play" facility. The Facility and Fields Advisory Council does not have a solution to this very complex community problem. But, this Council does have a proposal that would lead to the solution. The steps in this proposal are: In recognition of - the shortage of useable sports facilities on School District property, the continued rapid deterioration of those facilities, and the mission of the School District to educate and support the youth of the community, this Council recommends that beginning 9/1/98, the School District allow only Tigard and Tualatin community-based youth sports groups access to School District facilities. Community-based is defined as 75% or more of the youth group's members attend a school administered by the Tigard-Tualatin School District. This restriction would be evaluated annually. This restriction would be lifted at such time as thds Council believes sufficient playable space has been created and that this playable space will support increased usage. Within six months, the City of Tigard, the Tigard-Tualatin School District, and other interested agencies 'enter into a ' partnership" and`eipprove funding agreements designed to create a flow o money into the existing Schoo istric recreationa acility maintenance and improvement program. Without making an endorsement, the Council suggests that the Atfalati Recreation District might be considered as a possible "vehicle" to which the "partnership" can pass the organizational duties to. Incumbent in the formation of the partnership is the annual funding for at least one full-time person who would handle the day to day activities of the "partnership" and become the initial employee of the newly formed "partnership",. This person could report to the Atfalati Board of Directors and they in turn would report to the "partners". Our Council believes that the planting of this one "seed" (full-time employee) can lead to the permanent solution we firmly believe is possible. Prepared by: John R. Andersen, 04/22/981:02 PM Page 11 of 25 l0 Proposal from the Facilities and Fields Advisory Council (continued) Proposal for a long-term solution (continued) Within nine months of his/her hiring, the initial employee would, with the input and assistance of the various community sports groups (youth and adult), produce a comprehensive proposal detailing the-best method(s) the community should use to create a permanent solution for providing adequate recreational opportunities for all members of the community. It will be extremely critical that this proposal include provision for the purchase of additional acreage to support current and future recreational opportunities for the community. It is this Council's opinion that continued reliance on only School District acreage will doom any long-range plan to ultimate failure. The final proposal could take one of several forms. It could advocate a full Recreational District with appropriate serial levy powers. It could advocate a continuation of the "partnership". It could advocate a "pay for play" plan. What is most important to understand is that whatever is finally proposed, the proposal WILL be based on the input and desires of the community. The logic behind the Facility and Fields Advisory Council's proposal to the Tigard-Tualatin School District and the City of Tigard is deceptively simple - send two groups down parallel paths to work on those things they are best suited for: PATH ONE The youth sports groups, through the combined use of money, equipment, specialized skills, and volunteer labors will diligently work with the School District and the City of Tigard to prevent further deterioration of precious School District facilities. PATH TWO The City of Tigard and the School District will combine their skills to provide the "germination" soil for the creation of the permanent solution to this community recreational problem. We urge your immediate consideration and action on this proposal. Our Council believes that the steps outlined above will yield a workable solution for the community. Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/981:02 PM Page 12 of 25 Sample Official Ballot OFFICIAL BALLOT Facility and Fields Advisory Council to the Tigard-Tualatin School District One ballot issued to each Club on the Facility and Fields Advisory Council The Facility and Fields Advisory Council recommends an annual per player/ per season' user fee in the amount of $10.00. The fee { replace expenditures already being made by each Club in d on an annual basis. This fee does n support of their chosen maintenance and/or improvement projects. The user fee will be deposited in accounts maintained by the Tigard-Tualatin School District: 50% in the Facility and Field Capital Improvement Account 50% in the Tigard-Tualatin School District Facility and Field Maintenance Account. The Facility and Fields Advisory Council, working with representatives of the Tigard-Tualatin School District will prioritize and authorize expenditures from the Facility and Field Capital Improvement Account. The Tigard-Tualatin School District Maintenance Manager will prioritize and authorize expenditures from the Facility and Field Maintenance Account. The user fee and a player roster signed by a Club Officer must be sent to: Tigard-Tualatin School District, c/o Tom Kurt, 13137 SW Pacific Highway, Tigard, OR 97223 within 60 days of the closing of that club's official registration session. The fee will become effective with player registration activity beginning September 1, 1998. Please circle your vote below: YES NO your signature your Club name Please return this ballot by 8PM, April 22,1998 to: John R. An. A-erson 14468 SW Scarlett Place Tigard, OR 97224 you may FAX the ballot to 524-5869 your Club position title All ballots not returned will be counted as a YES vote. I Per player/ per season means that if a club conducts more than one "season" of play within 12 monthE, t e per player user fee is applicable for each "season" of play. Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/981:02 PM Page 13 of 25 M Next Steps We believe that significant momentum exists within the community at this time to take action on these issues. We suggest the following actions be taken: • City of Tigard incorporate this initiative into its CIT meetings. • Tigard-Tualatin School ]District issue an "information" letter to parents. • Each of the youth sports club distribute information to its members. • All of our efforts should culminate with the placement of a ballot measure asking for taxpayer support for our community's recreational needs. Prepared by: John P. Anderson, 04/22/98 1:02 PM Page 14 of 25 Appendix Appendix I Data on community-based sports groups Appendix II Facilities Usage and Annual Level of Investment by Sports Group Appendix III Recognition of funds already committed by Tigard Little League and Tigard Recreational Soccer Club to the Cook Park Expansion Project Appendix IV Baseline outdoor facilities assessments completed ir. May-June, 1997 Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/981:02 PM Page 15 of 25 a a N Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/981:02 PM Page 16 of 25 mffwl_ Law Appendix I Data for community-bayed sports groups N Appendix II Facilities Usage and Annual Le&el of Investment by Sports Group Used By Used When Yearly NOTE: This chart is not complete. Investment by sports group Elementary schools: * Bridgeport M Indoor Soccer Assoc. Apr--May .s-Indoor-Soccer Assdd: ;Apf May ---;Tigard Litfle Le`agua- - --'IU1ar-Jun TigardRec Soccer_.__.._ .-.'Aug-Oct Indoor Soccer ssoc. -`Apr=May - - - ` -ITS * Durham Elementary - - 'TTS lndoo-rSoccer: A§sod. X f-Ma - Tigard Rec. Soccer _Aug-Ocf----` - 'Tigardlittlia Ceague _.__._..,MarJun * Mary Woodward- gi ardRe-c.-Soccer ;Aug=Odt-... - - - 'T@ar-d-Liftle eague -`-iMa-r:Jun - - - * Metz-ger ` ;T>•S-Indoor Socce-r-Assoc. jApr--May- . :Tigard Little-League _ - Mar- un " * Temple on iTTSfn-d occer A SSOC. pr- ay - gaod Rec. Soccer Aug-Oct- - e ; iga i e League i Mar -Jun * Tualatin -*-Fowler - --17TS Indoor Soccer A ssoc. pr-May. ` - - igT` arr Li a League Mar u-J- n - TigardBa6e Ruff- I-Mar-Jul--- "M United Sodce- - _ ( Fd"ov i9azel~roo Sindoor Soccer soc. Apr- " ay - - * 7wality -----------_--'TfS-Indoor Soccer~od.-i75►p~ May - Tigard Li We League IM75r-Jun - Tigard Babe_Ruth_......... Mar-Jul High scF~ao15 - - - - - - - * Tigard-------- _ _..iiiigard Babe-Rutfi Mar-Jul - - - - - ;Tgarrc -merica-Tion i - ar- u Tigard Rec. Soccer * Tigard Swim Cdritdr - TfS United Soccer Apr-Oct - - - * Tualatin Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/981:02 PM Page 17 of 25 Appendix III Recognition of an annual financial commitment by Tigard Little League and Tigard Recreational Soccer Club to the Cook Park Expansi&:i Project The Cook Park Expansion Project has been approved by the City of Tigard and is now in the planning phase. In order to gain the partnership of the City of Tigard, it was necessary for the Board of Directors of the Tigard Little League and the Tigard Recreational Soccer Club to legally obligate their clubs for ten (10) years to annually pay $7,500 to the Atfalati Recreational District. In turn, the Atfalati Recreational District pays the City of Tigard $15,000 annually to compensate the City for 50% of the amount spent for purchase of the land. The $7,500 annual fee has the following per player impact on each club (figures are approximate): Tigard Recreational Soccer Club $ 4.70 per player, per year Tigard Little League $10.70 per player, per year. For the 1998 playing season, Tigard Recreational Soccer Club has reached an agreement with the Tigard High School Business Manager. In lieu of an annual use fee, Tigard Recreational Soccer Club has agreed to give $13,000 toward the installation of an in-ground irrigation system for the grassy area at the rear of the THS property AND have committed $5,000 toward the Durham in-ground irrigation system project. Prepared by: john R. Anderson, 04/22/981:02 PM Page 18 of 25 BMW t~ Appendix IV Baseline outdoorfacilities assessments n:cnts completed in MaJ- june, 1997 NOTE: Unless otherwise noted, the Survey Committee members were: John R. Anderson, Mike Stock, Tom Kurt (School District), Rick Martin (School District) Schooi/Facility: Tualatin High School Date of Survey: 27-May-97 Comments: 1) lots of clover on upper football practice fields 2) main football is currently under re-construction 3) lots of clay in soil 4) irrigation system exists, but lacks sufficient pressure to water all field surfaces Recommendations: 1) significant potential exists for development of additional soccer playing fields, both for games and practices-possible areas are: SE & NE corners of property 2) any additional field development would be questionable until irrigation is available 3) bring in additional water line from city water; $27,000 price estimate is $7,000 for actual work and $20,000 for permits and fees to be paid to the City of Tualatin - why does the School District have to pay $20,000 to do something that will benefit the community? School/Facility: Fowler Diddle School Date of Survey: 29-May-97 Comments: 1) soccer #1 is the Football field; soccer #2 is the field across the stream north of the school 2) some mole holes in the Babe Ruth Field 3) significant "crown" in the center of the football field 4) football field irrigation is on a timer system 5) extremely poor drainage conditions (NOTE: This survey was prior to football field being rebuilt by Tigard Youth Football in Summer, 1997) Recommendations: 1) get independent assessment of what are drainage options for field north of school 2) if drainage cannot be accomplished on NW baseball field, then relocate very costly backstop apparatus(NOTE: As of 10/31/97, initial estimate to move backstop to opposite baseball field is $2-3,000) 3) fix drainage system on football field(drains appear to be in place, but are not functioning) 4) NE baseball field is useable, but is very wet in Spring; drainage would make a difference Special Note: Babe Ruth field is in good condition. There are some mole holes Prepared by: Jolin R. Anderson, 04/22/981:02 PM Page 19 of 25 School/Facility: Fxulrh m Elemen ' Date of Survey: 3. :dun-97' Comments: 1) no mole holes 2) center section of soccer field is in poor condition due to heavy usage 3) lots of clover on the soccer field 41 baseball field-outlIeid is OK, base paths are very deep ruts and are hazardous 5) the TT S and TSC soccer clubs are heavy users of the soccer field and would be interested in a joint irrigation project 6) drainage on soccer field becomes much worse in winter 7) there is an undeve-loped field directly south of the soccer field; it is an abandoned utility yard; full of rocks and trees(NOTE: As of 9197, the School District has decided to fill this back area in and level it and make it available for development into a soccer/baseball area) Recommendations: 1) bring irrigation to soccer field area 2) extend(upward and outward) the wire on the baseball backstop to add protection for off-field players 3) move soccer field approx. 20 feet west to allow the worn center section to recover 4) if soccer field is moved west, will need sod to fill in old baseball rut areas on west side of field School/Facility: Tigard High School Date of Survey: 3-Jun-97 Comments: 1. soccer field area at rear of property used by Tigard Rec. Soccer deteriorates rapidly during summer due to no irrigation. Per R. Martin, watering on soccer field area created runoff into adjacent housing area - school was forced to stop watering 2. freshman baseball field is in bad shape 3. possible safety hazard on west side of school adjacent to baseball field Recoi n mend ations: 1) tap into existing USA reclaimed water line(south edge of school property) to irrigate soccer field area 2) construct drain and earth berm along south edge of school property to stop runoff 3) paint JV football bleachers 4) T. Kurt suggested fence be erected on west side of school adjacent to baseball field to prevent players from entering area containing: fire hose connection, power pole support wire, and protruding metal bar N Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/981:02 PM Page 20 of 25 School/Facility: Diary Woodward Elementary Date of Survey: 3-Jun-97 Comments: 1) soccer #1 is surface area north of school huilding; baseball #1 is "lower" field (north) 2) soccer #2 is surface area west of school building; baseball #2 is "upper" field(south) 3) some potholes in soccer #1 field 4) some standing water on soccer #1 5) both baseball fields were very wet and had standing water Recommendations: 1) consider re-working baseball #1 to remove excessive slope and noticeable drop-off into outfield; consider adding drainage to this field 2) baseball #2 may need additional fill in or..nr to raise infield surface and promote drainage 3) irrigation needs to implemented for both soccer fields(per R. Martin, water line connection MAY exist about 60 ft. from NW corner of school bldg.) 4) consider re-working baseball #2 to add height to infield area; consider adding drainage to field 5) irrigation needs to be implemented for both soccer fields along the perimeter of the open/chipped play area ool/Facility: Charles F. Tigard Elementary a of Survey: 29-May-97 Comments: 1) no mole holes 2) the small baseball field west of the school is in very poor condition 3) soccer areas used by Tigard Recreational Soccer are not irrigated, hence the playing surface becomes extremely hard and poses some danger to the young players Recommendations: 1) repair small baseball field to reduce danger from uneven playing surfaces 2) bring irrigation to the soccer field areas Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/931:02 PM Page 21 of 25 School/Facility: Templeton Elementary Date of Survey: 29-May-97 Eriu Bode from Walker Macy landscape joined the committee for this facility review. Comments: 1) no mole holes 2) appears to be a sunken drain field adjacent to the east side of the school. Recommendations: 1. fill in and level the depressions being created by the collapsing drain system 2. bring irrigation to east field area School/Facility: Bridgeport Elementary Date of Survey: 27-May-97 Comments: 1) good potential for development of additional soccer fields exists at this site 2) some irrigation exists, but additional coverage would be needed 3) the play area behind school(E side) needs to be graded/leveled to become a safe play area; once this is done, the area could be used as a soccer practice field Recommendations: 1) expanding the existing irrigation would be necessary 2) grade and level the play area behind the school(E side) 3) resume using the area between the two baseball fields as a soccer field School/Facility: Hazelbrook 'middle School Date of Survey: 29-May-97 Comments: 1) no mole holes found at this site 2) space for small-sized soccer practice field(s) exist behind school Recommendations: 1) paint soccer goals-they are very rusty 2) extend irrigation to SW corner of prop to create additional soccer practice fields Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/98 1:02 PM Page 22 of 25 School/Facility: Tualatin Elementary Date of Survey: 27-May-97 Comments: 1) severe mole hole problem on baseball outfield 2) possible small recreation soccer practice field available at this site 3) this site is in very poor condition and would require considerable work to bring back to an acceptable condition 4) several acres of excess property exist at NVV corner of this site; excess is not maintained and probably not recoverable due to prominent swale and safety concerns about a large drainage ditch. Recommendations: 1) without irrigation, any development at this site is questionable 2) Little League should level mole holes in outfield prior to each days games 3) some form of mole abatement needs to be done 4) per T. Kent, consideration should be given to extending the backstops on the east baseball field to prevent foul balls falling into the adjacent baseball field 5) we recommend that Little League evaluate additional fields at Bridgeport as an alternative to the two existing fields at this site School/Facility: Byrom Elementary Date of Survey: 27-May-97 Comments: 1) lots of mole holes and dandelions 2) acidic soil 3) lots of slopes on property 4) unusually large elementary site(approx. 18 acres) 5) current property could accommodate one full-sized soccer field on west side Recommendations: 1) there is potential for creation of soccer fields, but grading would be needed 2) moles are expanding their activity and are damaging large areas of the property, some form of mole abatement needs to be considered 3) water line would need to be extended toward Boones Ferry Road in order to provide irrigation Prepared by: john R. Anderson, 04/22/981:02 PM Page 23 of 25 School/Facility: Tigard Swim Center Date of Survey: 3-Jun-97 Comments: 1) no mole holes 2) underground sprinkler system using reclaimed water from USA was completed in May, 1997 3) drainage problems exist on south side & NW corner of field(during winter months) 4) new sprinkler system will be linked to automatic controls in the future(completed as of July, 1997) Recommendations: 1) some settling is still occurring in trenches and will need additional sand to fill in; sand was left on edge of parking lot for this purpose(completed July, 1997) 2) establish schedule for rotating orientation of soccer fields, i.e. E-W, N-S School/Facility: Metzger Elementary Date of Survey: 29-May-97 Eric Bode from Walker Macy landscape joined the committee for this facility review (NOTE: As of 10/97, this field will be included in the project to rebuild the Twal;ty and Metzger fields) Comments: 1) some mole holes 2) sections of old drain field are collapsing on the south side of the school 3) possible soccer practice field at southwest comer of property 4) baseball fields are not playable due to uneven surfaces 5) this is a relatively small elementary site with limited field space Recommendations: 1) identify source of deprezcinns; then if appropriate, fill & level depressions 2) develop additional soccer field between the two baseball fields 3) bring irrigation to field areas Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/981:02 PM Page 24 of 25 School/Facility: Twallty Middle School late of Survey: 29-May-97 cric Bode from Walker Macy landscape joined the committee for this facility review. I (NOTE: As of 10/97 the football/soccer field had been re-built and in-ground sprinklers were installed.) Comments: 1) some drainage systems exist at this site 2) old drain system is collapsing 3) no mole holes 4) good potential for developing additional soccer fields if irrigation is present 5) upper soccer field may currently be suitable for practice Recommendations: 1) fill in and level the depressions being created by the collapsing drain system 2) develop additional soccer field between the two baseball fields 3) bring irrigation to east field areas aa,®~ 0 Prepared by: John R. Anderson, 04/22/981:02 PM Page 25 of 25