The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 03/09/1999TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FETING MARCH 991999 COUNCIL MEETING ILL BE TELEVISED 1.%M*dES M%0CPKT,.000 13125 SW Hall Blvd„ Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 MD (503) 684-2772 Revised 315199 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 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 664-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639.4171, x309 (voice) or 684.2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 9,1999 - PAGE 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 9,1999 AGENDA 6:30 PM STUDY SESSION > 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 those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. > STATUS REPORT: Water Advisory Task Force 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Cali to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roil Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 1.5 Cali to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 PM 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:45 PM 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one mollon without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes - January 26,1999 3.2 Receive and File a. Tentative Agenda b. Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Resolution to Oppose Legislation Creating a New State Board to Regulate Building Code Activities in the Portland/Metropolitan Area and Supporting the Establishment of a Required Intergovernmental Agreement to Enhance Consistency and Services in Building Code Enforcement in the Area - Resolution No. 99- 3.4 Approve an Amendment to an Easement Agreement Allowing the Tigard-Tualatin School District to Develop an Environmental Garden on City-Owned Greenway Located Adjacent to Mary Woodward School 3.5 Local Contract Review Board a. Award Bid for the Construction of the Striping Portion of the 1998.99 Pavement Major Maintenance Program to Apply-A-Line, Inc. b. Award Bid for the Construction of the Pavement Overlay of the 1998.99 Pavement Major Maintenance Program to Morse Brothers. COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 9,1999 - PAGE 2 Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:50 PM 4. UPDATE ON LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY e Staff Report: Public Works Department 8:00 PM 5. PUBLIC HEARING: BUILDING FEES 5.1 Consider Amending Tigard Municipal Code Title 14 to Provide that Fees for the Building Code Administration Program be Established by Resolution 5.2 Consider Increased Fees for the Building Code Administration Program a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Community Development Department C. Public Testimony: ® Proponents, Opponents, Neutral d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99- Ordinance No. 99- 8:15 PM 6. CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 2 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE BUILDING APPEALS BOARD DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 14.16 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE (PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS) a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Discussion/Questions C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 99- 8:30 PM 7. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION FROM FEBRUARY 23, 1999: 69th AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Engineering Department C. Public Testimony: Y Proponents, Opponents, Neutral d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 99* COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 9,1999 - PAGE 3 9:23 PH 8. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL): CONSIDER FORMATION OF SANITARY SEW REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 12 a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Engineering Department C. Public Testimony: Y Proponents, Opponents, Neutral d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing 9. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99- 9:35 PM 9. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLANNING (TSP) - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS a. Staff Report: Engineering and Administration Departments b. Council Discussion/Questions C. Council Direction: Approve Proposed Public Involvement Process 9:45 PM 10. CONSIDER RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Discussion/Questions C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99- 9:50 PM 11. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9:55 PM 12. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10:05 PM 13. ADJOURNMENT \\TIG333\USR\D EPTS\HD M\CATHY\CCA\990309. DOC COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 9,1999. PAGE 4 Agenda Item No ry ( TIGARID CITY COUNCIL meeting og 0 MEETING MINUTES -MARCH 9, 1999 • STUDY SESSION > Mayor Jim Nicoli called meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; ; Legal Counsel Jim Coleman; City Engineer Gus Duenas; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; former Building Official David Scott. > EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. > Executive Session adjourned to Study Session at 7:30 p.m. o Bill Monahan, City Manager, reported that staff has not yet received the findings on the Erickson Heights appeal. He said that the attorney submitted a letter extending the 120-day ANk period. He mentioned that Council would hear the matter on April 13. > WHOLESALE WATER CONTRACTS Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, distributed two items received from the City of Portland last Friday describing a process for developing a consensus regarding the wholesale water contracts, including setting up a committee to meet on a weekly basis. He advised Council that the Wholesale Water Managers would discuss this proposal at their meeting tomorrow. He noted the make-up of the proposed committee: Portland, Tualatin Valley Water District general manager, Tualatin city engineer, Tigard public works director, Gresham environmental services director, Rockwood Water District general manager, and one representative from the remaining group of small buyers. He commented that, regardless of the decision in April, Tigard needed a long-term water contract with Portland for emergency and other purposes. Mr. Wegner referenced the list summarizing the key issues of concern to the wholesale water managers and Portland that were up for discussion during the proposed process. He mentioned regional governance issues, rates, and financing. He pointed out one issue in particular: Portland ratepayers must, in some fashion, receive an appropriate return on investment as the system owners. He asked for Council input on items they wanted to add or did not want in the contract. Mr. Monahan commented that previously Portland has said no to questions asking if there was a profit built into the rates. Councilor Hunt asked who would be Portland's representative. Mr. Wegner said either John Rosenberger or Rosemary Manard. so e Mr. Monahan listed the non-agenda items. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 1 > Mayor Nicoli adjourned the study session at 7:40 p.m. 40 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Jim Nicoli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Joyce Patton, Ken Scheckla, Paul Hunt, and Brian Moore. 1.4 Council Communications: None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Mr. Monahan requested a Council vote on the representative and alternate for JPACT and adoption of a resolution recognizing an employee for his years of service. Mayor Nicoli announced that later in the evening he would sign the proclamation of the 20` anniversary of the Washington County Community Development Block Grant program, and declaring the week of March 29 to April 4 as National Community Development Week. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: None 3. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") 3.1 Approve Council Minutes of: January 26,1999 3.2 Receive and File: a. Tentative Agenda b. Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Resolution to Oppose Legislation Creating a New State Board to Regulate Building Code Activities in the Portland/Metropolitan Area and Supporting the Establishment of a Required Intergovernmental Agreement to Enhance Consistency and Services in Building Code Enforcement in the Area - Resolution No. 99- 3.4 Approve an Amendment to an Easement Agreement Allowing the Tigard-Tualatin School District to Develop an Environmental Garden on City-Owned Greenway Located Adjacent to Mary Woodward School - Resolution No. 99-14 3.5 Local Contract Review Board a. Award Bid for the Construction of the Striping Portion of the 1998-99 Pavement Major Maintenance Program to Apply-A-Line, Inc. b. Award Bid for the Construction of the Pavement Overlay of the 1998-99 Pavement Major Maintenance Program to Morse Brothers C7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 2 4. UPDATE ON LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY Mr. Wegner referenced the document Council received last week discussing Willamette River water quality questions and his March 5, 1999, memo. He explained that the document contained the questions asked of Tigard, Murray Smith & Associates, Montgomery Watson, and Wilsonville. Mr. Wegner noted the question on whether or not the Willamette River was more contaminated than shown in the Montgomery Watson report. He mentioned a USGS report "The Distribution of Dissolved Pesticides and Other Water Quality Constituents in Small Streams" referenced in the question. He reviewed the test results reported in the USGS report, contending that these test results confirmed the Montgomery Watson test program as a valid program for looking for contaminants in the river. Mr. Wegner pointed out that the USGS test results at the Newberg site found that the four chemicals detected in the water (out of 127) were at parts per trillion, levels that did not violate the drinking water standards for untreated water. He stated that they were confident that the ozone and GAC treatment processes proposed for the Willamette water treatment plant have been demonstrated as effective in removing the organic chemicals detected by the USGS. He said that they did not believe that the river pollution was any different than their consultants were telling them. Mr. Wegner mentioned concerns expressed by a few citizens that the granulated activated carbon (GAC) was not a reliable treatment method to remove toxic chemicals from water. He stated that the process used in the Willamette treatment plant would be state-of-the-art, one of the most advanced in the country. He referenced a survey Montgomery Watson did in 1998 of Idelkh seven rivers in the US with regard to pollution. He stated that they checked with cities on these rivers that used the same state-of-the-art treatment process and found that none reported detecting any bacterial problems with contaminants in the river following the treatment process. He reiterated that they were comfortable with this process for obtaining drinking water from a river. Councilor Patton asked if this information was available to the public. Mr. Wegner stated that his staff would send this and any other information they had to anyone who asked. He mentioned that staff would distribute it to the Water Advisory Task Force on Thursday and that Wilsonville received it at their Council meetin„ iast week. Mr. Monahan said that staff would also make the information available in the City Mall lobby and at the library. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: BUILDING FEES 5.1 Consider Amending Tigard Municipal Code Title 14 to Provide that Fees for the Building Code Administration Program be Established by Resolution 5.2 Consider Increased Fees for the Building Code Administration Program a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Staff Report David Scott, Former Tigard Building Official, explained the first item as a request to set Ask building code administration fees by resolution. He said that Tigard already used a resolution method to establish the electrical fees CITY COUNCIL. MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 3 Ask Mr. Scott distributed copies of his presentation overheads. Councilor Patton pointed out a typographical error in the resolution regarding the effective date: it should be June 30, 2000, not June 30, 1999, or July 1, 1999 (page 5). Mr. Scott reviewed the underlying criteria used by staff in doing the fee study. These included the standard City policy to recover all building program costs from fees, and to establish a reasonable reserve to allow the continuation of services during time of economic distress (six months). He reviewed the analysis. He explained that the first part of the analysis was looking at the cost recovery for 22 specific services under current and proposed fees while the second part was looking at the overall health of the funds supporting those services. He noted that he reviewed the resulting options at Council's last meeting. Mr. Scott recommended increasing the building and mechanical fees by 102% split equally over a two-year period, increasing the plumbing fee by 52% split equally over a two-year period, and increasing the electrical fees by 7% in the first year. He mentioned miscellaneous fee increases also listed in the packet. Mr. Scott referenced the summary list of the 22 cases staff looked at in its analysis. He pointed out that with the medium-sized projects, they recovered their costs in full and built towards a reserve while with the small projects they did not see full-cost recovery. Mr. Scott referenced the graphs depicting the impacts of the options on building a reserve fund for the different funds. He pointed out that with an annual 4% increase, their costs continued to exceed their revenues and they built no reserve. He said that, under the recommended proposal, the department was in the red for a month, and then, over two to three years, built slowly to a six-month reserve. He stated that the electrical fund required only a 7% increase to maintain its existing six-month reserve. Councilor Moore asked where the money would come from to cover the difference between the costs and revenues if Council did not approve a fee increase. Mr. Scott said that it would have to come from other sources, such as the general fund property taxes, revenue sharing or other general fund sources or the hotel/motel tax. He mentioned another option of reducing their level of service through program cutbacks. Mr. Scott referenced a chart comparing Tigard's current and proposed fees with the fees of comparable municipalities in the area: Tualatin, Sherwood, Lake Oswego, Portland, and Beaverton. He noted that their proposed fee increases made them consistent with Lake Oswego's current fees. He observed that the Tualatin comparison was not a fair comparison because Tualatin was not on a dedicated fund. He said that Sherwood's situation was unclear, as they would look at their fees once they converted to a dedicated fund. He mentioned that Portland was currently studying its fees and interested in what Tigard did, Lake Oswego recently adjusted their fees, and Beaverton would not increase its fees again until it drew down the reserve it built during the building boom over the past few years. 11 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 4 C. Public Testimony Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, distributed copies of the letter Mr. Wing submitted that afternoon. o Kevin Wing, Homebuilders Association, stated that, over the past several months, he has discussed with Mr. Scott theories on funding building departments. He explained that the Association's two guiding principles were that only those costs directly associated with the enforcement of the state building code should be recouped through permit fees, and it would only support fee increases if it could be proven that there was no other way to maintain the current level of service or increase the level of service. He said that their rationale behind these guiding principles was the fact that the Metro region was currently the fourth least-affordable major-housing market in the nation. Mr. Wing stated that they thoroughly examined any fee increases because they knew that every cost associated with building a home was passed on to the new home buyer. He suggested that the Council keep in mind that in raising fees, it raised the cost that was passed on to the buyer. Mr. Wing mentioned the discussions he had with Mr. Scott regarding whether or not a policy to recover 100% of the building department costs was fair. He stated that the Association distinguished between the building department budget and the cost of enforcing the state building code. He contended that the building department performed functions not related to building code enforcement, functions that benefited the community but not the developers. He stated that the City should not require the developers to subsidize the services that it provided to its citizens. Mr. Wing said that his industry supported a modest three-month reserve fund to insure that homebuilders received the same level of inspection services following a reduction in building department income that they would have received before. He mentioned that it took approximately three months to build a single-family house. He also recommended that Tigard collect the funds for the reserve fund through a surcharge rather than the funds being tied into the permit costs themselves. He said that, if the City collected a surcharge, then the homebuilders would not have to pay an additional surcharge to the state for those funds used to set up reserve funds. He held that doing so would allow better accounting and fund management. Mr. Wing asked the Council to read his report before making a decision. He said that the Association supported a small increase in permit fees. He argued that anything more than a small increase right now would require more proof of necessity by the City. He suggested that Tigard adopt the 1991 Uniform Building Code fees, as Beaverton has done, to provide the City with a little more income in the short term while it studied these other issues in depth. Mayor Nicoll asked if Mr. Wing identified in his report any specific functions that the Building Department did outside of code enforcement. Mr. Wing referenced page 2, listing examples of functions that his Association did not believe were related to building code enforcement: consulting with Public Works, performing existing tenant inspections, performing setback inspections, performing driveway inspections, and investigating complaints. He mentioned his conversation with Mr. Scott on the issue. He contended that the City performed these services for the good of the City, not for the benefit of the individual permit applicant, and therefore it was unfair for the applicant to be funding those services. El CITY COUNCIL. MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 5 &ft Councilor Moore asked what percentage of the overall Building Department services did these unrelated items represent. Mr. Wing said that Mr. Scott indicated to him, when he asked that question, that further study needed to be done to.determine that percentage. Councilor Scheckla cited Mr. Wing's statement on page 3, item 3, that it appeared that the City of Tigard was performing less efficiently than other neighboring cities in some areas. He asked for clarification on what Mr. Wing meant by that statement. Mr. Wing explained that he did a rudimentary analysis of building department staffing and functions based on phone calls and faxes to other local jurisdictions but he was not an expert in evaluating building departments or analyzing staffing levels and could not state his conclusions other than "it appeared to him" that the City of Tigard performed less efficiently in some areas. He said that Tigard had the lowest average number of inspections per full-time employee of the major jurisdictions (those with nine or more employees) that he contacted. Mr. Wing stated that he was trying to show that more study needed to be done to make sure that there was no other way to continue to provide Tigard's high level of service other than through permit fee increases. He held that there might be some efficiencies that could be made without raising permit fees yet maintaining the high level of service. Mayor Nicoli noted that Mr. Wing's chart showed Tigard's average inspection per full time employee at 1,192 per year per employee. He asked if Mr. Wing ruled out Forest Grove and Oregon City (with lower numbers than Tigard) because they had fewer than nine employees. Mr. Wing said yes. He explained the theory that it took a certain number of people to staff a building department. AM, Mr. Monahan clarified that the City did not have 19.66 employees in the building department because that count included development service technicians from the community development department. He commented that this was an `apples-to-oranges' comparison. He suggested asking for clarification on what was being counted as full time employees in Tigard as compared to other jurisdictions. Mr. Wing stated that he took the 19.66 number directly out of the cost analysis done by Mr. Scott. Mr. Monahan held that the issue of the average number of inspections done per inspector was a different matter, given Tigard's use of the development service technicians. Mr. Wing concurred, stating that the 19.66 figure included support and management positions. Councilor Hunt commented that Tigard received good comments from contractors regarding its level of service. He asked if Mr. Wing's report took into account quality of service. He pointed out that Tigard might have fewer inspections per inspector because its staff did a more thorough job. Mr. Wing concurred. He stated that his report did not attempt to measure the quality of service provided by Tigard. He reiterated that this was a rudimentary analysis intended to provide examples of the types of things that could be looked at. Councilor Scheckla observed that Tigard inspectors had a reputation in the field as user friendly, and providing inspection services in a timely and efficient manner. He stated that he thought that their building department under Mr. Scott has done excellent work, and that a more precise analysis would find that Tigard's building department was on par with every other city in the area. C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 6 Mr. Wing concurred that the building department under Mr. Scott has done excellent work. He reiterated that the 19.66 figure came from an internal budget document. He conceded that this was an apples-to-oranges comparison. He commented that comparing different building department budgets was a difficult task. He said that the industry appreciated the high level of service provided by Tigard. Mr. Wing commented that it sometimes did make economic sense to pay more for inspections received in a timely manner than to pay the expenses of waiting around for an inspection. He pointed out that the 102% increase after two years gave Tigard fees over $1,400 higher than Washington County's current fees. He said that it would be hard to justify that amount, even with superb service. Councilor Scheckla conceded the point but noted that these other jurisdictions might raise their fees also within a short period of time. He said that Tigard did not want to gouge anyone but neither did they want to be left behind. Councilor Moore asked if Mr. Wing knew what percentage of the costs of building a home was attributable to permit fees. He mentioned Mr. Wing's earlier comment inferring that an increase in permit fees added to the escalation of home prices in today's market. Mr. Wing disagreed that he inferred that. He said that he had said that because the Portland Metro area was currently doing so poorly in housing affordability, his Association took a very close look at these issues. He said that he did not have a percentage. Councilor Moore stated that he asked the question because he could not see that an increase in Allik permit costs was a big factor in the escalating prices in homes. Mr. Wing contended that increases in fees and SDCs had to be considered within the big picture of the total costs the builder had to pay before he could build a home; those total costs were quite high. Councilor Moore commented that he wanted to make sure that the citizens of Tigard were not subsidizing the builders and developers in the city. Mr. Wing contended that the developers were subsidizing the taxpayers through paying permit fees to cover the costs of building department services benefiting the community, not the developers. d. Council Questions Councilor Moore observed that, without a percentage, it was difficult for him to determine how much builders/developers were subsidizing the citizens of Tigard. Councilor Hunt remarked that he found Mr. Wing's statement that Tigard performed less efficiently than other jurisdictions somewhat offensive. Mayor Nicoli stated that he has already asked staff to provide information on what services the building department provided outside of building code enforcement, and that he has not yet received that information. He stated that he shared Mr. Wing's concern. He argued that if the City asked for a 100% increase in building permit fees, then the City needed to look at the hard issues. Mr. Hendryx stated that he thought that he had had Council's concurrence to evaluate the issue over the next several months and return with a report to Council in six months. He said that this task would be one of the first tasks for the new Building Official. He pointed out that they were Aft increasing the fees over a two-year period. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 7 Mayor Nicoli pointed out that even a 50% increase in one year was big jump. He said that he was concerned about the efficiency of the building department operation. He pointed out that Washington County, as a rural enforcement agency, paid more to get its inspectors to sites throughout the County, yet its fees were less than the City's. He reiterated that when they discw!sed 100% fee increases, he started questioning department operations. He asked why they did not looked at efficiency at the same time as fee increases. He noted that the Council has not previously authorized a request from staff to increase fees and look at the efficiency later. Mr. Monahan suggested asking Mr. Scott to address this issue. He mentioned information on Washington County fees relevant to the discussion. Councilor Moore asked for confirmation that the 102% increase was split into 51% increases each year for two years, the 54% increase in plumbing fees was 27% per year for two years, and the 7% increase in electrical fees. Mayor Nicoli indicated that he thought that staff was asking for an automatic increase the second year. Councilor Moore said that he did not have a problem with that. He referred to the Council request asking staff to come back in a year for a re- evaluation of the automatic fee increase the second year after gathering the information that the Mayor requested. Mr. Wing commented that the Homebuilders Association could challenge this fee increase to the State Building Code Division. He said that the State would ask far tougher questions on the City's justification of the need to increase the fees. He argued that a small reasonable fee increase would be fair while the City studied these issues. Councilor Scheckla pointed out that the State Building Code Division might find the City justified in its fee increase. He supported re-evaluation of the fee increase after one year in order to make any needed modifications. He commented that, until they put the fees in place, they could not know if they were right. Mr. Wing disagreed. He said that the issue of how many functions were performed by the building department for community benefit needed to be answered before putting through a 50% increase. Councilor Scheckla asked if the Homebuilders would support a 25% increase. Mr. Wing indicated that they would not on the face of it. Councilor Patton asked what the Homebuilders saw as the "modest" increase that they would support. Mr. Wing referenced his recommendation on the last page of his report that Tigard increase its fees to the 1991 Uniform Building Code schedules, as Beaverton has done. He held that this increase could perhaps be justified on its face before the analysis was completed. Mr. Scott spoke to the issue of comparable fees. He stated that it was not appropriate to look at Washington County's fees in comparison to Tigard's because Washington County made a conscious decision two years ago to keep its fees low in order to draw down the embarrassingly high reserve ($7 million) it built during a period of explosive growth. He cited his conversations with both the former and the interim building official at the County. He pointed out that the County has only recently had sufficient staff to provide an appropriate level of plan review turn around and inspection loads. He reiterated that the County subsidized the permit fees for single- family homes in order to draw down the reserve. CITY COi.,`NCB., MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 8 Mr. Scott stated that Beaverton was in a similar situation as the County with a high reserve that it needed to draw down. He cited his conversations with the Beaverton building official. He explained that several years ago, Beaverton increased its fees from the 1974 Uniform Building Code to the 1991 Code, a 50% increase that allowed them to build up this high reserve during a period of explosive growth. He concurred with Mr. Wing that Tigard would have the highest fees in the region (with the exception of Lake Oswego). He mentioned Portland's fee study in progress and Beaverton's intent to reevaluate its fees in the next two years. He noted that the interim building official at Washington County intended to look at this whole issue also, as she was concerned about the level of valuation they charged. W. Scott addressed the issue of staffing levels and number of inspectors per full-time employee. He commented that Mr. Wing's numbers were not too far off when considered within the big picture of the total staff required to provide these services. He pointed out that Tigard had the support staff necessary to provide the highest level of service in building plan review turn around (single family applications took less than two weeks) and an over-the-counter service. He explained that adding those employees into the equation gave the impression that Tigard was over-staffed. Mr. Scott agreed that Tigard inspectors carried a lower inspection load than other jurisdictions but argued that doing so was a policy choice. Providing more thorough inspections costs more money. He mentioned the policy question of whether or not they should take the time to scrutinize the sites during the inspections as an appropriate consideration in evaluating the costs of providing the service. He stated that right now, the direction has been for staff to provide a very high level of service and to promote quality but pointed out that that level of service could be re-evaluated. -dab Mr. Scott addressed the concept of general fund subsidy of the functions provided by the building department for the general good. He said that staff did know which of its functions were not directly related to building code enforcement. What they did not know was what percentage of their total time it took to perform those functions. He noted that he had suggested at the last meeting to take a quick look at how they spent their time but there had been another suggestion to take longer to do that. Mr. Scott said that the 1991 Uniform Building Code table provided for a 45% increase for building and mechanical, not too far from the 51% increase staff recommended for the first year. He mentioned that the Council could make the second year increases not automatic, undertake a study to determine what percentage of time the building department. spent on community functions, and then determine what level of general fund subsidy was appropriate and any increases beyond that. Councilor Patton pointed out that the mechanical fee increases were not comparable to Beaverton's (which were much higher). Mr. Scott explained that Beaverton was attempting to recover the cost of each area from the permit fees for that area rather than following the 1991 Code's method of subsidizing lower mechanical fees with higher building fees. He said that he did not recommend that Tigard go with the huge increase in mechanical fees that Beaverton did several years ago. He reiterated that the 1991 Code provided for a 45% increase in building fees and a similar percentage increase for mechanical fees. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 9 e. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing Mayor Nicoli asked the Council either to go into Executive Session at this time to discuss certain issues with the City Manager or to postpone the discussion for an Executive Session at another time. The Council discussed the request and agreed to postpone the discussion to an Executive Session at the end of the meeting if there was time. (See Item No. 13, in these Minutes - Following the Executive Session for a summary of Council direction to City Staff on this agenda item. 6. CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 2 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE BUILDING APPEALS BOARD DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 14.16 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE (PROPERTY MAIN'T'ENANCE PROVISIONS) Mr. Scott stated that, in working on the Community Housing Task Force recommendations, he and Mr. Coleman realized that Title 2 gave authority to the Building Appeals Board with respect to all aspects of Chapter 14, including the recently adopted Housing Code. He explained that the Task Force had recommended using the civil infractions procedures, not the Appeals Board, a recommendation adopted by the Council last week. He confirmed that this was a housekeeping ordinance to clarify the Council's action. Jim Coleman, City Attorney, concurred that this was a clarification implementing the Housing Task Force's recommendation to use the civil infractions process rather than the Building Appeals Board. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Ordinance No. 99-06. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 99-06, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE BUILDING APPEALS BOARD DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 14.16 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Motion approved by unanimous roll call vote of the Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION FROM FEBRUARY 23,1999: 69TH AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) a. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the public hearing. b. Staff Report Gus Duenas, City Engineer, reported that every property owner in the LID received written notice of this hearing. He mentioned that he wrote an amendment to the ordinance, listing the City's contribution as $200,000. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 10 Alk c. Public 'T'estimony Greg Specht, Specht Development, 15400 SW Milliken, Beaverton, said that he appreciated the City's willingness to share the costs of the Beveland extension. He asked for clarification on the ordinance language. Did Section 5 mean that the City would contribute $200,000 in any event or were there circumstances under which the City would not contribute $200,000. Mr. Duenas said costs would be a more than $200,000. He reported that they have completed the appraisal and would now go through the acquisition process. Mr. Specht said that they were concerned that the increased cost of adding the Beveland extension to the base LID cost was about 50%, based on certain assumptions regarding the land acquisition costs. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that the Council looked at budget numbers for the acquisition or condemnation costs and all related costs. He said that the City did not publicize its negotiations. Mr. Specht pointed out that the process under consideration tonight limited the City's participation and asked the other property owners in the district to pick up the costs. He said that they were concerned about the extent that the actual costs might exceed the estimates. He stated, for the record, that they were requesting the City to absorb the cost of land acquisition because it was the City that wanted to include the Beveland extension in the LID. d. Staff Recommendation Mr. Duenas recommended approval of the ordinance as submitted. e. Council Questions Mr. Coleman asked for verification that the City has received no written remonstrances to the formation of the district. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, stated that that was correct. f. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 99-07 Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Ordinance No. 99- 07. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 99-07, AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING AND RATIFYING THE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FEBRUARY 9, 1999, AS AMENDED WITH RESPECT TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE. 69TH AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVMENT DISTRICT (LID# 49), DECLARING RESULTS OF THE HEARING HELD WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPROVEMENT, DETERMINING THE BENEFITED PROPERTIES TO BE ASSESSED, ESTABLISHING A DISTRICT, AND ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE IN CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS BEING PREPARED FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS. Motion approved by unanimous roll call vote of the Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 11 8. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL): CONSIDER FORMATION OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 12 a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Staff Report Greg Berry, Utilities Engineer, stated that this third project under the sewer neighborhood sewer extension program provided service to nine homeowners near SW Johnson and 106 Avenue. He said that the estimated costs per owner were $7,700 with an $8,000 cap if the owner connected within one year. He mentioned the wetlands permit needed from the Corps and the probable requirement to delay construction until July 1. He noted that it would probably be August before homeowners could connect to the sewer. Councilor Hunt asked what happened if they did not connect within one year. Mr. Berry said that the $8,000 cap was removed and an annual increase of 6% applied for each year after that. Mr. Berry confirmed to Mayor Nicoli that this neighborhood annexed to the city for sewer service. Councilor Scheckla explained his concern that the realignment of Walnut and Tiedeman scheduled for this summer and the construction of this sewer at the same time could effectively block people's access to their homes. Mr. Berry stated that staff would coordinate the two projects to address that concern. c. Public Testimony ® Jim Flatters, area resident, asked the Council to consider installing a storm drain in the street, citing the gathering of a large amount of water between his property line and his neighbor to the north. He concurred with Councilor Scheckla's concern at constructing both the street realignments and the sewer at the same time. Mayor Nicoli said that staff was generally very good about coordinating all the construction projects in the city during a given season. He mentioned staff looking at the option of installing the whole system except for the last 50 to 100 feet going through the wetland area. Mr. Duenas said that they should have enough time to put the sewer in before construction began on the Walnut/Tiedeman realignment. Councilor Hunt asked about the storm drain. Mr. Berry said that staff did not discuss it. He pointed out that installing a storm drain in this neighborhood required running a line all the way down to Johnson Street at considerable expense. Mayor Nicoli asked if there was any money in the storm drainage fund. Mr. Duenas explained that it needed to go through the CIP process that was currently underway, and therefore this was the time to look at the project. Mayor Nicoli suggested getting a wetlands permit from the Corps only once to install both the sewer and the storm water line at the same time. Mr. Duenas confirmed to Councilor Hunt that they could move fast enough on the project. Georgia Lambert, 10530 SW Johnson, testified in support of installing the sewer. She said that the sooner it was done, the better. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 12 d. Staff Recommendation Mr. Berry recommended Council approval of the resolution establishing sewer reimbursement district no. 12. e. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing f. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99-15 Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Resolution No. 99- 15. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-15, A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 12. Motion approved by unanimous voice vote of the Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") 9. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLANNING (TSP) - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS Mr. Hendryx presented the staff's recommended public involvement process for the Transportation System Plan. He recommended that the Council appoint three individuals (representing the bicycle, transit, and business interests respectively) to assist the Planning 40 Commission in carrying out the public involvement process. He mentioned four Planning Commission meetings to provide the opportunity for citizen comment and review of the Plan, two technical advisory committees composed of staff and representatives from interested local, state, and regional agencies, and four public information meetings. He said that at the conclusion of the public process, the City would hold open houses, a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting, and a public hearing to revise the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hendryx asked for Council concurrence for staff to return with specific names for the committee. He mentioned timing issues: they had only a year to work on this and they wanted to coordinate with the transportation road bond. Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on the two task forces Council had discussed. He explained his concern that the two task forces work simultaneously. Councilor Moore explained that this task force was for the overall transportation plan while the second task force would deal with the specific projects for the road bond. Mr. Duenas stated that staff would return next week with a list of potential road bond projects. He agreed that the two task forces needed to work at the same time. Mr. Monahan suggested that the Council liaisons to the Road Bond Task Force also serve as liaisons to the Transportation System Plan Task Force. Councilors Moore and Patton agreed to do so. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to approve the public involvement process. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 13 Motion approved by unanimous voice vote of the Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") 10. CONSIDER RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Mr. Hendryx reported that staff revised the resolution language in response to the Council's concerns expressed at the March 2 meeting. He emphasized that the CIP was not adopted as part of the master plan. The master plan functioned as a framework plan or tentative project list with actual expenditure decisions incorporated into the City's regular budget process. Councilor Hunt stated that he would vote against the plan because he disagreed with certain parts of it, although he thought it was a good plan overall. He explained his concerns regarding the assumption in the plan that Atfalati would become a recreation district and take on items listed in the plan, even though Council has not yet voted on the formation of Atfalati and did not know if Atfalati would take on any of the projects. Mayor Nicoli said that Councilor Hunt's issue was a fair one. He said that he had no problem voting on the resolution tonight or in six months after Atfalati reported back to the Council on what they would do for the City. Councilor Hunt stated that he could not support the assumption that they were going to form a recreation district (another property taxing district) in light of the Measure 50 vote to limit property taxes. He mentioned the impact of another $100 a month in property taxes on those with fixed incomes. He pointed out that Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District (which assessed $275 a year on a $180,000 home) was held up as a model. He said that this appeared to him to be just a means of getting a foot in the door, and that eventually their fees would reach similar amounts. Councilor Hunt said that he supported many of the programs but not another taxing entity. He observed that the City would not reduce its tax rate, even if a recreation district took over some City expenses, and therefore this would be an additional burden on the taxpayer. He said that he would probably vote against a district for those reasons. Mayor Nicoli disagreed. He cited the report's finding that the City would have to raise 70 cents per $1,000 valuation in order to fund these programs. He argued that either the City did it or a recreation district did it, but either way the money had to be raised in order to implement the master plan projects. He stated that the advantage to a recreation district raising the money was its ability to assess properties outside the city limits of Tigard. He pointed out that currently people outside of the Tigard city limits used their parks but contributed nothing to the park system. He contended that, with a recreation district, the people outside of Tigard would pay the same amount as the people inside of Tigard for the same services. Councilor Hunt asked why Tigard could not charge an out-of-district fee as THPRD did. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that THPRD had indoor facilities and recreational programming for which they could control access and charge an out-of-district fee. Tigard had only parks open to the public without controlled access. Councilor Moore stated that he accepted the document for what it was: a master plan of the possible capital improvements for parks that the Council might or might not ever fund. He emphasized that they were not authorizing any money at this time, and that staff would bring the master plan projects to the Council on an annual basis for approval or denial. He spoke to approving the plan with the understanding that the funding discussion remained in the future. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MITTUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 14 Mayor Nicoli concurred but reiterated that he could wait six months to vote if necessary. Councilor Moore stated that he saw no advantage to waiting six months to vote. Councilor Hunt reiterated his concern that this plan included assumptions of actions that the Council has not yet moved on. Councilor Moore said that, while he understood Councilor Hunt's comments, he thought that a recreation district might be willing to fund some of the projects listed in the master plan. He pointed out that the public would vote on whether or not to create another taxing district just as the Council would vote on whether or not to fund any of these projects. Councilor Patton concurred that the master plan provided a conceptual framework for projects that might or might not ever be funded, depending on Council action at a later date. She mentioned the future discussion of a parks and recreation district as a possible funding mechanism for the projects in addition to other possible funding mechanisms identified by the City. She said that she was comfortable voting on the matter tonight, given the revisions to the resolution language. Councilor Moore commented that, without a master plan, the City had no context within which to evaluate proposals that came to it to determine whether or not it wanted a suggested park improvement. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to approve Resolution No. 99- 16. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-16, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A PARKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN THAT DETAILS THE VISION. GOALS, AND IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK OF A CITY/URBAN SERVICES AREA PARK AND OPEN SPACE SYSTEM. Motion passed by a majority voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton and Moore voted "yes"; Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted "no.") 11. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 12. NON AGENDA ITEMS o Vote for JPACT Mayor Nicoli spoke in support of reappointing Mayor Rob Drake of Beaverton as the Washington County representative to JPACT. He mentioned the fine job Mayor Drake has done and his willingness to present Tigard concerns to JPACT. He commented that both individuals nominated for the alternate position were fine people but he supported reappointing Mayor Lou Ogden of Tualatin as the alternate. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to support Rob Drake as the JPACT representative. Motion approved by unanimous voice vote of the Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 15 C C7 Councilor Moore spoke in support of reappointing Mayor Ogden as the alternate, as a neighbor would have a better feel for the needs in this part of the county. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to support Lou Ogden at the PACT alternate. Motion approved by unanimous voice vote of the Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") Special Resolution - John Hagman Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No. 99- 17. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-17, A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING JOHN S. HAGMaN FOR THIRTY YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITY OF TIGARD. Motion approved by unanimous voice vote of the Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 9:37 p.m. pursuant to ORS 192.660 (1)(i). s Mayor Nicoli reconvened the regular session to give staff direction on the proposed building fee increases. Councilor Moore recommended directing staff to return with a revised resolution and ordinance to reflect a 51% increase in building and mechanical fees, a 27% increase in plumbing fees, a 7% increase in electrical fees, and the miscellaneous fee increases as proposed by staff with a Council review of these fees by June 1, 2000. In addition, staff would proceed with a study to address the concerns raised by Council and the Homebuilders Association to be completed by June 30, 2000, for consideration during the fee review. 14. ADJOURNMENT: 10:20 p.m. Attest: r-~ or, City of Tigard Date: L"(/ a-7 IeF g'! 0 11ADhACATHY\CCK990309. D0C ~e rherine Wheatley, City Recordbf CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 16 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising e City Of `"Ligard/City Reccr.r3er O ❑ Tearsheet Notice 1.31.25 ct] Hall Blvd. e Tigard , Or. egon 9 7 2 2 3 ® ❑ Duplicate Affidavit e Accounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. 1, Natlay Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti gard-'Ti al.a ; n 'T'imes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at IPJ qa rA in the aforesaid county and state; that the City Council ]'fleeting a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for QNE successive and MAR 2 consecutive in the following issues: 1 ON (larch 4,1999 \IJ \j th' ,1999 TT 9345 Subscribed and sworn t efore me is CIAL SEAL OFFI . ;aiwFiC;31N i:. et)Fs{iESS N ry Public for OregonNOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON A \ CO?,t AISS;' N NO. 052071 il EXPIRES MAY 1 My Commission Expires: F~; ;~f:;Pl!5` O R, 200? AFFIDAVIT Tho following 'Ag highlights are 7?ublished for your information. Full y rt-i;;► . ago!ldss'may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING ; March 9,1999'- 6:30 P.M. TIGARD;CITY HALL =~_10WN HALL; 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TlianD, OkEGON Reports and updates to Council on the following topics: * Conduct Public Hearing: Building Fees * Conduct Public Hearing:.Continuiiaon from February.23; 1999 - 69th Avenue Local Improvement District (LID) * Update: Long-Term Water Supply * Public. Involvement Process: 'T'ransportation Systems Planning (TSP) * Tax Abatement Request; Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) * Update: City of Tigard-Visioning; Program M345 - Publish March 4; 1999. ! Y r i AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 PLEASE PRINT Pro neat - (S kin In Favor) O nent - (S kin ainst) ~eutrai Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. /crWlAl LV IA16r - N BA y-5-5- S- C,✓i314wcy rlD. `f}K~_r OSwr-~,o cli 9?a3S 60`'-/$$o Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ame, Address and Phone No. , Name, Address and Phone No. N Ic',' AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE: March 9, 1999 PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACKED SHEETS PUBLIC HEARING: BUILDING FEES CI'T'Y OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POS'T'ING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, H E A "rt4u? K- n(D C)P begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) T f - Utp AAl A `t 'y - U'.4 which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated dar c N q I R q 9 ~ copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _ 7 day of P14kC H , 19 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Water Department, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon 4AAa k~ i:12dm1 jolaffpost.doc CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO.99-Cto AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE BUILDING APPEALS BOARD DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 14.16 OF THE TIGAP.D MUNICIPAL CODE, "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS" AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Tigard Municipal Code Title 14 "Buildings and Construction," provides regulations for building and construction; and WHEREAS, Chapter 14.16 provides for regulations for property maintenance; including housing, dangerous buildings and derelict buildings; and WHEREAS, the Community Housing Task Force recommended to the Council that enforcement and due process for implementing the property maintenance provisions be through the existing Civil Infractions process; and WHEREAS, at its February 23, 1999 meeting the City Council adopted the recommendations of the Community Housing Task Force; and WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance is necessary to clarify the municipal code in this regard; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Title 2 Section 2.09.010 is amended as follows: The purpose of the Tigard building appeals board is to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application of Title 14, except Chapter 14.16, of the Tigard Municipal Code. SECTION 2. Title 2 Section 2.09.100.A. is amended as follows: The Board shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the Building Official relative to the application of Title 14, except Chapter 14.16, of the Tigard Municipal Code and any other authority granted in statute, law, or rule. The board shall have no authority relative to interpretation of the administrative provisions of Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code nor shall the board be empowered to waive requirements of Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code. SECTION 3. The ordinance shall be effective on May 3, 1999. ORDINANCE No. 99-.QtV 1 s PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day o4m- 1999. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this ay a9444 j., 1999. /J James Approved as to form: Ci A torney 3- e Date iAcltywide\ordG92bldgbwddoc ORDINANCE No. 99-W Page 2 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 99- QQ AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING AND RATIFYING THE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FEBRUARY 9, 1999, AS AMENDED, WITH RESPECT TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE 69TH AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID #49); DECLARING RESULTS OF THE HEARING HELD WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPROVEMENT; DETERMINING THE BENEFITED PROPERTIES TO BE ASSESSED; ESTABLISHING THE DISTRICT; AND ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE IN CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS AND c~a, rr~rr• A^o ittNC Ur.YNV- PRFPARFM FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS. WHEREAS, Resolution No. 99-10 was passed by the City Council of the City of Tigard at its regular meeting of February 9, 1999, which described the boundaries of a proposed street improvement assessment district, and which declared the Council's intention to construct street improvements, including curb, gutters, sidewalk, streetlights, storm drainage facilities,. sanitary sewer, waterlines, street trees, undergrounding of any overhead utilities, and appurtenances thereto, and to assess the costs for the improvements against the properties within the boundaries which have been found to be specially benefited; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the resolution, legal notice of the hearing scheduled for February 23, 1999 was given by publication in the Tigard Times on February 18, 1999 prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, by the terms of the resolution a hearing was held at 7:30 p.m. on February 23, 1999 at the Town Hall Meeting Room in City Hall located at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard in Tigard, Oregon and was continued to March 9, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of affording an opportunity to any parties affected by the proposal to make objections or remonstrances to the proposed improvements; and WHEREAS, written notice regarding the continuation of the public hearing was given to all property owners in the proposed assessment district ten or more days prior to the continuation of the hearing in accordance with TMC 13.04.040 (b)(1)B; and WHEREAS, the preliminary plans and specifications for the improvements, the estimates of the work to be performed, and the probable costs of the improvements which each lot should pay were available to the public at the meeting and prior to the meeting; and WHEREAS, by the terms of the resolution and public notice, written objections or remonstrances from not less than 66 2/3% by property area of the owners of the properties within the boundaries of the proposed improvement assessment district were invited as provided by TMC 13.04.040; and WHEREAS, all objections and remonstrances presented prior to the hearing and at the hearing represent less than 66 2/3% by property area within the improvement assessment district, and that the percentage of remonstrances is not a ban to further proceedings in the making of the improvements; and WHEREAS, all proceedings to date have been in conformity with State Statute, the Tigard Charter, Chapter IX, §38, §39, and Tigard Municipal Code, Title 13, and all procedures were regularly and lawfully conducted. ORDINANCE NO.99-~_ I:\citywidebrd\Ordinance for Formation of 69* Avenue LID Pagel of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Resolution No. 99-10, adopted by the City Council on February 9, 1999, and attached and marked as Exhibit "A" shall be adopted as a part of this ordinance subject to the amendments set forth in Sections 5 and 6 of this ordinance. The amendments are a result of the public hearing proceedings, and the amended resolution is hereby approved, ratified, and confirmed. The boundaries of the area henceforth to be known as 69' Avenue Local Improvement District, as described in the resolution, are declared and fixed in accordance with the description. SECTION 2: The City Council, having acquired jurisdiction to order the improvements to be made, does hereby authorize the formation of the local improvement district and directs the Finance Director to prepare the Preliminary Assessment Roll. SECTION 3: The City Council further authorizes the acquisition of land as provided by State law and the Tigard Municipal Code, and the construction of street improvements within the boundaries of the 69th Avenue Local Improvement District in conformity in all reasonable particulars with the plans and specifications being prepared for this LID. SECTION 4: The estimated costs and expenses of the improvements to be assessed against the specially benefited properties is $1,228,005.00. The estimated costs include the cost of construction and installation of the improvements, advertising, legal, administrative, survey, engineering, notice, supervision, materials, labor, contracts, equipment, inspections and assessment costs; financing costs including interest charges; the costs of necessary property right-of-way or easement acquisition and condemnation proceedings; attorney's fees and any other necessary expenses. SECTION 5: All lands situated within the boundaries described on the attached Exhibit "A" are determined and declared to be a street improvement assessment district, and it is further declared that each lot, part of lot and parcel of land within: said boundaries will be specially benefited by said improvements. The estimated cost is $1,228,005.00 for the improvements including land acquisition costs. The City of Tigard shall be a participant in the street improvement assessment district and shall contribute an amount not to exceed $200,000.00 for land acquisition costs to permit construction of the Beveland Street Extension between 68' Avenue and 69' Avenue. The project costs estimated to be $1,228,005.00 shall be assessed, according to benefit, against all lands within the district, except that the City of Tigard shall contribute an amount not to exceed $200,000.00 that shall be used to reduce the costs assessible to the benefited properties. Benefit for the purposes of LID #49 is hereby determined to be derived according to improving both the property's ability to develop as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the Tigard Triangle Design Standards for the City of Tigard, and the property's access to the improvements. SECTION 6: The final costs of the improvements to be assessed shall be determined after completion of all improvements and acceptance of the improvements by the City of Tigard. The final methods of assessment shall likewise be determined after the improvements are completed and accepted. ORDINANCE NO.99- 1:\ciVMdebrd\0rdinance for Fomtntion of 69° Avenue LID Page 2 of 3 SECTION 7: The Tigard City Council finds that the 69' Avenue Local Improvement District improvements are local improvements of the character described in TMC 13.04.010(a) and ORS 310.140, and that they therefore qualify for interim financing pursuant to ORS 223.235. SECTION S: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its enactment by the Council and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By U Y1&t'IUUJ> vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this ~7 - day of -~~'I C P-GIs ,1999. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this l " day of es Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: City o ey 3-cl-sic/ Date ORDNANCE WO. 99-LO--L 1: lcivy-MWord\Ordinance for Fon mtion of 69° Avenue LID Page 3 of 3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Exhibit "A" RESOLUTION NO. 99- / 0 A RESOLUTION DECLARING COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO FORM A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRIC'T' (LID) TO IMPROVE 69TH AVENUE AND CERTAIN OTHER STREETS WITHIN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE IN THE CITY OF TIGARD. WHEREAS, Specht Development, Inc. submitted a petition for formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to construct improvements to the following streets within the City of Tigard: • SW 69th Avenue between the south right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street and the south right-of-way line of the proposed extension of SW Beveland Street (i.e. the south property line of Tax Lots 9100, 8800 and 8600, 2S 101 AA) • SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68th Avenue an 1 SW 70th Avenue • SW Franklin Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 69th Avenue • SW Beveland Street between SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue (South side only); and WHEREAS, the proposed improvements include upgrading the streets to full city street standards, including sewer, water, storm drainage facilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and undergrounding of any overhead utilities; and WHEREAS, the Engineering staff prepared a preliminary evaluation report which was submitted to City Council for discussion and direction during the meeting of October 13, 1998; and WHEREAS, the preliminary evaluation report determined that the proposed LID appears feasible and recommended that City Council take the next step in the LID formation process by authorizing the preparation of a preliminary engineering report; and WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the proposed LID, heard the pros and cons about the proposed LID, and provided an opportunity for input by the initiators of the LID and other property owners; and WHEREAS, the City Council by Resolution No. 98-52 authorized the preparation of a preliminary engineering report for the proposed LID; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided additional guidance since the meeting on October 13, 1998 to extend the LID boundary south to Hampton Street, and to include the extension of Beveland Street from 69th Avenue to 68th Avenue to satisfy the requirements of the Tigard Triangle Street Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has retained the firm of DeHaas and Associates, Inc. to prepare the preliminary engineering report; and WHEREAS, DeHaas and Associates, Inc. has completed the preliminary engineering report, which includes extension of the LID boundary to Hampton Street and the extension of Beveland Street from 69 h Avenue to 68 h Avenue; and RESOLUTION NO. 99-LO Page 1 VMEREAS, the preliminary engineering report recommends that City Council proceed with the formation of the LID as proposed in the report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION I : The City Council hereby declares the intention to form a local improvement district (LID) to improve the following streets within the Tigard Triangle in the City of Tigard: • SW 69th Avenue between the north right-of-way line of SW Hampton Street and the south right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street • SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Franklin Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 69th Avenue • SW Beveland Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue (South side only) SECTION 2: The improvements will include street, storm drain, sanitary sewer, water, sidewalk, lighting, undergrounding power-telephone-TV, and other ancillary improvements necessary to bring the streets up to full City standards. Basic construction will be procured in accordance with City of Tigard construction contract procurement procedures. Portions of construction may be completed by public utilities (sewer, telephone, TV and water). Miscellaneous construction may be provided by City Forces. SECTION 3: The estimate of probable total costs of the improvements is $1,228,005.00. SECTION 4: The methods of assessment shall be as follow: a. Street and Watej Quality Improvements 50% of costs on a Frontage Basis* 50% of costs on an Area Basis b. Storm Drain jnd Detentign Improvements 100% of costs on an Area Basis C. Sm-dtAa Sewer Improvements Service extension costs on a Per Each Basis Remaining costs on an Area Basis d. Water Improvements Service extensions and new hydrant costs on a Per Each Basis e. Sidewalk Improvement 100% of costs on a Frontage Basis f. Street Trees and Barkdust 100% of costs on an Area Basis g. Undergrounding Power. Telephone and TV 100% of costs on an Area Basis RESOLUTION NO.99- i D Page 2 li. Ancillary Improvements 100% of the following costs on an Area Basis: 1) Right-of-way acquisition, including b i ;ht-of--way and demolition costs related to the taking of right-of-way for Beveland between 69th and 68th. 2) Add catch basin and lateral at NW comer of 69th and Hampton. 3) Reconstruct wheelchair ramp at NW comer of 69th and Hampton, if deemed necessary. 4) Street Lighting SECTION 5: The public hearing to hear remonstrances shall be conducted during the City Council meeting on February 23, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall, Town Hall Meeting Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. SECTION 6: Proper notice shall be given regarding the time and date of the public hearing to hear remonstrances. This notice should include the streets in the proposed LID and a brief description of the proposed public improvements. PASSED: This day of ,-P1bro 1999. ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard INCHywicWtes%RaschAion of Intent to Farm 69" Arenve LID RESOLUTION NO.99-.Q Page 3 S+mA,,, aaE;1 0,-~ SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN CONNECTION WITH PORTLAND WATER BUREAU LONG TERM CONTRACTS February 25, 1999 Regional & Governance Issues A. Wholesale customers would like to have more input into the CIP, helping determine in a meaningful way what is built and the scheduling of improvements. 1. One idea for structuring this input: create a "Regional CIP" as distinguished from each utility's "Local CIP," to identify and isolate those improvements that have impact on the wider utility community from ; purely local issues. B. The region needs more and better coordination of issues related to transmission, Storage, operations, and emergencies. C. Most of those involved see the need for a more aggressive, better coordinated regional approach to water conservation. D. Some wholesale customers would like a more participative system for directing operation of the regional system to make them more like partners and less like simply customers. E. The issue of "surplus water" must be clarified. The level of security that wholesale buyers can achieve through a contract with Portland should be clearer and simpler. F. In order to be more collaborative, system governance a,id management structures must minimize Portland Water Bureau liability. G. "Standards of Good Practice" for system operation may be needed to ensure that some members of the system don't cause public confidence problems for others or otherwise carry out actions that have an adverse effect on other members of the system. H. A gove7ance structure that is simple and easily understood would be very desirable. 1. The contract should contain provisions that allow members of the group to buy and sell goods and services other than water among themselves, if desired. 11. Rates & Finance Issues A. The Water Bureau must have some assurance on amount and duration of commitment to purchase water, for purposes of financial and system planning. B. The rate structure must be perceived by all as clear, understandable, and equitable. C. Portland ratepayers must, in some fashion. receive an appropriate return on investment as the system "owners." D. There must be a solution to the expectation that "growth will pay for growth" in a way that is fair, understandable, and politically acceptable. E. A way must be found to fund future capital improvements. Impact charges? Wholesale SDC's? It would be desirable if system wide capital needs could be funded in a way that allows wholesale customers to choose between putting their share of costs into their rate base or handling it through SDCs or some other mechanism. F. Clarity must be achieved on exactly what participants are buying---water, ownership interest, preferred supply or rates, etc etc. G. Who benefits from economies of scale for the system and how? For example, if the system sells "winter water" or another interruptible supply to "outsiders," does thc, whole contractual group benefit or just Portland? How? H. Should there be classes of wholesale customers, such as "partners" vs. purely customers or regular, year-round purchasers vs. seasonal or interruptible customers? If there are classes, should there be different contract vehicles? 1. Should a distinction be made in contract type or feature between those who bring "something extra" such as sources of supply to the group as opposed to those who are simply buyers? PORTLAND WATER BUREAU WHOLESALE CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS DRAFT 2/23/99 PURPOSE OF THE PROCESS To develop consensus or long-term contract language and concepts for wholesale of water from the Portland Bureau of Water Works to other water utilities in the Portland area. This consensus will form the foundation for a standard contract document to be drafted by Portland as the basis for a new contract. II. OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE An Oversight Committee ("The Committee") will guide the contract development process to achieve its purpose as set forth above. The Committee will be chaired by the Administrator of the Portland Water Bureau or his designee. This committee is to be composed of representatives from: • Portland Water Bureau • Tualatin Valley Water District • City of Tualatin • City of Tigard • City of Gresham • Rockwood Neater District • Holders of current contracts with the Portland Water Bureau who are not included in the designated list of Oversight Committee members will chose one agency from among their group to represent them on the Committee. III. WORKING GROUPS A. The Oversight Committee may create working groups to provide research, analysis and advice to the process. The effort of working groups will be limited tossigmnents given by the Oversight Committee. If a working group feels that it should investigate other issues, it should request such an assignment from the Oversight Committee. B. InS jally, two working groups will be created: (1) Working Group on Rates & Finances, and (2) Working Group on Institutional & Regional Issues. _ C. The Oversight Committee Chair will designate two co-chairs for any working group created. One of the co-chairs will be a representative of the Water Bureau. D. Membership on working groups will be as designated by the Oversight Committee E. All those water providers who are current or potential contractors for Portland water are welcome to attend and participate in the working groups. Working group assignments are intended to make responsibility clear for work products, not to limit or restrict participation. IV. OTIIER PARTICIPANTS A. Water providers who currently hold contracts with the Portland Water Bureau and who are not members of the Oversight Committee are encouraged to attend meetings of the Oversight Committee, where their views and input will be welcome. B. All water providers who currently hold contracts will be welcome to participate on working groups as full participants. C. The Oversight Committee may elect to invite other water providers, who do not hold current Portland contracts, to participate as observers of the Oversight Committee. V. OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE PRINCIPLES OF INVOLVEMENT Members of the Oversight Committee agree to the following principles as conditions for their involvement: A. A committee member designated by the Water Bureau Administrator will serve as Chair. The Administrator may designate himself for this role. B. The Portland Water Bureau will provide administrative staff support for-the Committee C. Participants are present as representatives of Boards and Councils and are not the final decision makers D. The goal of the process is consensus on the provisions of a contract, recognizing that individual circumstances will need to be adopted in individual contracts when they are formally negotiated. For this purpose, "consensus" is defined as "each member can live with the proposed outcome even if it is not their first choice" E. Participants will direct staff and consultants to work together in a collegial, problem solving manner F. Meetings of the Committee and all working groups will be open to any interested water utility and the Committee will undertake to ensure that all interested utility viewpoints are heard G. Members will make every effort to attend all meetings and to participate in a positive manner. The Committee may replace any member who, it's the judgment of a majority of the Committee, is not reasonably responsive in terms of attendance or contribution - H. The Committee will make an effort to ensure that all interested water utilities have ample opportunity to express views, concerns, and comments 1. The proceedings will not be electronically recorded, but summaries of Committee meetings will be kept. Draft meeting summaries will be circulated to participants to review for accuracy. Agenda item Plo. Mal of C b0 Q 0 U b bl) F b ~ U ~ U A U ~ •U 4r ~ N _ qq 44 ° U CI O V1 Al . !ci fy' UU G O cts b ICI > is ° U i ly°J ~ 4i tic N A ~ • , a I ~ ~ ~ G a •7 ar o 3 en A =l 9 r; a U ao I C ca w U I O ~ ~ O U C > A" e00 ~ C 'vOi a w c ai p ° ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 , ; CG o o a~ i O, ® a o 0 cu o M ^ ' ~ H \ . Q ~ ~i O Vt U N N U 0 N H o ~ A 3 a° a° Fy ° w L U I /1 A A 0 N ~ o 0 o Oa a ' y N ° of ~ A O cV N CU b N ~ I ~ y A a o `d di E a E" U o c z CA o cu C's > c7 z Q a0i a b 0 Z7 •d N U O 5 LO q to (Li > ca aoi p N A t, e a r ca p o eC d 3 . S b Q N (U a ul 0 ° O •y ¢ U . c d CG aoi al 2 : b `O V) Q C13 Q Y GL d ca a ? C'i ,o o ~j w ' ' •p y o ° c . CQ N o O ° ~ Q 0 c era = v~ . 4) E, O U ° „ p ca ~ a`"i b a0i b i.77 o a0 .`7 w O a~ a`"i b w>. . c Oa b a oA a~i o C O l' Q u ¢ N N a Ni O " V 'n V , " o x x ~o 3 H a o U U w a~ x o U A rn M x M M x a a U oa cd "Cl c on 0 H U O U b Cd b0 H 0 w ca w U U A ~ a~ U y y ~ p O V1 o ° 4d a 0 o A .v~ cU x r; ~ U o a b 0 a 3 0 ~ 1 y am„ U .D_ ~ 1 a~ w , o A 3 3 0 U a r •ti ~ ~ . a3i ca O U y v C4 °Ji a a~i O A C a b • ~ AO Q` a op w > > y 3 O o O N a b ~ CLC N 1--~ ~ o ~ p M ~ '.!O CA . : U ~ N N M M •M ''.y7 ~Q y }}Nrr O ~ O 7 3 . ~ 'J d' A ~ Ri M M M W 1 Agenda Item No. MEMORANDUM ~eetin of 3 ~ q ~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON gTO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan DA T E: March 1, 1999 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, March 1999 - May 1999 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OIC, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. March 2 Tues Special Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting * 9 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting * 16 Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting (6:30 p.m.) * 23 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting ALil * 13 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting * 20 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) 22 Thurs Volunteer Dinner - (5:45 p.m.) Tigard High School * 27 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting May *11 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting * 18 Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting (6:30 p.m.) * 25 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting 31 Mon Memorial Day Holiday - City Hall Offices Closed iA2dm\c2thy\c0u ncil\cccal.doc AGENDA ITEM # 3.3 FOR AGENDA OF March 9 ,1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE 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 a reauired interQOV_ernmental agreement to enhance consistencv and services in building code enforcement in the area. PREPARED BY: David Scott A DEPT HEAD OK 1,4 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 a required intergovernmental agreement to enhance consistency and services in building code enforcement in the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution. 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 legislation (SB 512) 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 identified by the Task Force, but not the mechanism for achieving them. Rather, a required IGA between jurisdictions is preferred. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. FISCAL NOTES No fiscal impact. I:1 ci tywi de lsum 139sb512. doc AGENDA ITEM # 3, `A FOR AGENDA OF 3 Ct q CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Environmental Garden Easement Agreement l~ CITY MGR OK PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council approve an amendnitnt to an easement agreement allowing the Tigard-Tualatin School District to develop an environmental garden on city-owned greenway located adjacent to Mary Woodward School. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the amendment. INFORMATION SUMMARY In late 1998, Council approved the Tigard-Tualatin School District's request for an easement to develop an environmental garden on a portion of city greenway located along the eastern edge of the Mary Woodward campus. The garden is now in place and replaces a former lawn area. The district now wishes to extend a boardwalk into an adjacent wooded area to further support environmental education activities. No trees or understory will be disturbed as a result of the project. The boardwalk location is approximately one hundred feet from the nearest residential property. Planning, Operations, and Police Department staff have visited the site and have no objections to granting the proposed expansion of the easement area. The attached exhibits portray the existing and proposed easement areas and proposed boardwalk location. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not grant the district's request. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY No goals appear to apply. FISCAL NOTES Approval of the request will not result in any cost to the city. AciWw;de\cwn\woodard.prdn ~ AGENDA ITEM # 3.5 0. FOR AGENDA OF March 9. 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of Contract for 1998-1999 Pavement Major Maintenance Program - Striping PREPARED BY: V. Nguyen lrY (DEPT HEAD OK: A. Du CITY MGR OK: W. Monah ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for the construction of the striping portion of the 1998-1999 Pavement Major Maintenance program? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to Apply-A- Line, Inc. in the amount of $41,704.00. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Pavement Overlay Backlog list of the Capital Improvement Program lists all paved streets in the City of Tigard that need corrective and preventative maintenance. This program also provides funding for installation of new striping on streets that demonstrate the need for replacement of the existing stripes, pavement markings and pavement markers. In 1997, there were approximately 52,000 feet of paint striping applied on 14 streets. This year's PMMP program includes removal of the existing stripes and applying 43,000 feet of stripes and 1,000 square feet of pavement markings on 26 streets. The bid opening was conducted on February 23,1999. The bid results are: Apply-A-Line Portland, OR $41,704.00 Asphalt Services Lake Oswego, OR $53,663.00 Hicks Striping Salem, OR $79,511.57 Engineer's Estimate $55,800.00 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None Public Works budgeted $10,000 in contractual services for street striping. This amount will be used to partially fund this contract. The balance will be paid from State Gas Tax. The amount of $500,000 has been allocated from the State Gas tax revenue for the PN1M[P and other street improvement projects. Phase I of this year's program expended $209,000 leaving $291,000 in this year's project fund. Between these two accounts there is sufficient funding to award the contract for this year's PM VIP - Striping project. J.*Wg1$WpMprtxnpZ%strlpinglwm.dx AGENDA ITEM 3.f5b. FOR AGENDA OF March 9. 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of Contract for 1998-1999 Pavement Major Maintenance PrQ&m- PREPARED BY: Vannie Nguyen VY /DEPT HEAD OK: Gus uenas CITY MGR OK: Bill Monahan~r ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for the construction of the pavement overlay portion of the 1998-1999 Pavement Major Maintenance program ? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to Morse Brothers in the amount of $160,869.24. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Pavement Overlay. Backlog list of the Capital Improvement Program lists all paved streets in the City of Tigard that need corrective and preventative maintenance. There was a backlog of $1,500,000 in FY 1997-98 for corrective overlays, repairs, and slurry seals and last year's program expended $320,000 from the $500,000 PMMP budget. The pavement overlay project and the slurry seal project are bid separately to attract Contractors that specialize in the respective types of work. Proposed streets to receive pavement overlay this year were drawn from the Overlay Backlog list and from evaluation of those streets that need overlay to extend the pavement life expectancy. This year's pavement overlay program is performed in two phases: Phase I included 8 streets which are Scott Ct., Center St., Bell Ct., 82nd Ave., Nimbus Ave., Hampton St., Highland Dr., and Tiedeman Ave. The contract amount of phase I was $135,000 and was awarded to Benge Construction in August 1998. Phase II includes the following streets: 68' Parkway, 69°i Ave., 70' Ave., North Dakota Street, and Oak Street. The bid opening was conducted on February 23, 1999. The bid results are: Morse Brothers Lebanon, OR $160,869.24 Vancouver Paving Vancouver, WA $163,062.55 Eagle Elsner Tigard, OR $174,953.40 Parker Northwest Oregon, OR $185,543.90 Oregon Asphaltic Troutdale, OR $189,969.70 RL Hauck Salem, OR $192,740.75 Brix Paving Tualalin, OR $196,454.01 Benge Construction Sherwood, OR $197,715.95 Baker Rock Beaverton, OR $227,071.70 Lakeside Industries Portland, OR $230,537.50 Engineer's Estimate $196,875.50 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None FISCAL NOTES The amount of $500,000 has been allocated from the State Gas tax revenue for the PMMP and other street improvement projects. Phase I of this year's program expended $209,000 leaving $291,000 in this year's project fund. This amount is sufficient to award the contract for this year's PMMP - Pavement Overlay project. 1:\eng\99dp\98pmmp2\overlay\sum.doc MEMORAN TO: i C'~-~ L ffee,, W e l D U M Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Ed Wegner RE: Willamette River Water Quality DATE: March 5, 1999 S~ On January 21St the Wilsonville City Council held a special meeting devoted to Wilsonville's future water supply options. As a follow up to that meeting, citizens have requested additional information regarding aspects of Willamette River water quality. Jeff Bauman, Wilsonville's Public Works Director collaborated with several people to assemble the following information addressing the issues that have been raised. ISSUE: Level of Pollution in the Willamette River Some citizens have the impression that studies conducted by the Unites States Geological Survey (USGS) paint a different picture of Willamette water quality than is reflected in the monitoring conducted by Montgomery Watson. One citizen asserts a USGS report entitled "Distribution of Dissolved Pesticides and Other Water Quality Constituents in Small Streams, and their Relation to Land use, in the Willamette River Basin" detected 36 toxic chemicals virtually every time they test for them. Is the Willamette more contaminated than Montgomery Watson is reporting? RESPONSE: The USGS has published several studies regarding the Willamette watershed (see attaclunents showing cover pages of th4e studies). In the report referred to above, the USGS looked for 86 (not 36) chemicals in each of 95 samples from tributaries to the Willamette River. The results are as follows: 5 chemicals were "frequently detected" in the 95 samples; 15 chemicals were "occasionally detected" (i.e., in 10-37% of the 95 samples); 16 chemicals were "rarely detected" (i.e., in less than 10% of the 95 samples); 50 chemicals were not detected at all in any of the 95 samples - - despite the exceptionally low detection limits used by the USGS labs. This particular USGS study focused on agricultural chemicals in tributary streams. As the water flows into the main stem of the Willamette River, the concentrations of such chemicals are reduced to unmeasurable levels. This is due to a variety of factors. The larger volumes of water in the river further dilute the concentration of any chemicals present. Also, many of the chemicals settle in the sediments of the streams and in the river. And to varying degrees the chemicals undergo physical and biological degradation. Other USGS studies have directly tested the main stem of the Willamette River itself. The closest testing site upstream of the proposed 03/05/99 Willamette water treatment plant was in the Newberg area. -At that location, USGS tested for 127 regulated and unregulated chemicals in the water. Of these, only 4 were detected - - and they were at parts per trillion levels, which do not violate drinking water standards (even in untreated water). The ozone/GAC process in the proposed Willamette water treatment plant has been demonstrated to be effective for removal of the organic contaminants that were detected by the US GS. ISSUE: Adequacy of Laboratory Methods Used for Testing Water Quality -Some people claim the detection limits of Montgomery Watson's study are not sensitive enough compared to sampling conducted by the USGS. RESPONSE: The laboratory methods being used by Montgomery Watson follow EPA methods of analysis. These methods and their corresponding detection limits have been developed by the EPA labs in Cincinnati, Ohio. These methods are used by hundreds of labs certified for drinking water analysis around the country, by the Oregon State Department of Health, by the EPA, and by all water utilities for regulatory compliance. These methods are designed specifically for drinking . water compliance purposes, and are the only legally defensible results that will be accepted by the State Department of Health and the EPA for approval of a water treatment plant on the Willamette. The USGS, by contrast, is a research organization that develops its own lab methods and is free to continually modify those methods in pursuit of the lowest possible-detection limits. Nonetheless as noted above, in the vicinity of the proposed Willamette water intake the vast majority of pollutants were not detected - - even with USGS methods. ISSUE: Isn't the Willamette River One of the 10 Most Polluted Rivers in the U.S.? RESPONSE: No. The USGS released results of a comprehensive study of the Willamette Basin in May, 1998. This study was conducted as part of the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program, and is one of 20 such studies underway. The NAWQA Program will ultimately evaluate 50 of the nation's largest river basins and aquifers. Key findings of the NAWQA Study include: Compared to conditions on 19 other NAWQA basins, fish communities and stream habitat in agricultural and urban areas in the Willamette Basin were among the most degraded. The most common factors contributing to these conditions were poor riparian quality (riverbank conditions), bank erosion and a high degree of channel modification. None of these conditions are expected to be factors in the treatability of the Willamette River for drinking water. Nutrient concentrations at Willamette Basin stream sites were similar to those found nationally. Pesticide concentrations in streams were representative of other NAWQA sites. Concentrations of 03/05/99 organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in bed sediments and fish tissue were typical of other NAWQA sites. Trace element concentrations in bed sediments were lower than typically found nationally. Concentrations of semivolatile organic compounds in bed sediment were low compared to other NAWQA sites. ISSUE: Adequacy of Water Treatment Technolouy A few citizens have expressed concern that granular activated carbon (GAC) is not a reliable method to remove toxic chemicals from the water. Cincinnati was cited as an example where difficulties have arisen with GAC being able to adequately treat organic chemicals, thereby contributing to problems with trihalomethanes. RESPONSE: The treatment process proposed for the Willamette River is "state of the art". The proposed plant will be one of the most advanced in the country. In 1998, Montgomery Watson surveyed six cities in the U.S. whose source of drinking water is also a major river. Cities were selected to provide a wide geographical distribution, to include watersheds with a variety of land uses and associated contamination issues, and treatment plants representing a full spectrum of treatment technology. Surveyed sources included: Delaware River - Philadelphia, PA Sacramento River - Sacramento, CA Missouri River - St. Louis, MO Colorado River - Las Vegas, NV Ohio River - Cincinnati, OH Red River - Fargo, ND Source water quality results: The Willamette River watershed is not as heavily developed for agriculture and industry aS„ ther watersheds surveyed, and this is reflected in the low frequency of detection and low levels of chemicals present in the Willamette compared to other sources of a similar size. In spite of inputs of pollutants in other, more highly developed ,.watersheds, concentrations of organic contaminants in other major rivers are extremely low, in the range of a few parts per billion or less. This was true in of all rivers studied, from the Red River that is surrounded by intense agricultural development, to the Ohio River with its numerous industrial and urban discharges. The high flows of these major rivers reduce concentrations of these chemicals to extremely low levels. Treatment process comparison: All plants surveyed produce treated water that meets drinking water standards. Only three of the plants surveyed use activated carbon as a barrier to organic contaminants. These three plants are located downstream of point source discharges and are subject to agricultural runoff and chemical spills. The Richard Miller Water Treatment Plant of the City of Cincinnati draws from the Ohio River, one of the most heavily polluted rivers in the U.S. The plant uses post-filtration activated carbon treatment (i.e. water is treated through conventional filtration, and then passes through an activated carbon bed). None of the regulated 03/05/99 synthetic organic compounds (SOC) or volatile organic compounds (VOC) have ever been detected in the treated water from the Cincinnati plant in the past 10 years. The vulnerability of a potential Willamette plant to contamination is far less than the Ohio River. The proposed treatment process for the Willamette will be as or more advanced than any plant surveyed, including Cincinnati's, in that both ozone (the strongest oxidant/disinfectant available) and GAC filtration (the most effective process for synthetic and volatile organic compound removal available) are incorporated into the process train. Activated carbon regeneration: Due to the relatively small size of the proposed Willamette plant (35-40 mgd) and the relatively small amount of carbon used, economics strongly favor the thermal regeneration of activated carbon off-site (as opposed to on-site as is done at Cincinnati's 235 mgd water treatment plant). Current operation and maintenance cost estimates assume that the spent carbon will be sent to a facility in northern California, which processes GAC for California utilities. ISSUE: Won't some organic compounds pass thrmgh the (TAC procP and lead to problems with trihalomethanes? (Note: The final step in the water treatment process is typically the addition of chlorine or related disinfectants. The benefit of this step is to inhibit the growth of bacteria as water flows through the transmission system from the source to the end user. One drawback of this disinfection process is that chlorine can combine with naturally-occurring organic compounds to create trihalomethanes and other halogenated organic compounds - - a class of potentially harmful chemicals.) RESPONSE: Enhanced control of trihalomethanes will be one of the primary benefits of a potential Willamette River ozone/GAC treatment plant compared to current drinking water quality in the region. Another major benefit of the proposed process will be protection from disease-causing protozoa such as Giardia aAd Cryptosporidium through the use of ozone. In these two respects, the proposed Willamette plant will provide unsurpassed drinking water quality at the tap compared to all current supplies. The Willamette River is similar to most surface waters in the region, having an average raw water Total Organic Carbon (TOC) concentration of less than 2 mg/L. TOC includes naturally- occurring carbon that goes on to react with chlorine in the treatment process to form chlorinated disinfection byproducts. The Northwest is fortunate to have relatively low TOC water, which can range up to 20 mg/L in surface waters elsewhere in the U.S. Even without ozone/GAC treatment, and instead utilizing conventional filtration, levels of disinfection byproducts in the finished Willamette River water would be comparable to the current Clackamas, Tualatin, Mollala and Bull Run supplies. Pilot plant testing has demonstrated that the use of ozone/GAC will reduce these levels even further. This is how we conclude that disinfection byproduct concentrations will be well below current and anticipated drinking water standards. In fact, these levels will be significantly lower than any current source of drinking water in the region. 03/05/99 With respect to the treatment capabilities of the Cincinnati plant, their water treatment facility has been studied intensively by many outside agencies, engineering consultants including Montgomery Watson and the EPA. The Cincinnati plant consistently meets drinking water standards. ISSUE: Phan„ac cutical Byproducts in Drinking Water Could there be dangerous pharmaceutical drugs in the Willamette River supply as a result of sewage treatment plant discharge to the river? RESPONSE: This issue has been discussed in the past few years in the media, primarily as a result of German and Swiss analyses of surface waters. The European scientists have detected numerous medicinal drugs in surface waters receiving treated human wastes. In the European studies, the highest concentrations tended to show up in the smallest rivers, where up to 50 percent of the river flow could be treated sewage treatment plant effluent. At these high fractions of "recycled" flow, total concentrations can reach several parts per billion (Science News, March 21 1998). It is important to note that even in the most heavily used rivers (i.e. 50 percent treated wastewater), concentrations of pharmaceuticals are in the parts per trillion and parts per billion range. By contrast, the required dose of the most commonly used drugs is in the milligrams per liter (parts per million) range. In other words, the dose being discovered under worst-case conditions in the environment is at least 1,000 to 1,000,000 lower than the dose required to evoke a response. The current concern about these chemicals focuses on their effects on fish and biota. While additional study may show that these low levels do have an effect on sensitive animal species, they are not anticipated to be an issue for human health as it relates to drinking water treatment. A second point is that we.QA far from the heavily utilized rivers of Europe here in the Northwest. The closest municipal sewage treatment plant to the proposed intake belongs to the City of Newberg approximately 8 miles upstream, with an approximate average discharge of 3 mgd. This compares to the average flow of the Willamette River of 10,000 million gallons per day (USGS, 1998). Thus the fraction of river water composed of treated effluent is far less than one percent. The next upstream municipal discharge in the Willamette is the City of Salem, 37 miles upstream of Newberg. In this country, research into the environmental effects of wastewater effluent has focused on the . female sex hormone, estrogen. Human females secrete several estrogen compounds, including naturally-produced estrogen and its metabolites, as well as synthetic estrogen from birth control pills and menopause drugs. These cheticals have come under scrutiny because they are prevalent in wastewater, and some studies suggest that they are highly active, i.e. able to induce effects in animals. Estrogenic chemicals should be present in by far the greatest amount of any drug in the raw water, by virtue of the levels produced and excreted per female every day. The Willamette Water Supply Agency (WWSA) recently contracted with the firm CTRAPS (Consultants in Toxicology, Risk Assessment and Product Safety) to perform a highly sensitive 03/05/99 bioassay for the presence of estrogenic chemicals in the untreated water. Multiple Willamette River water samples did not detect estrogens, chemicals which mimic estrogens or substances which interfere with the action of estrogen (i.e. "endocrine disrupters") with a detection level of 0.00002 parts per trillion. A final point is that if pharmaceutical compounds were present in the Willamette River, the proposed ozone/GAC process would be effective in their removal. These compounds are large organic molecules that would be highly susceptible to destruction by ozone. Montgomery Watson is not aware of any current efforts by the EPA to investigate this issue. No other cities or municipal water utilities have this issue "on their radar screen" for sampling, even in much more highly developed, urbanized watersheds. ISSUE: Health Risk Due to Dioxin Numerous concerns have been expressed regarding dioxins. Such concerns are that: dioxin is so toxic EPA says no amount of dioxin is safe; the laboratory methods used weren't sensitive enough to detect lethal amounts of dioxin; pulp mills, such as the Smurfit facility in Newberg, and incinerators are major sources of dioxin; contaminated sediments pose a serious dioxin threat to water supply; and there are eight kinds of dioxin but Montgomery Watson looked for only one. RESPONSE: There are 75 different dioxin compounds. The toxicity of the dioxin compounds varies widely. The most toxic form is 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which is currently regulated to a level of 0.00000003 milligrams per liter (3x10-8 mg/L). This is the dioxin Montgomery Watson tested for. Montgomery Watson used the same contract lab for analysis of dioxin as did the USGS for its Willamette Basin sampling program. The method reporting limit (the detection limit) for individual samples varies with the sample, but is typically in the range of 1 to 3 picograms per liter (10-12 mg/L, or one-A.A.usandth of a part per trillion). This detection limit is 10,000 times lower than the treated water standard for this chemical, so there is no danger of non-detection in concentrations approaching those of impact to. human health. It is noteworthy that dioxins are among the least soluble of all substances. Rather than dissolve in water, dioxins readily bind to sediment particles. From a drinking water standpoint, this affinity for sediment is helpful in that water treatment processes are extremely efficient at removing particles through settling and filtration, and would accomplish removal of this contaminant should it be present. Research by the USGS reveals that dioxins and furans (a related chemical compound) are not present at levels of concern in the Newberg Pool, the location for a potential water treatment plant intake. The USGS survey collected sediment samples from 23 locations including the Newberg Pool, the polluted Portland Harbor area, the pristine upper reaches of the Willamette River tributaries, and the Bull Run watershed. Some important conclusions of the study are: 03/05/99 Dioxins and furans were found in every bed sediment sample collected, although 2,3,7,8-TCDD itself was below the detection limit in samples from the Newberg Pool The levels detected in sediment from the Newberg Pool were the fourth lowest of the 23 sites, and are comparable to those detected in undeveloped rural areas that were selected to represent "background' concentrations of this pollutant in the Basin. Levels of total dioxins and f Trans in the Newberg Pool (100 pg/g) were lower than those which are considered to be background concentrations at reference sites elsewhere in the U.S. (400-900 pgig) where atmospheric deposition is the presumed source. Levels of dioxins and furans in bed sediment from the Newberg Pool were lower than those detected by the USGS in sediment from Fir Creek in the protected Bull Run watershed (250-300 pg/g). Again, atmospheric deposition is the presumed source of dioxin in the Bull Run watershed. Filtration is not currently employed to remove sediment from the Bull Run source. The Smurfit newsprint plant in Newberg has been accused of being a source of dioxin releases to the Newberg Pool. This is incorrect. While dioxins and furans can be produced in the bleaching of wood pulp with chlorine, the Smurfit plant has never used chlorine in its production of paper. The Pope & Talbot pulp mill about ten miles upstream of the City of Corvallis, however, has used chlorine in its bleaching process. USGS tests on sediment samples in the Willamette River at Corvallis show dioxin and furan levels to be approximately the same as the levels found in Fir Creek sediments in the Bull Run. There is no indication that dioxin has caused health problems for consumers of treated Willamette water in Corvallis, and there is no reason to expect this to be a health problem for Wilsonville if the City chose to use treated Willamette water for municipal water supply. .rte Human exposure to dioxins is almost entirely via ingestion of food products, not from drinking water. According to information provided by the Oregon Health Division, estimated average daily intake of dioxins by the general U.S. population is 120 picograms. Of that, an estimated 47 picograms are in the form of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The attached chart from EPA's dioxin reassessment document shows that less than one one-hundredth of one percent of a person's total daily intake of 2,3,7,8-TCDD is from water. Daily intake from air is estimated to be 2 percent. Approximately 98 percent of a person's total daily intake comes from food products. Here is what the EPA has said about dioxin: "While dioxin has been shown to be toxic to certain lab animals, evidence is lacking that it has serious long-term effects on humans. The public's perception has been largely based upon information reported on toxic effects found in lab animals. People tend to relate these effects to humans and begin to fear them. Once fear has been created, it is hard to dispel." (EPA Environmental Educational Series - Volume 11 1: Solid and Hazardous Waste, 1992) 03/05/99 In 1994, the EPA appointed a Scientific Advisory Board composed of 42 scientists, academics, government researchers and industry representatives, to review the EPA's Dioxin Exposure and Health Effects Documents. This Board found that while human effects from dioxin (and like compound) exposure occur at levels closer to background than previously estimated, "the conclusion that dioxin and related compounds are likely to present a cancer hazard to humans at exposure levels within one or two orders of magnitude above background is not well-supported by the existing human epidemiologic database." (EPA Science AdvisoryBoard Dioxin Assessment Review, May 15-16, 1995). ISSUE: Cancer Rates Some people have speculated that cancer rates will go up if the Willamette River is used as a source of drinking water. RESPONSE: There is no direct correlation established between drinking water and cancer rates. If such a causal relationship exists, and if the consumption of Willamette River water is presumed to increase cancer risks, then one would expect cancer rates to be higher in Benton County (where people drink Willamett,° water) than in Multnomah County (where the majority of the population drinks Bull Run water). In fact the opposite is the case. Benton County has one of the very lowest cancer rates in Oregon, whereas Multnomah County has one of the very highest cancer rates in the State. The greatest risk factors for cancer are tobacco use, alcohol use, genetics and workplace exposure to carcinogens - - not drinking water. According to Michael Humann, Deputy Epidemiologist at the Oregon Division of Health, there are no studies that have shown a link between municipal drinking water and cancer incidence. The only study purporting to show a link between cancer and drinking water was done by the EPA in Woborn, Massachusetts, where certain residents were exposed to extremely high levels of trichloroethylene through contaminated groundwater. (This case was dramatized in the book and the movie "Civil Actigi:") However, even in this case, the EPA stopped short of concluding that additional cancers were caused by the drinking water. By the way, trichloroethylene has not been detected in the Newberg Pool of the Willamette River. But low levels of trichloroethylene are detected in the Columbia South Shore well field, and for that reason the City of Portland operates an air stripping facility on one of its wells to remove this chemical from the drinking water. These responses are not intended to ignore or downplay concern about health and safety issues. To the contrary, protecting public health is a critically important objective in planning for Wilsonville's future,?. ater supply. That is why far more time and money and pilot testing have been devoted to evaluating the Willamette River than any other potential water supply in the state and in the nation. The question is: by what "yardstick" should we measure all this information? Rather than depend on the individual opinions/preferences of staff or consultants 03/05/99 or citizens or interest groups, we have started with federal and state drinking water standards. These standards have been established by scientists and health experts from around the nation who have spent decades researching this issue to assure municipal water supplies are safe to drink. But we have gone beyond drinking water standards alone. The proposed Willamette water treatment facility is designed not only to meet current drinking water standards, but is also designed to meet proposed future drinking water standards. It is also designed to remove chemicals for which no standards exist, as well as chemicals that are OR MAY BE PRESENT below the detection limit of the most sophisticated laboratory tests. It is a non-specific (i.e., broadly effective) treatment process that has been demonstrated in this country and around the world to effectively remove pesticides, herbicides, solvents, gasolines, dyes, PCBs, industrial chemicals, and combustion products. Therefore, we do not have to "know" every compound which could be present in the Willamette in order to understand that the chemicals of concern will be readily removed by the process. It's worth a final reminder that after numerous samplings for an exhaustive list of potential contaminants by utilities and by the USGS, there are none present at levels of concern, even in untreated water. The issue revolves to a large degree around the adequacy of the EPA Safe Drinking Water Standards and whether those standards truly provide for safe drinking water. Both Montgomery Watson and the City of Portland stated at the Council's January 21 work session that the EPA standards do in fact provide for safe drinking water. Citizens have presented no evidence to the contrary. 03/05/99 message As the City Council has grappled with the extremely weighty issue of long-term water supply, we have waded through an incredible amount of tnfonnation; some of it supplied by the city staff. some by out-Odc consultants. some by the City of Portland and some by Wllsonville citizens. As we absorb all of thW input, we must decide not only what is relevant we must separate fact from belief or opinion. one of the two water supply options still under consideration to a treatment plant on the Willamette River (the other is a connection to the City of Portland for a blend of Bull Runt and Columbia River well Acld watad and over the course of more than a year of public debate on that option, many things have been said that we have come to learn are simply not rice. We have consistently refrained from publicly correcting those inlostatementa for fear that era would be accused of having a bias for the Willamette River option. However. in this issue of the 13oones Fury Messenger. In the rather lengthy article at right, we will address some of the myths and misstatements head-on. This Is not to suggest that we on the Council have made up our minds -we haven't. But when the time comes for us to make a decision. we intend to make that decislon on the basis of facts. 1 hope you will, too. On the prison front, one local citizen described the current state of affairs as 'the end game" In the light to prevent a prison oY. the Damrrmach State Hospital. Unfortunately. both the House and Senatc stem to be hcn-bent on a bill (Senate Stiff 3) that Would unite Dammasch 8nd re-site the women a prison and intake tenter to UmaUUa. This to despite the Govcrnoes promise of a veto and the fact that the wtca are not there to override a veto in either chamber of the Lcgtslatu rc_ qbc result of a veto and the falhue to override would be that Dammaedt would remain legally stied and funded. None of our senators or representatives appears to have a plan for what happens next when things play out this way. My very lcgiUmate kar is that when the veto override vote fails. the Governor will Simply cut his louses and order construc- tion to begin at Dammasch. The Legtelature. meanwhile, will be unable or unwilling to muster the political will to crigage in further wrangling on this issue and will simply let the prison go to Dammasch. Remember: This is not that big an issue once you get outside the Wilsonville area. The vast majority of Orego- nians don't much care whether the prison is built at Dammasch or not and it's not likely that the Legislature will want to excperid much continued oa hack pose 7 St's just one of the claims we've heard about the Willamette Rives during the course of public debate over whether it's appropriate to even consider the river as a drinking water source. Wc%m also heard some very scary rhetoric thrown around regarding cancer. endocrine disruptors. dioxin and agricultural pesticides. Wore been busting our buns researching these issues trying to find out what's fact and what's Action. So let's take a good hard look at what webe heard and what we`ve found out. V'221~-Ssenger throughout the Willamette basin have stgnia- candy altered fish habitat (e.g., stream channelization: (IUing of weUands: damage to spawning habitat, ctc.). So it's fair to say that if you're a fish, the Willamette may be among the most Impacted watersheds to the nation. But in terms of water quality, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Middle Willamette (the stretch from Salem to Oregon City) 13 W relatively good shape. The EPA gave the middle Willamette a score of 3 on its index of watershed indicators, which rates every watemhcd in the U.S. for its first. it's important to understand what ove kind of testing has actually been done F 'bet the Willamette River and how the Seri treatment process works. m in tests dating back to 1994. the ensineer- ing firm of Montgom- cry Watson tested for '7f you're a f ish, the any cbaMcal that had be arrwrtg the most ever been detected at sheds in the Hattori. Bu any level anywhere to the Willamette River water quality, according basin by the U.S. ronmenta( Protection geological survey. as Middle WUlamette (the well as any chemical Saterrt to Oregon Cityl IS there was reason to good shape.' beltew might be there, even if it hadn't been -M detected by USOS. as well as. of course. all is EPA regulated contaminants and all EPA be candidate contaminants. 'Ible to by far the to most thorough testing of any water source tae anywhere in the U.S. Almost all of these contaminants are not mo present at detcctab a (avets to the VlWarnette U. River necr Wilsonvate. 11-MC that are detected are present at levels that arc below aafe r drinking water maximums and all can be Th removed by the proposed treatment pewees. d The treatment process is wbat*a called a multi-barrier ozone/GACsystem. Sediments arc removed from the taw water, ozone gas kills bacteria and mterobW pathogens. and a granular activated carbon Alter removes remaittlrrg contaminants. 'the system Is designed to meet or exceed all existing and anticipated EPA safe dri ddag water etan• dards. It vW-produce the safest, highest quality drinking water in the region, a fact that water quality experts with the City of Portland do not dispute. A more detailed description of the Mtcm is contained else- where in this issue of the Messenger. Okay. now lets take a look at some of claims we keep hearing. in relatfwly report of the Governor's to UE MOST POLLUTED RIVER IN THE U.S. Or the fourth moot polluted or the fifth most polluted or the tenth most polluted. Whatever We have been unable to (Ind any documentation to substantiate these claims. It is certainly true that physical changes rall health on a 1-6 scale, with I being tter water quality' and 6 being 'more ous water quality problems." The Claeka- as River (which serves Lake Oswego. West Linn and many other ciUca to Clackamas Wi lantette may County) was also scored itripaCted water- at 3 and the T'ralatin t in terms of River, which supplies to the Enut- dr8tkirig water portions Agency: the of Washington County. scored at stretch,frota was In adds addi.. in tio on.. the Willamette River Basin Task Force states that Mt expata av= that the Willamette River probably in better health today than it has en for a century.' The report then goes on address the problems that still need to be kled. Finally WcWe Come across a list of "The 50 st polluted rivers or watcrbodies to the 5.; publinbcd by the Environmental Work- ing Group. a Washington. DC, lobbying, swarth and public information organization. e vviuamettc appears on that List at 850: sW last. Ciltis Uet measures only total direct ° u~y- a 0 w eonr&wed on next Pose P b P+ U ~o All c 4 S c G a t: Mater continued from fNni toxic dtschargea into the wuter, but not other factors that contribute to water quality prob- lems. It also doesn't account for dilution that occurs to riverv with larger volumes ofwatcr.) Of course. that arc more than that the U.S. and we're not trying to suggest the Willamette is free of pollution. But if anyone reading this knows of a way to sub- stantiate the claims that the Willamette Is the moot polluted river In America. wed like to hear from you. Please call Dave Kamer. public afralrs director, at 570.1605. CANCER It has been said or inferred that drinking treated Wti]amettc River water will increase your cancer risk. Not so. say the health girding to Michael Humann. deputy epidemiologist. Oregon Health Division, there are no "Benton County (Where studies that people drink Wttknmette have shown sh ray River rliater) has one of between the very Lowest cailcer municipal rotes In Oregon. wherec s drinking Multnomah County -ter and (where a nwjortty of rest- cancer incidence. dents drink Bull Run wa- what's concluded that there ace no endocrine disruptors present in the wtllaunctee. They rcached this coriclu3ion to Willamette cep*5ing human endocrine rc-Pones River water taken from the polnt whoa the Intake for a treatment plant would be located and then looking for evidence of endocrine disruptors binding to the receptais. In other words. rather than looking for spcditc chemi- cals. Drs. Byrd wd ?acImmwaki looked for evidence that ssVWng might be present that would act as an endocrine disruptor. Nothing was found. And" is an extremely sensitive teat. capable of detecting reactions at concen- trations of ices than 20.parts per trillion. Drs. Byrd and 7acharewsld thus con- eludcd that -disruption of estrogenic systems is not of concern for humans consuming water from the Willamette River." 4. DIOXIN magnitude above background is not well • ` supported by the adsting human epidcmto- logic database.' (SPA Science Mhysory Board, D196613 Aasensme mew. May 15-16. 1995.) Finally. we came across this Udbtt: In 1992-95. the U.S. Geological Survey con- ducted a comprehensive study of QUoxdn levels in Northwestern Oregon. This report looked for 27 varieties of diondne and furans. One of the test sites was In the Willamette River near Newberg, and another test ette was Fir Creek in the Bull Run watershed. The tests showed the total dioxin levels at both sites are below background levels and the most toxic dioxin (2.3.7.8-TCDD) was below the USOS detection itmit. But the level of total diox ins.was bigher in Fir Creek in the Butt Run watershed than it was in the Willamette River. (USGS, O s ~ FarrEtn~ 1n B Sediment tend Fish Tissue of~he Wiliam l Brien. 1998.) 5. DET 15CTION LIMITS Dioxin eta scary stuff. Or at least the word generates a lot of fear. Dioxin is the name given to a famfly of chemicals whose basic structure cocwstn of two molecular rings of carbon atoms connected by two oxygen atoms. Some dioxins are created when chlorine rnfxes with organic substances. as in the bleaching process formerly used by pulp and paper mills. One of the scariest chlorinated dioxins to called 2.3.7.6 tctrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (or TCOD) which u a waste Product of matui- ale used bn production of two pesticides and in the production of hexachlorophene. an antibacterial agent. TODD is also produced in the Incomplete combustion of numma" W3. It decomposes rapidly sunlight but tends to be persistent for u in voll, p to ten yesriot (According to USGS] exposed to the level of total di- sunlight. Ox(ns was hi r in According to the Oregon Mr Creek in the Bull Health Division. Rein watershed than allof us arc it was in the Wit- exposed to dioxin larnette R(ver." at vcty low levels (-background levels') tvety daffy. But 9896 of that exposure is from food. 2% is from air and less tfi~ M o~nc_ tenth of 1%is frvm_~f&_C- Staff has been unable to substantiate the claim that there is no threshold for any amount of dioxdm Here is what EF dioxin actually has to rats about has been shown to be tadc to certain lab antmals. evidence is tacking that it has tser(- ous long-term effects on humans. The public's perception has been largely based upon information reported on toxic effects found In tab animals. People tend to relate these effects to fear them. Once fear to hurnatrs and begin has been created, it is bard to dispel: (EPA. ~aair'onnt trd cation rn Inc d and n 1992) In 1994, the EPA appointed a Scientific . Advisory Board composed of 42 scientists. academics. government researchers and industry mprest9tatives. to review the EPA's Dioxin Exposure and Health Effects Docu- mrnts. Thin Board found that while human effects from dioxin (and like compound) exposure occur at levels closer to background than previously estimated. The conclusion that dioxn and related compounds are likely to present a cancer hazard to humans at exposure levels within one or two orders of ter) has one of the very mo. says highest cancer rates in liuniarm. the state." the cancer risk pre- sented by water that meets EPA cafe drinking water standards is "Immeasurably small.` If there is in fact a causal relatiotrahlp between water supply and cancer, and if the consumption of Willamette River water Is presumed to increase cancer risks. (hest one would expect cancer rates to be higher in Benton County (when.- people drink W11- l2mette River vmtcr) than in Multnotnah County (where the majority of the popuop 1st dtUdi s Bull Ran water). to fact the a is ties ease. acnton County has analthe very lowest cancer rates in Oregom while Multnomah County bas one of the vay high- est cancer rates in the state. (Orctm Health Division. Gancgr in Duress. 19981 Mw greatest risk factors for cancer are tobacco use, alcohol use, genetics and work Awe exposure to carcinogens - - not tap watts. 3. 9NDOCRINIE DISRUPTORS F.ndocslnc dtaruptorrc are a faantly of chemicals that either alone or in combination mimic human estrogen rued arc suspected of health negative ~Yhere am noendo- health and devel- opmental effects. trine disruptors This has been a present (n the Wil- MaJor source of lamette land td is concern for water not of concern for suppliers. However. a humans corium new study con- I ng water from( the ducted by Dr. WtUamette River." Daniel Byrd of Risk Aliment Consultants in Toxicology. and Product Safety. and Dr. Tim Zaeharcwski of the National Food Stair. Safety Univeraity. and oxi h~ Center at Wchtg We keep hearing that Montgomery Watson used tests that weren't sensitive enough or that the; U.S. ocologlcal, Survey consistently found contaminants that Montgomery Watson didn't because the USGS used more sensitive tests. Montgomery Watson labs did to fact use a difterent testing method with higher detection unite than the USGS tab 17tere were 36 thernt- methods. cats detected at least That explains once. None of the 36 why on Chelntouts were detected oacEtstoa USGS de- in the nutinstern of the tected cherni. WitLarwtte River:" cafe at trace levels that were below the Montgomery Watson lab's detection Umit. tike the Oregon Health Division. the city of Portland. and state-of-the-art corttmercial lab's. Montgomery watoon used EPA-approved drinking water monitoring methods. These are designed to test for compliance with EPA drinking water s=tandards. The monjWring done by USGS involved academic research methodologies which are not approved by EPA for drinking water monitoring standards. But what did the.USGS acWzIW nnd1 'the USGS looked for 66 dtemloals in eac' of 95 separate tests of the Willamette River and its tributaries. Jhere were 86 cbcrmieals detected at least once. None of Ile 36 chord calls were detected to the malnetem of the Wiparriette River. (us. Geological Survey. Did t Water gualttp egtupnt. in Satnll Stream: Zd their n to mstt~ in thc-VM-- BPetn. 1997) Rive In a separate study, the USGS tested the mainmtem of the Willamette Rives new Newberg for 224 chemdals in the river water and bed sediments. Only 11 chemicals were detected. all of them at levels h21W rata drinking water standards. The ozone/GAC process at the proposed Willamette water treatment plant would renwve all 17 of then chemicals - plus all of the other chemicals that weer: not even detected. Tile diagram on the react page (cowtuy of the dM1fdllama to Watsr SUPPIT 01110 Agency) shows the 511W9 in trtitotkV elver to GW- - Revised AGENDA ITEM # -6, 1 FOR AGENDA OF March 9. 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE An Ordinance amending Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code to provide that fees for PREPARED BY: David Scott DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK Ldz2q=-- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council amend Title 14 to provide that fees for the building code administration program be established by resolution of the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached ordinance amending Title 14. INFORMATION SUMMARY Currently, Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code provides that fees for administration of the electrical program are established by resolution of the City Council. This ordinance clarifies that fees for the administration of the entire building program are established by resolution of the City Council. This ordinance is a companion to the fee resolution also presented for Council consideration. ERED OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSID None. FISCAL NOTES No fiscal impact from this ordinance. See fiscal impact discussion on the accompanying resolution. I:~c.itywlde~s=139tl4fee.doc AGENDA ITEM # S, a FOR AGENDA OF March 9, 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A resolution establisnln bunam iumom rnuunzuuczu iu,u c1ca.w%,CU VlllV~ related fees. PREPARED BY: David Scott DEPT HEAD OK #~W' CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council pass the proposed resolution to provide increased fees for the building code administration program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution increasing and establishing fees for the building code administration program. 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 six-montli operating reserve. The fee increase proposed will enable the City to continue to provide building code services into the future. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED At the study session held 2/23/99 the Council considered several options for fee increases. The fee increase package described below is presented pursuant to Council direction at the study session. FISCAL NOTES The proposed fees increase are: • Building and Mechanical: Average 51 % increase effective 5/3/99 through 6/30/00 and another average 51 % increase effective 7/1/00. (This brings fees from the 1979 to the 1994 UBC and UMC over a 2 year period) • Plumbing: Average 27% increase effective 5/3/99 through 6/30/00 and another average 27% increase effective 7/1/00. • Electrical: Average 7% increase effective 5/3/99. • Miscellaneous: Several minor miscellaneous fees are also proposed. Note: "Average" is used to account for minor rounding of numbers. Miscellaneous fees currently not charged are also added. The resolution also establishes City policy to review these fees annually thereafter to adjust for inflationary pressures on service costs. I. -I ci i vrvide l slim 139114fee res. doc CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 99- 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 23, 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: oQ00 Effective May 3,1999 through June 30, VY)~ : Plumbing Tees: Description: Fee: New Single-Family: $178.00 1 Bath 250.00 2 Bath 285.00 3 Bath FIXTURES individual 11.50 Sink 11.50 Lavatory 50 11 Tub or Tub/Shower Comb. . Shower Only 11.50 Water Closet 11.50 Dishwasher 11.50 Garbage Disposal 11.50 Washing Machine 11.50 Floor Drain/Floor Sink 2" 11.50 3/f 11.50 4„ 11.50 11.50 Water Heater 11.50 Laundry Room Tray RESOLUTION NO.99-_ Page 1 Plumbing Fees: Description: Fee: Urinal 11.50 Other Fixtures 15.00 Sewer - 1st 100' 38.00 Sewer - each additional 100' 32.00 Water Service - 1st 100' 38.00 Water Service - each additional 200' 32.00 Storm & Rain Drain - 1st 100' 38.00 Storm & Rain Drain - each additional 100' 32.00 Mobile Home Space 32.00 Commercial Backflow Prevention Device or Anti-Pollution Device 32.00 Residential Backflow Prevention Device 19.00 An Trap or Waste Not Connected to a Fixture 11.50 Catch Basin 11.50 Ins p. of Existing Plumbing 50.00/hr Specially Requested Inspections 50.00/hr Rain Drain, single family dwelling 45.00 Grease Traps 11.50 Minimum Permit Fee 50.00 Minimum Permit Fee Residential Backflow 25.00 Plan Review 25% of Permit Fee Mechanical Fees: Description Fee: A Permit Issuance Fee $16.00 1 Furnace to 100,000 BTU including ducts & vents 9.65 2 Furnace 100,000 BTU+ including ducts & vents 12.00 3 Floor Furnace including vent 9.65 4 Suspended heater, wall heater or floor mounted heater 9.65 5 Vent not included in appliance permit 4.75 6 <3HP; absorb unit to 100K BTU. 9.65 7 3-15 HP; absorb unit 100k to 500k BTU 17.65 8 15-30 HP; absorb unit.5 -1 mil BTU 24.15 9 30-50 HP; absorb unit 1-1.75 mil BTU 36.00 10 >50HP; absorb unit >1.75 mil BTU 60.15 11) Air handling unit to 10,000 CFM Note: This fee does not apply to an air- handling unit which is a portion of a factory-assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere in the Mechanical Code. 7.00 12 Air handling unit 10,000 CFM+ 11.85 13 Non-portable evaporate cooler 7.00 14 Vent fan connected to a single duct 4.75 15 Ventilations stem not included in appliance permit 7.00 16 Hood served by mechanical exhaust 7.00 17 Domestic incinerators 12.00 18 Commercial or industrial type incinerator 48.25 RESOLUTION NO.99-_ Page 2 Building Fees: RESOLUTION NO.99 Page 3 Valuation shall be determined by the most recent edition of "Building Valuation Data" published by the International Conference of Building Officials, using "good" construction and the Oregon modifier. Other Inspections and Fees: 1. 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 per hour 3. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans (minimum charge - one-half hour) $50.00 per hour 4. Manufactured dwelling installation $235.00 5. Manufactured dwelling and mobile home parks, recreation arks and organizational cams Fee per OAR Electrical Fees: New residential, single or multi-family per dwelling unit; service included: A. 1000 square feet or less $117.75 B. Each additional 500 square feet or portion thereof 26.75 C. Limited energy 60.00 D. Each manufactured home or modular dwelling service or feeder 72.75 2. Services or feeders; installation, alterations or relocation: A. 200 amps or less 64.25 B. 201 amps to 400 amps 85.50 C. 401 amps to 600 amps 128.50 D. 601 amps to 1000 amps 192.50 E. Over 1000 amps or volts 363.75 F. Reconnect only 53.50 3. Temporary services or feeders; installation, alteration or relocation: A. 200 amps or less B. 201 amps to 400 amps C. 401 amps to 600 amps D. Over 600 amps to 100 volts 4. Branch circuits; new, alteration or extension per panel: A. With purchase of service or feeder - each branch circuit B. Without purchase of service or feeder First branch circuit Each additional branch circuit 5. Miscellaneous (service or feeder not included): A. Each pump or irrigation circuit B. Each sign or outline lighting C. Signal circuit(s) or a limited energy panel, alteration or extension D. Each additional inspection over the allowable in any of the above (min 1 hr) i) Per inspection ii) Per hour 53.50 80.25 107.00 (see 2 above) 5.35 37.50 5.35 42.75 42.75 60.00 50.00 50.00 RESOLUTION NO.99-_ Page 4 E. Industrial Plant Inspection $59.00 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: $107.00 for ten labels. Miscellaneous Fees: - Description Fee: Re-inspection: Building $50.00 Mechanical $50.00 Plumbing $50.00 Electrical $50.00 Tem or Occupancy $90.00 Phased Occupancy $200.00 Permit or Plan Review Extension $50.00 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 e Hotels $160.00, plus $5 for each dwelling unit in excess of 5 a.oL Effective July 1,19": Plumbing Fees: Description: Fee: New Single-Family: 1 Bath 2 Bath 3 Bath $225.00 315.00 363.00 FIXTURES individual Sink 14.50 Lavatory 14.50 Tub or Tub/Shower Comb. 14.50 Shower Onl 14.50 Water Closet 14.50 Dishwasher 14.50 Garbage Disposal 14.50 Washing Machine 14.50 Floor Drain/Floor Sink 2" 14.50 3" 14.50 4" 14.50 Water Heater 14.50 Laundry Room Tray 14.50 Urinal 14.50 RESOLUTION NO.99-_ Page 5 Plumbing Fees: Description: Fee: Other Fixtures 14.50 Sewer - 1 st 100' 48.00 Sewer - each additional 100' 40.00 Water Service - 1st 100' 48.00 Water Service - each additional 200' 40.00 Storm & Rain Drain - 1 st 100' - 48.00 Storm & Rain Drain - each additional 100' 40.00 Mobile Home Space 40.00 Commercial Backflow Prevention Device or Anti-Pollution Device 40.00 Residential Backflow Prevention Device 25.00 An Trap or Waste Not Connected to a Fixture 14.50 Catch Basin 14.50 Ins p. of Existing Plumbing 50.00/hr Specially Requested Inspections 50.00/hr Rain Drain, single family dwelling 48.00 Grease Traps 14.50 Minimum Permit Fee 50.00 Minimum Permit Fee Residential Backflow 25.00 Plan Review 25% of Permit Fee Mechanical Fees: Description Fee: A Permit Issuance Fee $22.00 1 Furnace to 100,000 BTU including ducts & vents 13.25 2 Furnace 100,000 BTU+ including ducts & vents 16.25 3 Floor Furnace including vent 13.25 4 Suspended heater, wall heater or floor mounted heater 13.25 5 Vent not included in appliance pen-nit 6.50 6 <3HP; absorb unit to 100K BTU 13.15 7 3-15 HP; absorb unit 100k to 500k BTU 24.25 8 15-30 HP; absorb unit.5 -1 mil BTU 33.25 9 30-50 HP; absorb unit 1-1.75 mil BTU 49.50 10 >50HP; absorb unit >1.75 mil BTU 82.75 11) Air handling unit to 10,000 CFM Note: This fee does not apply to an air-handling 9.50 unit which is a portion of a factory-assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere in the Mechanical Code. 12 Air handling unit 10,000 CFM+ 16.15 13 Non-portable evaporate cooler 9.50 14 Vent fan connected to a single duct 6.50 15 Ventilations stem not included in appliance permit 9.50 16 Hood served b mechanical exhaust 9.50 17 Domestic incinerators 16.25 18 Commercial or industrial type incinerator 66.50 19 Repair units 12.25 20 Wood stove 9.50 RESOLUTION NO.99-_ Page 6 Mechanical Fees: Description Fee: 21 Clothes per, etc. 9.50 22' Other units 9.50 23 Gas piping one to four outlets S.SO 24 More than 4-per outlet each 1.00 25 Hazardous Process Piping System HPP of one to four outlets 5.50 26 Hazardous Process Piping System (BPP) of five or more outlets, per outlet 1.00 27) For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Mechanical 9.50 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: 4. Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge - two hours) $50.00 per hour 5. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge - one-half hour) $50.00 each 6. 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 "good" construction and the Oregon modifier. Total Valuation Fee: $1.00 to $500.00 $501.00 to $2,000 $50.00 $22.00 for the first $500.00 plus $2.75 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000 $50.00 minimum 001.00 to $25,000.00 $2 $63.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $12.50 for each , additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000 001.00 to $50,000.00 $25 $352.00 for the first $25,000.00 plus $9.00 for , each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000 001.00 to $100,000 $50 $580.00 for the first $50,000.00 plus $6.25 for , each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000 $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $895.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $5.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $500 500,000 001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $500 $2,855.00 for the first $500,000.00 plus $4.25 for , each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including 1,000,000 000,001.00 and up $1 $4,955.00 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $2.75 , for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof RESOLUTION NO.99 Page 7 Other Inspections and Fees: 1. 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 per hour 3. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans (minimum charge - one-half hour) $50.00 per hour 4. Manufactured dwelling installation $235.00 5. Manufactured dwelling and mobile home parks, recreation parks and organizational cams Fee er OAR Electrical Fees: I . New residential, single or multi-family per dwelling unit; service included: $117.75 E. 1000 square feet or less 75 26 F. Each additional 500 square feet or portion thereof . 60.00 G. H. Limited energy Each manufactured home or modular dwelling service or feeder 72.75 6. Services or feeders; installation, alterations or relocation: 64.25 A. 200 amps or less 85.50 B. 201 amps to 400 amps 128.50 C. 401 amps to 600 amps 192.50 D. 601 amps to 1000 amps 363.75 E. Over 1000 amps or volts 53.50 F. Reconnect only 7. Temporary services or feeders; installation, alteration or relocation: 53.50 A. 200 amps or less 80.25 B. 201 amps to 400 amps 107.00 C. 401 amps to 600 amps ' (see 2 above) D. Over 600 amps to 100 volts 8. Branch circuits; new, alteration or extension per panel: A. With purchase of service or feeder - each branch circuit 5.35 C. Without purchase of service or feeder 37.50 First branch circuit 5.35 Each additional branch circuit 9. Miscellaneous (service or feeder not included): A. Each pump or irrigation circuit 42.75 42.75 B. Each sign or outline lighting 60.00 C. Signal circuit(s) or a limited energy panel, alteration or extension D. Each additional inspection over the allowable in any of the above (min 1 hr) 50.00 i) Per inspection 50.00 ii) Per hour RESOLUTION NO.99-_ Page 8 E. Industrial Plant Inspection $59.00 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: $107.00 for ten labels. Miscellaneous Fees: Description Fee: - Re-inspection: 00 $50 Building . 00 $50 Mechanical . $50 00 Plumbing . 00 $50 Electrical . Temporary Occupancy $90.00 - Phased Occupancy $0.00 Permit or Plan Review Extension $50.00 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 o Single and Two Family Dwellings $100.00 o Apartment Houses and Social Care Facilities $160.00, plus $7 for each dwelling unit in excess of 3 ■ Hotels $160.00, plus $5 for each dwelling unit in excess of 5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: the above fees be reviewed and adjusted for inflationary and other increases in service costs annually thereafter. 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 O day of JaL - A~lc 1999. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: - City of Tigard rder 4iR*eco I:\cltyw1de\res\39t14fee.doc RESOLUTION NO.99-_ Page 9 H c) vyn A-uu W'k1\1 Y ~IC.lctq Comments on Proposal to Increase Permit Fees in the City of Tigard Prepared by Kevin Wing, Director of Local Government Affairs Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland I. Comparison of Building Permit Costs in Neighboring Jurisdictions The following chart shows the actual permit fees that were paid for the same house plan built in three neighboring local jurisdictions. Date Issued Building Permit Plan Review Mech. Permit Mech. Plan Check Plumbing Permit Plumbing Plan Check Electrical Permit Electrical Plan Check CDC Review Fee State Surcharge Total FACTS: o The City of Tigard currently has fees that are comparable to what other local jurisdictions charge. e The proposed increase (51% building, 27% plumbing, 16% electrical) for this year would place Tigard at $600.29 higherthan Washington County, and $175.31 higherthan Beaverton. Neither of these jurisdictions are contemplating an increase in permit fees in the near future. An additional increase (51 % building, 27% plumbing) next year would place Tigard at $1,422.27 higher than current Washington County fees, and at $997.29 higher than current City of Beaverton. Current Permit Fees il. Determination of Costs (appendix A) The determination of unit staff costs, materials and services, and indirect costs associated with the city building department is the basis upon which the proposal to increase permit fees was formed. Mr. Scott has broken each plan review, inspection, and permitting service performed by the city into per minute costs based upon the full budget, and has applied them to permit fees in order to fully recover the costs of keeping the building department open. A. 100% Recovery vs. Benefits Analysis While the technique that Mr. Scott used is appropriate for internal budgeting, it is not appropriate to attribute every cost associated with the building department to permit fees as a funding source. As a general rule, only those costs that are directly associated with the enforcement of the state building code should be recouped through permit fees. A benefit analysis of the building departments many functions needs to be performed so that those activities that only benefit the individual permit applicant are included in the permit fee. For example: Indirect costs associated with general administration Cie. Mayor and City Council, City Administration, etc.) should not be included in the price of a pennit. These are general government functions for the benefit of the entire city, and should be funded from the general fund. o Costs associated with the Community Development Director, his or her staff, and his or her materials/supplies should not be included in the price of a permit. Though the Community Development Director plays an important role in the city, his or her functions provide a benefit to the entire community, and the segment of the community that purchases permits should not have to shoulder these costs alone. ® Other examples (not all inclusive) of activities that the building department performs which should not be funded through permit fees are: consulting with the public works department, performing existing house tenant inspections, performing setback inspections, responding to complaints and investigating, and performing driveway approach inspections. B. Community Benefits In the State of Oregon, local jurisdictions choose to be granted the authority to provide local code enforcement of the state building code form the State Dept. of Consumer and Business Affairs. Any local jurisdiction that opts to assume the responsibility of local code enforcement does so because they believe that there is a benefit to the city and its citizens to provide code enforcement locally. To the extent that the functions of the building department are a benefit to the community, it is unfair to have those benefits be funded solely by individual permit applicants. In talking with city staff, it may be difficult to put a specific number on the percentage of the building department's budget which serves functions like the ones described above. In that case, the city would be wise to err on the side of caution, rather than unfairly charge permit applicants for functions that all citizens should share in the funding of equally. Building Department Budget After a rudimentary review of the city building department's budget and inspection activity, it appears that the city of Tigard is performing less efficiently than other neighboring jurisdictions in some areas. This is not meant to be a critique of the building department's current performance. We will only support an increase in fees, however, if it is certain that current service can not be maintained at a high level--or improved-by any other means. Jurisdictional Comparison # of Avg. Total Avg. # of FTE Inspections Insl2/FTE Salary/Benefits Salar y/Benefits Washington Co. 74.00 91,648 1,238 $ 4,015,129.00 $ 54,258.50 Lake Oswego 9.50 18,130 1,908 $ 530,000.00 $ 55,789.47 Oregon City 5 approx4700 940 $ 316,735.00 $ 63,347.00 Tualatin 6.00 approx 9,000 1,500 $ 392,000.00 $ 65,333.33 Tigard 19.66 23426 1192 $ 1,219,767.00 $ 62,043.08 Forest Grove 5 3914 783 $ 241,310.00 $ 48,262.00 Facts: ® The City of Tigard has the lowest average number of inspections per FTE among the major (nine or more employees) jurisdictions compared, and the department performs 135 fewer inspections per year per employee than the average of all other jurisdictions combined. ® Out of the major jurisdictions, the City of Tigard has the highest average salary/benerits number per FTE, and pays $3,583 more per year per employee than the average of all other jurisdictions combined. Again, these facts are not presented as an indictment of the city building department. They do not measure the level of service or the quality of service that each jurisdiction provides, which are two important issues. They do show, however, that further study needs to be done in an attempt to prove that raising permit fees is absolutely necessary to maintain a high level of service IV, Potential Effect of LC 2421, if passed. State Rep. Roger Beyer of Molalla will be introducing legislation that would allow The Department of Consumer and Business Affairs to certify and license independent, private plan reviewers and building inspectors. A builder would have the choice of hiring either the local building department or an independent, state-licensed inspector to certify that the new structure is built to meet the state building code. If the City chooses to raise it's building permit fees to a level that is not competitive with either what other local jurisdictions charge or what an independent inspector would charge, the city would be at risk of losing permit income. Obviously, the combination of an increase in permit fees by the city, and an introduction of private competition into the building code enforcement arena by the legislature, could substantially reduce the current level of funding now being provided by permit fees. V. Reserve Fund A. General Comments The concept of a building department amassing a reserve fund is one that, within limits, our industry can generally support. If a reserve fund would provide our industry with the confidence that service levels will not decline during short term downturns in the market, then most people in the industry would be willing to pay a small fee in order to enjoy that benefit. From the perspective of an association comprised mostly of single and multi- family home builders, we feel that a proper reserve level is 3 months. The theory behind this number is that it generally takes 3 months to construct a new home. The builder should have the peace of mind to know that if the market turns, he or she will still be able to obtain inspection services on homes that are currently under construction. The building department's current proposal calls for a Our members work in a market that, although it has been good for the last few years, is extremely volatile. There are very few members of our organization who have the reserves to survive for 6 months without generating income. The building department, which is dependent upon the market and our industry for its survival, should not expect to be insulated from potential volatility. B. Structure of Reserve Funs! Our association would be more comfortable with a reserve fund if it were structured as a surcharge (percentage) on all permits, rather than being included as a part of the actual permit charge. This would allow for a better and clearer accounting of the funds as they are collected, and it would ensure that the funds are kept separately from operating funds. Further, I believe that this would keep applicants from having to pay a state surcharge on top of the reserve funds, as I believe they would have to under the proposed structure. We would prefer that any reserve funds be kept and ccllecled separately from permit fees. We would also prefer that the reserve fund surcharge be set at a rate that allows for a fair and equitable "spreading out" of the fee to a longer period of time. In other words, the fund does not need to be built quickly by charging those who will apply for per iii over the neat few months a high fee. V1. Recommendation The Homebuilders Association of Metro Portland can not support the proposal made by city staff (2 year, 102% increase). This proposal would place the City of Tigard at a significantly higher permit fee rate than any of the neighboring jurisdictions, yet Tigard does not provide service that is significantly higher than other jurisdictions. We recommend that a benefit analysis of the different functions that the building department performs be done. We are certain that if this study was done the City could not reasonably justify a 100% cost recovery plan from permit fees. Again, the analysis should begin with the premise that only costs directly related to the enforcement of the state building code should be recouped through permit fees. All other costs should be shared equally by the community. In the absence of further justification for the proposal, we would support an increase in permit fees that would bring the City of Tigard up to the level of fees that the City of Beaverton currently charges. We assume that this increase could be justified prima-facially, and we encourage the city to begin to budget general funds to the building department in recognition of the many functions that the building department performs which either benefit, or are required by, the community. UNDERLYING CRITERIA • 100% of program costs should be recovered from fees A reasonable reserve should be established to allow program services to continue during times.of economic distress or boors PROCESS USED •22 specific services analyzed eOver-all outlook of funds analyzed PROPOSAL 100% of program cots be recovered from fees and approximately a six month reserve be established » 102% increase in building/mechanical fees (51 % per year for 2 years) » 54% increase in plumbing fees (27°1o per year for 2 years) 7% increase in electrical fees new fees for miscellaneous services COST RECOVERY COMPARISON CASE CURRENT PROPOSED 1 30% 56% 2 27% 54% 3 54% 83% 4 69% 103% 5 16% 45% 6 49% 101% 7- BLDG 82% 166% 7- MECH 11% 23% 7- PLMB 72% 107% 7- ELC 155% 166% 8- BLDG 59% 121% 8- MECH 25% 55% 8- PLMB 64% 98% 8- ELC 90% 102% 9 52% 107% 10 81% 164% 11 9% 17% 12 26% 28% 13 35% 38% 14 65% 96% 15 0% 97% 16 27%-73% 90% 17 0% 91% 18 0% 100% 19 0% 107% 20 0% 95% 21 0% 83% 22 45% 101% CASE 1: Permit and inspection service for a plumbing permit for 3 fixtures at a house. CASE 2: Permit and inspection service for a minor residential alteration. CASE 3: Permit and inspection service for a plumbing permit for 7 fixtures in a tenant improvement CASE 4: Plan review, permit and inspection service for a plumbing permit for 11 fixtures and related water and sewer lines for a commercial building. CASE 5: Over the counter plan review, permit and inspection service for a mechanical permit for one rooftop unit on a commercial bldg. CASE 6: Permit and inspection service for a building permit for a small office building. CASE 7: Various services for several permits for a major restaurant remodel. CASE 8: Complete service for a new dwelling. CASE 9: Plan review service for a commercial addition. CASE 10: Plan review service for a new day care building. CASE 11: Mechanical plan review service for a large commercial alteration. CASE 12: Permit and inspection service for an electrical permit for 4 circuits in a commercial alteration. CASE 13: Permit and inspection service for an electrical permit for 2 circuits in a dwelling. CASE 14: Inspection service for a public sewer connection permit. CASE 15: Complete service for a change of address. CASE 16: Reinspection beyond code allowed inspections. CASE 17: Complete service for phasing occupancy on a multi-building project. CASE 18: Complete service for processing a temporary certificate of occupancy. CASE 19: Record retrieval service not related to active permit. CASE 20: Plan review extension service. CASE 21: Permit extension service. CASE 22: Manufactured dwelling installation w U qz J m w w N w w 0 z O J_ co cc T cc 0 ti N O d' N ~ CV C O O N T 1 O r 1 o T o o; o T I O w T ~ . 1 o c Z ~ U Q o CY) w co w Cl) 0 O It rn 00 T 1 0 O O to O LO to T i- N N M M I 1 1 1 1 i ~Q W J U LL 3AM3S3H JO SHINOW M N w 42 co w w N W J H V W J W co O i O O M ;(O RAY O O N N O 0 0 0 u1 0 L o ~ U CD Z Z w m O o rn O v If rn co rn a w J Q U co O co co 'IT N O N r 3AH3S311d0 SHINOW JURISDICTIONAL COMPARISON Tualatin Sherwood Portland Lake Oswego Beaverton Tigard BLDG Same Same +28% +102 +45% +51/102 1979 1979 4126195 211198 10195 MECH Same Same +67 to +117 +33 to +175 + 180 to +200 +511102 (1979) (1979) (resid) (resid) (10195) Can't compare Can't compare comm'I comm'i 5127192 211198 PLMB Same +67 +13 to +39 +33 to +175 +10 +27/54 M (11/12196) . (2/4198) (resid) (10/95) Can't compare comm'I (2/1/98) ELEC NA Same +79 to +122 -9 to +23 -34 to -9 +7 • 214198 1016198 10195 LIMITED NA Same +30 -33 +8 +50 ENERGY 2/4/98 1016198 10195 RESERVE NA, not on NA for bldg/mech/pim 4 months 2 years 9 -12 months Building: TARGET dedicated (not on dedicated (have 15 months) (have > 1 6 months fund fund) year) Electrical: 18 mo for electrical 7 months FUTURE 15% soon Working on Under study No plans Review within 40/6 increase PLANS Dedicated fund next 2 years each year themafter COMPARISON IS TO CURRENT TIGARD FEES (IN + OR - Revised AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF March 9, 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE An Ordinance amending Title 2 of the Tigard Municipal Code to clarify that the authority of the Building Appeals Board does not extend to the provisions of Chapter 14.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code, "Property Maintenance Provisions." PREPARED BY: David Scott IK DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK _ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council amend Title 2 to clarify that the authority of the Building Appeals Board does not e.-,;tend to the provisions of Chapter 14.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code, "Property Maintenance Provisions." STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached ordinance amending Title 2. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Community Housing Task Force recommended to the Council that enforcement and due process for implementing the property maintenance code provisions be through the existing Civil Infractions process. At its February 23, 1999 meeting, the City Council adopted the recommendations of the Community Housing Task Force. This ordinance is necessary to clarify the municipal code in this regard. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. FISCAL NOTES No fiscal impact from this ordinance. I:~citywide~sum~39t2bldgboard.doc Acende Item No. Meeting MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGC TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder DATE: March 2, 1999 SUBJECT: Council Packet Information for the March 9, 1999 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item No. 7 - 69th Avenue Local Improvement District Item No. 7 is a continuation of the hearing from February 23, 1999. City Engineer Gus Duenas advises he will prepare a proposed ordinance for Council's consideration on March 9. This ordinance will be submitted to the Council in this week's Council Newsletter. IAADM\CATHY\COUNCIL\MEMO - 3-9-99 MEETING - 69TH AVE LID.DOC Agenda Item No.,_---,. Meeting of - CITY OF TIGARD Engineering Department Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Mall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503-639-4171 Fax: 503-684-7297 TO: Mayor and City Councilors Bill Monahan, ~City Manager FROM: Gus DuenasA-V~ City Engineer DATE: March 4, 1999 SUBJECT: Ordinance for 69th Avenue LID Formation Attached is the Ordinance for Formation of the 69th Avenue LID (Local Improvement District). The ordinance is ready for Council action, should everything proceed as anticipated during the Public Hearing on March 9, 1999. I have discussed the ordinance with Todd Sheaffer of Specht Development, Inc. He has indicated that the $200,000 contribution by the City is sufficient for them not to remonstrate against the LID. I have included that amount in the ordinance as the City's contribution towards lessening the assessment of each property within the proposed LID boundary. I recommend that City Council proceed with that amount as the ceiling for City contribution and approve the ordinance forming the LID during the March 9th meeting after the conclusion of the Public Hearing. Attachment James Coleman, City Attorney's Office Vannie Nguyen, Engineering Manager MEMORANDUM ITI CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hail Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503-639-4171 Fax: 503.684-7297 TO: Mayor and City Councilors Bill Monahan, City y Manager FROM: Gus Duenas (4V-A~ City Engineer DATE: March 4, 1999 SUBJECT: Ordinance for 69`h Avenue LID Formation Attached is the Ordinance for Formation of the 69th Avenue LID (Local Improvement District). The ordinance is ready for Council action, should everything proceed as anticipated during the Public Hearing on March 9, 1999. I have discussed the ordinance with Todd Sheaffer of Specht Development, Inc. He has indicated that the $200,000 contribution by the City is sufficient for them not to remonstrate against the LID. I have included that amount in the ordinance as the City's contribution towards lessening the assessment of each property within the proposed LID boundary. I recommend that City Council proceed with that amount as the ceiling for City contribution and approve the ordinance forming the LID during the March 9`h meeting after the conclusion of the Public Hearing. Attachment James Coleman, City Attorney's Office Vannie Nguyen, Engineering Manager CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO.99 AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING AND RATIFYING THE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FEBRUARY 9, 1999 AS AMENDED WITH RESPECT TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE 69TH AVENUE LOCAL. IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID #49); DECLARING RESULTS OF THE HEARING HELD WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPROVEMENT; DETERMINING THE BENEFITED PROPERTIES TO BE ASSESSED; ESTABLISHING THE DISTRICT; AND ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE IN CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS BEING PREPARED FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS. WHEREAS, Resolution No. 99-10 was passed by the City Council of the City of Tigard at its regular meeting of February 9, 1999, which described the boundaries of a proposed street improvement assessment district, and which declared the Council's intention to construct street improvements, including curb, gutters, sidewalk, streetlights, storm drainage facilities, sanitary sewer, waterlines, street trees, undergrounding of any overhead utilities, and appurtenances thereto, and to assess the costs for the improvements against the properties within the boundaries which have been found to be specially benefited; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the resolution, legal notice of the hearing scheduled for February 23, 1999 was given by publication in the Tigard Times on February 18, 1999 prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, by the terms of the resolution a hearing was held at 7:30 p.m. on February 23, 1999 at the Town Hall Meeting Room in City Hall located at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard in Tigard, Oregon and was continued to March 9, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of affording an opportunity to any parties affected by the proposal to make objections or remonstrances to the proposed improvements; and WHEREAS, written notice regarding the continuation of the public hearing was given to all property owners in the proposed assessment district ten or more days prior to the continuation of the hearing in accordance with TMC 13.04.040 (b)(1)B; and WHEREAS, the preliminary plans and specifications for the improvements, the estimates of the work to be performed, and the probable costs of the improvements which each lot should pay were available to the public at the meeting and prior to the meeting; and WHEREAS, by the terms of the resolution and public notice, written objections or remonstrances from not less than 66 2/3% by property area of the owners of the properties within the boundaries of the proposed improvement assessment district were invited as provided by TMC 13.04.040; and. WHEREAS, all objections and remonstrances presented prior to the hearing and at the hearing represent less than 66 2/3% by property area within the improvement assessment district, and that the percentage of remonstrances is not a ban to further proceedings in the making of the improvements; and WHEREAS, all proceedings to date have been in conformity with State Statute, the Tigard Charter, Chapter IX, §38, §39, and Tigard Municipal Code, Title 13, and all procedures were regularly and lawfully conducted. ORDINANCE NO.99- I:\citywidebrd\Ordinance for Formation of 691 Avenue LID Page 1 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CI'T'Y OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Resolution No. 99-10, adopted by the City Council on February 9, 1999, and attached and marked as Exhibit "A" shall be adopted as a part of this ordinance subject to the amendments set forth in Sections 5 and 6 of this ordinance. The amendments are a result of the public hearing proceedings, and the amended resolution is hereby approved, ratified, and confirmed. The boundaries of the area henceforth to be known as 69th Avenue Local Improvement District, as described in the resolution, are declared and fixed in accordance with the description. SECTION 2: The City Council, having acquired jurisdiction to order the improvements to be made, does hereby authorize the formation of the local improvement district and directs the Finance Director to prepare the Preliminary Assessment Roll. SECTION 3: The City Council firther authorizes the acquisition of land as provided by State law and the Tigard Municipal Code, and the construction of street improvements within the boundaries of the 69th Avenue Local Improvement District in conformity in all reasonable particulars with the plans and specifications being prepared for this LID. SECTION 4: The estimated costs and expenses of the improvements to be assessed against the specially benefited properties is $1,228,005.00. The estimated costs include the cost of construction and installation of the improvements, advertising, legal, administrative, survey, engineering, notice, supervision, materials, labor, contracts, equipment, inspections and assessment costs; financing costs including interest charges; the costs of necessary property right-of-way or easement acquisition and condemnation proceedings; attorney's fees and any other necessary expenses. SECTION 5: All lands situated within the boundaries described on the attached Exhibit "A" are determined and declared to be a street improvement assessment district, and it is further declared that each lot, part of lot and parcel of land within said boundaries will be especially benefited by said improvements. The estimated cost is $1,228,005.00 for the improvements including land acquisition costs. The City of Tigard shall be a participant in the street improvement assessment district and shall contribute an amount not to exceed $200,000.00 for land acquisition costs to permit construction of the Beveland Street Extension between 68' Avenue and 69th Avenue. The project costs estimated to be $1,228,005.00 shall be assessed, according to benefit, against all lands within the district, except that the City of Tigard shall contribute an amount not to exceed $200,000.00 that shall be used to reduce the costs assessible to the benefited properties. Benefit for the purposes of LID #49 is hereby determined to be derived according to improving both the property's ability to develop as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the Tigard Triangle Design Standards for the City of Tigard, and the property's access to the improvements. SECTION 6: The final costs of the improvements to be assessed shall be determined after completion of all improvements and acceptance of.the improvements by the City of Tigard. The final methods of assessment shall likewise be determined after the improvements are completed and accepted. ORDINANCE NO.99- I:\ciWMdebrdl0rdinance for Formation of 69° Avenue LID Page 2 of 3 SECTION 7: The Tigard City Council finds that the 691h Avenue Local Improvement District improvements are local improvements of the character described in TMC 13.04.010(a) and ORS 310.140, and that they therefore qualify for interim financing pursuant to ORS 223.235. SECTION S: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its enactment by the Council and approval by the Mayor. 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 ORDNANCE N0.99- I:kit.r ide\ord\Ordinance for Formation of 69i° Avenue LID Page 3 of 3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Exhibit "A" RESOLUTION NO. 99- / C) A RESOLUTION DECLARING COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO FORM A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) TO IMPROVE 69TH AVENUE AND CERTAIN OTHER STREETS WITHIN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE IN THE CITY OF TIGARD. WHEREAS, Specht Development, Inc. submitted a petition for formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to construct improvements to the following streets within the City of Tigard: • SW 69' Avenue between the south right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street and the south right-of-way line of the proposed extension of SW Beveland Street (i.e. the south property line of Tax Lots 9100, 8800 and 8600, 2S101AA) • SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68' Avenue and SW 70`h Avenue • SW Franklin Street between SW 68' Avenue and SW 69" Avenue • SW Beveland Street between SW 69' Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69' Avenue and SW 70' Avenue (South side only); and WHEREAS, the proposed improvements include upgrading the streets to full city street standards, including sewer, water, stone drainage facilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and undergrounding of any overhead utilities; and WHEREAS, the Engineering staffprepared a preliminary evaluation report which was submitted to City Council for discussion and direction during the meeting of October 13, 1998; and WHEREAS, the preliminary evaluation report determined that the proposed LID appears feasible and recommended that City Council take the next step in the LID formation process by authorizing the preparation of a preliminary engineering report; and WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the proposed LID, heard the pros and cons about the proposed LID, and provided an opportunity for input by the initiators of the LID and other property owners; and WHEREAS, the City Council by Resolution No. 98-52 authorized the preparation of a preliminary engineering report for the proposed LID; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided additional guidance since the meeting on October 13, 1998 to extend the LID boundary south to Hampton Street, and to include the extension of Beveland Street from 69'h Avenue to 68" Avenue to satisfy the requirements of the Tigard Triangle Street Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has retained the firm of DeHaas and Associates, Inc. to prepare the preliminary engineering report; and WHEREAS, DeHaas and Associates, Inc. has completed the preliminary engineering report, which includes extension of the LID boundary to Hampton Street and the extension of Beveland Street from 69'h Avenue to 68' Avenue; and RESOLUTION NO. 99-A) Page 1 WHEREAS, the preliminary engineering report recommends that City Council proceed with the formation of the LED as proposed in the report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby declares the intention to form a local improvement district (LID) to improve the following streets within the Tigard Triangle in the City of Tigard: • SW 69th Avenue between the north right-of-way line of SW Hampton Street and the south right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street • SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Franklin Street between SW 68thAvenue and SW 69th Avenue • SW Beveland Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue (South side only) SECTION 2: The improvements will include street, storm drain, sanitary sewer, water, sidewalk, lighting, undergrounding power-telephone-TV, and other ancillary improvements necessary to bring the streets up to full City standards. Basic construction will be procured in accordance with City of Tigard construction contract procurement procedures. Portions of construction may be completed by public utilities (sewer, telephone, TV and water). Miscellaneous construction may be provided by City Forces. SECTION 3: The estimate of probable total costs of the improvements is $1,228,005.00. SECTION 4: The methods of assessment shall be as follow: a. Street and Water Quality Improvements 50% of costs on a Frontage Basis % 50% of costs on an Area Basis b. Smarm Drain and Detention 1's_nnrovements 100% of costs on an Area Basis C. Sanitary Sewer Improvements Service extension costs on a Per Each Basis Remaining costs on an Area Basis d. Water Improvements Service extensions and new hydrant costs on a Per Each Basis e. Sidewalk Improvement 100% of costs on a Frontage Basis Street Trees and Barkdus 100% of costs on an Area Basis g. ndergrounding Power. Telephone and TV 100% of costs on an Area Basis RESOLUTION NO.99-L O Page 2 h. Ancillary Improvements 100% of the following costs on an Area Basis: 1) Right-of--way acquisition, including right-of--way and demolition costs related to the taking of right-of-way for Beveland between 69th and 68th. 2) Add catch basin and lateral at NW corner of 69th and Hampton. 3) Reconstruct wheelchair ramp at NW comer of 69th and Hampton, if deemed necessary. 4) Street Lighting SECTION 5: The public hearing to hear remonstrances shall be conducted during the City Council meeting on February 23, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall, Town Hall Meeting Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. SECTION 6: Proper notice shall be given regarding the time and date of the public hearing to hear remonstrances. This notice should include the streets in the proposed L1D and a brief description of the proposed public improvements. PASSED: This "l l!~A day of iP 1999. ATTEST: pezt& City Recorder - City of Tigard I:%CIIyM"VtM%R.esok ien d intent to Forth 6r Avenue LID RESOLUTION NO.99 Page 3 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blond. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503-639-4171 Fax: 503-684-7297 TO: Mayor and City Councilors Bill Monahan, City Manager FROM: Gus Duenas City Engineer DATE: March 4, 1999 SUBJECT: 69th Avenue LID Notices This is to inform you of the actions we have taken to ensure that each property owner in the proposed 69th Avenue LID receives notice of Public Hearing. During the Public Hearing on the 69th Avenue LID conducted on February 23, 1999, I indicated that there was a problem with notice to the property owners in the proposed LID. Not all of the property owners received a written notice of the Public Hearing. The purpose of the notice is to ensure that each of the affected property owners is afforded the opportunity to object or remonstrate against the proposed LID. I recommended that City Council continue the hearing during the March 9, 1999 business meeting to allow the City staff to provide notice to each of the property owners within the proposed LID boundary. Attached is the Affadavit of Mailing with the notice for continuation of Public Hearing on the proposed LID. TMC 13.04.040 requires one publication in the local newspaper and written notices to the affected property owners. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Tigard Times on February 18, 1999. The written notices to each of the property owners, as indicated in the Affadavit of Mailing, rectifies the problem of written notice to each of the property owners within the proposed LID. Attachments c: James Coleman, City Attorney's Office Vannie Nguyen, Engineering Manager Diane Jelderks, Senior Administrative Specialist 3i3 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITY OF TIGARD OREGON STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Greer Gaston, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: That I am a Administrative Specialist for The City of Tigard, Oregon. X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: - City of Tigard Planning Director - Tigard Planning Commission _ Tigard Hearings Officer X Tigard City Council A copy of the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", on the 25th day of February, 1999; said NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING as hereto attached, was posted on an appropriate bulletin board on the n 1a day of n/a and deposited in the United States Mail on the 25th day of February, 1999, postage prepaid. Greer Gaston, Administrative Specialist 1 qff.. Subscribed and swom/affirmed before me on the ~,Cd y of ~ - "C61 OFFICIAL S / DIANE M JELL, NOTARY PUBLIC GREG N NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires:.?LQl COMMISSION NU ..o +AV COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMoEi{ v7. 1999 JAeng\dianej\fonns\affidavi.mst OFFICIAL SEAL DIANE M JELDERKS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 046142 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07. 1999 Ez fi/a/-T A- February 25, 1999 WO'rICE Continuation of Public Dearing for 69th Avenue LID (Local Improvement District) Tuesday, March 9, 1999 7:30 PIV1 City of Tigard Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. (See attachment for additional information) Notice of Public Hearing Proposes! 69th Avenue Local Improvement District The public hearing on the proposed 69"' Avenue LID (Local Improvement District), conducted on February 23, 1999, is continued to the March 9, 1999, City Council meeting. By Resolution No.99-10 passed February 9, 1999, the Tigard City Council declared its intention to form an LID to improve the following streets within the City of Tigard. • ' SW 69th Avenue between the North right-of-way line of SW Hampton Street and the South right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street • SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Franklin Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 69h Avenue • SW Beveland Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue (South side only) The improvements will include street, storm drain, sanitary sewer, water, sidewalk, street trees, undergrounding power, telephone, TV, and other ancillary improvements necessary to bring the streets up to full City standards. Ancillary improvements include right-of-way acquisition, a catch basin and wheelchair ramp at Hampton and street lighting. In compliance with TMC Title 13, Chapter 13.04, Section 13.04.040 a public hearing will be conducted on the proposed district. Basic construction will be performed by construction contract procured in accordance with City procurement procedures. Portions of construction may be completed by public utilities (power, telephone, TV and water). Miscellaneous construction may be provided by City forces. Construction is proposed for the summer of 1999. The properties specially benefited and included in the LID are shown on the attached map. The estimated total cost of the improvements is $1,228,005. All costs are proposed to be paid for by special assessments. The public hearing to hear remonstrances will be resumed during the City Council meeting on March 9,1999 at 7:30 p.m. In City Hall, Town Hall Meeting Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of the hearing is to hear remonstrances. In order to be considered, all written and oral remonstrances must be received by the close of the hearing. The preliminary project design and other additional information are available for public review at: 1. The office of the Engineer DeHaas & Associates, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle Suite 300, AGC Center Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 (503) 682-2450 (Marlin DeHaas) 2. Receptionist Counter Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 TT Public 2/18/99 i-AeNWianeJVneeUn9S%n0Uce of hearing for 69th avenue Ud.doc r cn-tea-yy wca~ • r :.acs I -ID Bo urn dary Alla o Sco%:1'=200' LID Soundory . Dartmouth Street r. WL exhibit R 1 i i Hampton Street Ex Hi 13 -Jr J33 2S101AA-02300 2S101AA-02301 JONES CECIL E DONNA RAE SNYDER ELLA OPDAL AND 12190 SW 69TH AVE 12170 SW 69TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S101AA-02400 2S101AA-02600 LANDMARK FORD INC LANDMARK FORD INC PO BOX 23970 PO BOX 23970 TIGARD, OR 97281 TIGARD, OR 97281 2S101AA-02700 2S101AA-02800 LANDMARK FORD INC MONTGOMERY KENNETH M PO BOX 23970 PO BOX 991 TIGARD, OR 97281 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 2S101AA-02900 2S101AA-03800 POLLOCK DONALD E/JULIA GAIL CARPENTER RICHARD L & 1834 SW 58TH #202 1834 SW 58TH #202 PORTLAND, OR 97221 PORTLAND, OR 97221 2S101AA-03901 2S101AA-04000 CARPENTER RICHARD L POLLOCK DONALD E 1834 SW 58TH #202 1834 SW 58TH #202 PORTLAND, OR 97221 PORTLAND, OR 97221 2S101AA-04200 2S101AA-04300 POLLOCK DONALD E & LANDMARK FORD INC 1834 SW 58TH #202 PO BOX 23970 PORTLAND, OR 97221 TIGARD, OR 97281 2S101AA-04900 2S101AA-05100 MONEGO JOSEPH A/CHERYL A & LANDMARK FORD INC 12300 SW 69TH AVE PO BOX 23970 TIGARD.OR 97223 TIGARD.OR 97281 2S101AA-05200 2S1 LANDMARK FORD INC ROJR & THERESA *JACOOTHY PO BOX 23970 126200 TIGARD, OR 97281 TIG 2S101AA-08300 2S101 83 l ROTH J T JR & THERESA ROTH JA TIMOTHY JR & THERESA 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 12600 SW 2 VE #200 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD+ R 9722-3 2S101AA-08500 2S101AA-08800 ROTH J T JR & THERESA PEIRCE STEPHEN W AND 12600 SW 73ND AVE STE 200 12525 SW 68TH TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S101AA-08706 2S101 ROTH J T JR & THERESA ROTH J T THERESA 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 12 7 D AVE STE 200 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 223 2S101AA-09100 2S101AA-09101 ' POLLOCK DONALD E KINDRICK ALFRED F & DIANNE M 1834 SW 58TH STE 202 12560 SW 70TH AVE PORTLAND, OR 97221 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S101AA-09108 2S101AA-09700 PORTER DENISE & DANA MARK R. 7991 SW MOHAWK ST 12585 SW 68TH AVE TUALATIN, OR 97062 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S101AA-03600 2S101AD-02400 ROTH J T JR & THERESA WESTERN EVANGELICAL SEMINARY 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 PO BOX 23939 TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97281 2S101AD-02700 2S101AD-02800 MCCROSKEY JOHN B MORTON DON R AND CYNTHIA SUE 1380 MORNING SKY CT 3109 NE BROADWAY LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 PORTLAND, OR 97232 2S101AD-02900 2S101AD-03000 ROTH J T JR & THERESA A & KF LLC 12600 SW 72ND AVE #200 7407 SW HUNT CLUB DR TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97223 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF March 9. 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUN 4ARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of Sanitga-Sewer Reimbursement District No 12 PREPARED BY: G.N. Berry B DEPT HEAD OK 0 CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a sewer reimbursement district to construct a sewer as part of the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY Nine property owners near SW Johnson Street and SW 106' Avenue have requested to be provided with sewer service through the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. Under this program, the City would install public sewers to each lot and the owners would reimburse the City for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer at the time of connection to the sewer. If this resolution is approved, bids will be requested from contractors to construct the sewer. The construction contract will require approval by the Local Contract Review Board. The Engineer's Report attached to the proposed resolution provides additional details. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Direct that the resolution be revised. 2. Reject the reimbursement district. FISCAL NOTES Funding is by unrestricted sanitary sewer funds. I.Nd"de%sumlreiml2s.doc AGENDA ITEM # - For Agenda of March 9, 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Transportation System Plan Public Involvement Process PREPARED BY: Laurie Nicholson DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall City Council approve the proposed public involvement process for the Transportation System Plan? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the outlined proposed public involvement process. Staff will then return to City Council with a list of three individuals who will serve with the Planning Commission as the City's primary review group in developing the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP). INFORMATION SUMMARY The following information outlines the proposed public involvement plan for the City's TSP: The first Planning Commission meeting will be held after background information has been collected, and the group has reviewed the Visioning guiding principles to assist in developing broad guiding principles for the TSP. At this first meeting, the group will identify existing system deficiencies, short- term needs, and goals. The second Planning Commission meeting will address future forecasts and needs assessment where comments on possible transportation alternatives will be solicited and areas of refined study may be determined. At this meeting, strategies will be developed for various transportation modes. The third meeting will build on the alternatives and strategies developed in the second meeting. The outcome will result in recommended alternatives for the following modes of transportation: motor vehicle, bicycle, transit, and pedestrian. The fourth meeting will provide an opportunity for citizens to comment on the Draft TSP. Two Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings will be held for government agencies to review and comment on technical aspects of the plan. The following government agencies will be represented on the TAC: Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Washington County, City of Beaverton, City of Tualatin, Tri-Met, Metro, and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. After the Draft TSP is developed, the City will hold a public open house and a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting. Staff and the consultant will revise (as needed) the TSP to reflect input from the open ho,.!se, the TAC, and the joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting. The revised TSP will then go through the public hearings process for adoption into the City's comprehensive plan. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The City Council could recommend other public involvement alternatives. FISCAL NOTES If the City Council proposes additional work for the consultants on the TSP, the City may need to pay additional money to DKS for their work. . ~ k CITY OF TIGARD Community Development ShapingA Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Mayor Nicoll and City Council FROM: Laurie Nicholson, Plan►ang Division DATE: February 22, 1999 SUBJECT: Transportation System Plan: Proposed Public Involvement Strategy As per City Council's direction, staff will proceed and work with the Planning Commission to develop the City's Transportation System Plan. The Planning Commission along with citizens representing bicycle, transit, and business interests will serve as the primary review body for the City's Transportation System Plan. Staff will develop a list of three individuals who can represent these three interests and present them to City Council for approval. The following represents the total proposed public involvement plan for the Transportation Plan: TASK 1: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION Planning events will center on four Planning Commission meetings to provide citizens an opportunity to review and comment at key points in the planning process. As part of the process, an initial Draft Transportation System Plan (TSP) will be developed. Once the initial Draft TSP is developed, an open house for all citizens and a study session with the City Council/Planning Commission will be held for review and comment on the initial Draft. Two Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings will be held, one following the second meeting of the Planning Commission and one to review the initial Draft. The TAC will be comprised of government agencies to review the technical aspects of the TSP. The following agencies will be represented on the TAC: the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Washington County, Tri-Met, Metro, City of Bea:,erton, City of Tualatin, and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The first Planning Commission meeting will be held after background information has been collected, and the group will also review the Visioning guiding principles to assist in developing broad guiding principles for the TSP. At this first meeting, the group will also identify existing system deficiencies, short-term needs, and goals. The second Planning Commission meeting will address future forecasts and needs assessment where comments on possible transportation alternatives will be solicited and areas of refined study may be determined. At this meeting, strategies will be developed for various transportation modes. The third meeting will build on the alternatives and strategies developed in the second meeting and the outcome will result in recommended alternatives for the following modes of transportation: motor vehicle, bicycle, transit, and pedestrian. The fourth meeting will provide an opportunity for citizens to comment on the Draft TSP. After the Draft TSP is developed, the City will hold a public open house and a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting. Based on input from the open house, the TAC, and the joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting, staff and the consultant will revise the TSP to reflect input from these meetings. The revised TSP will then go through the public hearings process for adoption into the City's comprehensive plan. Agenda Rom I L2... Meeting of 3- R-qq MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Bill Monahan FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE: 3/4/99 SUBJECT: Park System Master Plan Adoption Resolution Attached is a revised version of the resolution adopting the Park System Master Plan. The new resolution has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office and addresses the comments and concerns discussed by Council at their March 2nd meeting. In particular, the new resolution makes clear that the Capital Improvement Plan is not adopted as part of the master plan and, if and when adopted, will function as framework plan or tentative project list, with actual expenditure decisions incorporated into the City's regular budget process. 600 NOII THE AST GRAND AVENUE I •OIITLAND, OA[GON 97332 2736 TEL SO! 797 1700 fAX 903 797 1797 IIII 1 ' M ETR0 February 24, 1999 Mayor Jim Nicoli City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 197?23 Dear Mayo Nic Enclosed is the and altemate. P Metro, Transport March 12, 1999. like rel , Burton Executive Officer Enclosure Ilot for the Cities of Washington County JPACT member ase mark your ballot and return to Karen Thackston, ;ion Department. The deadline for returning the ballot is cc: William A. Monahan, City Manager www'm-tro•region.org Recycled paper BALLOT BALLOT BALLOT BALLOT BALLOT ]PACT [VOTE FOR ONE] Member: Rob Drake, Mayor of Beaverton Alternate: Lou Ogden, Mayor of Tualatin Kay Walker, Council, Cornelius Please return your ballots. by March 12, 1999 to: Karen Thackston . Metro Transportation Department 600 NE Grand Avenue Portland, OR 97232-2736 BALLOT BALLOT BALLOT BALLOT BALLOT CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO.99-_ 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 14.04.040 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. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of-1999. Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council thisQ day of 1999. James Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney 3-q- ~q Date f:\cityw(da\prd\39114fte.d= ORDINANCE No. 99- Page 1