City Council Packet - 01/19/1999
t ' : ,s v . r• .rLK,~;r, r ,:Y-t j,''t,,s:~,C vt 't75 5i .~•^•Ya ;:,i , t ` y 1, 1- 1"a%rt'1'f ` i,(sx 'p "r'u K,ip
:';'';`-i :1.?i?,i,IA': ;'r ~sy^:'•~~41' t,~r,';~.i:,'i!ti„ d '4' y>!;r:r : •3f• ~r."y ~V^f 7'jh'.C1.~;e`kSc j' r,E ^3`',"`'.3• r , 3 + r~',rr,^wv
i-'C`ar v''r.' ::o }.!i'A• ;:r,.rl,-_---- , :'.T'~,. ±ff.`w- ;F?? s r .~c,'rr.C`,~4 J r "ijh '4 , s.y 4' ,jr 4 Rd y
•,J..,r: sS:i .rpS;..hF ,:'a^ :e~.4r. ..4r.r•yy~t5; _ ,.r,V.x,•
^•r Y c%,,..'
t:: ''Y:_di;Y, r., „taam, n 'L~;'.,•4a . .it 4 .,s?:yF 1 t» ryT'^~ o: .5° nnd. C a...- b 19 .1;.
.n r.'• r ,c, t
it^',< .,ti,_ .r'a.:,1y,E.l..:i!itol,~,R 1; ++'iaaytr,~a~ +tr; 't Y: F; ~'!*a' t•i (Y
..L„ iF.'' -'k ; 'sW~
..ba.:r.: `C'p . ~.i,3. , , i~"I i p``. 4n. ,T ` . °.~ia%'4C47 !
,x1.:;~ ~'r ,~~sy 1y .yl., r, 'fnr• ','-Y•. - &r p, 3„'
,i.ao . r"••:r' +Vt it ~.;i,.(4 I.'s"r- .$r,^-' K h"
`.1,,: " )'wi„ erg`%Y,y1;'d,. ° F t..yi Ly x•• ~b °,;'f ,.ra 4 •Jf~
°,'ti;:%:. "'>3b-",,5 4•,' :}tt, 4• %~'•-s.p l:`' p *r `f. • C' ny 8•t. P '':lit u
~r;Y.'_d)". K h1lY V+-{, r,;'1'. :w.,.{-,i1Y t r. f< ,C~ 1r,. !?;~'7„a,+ •,4 :S/,:.• .trt r 1 "Eb
.f„
"-A: .0. ,.t.- F.:x 1L!,.,, .y. up 11 ti
^ , r. "•f , . C'" h_'~ „c ",a y~"T Y r+ y tC11 S
±'l: 1 ,:+r,.i , ] '}t"A a u' C,::`, . i ...x •J`' r S 11 i:,•r," ~k , 1YJ,. # of , d : - P
dZ' -!!S-:.. -y':tlj~ HOC+.?, ••,,L.i`v:c!`n. + {^r '~Sr~2 < ts:^y. 1, • 1 n'' h
:1'f:, .'i`•"i'",7„ i}Y4 a a".,. d
! ^'~A, y S', .tiwA•{, '^rV.,:'+ ~V.:4'.N, .!A yy,, ~A4~ F, t~"7j! '~'`fp n 344 Y't i !
'I..l t~' . .'i": - :~%'•Y-:f, -a;' f'tf'r%,1 .l sA4 h `F°S,'G•n, {r<.ik < ry~f~
'~l j' j '''`T:. ' ' .f m5 J.JJ,. 4 1!e ...Y !J.:N ...4 '9'7. :1,:!
I,,.,- y. •a -H'T..e (~:r.a'Sr. ur: ,i ;'.:r: . 1 D ' r•,.,a. .,.,•y. Li = I • r i+
t . ,~r' ^ r.,s.a,,an .t, •t,h~yi. .t,",,"'• r r...,a yr , If, ^ '•C',4. { )J i~jj:';} tt" f _:5,, ~S r<a, ~r f., i t,,;f-#,^kr . .,~E+~ ,.r, .
.;i;~, 7 ;`t~' . •,y .,,G+:• ^.x~r...e {i~-:
. 4 `"1 y Wr7r i , ~ r ~i i"."Si . 't~" ',~c, .
: V7;';t _.i :.f, •.I, y... Ii•.,-,,.: -ref;:,-. ,'a~.~ i ~V ~.i .St:`.t7 .,°,_'.sr: .5• - k>'r: ''',~t.'~~ j:tc „ ~,~,,5 P ;74 } r, d y. _ ~le "'1:, - `1-;, " .l .k`:: ,t,rt ,5~ %a'+'a' .~;vu• 1-rr,°'hy'~:' *4.,"r t. }9`~:,t,' /-fx,• yfi'"
;.L,' i
h. ;`r'i 'c. ~1'Y•.a ;4i'•y.. }y,, .,s . w': .Y in• f~ 'ti.Y '`hkL .'tY•, uS
r.!.s:~:^ '.'i•!S':. ,t•:i;•.- 15!9.,r. p!! ••4 •t '1 ;r, 7'} t w F'•" >n`,t ,.rr ~ y .r"r+~~..C
••F;l '.r.~ -N r. :v'!a,,:'+r-rti~°S,,.F. .,1::*£.`."..; ?cr3t.,, w`.';,:. ,3N? .t:,S:r^;•;t~,.'6ux r,.. x 2V^t^. r l cYw .....k:hi",.',tY.3C:" «+%11..'~'aS,Yi 4'k3'~• ,v K I n?a
..t: +f xaY.`.ai,t~:':y1','{:.:-'L1' W4J'~.w n's-: tFYP t K.••,-a.' 4.•`y~.p rr, ~y, 'K ('',"'T; liTdii'.p.:, w•fa'u • bra yea +•s- r1,q:a,r,
sb r} , . :,wtr:;'YU, a^• r.tif rsi,7:r. - Yr ar " : " tri. v* 8! a ,a. e Y-:,`. I p•:
•.r.^ :."ti ':l ti.sr,~,., ,ry p..~. ' v.',~.. xV .`.'F`ip' ':1I` 2.'i':1
-ni'it .g :r• :S .o `Oas ,•,,~_,i' 'r 'r w : ` t -:8` " .,r a - > r
•1t ,:Y-- W:'4 n''4 ^:rS"'"C"'%'.1.,'.--;e•'l :•1. a. ft.Y'•s*:~rJw.'. ;.L . 4~t. hl:S, ro
fit" ^ ; ~:i".: : sr ':"vrti A'kt : (t S, air ,xT, r S. , 'aY .T . t. i• ,'P
,...fM1• .,4 u ~t'
f'. „7r. ,',v! .:J'i` •V1.. 4.._F 'i' "7+' 1 •l~ ^ i, . y~~ v/f:,~`A^.:~ 1 rl.J:'i: r
.7, .1: ^s+f., az9'. ,tir'.., }`Z: rE;Y y. •p)•a• ,.r f+~- I -1 2 'a" -i+-j
;site , .1,. 7 r,\' •Y :.er kY^ w a rs" § w
.F L'r .-h•^d' .,>x' , T{:. - Fi, r ~,,.,zL ' !..'r, „ 14 . I
2'K3:V:: :Sr"a"j': r,..t»`• X i• 4,r•." f,. .k" ':i ,~4% ~S¢~'~, s 11 , r : r a r "g r.-" : i (r i.; t :J ro, • . la`• : 'r^ Yta.. i ` » ^rs `
~77r .'t' :"•v;'' ,sr<a 1 .,-e' .':r..d . •r. •,~C. 4kcywrfi-, "1', " 1•:,c. ra,'t• ~rr,,,,3a~~i'.`r.:r.• T
y" 1 7: .7; r 3, :n. L, c?" 9;1, t •.iY, se . ! , r K: , `Y ' ? r,-,; r,P ! r . S A_
: n V, ' tt ..f Gt k';=...z., i'"i ) < ,i ' S ° n'._ 3'' < rr
^ sir y. h 4'• 7 i'. •,r=': ty +Y ' •t p.1:4 by r a},w't j a ti- .x r:
~i:d _'7`I w .'tr
-'t [ Y ?1JV > A, - "t' ,~„i.,y"t' w,;1 C. M:F;T 4r< ,
,W.::c•rj• .•A,~',.'j~rS.,~ar,!'_r::;V'{:.J:,~ Y :a.. ..u h '•i+3':ial,.7: ,1-rLY`a~,7+i_{. rt.x ~
14 d:4"'.1" _t• 1 .3.:i,' L„ {,aa(' f.I. l { . = c, p - • p~ 3. r_ y v Y :
=i ryL. „r .iCt W ..tv 6x ~4 s'e 1-tom?h- r„ .i7 r, ,rw .°Jk 1 Y.
4 r:kus U., .r. s. t., r 'e s n'
a
c C -L, F,.
, i
a , 4 . t i~ c , .,'S: r.' I _ ! to ::i4,x , y- .,ca".. "i•.. >.blr rr, . •.o.,r~7? ,
Y'' 5:ti it :,t': ..r' l;sc: :1,,,. o;^. : fr. Lo t ,rr.•-1
.a: ' ,r5-a,,t'y-nau-E,;, .•1:c..,;/ v' t .S . ,r ,•IIn "'.ru". :k}r.,r. ,a- }anY.r - .j. .l. .fit r• jtr4 ;;O~ 'i,. '1.' ,,r.+ -.L •r. tl,. 'cE Y.j' ..z°L b ,`,r ,r .ra 3': ;4; .,pY,>. rr,'., v` _fi,. 233 'd,+, a, y~7 F.... .
C;, '.r ,,7 y .Ter . Ca.r4,,.;r x°:' "f 7 .aff • ru ik, r:Y. .•.,C~..
f' t_-;t{ "i;: ~t'. ^.a,,„`Sa,K ..Fyy.., f 1t1+' .rf, r;Z`I, i, .
, •
, Vi i s - ':ia ' f?r:1 t !u f. ' t JF„. r¢•'
v ,i"~,-,v f,- at':F' .1'`,s''" w- x•„ 9",4 h}. q rt ':a fi ¢ ¢ . .w•..
yr ~i •.m . L•- 11 ter, r'= r~ V `tr,r • y N - . k~ • r
r ji'll.n .b5rr ,.Old AfY••r `a'jt, - „i7.._ (,,+•F ,r , ~{.•T •'+,C t'v If +:C1,. ro .~,'a, iC. ,q,~
. P. . •t {`h 'i < A: .J^ .y, iC a '5. "^W ka y 'yr•
f1 qPµ' S 4
+ ( - %`~is: t,.n kid'.. ^ 3.'.H'jay~ . f. ."as- ,.':'•r". , j:•':' ;sr~
•i;Nr .s • .6.. :•Y 'ft,_.~t .;GC r r, k .r~'•v - r~ .aa, a,:.. .
^:sw. ..n,. H, r'. f'Y..'.":±i" "r!' i''s• `4,. r+ t ~j, ,i' ,:ka. }a F",. +s••.c
se' +.r: L'' Y x:. . , ~i'•c. jt.,, 3r'.6 r3: r . a , v:,¢j;r 'q•
'~`j' .1': , r., - J.yo,,r : tl.. .x!a-f• . 3-! '{n-!_ :,5.. r.- ~i',a .•'-r p~C y-'t) . ^r.. a
n'':1-,',--,%,-f 7o'6a. 5.,tY_,..e ',"Y.~w ir., ..fr<:'-~•.~'.F -L'.•tt. r .rr:4:. S,
`n.,.,. D +YL -1:f. .4. , ;iw_ %7 f• .a. a t - by 4.,. ;x9.a<.:
'a, ` , r. t, ? ,,.d1. s..,, ,:'t.L1-1- fi-: Fc4
':",§r: ,-d.'. x.: L; ,•{t• ,i .:,'t`t.. • ,r`F„ ,i , t,`u.-., '-`r-r. .y. k,>; c } w". r A I L::: •S. { sta., , .^w. :1,..,,
"%x :F.. ...7.. ;;h3 = :air. , s, , _.rr n~::Ci,d, .F ":fi'•tr, • ^ " r ~ ,t b , ''tc... I
alr` va:r 't+' ":4r'- i ic':• ;d:'.J ~A.,, I-. „L r.,..r, ia'~ d F .•:r. .r-4~ .,p...¢.t,;: s- ::,•L.,a 3;• .•7¢~'.^ •d•t. •S'^rte
m'.• :'j" rJ,'.,,:.•*-:4•.•. - C='f .,l"4_, Ir :rp.. x L y<r •~G?Y- ,.J :V4'r4tr..}x,l.
5b'w :Ct 'ac y a..,.:,25?`.,,,4''Y,.y'ri - ,f ,Y. >T',ie = ,3.. .+s'
..f - ,•.y-,. .f ^ t - fi. r r„:: 7'~v' '3. % r•
r.+. .rs:. "a;' . r., J•r. ,4 't = c~• f. - ,.r
c 4xr.,:V i,`t , "h. :,1:F „v .'kS:•: "f "1 J(. •t3z'--
%Lr "t,•,~l yr 4~! ::J, - t~~•e ti y•.. •a, r' k t-,.t',"
• y ' p..vity. , jw.
.c•.,: :7'f'°" -t, 't^': ~'4' .,r'r~r'ja f i '.1Yf3Ty ^,:'%'C}f'•' r.
. , la .3 - -`,+9 .r.`:i` .~:~`.,;F`! .,'I qe " t,., . r j , fi: ' S'y':c`' ,,,~}•,+t~n; ,.b
r tt ;;`1`d 3. .✓f),_ tS: { i '-,yYw:=*'j. l'i.. W, ,+r'n:.J>1 L!=i: .e;11 _~r;;.,r:` ,Jt<'•f'a .e .Y•.
rl ..P',. :y: a''^ .v.":. .,Y., : r 'a' ..v!f.-•L`f tY. "r. r.A ~'C .3 - y _ .Y.v.
-.r'^V' t,'"k.r;:'r:d.-T.-:r a .l ',r i,,,' J'a Y. ::Y?,;.« "
''i:, - ,!L. ' .•.i:. J,, %.>;c, -,s•:''yr. - ,,5 -s If r1.rs' fi. ''4 L { sr fs:: . t, ~•,t
r.' ! r(,. ;;r '•i Y L-... ff,. t .9 `fir 5~, 'R'•°,p, -,'i42. ""r
L -.Ji':'.1 %f'
.3 „r.': v•d!A- p I
+•li : Y -'F"I rY. C: ..J ttC i" 4. t, r•q
.3r-`f i 4t~ - "1'. .,1 \»r.. (t ..ft:,:.k7 R ,,a✓, rnt 2 = t
q !L~ ^q! - r h 52. :.Y1 ef", p ",S.'_ _,.,'.h.. .:f a,{
i E
i: „bra: r +•s.rre.,,..
;r 'ham: , i
s.:<Y l .1,
u' f
t. ,,F
i,
„Fr
.5.',:.c x 'tv 4. t .L.
..rt ,1 yr, ^:t•~.. ,,,Lr ,,'V7I~' _~'f'':
y. _ib 7r r
Y a'
1 A .
- x^ r h
~S d
-'i" =`f". .y s' 'sp'it`-^t,', r AM
i, ` ♦F . •L::._ r.:. <,f •,r._i:r!.%` :.!1:'y°.- ~'.:C''.:nr::.:::`~,~".M1 -a', .~'.7'x`.:K
`i, .J.': - •-'3 1 FA. w:LFe. ):-.,fib:,.
h... -r. -.:r,•; • 4,! ':"w"+:'t: , 4,.
I , 'S',:.y n,.n, +:-7..r +V}i:a;ti„:::'~•Y .3,d , -
Al `Z.
7''k.
-'y
H` o„' W .
r : L
a,
x
i'J icy"-''`
S' r-K•• ~ F,L -11 ,1 ,.T a
i. _ ,4, iM Y t,
.Y •;yi r
f~
:ti r; •
\ :.l:, .
P tv,' ti
t
I 111 - - M, "
i•t ' .an' a,
f 3: .
~ Rvk-,.:!f!5" i,~4~i~~ 1~~'X';..l
0.y.:. .a ,
55~. t ,a ~:r Y
^
a ?r
rs-tS:y-,,,e,
`.i:' i
..R• ,..~..r, 3
3 l' J
fy:• '+1 %i :nit.
1 x., .
:7 `•+,s, r,°:'si.'{„ ,a(:d~-r^:i-` .y,,r;1:.- ..t<'.»v:-`•.i:r. .:t"..a..,,,,.,i.
.4. ..Fk. u.. T't- Y..,/r•M-., L, ~..:4,,? ,8. ,..t Jw. t!lga'.+'a,,:r r
: :1' ..W, t
a ra>
J
SA.JK n✓~~~.
ilh
r^: i~W _ T~t.
s. p
..t : rt
ti'ir
J. f
~
t
•'.r,. f " • j1,r,.':•1°; , X . : e r'
- S 4 "(te a, s 'r~'
'yy. .7 • ~F,,,. ,Oar „AI ,o+r
+
?C
_;;ry
' J<
li w
w .4~:.Y
as
' i 1r'-1,. .
} ~'?Y4'... . 'fir ;
Y.
r'r' tc
yf,'t.
{:i,
R ` 4
•1f ~
s
R.':jz"' t,,, y.
x,
k.. - r
§t' i
"'ti''
^t
ai'i' _
''tf '
,r
J7,
~ , S ~ . . .
'i.'a;A..
D
:i' n
y, } •..ya r,
c ' r•i~ ..tw. '
~C
d":
{
•1
.
ki'',i ..j''i y
_ ^iy ,.r
j-, 'P
i
• "
i
•,T l ,,H
1•,'
.
.s • W,
<r'' S.
_f` . :
'r
;w
`C%:
J i , • k
S v~
: t,• - LYE
,
. : :L tir
,f ; ,
. r.:. . : q
t.. v "'i' ./?~Y+. 4.")'. •Sii •i;k,";±`•"S'A,'"C!,,', •.?~riy'
r, >
,
- Yr:
2s*.l err,
re =io:
i.
~a
t
11 ::i
L
.%j:.,,' - tv^9t°'. 4:`::•~ 1,: r:.::~.:i: 1r1' ,t Jr ,I +{.1
5.,..
}
=,4:'1' Y:ri r
T, _
i~ :,,3
r
l Y 3 -
" •
i• ,
i=
K i;
- r
?'V%5
} p
i A', ip '
_
- 41{C
ter'!`
S~V sx• -,.-r" ar 0, J1 ~ 4 41k'
• _
'.,`y°.`: t.
rh'
J: ^.5: d::': 1 w rd:+✓AiyI' .
is
r . :p "
, . ~ , 1'.-, . . . . , . " 1 M ,
'.i. : : t .
r
L:i•. ia.
^'i .
.z
. T;. :'\ia:'.:':
'1
e^-yi ;r
~:4,a ,'h
„r'_:
A'y'r., . s:^'
Z;•,. ,,,i;~, 1,
l'i
- - -w 7r.: t
e
•
v'N n'
y'.
:r
t.
M
I• p
i',y
ht'%
K
.
o: a : .
,i
trr
t X. r: .
I d
i'
- 1.
r
. - :'fin: {r' - _ ¢ 4 'L T.
- .T :
J
„ci ,
Y
{
- - 3
,a
I'.
,4 vi,
`1 r.= h am j r•,.~ r
. 11 .1 Tf'
{i z' 1' "
:t
1
" " t
IP' - -
"r
~:K :i
4` :
)5,
'
~1'r~~ - at''~ :L
',!-pi,.,,_
- .1 ` . : y 1 ,v
- .P :'Y
_
y:'
i.j:.,. s;~x : ~i ,i 5
• p
.:4 i,r:~ ':.fir' .r,j%', x
i~ '
Y
.-.f;r:J"...',".'},•, . . •'4..,'..'•;r:<:':"fti:.i -`!'•'<:ia.},. .;.ir^'i:. 11 • is ,tit, , >-R, .
R'
r C..r r'i . i
s': , : Y>k'-
,.i'~ .C ~
'G7 -
w bi-
Yt K, 1
• +i .
:oS . 5 , S
~J\.. $
:ut:
r• s}2,'
✓ iY...
Z
J~
ti4t' •1'•
L
"4Mt!
..t'r
b.- `
•~f
d
.ff `'Stn "rt..':FY:
,-11:~r
.f7- -
- LTf M-:;.rr
y:
;f
i":,:..
e
: i .
2'•
y-•
. _ • ,~1t i;:.:...-.arc:
J~~
:T: ; -
:K!.,
j'.~ . ` ry.
.11a,
•
•r
n`:" 4.
i','rw
~rL -
:
'a, Y
t.
t:+'
c
:
L
r M
- .f
yG
11. , - , ' vv'i!~ S. " , , - ~ 77~, "
Ye (L .r~
:y
T
t ra_.
1 _g - -
N -ly -
" fir"
' _
7j..y
r,. r
- - -E z, 1, ll~
a
y:
tr: , - . ;1'. 7 T ~ ~ ,W'; ~ - , , - ~
I'll -
J.y{:,,•
M:
2.
..S A i
iii' ...S:r1:'✓ _ `t` - F.,r
. _
1
- _ "Y" .!"5i r:`
,•J:t ia't
"i.. r
f!
:•;,a. ll~
is f`=:'' S!"
, .r' , , i'r'.•_„°. 1
F ..x .
, a
tir
} f.
ciL
1
: -t•u.. ti rY`^ _
, " el~'; '
> ,L
..c
t' L° r~
vl, ` "d•
,rj.
^:N a{
w'
) s
1
is i.2, k t•:•.,.: r
N t':
1'
t K..
~''Y ^ ti ° r r
i. h
-i
?,5 ) t
~ E
° K
-
. • K
Lr°.. r a rr
ti
,fit'
r
s{~`' >r 1W , 4,
r.~
t_ S
4 {
M {
1 t .t
h D J'
s #
5 3 R g'
t
Y ''9 .v
~r _
.
H'
4 Y .
fi i"..
eu
l•
- r
:ti`• r3
y R
4 v-zt.'
a. r^^°`
;.f; Our t
a td
r
^v c i
4
-J n y
~k°.r"
•t x
r~ r: i f~
i'i'i. 1:.• 4,;L ,
}e :"'4-~ th-aY4
:G - { ! n.t] aC'4'~a:"-6o -1+. -ziq 9,...
- - r-i. r ` .:la,.4„ w .d,-• a.` + "s zrays A'w'l ,•R'! tv ~ - .rp •d.+r .'+P..
rrts:Y-• !S. . .-w4~ rl.f1+' h,}'r ,g•,
y+• k, y~
• J,.4,t.• .
r , :...~•-m,
x P
x ' 4i '4l
- L..
a y"
t S.k+• p ~
. .ta 'J, ,4'1;',.,,r,:.. ab >t'>•jt:aY„7 '.ti.~t•t1o-'
~N ~T w 4, aR'
. '~Otpid2. : ,.F.i:, a:r`c+•.,<•.n. +.Sy~., , t'•~!"r„_.., 1 ''ir'k' , d..+..:., , . o
) `I , 5....,_., .b..:.. XZ•', i:.: ,a.iraM:}4,sP Jt
:::ix,r.f, :modc(''f,' :i'~';i;,' `'je,u" tX.,-I:"'.'+!'S. ...h:"-.r :j -,+-#.t
.tj :C-.iy.', 1.11.. '.I"i > :',A,' Y. r' .'Q,,:. ~:„'.'.;'i(}•1, :b.-.~ t'a' n!_ f _ Y',-•.. y ,y,t y Krc:
r ' +,7'lai a"tr~. ~,z,' Kr- Y-N-_ 7Y.?'.. -^LYy;., 2='1. !
.~•v' ~iH`, S e 4..,; Y5. :v - ti4..,>.y vnd`'-"^•--11.1~a 1 0
~.r i:: '•i1'.':•: Y` i! .1... "7F ' i". 7r r- +
.:f.,,. ii a. Lmi f ! F
..;Jr':",' off
• !'f:; i's .:raa4'•.2'.,. .s:, tt-3g. 1.' v ; .1..SL C
.1'~''' J 1 i4.1 tip •1 `:.t r: p1 L: .ry,•Tl+:' L". .Y
4 -ts;:. :L.r f:'.7 ":ar,I L.J yr;~ti"•l:..Y r,. ~'T~' ,9$ • "sf +f; }+•~Te 1 _
_ _ %-.,i l'i,•`.1 ,dj:,2z
;'r!", ,r.• ,r;-;:;', -.4':. .a'r.., ,...¢.La... t4~( p.'t .9 s. ?
'tip: , • S f19 '
jt
a r- 1
:,r , w y'
w r
tf ~4', F
'•r
e"~g .lt hr'T{.
r .j. ,f N, .j r"":;{}',,. , .c
11 - . , 1;1l
• 4 i,, ra.,,. "tG,:,1 n t YaY^'',1'•,J JA - I K ri ,,5 it ','r, , .u., , ;-Y 2. ;t::•-~~ , J Ya':.Y; 1 JL (3. _ r'a'$3,°ry, j+ Sl'
lc~'A', j:, ~a.'J' o,i'7,;`i,''+?,,~,',~.!~!~,~/,.';,+t} x'{•v .4',: Y' y' \V
,.r.. .IT j'y~tl;:-,'M4,;y; -4 r `ti.? ~":"~4`~.'iR4:tfi,p'~t 4r j a,•"r:. i. 'G'~c ltd; ,k
-i',.hk. ,,'ac,,, i..' t• 'r`e Y"` S"y t Lp,• SS.
,.5...,t~ .,'rH t , Ji+' 1' . ,,I'. ;L;~ !fi~tt I: `raJ
r J 1.,j`; rv 0: yrF+'Y>• t N ';...lr.
_ ; f{6{A~ t, 4 w r 3 1 s f 't ~r })''4t„ ' ~ 8r r. j f f.'t
`i., 7 F a't = i{Z:;aft- ^ gqi!'[h4`7i ls~, 1t'~•J;' ~rti;:., .;~~i; ft~•
^:f :.."C4. , : fi .j •i II4 , . '•1,. ~ 'St~ h4 AV{rtYN'•, t
11 -
•-r ypJp{•,i:rrifl. f4_ir,u4. ,~2'l;~.v -p.
1 ~
CITY OF TIGARD
PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up
sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda
item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a
future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City 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 a.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 684-2M (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as
much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday
preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639.4171, x309 (voice) or 684-
2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 19,1999 - PAGE 1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
JANUARY 19,1999.6:30 PM
6:30 p.m.
1. 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.
7:30 p.m.
2. WORKSHOP MEETING
• Call to Order: Mayor Nicoll
• Pledge of Allegiance
• Council Communications & Liaison Reports
• Call to Staff and Council for Non Agenda Items
3. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (CIT) UPDATES
• CIT Report: CIT Representatives
4. REPORT FROM BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY APPLICATIONS
• Staff Report: Administration Department
• Council Discussion on Subcommittee Recommendations
5. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE AND STAFF REPORT REGARDING
DANGEROUS AND DERELICT BUILDINGS
• Staff Introduction: Building Official
• Committee Report: Building Official
• Task Force Members' Comments
• Council Discussion on Task Force Recommendations
6. REVIEW DRAFT RESOLUTION THAT OPPOSES LEGISLATION CREATING A NEW STATE
BOARD TO REGULATE BUILDING CODE ACTIVITIES IN THE PORTLAND METROPOLITAN
AREA
• Staff Report: Community Development Department
• Council to Discuss and Consider Staffs Request to Prepare a Resolution for Consideration
of Adoption at the January 26,1999 Council Business meeting.
COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 19,1999 - PAGE 2
7. REPORT ON PROPOSED INCREASE IN BUILDING, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL
PERMIT AND RELATED FEES
Staff Report: Community Development Department
o Council to Discuss and Consider Staffs request to Schedule the Matter for a Public
Hearing on February 9, 1999.
8. REPORT ON TUALATIN RIVER PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
® Staff Report: Community Development Department
Council to Consider Authorizing Expenditure of Greenspaces Funds
9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
10. NON AGENDA
11. ADJOURNMENT
1 AADM\CATHYICCAl990119P.DOC
COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 19,1999 - PAGE 3
• Agenda Rem No. /
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of ~ a3 •011
WORKSHOP MEETING
MEETING MINUTES -.JANUARY 19,1999
1. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. under the provisions of
ORS 192.660(1) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions,
exempt public records, current & pending litigation issues.
2. WORKSHOP MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Nicoli called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m.
Council Present: Councilors Patton, Mayor Nicoli, Hunt, Scheckla, and Moore
Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; City Recorder
Catherine Wheatley; City Attorney Tim Ramis; Community Development Director
Jim Hendryx; and Library Director Melinda Sisson.
e Council Communications & Liaison Reports
Mayor Nicoli reviewed the situation with the legal challenge to the TIF fees in Washington
County. He said that while they won at the circuit court, the case has been appealed to the
Court of Appeals. He reported that at the last meeting of the Washington County
Coordinating Committee, the mayors discussed splitting the costs of the defense of this case
because it affected a countywide ordinance from which all cities received substantial funds.
He mentioned that the Washington County legal counsel informed the mayors that the TIF
funds could be used to pay the legal costs.
Councilor Hunt asked if they could distribute the money until such time as the case was
decided and then repay it if necessary. Tim Ramis, City Attorney, indicated that it took
filing a second case to require repayment of money collected.
Mayor Nicoli commented that the other part of this case, depending on how the court
decision was rendered, might also affect City development ordinances. That was why they
decided to defend it aggressively. Mr. Ramis mentioned that the circuit court judge who
ruled in their favor agreed completely with their analysis that the principles of Dolan did not
apply to a tax. He explained that the TIF fee was a tax voted in by the people.
Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 1
3. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (CIT) UPDATES
Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, distributed materials to the Council on CIT
attendance. She noted that they averaged 35 people per meeting with a low of 8 (in June and
September when school functions conflicted). She commented that she believed that attendance
was agenda driven.
Ms. Newton reported that they used their first January meeting to plan for the coming year and
to review the current format. She reviewed what the City primarily used the CITs for
information sharing, citizen education, and citizen input. She mentioned that the members
present felt that the CIT format worked well for information sharing during the general session,
and that they benefited from the educational presentations but preferred the use of real-world
examples in the future.
Ms. Newton noted that the citizens have asked that staff use a two-meeting approach in
requesting citizen input so that citizens could be prepared at the second meeting to give good
input regarding the issue staff raised at the first meeting. She cited the meetings held on the CIP
as evidence of that strategy working well. She mentioned that the citizens brought up topics of
interest to themselves that they really wanted to work through, such as significant trees and
neighborhood meetings. She said that the citizens felt that it was fair for the City to request a
commitment from the citizens to work an issue of concern prior to assigning staff resources,
citing the failure of the significant trees issue and the success of the neighborhood meetings
issue.
Ms. Newton reviewed the suggestions and/or concerns mentioned by the CIT members
regarding the current format. This included too many issues per meeting for the breakout
sessions, assigning a city-wide issue to the general session instead of to a breakout session, the
need for the CIT members to take responsibility to report to Council on their actions, the use of
the CIT meetings as a "safe harbor forum" for citizens intimidated by the more formal Council
meetings, and suggestions for future topics.
Ms. Newton reviewed the staff changes to the format in response to the citizen suggestions. She
said that staff would review topic ideas at the end of the general session to see what the citizens
wanted to schedule. She described how they would change the one-on-one process to better
utilize staff resources and time, including an announcement in the Cityscape announcing where
people would attend and a description of those staff members' areas of responsibility.
Ms. Newton said that the citizens accepted the City's decision not to use the CITs as the forum
for the water discussion because that issue affected a broader constituency than simply the
citizens of Tigard. She commented that the citizens wanted to know what other avenues were
available to them for topics that staff felt was not appropriate for the CITs.
Councilor Hunt mentioned that when the City switched from the NPOs to the CITs, there had
been considerable resistance from the NPOs who feared that it would turn into a staff driven
meeting as opposed to a citizen-driven meeting. He questioned whether or not that was exactly
what has happened. He felt that without the water issue, the attendance last year would have
been cut in half: He mentioned the regular attendance of a few core people but pointed out that
most came if the agenda covered an issue of significance to them personally.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 2
Ms. Newton concurred with Councilor Hunt that the active NPOs had a good attendance that
represented the different geographic areas. She pointed out that the NPOs dealt solely with land
use issues and did not cover the variety of topics scheduled for CITs. Bill Monahan, City
Manager, concurred that citizens might only attend one or two meetings a year to hear topics of
particular interest to them but pointed out that they were reaching more people with the CITs
than with the NPOs, citing the people attending the January meeting who had not attended any
meeting before.
Councilor Hunt said that what the CITs have turned out to be was not what he had envisioned
them becoming when they switched from the NPOs. Sterling Marsh, CIT Facilitator,
commented that when they started, the meetings were driven more by the facilitators than staff.
However over time, as they needed staff resources to answer citizen questions, the CITs became
more institutionalized. He pointed out that information sharing has consistently been part of the
CIT process, commenting that occasionally they solved their own problems or realized the
problem was insurmountable to begin with. He stated that he thought that the CITs worked
reasonably well because it has brought more people into dealing with the City without having to
come to the formal Council meetings.
Councilor Scheckla commented that the NPOs were established with the specific task of helping
the City adopt the Comprehensive Plan, and they knew when they had accomplished that goal.
He said that the CITs were not set up to deal with a specific issue, and there was no closure on
the issues they did deal with, which might discourage continuous participation.
Councilor Patton conceded the point but held that there was nothing wrong with people
attending an occasional CIT meeting over the course of the year when a topic of particular
interest to them was scheduled. She said that one of the advantages of the CITs was the
informal forum where people could get the information they needed. She stated that she did not
think that the purpose of the CITs should be to maintain a certain level of attendance to insure
that a certain constituency attended from meeting to meeting but held that there was value in
knowing that there were sufficient people in attendance to warrant the staff time needed to work
the meeting.
Ms. Newton mentioned several criticisms leveled by citizens against the more formal NPO
process, including lack of standing for non-designated NPO members attending a meeting and
attendance requirement for members. She said that they purposely set up the CITs differently so
that there would not be any quorum or membership attendance requirements. She agreed with
Councilor Hunt, commenting that she had not thought she would have the kind of time
commitment to the CITs that she currently had.
Councilor Hunt questioned how much of the CIT was set up for the City to disseminate
information and educate citizens as opposed to garnering citizen input. Ms. Newton reiterated
the citizen suggestion that staff prepare the citizens beforehand regarding issues that staff
wanted input on in order to generate good input at the next meeting. She spoke to staff having
to think things through further in advance than two weeks before the CIT meeting.
Ms. Newton asked for Council input on whether to go in the direction suggested by the citizens
or to revamp the program further in response to Councilor Hunt's concerns. Councilor Hunt
suggested that staff inform the CIT facilitators of the Council discussion and get their input on
what direction to take. Mr. Monahan suggested that staff keep up the pressure on getting the
citizens to tell them what issues they wanted to talk about, and present only one or two
informational items per month.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 3
Ms. Newton suggested structuring the meetings to allow more citizen input. She mentioned
possibly canceling a meeting if they did not get a commitment from the citizens regarding an
issue raised by the citizens or there were not sufficient agenda items to warrant a meeting.
Councilor Patton commented that it was important to give citizens plenty of warning if the City
was asking for input on an issue. She spoke to the City taking seriously those issues raised by
the citizens and following through on them. She expressed discomfort with using the CITs
predominantly as a forum for staff to get information on an issue. Councilor Hunt concurred.
4. REPORT FROM BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY
APPLICATIONS
Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, reviewed the charge that the Council gave to the Budget
Subcommittee it created on November 17 (members George Burgess, Gene Farnstrom, Joyce
Patton, Bill Monahan, and Wayne Lowry). The Committee was to streamline the social agency
funding application and the process for evaluating those applications. He reported that the
Subcommittee met on January 7, reduced the 10-page application to four pages, and created a
revised process for social agency evaluations and a suggested process to allow more Council
input on the arts and events applications.
Mr. Lowry reviewed the changes to the application, noting that they focused on retaining the
meaningful information for decision making. Councilor Hunt suggested adding "(including the
City of Tigard)" to Item 5, page 2, to insure that the City was included with "other governmental
agencies." Mr. Monahan mentioned the page that showed what the percentage basis of the local
government contribution was in comparison to other revenue sources, and page 4, listing the
names and addresses of the current Board of Directors.
Councilor Hunt expressed concern that some people might have difficulty fitting their balance
sheet into the condensed financial format given on page 3. Mr. Lowry explained that this was a
standard format that should work for everyone.
Mayor Nicoli reviewed the three issues that he wanted information on regarding the non-profits:
1) who controlled the selection process for the Board of Directors? 2) What were the lengths of
service of the current Board members? 3), How often did the Board receive financial reports?
Councilor Hunt asked if the Subcommittee would review the social agency applications and
make a recommendation to the Budget Committee as a whole. Mr. Lowry reviewed the six
a steps of the revised evaluation process, including the Subcommittee making a recommendation
on budget allocations to the City Manager who included it in the budget presented to the Budget
Committee.
Mr. Lowry mentioned that he had on file the non-profit documentation required by the City,
including the bylaws, audited financial reports, articles of incorporation, and 501C(3)
documentation. He pointed out that those documents would indicate the Board selection
process.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 4
1~m Im
Councilor Hunt spoke against splitting the funds between the social agencies and the arts and
events without returning to the Budget Committee, since the Budget Committee had determined
last year that they would not split the funding. Mr. Lowry explained that the Subcommittee had
thought that the Council wanted to be more involved with the arts and events side because those
were more community oriented and the Council dealt with them throughout the year. He said
that in order to have two different groups evaluating two different types of requests, the
Subcommittee thought that there needed to be a target funding level. Councilor Patton
concurred.
Mayor Nicoli asked staff to find out if Craig Dirksen still wanted to serve on the Budget
Committee so that the Council would know whether to interview for two or three positions.
Mr. Lowry commented that if the Council agreed to follow this process, it could be ratified at
the first Budget Committee meeting. Councilor Hunt stated that he agreed with the proposed
process but he was reluctant to unilaterally change a Budget Committee decision.
Gene Farnstrom, Budget Committee, said that he was satisfied with the proposed revised
process. He commented that his biggest concerns were getting a standard for the social agencies
and segregating the arts/events requests from the social agency requests because they were not
getting good information on the arts/events requests. He held that the arts/events were more a
"community involvement thing" and did not require the same scrutiny as social agency requests.
The Council agreed by consensus to direct staff to move forward with the streamlined
application and the revised evaluation process.
The Council asked staff to look into the legality of appointing alternate Budget Committee
members.
Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. for a break.
Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
5. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE AND STAFF REPORT
REGARDING DANGEROUS AND DERELICT BUILDINGS
5.1 Community Housing Task Force Report
David Scott, Building Official, introduced Paul Alig, Oregon Legal Services, a Housing Task
Force member. He presented his report using a slide presentation. He mentioned the charge to
the Task Force to investigate how comprehensive should a housing inspection program be in
Tigard and whether the City should take a proactive or reactive approach. He reviewed the
questions used by the Task Force to determine the parameters of a program. He noted the
criteria used by the Task Force to measure all decisions against: the program should be
equitable for all property owners and residents of Tigard (both single-family and multi-family),
and the provisions of the ordinance should be limited to those necessary to provide for minimum
standards of safety, sanitation and inhabitability.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 5
Mr. Scott presented the Task Force recommendations:
e The Council adopt the proposed ordinance that specified the minimum standards and used
the existing civil infraction process in place for code enforcement as its enforcing
mechanism; and
The Council adopt the proposed resolution stipulating program implementation policies.
Mr. Scott mentioned that the different stakeholders on the Task Force achieved consensus on the
entire package.
Mr. Scott reviewed the administrative polices proposed in the resolution. He said that
inspections would be performed on a complaint or referral basis only (no anonymous complaints
but the names would be protected to the extent allowed by law). He mentioned the provisions
allowing property owners an opportunity to comply without going through the formal
enforcement process. He noted the recommendation for one inspector at this point, mentioning
that the Council already approved in this budget funding to hire another inspector.
Mr. Scott explained the policy to establish a relocation plan with the County and other agencies
as a strategy to assist occupants displaced as a result of enforcement efforts. He stated that the
emergency policy included an appropriation of $10,000 as a means of helping occupants in an
emergency situation where the responsible landowner was not responding in a timely manner.
He said that the $70,000 cost of the program would come out of the general fund, and the
program would be implemented on April 1 with a public hearing scheduled for February 9,
1999.
Mr. Scott reviewed the social care facility issue. He explained that the Task Force included
group living homes already regulated by state and federal licensing agencies in response to their
criteria of equity. He said that the Task Force was concerned that other types of housing would
try for exemptions if any exceptions were allowed. He mentioned that the focus of the City
ordinance was on physical plant concerns, not the care quality concerns already regulated by
other agencies.
Councilor Patton asked for clarification on the General Accounting Official (GAO) testimony
included in the report regarding the care of individuals residing in the homes and the apparent
intent of the resolution to deal with physical plant concerns. Mr. Allig said that he included the
GAO study to show that the State looked at the care concerns and did not focus on the
maintenance issues.
Councilor Scheckla mentioned that the Task Force intended to put these policies in place, and
then if they were not working after a period of time, the various interest groups had the burden
of proof to show that they needed adjustment.
Mr. Scott confirmed to Councilor Moore that the policies dealt solely with the physical plant
standards of sanitation, safety, and inhabitability, and did not address care issues. He said that
the only exception in the ordinance was for institutions, such as the classic nursing home, which
the Task Force felt was beyond the scope of an ordinance dealing with residential uses. He
mentioned a concern of the social care constituency that the ordinance not conflict with State
and Federal licensing regulations. He said that the City Attorney crafted language to give
precedence to the licensing rules over the City ordinance.
Mr. Scott mentioned another finding of the Task Force that local responsiveness could be an
important part of an overall regulatory framework for residential social care facilities.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 6
men
Mr. Scott reviewed the occupant displacement issue, noting that they did not want to create
another bad situation in the process of solving another. He mentioned the emergency fund
intended to help with this issue, noting that it did not require a supplemental budget. He said
that, as he understood it, the tenant/landlord law did provide some protection to tenants who
were given "no cause" notices by their landlords.
Councilor Moore mentioned the excellent job done on the report. He asked why the Task Force
die not want to be proactive. Mr. Scott said that the Task Force was concerned at the expense of
a proactive program to inspect all units. They felt that it would require a licensing fee and thus
penalize those who had no problems.
Councilor Hunt noted that the ordinance did not mention any police involvement. Mr. Scott
said that the police department was one of the groups that the Task Force expected would make
referrals of situations needing inspection.
Councilor Hunt asked if there was any discussion on the fines. Mr. Scott said that the City's
civil infraction ordinance stipulated $250 as the maximum penalty per day at the discretion of
the hearings officer. He explained that the penalty could be applied for each day the property
owner was out of compliance, and thus a fine could become significant over time. He said that
the Task Force did discuss fines extensively, especially as a possible funding mechanism.
Councilor Hunt asked why 14.16.18 required certain doors to be openable from the inside
without a key. He agreed with Councilor Moore that the Task Force did a fine job. Mr. Scott
said that that was classic language in housing ordinances and building codes. It was intended to
address the concern that people could be trapped in a house on fire if they could not find their
key. The Council discussed the issue. Mr. Scott said that he would look into it more for the
next meeting.
Councilor Scheckla pointed out that this document did not set out a program from which the
City would get revenue. He said that it was a document for the entire community.
Councilor Patton asked for clarification regarding the changes to the ordinance suggested by
Sheilah Greenlaw-Fink, a Housing Task Force member, in her letter proposing that the City
commit to replacing any housing units lost due to the housing code in such a manner that the
current residents were protected. Mr. Scott said that the Community Partners for Affordable
Housing (CPAH) were concerned at the potential impacts of demolition resulting from
enforcing the housing code which might reduce the gross number of units in town within a
certain rent range. He said that he could look into that if Council wanted.
Councilor Hunt expressed his reluctance to make such a commitment because it could put the
City in a spot of spending a lot of money to replace a building that it had to condemn. The
Council discussed the issue. Councilor Moore mentioned opportunities for the City to work
with developers on the options available for types of housing benefiting the community. Mr.
Scott mentioned opportunities for agencies like CPAH to salvage a building. He said that these
were sensitive issues that needed to be dealt with in the coining months.
Mr. Alig commented that the Task Force had been concerned as to whether or not this relocation
issue was within their charge, and to some extent, backed off from it. He said that as a tenant
advocate, he saw the Task Force recommendation as a good start. Mr. Scott mentioned that the
City of Portland did budget funds for relocating individuals but reiterated that this proposed
policy did not do so, other than the $10,000 for emergencies.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 7
Mayor Nicoli stated that he saw no need to include single-family residences in this ordinance, as
they had no problem with them in Tigard. He pointed out that they established this Task Force
to look at housing issues in Tigard in response to the problems on Bonita Road and Villa La Paz
(before rehabilitation). He said that he did not see a matter of equity but a matter of dealing
with an existing problem in their community that they needed to respond to.
Mayor Nicoli said that he supported a proactive program that inspected every multifarmily or
single family rental unit every five years. He contended that this ordinance, while fine in and of
itself, would not solve the problem that led to the establishment of the Task Force. He spoke to
the Council aggressively going after the slumlords in town. He reiterated that he did not think
that the ordinance had any business including single-family owner occupied homes.
Councilor Moore said that he had no problem with adjusting the ordinance to accommodate the
Mayor's concern. He indicated that he had wanted a proactive program but did feel that the
expense as described by Mr. Scott was a significant consideration. He spoke to implementing
the ordinance with a review in a year or so to see if they wanted to make any changes.
Councilor Scheckla pointed out that the policies required documentation of any complaint, it
could not be anonymous. He emphasized that the Task Force had not wanted to discriminate
against anybody, single family or not, because there could be a derelict building out there and
they would have not tools to deal with it. He disagreed with eliminating a type of housing
before allowing the ordinance a chance to work.
Councilor Moore postulated a situation where something in a home was detrimental to the
health and well being of the children. He said that he thought it was the duty of a citizen to
report that situation the same as reporting child abuse. Mayor Nicoli reiterated that people using
this ordinance in that fashion was not what brought them to this point. The slumlords not
maintaining apartment complexes was the problem that they needed to deal with.
Mayor Nicoli reiterated that single-family, owner-occupied residences and social care facilities
were not problems in Tigard, and he did not want them included in the ordinance. He said that
if they became problems, then they could add them at that time. He suggested starting out with
a goal of inspecting all multifamily units in the City over a certain period of time. He
mentioned a commitment from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue to assist the City in conducting
field inspections of apartment complexes.
Mayor Nicoli said that his goal, when the Task Force was set up, was to deal with the immediate
serious problem in the City and to go after the slumlords. He emphasized that that should be the
focus of the program, not single family owner occupied residences or social care residential
facilities. He argued that including those facilities was taking on too much responsibility when
they knew there were no problems there, and deflecting attention from the real problems.
Councilor Scheckla said that the Mayor made a good point but cited the various constituencies
comprising the Task Force. All Task Force members made compromises in order to reach
agreement on this ordinance. He held that the Council not adopting their recommendation
meant that the Task Force wasted its time and effort in developing a document that would stand
up in the long term and handle whatever situation arose.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 8
ENS
Mayor Nicoli said that they used that same approach in developing the old zoning ordinance. It
was supposed to address every situation and stand up for the long tern but the City adopted a
new Code last year because the previous Code proved too cumbersome and unworkable.
Councilor Scheckla stated that in this document the Task Force simplified what was in other
housing codes. He spoke to giving it a chance for a year.
Mayor Nicoli said that he wanted to go after the problem now, not dilute their effort by
including homes that they knew were not a problem. He reiterated that he did not see a need for
a citywide ordinance. He commented that he did not think that it would sit well with people if
the City adopted an ordinance that allowed the government to come into any house in town and
pull an inspection. Councilor Scheckla said that that was not the intent of the document. Mayor
Nicoli pointed out that that was what the document said. Councilor Scheckla disagreed.
Councilor Moore commented that he understood both points. He said that while he would like
to see a more aggressive program also, he would also like to try this ordinance for a year, given
that it was developed by a group of well-qualified people with more knowledge about the
situation than he had. He said that if it was not working, then they could revisit the proactive
approach.
Mayor Nicoli asked how they would analyze whether or not the ordinance was working.
Councilor Moore said that if, a year from now, nothing was happening in an area known to be a
problem, then they knew that it was not doing what they wanted it to do. If it was not working,
then they needed to look at adjusting the policy for a more proactive approach.
Councilor Hunt concurred with Councilor Moore that this ordinance could be used to get at the
problem areas. He supported implementing it
Councilor Patton said that she did not see how giving this ordinance a chance would eliminate
the City's ability to get to the problem areas. She noted that they could be addressed through
referrals, as it was obvious to many that there was a problem. She agreed with the Mayor that
there was not necessarily a need to address single-family, owner-occupied residences in the
ordinance. She spoke to including single-family rentals.
Mayor Nicoli commented that he had never thought that the Task Force would include single-
family, owner-occupied homes when the issue that drove the establishment of the Task Force
had been the situation with the multifamily units on Bonita.
Councilors Moore and Hunt indicated that they would be willing to identify non-owner
occupied single-family buildings. Mr. Scott said that staff remained neutral on this issue. He
mentioned the concerns of the Task Force members representing single-family landlords that
they would be required to fix up their rental units while next door; an owner-occupied unit could
look just as bad and the owner not be required to fix it up.
Mayor Nicoli commented that they were overlooking one basic thing: the owner living in his
rundown house chose to live that way. He spoke to a government agency helping the renters
who had no choice because their landlord would not fix the problem.
Councilor Scheckla stated that the Task Force discussed all these issues. He reiterated that the
various interest groups compromised to create this document. He spoke against the Council
eliminating single-family, owner-occupied housing when the Task Force voted as a unit to put it
in.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 9
7~
Councilor Moore asked for more time to review the document and to hear the public testimony
at the public hearing. Mr. Monahan said that staff could inform the appropriate people of the
Council discussion so they could provide input at the public hearing. Mr. Ramis commented
that the discussion was good in that it brought out the Council's issues but he cautioned the
Council to avoid deliberation and decision at this time.
Councilor Scheckla argued that a proactive program would take more money than $70,000 to
implement and would add another layer of government. He reiterated that the Task Force
wasted its time if the Council did not accept the recommendation. Councilor Hunt pointed out
that just bringing a recommendation to the Council for approval did not mean that the Council
could not change the recommendation if it wanted to.
5.2 Dangerous and Derelict Buildingc,
Mr. Scott reported that staff proposed eliminating the existing chapter on dangerous buildings
and moving the provisions to the Housing Code. He presented the staff recommendation to
create a new class of buildings (derelict buildings) in order to allow the City to proactively work
towards abating nuisances in town that (under the current code) they could not doing any about
until they became dangerous. He reviewed the definition of "derelict." He said that a building
boarded up on the City's order would not be considered derelict just because it was boarded up.
Mr. Ramis said that he discussed this matter with Jim Coleman, the attorney working with Mr.
Scott. This change would give the City more teeth to deal with some of these situations.
6. REVIEW DRAFT RESOLUTOIN THAT OPPOSES LEGISLATION CREATING A
NEW STATE BOARD TO REGULATE BUILDING CODE ACTIVITIES IN THE
PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA
Mr. Scott explained that the state legislature established a task force to address concerns related
to the provision of building regulatory service in the Tri-County area. He said that the results of
the Task Force was a legislative concept to create a new Board in the state building codes
division to have oversight, broad rule making authority, and fee assessing authority. He
mentioned that the Task Force industry representatives all voted for the proposal while the local
government representatives all voted against it.
Mr. Scott said that staff has been working with the League of Oregon Cities and general
contractor constituents concerned about how far the concept went. He said that the local
governments were proposing an alternative proposal to bind local governments to address the
legitimate concerns raised by the subcontractors through an intergovernmental agreement in
order to avoid an expansion of the state bureaucracy.
Mr. Scott said that hopefully all the municipalities in the tri-county area would adopt this
resolution, and it would be presented as part of their commitment to be accountable to the
stakeholders. He noted that the resolution opposed the other legislation and supported an
intergovernmental agreement and the draft legislation requiring all those with building programs
delegated by the state to be signatories to an intergovernmental agreement.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 10
Councilor Hunt asked Mayor Nicoli for his opinion as a member of the Task Force. Mayor
Nicoli said that he did not completely agree with what the Task Force sent to the legislative nor
did he support Mr. Scott's suggestion. He held that it would not be possible to get 27 separate
jurisdictions to agree on an intergovernmental agreement regarding building regulations, citing
the five to ten years it took for Tigard and Washington County (just two jurisdictions) to reach
an IGA on providing urban services, including building permits.
Mayor Nicoli explained that the Task Force's proposed agency would handle issuing permits
and distribute the fees back to the appropriate city from one location, as opposed to contractors
having to get permits at several different offices, and sometimes misunderstanding which
agency had jurisdiction over the home he was working on. He mentioned that the concerns
driving this was lowering the costs passed through to the homeowner and the hassle to the
subcontractors who were trying to provide a service.
Mayor Nicoli said that the Task Force had felt that a solution had to be mandated by the state
legislature because the 27 jurisdictions would not be able to reach agreement in a timely fashion,
if ever. He said that while he agreed that a state mandate was needed, he disagreed with the
amount of authority the Task Force was giving to the permit issuance center. He mentioned that
there were already mechanisms in place that got close to what was needed, such as Tigard's
issuance of bulk permits over the phone.
Councilor Moore commented that he would hate to see another layer of government,
questioning when it would stop. Mayor Nicoli concurred, stating that that was why he did not
like either proposal at this time. Councilor Moore said that an IGA made more sense to him and
he would be willing to give that a shot. Mayor Nicoli questioned how long it would take 27
jurisdictions to reach agreement.
Mayor Nicoli pointed out that this legislature was driving this issue. He said that the Task Force
did agree to the bulk of the proposal with only a small minority feeling that it went too far. He
mentioned that they all agreed that there was a problem that needed to be addressed. He
reiterated that he did not think that an IGA would work because any one jurisdiction could kill
it.
Councilor Hunt asked what the contractors would lose if nothing was done. Mayor Nicoli said
that the contractors felt that this proposal would save them considerable time, especially when
dealing with bulk permits. He cited an example of a company replacing water heaters which
had to identify which of a list of addresses fell in which jurisdiction in order to obtain the permit
from the proper agency, a time consuming process. He mentioned another issue discussed of
jurisdictions requiring inspections that were not necessary.
Councilor Hunt asked if the proposal took choice away from Tigard and gave it to the state.
Mayor Nicoli said no, because the City would still have its own code enforcement program. He
mentioned another difficulty in having 27 different interpretations of the Uniform Building
Code. He explained that the UBC was intended originally to eliminate the different codes that
each jurisdiction had prior to 1970 and to provide for a code applied uniformly in all
jurisdictions. He said that even the building officials on the Task Force agreed that there was a
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 11
problem with a uniform application of the Code.
He mentioned that those officials also said that they could live with one agency mandating how
the Code would be applied uniformly, even if they did not agree with it.
Mayor Nicoli recommended sending a letter to their state representative and the League stating
what they liked and did not like about what the Task Force did. The Council discussed the
matter and agreed that the Mayor would draft a letter for Council review. Councilor Patton
expressed her discomfort with a resolution that opposed legislation when they did not know
what that legislation was really saying. She commented that, based on her experience in
negotiating IGAs, she doubted that an IGA would be a successful way to go.
7. REPORT ON PROPOSED INCREASE IN BUILDING, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING,
ELECTRICAL PERMIT AND RELATED FEES
Mayor Nicoli mentioned that he wanted to discuss Agenda Item 7 in depth with staff based on
some surprising information he was given by a contractor regarding a comparison between
Tigard's fee structure and other cities' fees. Councilor Patton said that she had some questions
also and would fax them to staff. The Council discussed when to re-schedule this item.
A gentleman in the audience asked when fee increases would take effect. Mr. Scott said that the
staff recommendation was at least 30 days from the Council action in order to give notice to the
constituents.
Mr. Monahan suggested that they schedule the discussion for the February 23 study session and
the action item for the March 23 regular meeting (at which time they would also do the
engineering fees). Mr. Scott said that he would be out of state on March 23.
Mayor Nicoli said that he would give the information he was given to staff for their review. He
commented that they sometimes asked their Building Department to do things beyond what they
collected fees for, and expressed concern that they not ask those paying for building permits to
pay for those other services whose funding should come out of the general fund. Mr. Scott
stated that he had intended to inform the Council during his report this evening that he
discovered a mistake in his spreadsheet and the cost increase was not actually as high as it
appeared in the report.
i
S. REPORT ON TUALATIN RIVER PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
ze up to $7,000
The Council agreed by consensus to approve the staff recommendation to authori
j of Greenspaces funds to be spent towards the additional costs of completing detailed
engineering calculations on the existing railroad bridge and completion of conceptual design
f plans for a pedestrian bridge.
9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
The Council discussed when to re-schedule this item. Councilor Moore mentioned three
additional Task Forces: Transportation, Downtown, and the Budget Subcommittee. Mr.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 12
MIEN
Monahan asked the Council to let staff know if they no longer wanted to serve as the liaison to a
particular committee. Councilor Moore suggested deleting the Development Code Steering
Committee (as their work was completed) and the Hwy 99W Task Force (as he considered that a
dead issue).
Mr. Monahan suggested revamping the Council Liaison's role on that Hwy 99W Task Force to
being the point person in working with ODOT and staff.
Mayor Nicoli suggested that he and Councilor Hunt met to winnow down the candidates for the
Water Advisory Board to 20 or 30 people, and that Councilor Moore put together a list of
candidates for the Transportation Task Force, and whittle it down for presentation to the
Council. Councilor Moore asked staff to provide a list of citizens who helped on the previous
bond measure plus potential names from the Visioning process.
10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:44 p.m. under the provisions of ORS
192.660(1) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt
public records, current & pending litigation issues.
12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:18 p.m.
w
a
Attest: 01 Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
0 yor, City of Tig;yff
Date: lqq
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 13
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC.
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice T-" 9 2 9 6
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
•City of Tigard-Planning a ID Tearsheet Notice -
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
•Tigard,Oregon 97223 A E] Duplicate Affidavit
*Accounts Payable O
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss'
I, Katby SnVdar
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising {
Director, or his principal clerk, of theTisxarc4-Tiia 1 at i n Times J
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Ti^,ard in the
aforesaid county an state; that the i
SDR 98-0014ISite Develop.Review
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for QU successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
January 7,1999
1
3
Subscribed and sworn to ore me this7t-h clay of .Tani,ary, 1999 1
OFFICIAL SEAL I Cjodftq ROBIN BURGESS
Not Pub c for Oregon NOTARY TARY A. PUBLIC-OREGON
My Commission Expires: COMMISSION NO. 062071
MV COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001
AFFIDAVIT -
1
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9 3 0 2
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
f
Legal Notice Advertising s
4tity of Tigard ° 13 Tearsheet Notice
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
02igard,0regon 97223 e O Duplicate Affidavit
*Accounts Payable
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as'
1, Xafhy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of thdPigard-'T'italati n Times
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at T, clard in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
amity Counci 1 Ravi ev, Rnard Meeti nq
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for OP]T successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
January 14,1999
Subscribed and sworn to be re me thisl 4t1-1 day of January, 1999
OFFICIAL SEAL
Nota ublic for Oregon /..•~NOTARY Pug! IC-OREGON
it COMMiSSiOri I,(). U_2071
My Commission Expires: FAY comMISSION E''PIkES IMAY 16.2001
AFFIDAVIT
The following ming.bighlights are published for your information. Full
agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 SW Hail
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING ~
January 19, 1999 = 6:30 B.M.
TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALT. BOULEVARD; TIGARD,'IOREGON
Reports and updates to Council on the, following topics: "
-it Executive Session
* CIiT Facilitator and Resource Teams
* Community Housing Task Force
* Tualatin River Pedestrian Bridge
* Ptbposal for-BuildingDepartment Fee Increases
M. 3Cd _ P iblasli January 14, 19991. ,
1998 CIT Meeting Attendance
Month No. of People Attending
Janus No regular meeting
February 50
March 64
Aril 53
May 45
June 16
Jul 30+
August 30
September 10
October 62
November 23
December 8
1:\ADM\CATHY\1998 CIT MEETING ATTENDANCE.DOC
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 1 I Cl 4M
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Budget Committee Subcommittee Report on Social Service Agency Applications
PREPARED BY: Bill Monahan _DEPT HEAD OK _/A/P 'CITY MGR OK G10-
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Review proposed changes to the Social Service Agency applications.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Council should review the new application form and suggest changes, if any.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Budget Subcommittee met last week to review the Social Service application form. Attached is a copy of
the form used in prior years for Council's review. The Budget Committee reviewed the form and suggested
changes. Wayne Lowry prepared a new draft, based upon the subcommittee's comments, and circulated it for
review. Subcommittee members have until the end of the week to contact Wayne Lowry with any suggestions
for change. If all changes have been received by the time the newsletter is sent out on Friday, January 15,
Council will receive a revised form in their newsletter packet. Otherwise, the proposed funding request
application will be presented to the Council at the January 19, 1999 meeting.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Retain the existing form.
2. Develop alternative language.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
\\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\ADM\CATHY\COUNCIL\AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY SHEET- SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES.DOC
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 37223
AGENCY FUNDING REQUEST APPLICATION
AGENCY:
ADDRESS:
City State Zip
PERSON PREPARING APPLICATION
PHONE NUMBER
1. Describe the Agency's Mission:
2. What programs/services did your agency provide in Tigard, this year?
i
3. What types of services will be provided in the year in which funding is requested and how
many Tigard residents are estimated to be served? .
T
CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS: (For last year) Please indicate:
Estimate Actual (Unduplicated count)
AGE SEX ETHNICITY
Number/Percent Number/Percent Number/Percent
0-4 Male Black
6-19 Female Hispanic
20-45 Asian
46-64 Am. Indian
65+ White
(Anglo)
Unknown Unknown
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
2 .
FUNDRAISING
1. Please identify geographic area covered in fund raising activities.
2. Were funds solicited last fiscal year?
A. Who did solicitations?
By Board Member's
By Employees
By Professional Fund-Raiser
B. How did you do solicitations? Approximate amount of
revenue from each
By Correspondence $
By Benefits, Auctions, Special Events $
By Campaigns $
By sales of goods or services $
Other $
Total Revenue from solicitations $
3. Sources of funds collected during the last fiscal year:
Corporations and Businesses $
Individuals $
Foundations $
Service Clubs/Civic Organizations
Government Grants $
Other (specify) $
TOTAL (should agree with total of 2B above) $
3
4. What fund-raising activities does the agency plan to conduct next year?
MONTH EXPENSES THE FUNDS
ACTIVITY CONDUCTED ARE TO BE USED FOR:
A. [ ] CAPITAL [ ] OPERATING
B. [ ] CAPITAL [ ] OPERATING
C. [ ] CAPITAL [ ] OPERATING
D. [ ] CAPITAL [ ] OPERATING
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
1. What fiscal year is used?
2. By whom, and how are expenditures authorized?
3. What is the amount requested from the City of Tigard for the next fiscal year?
4. If funds are being solicited from other local governments in the State of Oregon, please list
them and the requested amounts below.
RECEIVED REQUESTED REQUESTED
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAST YEAR THIS YEAR NEXT YEAR
N
5. Have the financial records of the organization been audited? If so, please
submit a copy of the latest audit report.
4
6. Were government or foundation grants received during the last fiscal year?.
If yes, list source and amount:
A. $
B. $
C $
D. $
7. Were matching funds required? If yes, what percent of match was required?
8. Does the organization have contracts for services with other agencies? If yes,
please list.
AGENCY SERVICE PROVIDED AMOUNT
9. Capital or endowment funds on hand $
10. What are plans, if any, for use of these funds?
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Describe location of property (buildings, offices, recreational facilities, etc.) used by the agency:
LEASE RENT
OWNED AMOUNT AMOUNT
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
5
• AGENCY BUDGET
AGENCY
Name of Program Data Submitted
PROJECTED NEXT FISCAL
REVENUE & EXPENSES LAST FISCAL THIS YEAR
YEAR ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR PROPOSED
19 19 19
PUBLIC SUPPORT & REVENUE
0 CARRY OVER PREV. YEAR
1 ALLOC - UNITED WAY
2 CONTRIBUTIONS (PRIVATE)
3 SPECIAL EVENTS
4 LEGACIES & BEQUESTS
5 TOTAL GOVT FEES & GRANTS
A. FEDERAL
B. STATE
C. REVENUE SHARING
D. COUNTY
6 MEMBERSHIP DUES
7 PROGRAM SERVICE FEES
8 SALES OF MATERIALS
9 INVESTMENT INCOME
10 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
11 TOTAL SUPPORT & REVENUE
(ADD 0 THRU 10)
EXPENSES
12 SALARIES
13 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
14 PAYROLL TAXES, ETC.
15 PROFESSIONAL FEES
16 SUPPLIES
i 17 TELEPHONE
18 POSTAGE & SHIPPING
i 19 OCCUPANCY-RENT, UTIL., ETC.
20 EQUIP. RENTAL & MAINT.
21 PRINTING & PUBLICATIONS
22 TRAVEL
23 CONFERENCES & MEETINGS
24 SPECIFIC ASSIST. TO INDIV.
25 MEMBERSHIP DUES
26 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
27 DEPRECIATION
28 TOTAL EXPENSES
(ADD 12 THRU 27)
6
• AGENCY BUDGET a PAGE 2
29 EXCESS (DEFICIT) OF
REVENUE OVER EXPENSE I
(11 MINUS 23)
30 BOARD RESTRICTED FUNDS
31 OTHER RESTRICTED FUNDS
32 LAND, BLDGS, EQUIP.
33 INVESTMENT SECURITIES
34 ENDOWMENTS/OTHER FUNDS
i
7 ,
H
i
q~
i
7
MEMBERSHIPNOLUNTEERS/PERSONNEL
1. Does the organization have a membership?
A. If so, how many?
B. Are there membership dues? How much?
Total dues received last year?
2. Does the organization have auxiliaries, guilds, or affiliated organizations whose activities
contribute to its program and/or support?
NAME OF PURPOSE OF AMOUNT OF
ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION SUPPORT
VOLUNTEERS
1. How many, if any, volunteers are used in the program?
2. Describe how they are used:
3. Please estimate the total number of volunteer manpower hours over the last twelve (12)
months:
4. Is training available for volunteers?
When?
Time Required
8
Pill
STAFF
1. How many employees are involved in the program?
Part Time Full Time
2. Please estimate the total number of manpower hours of paid employees in the year for which
funding is requested.
9
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENCY
NAME ADDRESS OFFICE HELD TERM EXPIRES
ON BOARD
f
MEETINGS ARE HELD:
Is there a policy for rotation of Board members?
If yes, please describe
hfiffisocserv.doc
10
City of Tigard, Oregon
Social Agency
Revised Process Proposal
January 1999
Social Agency funding requests
❑ By December 15 of each year, the revised "Social Agency Funding Request
Application" will be mailed to all agencies that requested funding in the prior year. It
will also be mailed to any other agencies that express interest in City funding.
o The funding target available for such requests will be determined by the Finance
Director using the formula agreed upon by the Budget committee. The formula is
currently '/s of one percent of the current year operating budget. The Finance Director
will then split the cap between social agency funding and arts/events funding using
historical proportions.
o The completed applications will be due to the Finance Director by January 31. The
Finance Director will review each application to ensure that all required information
is included in the application materials.
o The applications will be reviewed by a subcommittee consisting of two citizen budget
committee members, one member of the City Council, the City Manager and the
Finance Director. The subcommittee will hold a meeting to review the applications
and may invite agency representatives to make presentations if determined to be
necessary by the subcommittee.
❑ The Subcommittee will make its funding allocation recommendation to the City
Manager by April 15 and such recommendation will be included in the City
Manager's proposed budget.
❑ The full budget committee will then meet to discuss the proposed budget which will
include the subcommittees recommended funding allocation.
i
City of Tigard, Oregon
Arts and Events
Revised Process Proposal
January 1999
Art/Events
❑ By December 15 of each year, the "Arts and Events Funding Request Application"
will be mailed to all organizations that requested funding in the prior year. It will
also be mailed to any other groups that express interest in City funding.
❑ The Target funding level for Arts/Events will be determined by the Director of
Finance using the formula established by the Budget Committee.
❑ The completed applications will be due to the Finance Director by January 31. The
Director of Finance will review each application to ensure that all required
information is included in the application materials.
❑ Arts/Events applications for funding will be reviewed by a subcommittee of the City
Council. The subcommittee will hold a meeting to review the applications and may
invite representatives to make presentations if determined to be necessary by the
subcommittee.
❑ The Subcommittee will make its funding allocation recommendation to the City
Manager by April 15 and such recommendation will be included in the City
Manager's proposed budget.
❑ The full budget committee will then meet to discuss the proposed budget which will
include the subcommittees recommended funding allocation.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
13125 S.W. Mall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
639-4171
SOCIAL AGENCY FUNDING REQUEST APPLICATION
AGENCY:
ADDRESS:
City State Zip
PERSON PREPARING APPLICATION
PHONE NUMBER
1. Cash Contribution Requested:
Value of In-hind Contribution Requested:
(further explanation required in #7)
Total Requested
2. Describe the Agency's Mission:
3. What group of citizens in Tigard does your organization intend to target?
i
i
1
s 4. What types of services will be provided in the year in which funding is requested and how
many Tigard residents are estimated to be served? Also indicate the percentage of your
operation dedicated to service in Tigarc•^
5. If funds are being solicited from other local governments in the State of Oregon, please list
them and the requested amounts below.
RECEIVED REQUESTED REQUESTED
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAST YEAR THIS YEAR NEXT YEAR
6. Have the financial records of the organization been audited? If so, please
submit a copy of the latest audit report. If not, please explain why an audit is not performed.
7. Explain any "in-kind" services your organization expects to request from the City of Tigard
including subsidized or free use of City facilities. Also determine the value of such services
and show the amount here and in Section 1 of this application.
2
MIN
8. Please use the following format to report your financial information in your application. You do
not need to submit your Agency Budget and Financial Report on this page. However, any
computer generated Report must use the identical format shown below and include the
specific categories as shown below.
Agency Budget and Financial Report format
Agency
Revenues and Expenses Projected Next Fiscal
Last Fiscal This Year
Year Actual Fiscal Year Proposed
19 19 19
Beginning Balance
Resources
Private Contributions
Special Fund Raising Events
State Revenue
Federal Revenue
Local Government
Other Revenue
Total Resources
Full Time Equivalent Positions
Expenses
Wages and Benefits
Professional Fees
Rent/Lease
Office Expenses
Utilities
Travel and Training
Specific Assistance to Individuals
Other Expenses
Total Expenses
Ending Balance
3
9. Please provide a list of your current Board of Directors Including name, address, phone
number and term.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENCY
NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER TERM EXPIRES
lAftsoeserv.doc
4
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF January 19, 1999
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Report of the Community Housing Task Force and staff report regarding dangerous
and derelict buildings.
PREPARED BY: David Scott DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Hear the report of the Community Housing Task Force regarding recommendations for a housing code and program
policies and procedures. Also, hear a staff report regarding the related issue of dangerous and derelict buidings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Accept the recommendations of the Community Housing Task Force regarding the Community Housing Program.
2. Accept the recommendations of staff regarding dangerous and derelict buildings, and schedule for public hearing at
the February 9, 1999 business meeting.
INFORMATION SUMh4ARY
Community Housing Program:
In July 1997, the Council formed the Community Housing Task Force to address growing community concern
regarding the deterioration of some of the existing housing stock in Tigard and a desire to mitigate deterioration and
prevent it from increasing in the community. The Council appointed representatives from the rental housing industry
and tenant advocates to the Task Force. The Council gave the Task Force the charge of studying the issues and
recommending a Community Housing Program.
The Task Force determined that a property maintenance code which provides for minimum standards of safety, health,
sanitation and habitability will mitigate the deterioration of housing in Tigard. The Task Force also developed program
policies and procedures for implementing the program. Attached is a memo listing the Task Force's recommendations.
Also attached is the full report of the Task Force, including an Executive Summary.
Dangerous Buildings: (This portion of the ordinance is a staff recommendation outside of the work of the Task Force)
Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code currently contains provisions for abating dangerous buildings. It is proposed to
locate those provisions in the same chapter as the housing code, under the title "Property Maintenance Regulations."
The proposed ordinance makes minor revisions to the existing dangerous buildings code to clarify and consolidate
definitions. Additionally, changes are proposed to clarify notice and enforcement mechanisms, pursuant to the advice of
the City Attorney. The scope and intent of the existing provisions is unchanged.
Derelict Buildings: (This portion of the ordinance is a staff recommendation outside of the work of the Task Force,
except as it pertains to residential structures)
It is also proposed to create derelict buildings as a new classification of building subject to enforcement by the City.
Generally, a derelict building is a wholly unoccupied (50% unoccupied for residential buildings) building which has
been ordered vacant by the Building Official, has been given a notice of civil infraction, is unsecured, is boarded or has,
while vacant, had a nuisance declared by the City. The proposed ordinance gives the City the ability to abate these type
of situations. Currently the City can only abate these situations if the building becomes dangerous according to the
dangerous buildings code.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None.
FISCAL NOTES
No fiscal impact directly associated with adoption of the ordinance. There are fiscal implications related to
program policies which are discussed in the summary for the accompanying resolution. Program costs are
estimated at $70,000 per year. Unknown revenue will be derived from fines and penalties.
I: I ci tywide I sum 1119chtf. doc
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A .letter Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: David Scoff, Building Official
DATE: January 19, 1999
SUBJECT: Report of the Community Housing Task Force
The Community Housing Task Force is pleased to present its report, culminating over one-year of work. Listed below
are the recommendations of the Task Force:
• Adopt the proposed ordinance creating property maintenance provisions for existing housing.
• Adopt the proposed resolution stipulating the following major program policies to be followed:
1. The code will be enforced and inspections performed only when a complaint or referral is received.
2. Self=referral by inspectors is allowed when obvious violations are observed during the regular course of
business (includes conducting an inspection or driving to and from inspections).
3. Anyone can complain or refer. Anonymous complaints will not be accepted. A complainant's name will be
kept confidential to the extent allowed by the Oregon Public Records Law.
4. Specific complaint investigation and enforcement procedures designed to allow property owners the
opportunity to comply outside of formal enforcement while ensuring tenant access to the program and timely
program response.
• Hire 1 Housing Inspector (Inspector 1) in the Building Division and provide inspector with necessary materials and
supplies (already in FY 98/99 budget)
• Establish a "relocation" plan with the County and other agencies and appropriate a $10,000 emergency fund to
provide for temporary housing and/or immediate repairs in emergency life-threatening situations.
• Support all costs associated with the program from the general fund
® Apply any fines collected from the Civil Infractions process to the general fund
Attached is the complete Task Force report, including an executive summary.
City of Tigard
Community Housing Task Force
FINAL. DEPORT
{
{
Tigard, OR
January 1999
City of Tigard
Community Housing Task Force
FINAL. REPORT
Task Force:
Paul Alig ( 6/11/98-present), Robert Flug (2/12/98-5/28/98) and Andy Miller (10/10/97-
1/8/98); Oregon Legal Services Corporation
Sharon Fleming-Barrett, Oregon Apartment Association (entire process)
Emily Cedarleaf, Multi-Family Housing Council (participated by review of documents)
Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, Community Partners for Affordable Housing (entire process)
Cecilia Maciel, resident of multi-family rental housing (able to attend several meetings)
Sally Parks, Metro Multi-Family Housing Association (entire process)
Councilor Ken Scheckla (entire process)
Dedi Streich, Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors (10/10/97-1/8/98)
Susan Wilson, Washington County Department of Housing Services (entire process)
Staff:
David Scott, Building Official, City of Tigard
Additional Support:
Eric McMullen, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue
Tigard, OR
January 1999
Community Housing Task Force
Final Report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary p.1
Section 1: Background p.4
Section 2: Task Force Process p.8
Section 3: Task Force Findings/Actions p.9
a. Should there be a codified minimum standard of habitability, safety and p.9
sanitation for existing housing in Tigard? (Should Tigard adopt a housing
ordinance?)
b. What is the minimum standard of habitability, safety and sanitation? p.9
(What should the housing ordinance require?)
c. What types of properties should be subject to the provisions of the p.9
ordinance?
d. How should the ordinance be enforced. (Should inspections be p.12
proactive, reactive or some combination?)
e. What resources need to be applied? (How many inspectors, support - p.12
staff, vehicles and other equipment/supplies are needed?)
f. What is the cost of this Housing Program? p.12
g. How should the Housing Program be funded? p.12
h. What implementation and program policies should be adopted? p.13
Occupant Displacement Issue p.14
Section 4: Task Force Recommendations p.16
Section 5: Final Statement p.17
Appendix A - Proposed Ordinance and Resolution
Appendix B - Written Testimony from Social Care Facility Stakeholders
Appendix C - Program Staffing Analysis
Appendix D- GAO Testimony before the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging,
Re: California Nursing Homes (Submitted by Paul Alig, Oregon Legal Services)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In July 9997, the Council formed the Community Housing Task Force to address
growing community concern regarding the deterioration of some of the existing housing
stock in Tigard and a desire to mitigate deterioration and prevent it from increasing in
the community. The Council appointed representatives from the rental housing industry
and tenant advocates to the Task Force. The Council gave the Task Force the charge
of studying the issues and recommending a Community Housing Program.
The Task Force decided to address the following specific questions in completing its
analysis:
• Should there be a codified minimum standard of habitability, safety and sanitation
for existing housing in Tigard? (Should Tigard adopt a housing ordinance?)
• If yes, what is the minimum standard of habitability, safety and sanitation? (What
should the housing ordinance require?)
• What types of properties should be subject to the provisions of the ordinance?
• How should the ordinance be enforced. (Should inspections be proactive, reactive
or some combination?)
What resources need to be applied? (How many inspectors, support staff, vehicles
and other equipment/supplies are needed?)
• What is the cost of this Housing Program?
• How should the Housing Program be funded?
What implementation and program policies should be adopted?
The Task Force established general criteria for guiding their decisions on these
questions and issues. These criteria reflect the over-all scope and intent of the Task
Force's recommendation for the Community Housing Program. The criteria are:
• The program should be equitable for all property owners and residents of Tigard.
9 Specific provisions of the ordinance should be limited to those necessary to provide
for minimum standards of safety, sanitation and habitability.
The Task Force concluded that Tigard should adopt a Housing Code. The Task Force
recommends that enforcement of the substantive provisions of the ordinance be based
exclusively upon complaints and referrals and that the existing Civil Infractions
procedure be followed for compliance. The Task Force recommends that all types of
residential structures, including social care facilities, be included within the scope of the
1
ordinance. To provide the necessary resources to implement the program, the Task
Force recommends that one Housing Inspector (Inspector 1) be hired in the Building
Division, and that all costs associated with the program be borne by the general fund.
The Task Force recommends no specific funding source for the program except for
fines collected under the Civil Infractions process. The Task Force recommends that
the City establish a relocation plan with the County and other agencies and that a
$10,000 emergency fund be established to provide for temporary housing and/or
immediate repairs in emergency life-threatening situations. Finally, the Task Force
recommends the following program policies:
The ordinance will be enforced and inspections performed only when a complaint or
referral is received.
Self-referral by inspectors is allowed when obvious violations are observed during
the regular course of business (includes conducting an inspection or driving to and
from inspections).
Anyone can complain or refer. Anonymous complaints not accepted. Complainant's
name cannot be given out unless complainant gives permission (privacy right under
the Oregon Public Records Law).
When a complaint or referral is received from a tenant or the tenant's representative
regarding a non-owner occupied property, the City will ask the caller if they are
being evicted. If they are, no inspection will be made until staff has contacted the
owner or owner's representative.
When a complaint or referral is received from a tenant or the tenant's representative
regarding a non-owner occupied property, staff will ask the caller if they have tried to
resolve the issue with the landlord. If not, the City will not pursue until the caller has
tried to resolve the issue with the landlord (except for serious safety, habitability or
sanitation issues).
When a complaint or referral is received from someone who is not the tenant or the
tenant's representative the City will attempt to notify the property owner or
authorized representative prior to performing an inspection.
If the tenant or tenant's representative has tried to resolve the issue with the
landlord, the City will attempt to notify the property owner or authorized
representative prior to performing an inspection. The owner will be given chance to
correct the problem and call in when corrections are made, within an agreed
timeframe. Staff will then confirm this with the tenant or tenants representative. If
confirmed, no inspection will be required. This "self certification" process will not be
used for complaints regarding significant safety, habitability or sanitation issues. To
facilitate this process, rental property owners will be encouraged to voluntary
register a contact phone number and contact person so notification can be made.
Registration can be part of the business tax process. Owners who fail to register
2
May not receive notice. Staff will search property tax, utility and will ask the
complainant for contact information regarding the property owner. At the onset of
the program, a mailer will go to rental property owners to solicit their registration.
Complaint or referral inspections will be limited to the unit(s) and specific code item
for which the complaint or referral is received, or the specific portion or the common
area(s) if the complaint or referral is regarding the common area. No inspection will
be done of other areas unless the inspector notices obvious violations during the
course of conducting the inspection.
When called to inspect compliance with previously noted violations the inspection
shall be limited as above. Any new violations discovered in the subject areas shall
be treated as separate and new violations. Any violations resulting from additional
complaints or referrals on a unit or area already under a compliance action shall be
treated as separate and new violations.
3
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND
Introduction
In early 1997 the City Council requested that staff investigate and report on the issue of
maintaining a safe, sanitary and affordable housing stock in the City. The Council
initiated this work in response to growing community concern regarding the
deterioration of some of the existing housing stock in Tigard and a desire to mitigate
deterioration and prevent it from increasing in the community. In the summer of 1997,
the City Council considered a report from staff regarding the issue. Because of the
complexity of specific issues and the diverse stakeholders involved, staff recommended
that the Council form a task force to study the issue and report back to the Council. In
July 1997, the Council formed the Community Housing Task Force. The general issues
which the Council considered are presented below.
General Nature of Housing Problem in Tigard:
As Tigard's housing stock ages, the occurrence of housing blight and deterioration is
increasing. While this is most evident in older multi-family rental properties, similar
problems occur in single-family properties. Tigard currently has no housing program
designed to address this problem. Tigard's "Dangerous Buildings" code, which focuses
primarily on structural or damage issues, does contain a provision dealing with housing
issues. However, the language of this provision is ambiguous because it does not
contain standards from which to determine inadequacy for human habitation, etc.
Further, the "Dangerous Buildings" code is not intended for this purpose and is
therefore not administratively crafted to provide for a housing program.
Objective of a Community Housing Program:
The general objective of a Community Housing Program is to reverse the debilitating
effects which housing blight and deterioration cause to a community. At the center of
such a program is the housing code, which establishes minimum standards essential to
make dwellings safe, sanitary and fit for human habitation by governing the condition
and maintenance, the supplied utilities and facilities and the occupancy. Items
inspected under a fully comprehensive program cover all facets of habitability. This
objective is distinct from that of the building code, which is intended to require buildings
to be constructed in such a way to sustain safely, the loads expected and to be
reasonably safe for occupancy against fire and similar hazards.
Types of Community Housing Programs:
Once an effective housing code is adopted, there are several ways to implement the
program:
Complaint and Referral Inspection - Housing inspections are performed only after
a complaint or referral is received. This approach satisfies the person making the
4
t
complaint or referral and helps improve some of the community's sub-standard
housing. However, this unsystematic approach does little to bring about general
improvements and is an inefficient way of using inspections staff. Also, staffing
levels are difficult to predict.
• Proactive Inspection - Housing inspections are routinely performed at a specific
interval. Any sub-standard items discovered are required to be corrected.
Inspections are also performed when a complaint or referral is received. A proactive
inspection program can be very comprehensive, including all multi- and single-family
units or can be limited to rental units only, multi-family rental units only or certain
target neighborhoods or properties.
Funding Options:
Comprehensive, proactive programs require a steady funding source. Options include
license fees for landlords, general fund and fines for failure to timely comply with
deficiencies noted upon inspection. Programs which target specific neighborhoods or
projects may qualify for HUD grants. Sometimes various permits may be required for
corrective work. Fees for these permits would cover the costs associated with issuing
and inspection and would not subsidize the proactive inspections. Complaint and
referral programs are difficult to fund directly because workload and activity are difficult
to project. General fund designation is the most practical funding source. Fines for
untimely compliance can provide some additional revenue.
Models from Other Jurisdictions:
Currently, no municipality in Washington County has an adopted housing code or a
housing inspection program. Staff is only aware of two such programs active in Oregon
(Portland and Salem):
• Portland - Portland compiled existing housing provisions into one title of its
municipal code in 1970. These housing provisions were replaced in 1993 with new
provisions based upon the work and report of the Citizens Advisory Committee on
Quality Rental Housing. Portland's program consists of a combination of proactive
and reactive inspections. Proactive inspections are performed in three target
neighborhoods and for all multi-family rental housing (three stories or higher and
older than 20 years) considered at risk. All other inspections are complaint and
referral based. Funding for the target neighborhoods is 100% from HUD grants.
Funding for the other proactive multi-family inspections is 50% HUD grants and 50%
general fund and fines. Funding for the reactive inspections is general fund and
fines. Portland performs approximately 16,500 inspections/year and has a staff of
18 inspectors, 2 inspection supervisors and 7 support staff (including 1 supervisor).
• Salem - Salem began its program in 1972. Salem's program is fully comprehensive
and proactive. All multi- and single-family rental units are inspected every 3-5 years.
Hotels, motels, homeless shelters and room and board facilities are also included.
5
Inspections are also performed pursuant to complaints and referrals. Owner
occupied single-family units are covered by the code, but are inspected only on a
complaint/referral basis. Funding for the program is by an annual license fee of
$7.50 plus $7 per unit. Salem performs approximately 4,500 inspections/year and
has a staff of 2 inspectors. Salem staff indicates that they are behind in their
proactive inspections at this staff level.
Implications of a Community Housing Program:
The question of whether to start a Community Housing Program in Tigard represents a
significant policy decision. Options of program comprehensiveness and funding are
varied. A program will impact multi- and single-family rental property owners, as well as
potentially all owners of single-family and condominium units and other properties. To
ensure program equity, the social and economic benefits of reversing housing blight
and deterioration and attempting to ensure that housing in Tigard meets minimum
standards of habitability should be weighed against the specific cost to property owners
and the general cost to Tigard's taxpayers.
Task Force Composition
To ensure that all stakeholders in this issue were represented, the Council solicited and
received the participation of the following organizations and constituencies:
Oregon Apartment Association, Metro Multi-Family Housing Association, Multi-Family
Housing Council, Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors, Community Partners
for Affordable Housing, Washington County Department of Housing Services, Oregon
Legal Services Corporation and a resident of multi-family rental housing.
The Council gave the Community Housing Task Force the following charge:
The Community Housing Task Force is charged to review the following issues and
recommend a Community Housing Program to the Council.
1. How comprehensive should a housing program be in Tigard? Should all rental
units (single and multi-family) be included, only multi-family, or only specific units
based upon some threshold of age and size? Should hotels, motels and other
similar uses be included?
{ 2. How often should targeted units be inspected?
3. Should inspections cover a fully comprehensive list of habitability issues, or
should only certain limited issues be covered?
4. Should the program be fully proactive, only reactive or some combination
thereof?
6
5. How should a housing program be funded? Should landlords be assessed a
license fee, should general fund appropriations be used, block grants (if they are
viable for Tigard's situation), or some combination thereof?
The Task Force met twenty (20) times from October 1997 through December 1998.. The
Task Force was assisted by the City Attorney's office, David Sweet (City of Portland),
Eric McMullen, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, and David Scott, Building Official. The
results of their work are presented on the following pages.
7
11 Will
Section 2: Task Force Process
At its first meeting, the Task Force heard presentations from Tigard's Police Chief, Ron
Goodpaster, and Eric McMullen, from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. Both
presentations described the problems associated with deteriorating housing in Tigard
and the efficacy and timeliness of the work of the Task Force. During subsequent
meetings, the Task Force heard presentations from the City Attorney staff and David
Sweet, a supervisor with the City of Portland's housing inspection program. The Task
Force determined to proceed by addressing the following "decision items" in order,
culminating in a full recommendation and report to the City Council:
a. Should there be a codified minimum standard of habitability, safety and
sanitation for existing housing in Tigard? (Should Tigard adopt a housing
ordinance?);
b. If yes, what is the minimum standard of habitability, safety and sanitation?
(What should the housing ordinance require?);
C. What types of properties should be subject to the provisions of the
ordinance?;
d. How should the ordinance be enforced. (Should inspections be proactive,
reactive or some combination?);
e. What resources need to be applied? (How many inspectors, support
staff, vehicles and other equipment/supplies are needed?);
f. What is the cost of this Housing Program?
g. How should the Housing Program be funded?
h. What implementation and program policies should be adopted?
The Task Force's findings and actions regarding each of these decision issues are
presented in the following section of this report.
8
Section 3: Task Force Findings/Actions
a. Should there be a codified minimum standard of habitability, safety and
sanitation for existing housing in Tigard? (Should Tigard adopt a housing
ordinance?)
The Task Force reached consensus that there should be a minimum standard and that
a housing code should be adopted.
b. if yes, what is the minimum standard of habitability, safety and sanitation?
(What should the housing ordinance require?)
® After reviewing several models for a housing code, the Task Force crafted a
proposed ordinance that reflects the general criteria for the program. The Task
Force used "minimum standards for safety, sanitation and habitability" as its
benchmark in evaluating the substantive provisions of the ordinance.
c. What types of properties should be subject to the provisions of the ordinance?
Listed below are the types of properties the Task Force determined should be included
within the scope of the ordinance. For each type of property a summary of the Task
Force's findings excerpted form Task Force minutes is included.
• Owner occupied single-family: "these should be included because of the general
intent of the program to mitigate the effects of blight and deterioration on
neighborhoods. Also, owner occupied can also mean owner abandoned, where
dwellings are vacant and a nuisance. Some concern was raised regarding the
applicability of requirements to owner occupied dwellings and the "intrusion" of local
government into this area. It was suggested that an equity issue also is pertinent in
this case. If a code applies to a rental single-family dwelling and the landlord must
meet certain minimum standards which include exterior issues, then an owner
occupied dwelling on the same street should also have to meet these standards.
Comments made by David Sweet, City of Portland, at the 10/30/97 meeting were
also discussed. According to Sweet, owner occupied dwellings can have issues
which expose children and others to unhabitable living conditions. All of these
issues confirm the appropriateness of including owner occupied single-family
dwellings and the Task Force reached consensus on their inclusion."
• Owner occupied condo, townhouse or rowhouse: "the Task Force reached
consensus that these should be included for the same reasons discussed above."
• Renter occupied single-family: "the Task Force reached consensus that these
should be included for the same reasons as an owner occupied single-family
dwelling with the additional reason that the program is also intended to ensure that
landlords (and tenants) maintain their units in compliance with minimum standards.
9
Most housing code issues stem from renter occupied units, as evidenced by the fact
that 80% of Portland's complaints are regarding rental units."
• Renter occupied condo, townhouse or rowhouse: "the Task Force reached
consensus that these should be included for the same reasons as discussed
above."
• Apartments: "the Task Force reached consensus that these should be included for
the same reasons as stated above."
• Motels and Hotels: "It was determined that the intent of the program is not to
regulate the 'Best Westerns,' but rather those properties where units are rented out
in daily, weekly or monthly blocks and are essentially providing the primary housing
for tenants, although the sign outside may say 'Motel.' Portland's ordinance
provides clear guidelines to distinguish legitimate motels and hotels from those
properties which are really providing housing. The Task Force reached consensus
that Portland's provisions would be appropriate..."
• Boarding Houses: "the Task Force reached consensus that these types of uses
should be included because they are similar to apartments because they provide the
primary housing for tenants."
• . Homeless Shelters: "the Task Force reached consensus that these should be
included, but that the specific provisions should recognize the unique nature of this
type of use and not be such that homeless shelters were not viable in Tigard."
• Dormitories: "the Task Force reached consensus that these types of uses should
be included because they are similar to boarding houses."
• Social Care Facilities: the Task Force crafted a definition of Social Care facilities to
include group living facilities such as retirement facilities, half-way houses, youth
shelters, homeless shelters (see above) and other group living facilities. Included in
this category is Adult Foster Care Homes, which are defined as single-family
dwellings by state and federal law. The Task Force reached conserisus.that it is
appropriate to be concerned with the maintenance of these facilities. However,
concern was expressed that other agencies may already regulate these types of
uses through their licensing programs. Further, the Task Force acknowledged that
stakeholders representing providers in this category and state licensing agencies
were not yet involved in the process. To facilitate an informed decision on this issue,
the Task Force invited the participation of stakeholders from the "social care"
constituency. These stakeholders were invited to participate on 6/4/98, and the Task
Force's 8/6198 meeting was devoted exclusively to this issue. Additional discussion
was held regarding the matter at subsequent meetings. The following individuals
were invited to participate:
• Sally Goodwin, Director, Or ;gon Alliance of Senior and Health Services
10
• Margaret Carley, Staff Attorney, Oregon Health Care Association
• June Sulfridge, Adult Care Providers of Oregon, President/Treasurer
• Margaret Cervenko, Oregon Alliance of Senior and Health Services
• Mary Monnat, CEO Tualatin Valley Centers
• Brad Huber, Executive Director, Luke-Dorf
• Jean Olsen-Meyers, Oregon Rehabilitation Association
The following individuals participated:
• Sally Goodwin, Director, Oregon Alliance of Senior and Health Services
• Margaret Carley, Staff Attorney, Oregon Health Care Association
• June Sulfridge, Adult Care Providers of Oregon, President/Treasurer
• Kathy Labadie, Oregon Senior and Disabled Services Division
• Katalin Ratkei, foster home owner
• Donald Nyberg, Health Facilities Consultant, Oregon Dept Of Human Resources
• Grover C. Simmons, Representing ACPO
After reviewing the information provided by and the position articulated by the social
care stakeholders, the Task Force reached consensus that Social Care facilities and
Adult Foster Care facilities should be included, notwithstanding other state licensing
programs which might apply. Specifically excluded from inclusion are institutional
occupancies (I occupancies in the state building code). Additionally, conflicts
between Tigard's ordinance and licensing regulations were eliminated with
deference given to the licensing regulations. This was done to avoid placing
operators in a "catch 22" situation between state and local requirements. The Task
Force's determination is based upon the following findings:
• Institutional and institutional like uses are beyond the scope of this type of
ordinance and the original charge of the Task Force to evaluate requirements for
the maintenance of residential uses.
• It is equitable for Tigard to include all types of residential uses within the scope of
the ordinance, regardless of other existing regulatory mechanisms.
• Tigard's ordinance will not conflict with licensing requirements (when conflicts in
the draft are eliminated), therefore, inclusion does not add an additional layer of
different regulation, but rather a complimentary layer.
• Local responsiveness may be an important component of the over-all regulation
of licensed facilities, providing for a quick, non-confrontational resolution of
issues.
It is noted that the social care facility stakeholders are opposed to inclusion of state
licensed facilities within the scope of the ordinance. Appendix "B" includes the
written testimony received by the Task Force from the social care stakeholders.
11
d. How should the ordinance be enforced? (Should inspections be proactive,
reactive or some combination?)
The Task Force reached consensus that the program should be a reactive, complaint
and referral program. If the need to expand the program arises in the future, the issue
of pro-active inspections can be addressed. This determination was based upon
Councilor Sheckla's articulation that the Council's goal for the program is to mitigate
health and safety problems that exist in housing, especially in those properties where
sub-standard conditions are obvious. Further, Council's goal is to prevent similar
conditions from occurring at properties which are not currently sub-standard. It was the
consensus of the Task Force that this goal did not seem to indicate any proactive
inspections, but that inspections be performed when problems arise or are identified.
Proactive inspections are unnecessarily invasive to those properties which do not have
problems. After considering several compliance mechanisms, the Task Force also
reached consensus that the City's existing Civil Infractions process be employed for this
ordinance. If this approach proves ineffective, further options could be explored. Issues
for further consideration include fine minimums (should there be for certain violations)
and use of a specially knowledgeable hearings officer vs. use of a generalist hearings
officer. This determination was based upon the fact that the Civil Infractions process is
local and allows for the most flexibility. Additional discussion of other compliance
mechanisms considered is in sub-section g below, regarding funding options.
e. What resources need to be applied? (How many inspectors, support staff,
vehicles and other equipment(supplies are needed?)
Based upon staffs analysis shown in Appendix "C," the Task Force determined that a
reactive program will require one inspector and accompanying support resources.
f. What is the cost of this Housing Program?
First year costs are estimated at $81,500 (if a vehicle is purchased, less if leased). On-
going costs are estimated at $59,500 annually, plus an inflationary factor.
g. How should the Housing program be funded?
Several fending mechanisms were explored by the Task Force. The Task Force
acknowledged that it is reasonable for the housing program to be subsidized by general
property tax funds because of the general community good the program provides. The
Task Force reached consensus that no specific funding mechanism other than potential
civil penalties from the Civil Infractions process be explored. Other funding options
considered and a brief discussion follow:
• earmark existing business taxes assessed to rental property owners to the housing
program (revenue currently $5,000 - $6,000 per year, based on $55 per owner - 94
owners paid so far in 1997), tax is currently assessed when more than 3 rental units
12
are owned. The tax formulation could be modified. This proposal was not forwarded
because it really does not represent any new general fund revenue.
• assess monthly penalties against owners who fail to comply with correction notices
in a timely manner, penalties to assess automatically and be recorded on the
property. Staff reported that based upon a pro-rata analysis with Portland's data,
similar to that used to determine the potential number of housing inspections, Tigard
might anticipate $10,00 - $12,000 from this source. This proposal (modeled after
Portland's program) was not forwarded due to concerns that it uses compliance as a
revenue generation scheme and stakeholder concerns with Portland's application of
this process.
• assess relatively high fines through a hearing process against owners who fail to
comply with correction notices after some excessive period of time has transpired.
This proposal was not forwarded because the existing Civil Infractions process
allows for the imposition of daily fines.
• assess monthly penalties and fines as described above for failure to comply on a
timely basis with correction notices from the code enforcement officer (this is an
existing program area, the proposal is aimed at generating general fund revenue to
off-set general fund costs associated with the housing program - the proposal does
not anticipate increased code enforcement activities). This proposal was not
forwarded because it was felt that existing code enforcement processes were
beyond the scope of the Task Force's charge.
h. What implementation and program policies should be adopted?
• The ordinance will be enforced and inspections performed only when a complaint or
referral is received.
• Self-referral by inspectors is allowed when obvious violations are observed during
the regular course of business (includes conducting an inspection or driving to and
from inspections).
• Anyone can complain or refer. Anonymous complaints not accepted. Complainant's
name cannot be given out unless complainant gives permission (privacy right under
the Oregon Public Records Law).
• When a complaint or referral is received from a tenant or the tenant's representative
regarding a non-owner occupied property, the City will ask the caller if they are
being evicted. If they are, no inspection will be made until staff has contacted the
owner or owner's representative.
• When a complaint or referral is received from a tenant or the tenant's representative
regarding a non-owner occupied property, staff will ask the caller if they have tried to
resolve the issue with the landlord. If not, the City will not pursue until the caller has
tried to resolve the issue with the landlord (except for serious safety, habitability or
sanitation issues).
13
6 When a complaint or referral is received from someone who is not the tenant or the
tenant's representative the City will attempt to notify the property owner or
authorized representative prior to performing an inspection.
If the tenant or tenant's representative has tried to resolve the issue with the
landlord, the City will attempt to notify the property owner or authorized
representative prior to performing an inspection. The owner will be given chance to
correct the problem and call in when corrections are made, within an agreed
timeframe. Staff will then confirm this with the tenant or tenants representative. If
confirmed, no inspection will be required. This "self certification" process will not be
used for complaints regarding significant safety, habitability or sanitation issues. To
facilitate this process, rental property owners will be encouraged to voluntary
register a contact phone number and contact person so notification can be made.
Registration can be part of the business tax process. Owners who fail to register
may not receive notice. Staff will search property tax, utility and will ask the
complainant for contact information regarding the property owner. At the onset of
the program, a mailer will go to rental property owners to solicit their registration.
O Complaint or referral inspections will be limited to the unit(s) and specific code item
for which the complaint or referral is received, or the specific portion of the common
area(s) if the complaint or referral is regarding the common area. No inspection will
be done of other areas unless the inspector notices obvious violations during the
course of conducting the inspection.
C When called to inspect compliance with previously noted violations the inspection
shall be limited as above. Any new violations discovered in the subject areas shall
be treated as separate and new violations. Any violations resulting from additional
complaints or referrals on a unit or area already under a compliance action shall be
treated as separate and new violations.
Occupant Displacement Issue:
An important issue considered by the Task Force is the potential for enforcement of the
code to give rise to situations wherein a tenant or other occupant of a residence needs
to be displaced to facilitate necessary repairs or to remove an occupant from an
emergency health or safety situation.
Discussion on this issue included the concept of the City paying for relocation of
tenants when a property owner is unwilling to do so and potential resources and
assistance from other agencies (County Housing Services). The Task Force considers
this to be a serious issue but recognizes that a City relocation program would be
complicated to develop and costly to implement, a task which cannot be contemplated
within the timeframe and scope of the current work of the Task Force.
However, the Task Force recognizes that there will be emergency situations wherein
repairs could be effected or very short-term relocation could be provided by the City to,
14
remove an occupant from an emergency safety or health situation. Any funds expended
by the City in. this manner could potentially be recovered as penalties resulting from
enforcement of the code. Additionally, the Task Force believes that the City should
establish a "relocation" plan in coordination with County Housing Services and other
agencies.
The consensus of the Task Force is that no full relocation program be explored, that
staff establish a relocation plan with the County and other agencies and that a $10,000
emergency fund be established to provide for temporary housing and/or immediate
repairs in emergency life-threatening situations.
15
Section 4: Recommendations
The Task Force submits the following recommendations for the Community Housing
Program to the City Council:
• Adopt the proposed ordinance shown in Appendix °A" (includes use of existing Civil
Infractions process)
• Adopt the proposed resolution shown in Appendix "A° stipulating the program
policies to be followed.
• Hire 1 Housing Inspector (Inspector 1) in the Building Division and provide inspector
with necessary materials and supplies (already in FY 98/99 budget)
• Establish a relocation plan with the County and other agencies and appropriate a
$10,000 emergency fund to provide for temporary housing and/or immediate repairs
in emergency life-threatening situations.
• Support all costs associated with the program from the general fund
• Apply any fines collected from the Civil Infractions process to the general fund
16
Section 5: Final Statement
The Community Housing Task Force met over twenty times during the past 14 months
developing consensus on this report among stakeholders from the rental housing
industry and tenant advocacy constituency. Representatives from the regulated industry
and tenant advocates, with the exception of the su;.al care facility providers and state
licensing regulators, stand in support of the program as recommended in this report and
are committed to working with the Council and staff to ensure its effective
implementation.
Therefore, the Task Force submits this report n good faith that the City Council will
recognize the value of the Task Force's consensus and will make a commitment toward
the intent of the Task Force's recommendations.
17
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 99-- URAFT
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS STIPULATING MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR
HOUSING, AMENDING THE DANGEROUS BUILDING CODE AND ADDING PROVISIONS FOR
DERELICT STRUCTURES.
WHEREAS, in July 1997, the Tigard City Council formed the Community Housing Task Force to address
growing community concern regarding the deterioration of some of the existing housing stock in Tigard and
the desire to mitigate deterioration and prevent it from increasing in the community; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force was comprised of individuals representing the various stakeholders involved in
this issue; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force has reached consensus that a property maintenance (housing) code should be
adopted in Tigard to establish minimum standards for safety, health, sanitation and habitability in Tigard
residences and that the code shown in Exhibit "A" provides reasonable standards; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force has reached consensus that, in the interest of equity, the property maintenance
code shall apply to all residences in Tigard; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has reviewed the report of the Task Force on January 19, 1999 and
February 9, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council concurs with the recommendation of the Task Force regarding the
adoption of a property maintenance code which applies to all residences in Tigard; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council believes that the Property Maintenance Code shown in Exhibit "A" will
provide reasonable standards toward mitigating the deterioration of housing in Tigard; and
WHEREAS, Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code contains provision for dangerous buildings; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council wishes to maintain provisions for dangerous buildings by incorporating
them into the Property Maintenance Code; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council wishes to mitigate and abate the negative community effects of derelict
structures; and
WHEREAS, the Property Maintenance Code shown in Exhibit "A" contains provisions which will allow the
City to mitigate and abate the negative community effects of derelict structures;
ORDINANCE No. 99-
Page 1
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 16 of Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code is amended by replacing it in its
entirety with the Chapter 16 shown as Exhibit "A."
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title
only, this day of , 1999.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this _ day of , 1999.
James Nicoh, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
Ndty►idtV9dtfdoc
ORDINANCE No. 99-
Page 2
EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 99-
Chapter 14.16
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS
Sections:
PART 1 - GENERAL
14.16.010 Chapter Title.
14.16.020 Purpose.
14.16.030 Scope.
14.16.040 Application of Titles 14 and 18.
14.1.6.050 Use of Summary Headings.
14.16.060 Definitions, Generally.
14.16.070 Definitions.
PART 2 - STANDARDS
14.16.080 Housing Maintenance Requirements, Generally.
14.16.090 Display of Address Number.
14.16.100 Accessory Structures.
14.16.110 Roofs.
14.16.120 Chimneys.
14.16.130 Foundations and Structural Members.
14.16.140 Exterior Walls and Exposed Surfaces.
14.16.150 Stairs and Porches.
14.16.160 Handrails and Guardrails.
14.16.170 Windows.
14.16.180 Doors.
14.16.190 Interior Walls, Floors, and Ceilings.
14.16.200 Interior Dampness.
14.16.210 Insect and Rodent Harborage.
14.16.220 Cleanliness and Sanitation.
14.16.230 Bathroom Facilities.
14.16.240 Kitchen Facilities.
14.16.250 Plumbing Facilities.
14.16.260 Heating Equipment and Facilities.
14.16.270 Electric System, Outlets, and Lighting.
14.16.280 Sleeping Room Requirements.
14.16.290 Overcrowding.
14.16.300 Emergency Exits.
14.16.310 Smoke Alarms and Detectors.
14.16.320 Hazardous Materials.
14.16.330 Maintenance of Facilities and Equipment.
14.16.340 Swimming Pool Enclosures.
14.16.350 Special Standards for Single-Room Occupancy Dousing Units.
PART 3 - DANGEROUS & DERELICT STRUCTURES
14.16.360 Dangerous and Derelict Structures, Generally.
14.16.370 Derelict Structures.
14.16.380 Dangerous Structures.
PART 4 - ENFORCEMENT
14.16.385 Notice of Status as Derelict or Dangerous Structure.
14.16.390 Statement of Actions Required.
14.16.400 Notice of Unsafe Occupancy.
14.16.410 Abatement of Dangerous Structures.
14.16.420 Inspections Required, Right of Entry.
14.16.430 Fee-paid Inspections for Residential Structures.
14.16.440 Occupancy of Residential Property After Notice of Violation.
14.16.450 Illegal Residential Occupancy.
14.16.460 Interference with Repair, Demolition, or Abatement Prohibited.
14.16.470 Violations.
BART 1 - GENERAL.
14.16.010 Chapter Title.
This Chapter shall be known as "Property Maintenance Regulations," and is referred to herein as
"this Chapter."
14.16.020 Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to protect the health, safety and welfare of Tigard citizens, to
prevent deterioration of existing housing, and to contribute to vital neighborhoods by:
1. Establishing and enforcing minimum standards for residential structures regarding basic
equipment, facilities, sanitation, fire safety, and maintenance.
2. Regulating and abating dangerous and derelict buildings.
14.16.030 Scope, Conflict with State Law.
This provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all property in the City except as otherwise excluded
by law; however, the provisions of this Chapter do not apply to Group "I" occupancies as classified
by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. In the event that a provision of this Chapter conflicts with
a licensing requirement of the Oregon State Department of Human Resources, the state licensing
requirements shall be followed. In areas where the Oregon State Department of Human Resources
does not regulate through its licensing process, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply.
14.16.040 Application of Titles 14 and 18.
Any alterations to buildings, or changes of their use, which may be a result of the enforcement of
this Chapter shall be done in accordance with applicable Sections of Title 14 (Buildings and
Construction) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Code of the City of Tigard.
14.16.050 Use of Summary Headings.
This Chapter makes use of summary headings (in bold face type) on chapters, sections, and
subsections to assist the reader in navigating the document. In the event of a conflict in meaning
between the bold heading and the following plain text, the meaning of the plain text shall apply.
14.16.060 Definitions, Generally.
For the purpose of this Chapter, certain abbreviations, terms, phrases, words and their derivatives
shall be construed as specified in this Chapter. Words used in the singular include the plural and the
plural the singular. Words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and the feminine the
masculine. "And" indicates that all connected items or provisions apply. "Or" indicates that the
connected items or provisions may apply singly or in combination. Terms, words, phrases and their
derivatives used, but not specifically defined in this Chapter, either shall have the meanings defined
in Titles 14 or 18, or if not defined, shall have their commonly accepted meanings. If a conflict
exists between a definition in Title 14 and 18, the definitions in this Chapter shall apply to actions
taken pursuant to this Chapter.
14.16.070 Definitions.
The definition of words with specific meaning in this Chapter are as follows:
1. Abatement of a nuisance. The act of removing, repairing, or taking other steps as may
be necessary in order to remove a nuisance.
2. Accessory Structure. Any structure not intended for human occupancy which is located
on residential property. Accessory structures may be attached to or detached from the
residential structure. Examples of accessory structures include: garages, carports, sheds,
and other non-dwelling buildings; decks, awnings, heat pumps, fences, trellises, flag
poles, tanks, towers, exterior stairs and walkways, and other exterior structures on the
property.
3. Apartment House. See Dwelling Classifications.
4. Approved. Meets the standards set forth by applicable provisions of the Tigard City
Code including any applicable regulations for electric, plumbing, building, or other sets
of standards included by reference in this Chapter.
5. Basement. The usable portion of a building which is below the main entrance story and
is partly or completely below grade.
6. Boarded. Secured against entry by apparatus which is visible off the premises and is not
both lawful and customary to install on occupied structures.
7. Building. Any structure used or intended to be used for supporting or sheltering any use
or occupancy.
8. Building, Existing. A building constructed and legally occupied prior to the adoption
of this Chapter, and one for which a building permit has been lawfully issued and has not
been revoked or lapsed due to inactivity.
9. Building Official. The Building Official, or authorized representative, charged with the
enforcement and administration of this Chapter.
10. Ceiling Height. The clear distance between the floor and the ceiling directly above it.
11. Court. A space, open and unobstructed to the sky, located at or above grade level on a
lot and bounded on three or more sides by walls of a building.
12. Dangerous Building. See Dangerous Structure.
13. Dangerous Structure. Any structure which has any of the conditions or defects described
in Section 14.16.380.
14. Derelict Building. Any structure which has any of the conditions or defects described in
Section 14.16.370(A)
15. Duplex. See Dwelling Classifications, "Two-Family Dwelling."
16. Dwelling. Any structure containing dwelling units, including all dwelling classifications
covered by this Chapter.
17. Dwelling Classifications. Types of dwellings covered by this Chapter include:
a. Accessory Dwelling Unit. An additional dwelling unit within a detached single-
family dwelling, subject to the provisions of Title 18.
b. Single-Family Dwelling. A structure containing one dwelling unit, including adult
foster care homes.
c. Two-Family Dwelling. A structure containing two dwelling units, also known as a
"duplex. "
d. Apartment House. Any building or portion of a building containing three or more
dwelling units, which is designed, built, rented, leased, let, or hired out to be
occupied for residential living purposes.
e. Hotel. Any structure containing dwelling units that are intended, designed, or used
for renting or hiring out for sleeping purposes by residents on a daily, weekly, or
monthly basis.
f. Motel. For purposes of this Chapter, a motel shall be defined the same as a hotel.
g. Single-Room Occupancy Housing Unit. A one-room dwelling unit in a hotel
providing sleeping, cooking, and living facilities for one or two persons in which
some or all sanitary or cooking facilities (toilet, lavatory, bathtub or shower, kitchen
sink, or cooking equipment) may be shared with other dwelling units.
h. Social Care Facilities. Any building or portion of a building , which is designed,
built, rented, leased, let, hired out or otherwise occupied for group residential living
purposes, which is not an apartment house, single-family dwelling or two-family
dwelling. Such facilities include but are not limited to, retirement facilities, assisted
living facilities, residential care facilities, half-way houses, youth shelters, homeless
shelters and other group living residential facilities.
L Manufactured Dwelling. The term "manufactured dwelling" includes the following
types of single-family dwellings:
(1) Residential Trailer. A structure constructed for movement on the public
highways that has sleeping, cooking, and plumbing facilities, that is intended for
human occupancy, that is being used for, or is intended to be used for,
residential purposes, and that was constructed before January 1, 1962.
(2) Mobile Home. A structure constructed for movement on the public highways
that has sleeping, cooking, and plumbing facilities, that is intended for human
occupancy, that is being used for, or is intended to be used for, residential
purposes, and that was constructed between January 1, 1962, and June 15,
1976, and met the construction requirements of Oregon mobile home law in
effect at the time of construction.
(3) Manufactured Home. A structure constructed for movement on the public
highways that has sleeping, cooking, and plumbing facilities, that is intended for
human occupancy, that is being used for, or is intended to be used for,
residential purposes, and that was constructed in accordance with federal
manufactured housing construction and safety standards and regulations.
Manufactured Dwelling does not include any unit identified as a recreational
vehicle by the manufacturer.
18. Dwelling Unit. One or more habitable rooms that are occupied by, or in the case of an
unoccupied structure or portion of a structure, are designed or intended to be occupied
by, one person or by a family or group living together as a single housekeeping unit that
includes facilities for living and sleeping and, unless exempted by this Chapter in
Sections 14.16.230 and 14.16.240, also includes facilities for cooking, eating, and
sanitation.
19. Exit. (Means of Egress.) A continuous, unobstructed means of escape to a public way,
as defined in the building code in effect in the City.
20. Exterior Property Area. The sections of residential property which are outside the
exterior walls and roof of the dwelling.
21. Extermination. The elimination of insects, rodents, vermin or other pests at or about the
affected building.
22. Floor Area. The area of clear floor space in a room exclusive of fixed or built-in cabinets
or appliances.
23. Habitable Room (Space). Habitable room or space is a structure for living, sleeping,
eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage or utility
space, and similar areas are not considered habitable space.
24. Hazardous Materials. Materials defined by the current fire code adopted by the Tualatin
Valley Fire and Rescue District as hazardous.
25. Hotel. See Dwelling Classifications.
26. Human Habitation. The use of any residential structure or portion of the structure in
which any person remains for continuous periods of two hours or more or for periods
which will amount to four or more hours out of 24 hours in one day.
27. Immediate Danger. Any condition posing a direct immediate threat to human life, health,
or safety.
28. Infestation. The presence within or around a dwelling of insects, rodents, vermin or
other pests to a degree that is harmful to the dwelling or its occupants.
29. Inspection. The examination of a property by a person authorized by law for the purpose
of evaluating its condition as provided by this Chapter.
30. Inspector. An authorized representative of the Building Official whose primary function
is the inspection of properties and the enforcement of this Chapter.
31. Interested Party. Any person or entity that possesses any legal or equitable interest of
record in a property including but not limited to the holder of any lien or encumbrance
of record on the property.
32. Kitchen. A.room used or designed to be used for the preparation of food.
33. Lavatory. A fixed wash basin connected to hot and cold running water and the building
drain and used primarily for personal hygiene.
34. Maintenance. The work of keeping property in proper condition to perpetuate its use.
35. Manufactured Dwelling. See Dwelling Classifications.
36. Motel. See Dwelling Classifications.
37. Occupancy. The lawful purpose for which a building or part of a building is used or
intended to be used.
38. Occupant. Any person (including an owner or operator) using a building, or any part of
a building, for its lawful, intended use.
39. Occupied. Used for an occupancy.
40. Operator. Any person who has charge, care or control of a building or part of a building
in which dwelling units are let or offered for occupancy.
41. Outdoor area. All parts of property that are exposed to the weather including the
exterior of structures built for human occupancy. This includes, but is not limited to;
open and accessible porches, carports, garages, and decks; accessory structures, and any
outdoor storage structure.
42. Owner. The person whose name and address is listed as the owner of the property by the
County Tax Assessor in the County Assessment and Taxation records.
43. Plumbing or Plumbing Fixtures. Plumbing or plumbing fixtures mean any water heating
facilities, water pipes, vent pipes, garbage or disposal units, waste lavatories, bathtubs,
shower baths, installed clothes-washing machines or other similar equipment, catch
basins, drains, vents, or other similarly supplied fixtures, together with all connection to
water, gas, sewer, or vent lines.
44. Property. Real property and all improvements or structures on real property, from
property line to property line.
45. Public right of way. Any sidewalk, planting strip, alley, street, or pathway, improved
or unimproved, that is dedicated to public use.
46. Repair. The reconstruction or renewal of any part of an existing structure for the purpose
of its maintenance.
47. Resident. Any person (including owner or operator) hiring or occupying a room or
dwelling unit for living or sleeping purposes.
48. Residential Property. Real property and all improvements or structures on real property
used or in the case of unoccupied property intended to be used for residential purposes
including any residential structure, dwelling, or dwelling unit as defined in this chapter
{ and any mixed-use structures which have one or more dwelling units. Hotels that are used
i exclusively for transient occupancy, as defined in this Chapter, are excluded from this
+ definition of residential property.
,
49. Residential Rental Property. Any property within the City on which exist one or more
dwelling units which are not occupied as the principal residence of the owner.
50. Residential Structure. Any building or other improvement or structure containing one
or more dwelling units as well as any accessory structure. This includes any dwelling as
defined in this Chapter.
51. Shall. As used in this Chapter, is mandatory.
R"
52. Single-Family Dwelling. See Dwelling Classifications.
53. Single-Room Occupancy Housing Unit. See Dwelling Classifications.
54. Sink. A fixed basin connected to hot and cold running water and a drainage system and
primarily used for the preparation of food and the washing of cooking and eating utensils.
55. Sleeping Room. Any room designed, built, or intended to be used as a bedroom as well
as any other room used for sleeping purposes.
56. Smoke Alarm or Detector. An approved detection device for products of combustion
other than heat that is either a single station device or intended for use in conjunction
with a central control panel and which plainly identifies the testing agency that inspected
or approved the device.
57. Structure. That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any
piece or work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite
manner, including but not limited to buildings.
58. Substandard. In violation of any of the minimum requirements as set out in this Chapter.
59. Supplied. Installed, furnished or provided by the owner or operator.
60. Swimming Pool. An artificial basin, chamber, or tank constructed of impervious
material, having a depth of 18 inches or more, and used or intended to be used for
swimming, diving, or recreational bathing.
61. Toilet. A flushable plumbing fixture connected to running water and a drainage system
and used for the disposal of human waste.
62. Toilet Compartment. A room containing only a toilet or only a toilet and lavatory.
63. Transient Occupancy. Occupancy of a dwelling unit in a hotel where the following
conditions are met:
a. Occupancy is charged on a daily basis and is not collected more than six days in
advance;
b. The lodging operator provides maid and linen service daily or every two days as part
of the regularly charged cost of occupancy;
c. The period of occupancy does not exceed 30 days; and
d. If the occupancy exceeds five days, the resident has a business address or a residence
other than at the hotel.
64. Two Dwelling. See Dwelling Classifications.
65. Unoccupied. Not used for occupancy.
66. Unsecured. Any structure in which doors, windows, or apertures are open or broken so
as to allow access by unauthorized persons.
67. Yard. An open, unoccupied space, other than a court, unobstructed from the ground to
the sky, and located between a structure and the property line of the lot on which the
structure is situated.
PART 2 - STANDARDS
14.16.080 Housing Maintenance Requirements, Generally.
No owner shall maintain or permit to be maintained any residential property which does
not comply with the requirements of this Chapter. All residential property shall be
maintained to the building code requirements in effect at the time of construction,
alteration, or repair and shall meet the minimum requirements described in this chapter.
14.16.090 Display of Address Number.
Address numbers posted shall be the same as the number listed on the County Assessment and
Taxation Records for the property. All dwellings shall have address numbers posted in a conspicuous
place so they may be read from the listed street or public way. Units within apartment houses shall
be clearly numbered or lettered.
14.16.100 Accessory Structures.
All accessory structures on residential property shall be maintained structurally safe and sound and
in good repair. Exterior steps and walkways shall be maintained free of unsafe obstructions or
hazardous conditions.
14.16.110 Roofs.
The roof shall be structurally sound, tight, and have no defects which might admit rain. Roof
drainage shall be adequate to prevent rainwater from causing dampness in the walls or interior
portion of the building and shall channel rainwater into approved receivers.
14.16.120 Chimneys.
Every masonry, metal, or other chimney shall remain adequately supported and free from
obstructions and shall be maintained in a condition which ensures there will be no leakage or back-
up of noxious gases. Every chimney shall be reasonably plumb. Loose bricks or blocks shall be
rebonded. Loose or missing mortar shall be replaced. Unused openings into the interior of the
structure must be permanently sealed using approved materials.
14.16.130 Foundations and Structural Members.
A. Foundation elements shall adequately support the building and shall be free of rot, crumbling
elements, or similar deterioration.
B. The supporting structural members in every dwelling shall be maintained structurally sound,
showing no evidence of deterioration or decay which would substantially impair their ability
to carry imposed loads.
14.16.140 Exterior Walls and Exposed Surfaces.
A. Every exterior wall and weather-exposed exterior surface or attachment shall be free of holes,
breaks, loose or rotting boards or timbers and any other conditions which might admit rain
or dampness to the interior portions of the walls or the occupied spaces of the building.
B. All exterior wood surfaces shall be made substantially impervious to the adverse effects of
weather by periodic application of an approved protective coating of weather-resistant
preservative, and be maintained in good condition. Wood used in construction of permanent
structures and located nearer than six inches to earth shall be treated wood or wood having
a natural resistance to decay.
C. Exterior metal surfaces shall be protected from rust and corrosion.
D. Every section of exterior brick, stone, masonry, or other veneer shall be maintained
structurally sound and be adequately supported and tied back to its supporting structure.
14.16.150 Stairs and Porches.
Every stair, porch, and attachment to stairs or porches shall be so constructed as to be safe to use and
capable of supporting the loads to which it is subjected and shall be kept in sound condition and
good repair, including replacement as necessary of flooring, treads, risers, and stringers that evidence
excessive wear and are broken, warped, or loose.
14.16.160 Handrails and Guardrails.
Every handrail and guardrail shall be firmly fastened, and shall be maintained in good condition,
capable of supporting the loads to which it is subjected, and meet the following requirements: .
1. Handrails and guardrails required by building codes at the time of construction shall be
maintained or, if removed, shall be replaced.
2. Where not otherwise required by original building codes, exterior stairs of more than
three risers which are designed and intended to be used as part of the regular access to
the swelling unit shall have handrails. Interior stairs of more than three risers that
connect between floors with habitable rooms shall have handrails. When required
handrails are installed they shall have a minimum height of 30 inches and maximum
height of 38 inches, measured vertically from the nosing of the treads. They shall be
continuous the full length of the stairs and shall be returned or shall terminate in newel
posts or safety terminals.
3. Where not otherwise required by original building codes, porches, balconies or raised
floor surfaces located more than 30 inches above the floor or grade below shall have
guardrails at least 36 inches high. Open sides of stairs with a total rise of more than 30
inches above the floor or grade below shall have guardrails no less than 34 inches in
height measured vertically from the nosing of the tread. When required guardrails are
installed, they shall have intermediate rails or ornamental closures which will not allow
passage of an object 4 inches or more in diameter.
14.16.170 Windows.
A. Every habitable room shall have at least one window facing directly to an exterior yard or
court or shall be provided with approved artificial light. Except where approved artificial light
is provided, the minimum total glass area for each habitable room shall be 6.8 percent of the
room's floor area, except for basement rooms where the minimum shall be 5 percent. These
exceptions to the current code shall not apply where any occupancy has been changed or
increased contrary to the provisions of this Chapter.
B. Every habitable room shall have at least one window that can be easily opened or another
approved device to adequately ventilate the room. Except where another approved ventilation
device is provided, the total openable window area in every habitable room shall be equal to
at least one-fortieth of the area of the room. Windows required for secondary escape purposes
in sleeping rooms must also meet the requirements outlined in Subsection 14.16.170(D).
C. Every bathroom and toilet compartment shall comply with the light and ventilation
requirements for habitable rooms as required by Subsections 14.16.170(A) and (B), except
that no window shall be required in bathrooms or toilet compartments equipped with an
approved ventilation system.
D. Windows in sleeping rooms that are provided to meet emergency escape or rescue
requirements described in Section 14.16.300(A) shall have a sill height of no more than 44
inches above the floor or above an approved, permanently installed step. The step must not
exceed 12 inches in height and must extend the full width of the window. The top surface of
the step must be a minimum of six feet from the ceiling above the step.
E. Windows in sleeping rooms that are provided to meet emergency escape or rescue
requirements described in Section 14.16.300(A) shall have a minimum net clear opening at
least 20 inches wide, at least 22 inches high, and, if constructed after July 1, 1974, at least
five square feet in area.
F. Every window required for ventilation or emergency escape shall be capable of being easily
opened and held open by window hardware. Any installed storm windows on windows
required for emergency escape must be easily openable from the inside without the use of a
key or special knowledge or effort.
G. All windows within 10 feet of the exterior grade that open must be able to be securely latched
from the inside as well as be openable from the inside without the use of a key or any special
knowledge or effort. This same requirement shall apply to all openable windows that face
other locations that are easily accessible from the outside, such as balconies or fire escapes,
regardless of height from the exterior grade.
H. Every window shall be substantially weather-tight, shall be kept in sound condition and repair
for its intended use, and shall comply with the following:
1. Every window sash shall be fully supplied with glass window panes or an approved
substitute without open cracks and holes.
2. Every window sash shall be in good condition and fit weather-tight within its frames.
3. Every window frame shall be constructed and maintained in relation to the adjacent wall
construction so as to exclude rain as completely as possible and to substantially exclude
wind from entering the dwelling.
14.16.180 Doors.
A. Every dwelling or dwelling unit shall have at least one door leading to an exterior yard or
court, or in the case of a two-family dwelling or apartment, to an exterior yard or court or to
an approved exit. All such doors shall be openable from the inside without the use of a key
or any special knowledge or effort. All screen doors and storm doors must be easily openable
from the inside without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort.
B. In hotels and apartment houses, exit doors in common corridors or other common
passageways shall be openable from the inside with one hand in a single motion, such as
pressing a bar or turning a knob, without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort.
C. Every door to the exterior of a dwelling unit shall be equipped with a lock designed to
discourage unwanted entry and to permit opening from the inside without the use of a key or
any special knowledge or effort.
D. Every exterior door shall comply with the following:
1. Every exterior door, door hinge, door lock, and strike plate shall be maintained in good
condition.
2. Every exterior door when closed, shall fit reasonably well within its frame and be
weather-tight.
3. Every door frame shall be constructed and maintained in relation to the adjacent wall
construction so as to exclude rain as completely as possible, and to substantially exclude
wind from entering the dwelling.
E. Every interior door and door frame shall be maintained in a sound condition for its intended
purpose with the door fitting within the door frame.
14.16.190 Interior Walls, Floors, and Ceilings.
A. Every interior wall, floor, ceiling, and cabinet shall be constructed and maintained in a safe
and structurally sound condition, free of large holes and serious cracks, loose plaster or
wallpaper, flaking or scaling paint, to permit the interior wall, floor, ceiling and cabinet to
be kept in a clean and sanitary condition.
B. Every toilet compartment, bathroom, and kitchen floor surface shall be constructed and
maintained to be substantially impervious to water and to permit the floor to be kept in a clean
and sanitary condition.
14.16.200 Interior Dampness.
Every dwelling, including basements, and crawl spaces shall be maintained reasonably free from
dampness to prevent conditions conducive to decay, mold growth, or deterioration of the structure.
14.16.210 Insect and Rodent Harborage.
Every dwelling shall be kept free from insect and rodent infestation, and where insects and rodents
are found, they shall be promptly exterminated. After extermination, proper precautions shall be
taken to prevent reinfestation.
14.16.220 Cleanliness and Sanitation.
The interior of every dwelling shall be constructed in a safe and structurally sound condition to
permit the interior to be maintained in a clear, and sanitary condition. The interior of every dwelling
shall be free from accumulation of rubbish or garbage which is affording a breeding ground for
insects and rodents, producing dangerous or offensive gases, odors and bacteria, or other unsanitary
conditions, or a fire hazard.
i 14.16.230 Bathroom Facilities.
A. Except as otherwise noted in this Section, every dwelling unit shall contain within its walls
~Ml Mill
in safe and sanitary working condition:
1. A toilet located in a room that is separate from the habitable rooms and that allows privacy;
2. A lavatory basin; and
3. A bathtub or shower located in a room that allows privacy.
B. In hotels, apartment houses and social care facilities where private toilets, lavatories, or baths
are not provided, there shall be on each floor at least one toilet, one lavatory, and one bathtub
or shower each provided at the rate of one for every twelve residents or fraction of twelve
residents. Required toilets, bathtubs, and showers shall be in a room, or rooms, that allow
privacy.
C. When there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this section for
hotels, apartment houses and social care facilities where private toilets, lavatories or baths are
not provided, the building official may grant modifications for individual cases. The building
official shall first find that a special and individual reason makes the requirements of this
section impractical and that the modification is in conformance with the intent of this section
and that such modification does not result in the provision of inadequate bathroom facilities
in the dwelling.
14.16.240 Kitchen Facilities.
A. Every dwelling unit shall contain a kitchen sink apart from the lavatory basin required under
Section 14.16.230, with the exception of single-room occupancy housing units which shall
comply with Subsection 14.16.350(B) and social care facilities complying with Subsection
14.16.240(C).
B. Except as otherwise provided for in Subsections 14.16.240(C) and 14.16.350(B) and (C),
every dwelling unit shall have approved service connections for refrigeration and cooking
appliances.
C. Social care facilities may be provided with a community kitchen with facilities for cooking,
refrigeration, and washing utensils.
14.16.250 Plumbing Facilities.
A. Every plumbing fixture or device shall be properly connected to a public or an approved
private water system and to a public or an approved private sewer system.
B. All required sinks, lavatory basins, bathtubs and showers shall be supplied with both hot and
cold running water. Every dwelling shall be supplied with water heating facilities adequate
for each dwelling unit which are installed in an approved manner, properly maintained, and
properly connected with hot water lines to all required sinks, lavatory basins, bathtubs and
showers. Water heating facilities shall be capable of heating water enough to permit an
adequate amount of water to be drawn at every required facility at a temperature of at least
120 degrees at any time needed.
C. In every dwelling all plumbing or plumbing fixtures shall be:
1. Properly installed, connected, and maintained in good working order;
2. Kept free from obstructions, leaks, and defects;
3. Capable of performing the function for which they are designed; and
4. Installed and maintained so-as to prevent structural deterioration or health hazards.
D. All plumbing repairs and installations shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the
Plumbing Code adopted by the City.
14.16.260 Keating Equipment and Facilities.
A. All heating equipment, including that used for cooking, water heating, dwelling heat, and
clothes drying shall be:
1. Properly installed, connected, and maintained in safe condition and good working order,
2. Free from leaks and obstructions and kept functioning properly so as to be free from fire,
health, and accident hazards; and
3. Capable of performing the function for which they are designed.
B. Every dwelling shall have a heating facility capable of maintaining a room temperature of 68
degrees Fahrenheit at a point 3 feet from the floor in all habitable rooms.
1. Portable heating devices may not be used to meet the dwelling heat requirements of this
Chapter.
2. No inverted or open flame fuel burning heater shall be permitted. All heating devices or
appliances shall be of an approved type.
N
14.16.270 Electrical System, Outlets, and Lighting.
A. Every dwelling shall be connected to an approved source of electric power. Every electric
outlet and fixture shall be maintained and safely connected to an approved electrical system.
The electrical system shall not constitute a hazard to the occupants of the building by reason
of inadequate service, improper fusing, improper wiring or installation, deterioration or
damage, or similar reasons.
B. In addition to other electrical system components that may be used to meet cooking,
refrigeration, and heating requirements listed elsewhere in this Chapter, the following outlets
and lighting fixtures are required:
1. Every habitable room shall contain at least two operable electric outlets or one outlet and
one operable electric light fixture.
2. Every toilet compartment or bathroom shall contain at least one supplied and operable
electric light fixture and one outlet. Every laundry, furnace room, and all similar non-
habitable spaces located in a dwelling shall have one supplied electric light fixture
available at all times.
3. Every public hallway, corridor, and stairway in apartment houses, hotels and social care
facilities shall be adequately lighted at all times with an average intensity of illumination
of at least one foot candle at principal points such as angles and intersections of corridors
and passageways, stairways, landings of stairways, landings of stairs and exit doorways,
and at least 1/2-foot candle at other points. Measurement of illumination shall be taken at
points not more than 4 feet above the floor.
14.16.250 Sleeping Room Requirements.
Every room used for sleeping purposes:
1. Shall be a habitable room as defined in this Chapter; and
2. Shall have natural or approved artificial light, ventilation, and windows or other means
for escape purposes as required by this Chapter.
14.16.290 Overcrowding.
No dwelling unit shall be permitted to be overcrowded. A dwelling unit shall be considered
overcrowded if there are more residents than one plus one additional resident for every ISO square
feet of floor area of the habitable rooms in the dwelling unit.
14.16.300 Emergency Exits.
A. Every sleeping room shall have at least one operable window or exterior door approved for
emergency escape or rescue that is openable from the inside to a full clear opening without
the use of special knowledge, effort, or separate tools. Windows used to meet this
requirement shall meet the size and sill height requirements described in 14.16.170(D). All
below grade windows used to meet this requirement shall have a window well the full width
of the window, constructed of permanent materials with a 3 foot clearance measured
perpendicular to the outside wall. The bottom of the well may not be more than 44 inches
below grade.
B. Required exit doors and other exits shall be free of encumbrances or obstructions that block
access to the exit.
C. All doorways, windows and any device used in connection with the means of escape shall be
maintained in good working order and repair.
D. In addition to other exit requirements, in hotels and apartment houses:
1. All fire escapes shall be kept in good order and repair.
2. Every fire escape or stairway, stair platform, corridor or passageway which may be one
of the regular means of emergency exit from the building shall be kept free of
encumbrances or obstructions of any kind.
3. Where doors to stair enclosures are required by City code to be self-closing, the self
closing device shall be maintained in good working order and it shall be unlawful to
wedge or prop the doors open.
4. Windows leading to fire escapes shall be secured against unwanted entry with approved
devices which permit opening from the inside without the use of a key or any special
knowledge, effort or tool.
5. Where necessary to indicate the direction of egress, every apartment house and hotel shall
have directional signs in place, visible throughout common passageways, that indicate the
way to exit doors and fire escapes. Emergency exit doors and windows shall be clearly
labeled for their intended use.
14.16.310 Smoke Alarms and Detectors.
Smoke alarms and detectors shall be required to be maintained as was required at the time of
construction of the dwelling. Notwithstanding the provisions of the requirement at the time of
construction, a single station smoke alarm or detector shall be located in all buildings where a room
or area therein is designated for sleeping purposes either as a primary use or use on a casual basis.
A single station smoke alarm or detector shall be installed in the immediate vicinity of the sleeping
rooms and on each additional story of the dwelling, including basements and attics with habitable
space. All alarms and detectors shall be approved, shall comply with all applicable laws, shall be
installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and shall be operable.
14.16.320 hazardous Materials.
A. When paint is applied to any surface of a residential structure, it shall be lead-free.
E. Residential property shall be free of dangerous levels of hazardous materials, contamination
by toxic chemicals, or other circumstances that would render the property unsafe.
C. No residential property shall be used as a place for the storage and handling of highly
combustible or explosive materials or any articles which may be dangerous or detrimental to
life or health. No residential property shall be used for the storage or sale of paints, varnishes
or oils used in the making of paints and varnishes, except as needed to maintain the dwelling.
D. Residential property shall be kept free of friable asbestos.
14.16.330 Maintenance of Facilities and Equipment.
In addition to other requirements for the maintenance of facilities and equipment described in this
Chapter:
1. All required facilities in every dwelling shall be constructed and maintained to properly
and safely perform their intended function.
2. All non-required facilities or equipment present in a dwelling shall be maintained to
prevent structural damage to the building or hazards of health, sanitation, or fire.
14.16.340 Swimming Pool Enclosures.
Each swimming pool not totally enclosed by a structure shall be enclosed by a substantial fence at
least 4 feet in height and equipped with a self-closing and latching gate except where bordered by
a wall of an adjacent structure at least 4 feet in height. No swimming pool shall be nearer than 3 feet
from any lot line, and no enclosing fence or wall shall be constructed nearer than 3 feet to the outer
walls of the swimming pool, but in no case shall the distance between the pool and the lot line or
wall be closer than allowed by Title 18. The lot line shall be as defined in Title 18 of City code.
14.16.350 Special Standards for Single-Room Occupancy Housing Units.
In addition to meeting requirements for residential structures defined elsewhere in this Chapter,
hotels containing single-room occupancy housing units shall comply with the following:
1. Either a community kitchen with facilities for cooking, refrigeration, and washing utensils
shall be provided on each floor, or each individual single-room occupancy housing unit
shall have facilities for cooking, refrigeration and washing utensils. In addition, facilities
for community garbage storage or disposal shall be provided on each floor.
2. When there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this sub-
section where each individual single-room occupancy housing unit is not provided with
facilities for cooking, refrigeration and washing utensils, the building official may grant
modifications for individual cases. The building official shall first find that a special and
individual reason makes the requirements of this section impractical and that the
modification is in conformance with the intent of this section and that such modification
does not result in the provision of inadequate cooking, refrigeration and utensil washing
facilities for the single-room occupancy housing units.
3. Where cooking units are provided in individual single-room occupancy housing units,
they shall conform to the requirements set forth below.
a. All appliances shall be hard-wired and on separate circuits or have single dedicated
connections;
b. All cooking appliances shall be fixed and permanent, except microwave ovens;
c. The Mechanical Specialty Code, as adopted by Chapter 14.04 shall be used for
setting standards for cooking appliances. Cabinets over cooking surfaces shall be 30
inches above the cooking surface, except that this distance may be reduced to 24
inches when a heat shield with 1 inch airspace and extending at least 6 inches
horizontally on either side of the cooking appliance is provided. Cooking. appliances
shall be located with at least a 6-inch clear space in all directions from the perimeter
of the cooking element or burner;
d. All cooking appliances shall be installed so as to provide a minimum clear work
space in front of the appliance of 24 inches.
PART 3 - DANGEROUS & DERELICT STRUCTURES
14.16.360 Dangerous and Derelict Structures, Generally.
No property shall contain any dangerous or derelict structure as described in this chapter. All such
buildings or structures shall be repaired or demolished.
14.16.370 Derelict Structures.
A. A derelict structure is any unoccupied non-residential building, structure, or portion thereof
that meets any of the following criteria or any residential building which is at least 50%
unoccupied and meets any of the following criteria:
1. Has been ordered vacated by the Building Official pursuant to Chapter 1.16 and Section
14.16.385, 14.16.390 and 14.16.400; or,
2. Has been issued a notice of infraction by the Code Enforcement Officer pursuant to Section
1.16.120; or,
3. Is unsecured; or,
4. Is boarded unless the boarding is required by the Building Official; or,
5. Has, while vacant, had a nuisance declared by the City on the property upon which it is
located.
B. Any property which has been declared by the Building Official to include a derelict structure
shall be considered in violation of this Chapter until:
1. The structure has been lawfully occupied; or,
2. The structure has been demolished and the lot cleared and graded after approval is issued
by the City, with final inspection and approval by the Building Official, or,
3. The owner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Building Official that the property
is free of all conditions causing its status as a derelict structure.
14.16.380 Dangerous Structures.
A. Any structure which has any or all of the following conditions or defects to the extent that life,
health, property, or safety of the public or the structure's occupants are endangered, shall be
deemed to be a dangerous structure, declared a nuisance, and such condition or defects shall
be abated pursuant to Section 14.16.410 and Chapter 1.16 of the City Code.
B. High loads. Whenever the stress in any materials, member, or portion of a structure, due to
all dead and live loads, is more than 1-1/2 times the working stress or stresses allowed in
Chapter 14.04 for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, or location.
C. Weakened or unstable structural members or appendages.
1. Whenever any portion of a structure has been damaged by fire, earthquake, wind, flood,
or by any other cause, to such an extent that the structural strength or stability is materially
less than it was before such catastrophe and is less than the minimum requirements of
Chapter 14.04 for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, or location; or
2. Whenever appendages including parapet walls, cornices, spires, towers, tanks, statuaries,
or other appendages or structural members which are supported by, attached to, or part of
a building, and which are in a deteriorated condition or otherwise unable to sustain the
design loads which are specified in Chapter 14.04.
D. Buckled or leaning walls, structural members. Whenever the exterior walls or other vertical
structural members list, lean, or buckle to such an extent that a plumb line passing through
the center of gravity does not fall inside the middle one-third of the base.
E. Vulnerability to earthquakes, high winds.
1. Whenever any portion of a structure is wrecked, warped, buckled, or has settled to such
an extent that walls or other structural portions have materially less resistance to winds
or earthquakes than is required in the case of similar new construction; or
2. Whenever any portion of a building, or any member, appurtenance, or ornamentation of
the exterior thereof is not of sufficient strength or stability, or is not so anchored,
attached or fastened in place so as to be capable of resisting a wind pressure of one half
of that specified in Chapter 14.04 for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, or
location without exceeding the working stresses permitted in Chapter 14.04 for such
buildings.
F. Insufficient strength or fire resistance. Whenever any structure which, whether or not erected
in accordance with all applicable laws and ordinances:
1. Has in any non-supporting part, member, or portion, less than 50 percent of the strength
or the fire-resisting qualities or characteristics required by law for a newly constructed
building of like area, height, and occupancy in the same location; or
2. ' Has in any supporting part, member, or portion less than 66 percent of the strength or the
fire-resisting qualities or characteristics required by law in the case of a newly
constructed building of like area, height, and occupancy in the same location.
G. Risk of failure or collapse.
1. Whenever any portion or member or appurtenance thereof is likely to fail, or to become
disabled or dislodged, or to collapse and thereby injure persons or damage property; or
2. Whenever the structure, or any portion thereof, is likely to partially or completely
collapse as a result of any cause, including, but not limited to:
a. Dilapidation, deterioration, or decay;
b. Faulty construction;
C. The removal, movement, or instability of any portion of the ground
necessary for the purpose of supporting such structure; or
d. The deterioration, decay, or inadequacy of its foundation.
H. Excessive damage or deterioration. Whenever the structure exclusive of the foundation:
1. Shows 33 percent or more damage or deterioration of its supporting member or members;
2. 50 percent damage or deterioration of its non-supporting members; or
3. 50 percent damage or deterioration of its enclosing or outside wall coverings.
I. Demolition remnants on site. Whenever any portion of a structure, including unfilled
excavations, remains on a site for more than 30 days after the demolition or destruction of the
structure;
J. Fire hazard. Whenever any structure is a fire hazard as a result of any cause, including but not
limited to: Dilapidated condition, deterioration, or damage; inadequate exits; lack of sufficient
fire-resistive construction; or faulty electric wiring, gas connections, or heating apparatus.
K. Other hazards to health, safety, or public welfare.
1. Whenever, for any reason, the structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for
the purpose for which it is lawfully constructed or currently is being used; or
2. Whenever a structure is structurally unsafe or is otherwise hazardous to human life,
including but not limited to whenever a structure constitutes a hazard to health, safety,
or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, unsanitary
conditions, obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster, damage, or abandonment.
L. Public nuisance.
1. Whenever any structure is in such a condition as to constitute a public nuisance known
to the common law or in equity jurisprudence; or
2. Whenever the structure has been so damaged by fire, wind, earthquake or flood or any
other cause, or has become so dilapidated or deteriorated as to become:
a. An attractive nuisance, or
b. A harbor for vagrants or criminals.
M. Chronic dereliction. Whenever a derelict structure, as defined in this Chapter, remains
unoccupied for a period in excess of 6 months or period less than 6 months when the structure
or portion thereof constitutes an attractive nuisance or hazard to the public.
N. Violations of codes, laws. Whenever any structure has been constructed, exists, or is
maintained in violation of any specific requirement or prohibition applicable to such structure
provided by the building regulations of this City, as specified in Chapter 14.04 or any law or
ordinance of this State or City relating to the condition, location, or structure or buildings.
PART 4 - ENFORCEMENT
14.16.385 Notice of Status as Derelict or Dangerous Structure.
When the Building Official determines that a structure is a derelict or dangerous structure notice of
infraction shall be given to the owner pursuant to City Code Chapter 1.16. Additional notice to other
affected persons may be given at the discretion of the Building Official. In addition to the notice
required by Chapter 1. 16, the Building Official shall give the statement of actions required to cure
or remedy the condition and, if necessary, the order to vacate described in § 14.16.390 and
14.16.400.
14.16.390 Statement of Actions Required.
A. Notice of the statement of action shall be given in conjunction with the notice of infraction
pursuant to Chapter 1.16.
B. The statement of the action required to cure or remedy a condition giving rise to classification
of a structure as derelict or dangerous shall include the following:
1. If the building official has determined that the building or structure must be repaired, the
statement shall require that all required permits be secured and the work physically
commenced within such time from the date of the statement and completed within such
time as the building official shall determine is reasonable under all of the circumstances.
2. If the building official has determined that the building or structure must be vacated, the
statement shall order that the building or structure shall be vacated within a time certain
from the date of the statement as determined by the building official to be reasonable.
3. If the building official has determined that (a) the building or structure is vacant, (b) that
building or structure is structurally sound and does not present a fire hazard, and (c) the
building or structure has presented or is likely to present a danger to individuals who may
enter the building or structure even though they are unauthorized to do so, the statement
shall require that the building or structure be secured against unauthorized entry by
means which may include but are not limited to the boarding up of doors and windows.
4. If the building official has determined that the building or structure must be demolished,
the statement shall order that the building be vacated within such time as the building
official shall determine is reasonable from the date of the statement; that all required
permits be secured from the date of the statement, and that the demolition be completed
within such time as the building official shall determine is reasonable.
5. Statements advising that if any required repair or demolition work (without vacation also
being required) is not commenced within the time specified, the building official will
order the building vacated and posted to prevent further occupancy until the work is
completed, and may proceed to cause the work to be done and charge the costs thereof
against the property or its owners.
14.16.400 Notice of Unsafe Occupancy.
A. Posting Notice. In conjunction with an order to vacate, a notice shall be posted at or upon each
exit of the building and shall be in substantially the following form:
DO NOT ENTER
UNSAFE TO OCCUPY
It is a violation of Chapter 14.16 of the City Code
to occupy this building or to
remove or deface this notice.
Building Official
City of Tigard
B. Compliance.
1. Upon an order to vacate and the posting of an unsafe building notice, no person shall
remain in or enter any building which has been so posted, except that entry may be
made to repair, demolish or remove such building under permit.
2. No person shall remove or deface any such notice after it is posted until the required
repairs, demolition or removal have been completed and a certificate of occupancy
issued pursuant to the provisions of the building code ordinance, codified in Chapter
14.04 of this code.
14.16.410 Abatement of Dangerous Structures.
All structures or portions thereof which are determined after inspection by the Building Official
to be dangerous as defined in this Chapter are hereby declared to be public nuisances and shall be
abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or removal in accordance with the procedures
specified herein. If the Building Official determines that a structure is dangerous, as defined by
this Chapter, the Building Official may commence proceedings to cause the repair, vacation or
demolition of the structure.
14.16.420 Inspections Required, Right of Entry.
A. Inspections. All buildings, structures, or other improvements regulated by this Chapter and
all construction work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the
Building Official.
B. Right of Entry. Whenever the Building Official has reasonable cause to suspect a violation
of any provision of this Chapter exists or when necessary to investigate an application for or
revocation of any approval under any of the procedures described in this title, the Building
Official may enter on any site or into any structure for the purpose of investigation, provided
that no premises shall be entered without first obtaining the consent of the owner or person in
control of the premises if other than the owner, or by obtaining a search warrant.
C. Search Warrant. If consent cannot be obtained, the Building Official shall secure a search
warrant from the City's municipal court before further attempts to gain entry, and shall have
recourse to every other remedy provided by law to secure entry.
14.16.430 Fee-paid Inspections for Residential Structures.
Requested inspections that are not part of the City's code enforcement program will be made as soon
as practical after payment to the Building Official of the fee specified by resolution of the City
Council.
14.16.440 Occupancy of Residential Property After Notice of Violation.
A. If a notice of violation of sections 14.16.080 through 14.16.350 or 14.16.360 through
14.16.380 has been issued, and if the affected dwelling unit(s) is or becomes vacant, it shall
be unlawful to reoccupy or permit re-occupancy of the unit(s) for residential purposes until the
necessary permits are obtained, corrections made, and permit inspection approvals given.
B. Notwithstanding Subsection 14.16.440 (A), the Building Official may permit re-occupancy
of the dwelling unit if in the Building Official's opinion, all fire and life safety hazards have
been rectified.
14.16.450 Illegal Residential Occupancy.
When a property has an illegal residential occupancy, including but not limited to occupancy of
tents, campers, motor homes, recreational vehicles, or other structures or spaces not intended for
permanent residential use or occupancy or spaces constructed or converted without permit, the use
shall be abated or the structure brought into compliance with the present regulations for a building
of the same occupancy.
14.16.460 Interference with Repair, Demolition, or Abatement Prohibited.
It is unlawful for any person to obstruct, impede, or interfere with any person lawfully engaged in:
1. The work of repairing, vacating, warehousing, or demolishing any structure pursuant to
the provisions of this Chapter;
2. The abatement of a nuisance pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter; or Chapter 1.16.
3. The performance of any necessary act preliminary to or incidental to such work as
authorized by this Chapter or directed pursuant to it.
1 14.16.470 Violations.
A. A violation of this Chapter shall constitute a Class 1 civil infraction, which shall be processed
according to the procedures in the civil infractions ordinance, set out at Chapter 1.16 of this
Code.
B. Each violation of a separate provision of this Chapter shall constitute a separate infraction, and
each day that a violation of this Chapter is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute
a separate infraction.
C. A finding of a violation of this Chapter shall not relieve the responsible party of the duty to
abate the violation. The penalties imposed by this section are in addition and not in lieu of any
remedies available to the City.
D. If a provision of this Chapter is violated by a firm or corporation, the officer or officers, or
person or persons responsible for the violation shall be subject to the penalties imposed by this
Chapter.
i:/bldg/david/co=hous/council/fordl799.doc
J
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON D F T
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING CITY POLICIES FOR
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMMUNITY HOUSING PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, the Community Housing Task Force has recommended a property maintenance code
containing minimum standards for safety, health, sanitation and habitability for all housing in Tigard; and
WHEREAS, the code cannot specifically provide for the detailed enforcement and service policies and
procedures for the program; and
WHEREAS, the specific enforcement policies and procedures are as important to the effective
implementation of the program as the substantive requirements of the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Community Housing Task Force has reached consensus on a number of important
program policies and procedures; and
WHEREAS, the stakeholders represented by the Task Force support the code and program provided the
recommended- policies and procedures are adopted; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council acknowledges that acceptance of the program by the stakeholders
is vital to program success; and;
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council wishes to formalize its commitment to the success of the program
by stipulating certain program policies and procedures by its own resolution; and
WHEREAS, the policies and procedures recommended by the Task Force are reasonable and serve the
Council's goals for the program;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that the program policies and procedures shown on
Exhibit "A" be adopted.
PASSED: This day of 1999.
May-or - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City o Tigard
RESOLUTION NO. 99- i:~atywidaYes~z9#itCdoc
Page 1
EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION 99-
Community Housing Program Policies and Procedures - The following policies and procedures
will be utilized:
1. The code will be enforced and inspections performed only when a complaint or referral is
received.
2. Self-referral by inspectors is allowed when obvious violations are observed during the
regular course of business (includes conducting an inspection or driving to and from
inspections).
3. Anyone can complain or refer. Anonymous complaints will not be accepted. A complainant's
name will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by the Oregon Public Records Law.
4. When a complaint or referral is received from a tenant or the tenant's representative
regarding a non-owner occupied property, the City will ask the caller if they are being
evicted. If they are, no inspection will be made until staff has contacted the owner or owner's
representative.
5. When a complaint or referral is received from a tenant or the tenant's representative
regarding a non-owner occupied property, staff will ask the caller if they have tried to resolve
the issue with the landlord. If not, the City will not pursue the matter until the caller has tried
to resolve the issue with the landlord (except for serious safety, health, habitability or
sanitation issues).
6. When a complaint or referral is received from someone who is not the tenant or the tenant's
representative the City will attempt to notify the property owner or authorized representative
prior to performing an inspection.
7. If the tenant or tenant's representative has tried to resolve the issue with the landlord, the
City will attempt to notify the property owner or authorized representative prior to performing
an inspection. The owner will be given a chance to correct the problem and call in when
corrections are made, within an agreed timeframe. Staff will then confirm this with the tenant
or tenants representative. If confirmed, no inspection will be required. This "self certification"
process will not be used for complaints regarding significant safety, health, habitability or
sanitation issues. To facilitate this process, rental property owners will be encouraged to
voluntary register a contact phone number and contact person so notification can be made.
Registration can be part of the business tax process. Owners who fail to register may not
receive notice. Staff will search property tax and utility records and will ask the complainant
for contact information regarding the property owner. At the onset of the program, a mailer
will go to rental property owners to solicit their registration.
8. Complaint or referral inspections will be limited to the unit(s) and specific code item for which
the complaint or referral is received, or the specific portion of the common area(s) if the
complaint or referral is regarding the common area. No inspection will be done of other
areas unless the inspector notices obvious violations during the course of conducting the
inspection.
9. When called to inspect compliance with previously noted violations the inspection shall be
limited as above. Any new violations discovered in the subject areas shall be treated as
separate and new violations. Any violations resulting from additional complaints or referrals
on a unit or area already under a compliance action shall be treated as separate and new
violations.
COMPLAINT PROCESS
Complaint received
Close case
NO
omplainant I No Terminate Process
Violations? provided?
YES
Contact owner, arrange insp.
with owner/tenant
YES s caller tenant or
tenants rep?
YES
Is tenant being
evicted?
NO Is issue serious safety,
sanitation or habitability YES
issue?
NO
YES Has caller Explain "self-cert"
contacted owner? YES process to tenant,
create case
NO
NO Call owner re: complaint, arrange
compliance time, inform caller of
compliance time
Refer caller to owner
ffeock with caller re:
mpliance
Inform caller and YES Caller indicates
owner, close case compliance?
s ;
NO
Work with owner re: NO
compliance YES Violations?
Inform owner and conduct inspection
(create case as applicable)
APPENDIX B
WRITTEN TESTIMONY FROM SOCIAL. CARE FACILITY
STAKEHOLDERS
Note: In addition to the written testimony contained in this
appendix, Social Care Facility stakeholders submitted copies
of Oregon Administrative Rules governing Social Care
Facilities.
fegon Department of Human Resources
t, J
Senior and Disabled Services Division
John A. Kitrhaber, M.D., Govemor 500 Summer St. N-h
September 21, 1998 Salem, OR 97310-1015
Voice/TTY (503) 945-5811
Voice/TTY 1-800-282-8096
FAX (503) 373-7823
Community Housing Task Force
David Scott, Building Official
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, Or 97223
Dear Members of the Community Housing Task Force,
On behalf of the State of Oregon Senior and Disabled Services Division, The State
of Oregon Health Division Licensing Plan Review Section and the Washington
County Department of Aging and Veterans Services, I would like to congratulate the
Community Housing Task Force and the city of Tigard on your efforts to support
adequate and affordable housing. We applaud your efforts and hope you will include
accessible housing in your primary goals.
In reviewing the proposed changes to the Tigard Municipal Code 14.16.0 10 through
14.16.440 we have several recommendations which we are submitting for your
consideration.
Recommendation #1 : Care facilities licensed and monitored by the State of Oregon
be exempt from the proposed provision. We recommend you add this narrow
exception language to the code. Facilities falling under this definition are regularly
inspected. Any facility in which licensing is revoked, suspended or not renewed
would fall under the proposed city ordinance. Facilities such as Retirement Homes
and Board and Room facilities are not licensed and would not be included.
Recommendation #2: Review the exemption language after a reasonable period of
time to determine if exclusion language in anyway compromises the City of Tigards
property management regulations. Representatives from the State of Oregon Senior
and Disabled Services Division, Health Division and the Washington County
Department of Aging and Veterans Affairs would be willing to participate in the
review.
"Assisting People to Become Independent, Healthy and Safe"
An Equal Opportunity Employer
EIRE 1015 (11/97)
Tigard Community Housing Task Force page 2
Recommendation #3: To address the question of equitable treatment of property
owners, we recommend that the committee and the City of Tigard look at the
municipal code in context of the other government regulations. State of Oregon
licensing regulations and sanctioning authority in fact exceed proposed regulations.
Equity exists in the overall regulatory scheme. Adding local regulatory requirements
beyond those articulated in the Oregon Administrative Rules does not improve
protection for residents or further the goal of maintaining adequate and affordable
housing in licen
3td
care settings.
Again, I urge you to accept these recommendations. If you choose not to accept these
recommendations, I am requesting written confirmation of your decision.
If you have any questions or I can be of any assistance to you please feel free to call
me at (503) 945-6462.
Sincerely,
Kathryn A. Labadie, Manager
Community Based Care Programs
cc: Dan Kaplan, SDSD
Cindy Hannum, SDSD
Mary Lou Ritter, WCDAVS
Don Nyberg, OHP
Lucille Penry, ACPO State President
Margaret Carley, OHCA
W~~'C'Tt~ `C~S'ttMaN`~ SV13M~~ C~J ~02 `b~b~9$ Mf~'f,vJC~
$`l Mh2C~A~'~.-c t trt~, ~fn~~ ATfatz~3~,`~ f oQ~c~rJ "EAZIA CAP-f- ASwc%ATiot~
T IGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
The proposed changes to the Tigard Municipal Code include "Social Care Facilities"
within the definition of "dwelling" for purposes of property maintenance regulations. If
the proposed change is adopted, Tigard nursing, assisted living and residential care
facilities likely would be subject to the Tigard regulations related to building structural
requirements as well as state administrative rules on this subject.
Our argument that Tigard should not include Social Care Facilities within the scope of
municipal regulation should focus on the following:
® In several areas cases the Tigard rules conflict with existing State regulation.
• State regulation of long term care facilities is already extensive and provides
adequate protection for residents. (why the need to include long term care facilities
in local regulation?)
o Long term care facilities are unique. Long term care facilities are different from
apartments and hotels in that they provide not only a place to live but also medical
care. The Tigard rules do not distinguish between strictly residential dwelling units
and units occupied by persons with medical needs.
e Too complicated for regulators and consumers to keep track of duplicative local and
state regulation and also requires duplicative inspections.
Nursing Facilities continuously licensed since January 1, 1992 and RCFs licensed
since 1994 are exempt from some state regulations. Requiring compliance with
Tigard regulations might place many of them in immediate noncompliance.
Conflicts
Problem. Tigard rules require door to exterior of dwelling unit to permit opening from
inside without use of key or any special knowledge or effort. (14.16.180) Nursing
facilities may not be able to do this as resident wandering is a concern. The State nursing
facility rules allow exit/entrance doors to have electro-magnetic locks that automatically
release in the event of a fire alarm or power failure (411-87-400).
E~>4, Problem. The Tigard rules require each habitable room to have at least one window that
can be easily opened or another approved device to adequately ventilate the room
(14.16.170). The State nursing facility rules do not require a window to be operable if the
building is designed with an engineered smoke control system. 411-87-400. I don't
know if the smoke control system would qualify as an "approved ventilation device."
Problem. The State nursing facility rules allow one bathtub for every 25 beds that are
not otherwise served by bathing facilities within the residents' rooms. The RCF rules
allow one bath per every 10 residents (411-55-101). The Tigard rules require one bathtub
per floor and at the rate of one for every 12 residents. (modifications available for
individual cases) 14.16.230.
Problem. The Tigard rules require water supplied to sinks, bathtubs and showers to be
heated to at least 120 degrees. 14.16.250. The State nursing facility rules allow the water
to be between 100 and 120 degrees, 411-87-460, or between 110 and 120 for an RCF or
ALF (411-55-131, 411-56-040).
Problem. The Tigard rules require handrails on stairs to be between 30 and 38 inches
from the floor (14.16.150). Is this the right height for Nursing Facilities, RCFs or ALFs?
Are there additional considerations based on nature of residents, who are in wheelchairs,
and staff needs? As noted below, the Tigard rules do not require handrails in corridors.
Problem. The Tigard rules prohibit overcrowding in a dwelling unit and define it to
mean, after the first resident, more than one additional resident for every 150 square feet
of floor area in a habitable room, 14.16.290. Nursing facilities commonly have more
than one bed per room. Don't know if the room size meets the Tigard requirement.
State rules are extensive
Nursing, Assisted Living and Residential care facilities already must comply with the
Oregon Building Code, local building regulations and the Uniform Fire Code (411-87-
020, 411-55-081, 411-56-040).
The State Nursing, Assisted Living and Residential Care Facility rules address virtually
all the same issues addressed in the Tigard Municipal Code. The only relevant areas
where the State does not regulate are as follows:
Address number display
Requirements related to adequate facility structure, roof and exterior walls and
dangerous structures such as application of approved protective coating of
weather-resistant preservative (14.16.140) and prohibition on crumbling
foundations (14.16.130) although these issues are likely regulated by the State
Building Code or the general requirement that facilities be maintained in good
repair.
In addition to other requirements, RCFs, ALFs and Nursing Facilities must submit
construction plans to Oregon Health Division for approval. 411-55-071, 411-87-010.
State rules address unique long term care facility needs (medical as well as
residential issues)
Heat: The nursing facility and RCF rules require a heating system capable of maintaining
a temperature of 75 degrees (411-87-450, 411-55-131) whereas the Tigard rules require
only 68 degrees (14.16.260).
Ventilation: The State NF, ALF and RCF rules contain extensive regulation on
ventilation systems. The Tigard rules do not address it.
Lighting: The Tigard rules are very general and merely require operable light fixtures
and that hallway and stairway lighting have at least one foot candle illumination at
principal points and % foot candle elsewhere. 14.16.270. The State NF rules state
specifically that older persons require higher levels of illumination and are much more
sensitive to glare. Lighting fixtures in NF must be designed to minimize glare and must
provide minimum foot candle illumination ranging from 10 to 100. ALF requirements
range from 20 to 50 foot candles (411-56-040).
Sleeping room requirements: The Tigard rules are again very general and require only
that the room be habitable, have appropriate lighting, ventilation, etc. (14.16.280). The
State RCF, NF and ALF rules also contain these requirements but also regulate room
size, allowances between the bed and the wall, room for wheelchair movement, etc.
(411-87-130, 411-55-111, 411-56-040).
The Tigard rules do not require every room to have a window. The RCF, ALF and NF
rules do and require the window to be bigger (10% of floor area v. 6.8%). 411-87-400,
411-55-101, 411-56-040, 14.16.170.
The RCF rules require regular fire drills and an on-going safety program. 411-55-081.
The RCF rules regulate width of corridors. 411-55-101
The NF rules require handrails on all corridors. 411-87-350.
Many more examples related to sanitary kitchen facilities, dining facilities and other
issues not present in a typical apartment building or hotel.
• The State rules are developed to ensure that long term care residents receive quality
care in a safe setting. The Tigard rules improperly treat long term care facilities and
residents the same as apartments or hotels and their residents, who do not have the
same needs.
i
d
1
ACPO
Adult Care Providers of Oregon
Washington County Chapter
15405 SW 116th Ave., Suite 103-A, King City, OR 97224
Office: 503 684-1800 Fax: 503 684-5828
August 6, 1998
Community Housing Task Force
City of Tigard
RE: Social Care Facilities - Adult Foster Care Homes
Good afternoon. My name is June Sulffridge. I am the President of the Washington County Chapter of
ACPO; State Treasurer for ACPO; State Board Member; Committee member for the Subcommittee on
Medicaid Reimbursement for SDSD in Salem; and my husband and I own an adult foster care home in
Washington County. I have been asked to represent Washington County adult foster home providers at
today's meeting of the Community Housing Task Force regarding the issue of Social Care Facilities.
Let me begin by giving you a couple of definitions.
Definition of Adult Foster Care in Oregon
Per Administrative Rules for Licensure of Adult Foster Home", dated 4/1/96, Section
411-50400(3)(Definitions) " "Adult Foster Home (AFW' means any family home or other facility in
which residential care is provided in a home-like environment for compensation to five or fewer elderly or
physically disabled adults who are not related to the provider by blood or marriage. For the purpose of
this rule, adult foster home does not include any house, institution, hotel or other similar living situation
that supplies room and board only, or room only, or board only, if no resident thereof requires any
element of care."
Page 1
NINE
Community Housing Task Force
City of Tigard
August 6, 1998
Per City of Tigard Municipal code 14.16.070(h)(Definitions) "Social Care, Facilities. Any building or
portion of a building containing three or more dwelling units, which is designed, built, rented, leased, let,
hired out or otherwise occupied for group residential living purposes, which is not an apartment house.
such facilities include but are not limited to, adult foster care, retirement homes, half-way houses, youth
shelters, homeless shelters and other group living residential facilities."
By the definitions quoted above, adult foster care homes do not qualify as Social Care Facilities since
they are single family homes, providing a "home-like" environment for five or fewer elderly persons.
They do not consist of "three or more dwelling units", they are a "Single-Family Dwelling. A structure
containing one dwelling unit." (Tigard Municipal Code 14.16.070(b)). By definition alone, adult foster
care homes should not be part of this proposed ordinance. Adult Foster Care Homes are the second most
regulated senior care industry in the state, only behind nursing homes. We have to adhere and comply
with 61 pages of regulations, which include such areas as:
Definitions; purpose, license required; capacity; license application and fees, criminal record clearance;
training requirements; classification of home; general condition (zoning, codes, fire and safety
regulations); condition of furnishings; stairways, railings; heating system; minimum amount of common
living space; size of interior doorways; swimming pool/spa/sauna safety; first aid; sanitation
(water/plumbing/sewer/garbage); laundry; household pets; universal precautions for infection control;
bathrooms (individual privacy); bedroom size and who can or cannot occupy the bedrooms; size of beds;
bedding requirements; furniture requirements in the bedroom; proximity of the bedrooms to the provider,
location of bedrooms; meals (how many, when) food preparation; telephone availability; safety (fire);
heating; hardware for all doors; window sizes; construction; flame spread requirements; mobile home
requirements; fire extinguisher requirements; smoke detector requirements; emergency evacuation plans;
orienting employees and residents to the home; width and size of common areas; location in relation to
closest fire station; flashlight requirements; smoking regulations; natural disaster plans; standards and
practices for care and services; admission; assessment and care plans; medications; treatments; therapies;
psychoactive medications; physical restraints; registered nurse consultation; resident care; resident
records; financial records; residents' hill of rights; house rules; inspections by licensers; complaints;
procedures for correction of violations; administrative sanctions; denial, revocation or non-renewal of
Page 2
Community Housing Task Force
City of Tigard
August 6, 1998
license; suspension of license; conditions to a license; criminal penalties; civil penalties and last, but not
least; zoning requirements. Sitting in front of me is the "Ensuring Quality Care (EQC)" binder which is
the `Bible" for adult foster home providers. These are the rules, forms and guidelines for us and our
residents. I have also brought several copies of the Administrative Rules for the Task Force if any
member or City of Tigard staff person would like a copy.
We have families, nurses, social workers, licensers, inspectors, referral agencies, and Ombudsmen coming
to our homes to visit our residents and tell us what to do. We have SDSD in Salem and Washington
County Aging and Veterans Services offices overseeing us and telling us what to do. Without being
rude, we really do not need one more set of rules or another governmental agency to oversee us. There
are 37 adult foster homes in Tigard, which serve approximately 180 seniors. We are proud of the work
we do, but please, do not add more paperwork and other regulatory agency to our already busy,
overregulated industry. We respectfully request that adult foster care homes be deleted from this draft
ordinance and not be included as a "Social Care Facility" in the City's ordinance.
Thank you for your time and consideration to this issue.
Page 3
~ Mill
4
ACPO
Adult Care Providers of Oregon
Washington County Chapter
15405 SW 116th Ave., Suite 103-A, King City, OR 97224
Office: 503 684-1800 Fax: 503 684-5828
August 7, 1998
David Scott
Building Official
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Community Housing Task Force
Adult Foster Care Homes
Dear David:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Community Housing Task Force. Hopefully, I was
able to enlighten those members present about adult foster care homes in Tigard.
Per your request regarding current regulations concerning the general exterior condition of adult foster
care homes, the following addresses that issue. This can be found on page 24 of the "Administrative
Rules for Licensure of Adult Foster Homes", a copy of which was provided to each Task Force member
in attendance as well as yourself.
"411-50-445 Facile Standards
In order to qualify for or maintain a license, an adult foster home shall comply with the following
provisions:
(1) General Conditions
(a) Each adult foster home shall meet all applicable local business license, zoning,
building and housing codes, and state and local fire and safety regulations for a
single family residence;
(b) the building and furnishings shall be clean and in good repair. Grounds shall be
well maintained. Walls, ceilings, and floors shall be of such character to permit
frequent washing, cleaning, or painting. there shall be no accumulation of garbage,
debris, rubbish or offensive odors;"
David Scott
August 7, 1998
Page 2.
This section clearly states that each adult foster care home in Tigard must comply with all regulations
regarding single family dwellings. Therefore, any existing or proposed regulations regarding the upkeep
of the exterior or yard of a single family residence in Tigard would automatically apply to all adult foster
care homes in Tigard.
You commented yesterday that your initial, preliminary staff recommendation would be to exclude
Building Code 'T' facilities (typically nursing/convalescent) from the proposed ordinance, but be more
concerned about facilities as you go "down" the chain, getting closer to "R3" or single family dwellings,
or adult foster homes. If you will compare the rules that you were given for assisted living facilities,
residential care facilities and adult foster care homes, you will clearly see that adult foster care homes are
much more stringently regulated than either of the other two, and they have far more regulations already
in place with which to comply. Consequently, I would propose that you review these regulations
carefully and possibly rethink your preliminary staff recommendation.
Again, ACPO appreciates the opportunity to take part in this important evaluation of "Social Care
Facilities" in Tigard. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further information. I look
forward to hearing from you in the near future with the date for the next Task Force meeting.
Sincerely,
Jun ulffridge ,
President
ACPO - Washington County Chapter
APPENDIX C
PROGRAM STAFFING ANALYSIS
PROGRAM STAF'F'ING ANALYSIS
Assumptions:
Reactive inspections only
® Inspector can do 660 inspections/year
® 400 inspections/year (based on 44% of Portland's ratio of reactive inspections
performed to number of housing units. 44 % used because 86 % of Portland's stock
is at least 25 years old, compared to 41 % for Tigard. Other demographics such as
ratio of owner to rental occupied and breakdown of # of units per building are very
similar).
e Require .7 FTE (use 1 FTE)
Unit Costs:
A 1 FIE Housing Inspector $50,000
• 1 Vehicle $18,000
O 1 Work-station set-up $4,000
O Forms, documents $2,500
• Other (gas, training, etc) $2,000
O Legal .$5,000
Total Costs:
• First year: $81,500 (costs much less first year because program commencing 4/1/99
O on-going: $59,500 + $10,000 emergency fund = $70,000
Note: no inflation factor included
APPENDIX D
TESTIMONY OF THE GAO BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, REGARDING CALIFORNIA
NURSING HOMES
(Submitted by Paul Alig, Oregon Legal Services)
United States General Acconnjkg Office
M
GAO Testimony
Before the Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate
For Release Delivery F0 ~ RSR. T,~`I
Expected at 10 10:Q0 am C -A-U R
l~ l~
XX-X
Tuesday, July 28, 1998 HOMES
Federal and State Oversight
Inadequate to Protect
Residents in Hones With
Serious Care Violations
Statement of William J. Scanlon, Director
Health Financing and Systems Issues
Health, Education, and Human Services Division
Ja~~gD S
M v
i cZn 4.
94ouN
i
1
f
i
GAO/'- I1EHS-98-219
California Nursing Homes: Federal and. State
Oversight Inadequate to Protect Residents in
Homes With Serious Care Violations
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for inviting me to discuss our findings on nursing home care in
California. The federal government has a major stake in nursing home
care, having paid the nation's roughly 17,000 homes $28 billion in 1997
through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. While the public relies on
nursing homes to provide care to one of the most vulnerable segments of
our population, allegations were raised to your Committee that some 3,000
residents died in more than 900 California nursing homes in 1993 as a
result of malnutrition, dehydration, sepsis from improperly treated urinary
tract infections, and other serious conditions for which they did not
receive acceptable care.
The information I am presenting today is based on our recently issued
report to your Committee.' Although I will begin with the care problems
found through reviewing medical records for a sample of 62 residents who
died in 1993, the majority of my comments will focus on our analysis of the
current information on the quality of care in all California nursing homes.
This analysis focused on care problems identified in recent state and
federal quality reviews that California conducted in the last 2 or 3 years,
obstacles to federal and state efforts to identify care problems, and
implementation of federal enforcement policies to ensure that homes
correct problems identified and then sustain compliance with federal
requirements. The federal and state agencies with oversight responsibility
for homes receiving funds from Medicare and Medicaid are the Health
Care Financing Administration (HCFA) and the state of California's
Department of Health Services (DHS). Together, they oversee care in the
more than 1,400 California nursing homes, representing more than 141,000
resident beds. Medicare and Medicaid paid these homes approximately
$2 billion in 1997 to care for nursing home residents.
In brief, we found that despite the presence of a considerable federal and
state oversight infrastructure, a significant number of California nursing
homes were not and currently are not sufficiently monitored to guarantee
the safety and welfare of nursing home residents. We came to this
conclusion, for the most part, by using information from California's DHs
reviews of nursing home care covering 95 percent of the state's nursing
homes and HcFA data on federal enforcement actions taken.
'Califomia N Homes Care Problems Persist Despite Federal and State Oversight
(A , July , 1 M).
Psge 1 GAO/r-HEH8-99-219
4
lv
Calitore!a Nursing Homes: Federal and State
Oversight Inadequate to Protect Residents in
Homes With Serious case Violations
Looking back at medical record information from 1993, we found that, of
62 resident cases sampled ,2 residents in 34 cases received care that was
unacceptable. However, in the absence of autopsy information that
establishes the cause of death, we cannot be conclusive about whether
this unacceptable care may have contributed directly to individual deaths.
As for the extent of care problems currently, between July 1995 and
k ebruary 1998, California surveyors cited 407 homes-nearly a third of the
1,370 omes in our analysis--for care violations they classified as serious
under federal or state deficiency categories. Moreover, we believe that the
extent of current serious care problems portrayed in these federal and
state data is likely to be understated. The predictable timing of on-site
reviews, the questionable accuracy and completeness of medical records,
and the limited number of residents whose care was reviewed by
surveyors in each home have each likely shielded some problems from
surveyor scrutiny.
Finally, even when the state identifies serious deficiencies, lici A's
enforcement policies have not been effective in ensuring that the
deficiencies are corrected and remain corrected. For example, nas
surveyors cited about 1 in 11 California homes-accounting for over
17,000 resident beds-twice in consecutive annual reviews for violations
involving harm to residents. (The national average was slightly
worse-about one in nine homes were cited twice consecutively for
violations of federal requirements involving harm to residents.)
Nevertheless, HCeA generally took a lenient stance toward many of these
homes. California's DHS, consistent with HcFA's guidance on imposing
sanctions, grants 98 percent of noncompliant homes a 30- to 45-day grace
period to correct deficiencies without penalty, regardless of their past
performance. Only the few homes that qualify as posing the greatest
danger are not provided such a grace period. In addition, only 16 of the
roughly 1,400 California homes participating in Medicare and Medicaid
have been terminated from participation, most of them have been
reinstated quickly, and many have had subsequent compliance problems.
Recognizing shortcomings in enforcement, California officials told us that
they launched a pilot program. %is month intended to target for increased
vigilance certain of the state's nursing homes with the worst compliance
records.
tour criteria for inclusion in the sample were that a case came from a home with at least b of the
allegedly avoidable deaths and at least 6 such deaths per 100 beds. The 62 cases in our sample were
drawn randomly and came from 16 nursing homes.
Page 2 GAGFr-HERS-98-819
California Nursing Homes: Federal and State
Oversight Inadequate to Protect Residents in
Homes with Serious Care Violations
Background The federal responsibility for overseeing nursing homes belongs to HCFA,
an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHs). Among
other tasks, HCFA defines federal requirements for nursing home
participation in Medicare and Medicaid and imposes sanctions against
homes failing to meet these requirements. HCFA funds state survey
agencies to do the on-site reviews of nursing homes' compliance with
Medicare and Medicaid participation requirements. In California, DHS
performs nursing home oversight, and its authority is specifically defined
in state and federal law and regulations. As part of this role, DHS
(1) licenses nursing homes to do business in California; (2) certifies to the
federal government, by conducting reviews of nursing homes, that the
homes are eligible for Medicare and Medicaid payment; and
(3) investigates complaints abut care provided in licensed homes. To
assess nursing home compliance with federal and state laws and
regulations, DHs relies on two types of reviews-the standard survey and
the complaint investigation. The standard survey, which must be
conducted no less than once every lb months at each home, entails a team
of state surveyors spending several days on site conducting a broad review
of care and services with regard to meeting the assessed needs of the
residents.3 The complaint investigation involves conducting a targeted
review with regard to a specific complaint filed against a home.
The state and HCFA each has its own system for classifying deficiencies
that determines which remedies, sanctions, or other actions should be
taken against a noncompliant home. For standard surveys, California's DHs
typically cites deficiencies using HCFA's classification and sanctioning
scheme; for complaint investigations, it generally uses the state's
classification and penalty scheme.
Table 1 shows HCFA's classification of deficiencies and the accompanying
levels of severity and compliance status.
c
N
1
i
Me standard survey is used not only to meet HCFA's certification requirement but also to ensure that
a home continues to meet its state licensing requirements.
page 3 GAO✓r-HERS-98-219
aid
California Nursing Homes: Federal and State
Oversight Inadequate to Protect Residents in
Homes With Serious Care Violations
Table 1: HCFA's Deficiency
Classification System Compliance
status of home
cited for this
HCFA deficiency category Level of severity deficiency
Immediate jeopardy to resident health or Most serious Noncompliant
safety
Actual harm that does not put resident in Serious Noncompliant
immediate jeopardy
No actual harm, with potential for more than Less serious Noncompliant
minimal
harm
No actual harm, with potential for minimal harm Minimal Substantially
compliant
sCFA guidance also classifies deficiencies by their scope, or prevalence, as
follows: (1) isolated, defined as affecting a limited number of residents;
(2) pattern, defined as affecting more than a limited number of residents;
and (3) widespread, defined as affecting all or almost all residents.
Review of Records for Our work indicates that 34 residents-more than half of our sample of 62
of California's nursing home residents who died in 1993-received
1993 Deaths unacceptable care. In certain of those cases, the unacceptable care
Uncovered Serious endangered residents' health and safety; however, without an autopsy that
Care Problems establishes the cause of death, we cannot be conclusive about whether the
unacceptable care directly led to any individual's death. Nevertheless, the
care problems we identified were troubling, such as unplanned weight loss
and failure to properly treat pressure sores. For example:
• A resident lost 59 pounds-about one-third of his weight-over a 7-week
period. Only a small share of the weight loss was attributable to fluid loss.
Until 2 days before the resident's death, the nursing home staff had not
recorded his weight since the day he was admitted to the home or notified
the physician of the resident's condition.
• A resident was admitted to a nursing home with five pressure sores, four
of which exposed the bone. Although the physician ordered pain
medication during treatments that removed the blackened dead tissue
from her sores, the resident's medical record indicated that she received
pain medication only three times during 5 weeks of daily treatments. The
resident, who was not in a condition to verbalize her needs, was reported
in the nursing notes to moan whenever this procedure was done without
prescribed pain medication.
Page 4 GAOIT-HERS-98.219
' California Nursing Homes: Federal and State
Oversight Inadequate to Protect Residents In
Homes With Serious Care Violations
State's Recent Quality nxs surveyors identified a substantial number of homes with serious care
problems through their annual standard surveys of nursing homes and
Reviews Reveal through ad hoc complaint investigations. Our analysis of these data shows
Significant Care that, between 1995 and 1998, surveyors cited 407 homes, or nearly a third
]Problems in Nearly of the 1,370 homes included in our review, for serious violations classified
under the federal deficiency categories, the state's categories, or both.
Ogle-Third of All (See fig. 1, "Caused Death or Serious Harm.") These homes were cited for
Homes improper care leading to deal (26 homes), posing life-threatening harm to
residents (269 homes), other serious violations involving improper care
(111 homes), or falsifying or omitting key information from medical
records (11 homes).
Figure 1: Distribution of 1,370
California Nursing Homes by More Than Minimal Deficiencies
Seriousness of Violations Cited, (484 Homes)
1995-98 2%
Minimal or No Deficiencies (30
Homes)
30%1.-- Caused Death or Serious Harm
35% (407 Homes)
33%-- Caused Less Serious Harm (449
Homes)
O
H
1
H
The four wedges in figure 1 correspond to the federal deficiency
categories shown in table 1 and include comparable-level deficiencies
cited using the state's separate classification scheme, as shown in table 2.
Page 5 GAO✓d=HERS-98-219
California Nursing Homes: Federal and State
Oversight inadequate to Protect Residents in
Homes With Serious Care Violations
Table 2: Categorization of Deficiencies
by HCFA and by California DHS Description of
deficiency HCFA deficiency
categories category State deficiency category
Caused death or Immediate Improper care leading to death, imminent
serious harm jeopardy danger or probability of death, intentional
falsification of medical records, or material
Substandard care omission in medical records.
Caused less serious Actual harm Violations of federal or state requirements that
harm have a direct or immediate relationship to the
health, safety, or security of a resident.
More than minimal Potential for California has no state citation directly
deficiencies minimal harm equivalent to the federal category.
Minimal or no Potential for California has no state citation directly
deficiencies minimal harm/no equivalent to the federal category.
deficiencies
~e -
Within the "caused death or serious harm" group are homes cited for
several types of federal violations, including "improper care leading to
death" and "life-threatening harm." Following is an example from the 26
homes California surveyors cited for improper care leading to death:°
• A resident who was admitted to a home for physical therapy rehabilitation
following hip surgery died 5 days later from septic shock, caused by a
urinary tract infection. The home's staff failed to monitor fluid intake and
urine output while the resident was catheterized and afterwards. Nursing
home staff failed to notify a physician as the resident's condition
deteriorated. When his family visited and found him unresponsive, they
informed the staff and his physician was contacted. His physician ordered
intravenous antibiotics, but the staff were unable to get the intravenous
line in place and continuously functioning until 8 hours had passed. The
resident died 3 hours later.
The next example is from the 259 homes California surveyors cited for
life-threatening harm-
- Because the home lacked sufficient licensed nursing staff on duty,
residents did not receive treatrnents, medications, or food supplements as
ordered. One resident's medical record indicated that, although a licensed
l nurse had noted the individual's deteriorating physical condition a half
hour before she died, there was no evidence that the nurse continued to
assess the resident's vital signs, administered oxygen as prescribed by a
*Me subclassification 'improper care leading to death" does not include all residents who died in
homes cited for violations related to residento' care, because the category "life-threatening harm" can
also include such violations and associated deaths.
Page 6 GAOJT-HERS-88-218
California Nursing Homes: Federal and State
Oversight Inadequate to Protect Residents in 'k
Homes With Serious Care Violations
physician's order, or notified the attending physician and family about the
resident's deteriorating condition.
We also determined that cases of poor care were not limited to the 447
homes noted. State surveyors documented instances of serious quality
problems that they categorized as federal deficiencies in the range of
"actual harm" or "potential for more than minimal harm" or as lower-level
state violations. Examples of these are included in our report.
Predictability of The deficiencies that state surveyors identified and documented only
partially capture the extent of care problems in California's homes, for
Surveys, Questionable several reasons. First, some homes can mask problems because they are
records, and Survey able to predict the timing of annual reviews or because medical records
Limitations Hinder sometimes misrepresent the care provided. In addition, state surveyors
can miss identifying deficiencies because of limitations of the methods
Efforts to Identify used in the annual review-methods established in HcFA guidance on
Care Problems conducting surveys-to identify potential areas of unacceptable care.
Predictability of On-Site One problem masking the extent of poor care involves the scheduling of -
Reviews standard surveys. The law requires that a standard survey be unannounced.
and that it be conducted roughly every year.r, Because many California
homes were reviewed in the same month-sometimes almost the same
week-year after year, homes could often predict the timing of their next
survey and prepare to reduce the level of problems that may normally
exist at other times.
At two homes we visited, we observed that the homes' officials had made
advance preparations-such as making a room ready for survey
officials--indicating that they knew the approximate date and time of their
upcoming oversight review. After we discussed these observations with
California DHS officials, they acknowledged that a review of survey
scheduling showed that the timing of some homes' surveys had not varied
by more than a week or so for several cycles. nas officials have since
instructed district office managers to schedule surveys in a way that will
reduce their predictability.
The issue of the predictable timing of surveys is long-standing. More than a
decade ago, the Institute of Medicine called for adjusting the taming of the
KNOW
"Technically, the standard survey must begin no later than 16 months after the last day of the previous
standard survey, and the statewide average interval between standard surveys must not exceed 12
months.
Page 7 GAO"-HERS-98-219
CaMornia Nursing Homes: Federal and State
Oversight Inadequate to Protect Residents in
Homes With Serious Care Violations
surveys to make them less predictable and maximize the element of
surprise.' Subsequently, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
(OBRA 87) nursing home legislation and HcFA's implementing guidance
attempted to address the predictability issue. However, a subsequent
HcFA-conducted poll of nursing home resident advocates in most states
and a 1998 nine-state study by the National State Auditors Association
found that predictable timing of inspections continues to be a problem.
Questionable Records Inaccurate or otherwise misleading entries in medical records can mask
care problems or make it more difficult for surveyors to prove that care
problems exist. We found such irregularities among the medical records
we reviewed, a problem widely recognized in long-term-care research.'
Discrepancies appeared in about 29 percent of the 1993 records we
reviewed. The following two examples of such discrepancies were found
in these records:
• During the hospital stay of a nursing home resident, doctors discovered
that the resident was suffering from a fractured leg and that the fracture
had occurred at least 3 weeks before the hospitalization. The nursing
home's records were missing the clinical notes for the same 3-week period
preceding the resident's hospital stay, thus omitting any indication that an
irtjury had occurred, how it might have occurred, or how it might have
been treated.
• Although a resident's medical record showed that each day she consumed
100 percent of three high-caloric meals and drank four high-protein
supplements, the resident lost 7 pounds-10 percent of her total
weight8-in less than a month. The implausibility of the resident's weight
loss under these conditions raises major questions about the accuracy of
the medical records regarding nutritional intake.
California state surveyors have also identified serious discrepancies in
medical records. The following example is one of the cases they cited:
• A home's treatment records named a staff member as having provided two
residents with range-of-motion exercises nine separate times. It was later
'Institute of Medicine, Improving the Quality of Care in Nursing Homes (Washington D.C.: Institute of
Medicine, 1986), pp. 32W.
'Jeanie Kayser,Iones and others, "Reliability of Percentage Figures Used to Record the Dietary Intake
of Nursing Home Residents," Nursing Home Medicine, Vol. b, No. 3 (Mar. 1997), pp. 69-76, and John F.
Schnelle, Joseph G. Oaslander, and PatriceA. Cniise *Policy Without Technology: A Barrier to
Improving Nursing Home Care,' The Gerontologist, Vol. 37, No. 4 (1997), pp. 627.32.
$According to medical experts, a (}percent weight loss in a month is considered a significant loss.
Page 8 GAO/P-HEHS-98.219
California Nwm"g Homer. Feder^i and state r
overalSht Inadequate r) Protect. Ae^ dents Ln
Homes With Barlow Care Vlolatione
determined that the staff member was not working at the home when the
treatments were reportedly provided.
HCFXs Protocol for A third monitoring weakness that can hinder surveyors' detection of care
Identifying Potential Care problems involves HCFA's guidance on selecting cases for review to help
Problems surveyors identify potential instances and prevalence of poor care. ncFA
policy establishes the procedures, or protocol, that surveyors must follow
in conducting a home's standard survey. However, HCFA's
protocol-designed to increase the likelihood of detecting problems with
care--does not call for randomly selecting a sufficient sample of residents.
Instead, it relies primarily on the use of the individual surveyor's
professional expertise and judgment to identify resident cases for further
review.
In contrast, our expert nurses, in reviewing current medical records to
identify areas with potential for poor care, took a stratified random
sample-cases from different groups of the home's more fragile as well as
average residents. Each sample was of sufficient size to estimate the
prevalence of problems identified. In addition, the nurses used a standard
protocol to collect and record quality-0f-care information from r. hart
reviews, staff interviews, and data analyses to ensure that the information
was in a consistent format across the various individuals interviewed and
documents reviewed.
For two homes receiving their annual surveys, we compared the findings
of the DHS surveyors, who followed HcFA's survey protocol, with the
findings of our expert nurse team, who accompanied the state surveyors
and conducted concurrent surveys. The methodology our expert nurses
used examined primarily quality-of-care outcomes and related issues,
whereas state surveyors, following federal guidance, reviewed this and 14
additional areas, such as social services, resident assessment, and transfer
and discharge activities. As a result, nHS surveyors sought and found
deficiencies in some important areas that our expert nurses did not
' document. However, in the quality-of-care area, our nurses found serious
i care problems that DRS surveyors did not find, including unaddressed
weight loss, improper pressure sore treatment, and ineffective continence
management.
Page 9 GAOOr-BEES-98-219
California Pluming Homes: Federal and State
Oversight Inadequate to Protect Residents in
Homes With Serious Care Violations
HCFA's Enforcement we also examined the efforts of the state and HCFA to ensure that the
homes cited for serious deficiencies were correcting their problems and
Policies Ineffective in sustaining compliance with federal requirements over time. Encouraging
Bringing Homes With sustained compliance and appropriately sanctioning deficient providers
Serious, Repeated are among HCFA's stated enforcement goals. However, we found that,
s under HCFA'S policies, enforcement results often fall far short of those
Violations Into goals.
Sustained Compliance Between July 1995 and March 1998, DHS surveyors cited 1 in 11 homes, or
122 homes, in both of their last two surveys for conditions causing actual
harm, putting residents in immediate jeopardy, or causing death.' These
homes represent over 17,000 resident beds. The national compliance rate
for about the same period and for the same repeated, serious harm
deficiencies was slightly worse: about 1 in 9 homes, representing more
than 232,000 beds, were cited.
However, HCFA enforcement policies have led to relatively few federal
disciplinary actions taken against these homes in California. Before
oaRA 87, the only sanction available to HCFA and the states to impose
against such noncompliant homes, short of termination, was to deny
federal program payments for new admissions. oBRA 87 provided for
additional sanctions, such as denial of payment for all admissions, civil
monetary penalties, and on-site oversight by the state ("state
monitoring"). 10 Nevertheless, these sanctions were seldom applied, even to
the 122 homes in our analysis cited twice consecutively for serious harm
deficiencies. Specifically, only a fourth-33 homes-had any federal
sanctions that actually took effect.
HCFA Policies Lead to HCFA'S forgiving stance toward homes with a "ping-pong" history of
Lenient Enforcement compliance helps explain how these homes could repeatedly harm
Stance residents without facing sanctions. Generally speaking, HCFA sanctioning
policy divides homes into two groups: those that the state agency is
instructed to refer to HCFA immediately to initiate sanctioning and those
°'Ttte data on deficiencies cited in standard surveys are contained in the OSCAR (On-Line Survey,
Certification, and Reporting) System, a federal database maintained by HCFA
100ther sanctions include third-party management of a home for a temporary period ("temporary
management'); requirement for a home to follow a plan of correction developed by HCFA, the survey
agency, or a temporary manager-with HCFA or survey agency approval-rather than by the home
itself ("directed plan of correction"); and mandatory training of a home's staff on a particular issue
("directed in-service training").
Page 10 GAO/T-HEHS-98-219
California Nursing Homes: Federal and State
Overnight Inadequate to Protect Residents in
Homes With Serious Caere Violations
for which the state agency is permitted to grant a grace period first to
correct deficiencies without the imposition of federal sanctions."
To qualify for immediate referral under HCFA policy, homes must have been
cited for deficiencies in the immediate jeopardy category or rated as a
"poor performer." The criteria for meeting HCFA's poor performer
definition include an intricate combination of immediate jeopardy and
substandard quality-of-care deficiencies.12 Since July 1995, when the
federal enforcement scheme established in oBRA 87 took effect, 59
California nursing homes have been cited for immediate jeopardy
deficiencies and about 25 have been designated poor performers. HCFA
guidance permits the state to broaden the definition of poor performer,
but California has chosen not to do so. 13
Noncompliant homes that are not classified in the immediate jeopardy or
poor performer categories do not meet HCFA's criteria for immediate
referral for sanctioning, even though some may have seriously harmed
residents. HCFA policy permits granting a grace period to this group of
noncompliant homes, regardless of their past performance. Between July
1995 and May 1998, California's nHS gave about 98 percent of noncompliant
homes a grace period to correct deficiencies. For nearly the same period
(July 1995 through April 1998), the rate nationwide of noncompliant
homes receiving a grace period was higher-99 percent-indicating that
the practice of granting a grace period to virtually all noncompliant homes
is common across all states.
Following HCFA policy, nlis is not required to and does not appear-to take
into account a home's compliance history for the bulk of noncompliant
homes receiving a grace period. Our report describes a home that, despite
"Homes in the immediate referral group do not necessarily receive sanctions If homes come into
substantial compliance before sanctioning is scheduled to take effect, HCFA rescinds the sanction.
"Under HCFA's definition of poor performer, a home must have been cited on its current standard
survey for substandard quality of care and have been cited in one of its two previous standard surveys
for substandard quality-of-care or immediate jeopardy violations. HCFA also has a special defu»tion
for "substandard quality of care," as follows: the deficiencies must constitute immediate jeopardy to
resident health and safety in one of three categories of deficiencies, or belong to the same three
categories and include the following combination of severity and scope levels: pattern of or
widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy, or widespread potential for more than
minimal harm
"For example, California could include in the poor performer definition a home's record of violations
cited in the course of complaint investigations Unlile standard surveys, complaint investigations are
generally unexpected and provide mmyors a unkp:;; opportunity to gauge care issues in a home's
everyday environment Because these investigations can uncover serious quality-of-care problems,
including complaint-generated violations in a home's poor performer record would give regulators a
more complete picture of a home's compliance history.
page 11 GAO✓r-HEHS-98-219
California Nursing Homes: Federal and State
Oversight Inadequate to Protect Residents in
Homes With Serious Care Violations
being cited by Dees for the same violations-the unacceptable treatment of
pressure sores-4 years consecutively, has continued to receive a grace
period to correct its deficiencies following each annual review. We
question the wisdom of granting such homes a grace period with no
further federal disciplinary action.
For the few California homes that have had federal sanctions imposed,
HCFA has been less than vigilant. In principle, sanctions imposed against a
home remain in effect until the home corrects the deficiencies cited and
until state surveyors filed, after an on-site review (called a "revisit") that
the home has resumed substantial compliance status. However, if some of
the home's deficiencies persist but are no more serious than those in the
"potential for harm" range, HCFA policy is to forgo a revisit and accept the
home's own report of resumed compliance status. HCFA officials told us
this policy was put into place because of resource constraints. In
California, however, this policy has been applied even to some of the
immediate referral homes that, on a prior revisit, had been found out of
substantial compliance.
Our report describes the case of an immediate referral home for which
HCFA twice accepted the home's self-reported statement of compliance
without having AHS independently verify that the home had fully corrected
its deficiencies:
• In an October 1996 survey, DHS cited the home for i-nmediate jeopardy and
actual harm violations, including improper pressure sore treatment,
medication errors, insufficient nursing staff, and an inadequate infection
control program. By early November 1996, however, surveyors had found
in an on-site review that the problems had abated, although they had not
fully ceased. A week later, the home reported itself to HCFA as having
resumed substantial compliance." HCFA accepted this report without
further on-site review. About 6 months later (May 1997), in the home's
next standard survey, Deis found violations that warranted designating the
home as a poor performer. On a revisit to check compliance in July 1997, `
surveyors found new, but less serious, deficiencies. In August 1997,
however, when the home reported itself in compliance, HCFA accepted the
report without further verification. Between October 1996 and August
14A home reports itself to HCFA as being in compliance by sending HCFA a letter called a "credible
allegation of compliance."
Page 12 GAO/r-HERS-98-219
California Nursing Homes: Federal and State
Oversight Inadequate to Protect Residents in
Homes With Serious Care violations
1997, HCFA imposed several sanctions but rescinded them each time it
accepted the home's unverified report of resumed compliance status.i6
Similarly, HCFA'S level of vigilance appears to be inadequate for homes that
have been terminated and later reinstated. HCFA has the authority to
terminate a home from participation in Medicare and Medicaid if the home
fails to resume compliance. However, termination rarely occurs and is not
as final as the term implies. In the recent past, California's terminated
homes have rarely closed for good. Of the 16 homes terminated in the 1995
through 1998 time period, 14 have been reinstated. Eleven have been
reinstated under the same ownership they had before termination. Of the
14 reinstated homes, at least 6 have been cited with new deficiencies that
harmed residents since their reinstatement, such as failure to prevent
avoidable accidents, failure to prevent avoidable weight loss, and
improper treatment of pressure sores.
A home that applies for reinstatement is required to have two consecutive
on-site reviews--called reasonable assurance surveys-within 6 months to
determine whether the home is in substantial compliance with federal
regulations before its eligibility to bill federal programs can be reinstated.
HCFA officials told us that HCFA cannot prevent a home from being
reinstated if it is in substantial compliance during these reviews. However,
HCFA has not always ensured that homes are in substantial compliance
before reinstating them. Consider the following example:
• A home terminated on April 15, 1997, had two reasonable assurance
surveys on April 25 and May 28, 1997. Although the nursing home was not
in substantial compliance at the time of the second survey, HCFA
considered the deficiencies minor enough to reinstate the home on June 5,
1997. The consequence of termination-stopping reimbursement for the
home's Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries-was in effect for no longer
than 3 weeks.16 About 3 months after reinstatement, however, the home
was cited for harming residents. DHS surveyors investigating a complaint
found immediate jeopardy violations resulting from a dangerously low
number of staff. In addition, surveyors cited the home.for providing
substandard care. Dependent residents, some with pressure sores, were
"In the October 1996 survey, HCFA imposed a civil monetary penalty that went into effect October 3
and was stopped from further accrual on November 8 when HCFA determined that federal
requirements were met, based on the survey that had found lower-level deficiencies. In the May 1997
standard survey, HCFA imposed a civil monetary penalty to take effect in May 1997 and a denial of
payment for new admissions sanction to take effect in July 1997, both of which HCFA stopped in
August 1997 when the home reported that it was in compliance.
"Under Medicare and Medicaid rules, terminated nursing homes may be paid for care of residents in
the home on the date of termination for up to 30 days after the termination takes effect.
Page 13 GAOIT-HERS-98-219
I
i
California Nursing Homes: Federal and State
Oversight Inadequate to Protect Residents in
Homes With Serious Care Violations
left sitting in urine and feces for long periods of time; some residents were
not getting proper care for urinary tract infections; and surveyors cited the
home's infection control program as inadequate.
California DHS Is Piloting California DHS officials recognized that the state-in combination with
alternative Enforcement HcFA's regional office-has not dealt effectively with persistently and
'rocedures Targeting a seriously noncompliant nursing homes. Therefore, beginning in July 1996
small Group of Most and with HCFA's approval, nets began a "focused enforcement" process that
combines state and federal authority and action, targeting providers with
'eriously Deficient Biomes the worst compliance records for special attention.
As a start, DHs has identified about 34 homes with the worst compliance
histories-approximately 2 in each of its districts. Officials intend to
conduct standard surveys of these homes about every 6 months, rather
than the normal 9-to-15-month frequency. In addition, nxs expects to
conduct more complete on-site reviews of homes for all complaints
received about these homes. AHS officials also told us that the agency is
developing procedures-consistent with xcFA regulations implementing
osRA 87 reforms-to ensure that, where appropriate, civil monetary
penalties and other sanctions stronger than a corrective action plan will be
used to bring such homes into compliance and keep them compliant. In
addition, DHs has begun to screen the compliance history of homes by
owner-both in California and nationally-before granting new licenses to
operate nursing homes in the state. State officials told us that they will
require all homes with the same owner to be in substantial compliance
before any new licenses are granted.
iOYlCIllS101[iS and The responsibility to protect nursing home residents, among the most
vulnerable members of our society, rests with nursing homes and with
teCOIi mendations HCFA and the states. In a number of cases, this responsibility has not been
met in California. We and state surveyors found cases in which residents
who needed help were not provided basic care-not helped to eat or s
drink; not kept dry, clean, or free from feces and urine; not repositioned to
prevent pressure sores; not monitored for the development of urinary tract
infections; and not given pain medication when needed.
As serious as the identified care problems are, many care problems may
escape the scrutiny of surveyors. Homes can prepare for surveyors' annual
visits because of their predictable timing. Homes can also adjust resident
records to improve the overall impression of the home's care. In addition,
Page 14 GAO✓r-HIMS-98-219
~M-Nll I MIC -11110M
h
California Nursing Homes: Federal and State
Oversight Inadequate to Protect Residents in
Homes With Serious Care Violations
DHS surveyors can overlook significant findings because the federal survey
protocol they follow does not rely on an adequate sample for detecting
potential problems and their prevalence. Together, these factors can mask
significant care problems from the view of federal and state regulators.
HCFA needs to reconsider its forgiving stance toward homes with serious,
recurring violations. Federal policies regarding a grace period to correct
deficiencies and to accept a home's report of compliance without an
on-site review can be useful policies, given resource constraints, when
applied to homes with less serious problems. However, regardless of
resource constraints, HeFA and DHs need to ensure that their oversight
efforts are directed at homes with serious and recurring violations and
that policies developed for homes with less serious problems are not
applied to them.
Under current policies and practices, noncompliant homes that DHs
identifies as having harmed or put residents in immediate danger have
little incentive to sustain compliance, once achieved, because they may
face no consequences for their next episode of noncompliance. Our
findings regarding homes that repeatedly harmed residents or were
reinstated after termination suggest that the goal of sustained compliance
often eludes HeFA and Deis. Failure to bring such homes into compliance
limits the ability of federal and state regulators to protect the welfare and
safety of residents.
Our report makes recommendations to the HeFA Administrator to address
these issues. Although our report focuses on selected nursing homes in
California, the problems we identified are indicative of systemic survey
and enforcement weaknesses. Our recommendations therefore target
federal guidance in general so that improvements are available to any state
experiencing problems with seriously noncompliant homes. Thus, through
HCFA's leadership, federal and state oversight of nursing homes can be
strengthened nationally and residents nationwide can erg oy increased
protection. In summary, we are recommending that HCFA revise its
guidance to states in order to reduce the predictability of on-site reviews,
possibly by staggering the schedule or segmenting the survey into two or
more reviews; revise methods for sampling resident cases to better
identify the potential for and prevalence of care problems; and, for those
homes with a history of serious and repeated deficiencies, eliminate the
offer of a grace period for resuming compliance and substantiate all of the
home's reports of resumed compliance with an on-site review.
Page 15 GAO/r-HERS-913-219
California Nursing Homes: Federal and State
Oversight Inadequate to Protest Residents in
Homes WiCt Serious Care Violations
i
I
I
liCFA, Deis, and nursing home industry representatives have reviewed our
report. Acknowledging that the findings were troubling, HCFA officials I
informed us that they are planning to make several modifications in their
survey and enforcement process. lDHs also suggested a number of
changes-in addition to its new, focused enforcement program intended
to improve the federal survey and enforcement process. Last week, the
administration announced a series of actions related to federal oversight
of nursing homes, including night and weekend survey visits and increased
inspection of homes with a record of noncompliance. HCFA, DHS, and
industry representatives generally concurred with our recommendations,
although both xcFA and DHS expressed some reservations about
segmenting the standard survey. They contend that dividing the survey
into two or more reviews would make it less effective and more expensive.
However, we believe that this option-which could largely eliminate the
predictability issue and increase the frequency of surveyors' presence at
problem homes-warrants consideration of the benefits to be derived
relative to the disadvantages that were raised.
Finally, despite the survey and enforcement modifications promised by
HCFA and DHS, we remain concerned about the gap between stated goals
and results. In 1995, HcFA enunciated its emphasis on encouraging
sustained compliance and appropriately sanctioning deficient providers.
Its practices since that time, however, argue for swift and significant
changes, as illustrated in California by the persistence of problem homes
with little federal sanctioning. We support the administration's recent
initiative to strengthen the survey and enforcement process. However, we
also believe that continued vigilance by the Congress is needed to ensure
that the promised changes in federal and state oversight of nursing home
care are implemented.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or the Committee Members may have.
~pe7a7D Page 16 GAO/1=BEES-95-819
4~-
To: David Scott, Tigard Building Official I / (q l
Mayor and City Councilors
From: Sheila Fink, CPAH
Re: Community Housing Task Force Report
Date: January 19, 1999
1 have appreciated the opportunity to participate in the Community Housing Task Force (CHTF)
on behalf of Community Partners for Affordable Housing, I nc. (CPAH) over the past year. I
believe the City of Tigard effectively assembled a diverse group of players in the housing arena who
worked with staff to develop a housing code which will protect the interests of our community. David
Scott worked diligently as staff to bring the necessary background and analysis to the group so that
thoughtful decisions could be made.
Since I am unable to join you in your discussion of the proposed code tonight, I wanted to take the
opportunity to high a few key issues from CPAH's perspective:
Our goal in initially recommending the development of such an ordinance was to ensure the health
and safety of Tigard's existing and future residents, primarily in rental properties. Obviously, larger
multifamily projects which are 20+ years old are the most likely to suffer deferred maintenance. In
many cases, owners of these properties have long since exhausted investment and tax value from the
properties, and they are in a downward spiral, which can lead to health and safety concerns for the
community. Some of these properties were not well built from the start, and deferred
maintenance makes for a very challenging "correction."
The CHTF agreed with staff that the code should become a tool for educating our community,
particularly owners of rental properties and residents, about how they can keep their properties safe.
Having to draw upon enforcement penalties and powers will be expensive and risky for the City.
Taken to its extreme, the end result of enforcing the code strictly could lead to the demise of some
of our affordable housing stock. I am certain this is not the ultimate goal of staff, Council or the Task
Force. Any loss of units from our already short supply would have disastrous effects
on current residents, and our community as a whole.
It will require reasoned discretion on the part of staff and Council to determine the Code's ultimate
usefulness. All owners must be treated equally under the law, despite their good or bad intentions.
It is particularly hard when we see property owners such as the Newmarks recently, who were able
to give $650,000 to Portland's Performing Arts Center, but are reportedly unable to make basic repairs
on their Aloha properties including holes in the walls and ceilings, lack of gutters, inoperable toilets, etc.
On the other hand, we have projects close to home which in all likelihood are not producing the cash
flow required to make needed repairs. We must act cautiously to effect needed repairs without a
total loss of housing units. While we are not proposing that you adopt a Replacement Ordinance in
Tigard (and we doubt you would want to), we do propose a commitment on the part of the Council that
any units lost because of a Housing Code you adopt, will be replaced in such a manner that current
residents are protected. Language to this effect should be placed in your resolution adopting such a Code.
Other cities throughout Oregon are watching Tigard with interest. Multifamily trade groups are
monitoring the development of this Housing Code, and will anxiously watch your implementation of it.
Your intent should be clear, and communication ongoing. We look forward to continuing to work with
you during the coming years. Thanks again, for your willingness to include CPAH in this important
work.
C ommunity
-1? artner5 for
'A► ffordable
IBM
Emb. M o u S i n g , inc. P.U. Box 23206 ■ Tigard, OR 97281-3206 ■ 503/968-CPAH (2724)
LM
Cop~ &
THE
REPORT OFOUSING
COMMUSK 0Low
RC
TA
JANUARY X999
ORDER of ge
ask Force char
T .Force proce5t~
~ Underlyln9 Criteria
F mmendat~ons
SOCIecO
alCare Fa~~~~ti~es ent Issue
• Occupant D~SP~acem
Comments
• Member
dings
and DereVIct 13UM
DangefOus
TASK FORCE CHARGE
• How comprehensive should a housing
program be in Tigard?
• How often should targeted units be
inspected? a fully
• Should inspections covebf abil t issues, or
comprehensive list of ha y should only certain limited issues be covered?
9 Should the program be fully proactive, only
reactive or some combination thereof?
9 How should a housing program be funded?
.ago Sb
C
111111111im 11,1111
1
0-0-51101 0 0-0.01 WII ~ninnum standard of
a codified ►r housing?
for existing
~ Should there be and sanitation
habitabi~i~y, Safety standard of habitability,
What is the Minimum
~ it yes, be covered?
safety and sanitaoioe~`es should
What types °f gr P be en{orced
0 ordinance ed?
e How should the red to be app~t
~ What resources n ram?
~ What. is the cost flf the program?
be funded?
Housing be adopted?
~ How should the
t rogram pot+cies should b
~ ha P
UNDERLYING CRITERIA
The program should be equitable for all
property owners and residents of Tigard
Specific provisions of the ordinance
should be limited to these necessary to
provide for minimum standards of
safety, sanitation and habitability
NMI
KE=qk E UA*mlv& U" RVmI n m E N Num' AT 10 &NN S
Adopt the proposed ordinance crating
property maintenance provisions for
existing housing
• Adopt the pr oposed resolution
stipulating program implementation
policies
row&
P~T UN
MENU
RECO
Ow on 1110
en$0rced and
0 -Tihe rode w~~~ be, only ~,hen a rmed inspections Pevio
• t ~r referral is receave ~~d
complaineCtOCS is allowed
Self-referral by e
~
viol 0are obser
When obv►Ous no anonyMOu
can COmp~aan
p,,yone complainant9 S na~e
ompla;~,ts allowed Ia
w)
c tllO\Jvec'
o eXtent aproteCted
MOM
mom
-Now DATIONS
REC0tAMtIq
►nVestigatior~
cific complaint and
WON Pr°pe~'y
Spy ned to procedures besig unity to comply
Owners the OPP orma~" ~n§orceme~'t S $o
outside Of the ensuring tenant acces
procesS' while
and timely prog,aal
the program
response
N
E UA I
KEU0
Staff program with one inspector and
required resources lan„ With the
Establish "relocation p
ties
County and other ag
$10,000 for an emergency
ApPrOpriate housing
fund to PrOvIde for tempera emergency
and/or immediate repairs in
situations
MIR
w M"Eu"U" M M S N D A T I `0 UO4
SupPv%ortall program costs from the
general fund (approximately $70K)
Apply any penalties collected from the
Civil Infractions process to the general
fund
Implement program 4/1/99
CARE FACILImflaQ
C IAL
bu
• Defined generally as group- living
facilities regulated by
• Most of these facilities are and
xisting state and federal licensing
e
funding. programs
0 social Care Facilaility stakeholders
apposed to inclusion in program
)t~CILITIES
OCIAL CARE
SIMMONS
Task Force recornends inclusion
I occupanc,e
s
• Institutional occu exeanciesmpted
in building rode)
~ indicates that iicensirg
P roposed code
cedence when 5imila anrules takepre both rules
items are addressed by
code
sruTC z`r'rsrrsar
Musa
JES
I P~
.SOG Ot ttiis
yond t he SCOp
• tional uses are be original dhafge
• ►nst~tu Ce and the ui~ements for
type ,~f ardinan evaluate req
Force to e
the Task
Maintenance °f residential us
the ~ all tYPes of
e for TI9ard to enclu e ~f the
~#.ab1 scop
~ Itis e ~+U" it hin the existing
reside"~ial ~~g~rdless oj other
Ordi►~anc nisms
rr►echa
regulato~°l
FACIL
OCIAL
iiiiiiiiiIill 1111110111111111011
Will not conflict Wa-~igard s ordonance therefore, inclusion
f different
licensing requirements, r o
not add an additional jaye
d oes but rather a compiimentary layer
regulation,
ocal resp may be an iM90vtant
o~siveneSS elation Of
~ L Vic
k
, n~'~'
component of the over- g fir a licensed facilities solution of issues
confrontationae r
OCCUPANT DISPLACEMENT
issaV-00
quode provides for vacation of
units when conditions indicate
•Vacation raises issue of
occupant displacement
6,owner responsible
""N -r -rrrrTr"r%r.TTT
OCCUPANT DISPLACEMENT
ISSUE
*Problems may arise
*City should have paRnerships in
place to assist displaced
occupants
eEmergen%.,,.y Fund
EREL
US pt4iD.0
pj4GERO tv%- Q
~~IL
~ Not pad 0f Tasy Force work
dinanCe Gates all ildings In
~ proposed or eX~sting bu
gro\jIsIons regarding
one Chapter •D
buildings grovisions
angerous
unchanged 0i buildings fiiDerdlctl
0 t4evv class
buildings
DANGEROUS AND DERELICT
BUILDINGS
oKesidential buildings 50°/o
unoccupied
oOther buildings 100%
unoccupied
S ANA DERELICT
U
G EKU
UjLjDjt4GS
Building Official, or
.Ordered vacant by
InfracCion, or
Notice
A Nas of
~ , or
Is unsecured
unless required bY Bu"'Sing
~ IS Boarded l
0ji-16tal), 01
had a nuisance d eclared
~ Whj1e vacant,
by 0 ty
AGENDA, ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF January 19, 1999
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Resolution of the Tigard City Council in opposition to legislation creating a new
state board toreate building code activities in the Portland metro Titan area.
PREPARED BY: David Scott DEPT HEAD OK /&/&//`CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council oppose legislation creating a new state board to regulate building code activities in the
Portland metropolitan area, and support the establishment of an intergovernmental agreement to enhance
consistency and services in the building code enforcement in the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to prepare the attached resolution for adoption at the January 26, 1999, Business Meeting.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The last legislature created a Task Force to study the issue of building regulatory services in the Portland
Metropolitan area. Mayor Nicoli was appointed to serve on the Task Force. The Task Force identified several
areas for improving consistency and services within the region. However, the Task Force voted to forward a
legislative proposal (LC 518) which proposes the creation of another state board to oversee local operations and
implement the consistency and service improvements. All local government representatives on the Task Force
voted against this proposal. Local government agrees with the service concepts of LC 518, but not the mechanism
for achieving them. Rather, an IGA between jurisdictions is preferred. The attached "Local Government Review
of LC 518" provides a detailed discussion.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None.
FISCAL NOTES
No fiscal impact.
I. I ci"idelsum11191c518. doc
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW OF LC 518:
4• Support the goals of LC 518
The metro area building departments support the primary service concepts of LC 518.
In fact progress has already been made on coordinating application forms and
procedures. Once completed, examining other procedures that can be simplified and
coordinated could follow this effort.
❖ Support Public Private Partnership
The building departments also are supportive of partnership efforts with industry to
provide input to further cooperative efforts. This can be accomplished in a number
of ways beyond that prescribed by LC 518.
Excessive Authority
The duties assigned to the Tri County Building Industry Service Board far exceed the
services outlined. In particular, local governments are concerned about the role
suggested for this board in reviewing audits [provided for under SB 35 and reserved
to BCD] Lnd the adoption of rules for effective and efficient administration of
building departments.
✓ How do we insure consistency if both BCD and its three boards as well as this
regional board are adopting rules/
✓ Currently the Oregon Statutes and Administrative Rules grant to local
government the authority to manage their internal administrative functions.
With a regional body being inserted into this function how do we also insure
timely operations?
❖ LC 518 Doesn't Address Certification Concerns
By creating this board, incorporating it within BCD and giving it authority to
determine who is eligible to sit for certification exams, the committee has not
addressed local government concerns about the current lack of timely response from
BCD on certification of inspectors and plans examiners.
❖ Can We Do It Better Locally
The local building departments feel that the basic goals of LC 518 can be achieved
more effectively with a less costly, local response. The goals of LC 518 can be met
i through a local intergovernmental agreement that creates a local partnership board
with industry.
~ I
~i
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON low Rk A F T
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL OPPOSING LEGISLATION CREATING
A NEW STATE BOARD TO REGULATE BUILDING CODE ACTIVITIES IN THE
PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA, AND SUPPORTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TO ENHANCE CONSISTENCY AND SERVICES
IN BUILDING CODE ENFORCEMENT.
WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the 1999 Legislature enact a law creating a new State Board to
coordinate building code activities in the Portland metropolitan area; and
WHEREAS, based upon the described duties and authority of such a State Board, the City believes that
the detrimental effects of the proposed legislation will outweigh its benefits; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council desires to go on record as opposing such legislation which includes
provisions which are detrimental to the interests of the City and the public it serves; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council supports the concept of an intergovernmental agreement among
jurisdictions in Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties to enhance consistency and services in
building code enforcement;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
Section 1. The City Council opposes any legislation creating a new State Board to regulate building
code activities within the Portland metropolitan area, to the extent that such legislation:
a. Creates another layer of government relating to building code regulation;
b. Decreases local control of building code administration and erodes the ability of local
jurisdictions to provide development services;
C. Increases building permit costs to subsidize the operations of another State Board;
d. Affects the authority of local jurisdictions to set fees to meet local needs;
e. Creates a second entity with authority to license inspectors and plan examiners; or
f. Creates a second code interpretation board within the state.
Section 2 The Tigard City Council supports the concept of an intergovernmental agreement among
jurisdictions in Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties, having the objective of
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
i:witywid6resU 261c518.doc
Page 1
w
a. Developing common building permit application forms and information packets on plan
submittal requirements, together with a common "job card" for on-site inspections;
b. Developing standardized minor label forms, a standard database for tracking labels and
procedures for directing labels to the appropriate jurisdiction;
C. Establishing a tri-county plan review training program;
d. Creating a timely, responsive dispute resolution process; and,
e. Pursuing other means of eahancing consistency and services in building code regulation.
PASSED: This day of 1999.
Mayor - City o Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City o Tigard
RESOLUTION NO. 99- c\citywidekeaU261csl8.doc
Page 2
ii J
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF January 19. 1999
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Staff report regarding a proposed increase in building. mechanical plumbing. electrical
permit and related fees.
PREPARED BY: David ScottDEPT HEAD OK #0- CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Consider a proposed increase in building, mechanical, plumbing, electrical permit and related fees.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Accept the staff recommendations regarding the fee increase and schedule the matter for public hearing at the February
9, 1999 business meeting.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
It is the policy of the City to charge those fees necessary to cover the cost of service provision. Existing building fees
are not adequate to cover program costs. Current fees cover roughly 75% of program costs. The proposed fees will
cover 100% of costs and build approximately a nine-month operating reserve. The fee increase proposed will enable
the City to continue to provide building code services into the future. Attached is a memo summarizing the major
points of the proposed increase. Also attached is the complete staff report, including an executive summary.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Use a general fund subsidy to cover costs of providing building program services.
2. Significantly reduce City service standards.
FISCAL NOTES
The fees proposed will increase City program revenue to allow for the continued provision of program services.
The attached staff report on the fee proposal provides significant detail regarding specific fees and funds.
1
I:Jc1tyw1deJsum~119tI4fee.doc
di lum
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: David Scott, Building Official
DATE: January 19, 1999
SUBJECT: Proposed Building Fee Increase
It is the policy of the City to recover costs associated with the building code administration program from
program fees. It is also the policy of the City to provide a high level of service for this program and to
continually seek ways to enhance services. Existing fees cover approximately 75% of program costs. A
cost of service analysis was performed to determine appropriate fees to cover program costs. The
proposed fees cover 100% of program costs and build and maintain approximately a nine-month operating
reserve.
The cost of service analysis utilized a two-pronged approach:
• first, 22 specific services were analyzed
• second, over-all program costs, revenues and fund balances were projected
The analysis revealed that:
existing fees do not cover costs for providing the specific services analyzed
• the program cannot continue to provide the current high level of service without fee increases
Based upon the analysis, it is recommended that:
• existing service levels be maintained
• 100% of costs be recovered from fees
• a nine-month operating reserve be established and maintained
The following fee increases are necessary to achieve these recommendations:
• Building 127% on average
• Mechanical127% on average
• Plumbing 67% on average
• Electrical 20% on average
Attached is a letter from Grigsby Construction, the draft ordinance and resolution and the complete Task
Force report, including an executive summary.
eRIGSBY
CONSTRUCTION
PO BOX 1849
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
503 675-8000
FAX 675-8181
January 6, 1999
Mr. David Scott
Building Official
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Proposed Fee Increase for City of Tigard
Dear Mr. Scott:
Thank you for including contractors and developers in the discussion about raising
fees for service. We are both. The level of evaluation you have provided is impres-
sive. Some thoughts about this document and the proposed increases:
1. The proposed increases are v r large by percentage. Some may be shocked. If
these increases are truly cost justified, a phase-in period should be considered.
2. It might make more sense to look at the issue of fees within a broader context,
say Washington County or METRO. I believe it is inherently dangerous for one
municipality to jack up fees without regard to what adjacent cities or counties are
charging. Many property owners and developers believe this is a not-so-subtle
i way to divert development to other areas effectively creating a "no-growth" envi-
ronment.
i 3. If owners or developers really have to pay these new fees the City of Tigard
should be prepared to provide something by way of increased service. Your Ex-
ecutive Summary addresses Customer Service Standards. Time is money in
building development. If you can cut-off some time from the process by charg-
ing higher fees, that may be a good trade-off. What makes owners and develop-
ers crazy is just paying more fees for the same old crummy service.
Serving the Pacific Northwest for Over 50 years
GRIGSBY
CONSTRUCTION
Mr. David Scott
Page 2
4. The City of Tigard could be a model for a re-designed building department. If
you promise 4-6 wee'.cs to do something, do it! If that takes overtime or more re-
sources so be it. Tigard's credibility is an important consideration when pro-
posing fee increases. Tigard does not enjoy great credibility with the design and
construction community for meeting deadlines or fulfilling promises, although
they are known as nice people to deal with relative to certain other municipali-
ties.
5. I doubt that anyone would fault Tigard's desire to recover 100% of the cost of
doing business without subsidies. Every government program now days must
carry its' own weight. Having said that, it is critical that any fees assessed be
computed quickly, easily and accurately. This is especially true of System De-
velopment Fees which are enormous and often enough to stop a project from
being financially feasible. A project developer should be able to get all the fees
required for his/her project upfront and be able to count on them to be accurate
when the time comes to build.
Thanks for your in*erest and concern. Please call me at 675-8000 if you need more
information.
Best regards,
Richard P. Grigs y, . .
President
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 99-- Eft mom,
Un"AFT
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE THAT
FEES FOR THE BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM BE ESTABLISHED BY
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
WHEREAS, Tigard Municipal Code Title 14 "Buildings and Construction," provides regulations for building
and construction; and
WHEREAS, Title'14 provides for electrical fees to be established by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Title 14 does not provide for other building code administration program fees to be provided by
resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish said fees by its own resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Title 14 Section 14.040.040 is amended by adding paragraph (c) as follows:
Fees for permits and other related services pursuant to the building code administration
program shall be established by resolution of the City Council.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title
only, this day of , 1999.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this _ day of , 1999.
James Nicoli, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
iVdd~14rae.da
ORDINANCE No. 99-
Page 1
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 99- T
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING BUILDING, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL
PERMIT AND RELATED FEES
WHEREAS, building regulatory services are solely fee supported; and
WHEREAS, Subsection (c) of Section 14.04.040 and subsection (g) of Section 14.04.065 of Title 14 of
Tigard Municipal Code indicates that fees for building code program administration shall be established by
resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 3.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code grants the City Council the authority to set rates
for fees and charges by resolution; and
WHEREAS, Tigard must assess those fees necessary to recover costs associated with the building code
administration program; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council reviewed a cost analysis of building code administration activities on
January 19, 1999 and February 9, 1999;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: fees for services provided
under the building code administration program shall be as follows:
Plumbing Fees:
Description: Proposed Fee:
New Single-Family:
1 Bath $235.00
2 Bath 325.00
3 Bath 375.00
FIXTURES individual
Sink 15.00
Lavatory 15.00
Tub or Tub/Shower Comb. 15.00
Shower Only 15.00
Water Closet 15.00
Dishwasher 15.00
Garbage Disposal 15.00
Washing Machine 15.00
Floor Drain/Floor Sink 2" 15.00
3" 15.00
4" 15.00
Water Heater 15.00
Laundry Room Tray 15.00
Urinal 15.00
Other Fixtures 15.00
RESOLUTION NO.99-_
Page 1
Plumbing Fees:
Description: Proposed Fee:
Sewer - 1st 100' 45.00
Sewer - each additional 100' 35.00
Water Service - 1st 100' 45.00
Water Service - each additional 200' 35.00
Storm & Rain Drain - 1st 100' 45.00
Storm & Rain Drain - each additional 100' 35.00
Mobile Home Space 35.00
Commercial Backflow Prevention Device or Anti-Pollution Device 35.00
Residential Backflow Prevention Device 25.00
An Trap or Waste Not Connected to a Fixture 15.00
Catch Basin 15.00
Ins p. of Existing Plumbing 50.00/hr
Specialty Requested Inspections 50.00/hr
Rain Drain, single family dwelling 45.00
Grease Traps 15.00
Minimum Permit Fee 50.00
Minimum Permit Fee Residential Backflow 25.00
Plan Review 25% of Permit Fee
Mechanical Fees:
Description Proposed Fee
A Permit Issuance Fee $23.50
1 Furnace to 100,000 BTU including ducts & vents 14.80
2 Furnace 100,000 BTU+ including ducts & vents 18.20
3 Floor Furnace including vent 14.80
4 Suspended heater, wall heater or floor mounted heater 14.80
5 Vent not included in appliance permit 7.25
6 <3HP; absorb unit to 100K BTU 14.70
7 3-15 HP; absorb unit 100k to 500k BTU 27.15
8 15-30 HP; absorb unit.5 -1 mil BTU 37.25
9 30-50 HP; absorb unit 1-1.75 mil BTU 55.A5
10 >50HP; absorb unit >1.75 mil BTU 92.65
11 Air handling unit to 10,000 CFM 10.65
12 Air handling unit 10,000 CFM+ 16.10
13 Non-portable evaporate cooler 10.65
14 Vent fan connected to a single duct 7.25
15 Ventilations stem not included in appliance permit 10.65
16 Hood served b mechanical exhaust 10.65
17 Domestic incinerators 18.20
18 Commercial or industrial type incinerator 71.10
19 Repair units 13.70
20 Wood stove 10.65
21 Clothes er, etc. 10.65
22 Other units 10.65
23 Gas piping one to four outlets 4.75
RESOLUTION NO.99
Page 2
Mechanical Fees:
Description Proposed Fee
24) More than 4-per outlet each 1.20
25 Hazardous Process Piping System HPP of one to four outlets 5.00
26 Hazardous Process Piping System HPP of five or more outlets, per outlet 1.00
27) For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Mechanical 10.65
Code but not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is
listed in the table
Minimum Permit Fee $50.00
B Plan review 25% of Permit Fee
Other Inspections and Fees:
I . Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge - two
hours) $50.00 per hour
2. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge -
one-half hour) $50.00 each
3. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans
minimum charge - one-half hour) 1 $50.00 per hour
Building Fees:
Valuation shall be determined by the most recent edition of "Building Valuation Data" published by the
International Conference of Building Officials, using ood" construction and the Oregon modifier.
Total Valuation Proposed Fee
$1.00 to $500.00 $50.00
$501.00 to $2,000 $23.50 for the first $500.00 plus $3.05 for each
additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and
including $2,000 $50.00 minimum
$2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $69.25 for the first $2,000.00 plus $14.00 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $25,000
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $391.25 for the first $25,000.00 plus $14.00 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $50,000
$50,001.00 to $100,000 $643.75 for the first $100,000.00 plus $7.00 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $500,000
$100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $993.75 for the first $500,000.00 plus $5.60 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $1,000,000
$500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $3,223.75 for the first $500,000.00 plus $4.75 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $1,000,000
$1,000,001.00 and up $5,608.75 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $3.65
for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
Other Inspections and Fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours
(minimum charge - two hours) $50.00 per hour
a 2. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated
(minimum charge - one-half hour) $50.00 per hour
3. Additional plan review required by changes, additions
or revisions to plans minimum charge - one-half hour) 1 $50.00 per hour
RESOLUTION NO.99
Page 3
4. Manufactured dwelling installation
5. Manufactured dwelling and mobile home parks, $235.00
recreation parks and organizational camps
Fee er OAR
Electrical Fees:
1. New residential, single or multi-family per dwelling unit; service included:
A. 1000 square feet or less $132.00
B. Each additional 500 square feet or portion thereof 30.00
C. Limited energy 60.00
D. Each manufactured home or modular dwelling service or feeder 82.00
2. Services or feeders; installation, alterations or relocation:
A. 200 amps or less 72.00
B. 201 amps to 400 amps 96.00
C. 401 amps to 600 amps 144.00
D. 601 amps to 1000 amps 216.00
E. Over 1000 amps or volts 408.00
F. Reconnect only 60.00
3. Temporary services or feeders; installation, alteration or relocation:
A. 200 amps or less 60.00
B. 201 amps to 400 amps 90.00
C. 401 amps to 600 amps 120.00
D. Over 600 amps to 100 volts (see 2 above)
4. Branch circuits; new, alteration or extension per panel:
A. With purchase of service or feeder - each branch circuit 6.00
B. Without purchase of service or feeder
First branch circuit 42.00
Each additional branch circuit 6.00
5. Miscellaneous (service or feeder not included):
A. Each pump or irrigation circuit 48.00
B. Each sign or outline lighting 48.00
C. Signal circuit(s) or a limited energy panel, alteration or extension 60.00
D. Each additional inspection over the allowable in any of the above (min 1 hr)
i) Per inspection 50.00
ii) Per hour 50.00
E. Industrial Plant Inspection $66.00 per hour including travel and
office time with a minimum charge of 1 hour
F. Electrical permit plan review fee: Plan review fees shall be 25 percent
of the electrical permit fee.
G. Minor Labels: $120.00 for ten labels.
RESOLUTION NO.99
Page 4
Miscellaneous Fees:
Description Proposed Fee
Re-inspection:
Building $50.00
Mechanical $50.00
Plumbing $50.00
Electrical $50.00
Temporary Occupancy $90.00
Phased Occupancy $200.00
Permit or Plan Review Extension $30.00
Address Change $65.00
Research on non-current permits $45.00 per hour
minimum one hour, charged in one hour increments
Fee paid inspections for residential structures pursuant to
Title 14, Chapter 16
■ Single and Two Family Dwellings $100.00
■ Apartment Houses and Social Care Facilities $160.00, plus $7 for each dwelling unit in excess of 3
a Hotels $160.00, plus $5 for each dwelling unit in excess of 5
Classification. The City Council has determined that the fees imposed by this resolution are not taxes
subject to the property tax limitations of Article XI, section l lb of the Oregon Constitution.
PASSED: This day of 1999.
Mayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
JAdtywide\res\29t14fee.doc
RESOLUTION NO.99-_
Page 5
SERVICE COST AND FUND ANALYSIS:
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
CITY OF TIGARD BUILDING DIVISION
January 1999
Prepared by David Scott, Building Official
H
H
q~
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary P. 1
Customer Service Standards P. 1
Future Services p. 2
Reason for the Fee Analysis p. 2
Financial Implications p. 2
Constituent Feedback p. 4
Recommendation p. 4
Analysis p. 5
Background p. 5
Methodology p. 6
Cost of Service Analysis p. 7
Long Term Fund Status Analysis p. 7
Results/Conclusion p. 8
Building and Mechanical Fees P. 8
Plumbing Fees p. 10
Electrical Fees p. 11
Miscellaneous Fees p. 12
Over-all p. 14
Long-Term Outlook/Contingency p. 14
Alternatives p. 15
Recommendation/Proposed Fees p. 15
Appendix
i
IIMIIII
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
® Customer Service Standards
The City has adopted the following standards for building regulatory services:
1. Counter support and plans exam staff will be available from 8am to 5pm each
business day.
2. The counter is staffed by the Development Services Team, which provides "one-stop"
service for building, planning, engineering and other development and building related
services.
3. Inspectors are available in the office mornings until approximately 9am and afternoons
from 3:30 till 4pm. Inspectors are otherwise available by pager.
4. Inspection requests received by 7pm will be performed the following business day.
AM/PM requests will be honored as practical, especially concrete pours.
5. Electrical permits not requiring plan review can be issued by mail, over the counter or
fax (if contractor has a trust account).
6. Residential plumbing permits can be issued by mail or over the counter.
7. Residential mechanical permits can be issued by mail or over the counter.
8. Over the counter plan review/permit services are available on an appointment basis
for certain commercial and residential building and commercial mechanical permits.
9. Initial processing of plans submitted for review will be completed within 2-3 working
days for new construction and 1.5-2 working days for alterations/additions.
10. Plan review for single and two family dwellings will be completed within 2 weeks of
initial processing (time until comments provided to applicant), re-reviews will be
completed in a shorter timeframe.
11. Plan review for commercial tenant improvements not done over the counter will be
completed within 1-3 weeks of initial processing (time until comments provided to
applicant), re-reviews will be completed in a shorter timeframe.
12. Plan review for new commercial or multi-family projects will be completed within 4-6
weeks of initial processing (time until comments provided to applicant), re-reviews will
be completed in a shorter timeframe.
13. Electrical and plumbing plan review will be completed within 1-2 weeks of initial
processing.
14. Final permit processing after plan review approval will be completed within 2-3
working days for new construction and 1.5-2 working days for alterations/additions. It
is noted that permit issuance is often dependent upon sign-offs from other
departments and agencies beyond the scope of the Building Division or the City.
15. Phone inquiries to the Development Services general phone service line received
between 8am and noon will be returned by 5pm the same business day. Calls
received between noon and 5pm will be returned by noon the next business day. Calls
to specific staff will be returned the same business day, generally.
16. The average counter wait time is 3 minutes. Maximum wait times at the counter will
not exceed 20 minutes in times of extreme volume or limited coverage.
-1-
17. An Inspection Supervisor, Plans Exam Supervisor and Development Services
Supervisor (support team) are available as points of contact regarding unique
problems or circumstances or for any reason.
18. Contract assistance is utilized when necessary to meet service standards.
It is noted that at current staff and activity levels, service is being provided well within
standards.
9 Future Services
The City will be exploring the addition of an Interactive Voice Response System (IVR) to
complement and enhance our inspection request and results services. Utilization of the
Internet for inspection requests, permit application and other services will be explored.
Y Reason for the Fee Analysis
During 1998, the Community Development Department conducted this cost analysis
review of building regulatory functions as a means of promoting sound fiscal decisions on
budget, personnel and fee setting in the context of our service goals. A means of
calculating direct and indirect costs was established and applied to a broad sampling of
building regulatory functions. Because building regulatory functions are subsidized wholly
by fees in special revenue funds, 100% over-all cost recovery was examined.
Additionally, the long-range financial plan was examined to review the over-all fiscal
condition of the special revenue funds related to building regulatory activities, with the
goal of building appropriate reserves.
Q Financial Implications
Tigard's present fee schedules for building regulatory functions are as established by
ORS, except for plumbing and electrical, which are currently established by City
administrative action and resolution, respectively. ORS has limited building and
mechanical permit and plan review fees to the 1979 ICBO fee schedules since 1980.
Therefore, no increase in these fees has occurred since 1980. Valuation schedules
(determined by the Building Official pursuant to the state code) from which building permit
fees are determined have increased during that time, but this does not fully address the
increasing costs of providing building regulatory services. This is because fees are
determined from valuation using a sliding scale, therefore a 2% (i.e.) increase in valuation
will not necessarily correlate to a 2% fee increase. Thus, building permit fees have not
kept pace with inflation and rising service costs in spite of the valuation increases. For
example, a small home permitted in 1980 was valued at $56,000. Using the current
valuation table, the value would be $106, 500, a 90% increase in value. This can be
compared to a 107% increase in the Portland Consumer Price Index over the same
period (valuation has lagged the CPI slightly). However, this increased valuation has only
resulted in current building permit and plan review fees 50% higher than what was
collected in 1980. Also, for larger homes and commercial projects, the discrepancy
between valuation increase and fee increase will widen, due to the sliding fee schedule.
-2-
MMJ
Further, increased program costs since 1980 exceed simple inflationary pressures, due to
the increasingly complex requirements of the codes and program requirements stipulated
by the state. Plumbing fees were increased by roughly 29% in 1993 after no increase had
occurred since the late 1980s. Electrical fees were established in FY 95 -96 (when Tigard
assumed the program from the County) at the County rate in effect at the time. No
increase in electrical fees has occurred since that time. Fees for manufactured dwellings,
mobile home parks and other projects have been tied to what the state charges when
providing the similar service. There are currently no fees for other miscellaneous services
provided; such as temporary certificates of occupancy, records research unrelated to an
active permit, permit and plan review extensions, phased occupancy and address
changes.
Since FY 96-97 all building regulatory activities have been accounted for in Special
Revenue Funds, specifically, the Building and Electrical Inspection Funds. Beginning in
June 1997 building regulatory functions in the Urban Services area (portion of
unincorporated Washington County for which Tigard provides services via an IGA) have
been accounted for in the Urban Services Fund. The Building Fund was dedicated as a
matter of local policy directed at providing a more precise relationship between service,
revenues and expenditures for building regulatory functions. The Electrical Inspection
Fund is dedicated to electrical inspection activities as required by ORS. The Urban
Services Fund is dedicated to provide for a separate accounting of services, revenues
and expenditures for City activities in the Urban Services area. The IGA provides that
Tigard will retain all fees associated with activity in the URB area as payment for providing
the services. Because the primary purpose of this fund is to ensure that City funds were
not subsidizing activities in the County, and vice versa, all revenues and expenditures
associated with activity in the County have been included in the fund. Therefore, the
Urban Services Fund does include revenues and costs from services other than building
and electrical. Now that the URB Fund has been active for a year, the City is satisfied that
the accounting procedures developed to implement this Fund are ensuring that City funds
are not subsidizing County activities and vice versa. Similarly, the accounting procedures
used to assign costs to the URB Fund and the fee structure in the URB area are ensuring
that each activity is relatively self-supporting. To make this reporting more formal for
electrical revenues and costs, the FY 1999/00 budget will include an URB Electrical Fund.
The presentations included in this report which address the long-term outlook of these
funds combines costs associated with building regulatory services in both Tigard and the
URB area to provide information based upon function. Separate analyses ar,3 provided for
both building and electrical ending balances.
To date, no comprehensive cost analysis has been performed to determine the
appropriate level of fees to cover costs associated with building regulatory functions. To
recover 100% of over-all program costs, fully subsidize the program and build appropriate
reserves, fees need to be increased the following percentages:
o Building 127% on average
• Mechanical 127% on average
-3-
• Plumbing 67% on average
• Electrical 20% on average
Additionally, it is proposed that fees be adjusted on an annual basis to account for
inflationary pressures on expenses. The long-term analysis assumes a 4% increase each
year beginning in fiscal year 00/01.
Additionally, fees need to be charged for miscellaneous services currently provided at no
charge. These fees are listed as part of Appendix "C."
With implementation of the above noted fee increases the City will be able to continue
providing services within its service goals, as described previously, and build reasonable
reserves to subsidize short-term market fluctuations. Staffing levels and workload will be
continuously monitored so an appropriate balance is maintained. Although the reserves
are intended to sustain staff levels through downturns in activity, appropriate staffing
adjustments will be made if long-term downturns are experienced.
• Constituent Feedback
As of 1/8/99 the following feed-back was received:
1. A letter from Grigsby Construction (attached).
2. A phone call from the staff for Associated Building Contractors (ABC). ABC will be
forwarding written comments.
3. A phone call from the staff for the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan
Portland (HBAMP). HBAMP will be forwarding written comments.
These comments as well as any other feedback received by the January 19, 1999 work-
session will be provided.
• Recommendation
1. That the City of Tigard recover 100 percent of the over-all direct and indirect costs of
building regulatory functions and build appropriate reserves by charging the
appropriate fees.
2. That the City Council pass the attached ordinance and resolutions which set fees for
building regulatory functions.
-4-
ANALYSIS:
Background
The primary duties of the building regulatory services program are plan review, permitting,
inspection and related support functions. These activities are supported by fees. Current
'fees, however, do not cover all building regulatory costs.
In spite of the fact that building and mechanical fees have not changed since 1979 and
plumbing fees changed very little in 1993, building revenue in recent years has easily
covered costs. This was due primarily to two factors: a very high level of development
activity coupled with inadequate staffing (lower expenditures). During FY 97-98, work-load
adjusted (some decrease in activity in Tigard coupled with added activity from the Urban
Services area, with some added staff) such that work-load and staff levels are in the
appropriate balance (with some room to accommodate some increase in activity). As a
result, the impact of out-of-date fees was felt and revenue in FY 97-98 did not fully cover
costs. This is to be expected considering current fee levels.
According to Tigard Municipal Code Section 3.32.020, "The Tigard City Council shall
have the authority to review and adopt by resolution rates for fees and charges
reasonably related to the City's cost of service". The Code goes on in Section 3.32.030 to
say:
"(a) Rates shall be based upon the reasonably determined costs for service and shall be
based on estimates from the current or proposed municipal budget for the following
categories, as applicable:
(1) Materials and services;
(2) Capital outlay;
(3) Indirect costs;
(4) Depreciation costs; and
(5) Personnel costs.
(b)ln no case shall the rate for fees and charges exceed the reasonable costs for the
service or services provided."
In addition, 'The Council shall consider the following in adjustments to fees and charges:
(a) the Portland Consumer Price Index; (b) the total wage increase in relevant union
contracts; (c) cost for service analysis and (d) the provisions of Section 3.32.030." [TMC
3.32.050]
Specific authority to assess and regulations regarding fees for building regulatory
j activities are also stipulated in varying degree by ORS and OAR. ORS 455.020(4)
provides for local authority to enact administrative provisions for the administration of the
state building code, including fees and other charges. More specific authority and
provisions for the individual codes are as follows:
-5-
• ORS 455.210(3) for building and mechanical. This section provides that any fees
increased under this authority must be dedicated and for an appeal of fee increases to
the State Building Codes Administrator, who would hold final adjudication on the
increase.
• ORS 479.845 contains similar provisions for electrical.
• OAR 918-600-0030 contains local fee authority for Manufactured Dwelling Parks and
Mobile Home Parks, as well as establishing fees used by the state.
• OAR 918-650-0030 contains similar provisions for Recreation Parks and
Organizational Camps.
• OAR 918-500-0105 contains local fee authority for permits for specific manufactured
dwelling sites, as well as establishing fees used by the state.
• Plumbing fees are covered under the blanket authority provided in ORS 455.020(4)
described above.
ORS 294.160 - "Opportunity for public comment on new fee or fee increase" - provides
that the City must provide an opportunity for interested persons to comment on the
enactment of any ordinance or resolution prescribing a new fee or a fee increase.
This background sets the context for the timeliness of this cost and fund viability analysis.
• Methodology
This analysis consists of two parts. The first is a cost of service analysis of a sampling of
21 specific building regulatory functions. These functions are:
1. Permit and inspection service for a plumbing permit for 2 fixtures at a house.
2. Permit and inspection service for a minor residential alteration.
3. Permit and inspection service for a plumbing permit for 7 fixtures in a commercial
tenant improvement
4. Plan review, permit and inspection service for a plumbing permit for 11 fixtures and
related water and sewer lines for a commercial building.
5. Over the counter plan review and permit service for a mechanical permit for one roof-
top unit on a commercial bldg.
6. Permit and inspection service for a building permit for a small office building.
7. Various services for several permits for a major restaurant remodel.
8. Complete service for a new dwelling.
9. Plan review service for a commercial addition.
10. Plan review service for a new day care building.
11. Mechanical plan review service for a large commercial alteration.
-6-
12. Permit and inspection service for an electrical permit for 4 circuits in a commercial
alteration.
13. Permit and inspection service for an electrical permit for 2 circuits in a dwelling.
14. Inspection service for a public sewer connection permit.
15. Complete service for a change of address.
16. Reinspection beyond code allowed inspections.
17. Complete service for phasing occupancy on a multi-building project.
18. Complete service for processing a temporary certificate of occupancy.
19. Record retrieval service not related to active permit.
20. Plan review extension service.
21. Permit extension service.
22. Manufactured dwelling installation
The second portion of the analysis is a review of the long-term financial outlook for
building regulatory functions, given projected activity and the goal of building appropriate
reserves. This analysis combines costs and revenues associated with building regulatory
services in both Tigard and the URB area to provide information based upon function.
Separate analyses are provided for both building and electrical ending balances.
Implications of the Portland Consumer Price Index are also discussed in the analysis.
Cost of Service Analysis:
This analysis considered all direct and indirect costs for providing the specific services
listed above. Direct costs are defined as wages and benefits plus materials, supplies, and
capital outlay (depreciated). Hourly wage and benefit rates for the top of each job
classification were used. Amounts for materials, supplies and capital outlay were scaled
to the size of each service analyzed.
Indirect costs consist of support functions required to maintain building regulatory
functions. These include: attorney costs, records, insurance, building and fleet
maintenance, computer and phone system, payroll, city and department administration,
and administrative support. Allocated indirect costs to building regulatory functions was
determined from the city's 1998-99 budget program matrix. The indirect cost for
department administration is one-third of the CD Director and the Department Secretary
and their related expenses.
Based on the above, a per minute unit cost was then calculated for each position. This
calculation is shown in Appendix "A." The cost of service calculations for the specific
services are shown in Appendix "B."
Long-Term Fund Status Analysis:
Two scenarios were evaluated to determine the long-term financial outlook. First, ending
balances and reserve levels were estimated assuming that the proposed fee increase is
implemented. Second, ending balances and reserve levels were estimated assuming only
-7-
-1 =MJ
a 4% fee increase for all existing fees, beginning in fiscal year 00/01. Estimates are
shown in Appendix "D."
v Results/Conclusion
Building and Mechanical Fees:
Technical review functions regarding building and mechanical permits and plans are dealt
with by individuals who are typically certified in both of these areas. Also, Tigard's plans
exam and inspection functions organizationally group building and mechanical functions,
while treating plumbing and electrical separately. Additionally, the cost of service analysis
shows that mechanical fees, including those proposed, do not come close to covering
related costs. All fees from building and mechanical permits are held in the Building Fund.
Therefore, this analysis combines building and mechanical costs and fees and considers
them together. Following is a detailed discussion of specific cases analyzed which include
building and mechanical fees.
CASE 2: Minor Building Permit Single-Family
As shown in the appendix, current flees only provide $38.50 of the $139.91 costs. The
proposed fee increase of 116.23% would still only cover 59.5% of costs. It is
acknowledged that fees for smaller permits generally do not cover costs and that fees
from larger projects subsidize smaller jobs. Raising fees too high on smaller jobs can
drive the work "underground."
CASE 5: Mechanical Permit for One Roof Top Unit, Over-the-Counter Plan Review
As shown in the appendix, current fees only provide $25.00 of the $103.96 permit related
costs, and $6.25 of the $91.45 plan review related costs. The proposed fee increase of
137% for the permit and 537% for the plan review (includes a $25.00 "over-the-counter"
fee) cover 56.99% and 43.53% of the permit and plan review costs, respectively. It is
acknowledged that fees for smaller permits generally do not cover costs and that fees
from larger projects subsidize smaller jobs. Raising fees too high on smaller jobs can
drive the work "underground."
CASE 6: Building Permit for New Small Office Building
As shown in the appendix, current fees only provide $675.00 of the $1,365.18 permit
related costs. The proposed fee increase of 127.53% covers 112.58% of costs, an
appropriate recovery for a project this size.
CASE 7.• Building and Mechanical Permits for Major Restaurant Tenant Improvement
As shown in the appendix, current building permit fees cover only $1,183.00 of the
$1,549.29 building permit related costs. The proposed 126% building permit fee increase
would cover 172.58% of costs. The current building and fire and life safety plan review
-8-
fees cover only $1,242.15 of the $1,405.50 building and fire and life safety plan review
cost. The proposed 126% building and fire and life safety plan review fee increase would
cover 199.75% of costs. Clearly, for this type of job, the proposed building fees exceed
costs. However, when combined with mechanical fees a closer match between costs and
fees is seen. The current mechanical permit fee covers only $89.50 of the $783.01
mechanical permit related costs. The proposed 127.37% mechanical permit fee increase
would cover only 26% of costs. All together, the proposed building and mechanical fees
cover 152% of costs. This is an example of where a higher valued project subsidizes
costs associated with smaller jobs.
CASE 8: Building Fees for a New Single-Family Dwelling
As shown in the appendix, current building permit and plan review fees cover only $666.5
and $432.25 of the $1,094.15 and $766.52 costs, respectively. The proposed 127% fee
increase would cover 128% of building permit costs and 138% of plan review costs.
Current mechanical permit and plan review fees cover only $48.00 and $12.00 of the
$222.88 and $13.00 costs, respectively. The proposed 138.85% fee increase would cover
51.44% and 220.48% of mechanical permit and plan review costs, respectively. All
together, the proposed building and mechanical fees cover 126% of costs. This is an
example of how fees from more highly valued new construction somewhat subsidize
costs for smaller jobs.
CASE 9: Building Plan Review for Commercial Addition
As shown in the appendix, current building and fire and life safety plan review fees only
cover $646.56 of the $1,237.10 costs. The proposed 127.35% fee increase would cover
118.82% of costs.
CASE 10: Building Plan Review for New Day Care Facility
As shown in the appendix, current building and fire and life safety plan revi ~w fees only
cover $1,095.65 of the $1,345.35 costs. The proposed 127% fee increase would cover
183.76% of costs. It is noted that mechanical fees and costs were not analyzed for this
case, but that together, cost recovery would be better matched with costs. This is also an
example of how fees-from more highly valued new construction somewhat subsidize
costs for smaller jobs.
CASE 11: Mechanical Plan Review for Large Commercial Alteration
As shown in the appendix, current fees only cover $48.88 of the $574.65 costs. The
proposed 140% fee increase would cover 20.42% of costs. It is noted that building permit
and plan review fees would subsidize some of the mechanical costs.
-9-
CASE 22: Manufactured Dwelling Installation
As shown in the appendix, current fees only cover $105.00 of the $232.10 costs. The
proposed 123.81 % fee increase would cover 101.25% of costs.
Over-all:
Over-all, building and mechanical fees are not covering costs. The proposed fees will fully
recover costs. It is acknowledged that building fees subsidize mechanical costs and that
larger, more highly valued projects somewhat subsidize smaller and the very smallest
jobs. It is not recommended to fully recover costs on smaller jobs so that the fee burden
does not drive these jobs "underground." Proposed fees somewhat exceed costs in an
effort to build an appropriate reserve fund balanc,a.
Tigard has not issued permits for manufactured dwelling and mobile home parks or for
recreation parks or organizational camps. Therefore, no basis exists to analyze the
appropriate fees to cover these costs. King City may have a manufactured dwelling park
in the future. It is not projected that Tigard will have any such facilities in the foreseeable
future. Therefore, Tigard should adopt the fees for these permits as established by the
state in OAR.
Tigard issues permits for manufactured dwelling installations infrequently. The last permit
was issued in December of 1996.
Plumbing Fees:
Plumbing fees are held in the Building Fund. However, plumbing functions are
organizationally and primarily functionally separate from other functions, although much of
the plumbing inspection work for single-family is done by building/mechanical inspectors
who also have plumbing certification. Following is a detailed discussion of specific cases
analyzed which include plumbing fees.
CASE 9: Plumbing Permit for 2 Fixtures- .Single-Family
As shown in the appendix, current fees only cover $27.00 of the $90.04 costs. The
proposed 85% fee increase would cover 55.53% of costs. In this case, the proposed
$50.00 fee would be the minimum fee for a plumbing permit. Higher fees for these smaller
jobs are not recommended so that the fee burden does not drive these jobs
"underground."
CASE 3: Plumbing Permit for 7 Fixture - Commercial Tenant Improvement
As shown in the appendix, current fees only cover $63.00 of the $1,17.68 costs. The
proposed 66.67% fee increase would cover 89.23% of costs. It is noted that this is a
smaller job and that larger jobs will tend to subsidize the smaller.
-10-
I I
CASE 4: Plumbing Permit for 11 Fixtures and Various Sewer/Water Lines (Commercial)
As shown in the appendix, current fees cover only $189.00 and $47.25 of the $267.22
and $73.80 permit and plan review costs, respectively. The proposed 58.73% fee
increase would cover 112.27% and 101.63% of permit and plan review costs,
respectively. This recovery is appropriate.
CASE 7: Plumbing Permit for Major Restaurant Tenant Improvement
As shown in the appendix, current fees only cover $385.00 of the $536.90 costs. The
proposed 59.74% fee increase would cover 114.55% of costs. This recovery is
appropriate.
CASE 8: Plumbing Permit for a New Single-Family Dwelling
As shown in the appendix, current fees cover only $225.00 of the $353.64 costs. The
proposed 66.67% fee increase would cover 106.04% of costs. This recovery is
appropriate.
CASE 14: Sewer Inspection
As shown in the appendix, current fees cover only $35.00 and $45.00 of the $54.36 and
$66.01 of the single-family and commercial/multi-family costs, respectively. The proposed
42.86% and 44.44% fee increase would cover 91.98% and 98.47% of costs, respectively.
Over-all.
Over-all, plumbing fees are not covering costs. The proposed fees will fully recover costs.
It is acknowledged that larger, more involved projects somewhat subsidize smaller and
the very smallest jobs. It is not recommended to fully recover costs on smaller jobs so that
the fee burden does not drive these jobs "underground." Proposed fees somewhat
exceed costs in an effort to build an appropriate reserve fund balance.
Electrical Fees:
Electrical fees are held in the Electrical Funds. Electrical functions are organizationally
and functionally separate from other functions, although a limited amount of single-family
electrical inspections are performed by combination inspectors. Following is a detailed
discussion of specific cases analyzed which include electrical fees.
CASE 7. Electrical Permit for Major Restaurant Tenant Improvement
As shown in the appendix, current fees cover $1,125.00 of the $727.25 costs. The
proposed 59.74% fee increase would cover 185.63% of costs. This is an example of
where a large electrical project subsidizes smaller jobs.
-11-
ti
CASE 8: Electrical Permit for a New Single-Family Dwelling
As shown in the appendix, current fees cover $235.00 and only $40.00 of the $229.18
and $77.26 electrical and limited energy permit costs, respectively. The proposed 19.15%
and 50% fee increase would cover 122.17 and 77.66% of costs, respectively. Together,
the proposed fees would cover 111 % of costs. This recovery is appropriate, especially
since the analysis assumes only 1 limited energy system.
CASE 12: Electrical Permit 4 Circuits for Commercial Tenant Improvement
As shown in the appendix, the current fee covers only $50.00 of the $193.35 costs. The
proposed 20% fee increase would cover 31 % of costs. This is an example of a smaller
job not covering costs, acknowledging that larger jobs subsidize the smaller jobs.
CASE 13: Electrical Permit 2 Circuits for Single-Family
As shown in the appendix, the current fee covers only $40.00 of the $113.58 costs. The
proposed 20% fee increase would cover 42.26% of costs. This is an example of a smaller
job not covering costs, acknowledging that larger jobs subsidize the smaller jobs.
Over-all.
Over-all, electrical fees are not covering costs. The proposed fees will fully recover costs.
It is acknowledged that larger, more involved projects somewhat subsidize smaller and
the very smallest jobs. It is not recommended to fully recover costs on smaller jobs so that
the fee burden does not drive these jobs "underground." Proposed fees somewhat
exceed costs in an effort to build an appropriate reserve fund balance.
Miscellaneous Fees:
Following is a detailed discussion of specific cases analyzed for services for which no fee
is currently assessed (re-inspection fees excepted).
CASE 15: Address Change
As shown in the appendix, costs associated with a change in address after permits and
other documents have been created and utilized are approximately $67.20. The proposed
$65.00 fee seeks to recover that cost.
CASE 16: Re-inspection Fees
As shown in the appendix, the current bui:ding, mechanical, plumbing and electrical re-
inspection fees cover only $15.00, $15.00, $40.00 and $35.00 of the $55.28, $55.81,
$55.81 and $57.03 costs, respectively. The proposed 233.33%,233.33%, 25% and
42.86% fee increases would cover 90.45%, 89.6%, 89.6% and 87.67% of costs,
-12-
respectively. Also, the proposed increase would establish the same re-inspection fee for
all trades. Having different fees currently causes confusion.
CASE 17: Phasing Occupancy
As shown in the appendix, costs associated with phasing occupancy are approximately
$219.00. The proposed $200.00 fee seeks to recover that cost. Phased occupancy
occurs when a developer wishes to occupy a multiple building project building by building.
This occurs primarily with apartments, condos and shopping centers. Additional staff
effort beyond what is normally associated with occupancy review is required because
when a developer phases occupancy, all site improvements are not in place as the first
buildings are occupied and staff must work with the developer to "craft" unique site
requirements and conditions for each phase of the occupancy, necessitating additional
office and field work.
CASE 18: Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
As shown in the appendix, costs associated with processing a temporary certificate of
occupancy are $89.70. The proposed $90.00 fee seeks to recover this cost. When a
developer wishes to obtain a temporary certificate of occupancy before all aspects of the
building are complete and signed-off, additional staff effort is required beyond what is
associated with the final certificate of occupancy (which is included with the permit fee).
Staff must carefully review the status of the project, solicit sign-offs from other divisions
and departments and formulate a recommendation to the Building Official, who then must
decide on the acceptability and appropriateness of a temporary occupancy. All work
associated with the final occupancy still must occur.
CASE 19: Records Search
As shown in the appendix, the cost associated with records search and retrieval is $42.00
per hour. The proposed $50.00 per hour fee seeks to recover this cost. Records creation,
retrieval and processing associated with an active case are included with the permit and
plan review fees. However, customers often request information regarding projects which
are not active. These customers may or may not be involved in the ownership of the
i property. Such requests generate staff effort and it is appropriate to recover the
associated cost.
i
CASE 20: Plan Review Extension
i
As shown in the appendix, the cost associated with a request for plan review extension is
$52.50. The proposed $50.00 fee seeks to recover this cost. The code provides that the
Building Official may grant extensions to plan review periods. This function is currently
delegated to the Supervising Plans Examiner. Staff effort is required to evaluate and act
on the extension request and it is appropriate to recover associated costs.
-13-
CASE 21: Permit Extension
As shown in the appendi-:, the cost associated with a request for permit extension is
$60.50. The proposed $50.00 fee seeks to recover this cost. The code provides that the
Building Official may grant extensions to permits. This function is currently delegated to
the Supervising Inspector. Staff effort is required to evaluate and act on the extension
request and it is appropriate to recover associated costs.
Over-all:
Tigard's building regulatory fees do not currently cover the over-all cost of providing
services at appropriate service and staffing levels. If the City Council wishes to maintain
the high level of service in this area and recover all costs from fees, an increase in the
fees charged is necessary.
Long-term Outlook/Contingency:
The relationship between the Building and Electrical Funds (Tigard activity) and the Urban
Services Fund (Washington County activity) must be explained to fully understand the
long-term financial outlook. The estimates to be discussed below assume certain activity
levels in Tigard and the area of Washington County for which we provide service (URB).
The assumptions for the URB area can only be based upon our experience over the last
year. As such, there is the potential for differences between the relative proportion of
activity in the two areas. Other factors, such as annexation in the URB area will contribute
to differences between the actual proportions and our assumptions. However, expenses
to the funds are apportioned according to the relative level of activity in each area.
Therefore, increased expenses in the URB area will be accompanied by reduced
expenses in Tigard (all else equal), and vice versa. The following discussion combines
the building and electrical portions of Tigard and URB together to provide a
comprehensive analysis of these functions. As noted previously, costs and revenues in
Tigard and Washington County are accounted separately.
Building
The building component of our financial outlook will become insolvent almost immediately
if the proposed fee increase is not implemented. At the end of FY 00/01, the ending
balance will be in the red an amount equal to approximately one year's cost. Clearly,
without the proposed fee increase or substantial general fund subsidy, the City will be
unable to provide services. However, if the proposed fee increase is implemented, the
ending balance will grow over the next four years to develop a 78% reserve, which will
lower slightly to 69% in three more years. This is due to the estimated declining building
activity in Tigard. If redevelopment and in-fill do not maintain current activity levels at that
point, appropriate staffing adjustments will be made to maintain a healthy reserve.
-14-
Electrical
The electrical component of our financial outlook will steadily dwindle its reserve and
become insolvent within five years if the proposed fee increase is not implemented. The
electrical component is in better shape than building because current electrical fees were
adopted in 1995, compared to 1979 for building. However, if the proposed fee increase is
implemented, electrical reserves will average 70% over the next four years. After this, the
estimate shows that the reserve will begin to diminish. This is due to the estimated
declining building activity in Tigard. If redevelopment and in-fill do not maintain current
activity levels at that point, appropriate staffing adjustments will be made to maintain a
healthy reserve.
• Alternatives
A. The City could adopt those fees necessary to cover costs for building regulatory
services and to build appropriate reserves.
B. The City could choose to make no change or a lesser increase in the fees charged
for building regulatory services. This option would necessitate a reduction in service
(cutting staff) or the provision of a general fund subsidy to maintain services. The general
fund subsidy option is not recommended because the City previously created the Building
Fund and Electrical Fund to provide for a segregated accounting of these services and
costs and to promote a "fee for service" philosophy for building regulatory services. The
Urban Services Fund should not be subsidized by the General Fund, an action which
would co-mingle Tigard revenue to cover services provided in Washington County.
Further, any reduction in staff not accompanied by a parallel reduction in service demand
will result in a return to the over-taxed staffing patterns of the recent past, resulting in
compromised service and regulatory function.
• Recommendation/Proposed Fees
It is recommended that the Council adopt the proposed fees presented in Resolution 99-
-15-
M M- 1-0
APPENDIX:
Appendix A: Determination of Unit Staff Costs
Appendix B: Detailed Cost Analysis of Service Costs for Selected Services
Apj,.;ndix C: Proposed Fees
Appendix D: Fund Outlook Charts
~~~~~~a~
~1
1
DETERMINATION OF UNIT STAFF COSTS
1. DIRECT COSTS
A. WAGES AND BENEFITS
POSITION WAGES/BENEFITS # FTE POSITION WITH WITH BLDG
SUPERVISOR OFFICIAL
BUILDING INSPEC77ON
ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST it $ 45,052.80 1 $ 45,052.80 $ 51,234.37 $ 56,214.66
INSPECTOR I $ 55,244.80 2 $ 110,489.60 $ 125,649.56 $ 137,863.46
INSPECTOR II $ 63,460.80 3 $ 190,382.40 $ 216,504.22 $ 237,549.74
SENIOR INSPECTOR $ 69,638.40 3 $ 208,915.20 $ 237,579.85 $ 260,674.05
SUBTOTAL 9 $ 554,840.00 $ 630,968.00 $ 692,301.90
SUPERVISING INSPECTOR $ 76,128.00 1 $ 76,128.00
% SUPERVISING INSPECTOR TO EACH INSPECTION POSITION= 14%
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW
PLANS EXAMINER $ 62,004.80 1 $ 62,004.80 $ 87,999.94 $ 96,554.07
SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER $ 68,036.80 1 $ 68,036.80 $ 96,560.82 $ 105,947.11
SUPERVISING PLANS EXAMINER 20% LINE WORK $ 76,128.00 0.2 $ 15,225.60 $ 21,608.84 $ 23,709.35
SUBTOTAL 2.2 $ 145,267.20 $ 206,169.60 $ 226,210.53
SUPERVISING PLANS EXAMINER 80% SUPERVISORY $ 76,128.00 0.8 $ 60,902.40
% SUPERVISING PLANS EX. TO EACH PLANS EX. POSITION= 42%
BUILDING SUPPORT/ADMIN
ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST 1 $ 39,457.60 0.5 $ 19,728.80 $ 21,646.56
ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST it $ 45,052.80 1 $ 45,052.80 $ 49,432.20
SUBTOTAL 1.5 $ 64,781.60 $ 71,078.76
BUILDING OFFICIAL $ 87,672.00 1 $ 87,672.00
% BUILDING OFFICIAL TO EACH BUILDING DIVISION POSITION= 10%
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (CD) ADMINISTRATION (COUNTER STAFF
50% OF ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST I $ 39,457.60 0.5 $ 19,728.80 $ 23,479.26
50% OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN (DST) $ 52,790.40 2.5 $ 131,976.00 $ 157,064.74
SUBTOTAL 3 $ 151,704.80 $ 180,544.00
50% OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SUPERVISOR $ 57,678.40 0.5 $ 28,839.20
pIo DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SUPERVISOR TO EACH CD ADMIN POSITION= 19%
TOTAL WAGES AND BENEFITS= $ 1,170,135.20
Pagel
DETERMINATION OF UNIT STAFF COSTS
98199 BUDGET) $ 187,621.00
g. MATERIALS AND SERVICES $ 46,558.00
BUILDING DMSION ~234y 0
41% OF CD ADMIN
esents 50% of DSTs D and 33%ES Director and Secretary
(repr SUPPL
TOTAL MATERIALS AN
Y DEPRECIATED) $ 3.750-00
C. CAPITAL OUTLAY t $ 4,100,00
BUILDING DMSION $~7 8Y50.00
41% CD ADM1N
cents of DSTs and 33°RECIATEDor and Secretary
(repre Y DEP
TOTAL CAPITAL OUT LA 41
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
COST
11_INDIRECT COSTS
~ 13,561.36
BUDGET UNIT $ i 1,886.08
$ 198,236.00
SHOPS $ 24,120.88
PROPERTY MANAGEMEN TION $ 33,365.90
POLICY AND ADMINISTRA $ 16,267.68
NON.DEPARTMENTAL
113 CD DIRECTOR 2974 .90
113 CD SECRETARY
TOTAL INDIREC T COSTS
Building Fund, Electrical Fund~~dHuman Resources,
NOTE: ed to B ,~dministrati
* includes indirect costs ch a or and City Council, City dministrative Services
Computer Systems, Finance, Accounting,
* PolicylAdmin in Comp y
Risk Management. t,
page 2 vivo
t
DETERMINATION OF UNIT STAFF COSTS
Ill. COMPUTATION OF UNIT COST PER POSITION
POSITION % DIRECT COSTS DIRECT COST INDIRECT COST COST/MINUTE
ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST I - BUILDING 4% $ 58,708.98 $12,365.61 $ 0.65
ADMIN!STRATIVE SPECIALIST I - DST 4% $ 62,374.38 $ 13,137.64 $ 0.69
ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST 11-BUILDING 5% $ 64,848.06 $13,658.66 $ 0.72
ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST 11-INSPECTION 5% $ 71,630.52 $ 15,087.22 $ 0.80
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN 6% $ 78,241.76 $ 16,479.72 $ 0.87
INSPECTOR I 6% $ 86,598.08 $ 18,239.77 $ 0.96
INSPECTOR 11 7%$ 94,599.11 $ 19,924.99 I $ 1.05
SENIOR INSPECTOR 7% $ 102,307.21 $ 21,543.52 $ 1.14
PLANS EXAMINER 8% $ 111,969.93 $ 23,583.73 $ 1.24
SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER 9% $ 121,362.97 $ 25,562.15 $ 1.35
SUPERVISING PLANS EXAMINER 3% $ 41,375.70 $ 8,714.78 $ 0.46
FUNCTION COST/MINUTE
DST PROCESSING/SUPPORT $ 0.84
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT - BUILDING $ 0.70
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT - INSPECTION $ 0.80
SENIOR INSPECTOR $ 1.14
A-LEVEL BUILDING INSPECTION $ 1.07
SINGLE-FAMILY BUILDING INSPECTION $ 1.05
A-LEVEL MECHANICAL INSPECTION $ 1.09
SINGLE-FAMILY MECHANICAL INSPECTION $ 1.06
A-LEVEL PLUMBING INSPECTION $ 1.09
SINGLE-FAMILY PLUMBING INSPECTION $ 1.06
A-LEVEL ELECTRICAL INSPECTION $ 1.11
SINGLE-FAMILY ELECTRICAL INSPECTION $ 1.10
A-LEVEL PLANS EXAMINATION $ 1.51
SINGLE-FAMILY PLANS EXAMINATION $ 1.30
Page 3
MINIM milli
low-
CASE 1: PLMB PERMIT 2 FIXTURES SINGLE-FAMILY
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROP. FEE PROP. DIFFERENCE % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
Plmb Prmt $90.04 $27.00 ($63.04) $50.00 ($40.04) 85.190/0 55.53% Current fee set in 1994
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN COST PERM
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 12 $10.08
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 13 $9.10
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 10 $8.00
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 4 $4.56
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSPA $;.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 55 $58.30
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
$90.04
PLM97-0087
CASE 2: MINOR BLDG PERMIT- SINGLE-FAMILY
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROP. FEE PROP. DIFF. % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
Bldg Prmt $139.91 $38.50 ($101.41) $83.25 ($56.66) 116.23% 59.50% 1979 UBC to 1997 UBC
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN COST PERM
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 30 $25.20
AS2/AS1 BL $0.70 PER MINUTE 17 $11.90
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 12 $9.60
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 9 $10.26
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 79 $82.95
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
$139.91
MST95-0437
VALUATION = $3,000
SEEM
YY u.• •11J11 1 N 1 l 111
CASE 3: PLMB PERMIT 7 FIXTURES - TI
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROP. FEE PROP. RIFF % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
PImb Pcmt $117.68 $63.00 ($54.68) $105.00 ($12.68) 66.67% 89.23% Current fee set in 1994
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN COST PERM
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 21 $17.64
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 15 $10.50
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 8 $6.40
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 6 $6.84
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 70 $76.30
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
$117.68
PLM97-0007
CASE 4: PLMB PERMIT 11 FIXTURES AND VARIOUS SEWERIWATER LINES
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
Plmb Prmt $267.22 $189.00 ($78.22) $300.00 58.73% 112.27% Current fee set in 1994
Plmb Plan Check $ 73.80 $47.25 ($26.55) .$75.00 58.73% 101.63% Same
COSTS
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN PERM COST PERM # MIN PLAN COST PLAN
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 21 $17.64 10 $ 8.40
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 19 $13.30 0 $ -
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 33 $26.40 0 $ -
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 12 $13.68 0 $ -
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 180 $196.20 60 $ 65.40
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
$267.22 $ 73.80
PLM96-0027
CASE 5: MECH PERMIT ONE ROOF TOP UNIT, OVER THE COUNTER PLAN REVIEW
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVER COMMENTS
Mech Prmt $103.96 $25.00 ($78.96) $59.25 137.00% 56.99% Go from 1979 UMC to 1997 UMC
Mech Plan Review (OTC) $ 91.45 $6.25 ($85.20) $39.81 537.00% 43.53% Same (+$25 OTC FEE)
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN PERM COST PERM # MIN PLANS COST PLAN
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 18 $15.12 10 $ 8.40
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 13 $9.10 0 $ -
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 23 $18.40 0 $ -
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 6 $6.84 0 $ -
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
MiNSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 50 $54.50 0 $ -
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 J $ -
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
PLANS EX $1.51 PER MINUTE 55 $ 83.05
$103.96 $ 91.45
MEC90-0009
CASE 6: NEW SMALL OFFICE BLDG
B OCC, TYPE 5-1 HR CONSTRUCTION
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
Bldg Prmt $1,365.18 $675.50 ($689.68) $1,536.95 127.53% 112.58% Go from 1979 UBC to 1997 UBC
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN COST PERM
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 114 $95.76
AWAS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 167 $116.90
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 305 $244.00
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 93 $106.02
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 750 $802.50
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
$1,365.18
BUP97-0231
Valuation = $261,450
CASE 7: BLDG PERMIT AND PLAN REVIEW FOR MAJOR RESTAURANT TENANT IMPROVEMENT
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
Bldg Prmt $1,549.29 $1,183.00 ($366.29) $2,673.75 126.01% 172.58% Go from 1979 UBC to 1997 UBC
Bldg Plan Check $ 1,405.50 $768.95 ($163.35) $1,737.94 126.01% 199.75% 65% of Prmt fee (same % as in 1979)
Fire Life Safety Plan Check IN ABOVE $473.20 IN ABOVE $1,069.50 126.01% IN ABOVE 40% of Prmt fee set in ORS)
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN PERM COST # MIN PLANS COST PLAN
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 21 $17.64 16 $ 13.44
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 60 $42.00 $ -
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE _ 90 $72.00 30 $ 24.00 TYPING LETTER
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 75 $85.50 $
BINSPA $1.07 PER MINUTE 1245 $1,332.15 $ -
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $ -
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $ -
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $ -
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $ -
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE Q $0.00 $ -
PLAN CHECK $1.51 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 906 $ 1,368.06
$1,549.29 $ 1,405.50
BUP97-0526
• ..-•UiL1,L11 1 V 11111
CASE 7: MECHANICAL PERMIT FOR MAJOR RESTAURANT TENANT IMPROVEMENT
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
Mech Print $783.01 $89.50 ($693.51) $203.50 127.37% 25.99% Go from 1979 UMC to 1997 UMC
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN PERM COST # MIN PLANS COST PLAN
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 21 $17.64 $ -
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 16 $11.20 $ -
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 70 $56.00 $ -
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 55 $62.70 $
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 583 $635.47 $ -
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE $0.00 $
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE $0.00 $
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE $0.00 $
PLAN CHECK $1.51 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
$783.01 $
MEC97-0454
CASE 7: PLUMBING PERMIT FOR MAJOR RESTAURANT TENANT IMPROVEMENT
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
Plmb Prmt $536.90 $385.00 ($151.90) $615.00 59.74% 114.55% Current fee set in 1994
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN PERM COST # MIN PLANS COST PLAN
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 21 $17.64 $ -
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 9 $6.30 $ -
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 35 $28.00 $ -
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 20 $22.80 $ -
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 424 $462.16 $ -
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
PLAN CHECK $1.14 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
$536.90 $
t
PLM98-0044
L jkxLD1L11 Y L-) I nLr
CASE 7: ELECTRICAL PERMIT FOR RESTAURANT TENANT IMPROVEMENT
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
Elec Prmt $727.25 $1,125.00 $397.75 $1,350.00 20.00% 185.63% Current fee set in 1995
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN PERM COST # MIN PLANS COST PLAN
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 21 $17.64 $
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 14 $9.80 $
AS2 WSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 60 $48.00 $ -
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 45 $51.30 $ -
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE $0.00 $
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE $0.00 $
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE $0.00 $
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE $0.00 $
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 541 $600.51 $
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE $0.00 $
PLAN CHECK $1.14 PER MINUTE $0.00 $
$727.25 $ -
ELC98-0068
lllll~l
- -
CASE 8: NEW SINGLE FAMILY- BUILDING
FEE TYPE ASSOCIATED COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
Bldg Plan Check $ 766.52 $432.25 ($334.27) $980.82 126.91% 127.960% Go from 1979 UBC to 1997 UBC
Bldg Prmt $1,094.15 $665.00 ($429.15) $1,508.95 126.91% 137.91% Same
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN COST # MIN PLANS COST PLAN COST PLAN
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 39 $32.76 18 $ 15.12 $ 15.12
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 62 $43.40 $ - $ -
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 98 $78.40 0 $ - $ -
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 51 $58.14 $ - $ -
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $ - $ -
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 697 $731.85 $ - $ -
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $ - $ -
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $ - $ -
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $ - $ -
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $ - $ -
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $ - $ -
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $ - $ -
PLAN CHECK $1.30 PER MINUTE 578 $ 751.40 $ 751.40
$911.79 $ 766.52 $ 766.52
° MST97-0320
2,800 sq.ft.
' Plmb: (3-bath)
• Mech: (1 furnace, 4 vent fans, l dryer,1 water heater,1 hood,1 other - all gas)
2 limited energy systems
CASE 8: NEW SINGLE FAMILY- MECHANICAL
FEE TYPE ASSOCIATED COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
Mech Plan Check $ 13.00 $12.00 ($1.00) $28.66 138.85% 220.48% Go from 1979 UMC to 1997 UMC
Mech Prmt $222.88 $48.00 ($174.88) $114.65 138.85% 51.44%
Same
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN COST # MIN PLANS COST PLAN
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 21 $17.64 $ _
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 8 $5.60 $ _
4S2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 16 $12.80 $
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 12 $13.68 $ _
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $ _
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.100 $ _
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $ _
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 180 $190.80 $ _
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $ _
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $ _
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 $ _
PLAN CHECK $1.30 PER MINUTE 10 $ 13.00
$222.881 -1 $ 13.00
* MST97-0320
* 2,800 sq.ft.
* Plmb: (3-bath)
* Mech: (1 furnace, 4 vent fans, l dryer,1 water heater, I hood, I other - all gas)
' 2 limited energy systems
elm EN!"
CASE 8: NEW SINGLE FAMILY PLUMBING
FEE TYPE ASSOCIATED COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
Pimb Prmt $353.64 $225.00 ($128.64) $375.00 66.67% 106.04% Current fee set in 1994
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN COST
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 21 $17.64
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 11 $7.70
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 28 $22.40
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 21 $23.94
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 266 $281.96
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
$353.64
MST97-0320
° 2,800 sq.ft.
Plmb: (3-bath)
Mach: (1 furnace, 4 vent fans,1 dryer,l water heater, l hood,1 other - all gas)
° 2 limited energy systems
16-1m SIMON
CASE 8: NEW SINGLE FAMILY - ELECTRICAL
FEE TYPE ASSOCIATED COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
Elec Prmt $229.18 $235.00 $5.82 $280.00 19.15% 122.17% FEE SET 1995
Limited Energy Prmt $ 77.26 $40.00 ($37.26) $60.00 50.00% 77.66% Same
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN ELC COST ELC # MIN ELR COST ELR
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 21 $17.64 21 $ 17.64
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 9 $6.30 5 $ 3.50
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 14 $11.20 4 $ 3.20
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 12 $13.68 3 $ 3.42
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $ -
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 180 $198.00 45 $ 49.50
$229.18 $ 77.26
° MST97-0320
2,800 sq.ft.
° Plmb: (3-bath)
° Mech: (1 furnace, 4 vent fans,1 dryer, l water heater, l hood, l other - all gas)
2 limited energy systems
LL' 171D1L11 Y ~'11i1Y
CASE 9: PLAN REVIEW FOR ADDITION, COMMERCIAL
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
Bldg Plan Check $ 1,237.10 $461.83 ($590.54) $1,04.9.98 127.35% 118.82% Change from 1979 to 1997 UBC
Fire Life Safety Plan Check IN ABOVE $184.73 IN ABOVE $419.99 127.35% IN ABOVE 40% of Prmt fee set in ORS)
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN PERM COST # MIN PLANS COST PLAN
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE $0.00 60 $ 50.40
AS21AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE $0.00 30 $ 24.00 TYPING LETTER
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
PLAN CHECK $1.51 PER MINUTE $0.00 770 $ 1,162.70
$0.00 $ 1,237.10
BUP96-0526
CASE 10: PLAN REVIEW NEW DAY CARE
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
Bldg Plan Check $ 1,345.35 $676.33 ($249.70) $1,530.46 126.29% 183.76% Change from 1979 to 1997 UBC
Fire Life Safety Plan Check IN ABOVE. $419.32 IN ABOVE $941.82 124.60% IN ABOVE 40% of Prmt fee set in ORS)
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN PERM COST # MIN PLANS COST PLAN
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE $0.00 90 $ 75.60
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
QS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE $0.00 30 $ 24.00 TYPING LETTER
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE $0.00 $ -
PLAN CHECK $1.51 PER MINUTE $0.00 825 $ 1,245.75
$0.00 $ 1,345.35
BUP98-0167
CASE 11: MECHANICAL PLAN REVIEW FOR BIG ALTERATION
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVER COMMENTS
Mech Plan Review $ 574.65 $48.88 ($525.77) $117.34 140.06% 20.42% Go from 1979 to 1997 UMC
POSITION ---~U-NIT COST # MIN PERM COST PERM # MIN PLANS COST PLAN
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE $0.00 10 $ 8.40
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE $0.00 0 $ -
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE I $0.00 0 $ -
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE $0.00 0 $ -
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE $0.00 0 $ -
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE I $0.00 0 $ -
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE $0.00 0 $ -
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE $0.00 0 $ -
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE $0.00 0 $ -
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE $0.00 0 $ -
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE $0.00 0 $ -
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE $0.00 0 $ -
PLANS EX $1.51 PER MINUTE 375 $ 566.25
$0.00 $ 574.65
MEC98-0289
CASE 12: ELECTRICAL PERMIT 4 CIRCUITS
TI
FEE TYPE ASSOCIATED COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE 1% RECOVER COMMENTS
Elec Prmt $193.35 $50.00 ($143.35) $60.00 20.00% 31.03% Current fee set in 1995
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN COST
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 12 $10.08
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 15 $10.50
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 12 $9.60
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 147 $163.17
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
$193.35
ELC97-0010
CASE 13: ELECTRICAL PERMIT 2 CIRCUITS
SINGLE-FAMILY
FEE TYPE ASSOCIATED COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE %RECOVERY COMMENTS
Elec Prmt $113.58 $40.00 ($73.58) $48.00 20.00% 42.26% Current fee set in 1995
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN COST
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 12 $10.08
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 13 $9.10
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 8 $6.40
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 80 $88.00
$113.58
ELC97-0023
NMI, Em
CASE 14: SEWER INSPECTION
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE %RECOVERY COMMENTS
SWR INSP SF $54.36 $35.00 ($19.36) $50.00 42.86% 91.98% NO CHANGE SINCE PRE-1987
SWR INS? MF/COMM $66.01 $45.00 ($21.01) $65.00 44.44% 98.47% NO CHANGE SINCE PRE-1988
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN SF COST #MIN MF/COMM COST MF/COMM
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 12 $10.08 12 $10.08
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 13 $9.10 13 $9.10
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 8 $6.40 8 $6.40
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 2 $2.28 2 $2.28
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 35 $38.15
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 25 $26.50 0 $0.00
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
$54.36 $66.01
MEN
21
CASE 15: ADDRESS CHANGE
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
ADDRESS CHANGE $67.20 $0.00 ($67.20) $65.00 N/A 96.73% NO FEE CURRENTLY
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN COST
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 30 $25.20
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 60 $42.00
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
$6720
CASE 16: REINSPECTION FEES
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE %RECOVERY COMMENTS
Reinspection
Building $55.28 $15.00 ($40.28) $50.00 233.33% 90.45% Current fee set in 1979
Mechanical $55.81 $15.00 ($40.81) $50.00 233.33% 89.60% Current fee set in 1979
Plumbing $55.81 $40.00 ($15.81) $50.00 25.00% 89.60% Current fee set in 1994
Electrical $57.03 $35.00 ($22.03) $50.00 42.86% 87.67% Current fee set in 1995
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN COST
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 10 $8.40
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 5 $3.50
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 5 $4.00
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 2 $2.28
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 35 $37.45
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 35 $36.75
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 35 $38.15
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 35 $37.10
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 35 $38.15
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 35 $37.10
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 35 $38.85
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 35 $38.50
CASE 17: PHASING OCCUPANCY
FEE TYPE COST I CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE %a INCREASE %RECOVERY COMMENTS
PHASING OCCUPANCY $218.80 $0.00 ($218.80) $200.00 NIA 91.41% NO CURRENT FEE
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN COST
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 30, $25.20
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 10 $7.00
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 30$24.00
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 301 $34.20
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 120, $128.40
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE' 0 $0.00
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
$218.80
CASE 18: TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
TEMP CO $89.70 $0.00 ($89.70) $90.00 N/A 100.33% NO CURRENT FEE
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN COST
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 30 $25.20
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 30 $21.00
AS2 INSP $0.8C PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 10 $11.40
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 30 $32.10
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
$89.70
CASE 19: RECORDS SEARCH
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVER COMMENTS
RECORDS SEARCH, $42.00 $0.00 ($42.00) $45.00 N/A 107.14% NO CURRENT FEE
NOT RELATED TO ACTIVE PERMIT
(MIN 1 HOUR,
CHARGED IN 1 HOUR INCREMENTS)
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN COST
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 60 $42.00
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
$42.00
CASE 20: PLAN REVIEW EXTENSION
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
PLAN REVIEW EXTENSION $52.50 $0.00 ($52.50) $50.00 N/A 95.24% NO CURRENT FEE
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN COST
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
AS2 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
SUPER PLANS EXAM $1.75 PER MINUTE 30 $52.50
CASE 21: PERMIT EXTENSION
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROPOSED FEE % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
PERMIT EXTENSION $60.50 $0.00 ($60.50) $50.00 N/A 82.64% NO CURRENT FEE
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN COST
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
AS2/AS1 BLDG $0.70 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
AS2 lNSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 10 $8.00
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
BINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
SUPER INSP $1.75 PER MINUTE 30 $52.50
$60.50
CASE 22: MANUFACTURED DWELLING INSTALLATION
FEE TYPE COST CURRENT FEE SHORTAGE PROP. FEE PROP. DIFF. % INCREASE % RECOVERY COMMENTS
Bldg Prmt $232.10 $105.00 ($127.10) $235.00 $2.90 123.81% 101.25% current fee is State fee
POSITION UNIT COST # MIN COST PERM
DST $0.84 PER MINUTE 30 $25.20
AS2/ASi BL $0.70 PER MINUTE 21 $14.70
A82 INSP $0.80 PER MINUTE 22 $17.60
SR. INSP $1.14 PER MINUTE 15 $17.10
EINSP A $1.07 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
BINSP SF $1.05 PER MINUTE 150 $157.50
MINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
MINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP A $1.09 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
PINSP SF $1.06 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP A $1.11 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
EINSP SF $1.10 PER MINUTE 0 $0.00
$232.10
MST96-0532
APPENDIX C
Building Fees: (go from 1979 UBC to 1997 UBC)
TOTAL VALUATION CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE
$1.00 to $500.00 $25.00 $50.00
$501.00 to $2,000 $10.00 for the first $500.00 plus $23.50 for the first $500.00 plus $3.05
$1.50 for each additional $100 or for each additional $100 or fraction
fraction thereof, to and including thereof, to and including $2,000
$2,000 $25.00 minimum $50.00 minimum
$2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $32.50 for the first $2,000.00 plus $69.25 for the first $2,000.00 plus
$6.00 for each additional $1,000 or $14.00 for each additional $1,000 or
fraction thereof, to and including fraction thereof, to and including
$25,000 $25,000
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $170.50 for the first $25,000 plus $391.25 for the first $25,000.00 plus
$4.50 for each additional $1,000 or $14.00 for each additional $1,000 or
fraction thereof, to and including fraction thereof, to and including
$50,000 $50,000
$50,001.00 to $100,000 $283.00 for the first $50,000 plus $643.75 for the first $100,000.00 plus
$3.00 for each additional $1,000 or $7.00 for each additional $1,000 or
fraction thereof, to and including fraction thereof, to and including
$100,000 $500,000
$100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $433.00 for the first $100,000.00 $993.75 for the first $500,000.00 plus
plus $2.50 for each additional $5.60 for each additional $1,000 or
$1,000 or fraction thereof fraction thereof, to and including
$1,000,000
$500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $1,433.00 for the first $500,000.00 $3,223.75 for the first $500,000.00
plus $2.50 for each additional plus $4.75 for each additional $1,000
$1,000 or fraction thereof or fraction thereof, to and including
$1,000,000
$1,000,001.00 and up $2,683.00 for the first $5,608.75 for the first $2,000.00 plus
$1,000,000.00 plus $2.50 for each $3.65 for each additional $1,000 or
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof fraction thereof
Other Inspections and Fees:
1. Inspections outside of
normal business hours
(minimum charge - two
hours)
2. Re-inspection fees $15.00 per hour $50.00 per hour
assessed under the
provisions of Section
305.8 (1997 section)
3. Inspections for which no $15.00 each $50.00 each
fee is specifically indicated
(minimum charge - one-
half hour)
4. Additional plan review $15.00 per hour $50.00 per hour
required by changes,
additions or revisions to
plans (minimum charge -
one-half hour)
$15.00 per hour $50.00 per hour
Mechanical Fees: (go from 1979 UMC to 1997 UMC)
Description Current Fee Proposed Fee
Table IA Mechanical Code Qty
A Permit Fee 10.00 23.50
1) Furnace to 100,000 BTU 6.00 14.80
including ducts & vents
2) Furnace 100,000 BTU+ 7.50 18.20
including ducts & vents
3) Floor Furnace 6.00 14.80
including vent
4) Suspended heater, wall heater 6.00 14.80
or floor mounted heater
5 Vent not included in appliance permit 3.00 7.25
CHECK ALL THAT APPLY:
Boiler or Comp
Heat Pump
Air Cond
6 <3HP;absorb unit to I OOK BTU 6.00 14.70
7 3-15 HP;absorb unit 100k to 500k BTU 11,00 27,15
8) 15-30 HP; absorb 15.00 37.25
unit.5-1 mil BTU
9) 30-50 HP; absorb 22.50 55.45
unit 1-1.75 mil BTU
10 >50HP; absorb unit >1.75 mil BTU 37.50 92.65
11 Air handling unit to 10,000 CFM 4.50 10.65
12 Air handling unit 10,000 CF M+ 7.50 18.10
13 Non-portable evaporate cooler 4.50 10.65
14 Vent fan connected to a single duct 3.00 7,25
15) Ventilation system not included in appliance 4.50 10.65
permit
16 Hood served by mechanical exhaust 4.50 10.65
17 Domestic incinerators 7,50 18.20
18 Commercial or industrial type incinerator 30.00 71.10
19 Repair units 4.50 13.70
20 Wood stove 4.50 10.65
21 Clothes dryer, etc. 4.50 10.65
22 Other units 4.50 10.65
23 Gas piping one to four outlets 2.00 4.75
24 More than 4-per outlet each .50 1.20
25) Hazardous Process Piping System (HPP) of one to none 5.00
four outlets
26) Hazardous Process Piping System (HPP) of five or none 1.00
more outlets, per outlet
27) For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated best match used 10.65
by the Mechanical Code but not classed in other
appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed
in the table
Minimum Permit Fee $25.00 $50.00
PLAN REVIEW 25% OF SUBTOTAL
Required for ALL commercial permits only
Other Inspections and Fees:
1. Inspections outside of nomial business hours
(minimum charge - two hours) $15.00 per hour $50.00 per hour
2. Re-inspection fees assessed under the provisions
of Section 305.8 (1997 section) $15.00 each $50.00 each
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically
indicated (minimum charge - one-half hour) $15.00 per hour $50.00 per hour
4. Additional plan review required by changes,
additions or revisions to plans (nninimum charge -
one-half hour $15.00 per hour $50.00 per hour
Plumbing Fees: (50% to 67% increase)
New Single-Family : Current Fee Proposed Fee
1 Bath 140.00 235.00
2 Bath 195.00 325.00
3 Bath 225.00 375.00
FIXTURES individual QTY Current Fee Proposed Fee
Sink 9.00 15.00
Lavatory 9.00 15.00
Tub or Tub/Shower Comb. 9.00 15.00
Shower Only 9.00 15.00
Water Closet 9.00 15.00
Dishwasher 9.00 15.00
Garbage Disposal 9.00 15.00
Washing Machine 9.00 15.00
Floor Drain/Floor Sink 2' 9.00 15.00
3' 9.00 15.00
4' 9.00 15.00
Water Heater O conversion O like kind 9.00 15.00
Gas piping requires a separate mechanical permit.
Laundry Room Tray 9.00 15.00
Urinal 9.00 15.00
Other Fixtures (Specify) 9.00 15.00
9.00 15.00
9.00 15.00
Sewer - 1 st 100' 30.00 45.00
Sewer - each additional 100' 25.00 35.00
Water Service - 1 st 100' 30.00 45.00
Water Service - each additional 200' 25.00 35.00
Storm & Rain Drain - 1st 100' 30.00 45.00
Storm & Rain Drain - each additional 100' 25.00 35.00
Mobile Home Space 25.00 35.00
Commercial Back Flow Prevention Device or Anti- 25.00 35.00
Pollution Device
Residential Backflow Prevention Device 15.00 25.00
(Irrigation timing devices require a separate restricted
energy permit.)
Any Trap or Waste Not Connected to a Fixture 9.00 15.00
Catch Basin 9.00 15.00
Insp. of Existing Plumbing 40.00 per/hr 50.00
er.hr
Specially Requested Inspections 40.00 50.00
per/hr per/hr
Rain Drain, single family dwelling 30.00 45.00
Grease Traps 9.00 15.00
Minimum Permit Fee 25.00 50.00
Minimum Permit Fee Residential Backflow 15.00 25.00
"PLAN REVIEW 25% OF SUBTOTAL
Required only if fixture qty. total is > 9
Electrical Fees: (Not official form, intended to display fees only)
20% increase
Current Fee Proposed Fee
4a. Residential - per unit
1000 sq. ft. or less $110.00 $132.00
Each additional 500 sq. ft. or
portion thereof $25.00 $30.00
Limited Energy $25.00 $30.00
Each Manufd Home or Modular
Dwelling Service or Feeder $68.00 $82.00
4b. Services or Feeders
Installation, alteration, or relocation
200 amps or less $60.00 $72.00
201 amps to 400 amps $80.00 .00
401 amps to 600 amps $120.00 $114444.00
601 amps to 1000 amps $180.00 $216.00
60.00 $.00
Over 1000 amps or volts $50.00 $0$ $60.00
Reconnect only
4c. Temporary Services or Feeders
Installation, alteration, or relocation
200 amps. or less $50.00 $60.00
201 amps to 400 amps .00 $30.00
401 amps to 600 amps $110000.00 $120.00
Over 600 amps to 1000 volts,
see "b" above.
4d. Branch Circuits
New, alteration or extension per panel
a) The fee for branch circuits with
purchase of service or
feeder fee.
Each branch circuit $5.00 $6.00
b) The fee for branch circuits
without purchase of
sei rice or feeder fee.
First branch circuit $35.00 $.00
Each additional branch circuit $5.00 $ $66.00
4e. Miscellaneous
(Service or feeder not included)
Each pump or irrigation circle $40.00 $48.00
Each sign or outline lighting $40.00 $48.00
Signal circuit(s) or a limited energy
panel, alteration or extension $40.00 $48.00
Minor Labels (10) $100.00 $120.00
4f. Each additional inspection over the
allowable in any of the above
Per inspection $35.00 $50.00
Per hour $55.00 $50.00
In Plant $55.00 $66.00
5. Fees:
5a. Enter total of above fees
5% Surcharge (.05 X total fees) $ $
5b. Enter 25% of line 5a for $ $
Plan Review, if required Sec.3
Limited Energy Fees: (Not official form, intended to display fees only)
(50% increase)
TYPE OF WORK INVOLVED - RESIDENTIAL Current Fee Proposed
ONLY Fee
Restricted Energy Fee $40.00 $60.00
FOR ALL SYSTEMS
Check Type of Work Involved:
Audio and Stereo Systems
Bu lar Alarm
Garage Door Opener*
Heating, Ventilation and Air
Conditioning System*
Vacuum S tems'
Other
TYPE OF WORK INVOLVED -
COMMERCIAL ONLY
Current Fee Proposed
Fee
Fee for each $40.00 $60.00
system
SEE OAR 916-260.260
Check Type of Work Involved:
Audio and Stereo Systems
Boiler Controls
Clock Systems
Data Telecommunication Installation
Fire Alarm Installation
HVAC
Instrumentation
Intercom and Palling Systems
Landscape Irrigation Controls
Medical
Nurse Calls
Outdoor Landscape Lightinc*
Protective Signaling
Other
Number of
systems
Miscellaneous Fees:
FEE CATEGORY CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE
Re-inspection:
Building $15.00 $50.00
Mechanical $15.00 $50.00
Plumbing $40.00 $50.00
Electrical $35.00 $50.00
Temporary Occupancy None $90.00
Phased Occupancy None $200.00
Permit or Plan Review None $50.00
Extension
Address Change None $65.00
Research None $45.00 per hour (miminum one-
hour, charged in one hour
increments
moss
a
1
i
a
7
BUILDING OUTLOOK
$2,00o,ooo
$9,000,000 -
9 99/00
00/Of 09/02
$(9,000,000) _ 02/03 03/04
04/05 05 06
$(2,000,000) -
z
® -
$(3,000,000) ROPOSED fiEE INC
- - - WITH 4% INCR~ ~ REASE
- . PER y R .
-
$(4,000,000) - -
$(5,000,000) . - - - - - - -
$(6,000,000)
FISCAL YEAR
jlj~
Mill
yyLV ,yytt.4 +
BUILDING RESERVE
° 69°10
T
°l-----------------
500/0 - - % 05 06
03104 04105
2°l0 01102 42103
tN- a% 99100 00101 - - - -
0 9 la22%
ITH PROPOSED FEE INCR E
0 - - - - ~--W SE pFRYEAR
Z -50°!0 -63% _ 4% IN -
r - - - - - " -O--WITH °
M --"-107% -
W
-100°!0 - -
Q x148°l0-----------
Q -150% _191% - -
~ - - - - - -235%
4 .2000/0 -
W -287.-
W. -250°!0 - - - - - -
-333°l0
-300% - -
-350% FISCAL YEAR
now
~L
'Y
R~cA►-oIJTI OO c
$25a o00 - -
$2ao,ooo - _
• _ - FEE IN~R~SE
p~S EpSE PF10 R
pp0 „~,...WtTM PRO
$150, -
~WtTH 4°/o tNCR
$1pp,p00 "
v
05 06
.
Q. $50,ppp - p4105
t~ p2ip3 0
G 00101 01102
W 98 99 99100
$l5a,o0o) _ _
$~100,00a) - -
FtSCAt'~R
$(150,pp0~
ELECTRICAL RESERVE
30 f0
$0% 00 0 66%
00 _ 56%
60% 7% 510/o
31%
N 8010 POSED FEE INCREp,SE
v 40% 300/0 -*-wITH PRO C SE PER YEp,R
to ~..Wt3H 4% INCR~
15%
20% ()506
-3% QA105
Q 03
02103
01102 _
Q 0% 00101 -22°f0
~ 99 99100 _
O "
Q - -43%
W -20% -
-Q0%
PISCAI- YEAR
.600/.
January 12, 1999
Mr. David Scott, Building Official
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97233
Dear David:
This letter is to follow up on the conversation we had on January Wh, regarding the
proposed increases in permit fees. Please feel free to share it with the City Council if you
wish.
As I explained to you, our Association's concerns are, at this point, primarily
conceptual. I haven't had the time yet to perform research or come to any conclusions yet.
What I tried to do was give you a pretty good idea of the items that we will be exploring
further, and I think that our conversation was very productive in that respect.
There are three major concerns that we have at this point:
o "Large" Jobs Subsidizing"Small" Jobs
We have trouble with the concept of overcharging for permits on large jobs and using
those funds to subsidize the cost of smaller job permits. You stated that this is really an
inherent part of the valuation and rating schedules from the state, and to the extent that that
is true we will probably have to accept it. What caught my eye, however, was your
statement that "It is not recommended to fully recover costs on smaller jobs so that the fee
burden does not drive these jobs `underground'." If the City chose to use this rationale as a
basis for establishing fees we would disagree with it.
If the City believes that fully charging for small jobs would cause contractors to perform
work illegally, then the City should either increase its enforcement efforts or subsidize
smaller permit from another funding source. We do not believe it is fair to charge some
contractors a higher permit rate due to the fear that other contractors may perform work
illegally.
o Proper "Reserve Fund" Amount
In general, we agree with the concept of creating a reserve fund that would allow the
building department to have funds available for slow times or for boom times when
additional contract workers could be hired. We believe that such a fund could be a benefit
to our members if used correctly.
LM
The issues that we will be looking at are (1) what level of reserves is appropriate, (2) the
time period over which it is'collected, and (3) the equity of reserves collected by each
permit.
We talked in theory about a level of reserves that would allow the department to
function for between 3 and 6 months without receiving any income. I think we would feel
that a number closer to 3 months would be more appropriate based on the idea that the
department should have enough funds to finish its current work load if income were to
suddenly stop. Before we commit to any number, however, I need to do more research and
find out what other jurisdictions and our members feel is appropriate. One thing you should
remember when talking about a reserve fund is that there are very few builders who could
survive for 3 months without generating any income. There will perhaps be some sentiment
from our industry that the building department should be no different than any other
business.
We would be in favor of a longer time period for creating a reserves fund so that those
who apply for permits in the next year are not shouldering the entire burden of creating the
fund. As we discussed, we are not yet sure exactly how long that time period should be.
The other issue is how you appropriated the collecting of reserves among the different
permit types. I notice that some permit fees are proposed to cover 185% of the total costs,
and other are proposed at 112%. We would like to know why that is, and why the city
doesn't just, for example, institute a 5% reserves surcharge on all permits.
The proper level of reserves will be an important topic for us, and these are just a
general outline of the type of questions we will be asking.
o Calculation Of Costs
We have some questions about how you have determined the unit staff costs for
providing inspection and permitting services. This is vitally important because it is the basis
on which all permit fees are derived.
In theory, there are certain functions and costs associated with the building department
that are required by the State in order to service the building industry. There are also
functions within the building department that are a community benefit and/or requirement,
and are not a sole service to the industry. We will argue that only the direct costs of
providing permitting and inspection services should be captured through permit fees. Other
indirect costs or other services that the building department performs should be funded
through other means.
This is a very general statement because I have not had the time to go through your staff
costs spreadsheet in detail, nor have I had the time to sit down and talk about the specific
functions that are performed by the building department.
Thanks, David, for speaking with me the other day. I will be out of town at a convention
from Jan. 13-20, and I look forward to working more on these issues with you when I return.
Best Regards,
Kevin Wing
Director of Local Government Affairs
Hill
AGENDA ITEM # V
FOR AGENDA OF Januay 17. 1999
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Tualatin River Pedestrian Bridge
PREPARED BY: Jim Hendrvx DEPT HEAD OK /A/ff,-f CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council authorize $7,000 of Greenspaces funds for completed engineering calculations of the
existing railroad bridge and completion of conceptual design plans for the proposed pedestrian bridge over the
Tualatin River? This amount would come from the $50,000 already authorized. This bridge, if constructed
would interconnect Tigard's Cook Park, Tualatin's Community Park, and Durham's City Park.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council authorize that up to $7,000 of Greenspaces funds be spent towards the
additional costs of completing detailed engineering calculations on the existing railroad bridge and completion
of conceptual design plans for a pedestrian bridge.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City has long recognized the desirability of connecting Tigard's Cook Park with Tualatin's Community
Park and Durham's City Park. In order to interconnect the three parks, a pedestrian bridge across the Tualatin
River is required. Council authorized that a total of $50,000 of Greenspaces funds could be spent towards
evaluating the feasibility such a bridge. The $7,000 would come from the amount already authorized.
Tualatin and Tigard jointly funded a feasibility study on using the existing railroad bridge adjacent to Cook
Park as the pedestrian bridge. This concept envisioned cantilevering a pathway from the existing railroad
bridge. TriLand Design Group, Inc. was hired to complete the feasibility analysis. The first phase of the study
totaled approximately $5,200. Additional funding was required beyond this amount in order to complete
detailed engineering calculations on the existing bridge structure. They have determined that the concept of
cantilevering the pathway is infeasible due to design limitations of the existing bridge.
The purpose of completing a conceptual design study is to determine feasibility and costs of constructing a
freestanding pedestrian bridge across the Tualatin River. A conceptual rendering would also be completed as
part of this next phase of the study.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Not authorize additional funding.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION CONMTTEE STRATEGY
The proposed project is consistent with Transportation Goals No. 2 and 3. Goal No. 2 calls for enhancing off-
street bike-pedestrian walkway connectivity. Goal No. 3 calls for the identification of new funding sources for
transportation improvement projects.
FISCAL NOTES
The City previously reserved $50,000 in local share Greenspaces funds for the bridge project, of which
approximately $45,000 in unexpended funds remain.
IAi==\jimlatm wy*1799.doc
I
I
I
I
I
s
Proposed Pedestrian/ 375 0 375 N
Geographic Information System Tualatin River Bike Bridge F®
7tl." 1.dd.dI-.d-sync69". n.- =Area Parks V* - 1
,w'....4,..~b=,d'..n....W.
mrtimd611ky>Wtllny
me .ft.0 b- Bike/Pedestrian Bridge .125
I. r.a...dr I.e.rr...0 7"140" City Boundaries RF 1:13,500
I,pwA"'w IP.-F,Wm %wAer,aqDWL
n..alon».
---7- r
to 1= _ LPIILIS , • ; l r ! r i' _
Y', A
(~'r Tigard HS ! ~l ;
S 11 1 G_.. R D-1 Durham
:Park 1 r \ \ ,
Proposed Bike/
Pedestrian Bridge
! ( t
, o~,
I -T-- 1 J - - -
iU1LLATW COUNTRY
CLUOfGOLF COURSE
Cd inUni i
~~.a, _~J t_-.-
lieauemo
1 Y" 1 I ~yaoORA \.Ll.ii ~l \ Ej Y`` .
i-
6-1
T~,' U
J_, L
J. % -
f - II : ` tl {
ze
4F J
5.h.1
CITY OF "TUAL®AATIN RECEIVED
PO BOX 369
TUALATIN, OREGON 97062-0369 NOV 2 51998
KAh (503) 692-2000
TDD 692-0574 CONWMUNITY DEVELOP'AE"T
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Hendryx, Director Community Development Department,
City of Tigard
Bill Monahan, City Manager, City of Tigard
Ed Wegner, Maintenance Services Director, City of Tigard
Roel Lundquist, City of Durham
Steve Wheeler, City of Tualatin
Jim Perkins Washington County
FROM: Paul Hennon, Parks and Recreation Director 4W
SUBJECT: Tualatin River Pedestrian Bridge Task A Summary Memorandum
DATE: November 23, 1998
Enclosed is the above referenced report from the Tril-and Design Group.
The report indicates that it is not feasible to cantilever a pedestrian bridge off the
existing railroad structure. The analysis indicates the railroad bridge is functioning at
or very near capacity and there is no reserve strength to add the pedestrian bridge.
Please review the report and we will schedule a meeting between Thanksgiving and
Christmas Wth Tril-and to review the findings and discuss our next step.
If you have any questions, please call me at 692-2000, extension 931.
i
i
{
{
i
C: Steve Turner, Tril-and Design Group
LOCATED AT: 18880 sw Martinazzi Avenue
November 10, 1998 TRILAND DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Mr. Paul Hennon CLP
Park and Recreation Director
City of Tualatin
P.O. Box 369
Tualatin, OR 97062-0369
Re: Tualatin Pedestrian Bridge TaskA Summary Memorandum
Please find enclosed our summary memorandum for the Tualatin Pedestrian Bridge located over the Tualatin River in
Tualatin, Oregon. This memorandum presents our observations, findings and recommendation for the Task A portion of this
project.
We trust this information meets your present needs. If you have additional questions or need additional information please
contact this office.
Respectfully Submitted:
TRILAND DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Stephen B. Turner P.E.
Principal Engineer
7
i
7
i
3
TriLand Design Group, Inc. • 10260 S.W. Nimbus Avenue, M4 • Tigard, OR 97223 • Phone (503) 968-6589 • FAX (503) 968-7439
L Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of providing pedestrian access across the Tualatin
River utilizing an existing railroad bridge owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation. This study
included an assessment of regulatory approval process and preliminary structural feasibility assessment of
the existing bridge structure. We understand the stakeholders to include the City of Tualatin, City of
Tigard, City of Durham, and possibly Washington County and Metro.
Our tasks wer: presented in a proposal to the City of Tualatin dated May 8, 1998. Authorization to proceed
was given on June 18, 1998 for Task "A" only. This task "A' consists of the following.
Task A. Feasibilityfor Utilizing Existing Bridge
• Meet with the stakeholders to discuss project goals and process;
• Conduct site review of the existing bridge;
• Research the feasibility of constructing pedestrian access utilizing the existing bridge structure. This
will include discussion with ODOT Rail Section and the Railroad Company to determine their
acceptance and regulatory process; and a preliminary review of available documents relating to the
structure, if available.
• Prepare a summary memorandum with conclusions of the feasibility for providing pedestrian access
utilizing the existing bridge structure.
H Telephone Conversation/Reseamh
The following are summaries of telephone conversations with representatives of the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Railroad and the Portland & Western Railroad. Copies of the telephone conversation logs are
contained in appendix A.
1) Conversation with Mr. Chuck Gilbert, Chief Engineer Portland & Western Railroad.
Chuck stated that the railroad would probably not be opposed to attaching the pedestrian bridge to
the existing Rail Bridge. His main concern would be liability issues of pedestrians close to the rail
traffic.
2) Conversation with Mr. Gary Strelcheck, Structural Engineer, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad.
Gary stated that he believes the existing bridge would handle the extra load of the pedestrian
bridge. Gary also stated that original drawings may be available in CAD file format and would
look for those.
M. Letters in Support of the Pedestrian Bridge
The following is a summary of letters in support of the pedestrian bridge. Copies of these letters are
contained in appendix B.
1) Letter dated June 10, 1998 from Peter Bond, Trails Coordinator, Oregon Parks and Recreation to Mr.
Steve Wheeler, City of Tualatin City Manager.
Peter supports this project stating that it carries out the goals and objectives of the most recent
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreational Plan and the Statewide Recreational Trail Plan.
i
2) Letter date June 19, 1998 from Mr. Robert Melbo, President and General Manager of the Willamette
and Pacific Railroad to Mr. James Hendryx, Director of Community Development, City of Tigard.
Robert states that they agree to conduct an engineering analysis for a pedestrian bridge. The main
concern is that of liability with pedestrians and rail traffic.
TriLand Design Group, Inc. • 10260 S.W. Nimbus Avenue, M4 • Tigard, OR 97223 • Phone (503) 968-6589 • FAX (503) 968-7439
98016 - Tualatin Pedestrian Bridge
Page 2
IV. Site Meeting.
On August 13, 1998 a meeting was held at the City of Tualatin council chambers to discuss this project.
Those members attending this meeting where:
Mr. Paul Hennon - City of Tualatin Parks and Recreation Director.
Ms. Claudia Howells - Manager of Rail Section, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Mr. Howard Fegles - Rail Safety Manager, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Mr. Robert Melbo - President & General Manger, Willamette & Pacific Railroad (W&P)
Mr. Tom Wiser P.E. - Consulting Railway Engineer
Mr. Stephen Turner P.E. - Principal, Triiland Design Group, Inc.
In this meeting conceptual drawings for the attachment to the existing rail bridge and proposed pedestrian
separation fencing was presewed. The main issue of this meeting was the liability issue that was expressed
in the letters and conversations to date. It was generally agreed that fencing and grade difference between
the pedestrian bridge and the rail traffic should be enough of a deterrent. In general both ODOT and the
railroad agreed that this could be a feasible project.
V. Records and Field Research
As part of this phase of work we contacted the Burlington Northern Santa Fa Railroad to obtain existing
drawings of the structure. On September 1, 1998 we received portions of these drawing in an intergraph
.CIT format. These files were then converted to TIF files and plotted in AutoCAD. These drawings were
incomplete as many sheets appeared to be missing.
The following is a summary of our observations based on these drawings and our site visits:
1) The existing structure is a 150 foot through truss span, steel railroad bridge originally constructed in
1899 by the Lassig Bridge & Iron Works Company of Chicago, Ill. The bridge was originally erected
in Milaca, Wisconsin, Bridge No. 39. The truss contains 6 panels at 25 feet in length each. The top
chord originally consisted of a built up section of two back to back 15" deep channels and a ''/s" thick
top plate. The bottom chord is two back to back 12" deep channels and lattice bracing. The rail is
supported by series of floor beams connected to the truss at the panel points and stringers between the
floor beams. According to the copies of the original plans sent to us by the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe Railroad all steel is classified as medium and soft steel.
2) In 1941 the bridge was moved to its current location spanning the Tualatin River. The bridge was
supported at each end with new abutments consisting of wood piers and false work bents. In 1951 the
wood abutments were replaced with the current concrete piers. This new concrete structure 'is '
supported by the woodpiles originally constructed in 1941. These piles were cut off below the
streambed. We do not know the length or diameter of the wood piles at this time.
3) In 1954 the wood ties and the guardrails were replaced. In 1969 two 9/16" x 6" plates were added to
modify the top chord of the truss, one on either side of the existing steel channel.
4) In August 1998 Mr. Tim Sievers of the Sherwin Williams paint company visited the site at our request.
The purpose of his visit was to determine an affective coating for the new structure to be added to the
existing bridge and if possible to determine if a lead based paint was used to coat the existing bridge.
Based on Mr. Sievers preliminary investigation lead paint was not present. Paint chips will need to be
Tril-and Design Group, Inc. - 10260 S.W. Nimbus Avenue, M4 - Tigard, OR 97223 - Phone (503) 968-6589 - FAX (503) 968-7439
98016 - Tualatin Pedestrian Bridge
Page 3
sent to a laboratory for further analysis for the final determination. It should be noted that the original
drawings call for a white lead coating.
VL Preliminary Structural Calculations
Since we have received such a positive response from the owner (ODOT) and the user of the existing
bridge (W&P) we have taken this project one step further and conducted a preliminary evaluation of the
existing structure. Based on this analysis we find the following:
Basic Assumptions
• The width of the pedestrian pathway would be 12 feet wide.
• The pedestrian bridge would be connected to the existing bridge at the truss panel points.
• The maximum span between the panel points is 25 feet.
• The current load rating for the bridge as given to us by Burlington Northern Santa Fe is Cooper E45.
• Steel strength is assumed to have a yield of 30,000 psi per AREA Manual for Rail Engineering section
7.634.3 "Allowable Stresses for Maximum Rating". At this time we have not performed laboratory
testing to determine current steel strengths.
• Based on the Uniformed Building code the live load on the pedestrian bridge is 100 pounds per square
foot.
Based on our preliminary calculations we find the following:
• If the pedestrian bridge were to be added to the existing bridge the total factored additional load would
be 49,600 pounds of force at each of the eastern panel points. This high loading is due to the cantilever
of the beams supporting the new pedestrian bridge. The load at each of the western panel points is
21,800 pounds acting upward against the structure. These are factored loads.
• The main stringers for the existing bridge are at a cq$per E45 load capacity therefore the new
Pedestrian bridge can not be connected to the main floor beams.
• The lower chord of the truss consists of 2-12" deep channels. These channels are at or below the
Cooper E45 load capacity prior to adding the pedestrian bridge.
• The upper chord of the truss consists of 2-15" x 33 pounds/ft channels and a top plate 20"xl/2". In
1969 two additional plates' 9/16" by 6"were added to the two channels for additional support. This
composite member appears to have adequate capacity after adding the pedestrian bridge.
V. Recommendations
Based on our analysis to date it is our opinion that the existing bridge is functioning at or very near capacity
based on a Cooper E45 load and there is no reserve strength to add the pedestrian bridge. This is contrary
to the comment by representatives of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. We believe there opinion
was based on a general comment that the bridge should have adequate capacity, however no calculations
were requested nor have calculations ever been performed by the railroad other than the load rating stated
on the original 1899 drawings. We further believe that their concept of a pedestrian walkway is that of a
typical 3 to 4 foot wide access generally used by the railroad not a 12 foot wide cantilevered bridge with
vehicle or large group loading.
In order to utilize the existing rail bridge, the truss would require modification. This will require adding
support members to the lower chord of the bridge prior to constructing the pedestrian walkway. Prior to
any modification to the existing bridge the existing paint must be removed where these modifications are to
TriLand Design Group, Inc. • 10260 S.W. Nimbus Avenue, M4 • Tigard, OR 97223 • Phone (503) 968-6589 • FAX (503) 968-7439
98016 - Tualatin Pedestrian Bridge
Page 4
occur. Based on the notes in the original drawings, lead based paint was used to coat the bridge. Special
handling of this type of material will be required
Based on our analysis to date, it is our opinion that it may be prudent to pursue a stand alone pedestrian
bridge, independent of the existing Railroad Bridge. As we have stated the existing bridge is currently
operating at a Cooper E45 load rating with no reserve strength to add the pedestrian walkway. In order to
add this additional load, considerable modification to the existing, bridge will be required to maintain the
current rail load rating. As we have previously stated this bridge was constructed with metal and fabrication
methods developed in the late 1800's. As the analysis continues throughout the structure and the results of
the laboratory analysis is obtained, other structural members may require modification increasing the total
cost of the project beyond that of a new bridge specifically designed for pedestrian use.
VL Limitations
This above recommendations are based on preliminary calculations at strategic points within the structural
system. We have not conducted a complete analysis of all components of the bridge nor have we removed
components for laboratory analysis of ultimate steel strength If the City wishes to pursue this option a
maximum loading rating must be determined by the railroad and then all connections, structural members
and the concrete abutments must be analyzed using this rating along with the load from the proposed
pedestrian bridge. If the current Cooper E45 rating must be increased to a heavier load rating such a Copper
E80 loads, then considerable modification of the bridge will be required.
TriLand Design Group, Inc. • 10260 S.W. Nimbus Avenue, M4 • Tigard, OR 97223 - Phone (503) 968-6589 • FAX (503) 968-7439
r 's~"•.cc~~r ' • i 1t" is:"• . • t - 2L"%' :,~..'.yl
-r
i
• ~t.r
t
PHOTO NO. I View looking west at the existing rail bridge. The bridge was constructed in 1899 and
moved to this site in 1941. s_ y
r ~T'/ ~HLL at7 }t.-1'`.ti'W.•~~•4~ ~ .~l~V.':]~~~ .
1 1
Vii- •`A •;t o~ ~
i l
i ~
t
a e
M'~ ~t•.f Ian • ti •li
i.7o Rrr ,~ai ' ,.4i~ r , ~!M~St Tt'I~~t'.•~ fi
PHOTO NO. 2 View looking northwest and from below at the existing rail bridge
Tualatin Pedestrian Bridge • 98016
U
.1
7
PHOTO NO.3 View looking south
toward the City of Tualatin
:.:d'dc• ei~;.•`-:- •..4. ,fir? r;vr~. ...~-err
i
•r~
Or•
n -
i
PHOTO NO. 4 View looking north. A tressel is located
at the north end of the bridge.
Tualatin Pedestrian Bridge - 98016
ti
t
-
1,.
~t~ t~ t ) 1 dill l~lCf `ic%% lookiii,
• . , .~~~u„! h~• i~~nneite~l tai Ilti. ,I~l~'
f
i'
I I, 'Iki
i
I I i Y
IO TO NO, 6 1,vkinl,,! inmt helkn~ the e\i,unt hrtd,-,c at the,iru rural meniher.
•ieldlui i'r,lr.ir;,~n !4n,lec
0000001 1
June 10, 1998 RECD
CITY OF TUALATIN P A R K: .A N D
Steve Wheeler, City Manager JU14 ',10 *398 R E C R E A T I O N
City of Tualatin 0EPARTM. ENT COLIKIL P 0 BOX 369 IMAM~ "M' POLICE
Tualatin OR 97062-0369 wsucaacN1in
tcc oer„_.
ORECo y
Dear Steve-
i
Thankyou for your letter seeking the Oregon Party and Recreation Departments supp ar
for your trail project between Tualatin Community Park and Tigard's Cook Park.
We are pleased to support the effort because it carries out the goals and objectives of the
most recent Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) and the 1995
Statewide Recreation Traits Plan. Both plans indicate a strong need for community based
recreation trail opportunities close to residential areas. I believe that the project would also
be supported in the Metro Trails and Greenspaces Plan.
In addition we are happy to report that funding assistance may be available for the project
through the Transportation Efficiency Act-21 (TEA-2 1), which is a fancy name for the 1998
reauthorization of the 1991 iSTEA federal transportation bill. Both the House and Senate
have passed a bill which awaits the Presidents signature. We understand he will sign it.
The TEA-21 contains two funding sections for which your project may qualify. The
"Transportation Enhancements" provision specifically calls for the provision of assistance
for rail trail projects. This portion of the TEA-21 will be administered by ODOT snd I would
suggest that you contact a local ODOT representative for information about applying for
Transportation Enhancement funds.
The other funding possibility is the Recreation Trails Program of the TEA-21 which contains
money for recreation trail projects of any type. These funds are administered oy our
department. I will put your name and address on our mail list for notification of the arnounts
of money to be allocated to Oregon and what the application procedures are.
If you have any questions about the recreation plan support and funding possibilities
available I can be reached at (503) 378-6378 ext 246.
Sincerely,
7 m
Peter Q. Bond, Trails-C rWnatar
'tYl~
Post-W Fax Note 7671 Dole 'f •7 p" ~ 1115 commercial St. NE
Salem, OR 97310.1001
TO g~ FroM 1303) 378-6305
C0J09K f Co. •r FAX (503) 375-i-W7
vnanee - (e~+ anono• ~ 0~ -viu-t~•-
Uf 11&4 L(Y7 Faxs
OEM PLANNING
JUN 2 2 1998
COOFT10"
R. 1. Malbo. President & General Manager A. B. Carswell, Via Provident-Operitsona
S. C. Walsh-Enloe. Director of Marketing D. L Sullivan, Maintenance of Way Manager
R. K. Cars"don. Trainmaater - Director of Safety C. A. Gillsom Manager of Engineering & Contracts
R. D. Vincent, Manager of Marketing M. A. Barron. Personnel - Office Manager/As= to Pres. - GM
June 19, 1998
James N. P. Hendryx
Director of Community Development
City of Tigard
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Jim:
Refers to your letter of May 29, 1998, concerning a feasibility study for attaching a pedestrian walkway
to the existing railroad steel through-truss span used by Portland & western on its Oregon Electric District
to cross the Tualatin River in your city.
Ordinarily, railroads vigorously oppose notions that would encourage pedestrians to trespass on or near
railroad treks. There already are enough pedestrians Illegally using our facilities now. Why would we
want to encourage more?
In this case, I hope the answer is a pedestrian bridge over the river would include construction of
approaches, notably to the north where there is a wide, well-established flood plain. The railroad crosses
the flood plain with a timber trestle, but trespassers who now are tempted to use the steel span also, in most
cases, utilise the trestle approach as well. Any pedestrian system that would solve both of these problems
would be an improvement from our perspective.
To speci&Wly answer your quesdoxis, the Oregon Department of Transportation actually owns the
bridges, but P&W is cbwged with the responsibility of maintaininS and superintanding them. P&W has a
perpetual and exclusive easement over the stusnues for the puapose of operating a common carrier
railway. 1f the feasibility study were positive, ODOT would hz-e some say in the miner but the final
decision to allow or disallow it would be Portland & Western's.
We're agreeable to eandncting an engineering analysis. As part of that analysis, I'd lice to see included
i in the design the most tmdefeatable treasures conceivable to prevent pedestrian way users from entering
a onto the railway while they are using the structure.
+ P&W wants to be cooperative as possible, but we are ar a distinct disadvantage when it comes to legal
liability. Cities and other goveaament agencies are protected from care.strophic claims otposvre by a
i statutory cap of $300,000. We ate not. in the present sitnadon, if a trespasser is hurt on the bridge the fact
that he was on the property illegally acts as a mitigating cararmstanee. However. I worry about how this
would be perceived if wa permiuW & pedestrian bridge to be attached tti rho railroad structum and a user of
that public way was able to gear access to the track and became injured. I don't like to borrow trouble, but
i believe you can see my point.
Portland & Western Railroad, Inc. General Office 110 West 10th Avenue Albany. OR 97321 (541) 924-6565 FAX (541)924-6580
Operational Headquarters PO. Box 1927 Beaverton, OR 97075-1927 (603)643-4176/(603)64M973 FAX(503)6A3-6140
St. Helena Depot 2194 Columbia Blvd. St. Helena, OR 970SI (503) 397-3659 FAX(503)397-0961
Jim Hendryx - page 2
The engineering feasibility study probably isn't the proper forum to address legal liabift issues.
However. in overall eottsideration of the concept, legal liability would need to be ad&essed.
By ft the most appealing scenario to me is the one in which we are able to abandon the rail line in this
vicinity and the public inherits the v bridges and right of way. What needs to be done is to design.
fund and build a new corurection between the Oregon Electric end the former Southern Pacific Newberg
Branch In Tualatin, and transfer the fall legal rights we have to conduct common carrier transportation on
the OE line to the foster SP lines that will provide the substitute route. This would allow abandonment of
duplicate railroad plant through Tigard as far north as Da'cota Street.
Yes, the concept outlined above is a formidable task, but the recently passed federal Ttanspoctadon
Equity Act for the 21" Century suthorim considerable funding for grojocts involving low density no
lines. it would be worth talking about with ODOTs Claudia Howells, who manages the Rail Section.
Since the engineering study likely will require access to tail property. the individual to contact at P&W
is Chuck Gilbert. Manager of Contracts and Engineerin& in Albany at (541) 924-6570.
Sincerely,
Robert I. Melbo
Cc:
ABC
CRG
H
a
Portland & Western Railroad. Inc. General Office 110 West 10th Avenue Albany, OR 97321 (641)92"668 FAX (x41)924-6680
Operational Meadquarters P.O. Box 1927 Beaverton, OR 9707b-1927 (503) 643-4176 /1303) 643-5973 FAX (503) 643-6140
St. Helens Depot 2194 Columbia Blvd. St. Helens, OR 97051 (503) 397-3659 FAX (503) 397-0961
• THOMAS W. WISER, P.E.
Conversation CONSULTING RAILWAY ENGINEER
R E C d R O
19198 SW 55'" COURT
TUAIATIN, OR 97062
Phone 503/691-6095
With: Gary Strelcheck Fax 503/692.4753
Structural Engineer e-mail: wiser@ra$engineering.com
Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Phone: (913) 551-4196 Date: July 20, 1998
Time, 8:20 AM
Project No.: 98006 Project Title: Tualatin Pedestrian Bridge
L.S. 442 Bridge E35.3 over the Tualatin River: 49130PT, 150MT(SH), 6BDPT
Gary stated that the bridge was built In 1899, has a 150' span, max height of 41' and a
low design rating of Cooper E45.
He believes it will handle the load of a bike path adjacent to one side of the structure. We
discussed loads of 4-600#/ft live and dead and he saw no problem with that. He felt the
liability Issue was a stronger issue. He did not know if the W&P would go for having
pedestrians with such close access to the tracks. As a minimum there would need to be
a screen wall between the tracks and the bike path. At the ends of the 150' steel span
the path would need to diverge away from the timber trestles.
He is not sure if BNSF has retained drawings or not. Would be happy to look if the W&P Is
amenable to the possibility of a path. He thought they might have a scanned drawing
in AutoCAD.
n
Rea=m- This copy or the above conversation record IsEor your use and record. 1t you have any questions or comments
concerning the statements made please call v+lthin 10 days.
Thomas W. Wiser, P.E.
Consulting Railway Engineer
• RAILWAY ENGINEERING: TRACK AND YARD LAYOUT • COST ESTIMATES • DESIGN INSPECTION REHABILITATION •
CONVERSATION RECORD-GARY STRMCNECK.WPO
THOMAS W. WISER, P.E.
Conversation CONSULTING RAILWAY ENGINEER
R e G O R O
19198 SW 55Q1 COURT
TUALATiN, OR 97062
Phone 503/691.6095
With: Chuck Gilbert Fcx 503/692-4753
Chief Engineer e-mail: wiser@rdlengineering.com
Portland & Westem Railroad, Inc.
Phone: (541) 924-6565 Date: July 10, 1998
Time: 9:20 AM
Project No.: 98006 Project Title: Tualatin Pedestrian Bridge
L.S. 442 Bridge E35.3 over the Tualatin River: TM asked concerning the attachment of a
pedestrian bridge on the side of the existing bridge.
Chuck expressed concern about the liability Issues of having pedestrians so close to the
tracks. He agreed that if the ramps to the pedestrian crossing were diverted away from
the tracks on either side of the bridge and if the crossing was fenced frorn the track that
this Issue could be addressed.
He stated that the railroad preferred the aitematlve of vacating the bridge. He referred
us to the Letter written by Robert Melba, President of P&WRR to James Hendryx, City of
Tigard about a possible vacation of the existing bridge. Also, he mentioned that Mike
McCillup with the City of Tualatin had studied several routes with W&H Pacific and would
be worth talking to. He also expressed that Metro had raised a bond for the "rails to (rails'
funding for the Cornelius Pass alignment but that the alignment had been reopened. He
wondered if there was any possibility that this previous funding could be transferred to this
project.
Chuck again expressed that the RR is more interested in vacating this bridge than in
maintaining it and having a pedestrian crossing attached to it. They are not opposed to
a pedestrian crossing, but would prefer to pursue the vacation option before pursuing the
i pedestrian bridge attachment. He would like to have some one champion this cause.
i I
Rerrxorrs This copy or the above conversation record is for your use and record. if you have any questions or comments
concerning the statements made pkase aU within 10 days.
Thomas W. Wiser. P.E.
Consulting Railway Engineer
- RAILWAY ENGINEERING: TRACK AND YARD LAYOUT • COST ESTIMATES • DESIGN INSPECTION REHABILITATION -
CONVERSATION RECD ~u • C.NUck GILstwr. PORTLAND AND WESTERN RAIL oAD.W PD
r
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 1/19/99
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Council and Staff Liaison ARnointments
PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatleei DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Review the appointments to various task forces, boards and committees and fill or readjust appointments as
needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Review the attached list and determine which Council or Staff person should be appointed to the listed task forces,
boards and committees.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Council reviewed a few of the appointments at its January 12, 1999 Council meeting. Decisions made at that
meeting as well as decisions that need to be made for additional appointments are explained in the attached
memorandum.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
FISCAL NOTES
1
I:\ADM\CATHY\000NCIL\BOARD AND COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS SUMMARY SHEET.DOC
1
I
f
r0
Council and Staff Liaison Appointments
January 15, 1999
Budget Committee All Council Members
Community Development Block Grant Advisory Board: Elected Official - Ken Scheckla
Staff Representative - Duane Roberts
Cooperative Library Advisory Board Primary - Melinda Sisson
Alternate - Bill Monahan
Community Development Code Steering
Committee Brian Moore
Growth Management Caucus Brian Moore
Staff: Nadine Smith
I-5/217 Steering Committee Jim Nicoli/Bill Monahan
Intergovernmental Water Board: Primary - Paul Hunt
Alternate - Bob Rohlf
Housing Code Task Force Ken Scheckla
Staff. David Scott
Mayor's Appointments Advisory Committee Brian Moore (Jan-June `99)
Paul Hu-it (July-Dec. `99)
Metropolitan Area Communications Commission Primary - Ken Scheckla
Alternate - Liz Newton
99W Task Force Brian Moore
Park & Recreation District Task Force Council Representative
Public Works Representative
H
ca
Senior Center Liz Newton
Tigard Chamber of Commerce - Ex Officio Board
Member Cathy Wheatley
C'7
Tigard Chamber of Commerce - Business Advocacy
Committee Liz Newton
Ism=
P .
Washington County Consolidated Communications Board Primary - Bill Monahan
Alternate
Budget Committee/Citizen
Representative - Bob Rohlf
Washington County Coordinating Committee Primary - Jim Nicoli
Mernate - Gus Duenas
Western Bypass Steering Committee Primary - Jim Nicoli
Alternate - Bill Monahan
Willamette Water Supply Agency Primary - Paul Hunt
Alternate - Bob Rohlf
Staff Rep. - Ed Wegner
Washington County Emergency Medial Services Nomination:
Policy Board's East Cities Representative
Washington Square Regional Task Force Jim Nicoli
Bob Rohlf
Regional appointments selected by other jurisdictions include MPAC and JPACT; Tigard has no
appointees at this time.
i Aadmbathy\council\appts.doc
J
t
1
i
1
i
i