City Council Packet - 03/16/1999~`r ~S Si"2~ 'Jr7L1 ~Yf..aJ~'y~a! ' ate' 1WJ.t1 wl ~ 1• 8~ wi~. }2r 1 1 r f d
" CS k.'1 J r y't`„h r
I r 7 i~t3~ t r f vI 7~
,t .c t ~m,'Kt~nr ~fi~•I J 6i~"cr~dh s ~6r~~CS a'' a Y^ rr `s Y„ ,:+3 s ,
rk~ +S< y ' t,<y~r~,.~~ +yh 5+N3/i~~ ~s Y~~z~ 3 ti a
Mfrs. + y~1 3I ~Si t3~~ r A1tifr aA jlvtysfk t y}#A"~ L}
ti 'l µ 1 y1 „yt a' P +4~' L +fr>f) ~ ~ +f~aj. -.MI'FL~ri i*trv r"s7~y't::.94 t $i~
r , n ( txve rJr si +G~ «r r A w.~y,~~ ~S ~31,r,s' u Mr~`+s;~°iatFt a"ice y ~ a• ivv,'r
- r~ Af; +~(4t^ u"'+ ~~r it ~3,~, ynS^ r r-r~r zJ
'N`~y
r 1 - + ~ v t} t M ~ ~ bG t . anr''F ~ r rf f ~ti arj s t! f1Pv` 'NO °Rd
f i~F`f?' Jt4 ~s 3 n~f r yF }a El. cT~tr Ck'`~$ £
' ~r _ t ! UU j: 't r fh ~ ~ v n b.,t .,~+.3 Girvt rr T ~ i u'~f+ Is i r« I '~91, ~D
i ~ ,T a,., .v' r } z, y3 4 t s r t Y h,~y_ . .+a+~h q<~•~+ s + i r -~~.,i- ya f.J i1 7 ,,~}i[ } rat r; r•r~i i~~t r t`~A ~fi :r/a
r ' J ~ ( X r M ,i3- f xwFv n s t y r u~ K Sy~~*r~ iaR~ A y y° ~ q
t - + r, G > r t r +Y~ t,v sst Jj'+•/~t7 4 r K ~Kt}'
r t t t ~ r~ T ~ i f ~ 1+1 {kr !hti Y
r ~i ! ~ .~r~ i r t ~21t.• ~Wr~SK+ + t ksfnY'~".t~~n ~ ^k,~~vt5
b ~ "t1. ~l.~u ~t~~ 1'4 # 1'S+r ~Q~' y ,1'^'."! 'Y;` .EAj r
Fitt r 1 f i yyv4t{
is c a r r~ c -.fad dit rs J t u r a
r t ~ n~ t t, s ~ a a Ys/y e + }'rrr t s~
L i + r _ qty d,. 13r 7r~ " ~ J Fr t ~?.9r ~~r~~1i1.c{~'Jt i ~'r
( ~ ~ > nwk~ut t~ ! ~k J ~if ts-u.J j_ n lW`„ P f ,<^4~.
~ ~~+~Ptr r1 "~;Ef S'+ ~,X rtir<'` ~~fl ',~+~yhcTi f~~i?'rf
C p
r
r 1y ;
a ;
r
4
r~ r
-MEET
VCIL
C K
- _t k y t Imo. L~
1
1 1~
S 41 J J
t
{7 w ~ 1 ~ss~~1'~y rTr 5
` ' s t a~ t
r Mr F J 7-t,I
Y _ r y~~G t ~~n-S Fry, Zr. k~ Sie
t n h~
1 z
k ~ ~ ,1 J ~ dr z n i
i ~ 4 t, ss d r' xt,} , , r d ~C< "Y ~tx ~l
- ~ ~ k`r, b' i J~ tti; + k r w Kr is I ~u r f~ ~ ,yr. rk
klr;,rditt~'L"' r rw R r ~ t~ 1 A..rM di.~ Cr, ? v.9} ~'y~ ra+~~,nS
j t Fr y`2 4 s y "rt z'r+.'h Z<1
-J r -,N 't
r riY.Y I. r ( 7 ,t ~h tip Jt}f t t„ki ®R at. u a s~4s i
- r Y, f~ t"n 4 rk { r i A w ' ~ 4~- 'Y^ r1 i NR,) ~hri, !d
d"~0'~r~wi~"~a~+~~aF 1k
'5 k~ ~ 1 wM r e'k~>4,>• it r z' J' ~ iY ~ rr 3~''i 9 ~t' s t ~d
SX ~d M~J ~ y T J 3 ~ 4 F' t +S V 1'U
fif'r t +3'ri },'E ; i$ii a
f7 yL~qrJ<t 3 f n A r',F
j ~ 7 `r sc S d t ~ fi } f J tk Rack' ~,,w •~,{~,i,
}'t< rS 1,51 +~P4'r• ! ~tT Y~y . ~;~r . `tfn f ~ r v., . ` j ~ 7 ^r Iii. r 4.r '{Y~~ rt"~ r. ~ + ar4''f,r;;a "'P
fie
+ Tr ai s t; wr
1 L r ~i(C r 3 i
i 1;4>4~.&rt L,~'?J¢ 'r1'v + r TA~s"zirrtc r,}.v~yi ? d :?7~ _'t'awfY
*lC ,s rh b H II "r ,
sh~-vyr ~h y;.,. ~ J.~' ,tf; r 4 ^fi',.4~¢ .J r• S I
X~4TMf'a r~ ,~7T = <,.u ` I;~ r t 2 ' +'.d. ' 1 i C F.
'z TA14 :
i
t
R _ 3i
1 : .sl 'V ~i
4,
a ~x
~ y
if '
r.
REVISED 3012099
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. Visitors 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 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and
Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as
much lead-time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday
preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or
684.2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 16,1999 - PAGE 1
1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
MARCH 16,1999.6:30 PM
6:30 PM
1. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the
provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (h) & (f) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues, and exempt public records. As you are
aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this
meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed
to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session.
2. WORKSHOP MEETING
• Call to Order: Mayor Nicoli
® Pledge of Allegiance
• Council Communications & Liaison Reports
• Call to Staff and Council for Non Agenda Items
7:00 PM
3. FINAL ORDER - ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (SUB 98.00091PDR 98.00101VAR 98.0010)
The request is to build a 58-lot Planned Development Subdivision on a 16.41 acre site.
This site also involves a request for a Variance to the maximum street grade.
LOCATION: The subject parcels are east of SW 109th, north of the Summerfield
Subdivision, south of the Canterbury Woods Condominiums, and west of Hoodview
subdivision and Marion Estates subdivisions. WCTM 2S110DA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200
and 00500. ZONES: Single-Family Residential (10,000 Square Feet); R-3.5. The
purpose of the R-3.5 zoning district is to establish large urban residential home sites.
Planned Development; PD. The purposes of the PD Overlay zone are to provide a
means for creating planned environments through the applicatiop of flexible standards
which allow for the application of new techniques and new technology in community
development which will result in a superior living arrangement, to facilitate the efficient
use of land; and to preserve to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape
features and amenities through the use of a planning procedure that can relate the type
and design of a development to a particular site, among other purposes. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.48, 18.80,
18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.134, 18.138, 18.160
and 18.164.
• Community Development Department
• Council Motion: Set Consideration of this Item Over to April 13,1999
7:25PM
4. POTENTIAL ROAD BOND PROJECTS
O Engineering Department
COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 16,1999 - PAGE 2
14
7:45 PM
5. LONG-TERM WATER SOURCE DISCUSSION
e Public Works Department
8:15 PM
6. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES TO PARK IMPROVEMENTS
e Finance Department
8:30 PM
7. COMMUNITY EVENTS DISCUSSION
e Administration Department
8:45 PM
8. DISCUSSION OF TEMPORARY SIGNS
e Administration Department
9:00 PM
9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
9:20 PM
10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
10.1 Consider Amending Tigard Municipal Code Title 14 to Provide that Fees for the
Building Code Administration Program be Established by Resolution CXO -
10.2 Consider Increased Fees for the Building Code Administration Program k5 C?Q , t g
10.3 Update on City Hall and Library Window Repair Project
9:35 PM
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the
provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (h) & (f) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues, and exempt public records. As you are
aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this
meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed
to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session.
9:50 PM
12. ADJOURNMENT
I:\AD M\CATHY\CCA\990316. DOC
COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 16,1999 - PAGE 3
Agenda Item No. 44, 1
Meeting of 5 N, , qq
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL.
WORKSHOP MEETING
MEETING MINUTES MARCH 16,1999
Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton and Ken
Scheckla
Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan, Community Development Director Jim Hendryx;
Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; City
Recorder Cathy Wheatley
1. 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), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt
public records, current & pending litigation issues.
Mayor Nicoli recessed the Executive Session at 6:50 p.m. to Study Session.
Bill Monahan, City Manager, said that his office would contact the Mayor on Monday to see if
the Mayor wanted to meet with Liz Newton on Wednesday while he was on vacation. He said
that staff would remind the Washington County Mayors of the upcoming meeting next week.
He pointed out Item 10.2, the new resolution stating that if the Council adopted the fee increase,
it would be for a one-year period. Councilor Patton noted that the study on fees would be
completed within the next year.
Mr. Monahan reminded the Mayor that he was scheduled to speak to the Morninghill
Homeowners Association about water in April. He mentioned that the Association was willing
to do a broader notification if the City wanted them to.
Mr. Monahan asked when Council wanted to schedule his contract review (normally in April)
and the revisiting of the Council ground rules. He noted that the April 13 and April 27 meetings
would be primarily devoted to water. Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, confirmed that the
budget meetings were scheduled for May. Mayor Nicoli asked staff to schedule a 30-minute
time slot in April for Council to discuss how it wanted to approach Mr. Monahan's review. Mr.
Monahan suggested holding the discussion next week while he was gone.
Mayor Nicoli suggested tentatively scheduling the revisiting of the Council ground rules for the
April workshop. Mr. Monahan indicated that staff could schedule it for that meeting but he
pointed out the other agenda items already scheduled, including a possible joint meeting with
the School Board on that night, a meeting with the Library Advisory Board, and a dicussion with
Mr. Lowry on water project financing.
Mr. Monahan mentioned a concern brought up by the Mayor regarding the information on water
that was posted on the City's webpage and published in Cityscape. Cathy Wheatley, City
Recorder, distributed the draft article for the Cityscape and the webpage information. He
explained that staff based the webpage primarily on Mr. Wegner's report to the Council
responding to water quality issues raised about river water, not on a comparison of the Portland
and Willamette River scenarios. He said that staff would add additional information to the
webpage to present comparative information about the two proposals.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 1 MARCH 16, 1999
Mr. Monahan said that staff published a lot of water quality information in Cityscape because
that was the primary question people were asking. He commented that staff got interesting
feedback from people when they informed them that Tigard has not always received Portland
water over the last several years. He said that staff would clarify that in Cityscape. He noted
that they have also described the process and the comparison of the options.
Mr. Monahan asked if staff was overdoing it with the information they proposed to include
about health issues and water quality. Mayor Nicoli explained that the issue brought to his
attention was that it was not clear on the webpage whether or not the information presented
represented the City's position. He said that, while he thought it was fine to put the technical
information on the webpage, it was important to make it clear where it came from.
Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, explained that Jeff Baumann, Wilsonville Public Works
Director, spearheaded the report for both Tigard and Wilsonville. He said that both cities were
hearing the same questions and staff saw no reason to duplicate their efforts in answering them.
Mayor Nicoli spoke to clarifying that staff generated this technical information to answer
questions from the community and that these documents have not been approved or disapproved
by the City Council. He emphasized the importance of making it clear that the City Council has
not taken a position.
Councilor Scheckla asked if the Citizens for Safe Water Committee was getting this information
also. Mr. Wegner said that staff would present the report to the Water Advisory Task Force
(which included a representative from that committee) next. week.
Mayor Nicoli asked staff to refer to the Portland water system, as opposed to the Bull Run, in its
documents because Portland made it clear that their proposal was for a combination of Bull Run
and well field water. Mr. Wegner said that staff was working on doing so.
In response to a questions from Mayor Nicoli about Agenda Item No. 3, Mr. Monahan
explained that staff needed direction from Council to set this item over to April 13. The 120-
day rule was waived at the request of the applicant (who was preparing the findings).
2. WORKSHOP MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Nicoli called the meeting to order at
Y Roll Call
Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton and Ken
Scheckla
Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; City Engineer Gus Duenas, Community
Development Director Jim Hendryx, Finance Director Wayne Lowry,
Assistant to the City Manager Liz Newton, Code Enforcement Officer Matt
Scheidigger, Public Works Director Ed Wegner, and City Recorder Cathy
Wheatley.
Council Communications: None
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 2 - MARCH 16, 1999
Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None
3. FINAL ORDER - ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-
0010/VAR 98-0010)
Mr. Monahan recommended approving the request from the applicant in the Erickson Heights
subdivision to continue the consideration of the findings to April 13 in order to allow proper
notification. He referred to the applicant's letter extending the 120-day rule.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to continue this item to the
April 13,1999, meeting.
Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors
Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton and Ken Scheckla voted "yes.")
4. POTENTIAL ROAD BOND PROJECTS
Gus Duenas, City Engineer, presented the list of potential road bond projects using a
PowerPoint presentation. He mentioned that the projects were not Listed in order of importance.
He said that staff has already initiated the RFP for design consultants for the Gaarde Street from
Hwy 99W to 12151 Avenue, and should have a consultant hired by mid-April. He explained that,
while they would design the road as one project, they would construct it as two projects. He
said that he was considering using TIF funds for one project, although both projects could go on
the road bond.
Mr. Duenas confirmed to Councilor Patton that development would build Gaarde Street from its
current terminus to Quail Hollow. The City would build the north leg from Quail Hollow west
to Walnut Street to complete the Gaarde Street - Walnut Street connection. He said that the
developers have turned in plans for Quail Hollow west and Quail Hollow east but have not
started on that segment.
Mr. Duenas indicated that the 12151 Avenue from Gaarde Street to Walnut Street project could
be a future MSTIP 3 project. He noted that the Walnut Street expansion from 1215` to 135th
already was an MSTIP 3 project.
Mayor Nicoli asked how much money was in the TIF fund for the urban services area. Mr.
Duenas said that it was around $600,000. Mayor Nicoli commented that, by the time they did
these projects, that amount would increase by another $500,000, depending on how quickly they
annexed other property. He asked if the TIF money generated from the Walnut Island before
annexation, went into Tigard's TIF fund or was set aside for the urban services area.
Mayor Nicoli said that he had hoped to see projects on Bull Mountain Road. Mr. Duenas said
that he was trying not to venture too far out of Tigard. Mayor Nicoli spoke to using the TIF
funds to build projects now. Mr. Duenas mentioned a potential project at the Bull Mountain
Road/Rorshack Road intersection that needed immediate attention.
Mr. Duenas stated that staff proposed widening 1215` Street from Walnut Street to North Dakota
Street to three lanes in order to match the section that was completed north of North Dakota with
the 1989 road bond money. He mentioned installing sidewalks, underground drainage, and
street lights also where needed.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 3 - MARCH 16, 1999
Mr. Duenas said that the Walnut Street from Tiedeman Avenue to 121st Avenue project was a
logical candidate for MSTIP 3 if they did not put it in the road bond. He commented that he did
not know what kind of support they would get from the neighbors because they needed to take
right-of-way for the road widening.
Mr. Duenas mentioned that the realignment of Scoffins Street has been on the books for years,
"needing only money and the courage to move forward". He explained that his rough cost
estimates to purchase the right-of-way, including the land through the apartment complex, were
based on $25 per square foot.
Mr. Duenas said that staff had been waiting on development to improve Burnham Street from
Main Street to Hall Boulevard but development has been very slow in coming. He said that the
road needed widening and reconstruction.
Mr. Duenas said that staff tried to figure out a way to remove the traffic barrier on North Dakota
Street, as recommended by DKS. He mentioned one possibility of running a new north-south
street from North Dakota to Tigard Street, and directing the main thrust of the traffic out to 115th
and 1215` Avenues. He said that doing so would allow them to avoid redoing the North Dakota
bridge (a huge expense). He mentioned a possible one-way street, but agreed with Mayor Nicoli
that it would be very controversial.
Councilor Moore suggested discussing with the School Board what the District intended to do
with its property just south of the intersection with Tigard Street.
Mr. Duenas said that staff submitted the Greenburg Road, from-Washington-Square-to-
Tiedeman-Avenue, project for federal funding. He mentioned that it was 12th in priority ranking
at this time. He explained that this project would widen Greenburg from a point just west of
Cascade Boulevard to Tiedeman, fix the intersection and approaches, and improve the pavement
type from Washington Square Road to Tiedeman. He mentioned the possibility of a five-lane
section because this road led to and from a regional center.
Mr. Duenas indicated that the Greenburg Road, from-Washington-Square-Drive-to-Hall-
Boulevard, project could be an MSTIP 3 project. He noted the cemetery location which meant
improvements would need to be constructed on the other side.
Mr. Duenas reviewed the location of the "Wall Street" extension, a new street connecting
Hunziker to Hall. He recommended a combination of LID and City funding for the 79`h Avenue
project from Bonita to Durham Road project. He mentioned working with the neighborhood to
find a solution acceptable to both them and the City.
Mayor Nicoli commented that the cost of this project would be high because of the severe
problems with 79`h Avenue. Mr. Duenas pointed out that many of the property owners along
79 Avenue signed non-remonstrances and did not do the improvements at the time of
development. He said that, as a matter of principle, staff believed that the property owners
should participate in the improvements. He mentioned that staff knew that a signal would be
needed eventually at the intersection, and therefore would design and install the appropriate
conduits to avoid tearing the street up later.
Councilor Moore asked if the repairs to Bonita Road would be done at the same time as the
intersection. Mr. Duenas said that staff could program that improvement.
Mr. Duenas remarked that the State rating for the Tigard Street bridge (assigned five years ago)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 4 - MARCH 16, 1999
was 61 but six months ago they re-assigned it a higher rating of 69, meaning that somehow it
improved over time. He noted that bridges rated higher 50 were not eligible for the bridge
replacement funds.
Councilor Moore asked about the Tiedeman/Grant and North Dakota bridges. Mr. Duenas said
that the Tiedeman/Grunt bridge received funding but the North Dakota bridge did not receive a
low enough rating to qualify for the bridge replacement funds. He emphasized the need to do
the Tigard Street bridge because of increased traffic and flooding problems.
Mr. Duenas mentioned that, according to the DKS study, they would need to widen 72°d Avenue
from 99W to Hunziker to five lanes if they did not build Atlanta Street. He explained why
Atlanta Street would not go through, as it was in the wrong location to be really effective, and
the Triangle plan did not call for its relocation to a more effective route. He said that he applied
for federal funding for this project but it has not done well in the rankings, landing somewhere
in the middle.
Mayor Nicoli commented that the federal government was supposed to give every city a project
with those funds. Mr. Duenas concurred that politics has entered into the decision. He said that
right now the federal government was evaluating the projects based on the technical criteria but
the political factor would influence the apportionment of the money throughout the region.
Mr. Duenas commented that, if the City did the Wall Street extension and straightened Scoffins,
then it also needed to expand Hunziker from 72°d to Hall to three lanes. He described the
location of the trees on the property through which the Murdock Street extension would run,
noting that most of the trees were north of the road extension. He said that they would also
widen the existing Murdock Street and install sidewalks from 103`d down to the school on 97`h.
He mentioned the expansion and installation of sidewalks and drainage for Sattler Street from
100 to 98".
Mr. Duenas noted that the estimated cost for all projects was $50 million. Mayor Nicoli
commented that he realized that many of the projects had alternative funding sources. He spoke
to addressing the need for sidewalks and lighting on all the major streets in the city. Councilor
Moore pointed out that a Council goal included the transportation and safety projects in the
Transportation System Plan, such as sidewalks. Mr. Duenas said that the job of the Task Force
was to evaluate the projects and make recommendations to Council on which ones to build.
Mayor Nicoli asked what happened if they went for a 15-year bond instead of a 10-year bond.
Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, explained that a 15-year bond had lower ratings but a higher
interest cost, and therefore the City would pay more over 15 years for the same amount of bonds.
Councilor Moore mentioned additional consideration of a park bond and space needs.
Mayor Nicoli said that he would like to try for more projects and money but phase the projects
over five to six years. Councilor Moore commented that the Task Force would review financial
options.
Councilor Hunt asked if this list was considerably more ambitious than the last one. Mr. Duenas
explained that he presented a "wish list" totaling $50 million but he thought that $20 million
was a more reasonable amount. He said that the last bond was for $8.5 million.
Councilor Moore mentioned another issue for discussion: undergrounding utilities at the time of
u street project (which added cost to the project). He commented that they might save
themselves some money with more projects, as most of these projects involved major facilities.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 5 - MARCH 16, 1999
Mr. Lowry said that the City could use TIF money as part of the debt service to lower the tax
rate, if the projects were TIF eligible. He said that the fees collected in the in-lieu-of-
undergrounding account held $150,000.
The Council discussed using urban services TIF money for certain projects and asking the
County to put in more money for the county road portions.
Mr. Monahan said that Mr. Lowry suggested adding an agenda item on possible road bond
project alternative funding to the April 20 workshop and inviting the Task Force members to
attend.
5. LONG-TERM WATER SOURCE DISCUSSION
Mr. Wegner reviewed the tentative schedule for public comment on the long term water source:
public hearings on March 23, April 13, and April 27. He said that he knew of at least four
organized groups who wanted to testify: Citizens for Safe Water, Willamette Water Supply
Agency, Intergovernmental Water Board, and the Citizens Advisory Task Force. He mentioned
the probability that individuals would also want to testify.
Councilor Patton asked if Portland expressed an interest in making another presentation. Mr.
Wegner said no. He stated that they have not asked either Murray Smith & Associates or
Portland to speak. He mentioned three documents on governance which the Council would
receive in the Friday packet: the letter from Commissioner Sten, the memo he presented last
week, and the legal opinion
Councilor Scheckla asked if the answers given to people during the Portland and MSA
presentations satisfied the people and eliminated the issue for them. Mr. Wegner noted the
question-and-answer sessions provided each time a presentation was made to the Citizens Task
Force. He said that nothing staff said would change the minds of the Citizens for Safe Water
members or of those strongly in favor of the Willamette River. He said that staff has tried to
educate the people in the middle who were trying to decide.
Mayor Nicoli proposed limiting next week's public comment period to individual testimony
only. He suggested alternating speakers for the Willamette and the Portland scenarios and
limiting the item to one and a half hours. He said that any individual who did not get to speak
on March 23 would go first on April 13 before the organized groups made their presentations.
The Council discussed the management procedures for the public hearings. Councilor Hunt
favored limiting the time on each individual testimony and allowing more people the
opportunity to talk. Mayor Nicoli mentioned a two-to-three minute time limit on testimony. He
said that whoever signed up first would speak first and that alternating between both sides was
the fairest way to handle the testimony.
Mr. Monahan summarized the Council discussion as hearing from the general public at the
March 23 meeting, listening to held over individual testimony, hearing the Task Force report,
and hearing the group presentations on April 13, and making a decision on April 27. Mayor
Nicoli commented that the Council might want to change the schedule as it got closer to the end.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 6 - MARCH 16, 1999
Bonnie Bishop, Citizens for Safe Water, asked for clarification, commenting that she had
understood that the Task Force would determine the format of how it conducted its business.
Mayor Nicoli explained that they were discussing how the Council would handle its public
hearing; it had nothing to do with the Task Force. Mr. Monahan clarified that the Council was
not restricting the Task Force on how it made its presentation. He explained that the meeting
next week was for general public testimony and did not involve the Task Force. He mentioned
that the Task Force was discussing how it wanted to make its presentation.
The Council continued to discuss the hearing procedures. Mr. Monahan said that staff would
write up the Council ground rules for the hearing as discussed tonight for distribution to the
press and the Task Force. Mayor Nicoli suggested alerting the organized groups that might want
to make a presentation that they should request a time slot in advance. The Council discussed
what time limit to set for group presentations. Councilor Moore encouraged written testimony.
Mayor Nicoli suggested that Council hold the hearing at 6:30 p.m. and complete the rest of its
business after the hearing. Mr. Monahan noted that historically the Council has held public
hearings at 7:30 p.m. He recommended taking care of as much Council business as possible
between 6:30 to 7:30 p.m., and then holding the hearing. The Council discussed how long to
allow for testimony at the hearing, agreeing on two hours as an appropriate time period.
The Council directed staff to contact the group presenters to find out how long each wanted to
testify on April 13. Then Council would review and allot time periods up to a maximum of 15
minutes while allowing everyone an opportunity to speak. Councilor Patton requested using a
timer to insure that citizens kept to the assigned time limit. Mr. Monahan reviewed how the
timer worked.
Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, said that she would check with the Tigard Times to see if they
had time to change their advertisement (due last Friday). Mayor Nicoli said to make the change
through a press release.
Mayor Nicoli asked to put the list of speakers on the overhead projector as a means of moving
people quickly forward for their opportunity to testify. Councilor Hunt suggested that the
Council ask no questions as a means of keeping the process moving along. Mayor Nicoli said
that it was up to the Councilors whether or not they wanted to ask questions.
Mayor Nicoli asked staff to provide columns on the sign up sheet for "Willamette River option,"
"Portland option," and "Other."
The Council agreed to set a three-minute time limit for individual testimony. The Council
agreed that an individual who was part of a group could testify both as an individual and as part
of the group presentation.
6. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES TO PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Lowry presented the alternatives available to Council to fund the $21.7 million of proposed
park improvements using a PowerPoint presentation. He said that he understood that the
Council did not adopt the 10-year CIP plan attached to the Parks Master Plan when it adopted
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 7 - MARCH 16, 1999
the Master Plan on March 9.
Mr. Lowry discussed the existing revenue sources: Parks system development charges, Parks
CIP fund, and park user fees. He explained that the Parks CIP fund was the money left over
from the five-year parks serial levy plus the Tupling gift of $100,000 towards parks. He stated
that the general fund was not available for capital improvement projects, as it was the source for
the City's operating money. He noted that the park user fees raised only $15,000 to $20,000 a
year.
Mayor Nicoli asked for additional information in park user fees. Mr. Lowry said that they
rented the shelters and ballfields. Mr. Monahan explained that the rates were intended to cover
the cost of a maintenance person to clean up after the event. Mayor Nicoli asked to schedule a
discussion of increasing fees (with a review of what other cities did) on a future agenda.
Mr. Lowry reviewed the Parks SDCs, last updated in 1996. He mentioned Tigard's unique
assessment of commercial properties. He noted that the revenues projected out to 2006
(averaging $300,000 to $350,000 a year) declined over time as development decreased. He
commented that he hoped that, by the end of the year, the revenues improved over the $280,000
projected for 1998/99. He said that he believed that the Parks CIP plan included the
assumptions that the City would increase the SDC rates and charge SDCs in the county, thus
generating the projected $450,000 per year revenues.
Mr. Lowry reviewed the standard potential funding sources: local-option levy, general
obligation bonds, and revenue bonds. He explained that the local-option levy was the post-
Measure 50 way to do a serial levy (10 years and only for capital purposes) and required a vote
of the people. He explained that they could either assess a rate of $.71/$1,000 or ask for a dollar
amount of $21.7 million. If they assessed a fixed rate, then they would collect a little more
money each year as valuations increased. He commented that he did not think that the park
planners took inflation into account. He said that he thought local-option levies worked well for
capital expenditures but not for operations
Mr. Lowry noted that the general obligation bond also required a vote authorizing whatever
amount requested by the Council. He stated that the question was actually how much of the tax
rate the Council wanted to tie up with the bond and for how long. A 10 year bond meant
$.91/$1,000 while a 20 year bond meant $.58/$1,000. He pointed out that the useful life of the
improvements would be over by the time a 20-year bond was paid off.
Councilor Hunt asked what the main difference was between local-option and general-obligation
bond. Mr. Lowry explained that with the general-obligation bonds, the City borrowed the
money all at once. With the local-option, the City established a tax flow each year from
property tax but it did not borrow money. He said that one method incurred interest and avoided
inflation while the other avoided interest and incurred inflation.
Mr. Lowry explained how general obligation (GO) bonds could be split or staged. He said that
revenue bonds were similar to GO bonds except the City pledged a different source of revenue
other than property taxes, such as system development charges (provided the projects were
eligible for SDCs). He said that this could drop the 10-year rates of the local option levy or the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 8 - MARCH 16, 1999
GO bond by II cents, assuming the City collected $350,000 in SDCs. He confirmed that the
City had to use SDCs for capital capacity improvements. He said that the question was whether
or not Council wanted to tie up its SDCs for the next 10 years on these projects or did it want to
collect taxes for these projects and use the SDCs for other projects that came up.
7. COMMUNITY EVENTS DISCUSSION
Mr. Monahan said that this was a continuation of a prior discussion of the Balloon Festival,
direction from Council on its goal of determining a level of support for community events, and
input from the visioning process.
Ms. Wheatley mentioned the Council philosophy adopted in October 1997 to consider a
community event if it was for the citizens of Tigard, showcased the city to residents and others,
and provided an opportunity for non-profit organizations to raise money through an event. She
listed the events which the City has sponsored in the past: Balloon Festival, Fourth of July,
Country Daze, Make a Difference Day, Train Days, and the Holiday Tree Lighting. She noted a
suggestion from the Visioning Action Plan Committee to hold an open house for new citizens.
Ms. Wheatley reported that the American Legion no longer wanted to sponsor Country Daze.
Mayor Nicoli said that he agreed with Mayor Rob Drake of Beavercon's suggestion to hold Train
Days every other year. Ms. Wheatley commented that, after 12 years, staff has maximized the
size of the Holiday Tree Lighting event, unless they expanded it to the library parking lot. She
mentioned the need to replace a major amount of lighting next year. She observed that it might
now be a budget question of how much of the building they wanted to light.
Councilor Hunt suggested asking the School Board if they wanted to hold Train Days again.
Mayor Nicoli described how the teachers used Train Days very effectively in their science and
history curricula. He commented that he did not think that the District staff gave the same
presentation to the Board as it did to the Council regarding their innovative use of Train Days.
He noted that both the kids and the staff enjoyed the event.
Councilor Patton spoke to discussing how the Council wanted to approach community events in
the future. She mentioned the new approach for social service agencies: a Subcommittee to
review applications and present recommendations to Council. Mr. Monahan said that he did not
recall whether staff has received applications for community events, although they were
accepting them if they came in.
Councilor Patton said that she thought that the Subcommittee could review the community
events applications also this year for recommendation to Council but in the long run Council
needed to decide on its process. She asked if the Council wanted to take a more active role in
soliciting certain kinds of community events or maintain its current process.
Mayor Nicoli agreed that that would be a good discussion. He asked what role should the City
play in events - active participation or silent partner? He pointed out that community events did
not occur without City participation, namely Public Works and Police. He suggested reviewing
the calendar and filling in any gaps with appropriate events. He pointed out that the high school
Homecoming Parade in October was actually a community event.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 9 - MARCH 16, 1999
Councilor Patton pointed out that citizens knew that the City was committed to the Holiday Tree
Lighting but not that it supported other events, such as the Fourth of July or Country Daze. She
said that the other events had to come each year to Council for approval.
Councilor Moore commented that the Council needed to identify what events it wanted to
support, and how much it would give to support the events. Mayor Nicoli suggested recognizing
the annual community events so that they did not have to come to Council each year for
approval. He noted that the financial issues were another discussion.
Councilor Hunt noted that everyone was in agreement or, which events were held. He supported
asking the Subcommittee to use the same process developed for the social service agencies, and
to make recommendations on how much money to give to each community event.
Councilor Scheckla mentioned that the American Legion lost money on the Country Daze
celebration for a couple of years, and decided to pull out when the loss reached a significant
level. The Council discussed finding another sponsor for Country Daze and the City
contributing funding. Ms. Wheatley mentioned a Visioning committee suggestion to develop a
handbook for community events to inform volunteers and sponsors about the variety of permits
and other required actions necessary to put on an event.
The Council discussed whether the Country Daze event had to be held downtown. Mayor Nicoli
mentioned that a downtown group originally created the Country Daze event but became
"burned-out" after a while. Councilor Patton commented that "burn-out" was a risk with all the
community events, citing the Fourth of July organizers who wanted to move on to something
else after 12 years of working the event.
Councilor Moore asked if the City was taking on too many community events. He pointed out
that Beaverton held only two events: Good Neighbor Days and A Taste of Beaverton. He
suggested possibly concentrating their efforts on one or two major events.
Mayor Nicoli agreed with listing the events recognized and sponsored by the City (whether with
cash or in-kind work), so that those groups would know that they did not need to ask the Council
for its support every year, only how much the Council would give to support the event. He
spoke to developing an avenue for groups with new event ideas.
The Council discussed Tigard Daze. Councilor Hunt suggested holding it down at Cook Park
with a parade on Hall Boulevard. Mayor Nicoli mentioned another option of holding Tigard
Daze on the same weekend as Homecoming. Jim Hendryx, Community Development
Director, said that he could bring up Tigard Daze to the newly formed downtown group to see if
they were interested in maintaining it in the downtown. Mayor Nicoli suggested approaching
both the Legion and the downtown group regarding Country Daze. If neither was interested, the
Council would wait to see if another group stepped forward, possibly to move the event down to
Cook Park.
Mayor Nicoli directed Mr. Hendryx to contact the downtown group but not to push any
particular event elements on them, just ask if they would like to sponsor the event, with or
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 10 - MARCH 16, 1999
without the parade.
The Council discussed asking the Subcommittee to develop a list of recognized community
events. Councilor Patton spoke to a resolution officially recognizing the events. She said that
the Subcommittee could review the community evert applications, identify appropriate
community events, and assign a dollar amount.
Councilor Moore commented that he thought that the Council wanted to make the final call on
community events. Councilor Hunt pointed out that they wanted to do the same for the social
service agencies, and the Subcommittee process would not be any different.
Mr. Monahan asked what process the Council wanted for new community events. Mayor NicoIi
suggested that new groups present their ideas to the Council at a meeting. He spoke to including
in the resolution, a provision to re-adopt the resolution every two years in order to keep the list
current and allow future Councils to re-affirm the events. Ms. Wheatley mentioned the
upcoming 40"' birthday celebration for Tigard in 2001.
Mayor Nicoli asked if the City wanted to do something special to recognize the year 2000, such
as dedicating artwork or developing a history of the area. Mr. Monahan reported that a Lake
Oswego volunteer had called him to find out what Tigard had planned. He said that Lake
Oswego had events spread out from September to the end of the year, leading up to a paid gala
event on New Year's Eve.
8. DISCUSSION OF TEMPORARY SIGNS
Mr. Monahan mentioned that Councilor Hunt asked to revisit this issue originally discussed four
months ago. He noted that more temporary signs appeared with the better weather and the
recent election. He reviewed Councilor Hunt's previous suggestion for handling temporary
signs: immediately disposing of temporary signs illegally located in the public right-of-ways
instead of storing them at Public Works for pick-up by the owner.
Councilor Hunt said that he wanted to see the Council either put more teeth into the ordinance or
eliminate it altogether. He suggested either immediately destroying the signs or charging a fee
to the sign owner when he/she picked up the sign at Public Works. He emphasized that he did
not want a procedure on the books that they were not going to enforce.
Mr. Monahan advised Council that the City could not control the content of signs. They had to
treat everyone exactly the same.
Matt Scheidegger, Code Enforcement Officer, identified the problem as temporary signs in
the public right-of-way and A-board signs on private property without permits. He said that
these signs created clutter and vision clearance problems. He said that most cities, except Lake
Oswego, had procedures similar to Tigard's for handling this problem. He said that Lake
Oswego's temporary sign collection and retrieval policy charged a $20 collection fee per sign
when the owner picked up his/her sign.
Mr. Scheidegger proposed shifting the illegal temporary signs picked up by the City to the status
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 11- MARCH 16, 1999
of abandoned property under Ordinance 2.52. This would authorize staff to notify the sign
owner that he/she had 30 days to pick up the sign and pay a $20 collection fee. After the 30
days, staff could recycle or dispose of the sign. He said that handling the signs as abandoned
property allowed the City to avoid the civil infractions process (which included a citation and a
court appearance). He described the stickers he would place on each sign at the time of pick-up
identifying location, time, and date of pick-up.
Councilor Hunt raised the issue of numerous political signs illegally in the public right-of-way.
Mr. Scheidegger mentioned letters sent by the City Recorder to notify candidates of this
problem, and articles in the Cityscape to inform the public about signs in the right-of-way.
Mayor Nicoli asked if the candidates whose signs were mistakenly picked up by staff as being in
the right-of-way (when they were not or had been moved by kids) were penalized $20. He
questioned the equity of this proposal, commenting that the underlying assumption was that
someone had deliberately placed the sign in the right-of-way. He conceded that, in 90% of the
cases, that might be correct and Mr. Scheidegger's proposed procedures appropriate. He spoke
for including a mechanism in Mr. Scheidegger's proposal to address the remaining 10%.
Mr. Hendryx said that staff could set up an administrative review process to deal with
objections. He agreed that the Mayor's concern was legitimate. Mr. Monahan supported a
simplified administrative review process that allowed staff discretion in handling these
situations. He mentioned that they also wanted to avoid the perception that the City was making
money with this procedure.
Mayor Nicoli noted a policy issue for the Council: what level of signs in the city was
acceptable? He commented that Mr. Scheidegger's proposal was a harsh step. He said that,
while he was not opposed to it, he did question whether or not it was necessary. He indicated
that he felt that the City got carried away with pulling up political signs during election time. He
pointed out that most candidates did not know where the property lines were.
Councilor Hunt said that he did not care which way they went but he wanted something that they
enforced or else eliminated altogether. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that City ordinances were
driven by complaint. He disagreed with singling out this one ordinance for across the board
enforcement.
Mr. Monahan suggested establishing a leniency period before the election during which the City
did not enforce the ordinance (except for hazard or vision clearance), thus allowing signs in the
public right-of-way for a limited time. The Council discussed the suggestion. Mayor Nicoli
pointed out that the campaign period was longer now with the vote by mail elections. Mr.
Hendryx mentioned that there were some inherent costs involved, since staff would be pulling
down 30 days worth of signs at the end of the period.
Mr. Monahan reiterated that the City could not distinguish between political signs and
commercial, real estate or other signs during this period. If they left one type up, they had to
leave all types up.
Councilor Scheckla expressed concern at using staff time to pick up the political signs left by the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 12 - MARCH 16, 1999
candidates after the 10 days they had for picking them up after the election. He suggested that
staff collect the signs after the 10 days and fine the owners.
Councilor Moore spoke to making the punishment fit the crime. He pointed out that it might not
be worth charging $20 for signs of temporary convenience when they only cost $5 to buy. He
said that he was willing to put up with the temporary irritation of these signs to save the trouble
of administering a system to collect and fine sign owners. He stated that the best solution he has
heard so far was the leniency period followed by a clean-up and disposal period. Councilor
Scheckla concurred but questioned why staff had to pick up the signs left over after the 10 days
without recovering the cost of their work.
Mayor Nicoli said that he did not think that it was a big problem because most politicians tried
to recover the majority of their signs. Mr. Scheidegger said that the huge problem was not the
political signs but the commercial and free-standing A-board signs with balloons. Mayor Nicoli
spoke to implementing the leniency period (with a $10 fine) during campaigns with an
evaluation of the procedure after one year.
Councilor Patton described her experience with signs as a first time campaigner, including
difficulty in identifying what was public right-of-way and what was private property. She
mentioned seeing inconsistency in the sign removal; her signs would be gone but someone else's
would still be there.
Mr. Monahan said that Councilor Patton's experience was typical for candidates. He pointed
out that individual staff members also had different perceptions of where the public right-of-way
was. He mentioned staff's belief that several years ago someone generated a list of the premier
sites for signs (for which the individual had gotten the property owners permission) but now
other candidates are using the sites without reconfirming the permission of the property owners
(who might have changed). He also pointed out that pounding signs into the public right-of-way
could fracture irrigation lines.
Mr. Monahan summarized the discussion as the Council was interested in developing an
ordinance to create a leniency period and sign charge, and in developing materials for candidates
that clearly identified the rules of the game. He asked if Council wanted staff to return with
something prior to the September election. Mayor Nicoli mentioned the administrative review
also. The Council agreed with the direction as summarized by Mr. Monahan.
Councilor Scheckla mentioned abandoned grocery carts along the highway as a similar problem
to temporary signs except that the City could not do much about it without spending a lot of
money. Mayor Nicoli said that the grocery stores hired people to collect the carts (valued at
$100 per cart) and return them.
9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS - None
10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
10.1 Ordinance 99-08
Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Ordinance 99-08.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 13 - MARCH 16, 1999
The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 99-08, AN ORDENANCE 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.
Motion passed by unanimous roll call vote of the Council present. (Mayor Jim Nicoli,
Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla voted "yes.")
10.2 Resolution 99-18
Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Resolution 99-18.
The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-18, A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING BUILDING, PLUMBING,
MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL PERMIT AND RELATED FEES.
Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors
Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla voted "yes.")
10.3 Windows
Mr. Monahan reported that John Roy has suggested that they not pull out two of the windows
that have already been fixed but instead use the money to peal the bricks around the exterior.
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Cancelled
12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:34 .m.
Attest// Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
, City
Date:
I:WDNACATHY\CCM\990316F. DOC
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 14 - MARCH 16, 1999
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC' Legal
Notice TT 9349
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (603) 684-0360
BEAVERTON. OREGON 97076
Legal Notice Advertising
• City of Tigard ° ❑ Tearsheet Notice
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
• Tigard,Or.egon 97223 ° ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
•Accounts Payable •
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss.
1, Kathy SnVdpr
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of th~'i gard-Tua1 at; n Times
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
Ci ty C'Onnoil Mee ina. /3-1 6-99
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
Idarch 11 1999
Subscribed and sworn to
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
me thislli h day of h, 1999
OFFICIAL SEAL
BIN A. BURGESS
Notary blic for Oregon *N:(O)TTRARY PUBLIC-OREGON
MISSION NO. 062071
SION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001
The following »g hi$flights are publilit*d for vous infomation, Full
agendas mtty be -6b&iiied from the City Recorder, 13125 SNW Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 539=4171
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING'
March 16,1999- 6:30 P.M. .
TIGARD CITY HALL TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON
Reports and updates to Council;on the following topics:
* Potential Road Bond Projects-Presentation
* Long-term Water Source - Discussion
• Community Events -Discussion
* Financing Alternatives io Park Improvements - Presentation
* Erickson Heights Subdivision - Item to be Continued`on April 13;'
* 1999. .
Executive Session
'i'1'9349 - Publi'shMarch 11; 1999.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, I- E-)l TH E2 KKIIDOP 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) 9g - Gg
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated MA &U 16, 1Qgq copy(s)
of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _
9s+ day of MARCH , 19
1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
3. Tigard Water Department, 5777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon
Subscribed and sworn to before me this - day of -U2a1 , 19 Cam.
0 OFFICIAL SEAL
CATHERINE WHEATLIEY
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 042176
MV COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 10. 1999
Notary Public for Oregon L2&
My Commission Expires: L/ ~ ~Ai lei
hkadm%jo%affpost.doe
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 99- C'R
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
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 fohlows:
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 May 3, 1999 after its passage by the Council, signature by
the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By LA nK 61,710v-svote of all Council members present after being read by number and title
only, this 1day ofAUq !,l 1999.
Catherine Wheatley, City
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this «4-day
proved as to orm:
City Attorney '
3 .a3 . qq
Date
ORDINANCE No. 99--2L
CITY TIGARD, OREGON Community
Development
Shaping A Better
Community
TO: City Council
FROM: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director Avp/~~ A~~
DATE: March 9, 1999
SUBJECT: Erickson Heights Subdivision
City Staff was anticipating that the City Council would make a final decision on the findings
for Erickson Heights at the March 16, 1999 Council meeting. This was the final date to
adopt findings on this development without an additional extension to the 120-day clock.
Notice was provided that the City Council would be taking action at the March 16, 1999
meeting. March 8, 1999, an attorney working for the applicant submitted a letter waiving
the 120-day clock until one week after the City Council hearing at which the findings are
acted upon. This will give the applicant additional time to prepare the required findings.
Because notice that action would be taken has been provided, the City Council will need to
make mention that action will not be taken at the meeting on March 161 and will be re-
scheduled to April 13, 1999. In addition, staff has notified the neighborhood contacts that
a decision would not be made on the evening of the 16th.
Assuming that findings will be submitted by or before April 6, 1999, staff has tentatively
scheduled the April 13, 1999 meeting date to allow citizens to respond to the findings
submitted. The final adoption date by the City Council is tentatively scheduled for April 21,
1999. Of course, if findings are not submitted for staff to review prior to April 6, 1999, the
tentative dates will change accordingly.
_Gent by: W.C.COX Attorney 5032448750
William C. Cox -awmy r(law
03/08/99 4:06PM Job 37 Page 1/2
Land Use and Development Consultation
8 March, 1.90
Jim Mendryx
Community Development Director
City of Tigard
1.3125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Facsimile No. 684-7297
Re: Erickson Heights subdivision, City of Tigard, File
No. SUB 98-0009, PDR 98-0010, AND VAR 98-001.0
Uca.r Jim,
This letter is to confirm my understanding as to waiver
of the 120 day rule applicant Renaissance Development
company granted the City of Tigard at the last public
hearing on the above identified matter. I have been
requested by the applicant and the applicant's attorney kick
Carman to assist in writing the findings of approval. Thin
request was made several days ago just before I got very ill
with the latest flu virus. I listened to the tape of Lhe-
Ci_ry Council hearing and it is my understanding that the In
waiver was granted for a period that would be set by when
the proposed findings were submitted to your office. I have
since talked to Jim Coleman who informs me that your office
was under the impression the waiver only lasted until early
to mid March. I am sorry for any inconvenience T have caused
but with my understanding in place I felt I would not have} a
problem getting the findings to you in due course. I also
have recently received a letter from Paul Noor, Atty. at. Law
regarding some alleged evidentiary defects in the traffic
report addressing Kable Street.
Please consider this letter a Clarification that the
waiver of the 120 day granted by Renaissance will be
extended until a week after the City Council hearing at
which the findings are acted upon. It is my understanding
the next: City Council hearing date which will be available
to take up this matter will, be held on April 13, 1999.
0244 S.W. California Street ° Portland, Oregon 97219 • (503) 246-5499 - PAX (5031 244-50V)
Spnt by:,, W.C.COX Attorney 5032448750 03/08/99 4:07PM Jab 37 Page 2/2
I hope this letter is sufficient to clarify the 120 day
issue and I would like to discuss the findings with you at
your earliest
to°accomplish itsaend, thatfisilwaivertot the
insufficient special.
120 day rule as Sincerely yours,
~i21iG-CcUSB 76110
WCC/abh
CC: To addressee via fax toi above n"IbOr 07
via
F. Carman, Atty at Law
Client via fax 656-1601.
Agenda Item No.-q--
Meeting of 3 . I
CITY OF TIGARD
Engineering Department
Shaping A Bever Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SON Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Phone 503-639-4171
Fax: 503-684-7297
TO: Mayor and City Councilors
Bill Monahan, City Manager
FROM: Gus Duenas !<i
City Engineer
DATE: . March 12, 1999
SURTECT: Potential Road Bond Projects
Attached is a listing of the potential Road Bond Projects for discussion and input during the
Council Workshop Meeting on March 16, 1999. Please note that this list is not all-inclusive.
However, I have listed as many projects as I consider essential to include for discussion
purposes. In addition, the estimated costs are extremely preliminary and include rights-of-way
acquisition, engineering and construction costs. Some of the projects do not need to be
constructed in the next two to three years and may be proposed for future MSTIP funding. Some
others may be funded through the Traffic Impact Pee funding. I have included maps and some
aerials for the projects so you can see the actual locations for the proposed projects.
If you have any questions prior to the meeting on the 16th, please let me know.
Attachment
c: Vannie T. Nguyen
Michael Mills
i,
I
Potential Road Bond Projects
S
It
B~
fl
e>'A
Drsl
d'allms}ed
Htm~u'kt
1'.0. P:r dCt ~9-i
L?~~
YTIrd'0 FM
FrL.sk~.~svlClata
Aga}oet'salra
5 n
& col
ROW
-
Fn15lIn
t,
5th
sc
Sidewalks
fliko Paths
~
Cost
-
W
2 L
3 L
m
No.Nads
No-Needs
Needs UDS
$3,140,058
ROW 'o at cemetery - One house close. TIF Eli ' le. Desi initiated.
I
Gaarde Street
99W to 121st Ave.
H
Ma's collector
Recommuction. Ex ion
City/Cop-q
3,000 LF
Need RO
anes
ar
Need ROW
N
3Lam
Needs
Needs
Nee&UDS
$2,928.516
Totally new mad ROW uisitionneedad.TIF robable for construction.
2
GatrdeStreet
7Hollow•WesttoWalnut
Maier Collector
Now Road
Ci /Cam
22tALF
one
Includes Walnut Street intersection ands roaciws. Design initiated
_
d ROW
2 Lan
s
3 Lanes
No-Needs
No-Needs
Needs UDS
$3,360,007
Includes intersection at Gaarde StreeL This could be a future MSTIP project
3
121st Avenue
Gaarde St. to Walnut Sr
Ma'a Collala
Expansion
Cow
4,300 LF
Nee
e
d ROW
2 L
3 Lanes
Some-Needs
No-Needs
Needs UDS
51,285,956
Expansion on one side with sidewalks
4
121st Avenue
Walnut SL to North Dakota
Ma's Collector >
Expansion
City
3,200 LF
Nee
anes
W
2 L
3 L
s
Somed4ceds
Yes-Needs
Needs UDS
54,988,438
Logical candidate for future MST1P fundin
5
Walnut Sreet
Tiedeman Ave. to tYtet Ave.
h%2 Collector
E ion
City/County
1.700 LF
Need RO
anes
ane
d ROW
2 La
3 Lancs
No-Needs
No
Need UDS
$1,515,625
$900,000 for ROW. ROW could be resold after ro'ect is completed
6
Reallmeat of ScoBim Street
Hall at Hwziker and Scoffins
Local Street
Reali ent. si izetion
CI /State
325 LF
Nee
nes
ROW
2 L
2 Lanes °
Some-Needs
No-Needs
Needs LIDS
$1,557,625
ROW acquisition required on two lots
7
Burnham Street
Main St to Hell Blvd
Minor Collector
Reconstructiion
Ci
2,100 LF
Need
aren-
8
9
10
North Dakota
Greenbn Road
Greenburg Road
Tieder ms Ave. to 121st Ave
Wash. Square to TiedemanAver
Wash. Squaw. to Hall Blvd
M otor Collator
Ma'aCollector
Major Collator
ion/Reconstruction
and Now North SauthRoad
Expansion
Expansion
Ci
Cow
Cow
5,200 LF
1,000LF
3,000LF
3,l00 LF
Need ROW
Need ROW
NecdROW
Need ROW
2 Lanes
None
3Lanes
3 Laaes
3 Lanes
2Lanes
5Lam
5 Lanes
No-Needs
Needs
Yes-Needs
Yes-Needs
No-Needs
Needs -
No-Needs
No-Needs
Needs UDS
Needs UDS
Needs UDS
Needs UDS
$3,852576
$1,543500
$3,708,259
S4,375,823
Allows one-way in at Tiedeman and proposes new north-south street
This would remove conflict at Tiedeman/North Dakota intersection
Reworking ofinterea6onatTiedemanAvenue and approaches
Submitted for Priorities 2000 funding. ' Ranks fair) hi in list
Most of ROW has to be from east side
11 .
Wall Street Extension
Hwziker Street to Hall Blvd
Major Collector ;
New Road
Ci /State
2,600 LF
Need ROW
None -
3 Lines
Needs
Needs
Needs UDS
$4,875,920
New road Possible futurc extension north to Dartmouth.
Costs include purchase of ROW.
12
79th Avenue
Bonita Road to Durham Road
Minor Collector'
ion/Reconstruction
City
4.000LF
Need ROW-
2Lanes
2Lanes
Needs
Needs
Needs UDS
$2,783,813
LID should be formed to pay a portion ofthis.
13
Tigard Street BrIdaReplacement
Tigard Street ucarTiedeman :
Minor Collector
Bridge lacement
City
600LF
Need ROW
12 Lanes
2Lanes `
Needs
Needs
None
$1,311,975
Bridge stillmar'nail sound, but is under water in floods
14
72nd Avenue
99W to Hwziker Street
Major Collator
E ion/Reconshuction
City
4,650 LF
Need ROW
2 and 3 laces
5 tares
Some-Needs
Needs
Needs UDS
$3,642,660
Submitted for Priorities 2000 fundin but unlikely to et an
IS
HunzikerSweet
Hall Blvd to 72nd Ave.
Major Collector
Expansion
City
3,900LF--
Need ROW
2Lanes,
3Laoes
So eNeeds
Na
Needs UDS,
51,805,895
Expansion to 3 lanes with sidewalks
16
Murd"ItStreei
106th Ave. to 103rd Ave.
Local Street
wstrcetconsnvction
Ne
Ci
'b00LP
Needs-footatri
None
2.Lanes J
i
No-Needs
No- Needs
1NeedsUDS
1 $134,000
INewstreet eomieetiontoschools
17 ~
l~rurdodc Street
107M Ave. to 97th Ave.
Local Sn'tet '
.
ew
& anion
iCity _
---4
IRO
L, F__
Nad lO feet
2lanes
12ranes
'No-Needs
No-Nccds
Needs U D S
$75QI41
Expansion with sidewalks on bath sides
8
Sather Street ~
10001 Ave. to 98th Ave.
Mirar Col!xior
E;pan:ion
1
city
13 6 LP
Nced 10 Feet_
12 Lanes
2 Lanes
No-Needs
L
No-Need,
Needs U DS
3554,629
jErpansion to full width with sidewalks and droinagc
19
SeMlrr Street -
99th Ave. to 92nd Ave.
MInor Gillector
~Expansion on one tide ~
Ll~_
1,200 LP_
Nred ROW
12 Lanes
12 Lanes
Seine-Needs
iNo-Ne~ds _
Needs UDS
S575,815
Project would ex and to add sidewalk on north side
~
-
'
'
Z2R
770O
Prepared 311211999
~
~ - _ -
-
._e.e--
I
PiddS~ Tot-
.
x1
_~I
s
C
0
b
0
.may
s~
0 PM14
V
4ba
oP-4
u
0
C*N
C*N
e---4
~d
ev
O 0
O
CS1 ~
rA U w
cn
cld
O
cu
e1d
N
a~-a
v~
N
O
x
V/
cd
dJ
0
1
~I
e~
Cld
0
Z
C)
W
4-4
N
(M19)
V]
c
cis
C)
c--4
r--.4 rn
c~
Cid
J~
CTS
~--d
4-4
TT~
V 1
4-4
cis
CC3 ~ ® ~
cd
0
7t~
Z
0
d~
-dam
z/1
0
a~
a~
a~
0 7004
CC3 ~
~i C~
V
. VM4
P4
..a
-a
Cd
4~
W-4
cu
Cld
O
cqd
O
N
N
O
d>
Z
Z
Cld
Z
cd
O
Cld
Q
rr~
O
tom
:ko
>
a3
P4
t~A
TT~
V1
Cd
3
i-+ ®
0.00
• r-+
rz~
cd
P4
.Alk
94
cqd
x
a)
0
T
V .d
.tom
Cd
0
e W
4-4
x
1-1
0
0
td
s
.
.
• PI
c13
D
i
Q
Cld
-+-j
• pad
a
1
t,
0.4
0
a~
0
V
l1
I:$
t8
to
tai
.-Y-4
O
OSS
4,
V 1
N
N
~ O
N
t~
d1
x
D
4
-4
:C3
/1
lc~
134
cn
rS4
o pso4
~i
i-a
0
C1~
cis
U LLJ i A
r-~
V~
s
N
P"~
r-~
G~
9J
U
O
b
M
O
4.4
cop)
0
4J
z/1
U
O
15
Q3
0
a~
a~
0
®
E`.
x
U
Cf)
CCU
~j
F~4
T~
V ~
%LIP
00
0
a~
0
0
4
a
3
C
a
L)
F)
os
cn
~d
O
fl~
a
00
c4N
4J
ff~- ~
Potential Road Bond
Projects
Presentation to City Council
March 16, 1999
Gaarde Street
Hwy 99W to 121st Ave.
i-
t Gaade suer
R=mtruction
and Expmi-
It
to °il
Gaarde Street
Hwy 99W to 121st Avenue
Jill
Gaarde Street
Quail Hollow-West to Walnut Street
Gaarde Street Extension
Quail Hollow-West to Walnut Street
Gaarde Street
Hwy 99W to 121st Avenue
121st Avenue
Gaarde Street to Walnut Street
b l D4 f y ~ 1'~ !
t~
1
T f~
7:
121st Avenue
Walnut Street to North Dakota Street
2
Walnut Street
Tiedeman Avenue to 121st Avenue
Realignment of Scoffins Street
Burnham Street
Main Street to Hall Blvd
i
ie
Greenburg Road
Washington Square to Tiedeman Avenue
Greenburg
Road
Widening - 6 \
p yr < rII z rar
11
4
Greenburg Road
Washington Square Drive to Hall Blvd
U
Wall Street Extension
Hunziker Street to Hall Blvd
New Street
Connecting
Hall and
Hunziker
:e
5
72nd Avenue
Hwy 99W to Hunziker Street
VLJae
72nd Ave
Expand to 5 0
lanes
72nd Avenue
Hwy 99W to Hunziker Street
Hunziker Street
Hall Blvd to 72nd Avenue
Hunziker Street
Hall Blvd to 72nd Avenue
Hunziker
Street
Expansion t
E
Hunziker Street
Hall Blvd to 72nd Avenue
Murdock Street
106th Avenue to 103rd Avenue
Sattler Street
100th Avenue to 98th Avenue
Sattler Street
100th Avenue to 98th Avenue
Murdock Street Extension
Sattler Street Expansion
Murdock Street
106th Avenue to 103rd Avenue
Sattler Street
Potential Road Bond
Projects
Presentation to City Council
March 16,1999
u
8
AGENDA ITEM # I
FOR AGENDA OF March 16. 1999
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
PREPARED BY: A.P. 15uenas DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Presentation of potential projects for a Road Bond issue for Council discussion and input.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests Council discussion and input on the potential road bond projects.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Tigard Beyond Tomorrow surveys revealed that over 50% of the respondents listed traffic and
transportation issues as the most important issues facing the community. The Transportation System Update
Plan study is nearing completion. This study will identify street improvement projects that need to be initiated
to meet traffic demands for the next 15-20 years. The study focuses on adding capacity. In addition, there are
streets within Tigard that are rapidly deteriorating and require reconstruction. The Council direction is to initiate
a process to select projects for a road bond issue to bring to the voters in Tigard in the year 2000. The projects
would presumably include reconstruction projects, widening and expansion of certain major streets, and
sidewalk extensions at selected locations. A task force is now being formed to help select the projects, to
undertake the public process necessary to place it on the ballot, and to help in the passage of the bond measure.
The purpose of this presentation is to introduce to Council a mix of projects for consideration in the process of
selecting the final list for inclusion in the road bond issue. The project list is currently being compiled and will
be submitted to City Council with the City Manager's Newsletter on March 12, 1999.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
The improvements proposed for funding through a Road Bond issue would meet the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow
goals of Improve Traffic Safety and Improve Traffic Flow.
FISCAL NOTES
None at this point.
IACitywide\Sum\Potential Projects for Road Bond
Willamette River Water Quality Page 1 of 10
i
A550 i a,4,56C to
i4cn4 5
Willamette River Water Quality
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. Teff
Bauman, Wilsonville's Public Works Director collaborated with several people to assemble
the following information addressing the issues that have been raised.
Won't some oceanic compounds pass throueh
n in the Willamette River
lf
ti
f P
l
the GAC process and lead to problems with
u
o
o
Leve
o
trihalomethanes?
Methods Used for
borato
f L
Pharmaceutical Byproducts in Drinking
ry
a
Adequacy o
Testing Water Quality
Water
Isn't the Willamette River One of the 10 Most
Health Risk Due to Dioxin
Polluted Rivers in the U.S.?
Adequacy of Water Treatment Technology
Cancer Rates
L
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
attachments showing cover pages of these 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);
http://www.ci.tigard.or.us/Willamette%20River%2OQuality/willamette river water_quality.htm 3/15/99
Willamette River Water Quality Page 2 of 10
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 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 USGS.
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.?
http://www.ci.tigard.or.uslWillamette%20River%20Qualitylwillamette river water quality.htm 3/15/99
Willamette River Water Quality
RESPONSE:
Page 3 of 10
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 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.
Iof Water Treatment Technology
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
http://www.ci.tigard.or.us/Willamette%20River%20Quality/willamette_river_water quality.htm 3/15/99
. Willamette River Water Quality Page 4 of 10
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 other 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 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 through the GAC
process and lead to problems with trihalomethanes?
http://www.ci.tigard.or.uslWillamette%2ORiver%2OQualitylwillamette river water quality.htm 3/15/99
Willamette River Water Quality
Page 5of10
(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 soured to the end usdr. 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 -and 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.
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 w,:?-,r standards.
ISSUE: Pharmaceutical 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
http://www.ci.tigard.or.us/Willamette%20River%2OQualitylwillamette_river'water quality.htm 3/15/99
. Willamette River Water Quality
Page 6 of 10
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 are 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 chemicals 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 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.
EFSUE: Health Risk Due to Dioxin
Numerous concerns have been expressed regarding dioxins. Such concerns are that: dioxin is
http://www.ci.tigard.or.uslWillamette%20River%2OQualitylwillamette_river'water quality.htm 3/15/99
. Willamette River Water Quality
Page 7 of 10
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 (3x1O-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-thousandth 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:
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 furans 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
pg/g) 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
http://www.ci.tigard.or.uslWillamette%20River%2OQualitylwillamette_river'water quality.htm 3/15/99
. Willamette River Water Quality Page 8 of 10
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.
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-TODD. 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
II I: Solid and Hazardous Waste, 1992)
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
http://www.ci.tigard.or.uslWillamette%20River%24Qualitylwillamette_river water quality.htm 3/15/99
Willamette River Water Quality
Page 9 of 10
increase cancer risks, then one would expect cancer rates to be higher in Benton Count;
(where people drink Willamette 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 Wobom, 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 Action.") 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 water 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 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.
http://www.ci.tigard.or.us/Willamette%20River%2OQuality/willamette river water_quality.htm 3/15/99
F a 0 a w%
/here has over water come from in the last 20 years? i S
Tigard's Water Supply History
In 1996, Lake Oswego's growing demands limited its
Do YOU know where your water comes from? For more
surplus supply and they were unable to supply enough
than 20 years, Tigard has purchased approximately 90% of
water to meet our demands. Today, water is purchased
our water from Lake Oswego, which is treated Clackamas
from the following suppliers:
River water. The remaining 10% was supplied from the
1996-Present
City's own wells and Portland.
Portland 70%
Tualatin Valley WaterB&ftXt 20961'
Lake Oswego 5016
City Wells 5%
Proposed Willamette Water Treatment Plant Process
y
TO USERS
CuEMQcAL ADurnoN ORm CONrAcroR
• FEwnc CRLORmE SETTLING FILTRATLON
• POLYMER • GRANULAR AcrwATED
MMMG oJr1rr ON CARBON (GAC)
• ozoNE • SAND
Compare the Options:
Willamette River vs. Bull Run-Columbia Southshore Wellfield
The following is a side-by-side comparison of the two options, based on the top three criteria: water quality, cost of
water and certainty of supply.
BULL RUN/COLUMBIA
WILLAMETTE SOUTHSHORE WELLFIELD
Water Quality
» Watershed susceptible to agricultural and industrial pollution » Pristine watershed, closed to agricultural and industrial
activity
» Raw water requires filtration to meet EPA drinking water
standards
» Water treatment plant expected to produce water that meets or
exceeds future regulations
» Capable of treating raw water with turbidity levels exceeding
200 NTUs
» >99.99% removal of Giardia and Cryptosporidium in 2002.
» Raw water does not require filtration, only disinfection, to
meet EPA drinking water standards.
» Proposed treatment in 2020 expected to meet or exceed
future regulations
» Capable of supplying water with turbidity levels up to 5
NTUs, until filtration in 2020
Disinfection of Giardia and Cryptosporidium, removal in
2020 with filtration
» Total project costs: $92 million, Tigard's share $42.7 million
» Based on 20 million-gallons-per-day capacity
Certainty of Supply
» Proximity to source -11 miles
» Little risk of shutting down plant due to elevated turbidity
levels
» Total project costs: $ 5555 million, Tigard's share $66.5
million
» Based on 25 million-gallons-per-day capacity
» Proximity to source - 40 miles
» Heavy rains and increased snowmelt increase risk of Bull
Run shutdown due to elevated turbidity levels
-10-
a
The Most Polluted River in the U.S.?
That's just one of the claims we've heard about the
Willamette River during the course of public debate over
whether it's appropriate to even consider the River as a
drinking water source.
We've also heard some very scary rhetoric thrown
around regarding cancer,
Ffr endocrine disruptors, dioxin and
agricultural pesticides.
We've been busting our buns
researching these issues trying to
find out what's fact and what's
fiction. So let's take a good hard
look at what we've
heard and what we've found out. ffy a
The following article is reprinted with permission
from The Boones Ferry Messenger, the official
newsletter of the City of Wilsonville.
Okay, now lets take a look at some of the claims we keep
hearing.
1. THE MOST POLLUTED RIVER IN THE
U.S.
Or the fourth most polluted or the fifth most polluted or
the tenth most polluted. Whatever. We have been
unable to find any documentation to substantiate these
claims.
~o ro aA.;,k, to hlW,.,e& aa~A, a~rcr~ t4 araat It is certainly true that
physical changes
First, it's important to understand what kind iarpactedwatrr8i~idsir t aatior. $atir t~rwraa~ throughout the
of testing has actually been done on the water pd,, ace*4t to t4 ,6m;vaarart I Willamette basin have
Willamette River and how the treatment I significantly altered fish
rotictrorrc~, ~v/~~aFrctL`o ~tiFe
process works. P ri
habitat (e.g., stream
d'4-644 17°OAY d' & to Ooepr 6roJ :s is t-ela e
In tests dating back to 1994, the engineering
firm of Montgomery Watson tested for any
chemical that had ever been detected at any
level anywhere in the Willamette River basin
by the US. Geological Survey, as well as any chemical
there was reason to believe might be there, even if it
hadn't been detected by USGS, as well as, of course, all
EPA regulated contaminants and all EPA candidate
contaminants. This is by far the most thorough testing of
any water source anywhere in the U.S.
Almost all of these contaminants are notpresentat
detectable levels in the Willamette River near
Wilsonville. Those that are detected are present at levels
that are below safe drinking water
maximums and all can be removed by the
proposed treatment process. The treatment
process is what's called a multi-barrier
ozone/GAC system. Sediments are
removed from the raw water, ozone gas
kills bacteria and microbial pathogens, and
a granular activated carbon filter removes
remaining contaminants. The system is
designed to meet or exceed all existing and
anticipated EPA safe drinking water standards. It will
produce the safest, highest quality drinking water in the
region, a fact that water quality experts with the City of
Portland do not dispute.
channelization, filling of
~°0d8ic a wetlands; damage to
spawning habitat, etc.).
So it's fair to say that if
you're a fish, the Willamette may be among the most
impacted watersheds in the nation.
But in terms of water quality, according to the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Middle
Willamette (the stretch from Salem to Oregon City) is in
relatively good shape. The EPA gave the middle
Willamette a score of 3 on its index of watershed
indicators, which rates every watershed in the U.S. for its
overall health on a 1- 6 scale, with 1 being "better water
quality" and 6 being "more serious water quality
problems." The Clackamas River (which serves Lake
Oswego, West Linn and many other cities in Clackamas
County) was also scored at 3 and the Tualatin River,
which supplies drinking water to portions of
Washington County, was scored at 4.
In addition, the report of the Governor's Willamette
River Basin Task Force states that "Most experts agree
that the Willamette River is probably in better health
today than it has been for a century." The report then
goes on to address the problems that still need to be
tackled.
Finally we've come across a list of "The 50 most polluted
rivers or waterbodies in the U.S.," published by the
Environmental Working Group, a Washington, DC
lobbying, research and public information organization.
-7-
The Willamette appears on that list at #50; dead last.
(This list measures only total direct toxic discharges into
the water, but not other factors that contribute to water
quality problems. It also doesn't account for dilution
that occurs in rivers with larger volumes of water.)
Of course, there are more than 50 rivers in the U.S. and
we're not trying to suggest that the Willamette is free of
pollution. But if anyone reading this knows of a way to
substantiate the claims that the Willamette is the most
polluted river in America,
we'd like to hear from you. Votar eo o, ~aAw eq?
Please call Jennifer
Renninger, at 639-4171 roa&o-) Aar ow, o jtk and ~o
x 429.
CANCER
It has been said or inferred
that drinking treated
Willamette River Water
will increase your cancer risk
experts.
4 4.4le
areeteac
3. ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS
Endocrine disruptors are a family of chemicals that
either alone or in combination mimic human.estrogen
and are suspected of having negative health and
developmental effects. This has been a major source of
concern for water suppliers.
However, a new study conducted by Dr. Daniel Byrd of
Consultants in Toxicology, Risk Assessment and Product
Safety, and Dr. Tim Zacharewski of the National Food
Safety and Toxicology Center at
ql &t,t& Rti Michigan State University, has
ee,~1V&e4r D/'GOK, concluded that there are no endocrine
disruptors present in the Willamette.
~u/~ireaS/pyDaDl~KOxa.E G'oaKt~s ffi "we a Argorit~ oji e8acre
1k,04Q41 /CaKa/ateo-J,(,wogregJ44
iK t , etata, Al
Not so, say the health
According to Michael Humann, Deputy Epidemiologist,
Oregon Health Division, there are no studies that have
shown any link between municipal
drinking water and cancer
incidence. What's more, says
Humann, the cancer risk presented
by water that meets EPA safe
drinking water standards is
"immeasurably small."
If there is in fact a causal
relationship between water supply
and cancer, 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 Willamette River
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 a arc Ko eKdocr%Ke Argotors
of the very lowest ope,meelr to 011a em [4d%tJ
/ ~
cancer rates in Oregon, . 'rot
while Multnomah Af IlieoK6er,rA.-A ur
County has one of the eoKBarriK~ wattr~ro~r t,4a
very highest cancer
rates in the state.
(Oregon Health
Division, Cancer in Oregon, 1996.) The greatest risk
factors for cancer are tobacco use, alcohol use, genetics
and workplace exposure to carcinogens - not tap water.
eatcaaeerratrt They reached this conclusion by
exposing human endocrine receptors to
Willamette River water taken from the
point where the intake for a treatment
plant would be located and then
looking for evidence of endocrine disruptors binding to
the receptors. In other words, rather than looking for
specific chemicals, Drs. Byrd and Zacharewski looked for
evidence that anything might be present that would act
as an endocrine disruptor. Nothing was found. And
this is an extremely sensitive test, capable of detecting
reactions at
concentrations of 'YMccoP40 to GflS'XI t,6 Imelei
less than 20 parts per total's 44,f W 4f 4 %K Fr l'i~14
trillion. t n ~&11,o
aK oa&4-eEcddil XV4f/,r
Drs. Byrd and 61e, ~v/l~anetL`a Bi1e~-. Al
Zacharewski thus
concluded that
"disruption of estrogenic systems is not of concern for
humans consuming water from the Willamette River."
4. DIOXIN
Dioxin is scary stuff. Or at least the word generates a lot
of fear. Dioxin is the name given to a family of chemicals
whose basic structure consists of two molecular rings of
carbon atoms connected by two oxygen atoms. Some
dioxins are created when chlorine mixes with organic
substances, as in the bleaching process formerly used by
pulp and paper mills. One of the scariest chlorinated
dioxins is called 2, 3, 7, 8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (or
TCDD) which is a waste product of materials used in
production of two pesticides and in the production of
hexachlorophene, an antibacterial agent. TCDD is also
produced in the incomplete combustion of numerous
materials. It decomposes rapidly in sunlight but tends to
be persistent for up to ten years in soil layers not
exposed to sunlight.
-8-
According to the Oregon Health Division, all of us are
exposed to dioxin at very low levels ("background
levels") every day. But 98% of that exposure is from
food, 2% is from air and less than one-tenth of 1% is from
water.
Staff has been unable to substantiate the claim that there
is no threshold for any amount of dioxin. Here is what
the EPA actuelly has to say 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, Envirormiental
Educational Series - Volume
III; Solid and Hazardous
Waste, 1992)
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
109 background is not well-supported by
the existing human epidemiologic
database." (EPA Science Advisory
Board, Dioxin Assessment Review, May 15-16,1995.)
Finally, we came across this tidbit: In 1992-95, the US.
Geological Survey conducted a comprehensive study of
dioxin levels in Northwestern Oregon. This report:
looked for 27 varieties of dioxins and furans. One of :he
test sites was in the Willamette River near Newberg, and
another test site was Fir Creek in the Bull Run
wastershed. 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 USGS
detection limit. But the level of total dioxins was higher
in Fir Creek in the Bull Run watershed than it was in the
Willamette River (USGS Dioxins and Furans in Bed
Sediments and Fish Tissue of the Willamette Basin,
1998).
5. DETECTION LIMITS
We keep hearing that Montgomery Watson used tests
that weren't sensitive enough or that the US. Geological
Survey consistently
found contaminants 7 re wc,.a36aAwlcabde&o&dat
that Montgomery AAet&ree. 41oae o 1 t/cc 36 ,,Ae wiaa1e
Watson didn't wine de,&o erl/r f~4e wrairBGerr O~t,~e
because the USGS a
used more sensitive
tests.
Montgomery Watson labs did in fact use a different
testing method with higher detection limits than the
USGS lab methods. That explains why on occasion
USGS detected chemicals at trace levels that were below
the Montgomery Watson lab's detection limit. Like the
Oregon Health Division, the City of Portland, and
state-of-the-art commercial labs, Montgomery Watson
used EPA-approved drinking water monitoring
methods. These are designed to test for compliance with
EPA drinking water standards. The monitoring done by
USGS involved academic research methodologies which
are not approved by EPA for drinking water monitoring
standards.
But what did the USGS actually find?
The USGS looked for 86 chemicals in each of 95 separate
tests of the Willamette River and its tributaries. There
were 36 chemicals detected at least once. None of the 36
chemicals were detected in the mainstem of the
Willamette River. (US. Geological Survey, Distribution
of Dissolved Pesticides and Other Water Quality
Constituents.in Sma11 Streams and their Relation to Land
Use in the Willamette River Basin, 1997)
In a separate study, the USGS tested the mainstem of the
Willamette River near Newberg for 224 chemicals in the
river water and bed sediments. Only 17 chemicals were
detected, all of them at levels below safe drinking water
standards. The ozone/GAC process at the proposed
Willamette water treatment plant would remove all 17 of
these chemicals - plus all of the other chemicals that
were not even detected.
Want to learn more?
Participate in the Public Hearing:
~k April 13, 7 p.m. Town Hall, City Council
Meeting
-9-
AGENDA ITEM # LO
FOR AGENDA OF March 16. 1999
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discussion of Park !Wrovement Funding Alternatives.
PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK lA&
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
What options does the City Council have to fund park improvements set forth in the Park Master Plan?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
N/A
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Outline of Discussion of funding alternatives
1. Park Master Plan projects and Timeline
2. Current Funding Sources
• Park System Development Charges
e Park User Fees
o General Fund
3. Potential Funding Sources
Local Option Levy
• Bond Issue
e Combination of Funding Sources
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
FISCAL NOTES
Bond issue or Local Option Levy would require voter approval.
Agenda Item No.
Meeting
i~
CD
CD
wJ•
n
t~
INC
IC
0
C4
CD
CA
Cr
s
O=A
O
Na
O
0
Ll
V_
CD
CD
l~
J
v
J
1
MMA •
~a
CD
a
~d
CD
cr
N~
h~
~
``IC
INC
lot
4
CD
IWO
0 0 0 0
r°P
00
~e ®
®O
e
C)
\C
o
9Y
0
e
Mee'd
e
Q
r a
r-a
tJl G~
0 0
F-► N
tit ®
. 0 ®
N
c~
®
W W
O t~
0 0
~
O
®
~
va
O
V
® 0
O O
0 0
® ®
®
®
0 0
O ®
0
®
0
O
98/99
00/01
'02/03
'04105
D
CD
C
O
CD
E
C
bd
0
CU
C)
0
cr
®'Y
rvs
4
CD
b
0
ITI
:s
va
O
C7
®
®
®
®
0
6momw
eAd
n 1
C®
CD
CD
C
C
l~
CD
~
.
CD
Cn
O
E7
O
C
C7
CCDP~
CD
CD
CA
CD
® CD
C.~ CD
o
C:) CD
® P
P~ .
cn
C~
CD
e~
CD
00
C
a
cr
cn
CD
p. Ma .
0
CD
CD
CD
q
pMMA .
CA
C~
CD
r~l
CD
CIA
CD
rn
o•0
CD
C~A
CD
CD
CD
CD
C~
CD
C'D
0
r-~
O
O
0
AGENDA ITEM # /
FOR AGENDA OF 3-16-99
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discussion: Determine the Level of SWnort for a Program of Community Events.
PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK U~ T" - CITY MGR OK Vtw3r-
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Discussion of tlae Council Goal: Determine the Level of Support for a Program of Community Events.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
After discussion, determine the parameters of this Council goal and direct staff to develop policy and action
steps toward implementing the goal.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
As referenced above, this topic is a Council goal for this year. In addition, this goal was identified as an Action
Planning Item by the Visioning Action Planning Task Force - Community Character and Quality of Life. The
Visioning Goal was to:
Develop an overall approach for sponsoring community events that establishes balances among
popular or traditional standing events, requests for support of new events and limited City
resources.
The Visioning Strategies were:
1. Develop a philosophy on event sponsorship.
2. Develop an understandable, step-by-step process to assist event volunteers.
Both these strategies are identified for completion in 1999. The Council, in 1997, discussed a policy on City
Participation and Contributions for events. The Council agreed to the outline for event sponsorship as outlined
in the October 21, 1997, staff report which was to:
Consider sponsorship of an event because the event serves one or more of these purposes:
a. Provide events for Tigard citizens to enjoy;
b. To showcase the City to residents and others;
c. To provide an opportunity for non-profit organizations to raise money through an event.
A copy of the minutes and staff report from the October 21, 1997, Council meeting are attached.
A Budget Subcommittee for Events was identified at a Council meeting earlier this year. On the Council Liaison
Matrix, it lists all of the Council as members to this subcommittee.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEUY
Vision Task Force Goal is outlined in the Information Summary above.
FISCAL NOTES
Events are sponsored by the City to various degrees. The discussion by Council should include direction with
regard to City contributions for events.
I:\ADM\CATHY\000NCIL\SUMMARY SHEET - CITY EVENTS.DOC.DOT
Councilor Scheckla asked several questions on mitigation in this situation. Mr. Hendryx said
that the Code gave specific exemption to removal of trees in a forest tree deferral wood lot.
Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, explained that the Tree Ordinance Task Force had
specifically excluded tax deferred woodlots because of testimony from people who had set
them aside to harvest for funds to send their children to college. The owners of this lot
intended to harvest the timber before selling the lot to developers. A developer going through
the subdivision process would have to mitigate for those trees.
Mr. Monahan said that tonight staff expected neighbors at the meeting to report to the Council
on the CIT discussion. He reported that neighbors have requested staff to make a commitment
to do whatever they could to make sure that neighborhoods were protected from erosion. Staff
wanted this situation to have the least impact possible but with the understanding that the trees
would be cut down.
Councilor Hunt mentioned the erosion problems that resulted from the steep slope of the hill
of the Renaissance Summit development. Councilor Scheckla asked if they would have a
problem with mudslides on Bull Mountain. Mr. Monahan said that they hoped to avoid that.
> City Events: Policy Discussion on City Participation and Contributions
Mr. Monahan referenced the memo on the costs to the City for the Balloon Festival, broken
down by department detailing costs that would have been incurred anyway and special costs.
It also included the Fourth of July costs which were very limited. He pointed out that the
Balloon Festival was growing so fast that it was a new event every year.
Mr. Monahan suggested requiring special events and social agencies to give the City more
advance notice of what their proposals would be prior to the budget process and assigning a
staff person as the contact person for the event or agency. This staff person would identify all
the potential costs so that staff could include a real cost by department into the budget process.
If Council wanted to, they could set an amount for the event, and staff would know that they
had to limit expenses to that amount. With sufficient notice, the special event or agencies
could make decisions on their programs or try to find alternative funding.
Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, reviewed the staff work at the Festival, agreeing that it
did impact his department most of all. He pointed out the positive attitude of staff towards the
Festival, despite the extensive overtime required. He mentioned that the soccer fields were
scheduled to be shut down after the Festival regardless. He said that staff worked Sunday and
Monday to finish cleaning up. He noted the help provided by the carnival and food vendors in
making it easy for them to pick up trash. Bruce Ellis, Event Coordinator, had arranged for the
contractors to retrieve all the rented equipment.
Councilor Scheckla asked if there were items that the City could have the Festival pay for,
such as extra trash pickups. Mr. Monahan said that was an item for discussion. He explained
that last year the Festival did not have any surplus revenue; however, this year it appears that
there was profit. He advised that Mr. Ellis had indicated willingness in the past to help
finance any needed post-event field repair.
Mr. Wegner commented that eventually the Festival would "top out" where the City would
have to limit the number of balloons.
Mayor Nicoli asked about using volunteers to assist City staff. Mr. Wegner said they would
have more success asking volunteers (such as the Boy Scouts) to help with the set up than
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 3
with the clean up. He pointed out that school was still in session during the week prior to the
Festival.
Councilor Rohlf asked if they would see an adjustment to the budget. Mr. Monahan said no,
because all the costs were within last year's budget.
Councilor Hunt expressed concern with the extra money being spent without the Council
knowing it was being expended. Mr. Monahan said that it had been a surprise to staff who
had not realized the crowd the Festival would draw until they "saw the cars coming." He said
that the year before had not reflected these dollar amounts but possibly staff was now doing a
better job of reporting the costs.
Mr. Monahan said that the information this year would help staff in their discussions with the
Balloon Festival organizers. He said that there was not an expectation on the Festival's part
that the City would support the event to the point where the Festival retained all profits
without assisting the City with some of the expenses incurred.
Councilor Hunt asked if there was a way to measure the economic value the Festival brought
to the business community of Tigard. Mayor Nicoli said that the nonprofits could tell the City
how much money they made (which he thought was roughly around $30,000). He said that he
was certain that with 10,000 to 15,000 people coming into the town for a three day event,
there was money going into the business community.
Councilor Hunt asked who authorized the nonprofits that operated at the Festival. Mr.
Monahan said that the Festival did. He reported that Mr. Ellis told him that he tried to restrict
it to Tigard based non-profits only. The City's only input has been questions about traffic,
insurance and neighborhood impact. He said that if the Council felt it was important to know
how much money the non-profits made, he thought that Mr. Ellis would be willing to share
that information with them.
Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the non-profits reinvested the money into the community. The
Festival fed the social service structure of the City in one way or another.
Mr. Monahan reported that he informed Mr. Ellis that the report in the Oregonian regarding
the Council discussion on the Festival did not accurately reflect the tone of the Council. The
Council was simply curious, not critical.
Councilor Moore asked that a discussion on a special events policy include what the intent of
the City was in sponsoring events. Was it to showcase the City or to provide an opportunity
for non-profits to raise money? Councilor Rohlf suggested a workshop on those issues.
Councilor Moore asked for information on what other communities spent on their big events.
He expressed concern that the Festival might move elsewhere due to lack of space at Cook
Park.
The Council discussed when to schedule the discussion. They agreed on the October
workshop. Staff would invite Mr. Ellis to the study session prior to the workshop.
> National League of Cities Conference - Distribute Information
> Agenda Review
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 4
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF I D Q1 147
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE City Support of Community Events
PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Council has requested that a policy discussion take place on the level of City participation and contributions to
special City events, such as the Tigard Festival of Balloons. On August 12, 1997, Council discussed the issue
and requested a workshop to discuss:
What is the City's intent when it sponsors an event; that is, is it to provide events for our citizens,
showcase the City, or provide an opportunity for non-profits to raise money?
STAID RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council discus the 1997 event with Bruce Ellis, Event Coordinator. Also, plans for 1998
need to move ahead. Council should discuss what the City's role should be in special City events, both from a
financial continent and a resource commitment.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Tigard has benefited from several annual events sponsored by non-profits and supported by the City. The Tigard
Festival of Balloons is the largest annual event. The City Council has requested that a discussion be held to
better define the City's role and contributions in such events. Specifically, Council wishes to discuss:
What is the City's intent when it sponsors an event? Is the City choosing to sponsor an event because the
event serves one or more of these purposes:
a. To provide events for Tigard citizens to enjoy;
b. To showcase the City to residents and others;
C. To provide an opportunity for non-profit organizations to raise money through an event.
Bruce Ellis, Event Coordinator for the Tigard Festival of Balloons, has been invited to discuss his event and the
Council's policy issues.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue to review special event funding at the Budget Committee without further review of the City policy.
FISCAL NOTES
. he City has contributed to special City events to various degrees. The discussion to be held by Council could
lead to either a limit or City contribution, a commitment that the City receive a portion of future event process,
or some other direction that either adds to or decreases City cost.
i:`citywide\sum\ctymnt.dx
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
r
FROM: William A. Monahan, City Manag
DATE: October 14, 1997
SUBJECT: Special City Events Discussion
On August 12, 1997, Council discussed City events during the Study Session portion of the
Council meeting. Council suggested that Bruce Ellis, Event Coordinator for the Tigard
Festival of Balloons, be invited to the October Study Session meeting to discuss the City's
sponsorship of future City events.
Attached is an August 6, 1997 memo which I wrote, describing the tally of special event costs
related to the June, 1997 Tigard Festival of Balloons. Within that memo I raised several
policy questions. Also attached are minutes of the Study Session discussion on August 12. At
the conclusion of the Study Session, Council suggested that the following issues be discussed
at the October meeting.
What is the City's intent when it sponsors an event? Is the City's sponsorship given
because the event serves one or more of the following purposes:
a. To provide events for Tigard citizens to enjoy;
b. To showcase the City to residents and others;
C. To provide an opportunity for non-profit organizations to raise money through
an event?
In prior years, the City's contribution to events such as the Balloon Festival included both
allocation of resources from existing budgets, as well as special appropriations. For instance,
Memo to Council
October 14, 1997
Page Two
in the case of the Balloon Festival, City Administration, Police, Public Works, and
Engineering all devoted some regular staff time to helping plan for and coordinate the event.
In addition, special costs were incurred by the Public Works and Police Department, primarily
overtime and other costs to assist in crowd control, clean-up, and making transportation to and
from the event as smooth as possible.
The City Council has raised questions about the staff budgets for participation in the event.
Staff needs direction on the limit of City participation and financial support for future events.
Whatever direction Council arrives at, staff will implement in 1998 events. Staff will review
requests for funding from special event coordinators and prepare estimates of the City
contribution required to support the event. It is important that staff and Council agree to the
limits of City participation.
Discussion of the Council policy and intent will be very beneficial to staff, Council and
citizens. It is also important that clear direction be given to special event coordinators, such as
Mr. Ellis, so that the planning of such events be completed in advance of the event dates.
Mr. Ellis has acknowledged that he will attend the Council meeting. Cathy Wheatley, Icon
Goodpaster, and Ed Wegner, our key staff contacts for the event, will also attend.
WAM\jh
attachments
i:%ad m%W1M 01497.4.doc
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
ZT~'
FROM: William A. Monahan, City Manager
DATE: August 6, 1997
SUBJECT: Special Event Costs
During the Study Session preceding the Council meeting of July 8, 1997, Council briefly
discussed my July 2 memo which presented Festival of Balloon costs for 1997. Council
directed that a general discussion be held at a future meeting. Time has set aside at the August
12 Study Session for the discussion. After that discussion takes place, Council suggested that
it would be appropriate to have a discussion of Festival costs with Bruce Ellis, the event
organizer.
The July 2, 1997 memo presented a breakdown of expenses for City departments involved in
the event. Some departments incurred special expenses and/or overtime costs. Council asked
that staff review the costs and separate those costs incurred only for special events from costs
which would have been incurred anyway. (That is, regular shifts, seasonal repairs to the
parks, etc.) The costs shown in the July 2 memo and the breakout of special and regular costs
is as follows:
Engineering
ZUI,v 2 Memo
696.03
Regular
696.03
Special
0
Public Works
28,604.42
9,666.64
18,937.78
Police
11,995.83
5,245.36
6,750.47
Administration
265.14
26.14
Q
Total
41,561.42
15,873.17
25,688.25
Memo to Council
August 6, 1997
Page Two
Therefore, the total estimated cost to the City was $41,561.42. Of this total, $15,873.17 was
labor and materials which would have been expended, even if the event was not held. The
remaining $25,688.25 was spent only because the Festival of Balloons was held.
Public Works expenditures on the Festival included:
Public Works expenditures on the Festival included:
$15,066.73 for 569.75 hours of labor
$2,727.70 of material costs
$1,143.35 of outside contractor cost (electrician)
Of the 569.75 hours, the major expenses were related to:
Field surveying (flagging for wetlands buffer
and parking lot set-up) 83
Stage set-up and take-down 123
Sign making, set-up, take-down 51.75
Conelbarricade set-up and pick-up 24
Festival clean-up 236
Material costs for Public Works were:
Sign material for 65 signs* $1,922.80
Steel for sign stands 187.50
Rock roadway 017.00
Total $2,727.70
*The signs can be used in future years for the event.
An electrician was hired to address a need that developed during the event. Electrical power
was needed by the food vendors and other Festival staff.
Police costs directly related to the event were -m ewhai offset by 708 hours of volunteer help
provided by our Police Reserves, State Troopers, m..d Reserves from Beaverton, King City,
Sherwood, Tualatin, and West Linn. The Pacific Northwest Search and Rescue Squad also
contributed time to the event.
Memo to Council
August 6, 1997
Page Three
In contrast to the Festival of Balloons, the 4th of July celebration has maintained a consistent
series of activities over the past ten years. The event continues to require the same services
from the City that it has for years, such as:
1. Police assistance and traffic control
2. Public Works assistance in digging a trench for fireworks canisters
3. Insurance riders to cover the pyrotechnic operator
Costs associated with this year's event were:
Police - $1,093 (18 regular hours and* 14.5 overtime hours)
Public Works - $388.50 for overtime (above the holiday pay which those employees
who worked were already entitled to).
Other assistance was provided during regular business hours as the City arranged for event
insurance and obtained 36 hours of volunteer assistance by the Police Reserves.
Council expressed some concerns about the amount of the City contribution to the Festival of
Balloons. In the past, special events have been granted City financing through the budgeting
process. During the most recent budget cycle, staff provided the Council and citizen members
of the Budget Committee with estimates of the additional contributions made by the City to
events and social service agencies in the prior year.
As events grow, in number, size of crowds, and in need for City involvement, the cost to the
City could grow unless some controls are put in place. The fine line between an event being
"City sponsored" and "City run" at times becomes difficult to determine. During the course
of an event, a City official may be put in the position of making a judgment call that either
incurs cost for the City or deflects cost to event organizers. It would be very helpful to
establish some policies for application at future events.
Memo to Council
August , 1997
Page Four
Staff has identified several policy issues for discussion by Council. Once preliminary
direction is given, staff can prepare a set of policies for use in guiding City involvement in
future events, while controlling the level of contribution.
1. What is the level of City contribution to a "City-sponsored event?"
2. When and how should the City level of involvement be set?
3. Should the City set a "budget" of funds to be earmarked for the event with
Department Heads authorized to expend up to that amount? That is, if Police
have within their budget an amount of $6,000 set aside for the Festival of
Balloons above and beyond the contribution of regularly-paid staff time, can the
department expend up to that amount for any reasonable means of supporting
the event (overtime, cost to replace supplies used, etc.?)
4. Should City contributions to events be requested by event organizers during the
budget process? For example, should an organizer submit a request which
details a proposal which is all inclusive for:
A. Financial contributions (i.e., cash to be used by the organizers).
B. City staff commitments, both assignment of employees and overtime to
help set up, police, or clean up after an event.
C. Expected expenses such as physical improvements to facilities to
accommodate the event, (i.e., running electrical service to a location for
stage events) materials to be putrchased for the event (i.e., gravel to
create a new access way or parking lot).
5. Should events be expected to always require a City contribution or is there a
point that events are expected to be self sufficient; i.e., operate on their own
without City contribution and/or reimburse the City for costs incurred to
support the event?
6. If an event has the means to generate revenue, (such as for parking on City
land) should the City have the opportunity to recover some or all of the revenue
to offset City costs?
Memo to City Council
August 6, 1997
Page Five
7. Should the City capitalize on special events and devise fund raising methods to
recover some or all of City contributions?
Staff will be prepared to discuss fees, policy questions and others at the Study Session portion
of the August 12 Council meeting.
WAM1jh
L\ad=\bano-i.doc
Counui m;n~.Ps~ ~~~a(~~
Mr. Monahan asked if Council concurred with the staff work to create an environment of
communication with those citizens who had concerns while not issuing a permit until they
were: sure of compliance with all regulations. He said that staff was trying not to make
pronnises that they could save something that they could not save.
Councilor Scheckla asked several questions on mitigation in this situation. Mr. Hendryx said
that the Code gave specific exemption to removal of trees in a forest tree deferral wood lot.
Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, explained that the Tree Ordinance Task Force had
specifically excluded tax deferred woodlots because of testimony from people who had set
them aside to harvest for funds to send their children to college. The owners of this lot
intended to harvest the timber before selling the lot to developers. A developer going through
the subdivision process would have to mitigate for those trees.
idly. Monahan said that tonight staff expected neighbors at the meeting to report to the Council
on the CIT discussion. He reported that neighbors have requested staff to make a commitment
to do whatever they could to make sure that neighborhoods were protected from erosion. Staff
wetted this situation to have the least impact possible but with the understanding that the trees
would be cut down.
Councilor Hunt mentioned the erosion problems that resulted from the steep slope of the hill
of the Renaissance Summit development. Councilor Scheckla asked if they would have a
pro ountain. Mr. Monahan said that they hoped to avoid that.
> City Events: Policy Discussion on City Participation and Contributrons
Mr- Monahan reference a memo o e costs o' a Ct o e oo esfival, broken
down by department detailing costs that would have been incurred anyway and special costs.
It also included the Fourth of July costs which were very limited. He pointed out that the
Balloon Festival was growing so fast that it was a new event every year.
Mr- Monahari suggested requiring special events and social agencies to give the City more
advance notice of what their proposals would be prior to the budget process and assigning a
staff person as the contact person for the event or agency. This staff person would identify all
the potential costs so that staff could include a real cost by department into the budget process.
If Council wanted to, they could set an amount for the event, and staff would know that they
had to limit expenses to that amount. With sufficient notice, the special event or agencies
could make decisions on their programs or try to find alternative funding.
Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, reviewed the staff work at the Festival, agreeing that it
did impact his department most of all. He pointed out the positive attitude of staff towards the
Festival, despite the extensive overtime required. He mentioned that the soccer fields were
scheduled to be shut down after the Festival regardless. He said that staff worked Sunday and
Monday to finish cleaning up. He noted the help provided by the carnival and food vendors in
making it easy for them to pick up trash. Bruce Ellis, Event Coordinator, had arranged for the
contractors to retrieve all the rented equipment.
Councilor Scheckla asked if there were items that the City could have the Festival pay for,
such as extra trash pickups. Mr. Monahan said that was an item fbr discussion. He explained
that last year the Festival did not have any surplus revenue; however, this year it appears that
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE'
there was profit. He advised that Mr. Ellis had indicated willingness in the past to help
finance any needed post-event field repair.
Mr. Wegner commented that eventually the Festival would "top out" where the City would
have to limit the number of balloons.
Mayor Nicoli asked about using volunteers to assist City staff. Mr. Wegner said they would
have more success asking volunteers (such as the Boy Scouts) to help with the set up than with
the clean up. He pointed out that school was still in session during the week prior to the
Festival.
Councilor Rohlf asked if they would see an adjustment to the budget. Mr. Monahan said no,
because all the costs were within last year's budget.
Councilor Hunt expressed concern with the extra money being spent without the Council
knowing it was being expended. Mr. Monahan said that it had been a surprise to staff who had
not realized the crowd the Festival would draw until they "saw the cars coming." He said that
the year before had not reflected these dollar amounts but possibly staff was now doing a
better job of reporting the costs.
Mr. Monahan said that the information this year would help staff in their discussions with the
Balloon Festival organizers. He said that there was not an expectation on the Festival's part
that the City would support the event to the point where the Festival retained all-profits
without assisting the City with some of the expenses incurred.
Councilor Hunt asked if there was a way to measure the economic value the Festival brought
to the business community of Tigard. Mayor Nicoli said that the nonprofits could tell the City
how much money they made (which he thought was roughly around $30,000). He said that he
was certain that with 10,000 to 15,000 people coming into the town for a three day event, there
was money going into the business community.
Councilor Hunt asked who authorized the nonprofits that operated at the Festival. Mr.
Monahan said that the Festival did. He reported that Mr. Ellis told him that he tried to restrict
it to Tigard based non profits only. The City's only input has been questions about traffic,
insurance and neighborhood impact. He said that if the Council felt it was important to know
how much money the non-profits made, he thought that Mr. Ellis would be willing to share
that information with them.
Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the non-profits reinvested the money into the community. The
Festival fed the social s.rvice structure of the City in one way or another.
Mr. Monahan reported that he informed Mr. Ellis that the report in the Oregonian regarding
the Council discussion on the Festival did not accurately reflect-the tone of the Council. The
Council was simply curious, not critical..
Councilor Moore asked that a discussion on a special events policy include what the intent of
the City was in sponsoring events. Was it to showcase the City or to provide an opportunity
for non-profits to raise money? Councilor Rohlf suggested a workshop on those issues.
Councilor Moore asked for information on what other communities spent on their big events.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 4
He expressed concern that the Festival might move elsewhere due to lack of space at Cook
Park
The Council discussed when to schedule the discussion. They agreed on the October
workshop. Staff would invite Mr. Ellis to the study session prior to the workshop.
> National League of Cities Conference - Distribute Information
> Agenda Review
• Mr. Hendryx reported that the County reached tentative agreement with Jerry Cache today
to purchase the properties for the Greenspaces program.
• Mr. Monahan explained that staff selected the second lowest bidder on the Menlor
Reservoir project because the lowest bidder had difficulties with his subcontractors' bid.
The second lowest bidder's offer was within the engineer's estimate.
• Mr. Monahan noted an agenda change: the monopole discussion will occur before the
business agenda.
• Councilor Scheckla asked for an update on the Rite Center.
1. BUSINESS MEETING
Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
• Council Communications/Liaison Reports
• Call to Council- and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
Mr. Monahan noted the Council discussion on whether or not to call up CUP 97-0004, the
AT&T monopole tower, and the Rite Center update.
2. PRESENTATION: APPRECIATION ACI{NOWLEDGNIENT FOR KATHY DAVIS,
LIBRARY DIRECTOR AND CITY ENIPLOYEE FOR OVER 21 YEARS
On behalf of the Council, Mayor Nicoli thanked Kathy Davis for her excellent work as Library
Director and presented her with an Award of Appreciation plaque. Ms. Davis presented the
Council with ajar of honey from her business, Mountain Home Apiary, which was moving to
LaGrande.
2A. DISCUSSION: CALL-UP CONSIDERATION - AT&T CUP 97-0004
Mr. Monahan mentioned that the appeal deadline date for this land use application was
August 18. Mr. Hendryx noted the receipt of a petition today requesting the Council to call up
this application. Mayor Nicoli opened up the meeting to public comment.
Spencer Vail, AT&T Wireless Services, asked that the Council not call this up application.
He argued that the appeal process already in place should be used, rather than the Council
initiating appeals on behalf of the people, losing the appeal fee and establishing a precedent.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 5
October 14, 1997
Bruce Ellis
14396 SW Tewkesbury Drive
Tigard, OR 97224
Re: October 21, 1997 Council Discussion
Dear Bruce:
Cathy Wheatley has advised me that you do plan to attend the City Council Study
Session meeting of October ~i, 1997. I look forward to your input as the Council
discusses its policy on sponsorship of special City events.
Enclosed for your information is a copy of my memo to Council, and attachments
regarding this Council agenda item.
As you review the minutes from the August 12, 1997 meeting, you will note issues
raised by Council. I expect that the following questions will be asked of you at the
upcoming meeting.
1. Can you provide the Council with the final figures on the festival costs
and revenue for the 1997 event?
2. Do you propose to share any profits from the 1997 event (and future
events) with the City?
3. Can you tell us what each non-profit involved in the 1997 event earned
from the event?
4. Do you have any ideas how the City may offset expenses which it incurs
to support the event?
5. Have you developed plans for dealing with transportation questions for
the upcoming event?
6. Do you have any major changes planned for the 1998 event? i
1
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 MD (503) 684-2772
Letter to Bruce Ellis
October 14, 1997
Page Two
The City staff would like to meet with you in the very near future to begin planning for
the 1998 event. Staff would like to hear your plans for activities over the event
weekend, so they may begin formulating action plans for delivery of City service
during that time. I expect that the Council discussion will give us a clearer idea of
what the City's level of participation will be, and limitations that will be placed on our
budget. As in prior years, the transportation question will be among the most
important issues requiring attention.
I look forward to your participation in the October 21 Council discussion.
Sincerel ,
William A. Monahan
City Manager
WAM\jh
attachments
kWM%bMI014V-1dW
AGENDA ITEM # q
FOR AGENDA OF i- I Vim- 2
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discussion of City Procedures on TMRorary Signs
PREPARED BY: Bill Monahan DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City continue to regulate temporary signs as it has or should the procedures be modified?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff suggests that Council review the procedures and provide direction to staff whether changes should be
made to the system.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Council discussed the City's regulation of temporary signs in October and November 1998. Code Enforcement
staff has reviewed questions raised by Council and would like to revise City procedures along the lines of
recently enacted ordinances in the City of Lake Oswego.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Take no action.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
An Action Plan identified by the Community Character and Quality of Life Action Planning Committee was to
address signs in the goal area of Community Aesthetics: Revisit the Sign Code - Enforcement and Regulations.
FISCAL NOTES
None at this time.
\\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\NDM\CATHY\COUNCIL\SUMMARY SHEET - TEMPORARY SIGNS.DOC.DOT
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: William Monahan
DATE: March 9, 1999
SUBJECT: Temporary Signs
On October 20, and November 10, 1998, Council discussed the City's approach to policing
temporary signs. At the close of the meeting of November 10, 1998, Councilor Hunt asked
me to put this issue on the agenda within the next couple months. At that time, Councilor
Hunt spoke of creating an ordinance that allows the City to pick up and destroy any signs
in the City rights of way. His concern is that the City has been spending quite a bit of time
and effort to police temporary signs. However, those who place signs in the right of way
are able to retrieve their signs without penalty. He argued that the cost of losing signs was
a sufficient penalty to encourage people to be more careful about where they place their
signs.
Over the last couple of months, the staff has conferred with the City Attorney's office on
options available to the City to create an ordinance giving the City the ability to dispose of
signs which are illegally placed in the right of way. In addition, the staff has consulted with
out City Prosecutor, Larry Blake, and has reviewed the procedures followed by other
communities. One approach which is of interest to the Code Enforcement Staff is that
employed by the City of Lake Oswego. Lake Oswego has a temporary sign collection and
retrieval policy which could be adapted to Tigard's needs.
Councilor Hunt has requested that discussion be held on March 16, 1999 regarding the
status of the staff's efforts. Community Development staff will be available at that time to
discuss our existing ordinance, existing procedure .to enforce the temporary sign
provisions and options available to us. As in the past, the Springtime is the season when
Code Enforcement Staff are most challenged by the introduction of a large number and
variety of signs pertaining to garage sales, real estate sales, weight loss, special weekend
sales, and other assorted purposes.
Another issue to consider is the placement of political signs in the public right of way.
Today is election day for the 1999 School District Elections. During the past few weeks,
there have been some issues related to placement of political signs, however, we expect
that within the next two weeks all political signs will be removed from the right of way and
adjacent properties by candidates. If Council would like us to revise the City's
enforcement policy on signs in the rights of way, prior to the next election, it would be
appropriate to begin the process of ordinance and/or policy revision now.
Attached for your information are the following:
1) Minutes of the Council discussion of October 20, 1998.
2) Minutes of the City Council meeting of November 10, 1998.
3) Memo from the City Attorney dated November 13, 1998, pertaining to political signs in
the right of way.
4) ,r:,.~mo from Matt Scheidegger, City Code Enforcement Officer, pertaining to his efforts
since November to evaluate other alternatives to Sign Code Enforcement.
5) Copy of Lake Oswego City Manager's office memorandum of December 10, 1998,
pertaining to temporary sign collection and retrieval policy of the City of Lake Oswego.
6) Sections from Chapter 18.780 of the Tigard Municipal Code pertaining to signs,
namely:
a) Definition of temporary signs.
b) Section 18.780.070-Certain signs prohibited, including signs in the right of way (K)
c) Section 18.780.100-Temporary signs
9. COUNCIL. LIAISON REPOR'T'S
10. NON-AGENDA I'T'EMS
Mr. Monahan reviewed staffs process for handling political or other signs located within the
public right-of-way. He reported that Washington County has advertised a new process where
County staff removed any illegal signs and disposed of them promptly, not allowing citizens to
pick them up at a holding area. He mentioned the County's new sign policy of charging up to a
$50 fine to pick up an illegal sign removed from the right-of-way and stored for 30 days at
Jackson Quarry. He commented that the County was not yet using the advertised policy.
Mr. Monahan presented a resolution and order under consideration by the County Board that
listed the same reasons that the City had for addressing the sign proliferation problem: aesthetic
clutter, safety promotion, protection of property owners from clutter, an increasing number of
complaints, and the burden on staff in collecting the signs and holding them.
Mr. Monahan suggested modifying the City sign code to include a penalty provision for placing
signs in the right-of-way. He said that currently the City cited individuals for a civil infraction
and took them to court, a process that the staff felt was unproductive. He noted the County's
zero tolerance policy.
Councilor Scheckla expressed concern at the use of Public Works staff to take down signs when
their time could be better used elsewhere. Mr. Monahan mentioned the tremendous job Mr.
Wegner's staff did in reducing sign clutter, even during the political season. He noted the work
of Matt Scheidegger, the Code Enforcement Officer, in working on this problem also.
Councilor Rohlf commented that he thought that they were making a lot of fuss over a problem
that came around for only a few weeks and then went away. He spoke to developing a citation
for those who left their political signs up after the election was over. Mr. Monahan said that
they did have a provision in the Code to address that situation which worked pretty well.
Councilor Rohlf spoke to continuing to educate the public that they had the right to pull down
signs in the right-of-way, and noticing the candidates that if they did not pick up their signs after
a reasonable time, the City would fine them.
Councilor Scheckla asked how citizens would know what was or was not right-of-way. Mayor
Nicoli agreed that that was the problem, recounting an anecdote from his campaign in which a
supporter placed signs on the median on Pacific Highway because he thought that it was not
public right-of-way since it was not the roadway. He said that he had no problem with the
current staff process to handle the issue, and that he was uncomfortable with the County's
process. He suggested waiting to see what happened with the County's process before they
made any changes.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -OCTOBER 20, 1998 - PAGE 19
1.
ice'
Mr. Monahan reviewed how the Public Works staff dealt with removing political signs from the
right-of-way while at the same time educating the property owners about the issue. He stated
that they could not prohibit political signs because they could not regulate content. He
suggested that staff continue with its current process for handling political signs while waiting to
see what happened at the County.
e The Council considered Agenda Item 7 at this time.
11. ADJOURNMENT: 10:59 P.M.
Attest:
Mayor, City of Tigard
Date:
1AADM\CATHY\CCM\981020.D0C
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -OCTOBER 20, 1998 - PAGE 20
8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Reimbursement to Councilor Rohlf
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, that the City reimburse
Councilor Rohlf for the amount of the bill for the legal services in the challenge to the
Ethics Commission.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Councilors Hunt, Moore,
Mayor Nicoli, and Scheckla voted "yes." Councilor Rohlf abstained.)
Councilor Scheckla mentioned that the a banner for Measure 34-87 on Gaarde Sweet has not yet
been taken down, as was the case with other political signs. Mr. Wegner explained that the
candidates or political action committees had 10 days from the election date to remove their
signs. Staff would do a sweep through the city on Friday to pick up left over signs.
Councilor Scheckla commented that there was no penalty for leaving the signs up. He said that
if they could not penalize them, then they might as well take the law off the books.
Councilor Hunt asked Mr. Monahan to put this issue on the agenda within the next month or
two. He spoke to creating an ordinance that allowed the City to pick up and destroy any signs in
the City right-of-ways. He argued that the cost of losing the signs was sufficient penalty to
encourage people to be more careful about where they placed their signs. Mr. Monahan said
that they would do so. He asked if Councilor Hunt wanted to go in the direction of the County
ordinance. Councilor Hunt said no. Mr. Monahan said that staff would check with the City
Attorney's office to see what the City's rights were in this situation.
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:01 p.m. under the provisions of
ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and
pending litigation issues.
9. ADJOURNMENT: 11:10 p.m.
Attest:
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
Mayor, City of Tigard
Date:
I:\ADM\CATHY\CCM\981110. DOC
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 1998 - PAGE 16
O'DONNELL
RAMIS
CREW
CORRIGAN &
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1727 N.W. Hoyt Street
Portland, Oregon 97209
(503) 222-4402
(gym
~OV 16 1998 f
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tigard City Council
FROM: James M. Cole n, City Attorney's Office
DATE: November 13, 1998
RE: Political Signs in the Public Right of Way
Pursuant to your request, our office has looked at the issue of removal and destruction of political signs
left in the right of way. Following is a discussion of this issue.
Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.114.060.B.1 provides that signs shall not be placed on utility
poles or in the public right of way". The Code provides certain exemptions from the requirements placed
on signs, but no exemption allows signs in the public right of way. (See also: §18.114.070.C).
Signs in violation of the Code may be removed pursuant to § 18.114.120. Subsection A provides that:
"all signs erected after the effective date of this title, which are in violation of any provisions of
this ordinance, shall be removed or brought into conformance upon written notice by the
Director."
If the owner of the sign fails to comply with the written order, the Director may then cite the owner into
court pursuant to Chapters 18.24 and 1.16 of the Code. The City may abate the Code violaticn by
appropriate proceeding as specified in § 18.24.060 and § 1.16.305.
The Code is silent regarding destruction of signs that have been removed by the City. However, Chapter
2.52 of the Code provides a process for abandoned, found, seized and stolen property. This Chapter does
apply to political signs found abandoned in the public right of way and removed by the City. Specifically,
Memorandum re: Political Signs in the Public Fight of Way
November 13, 1998
Page 2
§2.52.060 states that "this chapter shall apply to all personal property, except motor vehicles, now or
herder in the custody of the City of Tigard." The process found in Chapter 2.52 allows the property
owner to reclaim the property, and if not reclaimed, allows the City to sell the property. If an owner
seeks to reclain: the signs the City may require payment of any charges and expenses incurred in the
storage, preservation and custody of the property. These provisions do not allow the City to destroy the
signs. The Code is silent as to what the City may do with the signs, if not sold. However, if property is
K:1rplus and of no value to the City, the City may, after going through the process found in Chapter 2.52,
dispose of the signs.
Please call with any questions.
cc: William A. Monahan, City Manager
Timothy V. Ramis
jm&-- ni/90024/signinrow.me1
FEN-01-99 MON 02:03 PM CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO. FAX NO. 503 635 0269 _ N. 02
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Current Planning Division
Les Youngbar, Chief, Police Department
Doane Cline, Director, Maintenance Services
Julee Reynolds, Street Superintendent, Maintenance Services
Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney
FROM: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
SUBJECT: Temporary Sign Collection & Retrieval Policy
DA'T'E: December 10, 1998
1. BACKGROUND
The Sian Code (Chapter 47) was enacted to protect the health, safety, property, and
welfare of the public, as well as provide a neat, clean, orderly, and attractive appearance
of the community. In addition, the Sign Code is intended to prevent proliferation of
signs, and.to minimize adverse visual safety factors to travelers.
11. SIGN COLLECTION
A. Public Right of Way
The Sign Code provides that "no temporary sign shall extend into or over the
public right-of-way of any street." LOC 47.08.300(A)(2)(a). Staff will continue
efforts to collect temporary signs placed in the public right of way. However,
staff will not remove signs that arc questionable as to whether located on private
property, such signs will remain in place and staff may use other enforcement
methods to address a violation (Notice of Civil Infraction, etc.).
Staff will use the following guidelines to determine when a sign is located in the
public right of way (these are guidelines only. not an actual definition of public
right of way):
1) Water meters; utility boxes; utility polesloverhanging wires;
2) Traffic signals; traffic signs; street lights; fire hydrants;
3) Road islandsnandscape islands;
4) Planting beds on the street side of sidewalks;
5) Sidewalks and streets unless posted as private;
S) Property pins noting the edge of the public right away; and
7) Any other legally defined property line known by staff to denote the
location of the public right of way.
FEB-01-99 MON 02;03 PM CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO FAX NO, 503 635 0269 P.03
Please note that the guidelines for determining the location of the public right of
way may not be accurate in all instances. Ultimately, staff will need to exercise
judgement in determining when it is questionable where the edge of the public
right of way is, and in those instances, obtain a definitive line.
B. Sign Ph21950 aDh
Before each sign is removed, staff will take a photograph of the sign and note the
date and location of the sign on the photograph if a Polaroid is taken, otherwise
after the photograph is developed this information should be noted on the
photograph. Polaroid, digital or regular photograph developing will all work.
Staff should submit all photographs to Janice Benn, Planning Senior Secretary.
C. Sim
As each sign is removed, staff will enter data into a "Temporary Sign Collection
Log" as noted below (Log Attached). Staff must hand-deliver. email or fax new.
log sheets to Janice Benn, Planning Senior Secretary by 10:00 am the day
following sign collection or Monday for signs collected on the weekend. The log
sheets will be maintained in a binder stored at the Planning Counter.
1) Date;
2) Location - approximate address (ex: sidewalk of A Ave. & State St.);
3) Notable Features - (ex: "Sue Gold, Prudential, 543-1234", "Sale", etc.);
4) Notice Address - to remain blank until/if a notice is sent; and
5) Retrieval Fee - to remain blank until the $20 retrieval fee is paid.
D. Date and Location of Removal
As each sign is removed, the removal date and location of the sign should be
documented on tape with permanent marker and attached to the sign.
E. Sign Storage
Signs should be brought to the maintenance yard and placed near the Police
Evidence Building where the signs will be stored. After the 30 days has lapsed
from the date noted on each sign, maintenance staff will dispose of the signs.
F. Notice
Janice Benn, Planning Senior Secretary will prepare a notice postcard for each
owner, if discernible from the sign (ex: Sue Gold, Prudential, 543-1234). She will
use the data in the "Notable Features" of the Log to disceni who/where to send
the notice. For the above example, she will call (543-1234) to request the address
for Sue Gold, and mail out a notice postcard. (Notice Postcard Attached).
:'II. SIGN RETRIEVAL
A. Verification
Planning staff will work with individuals to review the Temporary Sign
Collection Log to determine if staff removed the sign within the past 30 days.
FEB-01-99 MON 0204 PM CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO FAX NO, 503 635 0269 P.04
B. Retrieval Pee
If a sign was removed by the city within the past 30 days, the individual must
present proof of ownership of the sign and pay a $20 retrieval fee per sign (sign
retrieval fee approved by City Council). The fee should be entered into account
#406 - Misc. Planning Pees. It is important to provide the individual with a
receipt for the payment.
If the 30 days has passed, but Maintenance has not disposed the sign, an exceptio::
should be made to allow the owner to pay the retrieval fee and retrieve the sign.
C. Sign Retrieval from Maintenance
After the retrieval fee is paid, the individual will call maintenance at 6350280 to
schedule a date and time during business hours (7:30 mm - 4:00 pm) to pick up the
sign. The individual should provide maintenance staff with adequate information
to retrieve the sign from storage. Maintenance staff will be available from 2:30
pm - 3:30 pm each regular workday to retrieve signs from storage.
At maintenance, the individual should present the receipt to demonstrate that the
sign retrieval fee was paid. Walk-ins will not be accepted. If the individual does
not have a receipt, direct them to the Planning Div, to pay the retrieval fee.
D. Hearing _before a Hearing Examiner
The owner may request a hearing before a Hearing Examiner (Tom Coffee) to
contest the sign removal. To request a hearing, the owner must file an application
and pay a $20 hearing fee at the Planning Div. within 15 days of the sign removal
(Temporary Sign Removal Request for a Hearing Application Attached).
The hearing fee is refundable if the Hearing Examiner finds that the sign was
removed improperly. Planning Div. Staff will schedule the Hearing and provide
the owner with a Notice stating the date, time, location, etc. of the Hearing
(Temporary Sign Removal Hearing Notice Attached).
At the hearing, testimony and evidence begins with -the owner, followed by the
City, and concludes with rebuttal by the owner. After the evidence has been
provided, the Hearing Examiner will close testimony and issue a decision. The
Hearings Examiner will follow up with a written decision that states the facts of
the case and an analysis of the decision.
'(V. INFORMATION RESOURCES
A. Sign Code /Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standard (Title 23.=
Copies of both are available from the Planning Div. The Sign Code regulates
temporary and permanent signs in the city, whereas Title 23.000 regulates
permanent signs in the "EC" zone of the city.
B. TeMnorary Sign Collection/ Temporary Sign Retrieval Handout
The handout provides information about why the city collects temporary signs
from the public right of way, as well as, the steps to retrieve a temporary sign
collected by the city (Handout Attached).
90 'd 6920 9£9 £05 'ON Xdd 003MSO DV I d0 All O Wd 90:20 NOW 66-10-838
FEB-01-99 MON 02:0'1 NM CITY OF LAKE; OSWE:GO FAX NO. 503 63b U288 F. U1
wt
TEMPORARY SIGN REMOVAL
REQUEST FOR A HEARING
~we+
R
NAME
COMP.?-,NY
Ac.;S
DDRS_
Cam: -----STATE ZIP
PHONE.-
STATES ENT OF SIGN MUM
-OWNER'S AGENT*
Hearing No.
Hearing Fee ($20).
(Refundable if sign found to have
beer, removed improperly)
NAME
COMPANY
ADDRESS
CITY STAFF- ZjP
PHONE
"Attach documentation to evidence the authority to act as the
owner's agent in making this Request for a Hearing.
EVIUECE TO BE PRESENTED - Owner requests a hearing to retrieve a sign, because it is alleged to not be in
violation of Lake Oswego Code or other applicable law, as follows;
LS.DAYS REQUEST DEADLINE - This hearing request must be fled within IS days of the date the sign was removed.
Owner's.'Agent's Signature Date
STAFF "WILL COMPLETE-' THE FOLLOWING.
~~rasaaw:v~ur~ at n 1nIormaUon
rApplication Date Removal Date
1
L.- --I
Hearing
Date
11
Receivr By i =
Time
Hearing • Fee ($20) Features
Notable
Location
Receipt 40. Sign Removed Per
T5
g
LOC
Examin
er
FEB-01-9['9~ MON 02::0~~5~~ PM CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO FAX NO. 503 63b 0269 F. Ub
WA L (-)bS4 -(W
.FE8-01-99 MON 02:08 PM CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO FAX NO. 503 63b 0269 F.U8
COMMUNM DEVELOt'MEW DEPARTMENT
Temporary Sign Removal Nearing Notice
On the , day of ,1998, at _ am/pm, in the
, City Hall, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, the
City Manager or designee as a Hearing Examiner will hold a hearing to determine
whether to impose the $20 retrieval fee as a condition to the release of the sign or return
the applicant's sign without a $20 retrieval fee and refund the $20 hearing fee.
Owner/Agent:
Location of Sign before Removal:
Notable Features of Sign:
Nature of Request: The agnlicant is reguesting a tempprary sic-,n removal hearing
Conduct of the Hearing: The Hearing Examiner will open the hearing and describe the
heating procedures. Testimony and evidence begins with applicant, followed by City,
and concludes with rebuttal by the applicant. After the evidence has been provided, the
Hearing Examiner will close testimony and issue a decision. The Hearing Examiner's
decision will be a final decision.
To reschedule the hearing, please contact at 635-0290.
Date Notice was issued (Mailingdn Person) to Owner/Agent:
FE6-01-99 MON 02:08 PM CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO FAX NO. 503 635 0269 P. 09
~-lo..:.}t;~- Ct~oKrnaal~ u d~1~-~idt~t c~s~o In~d~ , siytall.~' lh 4pe,~ si~e~
Y ;y Si
C0Hectl®
The ;,Jty's Sign Code provides that
1W no irmporary sign shall extend into or
over : fie public right-of-way of any
strea." LOC 47.08.300(A)(2)(a).
City staff will collect temporary signs
place' in the public right of way in an
eMr* o protect the health, safety,
prope>:,y, and welfare of the public
while•Minimizing adverse visual safety
factor •to travelers. These efforts also
help P';ovide a neat, clean, orderly,
and awractive appearance of the
community. LOC 47.03.010.
Signs placed in the public right of way
are subject to removal (weekdays and
weeker;ds) and/or a Notice of Civil
Infraction, citation, and fine.
LOC 4-?.03.025(1)(A).
Please c::,nlact the Planning Div. at
635-02%] with any questions about
the Sign.z;ode (Chapter 47).
Sign
Retrieval
To retrieve your temporary sign,
please follow these steps:
At the Planning Div., 3`' Floor, City
Hall, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake
Oswego, review the "Temporary
Sign Collection Log" to determine if
the city removed your sign within the
past 30 days.
2. If the City removed your sign,
present proof of ownership of the
sign and pay a $20 retrieval fee per
sign at the Planning Div. Retain
your receipt!
3. After the retrieval fee is paid, contact
the Maintenance Dept at 635-0280
to schedule a pick-up date and time
during business hours (7:30 AM -
4:00 PM), to assure your sign is
available from storage when you
arrive,
4. At the Maintenance Dept., 5705 Jean
Road, Lake Oswego, present your
receipt for $20 in exchange for your
sign. Walk-ins are not accepted-
AFTER 30 DAYS, YOUR SIGN
WILL BE DISPOSED OF AND
CANNOT BE RETURNED.
Please contact the Planning Div. at
635-0290 with any questions about
the Sign Code (Chapter 47).
42. "Reader-board sign" means any sign with changeable copy or a message, except electronic
information signs;
43. "Roof line" means the top edge of a roof or building parapet, whichever is higher; excluding any
cupolas, chimneys or other minor projections;
44. "Roof sign" means a sign erected fully upon or directly above a roof line or parapet of a building
or stricture. Exceptions: include approved temporary balloons, signs attached to existing
architectural features and flush mounted "roof' signs;
45. "Rotating, revolving or moving sign" means any sign, or portion of a sign, which moves in any
manner;
46. "Shopping center" means developments of not less than eight business units;
47. "Shopping plaza" means developments of between two and seven business units;
48. "Sign" means materials placed or constructed primarily to convey a message or other display and
which can be viewed from a right-of-way, another property or from the air;
49. "Sign structure" means any structure which supports or is capable of supporting any sign as
described in the Uniform Building Code. A sign structure may be a single pole and may or may
not be an integral part of a building;
50. "Structural alteration" means modification of the size, shape or height of a sign stricture. Also
includes replacement of sign structure materials with other than comparable materials, for
example metal parts replacing wood parts;
51. "Surface street" means a street which does not have limited access and which is not a freeway or
expressway;
52. "Temporary sign" means any sign, "A" board frame, banner, lawn sign or balloon which is not
permanently erected or permanently affixed to any sign structure, sign tower, the ground or a
building:
a. Balloon - an inflatable, stationary temporary sign anchored by some means to a structure or
the ground. Includes simple children's balloons, hot and cold air balloons, blimps and other
dirigibles;
b. Banner - a sign made of fabric or other nonrigid material with no enclosing framework;
c. Lawn Sign - a freestanding sign in residential zones which is exempt from sign permit
requirements provided the size requirements in Subsection 18.760.060 B2. can be met.
53. "Tenant Sign" means a sign placed in control of a current tenant or property owner,
54. "Uniform Building Code" means the most recent structural and specialty Oregon Uniform
Building Code as adopted by the Oregon Department of Commerce, and which Uniform Building
Code, by this reference, is incorporated in this title to the extent of specific citations thereof in
this title;
Signs 18.780-5 1M26198
C. Exceptions. The sign permit provisions of this section shall not apply to repair, maintenance or
change of copy on the same sign (including, but not limited to the changing of a message on a sign
specifically designed and permitted for the use of changeable copy), or unlawfully erected or
maintained signs.
18.780.070 Certain Signs Prohibited
A. Prohibited disolay of flags and banners. it is a violation of this chapter to erect or maintain strings of
pennants, banners or streamers, festoons of lights, clusters of flags, strings of twirlers or propellers,
flashing or blinking lights, flares, balloons and similar devices of carnival character. Exceptions
include:
1. National, state and institutional flags properly displayed;
2. Signs and banners approved as temporary signs; and
3. Balloons as allowed in Subsection 18.780.090C.
B. Unsafe signs or improperly maintained signs. No sign shall be constructed, erected or maintained
unless the sign and sign structure is so constructed, erected and maintained as to be able to withstand
the wind, seismic and other requirements as specified in the Uniform Building Code or this title.
C. Signs at intersections. No sign shall be erected at intersections of any streets in such a manner as to
materially obstruct free and clear vision. All signs shall be consistent with Chapter 18.795 of this
title:
1. No sign shall be erected at any location where, by reason of the position, shape or color, that
interferes with, obstructs the view of, or could be confused with any authorized traffic signal or
device; and
2. No sign shall be erected which makes use of the word "stop," "look," "danger," or any other
similar word, phrase, symbol, or character in such manner as is reasonably likely to interfere
with, mislead or confuse motorists.
D. Obscenity. No sign shall bear or contain statements, words or pictures in which the dominant theme
of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex or is patently offensive
because it affronts the contemporary community standard relating to the description or representation
of sexual material which is utterly without redeeming social value.
E. Traffic obstructing signs. No sign or sign structure shall be constructed in such a manner or at such a
location that it will obstruct access to any fire escape or other means of ingress or egress from a
building or any exit corridor, exit hallway or exit doorway. No sign or supporting structure shall
cover, wholly or partially, any window or doorway in any manner that it will substantially limit
access to the building in case of fire.
F. Bare light bulbs. Strings of bare lights shall not be constructed, erected, or maintained within view of
any private or public street or right-of-way except if designed as part of a structure's architectural
design. This subsection shall not apply to lighting displays as described in Subsection
18.114.070.A.2.
signs 18.780-9 11126198
G. Roof signs. Roof signs of any kind are prohibited, including temporary signs with the sole exception
of approved temporary balloons.
H. Revolving signs. Revolving, rotating or moving signs of any kind are prohibited.
1. Flashing signs. A sign which displays flashing or intermittent or sequential light, or lights of changing
degrees or intensity, with each interval in the cycle lasting two seconds or less. Exposed reflective
type bulbs, strobe ".ights, rotary beacons, par spots, zip lights, or similar devices shall be prohibited.
J. Temporary signs with illumination or changeable copy. A sign not permanently erected or affixed to
any sign structure, sign tower or building which is an electrical or internally illuminated sign or a sign
with changeable message characteristics.
K. Right-of-way. Signs in the public right-of-way in whole or in part, except signs legally erected for
informational purposes by or on behalf of a government agency.
L. Signs on a vehicle. Any sign placed on or painted on a motor vehicle or trailer, as defined by ORS
Chapter 801, with the primary purpose of providing a sign not otherwise allowed for by this chapter.
M. Billboards. Billboards are prohibited.
18.780.080 Sign Illumination
A. Surface brightness. The surface brightness of any sign shall not exceed that produced by the diffused
output obtained from 800 milliampere fluorescent light sources spaced not closer than eight inches,
center on center.
B. No exposed incandescent lamps. Any exposed incandescent lamp which exceeds 25 watts shall not
be used on the exterior surface of any sign so as to expose the face of such bulb or lamp to any public
street or public right-of-way with the exception of electronic information signs.
18.178.085 Sign Measurement
A. Proiecting and freestanding signs.
1. The area of a freestanding or projecting sign shall include all sign faces counted in calculating its
area. Regardless of the number of sign cabinets or sign faces, the total allowable area shall not be
exceeded;
2. The area of the sign shall be measured as follows if the sign is composed of one or more
individual cabinets or sides:
a. The area around and enclosing the perimeter of each cabinet, sign face or module shall be
summed and then totaled to determine total area. The perimeter of measurable area shall not
include embellishments such as pole covers, framing and decorative roofing, provided there
is no written advertising copy, symbols or logos on such embellishments;
b. If the sign is composed of more than two sign cabinets, sign facia or modules, the area
enclosing the entire perimeter of all cabinets and/or modules within a single, continuous
geometric figure shall be the area of the sign. Pole covers and other embellishments shall not
signs 1&780-10 11126198
5. All Code provisions applicable to wall signs shall also be applicable to this type of sign.
H. Painted Wall Signs.
1. Wall signs, including symbols or logos, which are painted directly onto the wall surface shall not
exceed in gross wall area that percentage normally allowed for a wall sign in that zoning district;
however, the vertical dimension of the sign cannot exceed 20 percent of the height of the wall.
18.780.100 'T'emporary Signs
A. Authorization. The Director shall be empowered to authorize temporary signs not exempted by
Section 18.780.060 by means of a T3ye I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390, using approval
criteria contained in Section 18.385. The Director shall attach such conditions to the issuance of a
permit for a temporary sign as may be necessary to ensure discontinuance of the use of the sign in
accordance with the terms of the authorization, and to ensure substantial compliance with the purpose
of this title.
B. Expiration.
1. A temporary sign permit shall terminate within 30 days from the date of issuance; and
2. No permit shall be issued for a period longer than 30 days, but a permit may be reissued by the
Director for two additional permit periods of 30 days each per calendar year.
C. Types and locations. Types and locations of temporary signs shall be as follows:
1. The total number of temporary signs shall not exceed one for any use at any one period of time;
such signs are not permitted for single-family and duplex dwellings;
2. The total area of a temporary sign shall not exceed 24 square feet and no more than 12 square feet
per face; such signs are not permitted for single-family and duplex dwellings. The permitted area
for a banner shall be no more than 24 square feet per face with the total sign area not to exceed 24
square feet;
3. See Subsection 18.780.015 C52.for the types of temporary signs which may be approved;
4. Special event banners to be hung across public right-of-ways may be permitted by the City
Manager's designee;
5. A balloon as provided in Subsection 18.780.090C.
D. Location. The location of a temporary sign shall be as approved by the Director.
E. Attachment. Temporary signs may not be permanently attached to the ground, buildings or other
structures.
18.780.110 Nonconforming Signs
A. AanlicabiliV. For the purposes of this chapter, non-conforming signs will be defined as follows:
Signs 1& 780-14 111261'98
1. Except as provided in this chapter, signs in existence on March 20, 1978, in accordance with
Ordinance Nos. 77-89 and 78-16, which do not conform to the provisions of this chapter, but
which were constructed, erected or maintained in compliance with all previous regulations, shall
be regarded as nonconforming signs which may be continued until March 20, 1988;
2. Signs in existence on January 11, 1971, which do not conform to the provisions of this chapter,
but which were constructed, erected or maintained in compliance with all previous regulations,
were regarded as nonconforming signs and could be continued for a period of 10 years from
January 11, 1971. All such signs which were not brought into compliance with the standards in
Ordinance Nos. 77-89 and 78-16 and the extensions granted, are now in violation of this chapter;
3. Signs located on premises annexed into the City after January 11, 1971, which do not comply
with the provisions of this chapter, shall be brought into compliance with this chapter within a
period of ten years after the effective date of the annexation;
4. Any sign which is structurally altered, relocated or replaced shall immediately be brought into
compliance with all of the provisions of this chapter, except the repairing and restoration of a sign
on site or away from the site to a safe condition. Any part of a sign or sign structure for normal
maintenance shall be permitted without loss of nonconforming status.
B. Restrictions. For purposes of this title, a sign face or message change shall be subject to the following
provisions:
1. A sign face or message change on a nonconforming sign is not allowed as an alteration when the
affected property and sign structure have been abandoned for greater than 90 days;
2. A sign face or message change shall be allowed as an alteration only for existing conforming
signs and for nonconforming signs prior to their amortization expiration date; and
3. No sign permit shall be required for allowable sign face or message changes.
C. Reconstruction. Should a nonconforming sign or sign structure or nonconforming portion of structure
be destroyed or repaired by any means to an extent of more than 50% of its replacement cost, it shall
not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this title.
D. Requirements for conformance.
1. Signs in existence on the effective date of this chapter which do not comply with provisions
regulating flashing signs; use of par spotlights or rotating beacons; rotating and revolving signs;
flags, banners, streamers, or strings of lights, or temporary or incidental signs; shall be made to
conform within 90 days from the effective date of this chapter,
Billboard signs in existence on the effective date of this title which do not comply with the
provisions of Subsection 18.114.090.A shall be permitted to remain along Highway 99W only
until June 10, 1998, at which time such signs shall be brought into conformity.
18.780.120 Sign Removal Provisions: Nonconforming and Abandoned Signs
A. Conformance required. All signs erected after the effective date of this title, which are in violation of
any provisions of this ordinance, shall be removed or brought into conformance upon written notice
by the Director.
Signs 18.780-I5 11126198
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO:
City Council
FROM:
Mathew Scheidegger
DATE:
March 9,1999
SUBJECT:
Sign Regulations
The temporary sign problem in the City of Tigard is not just commercial business signs but political
signs, garage sale signs, bennie baby signs, weight loss signs and work at home signs. Current sign
regulations for the City of Tigard give people permission through a permit to have one temporary
sign per use for 30 days. Temporary sign permit can be renewed twice per calendar year for a total
of 90 days. The current enforcement procedures allow a business ten days to come into
compliance. If a business has not come into compliance within the ten days, a summons and
complaint is issued. All signs that are picked up by staff are stored over at the public works
building without any guidelines as to how long to keep them, who notifies the owner, do we recycle
them or do we just throw them away.
Presently businesses are using techniques such as blanketing the city on the weekends and hiring
people to stand on street corners with signs to wave customers in. Enforcement on these types of
signs has been effective but as more and more businesses catch on to this type of advertisement,
more sign placement companies flood the area. If Tigard doesn't implement a stronger sign
enforcement policy, the City will continue to have problems.
After researching other cities techniques, I have prepared a "Temporary Sign Collection and
Retrieval Policy." The new policy establishes certain guidelines as to signs located in the public
right-of-way, recording locations, sign storage, notifying property owners and establishing a
retrieval fee to cover the City's collection costs. The City's attorney is currently reviewing the
policy.
Lake Oswego has already put a retrieval policy into effect. I spoke to Stephanie Fiereck, Code
Officer for Lake Oswego, to find out what brought on the implementation of their policy. During
the last revision to Lake Oswego's Fee Resolution, the City Council decided to begin charging a
$20 sign retrieval fee for signs collected by the City. Ms. Fiereck didn't feel comfortable collecting
the signs nor charging the fee without a City Policy as a guide.
Ms. Fiereck commented that the policy is too new to say whether it is working or not. However,
the signs that have been collected have not returned for display a second time. People either pay the
$20 retrieval fee per sign, or they decide it is not worth it and are left without their signs.
AGENDA ITEM # tD. I
FOR AGENDA OF March 16, 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 the building code administration progmm be established b resolution of the Ci Council.
PREPARED BY: Jim HendM DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK WV
ISSUE BEFORE THE 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.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None.
FISCAL NOTES
No fiscal impact from this ordinance. See fiscal impact discussion on the accompanying resolution.
I:\citywide\cdadm\jerree\jim\gen\39tl4fee.doc
AGENDA ITEM # /U
FOR AGENDA OF March 16, 1999
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A resolution establishing building, plumbingmechanical electrical permit and
related fees.
PREPARE GR OK A)-O"
D BY: Jim Hen DEPT HEAD OK A~lfo - C
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
A resolution to increase fees for building code administration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution increasing and establishing fees for the building administration program.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
At the study session of February 23, 1999, the Council considered several options for fee increases for building,
plumbing, mechanical, electrical permits and related fees. Staff was directed to proceed with a public hearing on
the proposed fees. Council held the public hearing on March 9, 1999. At the conclusion of the hearing, Council
moved that staff return to the next regularly scheduled meeting with a resolution setting those fees.
The fee increases are:
• Building and Mechanical: Average 51% increase effective 5/3/99.
• Plumbing: Average 27% increase effective 5/3/99.
• Electrical: Average 7% increase effective 5/3/99.
• Miscellaneous: Several minor miscellaneous fees are adopted.
Note: "Average" is used to account for rounding of numbers.
Staff will complete a study on these fees determining overhead costs associated with the building administration
program. Furthermore, the study will evaluate all non-building code related functions performed by the
building division. The findings from the study will be presented to Council prior to further consideration of
building fees.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Take no action on the resolution increasing building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical permit and related fees.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Not applicable
FISCAL NOTES
Approval of the resolution assures future viability of the building fund.
iAcitywid6sm.dot
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; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on March 9, 1999 and moved that staff return to
the next regularly scheduled meeting with a resolution setting building fees; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council directed that a study on these fees determining overhead costs
associated with the building administration program be completed before future consideration of
building fee increases; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council directed that the study be completed prior to future consideration of
building fees evaluating all non-building code related functions performed by the building division;
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:
Effective May 3,1999:
Plumbing Fees:
Description:
Fee:
New Single-Family:
1 Bath
$178.00
2 Bath
250.00
3 Bath
285.00
FIXTURES (individual)
Sink
11.50
Lavatory
11.50
Tub or Tub/Shower Comb.
11.50
RESOLUTION NO. 99--
Page 1
Plumbing Fees:
Description:
Fee:
Shower Only
11.50
Water Closet
11.50
Dishwasher
11.50
Garbage Disposal
11.50
Washing Machine
11.50
Floor Drain/Floor Sink 2"
l 1.50
"
32'
11.50
4"
11.50
Water Heater
11.50
Laundry Room Tray
11.50
Urinal
11.50
Other Fixtures
15.00
Sewer - 1 st 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
Any Trap or Waste Not Connected to a Fixture
11.50
Catch Basin
11.50
Insp. 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-
7.00
RESOLUTION NO.99
Page 2
Mechanical Fees:
Description
Fee:
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.
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) Ventilation system 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
19) Repair units
8.40
20) Wood stove
7.00
21) Clothes dryer, etc.
7.00
22) Other units
7.00
23) Gas piping one to four outlets
3.75
24) More than 4-per outlet (each)
.75
25) Hazardous Process Piping System (HPP) of one to four outlets
3.75
26) Hazardous Process Piping System (HPP) of five or more outlets, per outlet
.75
27) For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Mechanical
Code but not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is
listed in the table
7.00
Minimum Permit Fee
$50.00
B) Plan review 25% of Permit Fee
Other Inspections and Fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge - two
hours)
2. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge -
one-half hour)
3. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans
(minimum charge - one-half hour)
$50.00 per hour
$50.00 each
$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
$50.00
$501.00 to $2,000
$15.50 for the first $500.00 plus $2.25 for each
additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and
including $2,000 ($50.00 minimum)
$2,001.00 to $25,000.00
$47.75 for the first $2,000.00 plus $9.25 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $25,000
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00
$261.25 for the first $25,000.00 plus $6.75 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $50,000
$50,001.00 to $100,000
$431.50 for the first $50,000.00 plus $4.65 for
RESOLUTION NO. 99%_
Page 3
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $100,000
$100,001.00 to $500,000.00
$664.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $3.75 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $500,000
$500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00
$2,144.00 for the first $500,000.00 plus $3.40 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $1,000,000
001.00 and up
$1
000
$3,819.00 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $2.65
,
,
for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
Other Inspections and Fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum
charge - two hours)
$50.00 per hour
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 camps
Fee per OAR
Electrical Fees:
1. 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.
D.
Limited energy
Each manufactured home or modular dwelling service or feeder
60.00
72.75
2. Services or feeders; installation, alterations or relocation:
A.
200 amps or less
64.25
50
85
B.
201 amps to 400 amps
.
50
128
C.
401 amps to 600 amps
.
192
50
D.
601 amps to 1000 amps
.
75
363
E.
Over 1000 amps or volts
.
50
53
F.
Reconnect only
.
3. Temporary services or feeders; installation, alteration or relocation:
A.
200 amps or less
53.50
80
25
B.
201 amps to 400 amps
.
00
107
C.
401 amps to 600 amps
.
(see 2 above)
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
5.35
B
Without purchase of service or feeder
.
First branch circuit
37.50
RESOLUTION NO. 99-_
Page 4
Each additional branch circuit
5.35
Miscellaneous (service or feeder not included):
A. Each pump or irrigation circuit 42.75
B. Each sign or outline lighting 42.75
C. Signal circuit(s) or a limited energy panel, alteration or extension 60.00
D. Each additional inspection over the allowable in any ofthe above (min 1 hr)
i) Per inspection 50.00
ii) Per hour 50.00
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
ofthe electrical permit fee.
Cr. Minor Labels: $107.00 for ten labels.
1VlisceRaneous Fees:
Description
Fee:
-
Re-inspection:
Building
$50.00
Mechanical
$50.00
Plumbing
$50.00
Electrical
$50.00
Temporary Occupancy
$90.00
-
Phased Occupancy
$200.00
Permit or Plan Review Extension
$50.00
Address Change
$65.00
Research on non-current permits
$45.00 per hour
minimum one hour, ccharged 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
■ Hotels
$160.00, plus $5 for each dwelling unit in excess of 5
Classification. The City Council has determined that the fees imposed by this resolutio are not taxes
subject to the property tax limitations of Article XI, section l lb of the Oregon Constitution
PASSED: This day of
- City
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
RESOLUTION NO. 99--
Page 5
10.a-
Venture Properties, inc.
5000 S.W. Meadows Rd.
Suite 151
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
(503) 620-7538
FAX (503) 620-7485 MAR 12 X999
March 9, 1999
Tigard City Council
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Council Members:
My name is Kelly Ritz; I am a land developer and in-house counsel for Venture
Properties, Inc., the development arm of Don Morissette Homes, Inc. Although I can
not be in attendance at tonight's public hearing I feel it is important that I provide you
written comment, which can be entered into the record, regarding the City of Tigard's
proposed fee increases. Over the past few months I have worked with the
Homebuilders Association and have met with David Scott to discuss these proposed
increases. Many of my concerns are contained in memorandum that Kevin Wing
from the Homebuilders Association will present to you tonight. Specifically however, I
believe that the proposed building permit increase of 102% over the next two (2)
years is excessive. However, I do not believe that the building and development
community would be opposed to a reasonable fee increase if such increase was
comparable to what other local jurisdictions such as Beaverton or Washington
County are currently charging and if it can be shown that such a resonable increase
is necessary to sustain or improve the City's current level of service.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter
Sincerely, ,
Kelly Ritz
AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 16 March 1999
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update o City Hall and Library Window Repair Project
PREPARED BY: John Roy DEPT HEAD OK L- CITY MGR OK
This is provided as an informational update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
N/A
Currently all windows in the Library and City Hall that have been worked on by the contractor have passed the
water test. There are two windows in the Library, one in the staff punch room and one in the circulation room
that have not been taken out. Upon close inspection of these windows for leakage it has been determined that
there are no visible signs of leakage. Considering that there has been very little dry rot or any other structural
damage of any significance to any of the other windows that have been taken out it seems unnecessary to take
these two windows out since there exposure is minimal.
A result of the water tests on the windows though has shown that the brick and dryvit need to have a sealer
applied to stop water and moisture from seeping through, as well as having the caulking seam between the brick
and dryvit replaced. I am currently in the process of obtaining bids to perform this work. Onc° bids have been
received I will determine if there are existing funds in the building maintenance budget to cov .~r the cost of the
work. If funds are not available I will at a later date request from Council that funds either be allocated from
contingency or be added to the Building Maintenance budget for FY99/2000.
In water testing the gabled window on the east end of the Library Director's office we found that the flashing
along the North face of this office leaks. This is out of the scope of the project that Select Contracting has
contracted for although they are capable and willing to repair the flashing. It is my recommendation that the
two Library windows are not pulled out and we use the credit for that to repair the flashing in the Library
Director's office area. This work will also include the sheet rock repair work and office painting.
If there is a cost savings as a result of this it will be returned to the City by the Contractor. Once again, I will
keep the Council informed regarding the quotes for caulking and sealing of the brick and dryvit.
N/A
N/A
The original purchase order for this project was for $85,896 and the Council authorized two change orders in
the additional amount of $95,000 for a total authorized amount of $180, 896.00
As of February 28, 1999 we have incurred expenses for work completed in the amount of $104,862.01.
iAciWMde\swi dot