City Council Packet - 01/18/2000
~Y.='
t~.
t
r
r
<<
1
r
1
r
t`
PUBLIC NOTICE:
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 - JANUARY 18, 2000 - PAGE 1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
JANUARY 18, 2000
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), (f) at (h) to discuss labor relations, real
property transactions, exempt public records, and current and pending litigation
issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore
nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the
news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information
discussed during this session.
6:40 PM
2. WORKSHOP MEETING
• Call to Order: Council President Moore
• Pledge of Allegiance
® Council Communications at Liaison Reports
® Call to Staff and Council for Non Agenda Items
6:45 PM
3. PRESENTATION ON A PROPOSED PUBLIC ART PROJECT
Administration Department
7:00 PM
4. UPDATE ON CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAMS
• Staff Report: Administration Department
Comments/Observations from Citizen Involvement Team Members - and
Coordinators
• Council Questions and Discussion
7:30 PM
5. JOINT MEETING WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE
5.1 Discussion of Library Expansion Options
5.2 Preview a Proposed Fixed Asset Policy
5.3 Preview Proposed Resolution Authorizing a General Fund Loan to the General
Obligation Debt Service Fund and Budget Adjustment No. 5 to the 1999-
2000 Fiscal Year Budget
5.4 Preview Proposed Resolution Approving Budget Adjustment No. 6 to the
1999-2000 Fiscal Year Budget to Provide Administrative Support to the
Finance Department to Pay Costs Related to Software Conversion and Other
Required Contracts
COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY '18, 2000 - PAGE 2
8:30 PM
6. PRESENTATION ON METRO TITLE 3 IMPLEMENTATION (RULES
REGULATING DEVELOPMENT NEAR STREAMS AND WETLANDS)
® Community Development Department
9:00 PM
7. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
9:10 PM
8. . NON-AGENDA ITEMS
9:20 PM
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under
the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) 81 (h) to discuss labor relations, real
property transactions, exempt public records, and current and pending litigation
issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore
nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the
news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information
discussed during this session.
10:00 PM
10. ADJOURNMENT
[ AAD WCATHMCM000118. D OC
COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 18, 2000 - PAGE 3
Agenda Item No. 1
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of 4 d _
WORKSHOP MEETING
MEETING MINUTES -JANUARY 18, 2000
1. EXECUTIVE SESSION
2. WORKSHOP MEETING
e Call to Order
Councilor Moore called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
9 Roll Call
Council Present: Councilors Ken Scheckla, Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, and Joyce Patton
Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; City
Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Finance Director Craig Prosser; Community
Development Director Jim Hendryx; Associate Planner Duane Roberts
S Council Communications
Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None
Bill Monahan, City Manager, asked to add a discussion about the island annexation process for
challenges following Item 6.
3. PRESENTATION ON A PROPOSED PUBLIC ART PROJECT
Susan Koepping, Volunteer Coordinator, presented the staff report. She mentioned her
discussions with the Neighborhood Murals Project and the Regional Arts and Culture Council
(RACC). She explained that staff pursued a public art project for three primary reasons: the Mayor
(in his State of the City address a year ago) expressed an interest in investigating public art projects,
it fit in with the Visioning goal of working with the downtown merchants, and it provided
opportunities for volunteers.
Ms. Koepping described the proposed site: the blank concrete wall under Hwy 99 at Tigard and
Main Streets. She said that the wall (owned by ODOT) was 21 feet high by 35 feet wide. She
discussed the proposed process they would use to implement the project. She noted the first step of
asking ODOT for permission to use its wall and if it wanted to participate in the project.
Ms. Koepping discussed the use of a Selection Panel as a means of involving the community in the
project. She said that the Panel would include artists, City representatives, and knowledgeable
community members. She indicated that the Panel would draft the project guidelines and make the
project decisions. She mentioned donations as another way of involving the community, in either
time or materials. She said that community members could also help create the artwork. She
mentioned using a volunteer coordinator for the project.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 2000 - PAGE 1
Ms. Koepping reviewed the artist selection process, either by general solicitation of applications or
by specific invitation. She indicated that the Selection Panel would enter into a contract with the
artist it selected. She suggested having the dedication of the completed artwork at a City event. She
mentioned an evaluation following the completion of the project.
Ms. Koepping discussed the project cost. She mentioned estimates ranging from $7,000 to $8,750
(obtained from RACC and the Neighborhood Murals Project). She noted that there might be
additional project expenses in the future, either for maintenance of a permanent piece or removal of
a temporary piece. She said that the City's costs so far have been minimal - a few hours of her
time. She mentioned allocating funds in this year or next year's budget, depending on when the
Council decided to move forward with the project.
Ms. Koepping said that the City had no commitment with respect to financial involvement; that
decision was up to the Council. She reiterated that the City should have a representative from
Public Works on the Selection Panel. She mentioned RACC's suggestion that the City act as the
fiscal agent for the project. She commented that there were a number of Metro-area resources
available to the City to help with this project.
The Council discussed the proposed location. Councilor Scheckla stated that he did not favor that
site because of the potential for graffiti and the lack of visibility. Councilor Moore concurred. He
asked if the parking lot and lighting improvements installed recently might reduce the possibility of
graffiti. Councilor Hunt suggested painting the mural above the highway where it would be more
visible to passers-by and inaccessible to graffiti artists. Ms. Koepping mentioned that cities have
found that the existence of murals reduced the occurrences of graffiti. She said that RACC
recommended putting a coating on the mural that could be easily cleaned.
Ms. Koepping presented a series of slides showing the murals in Tigard schools, and public and
private mural projects in the Metro area. She pointed out in particular the incorporation of smaller
art pieces (often done by children) into the larger mural. She reiterated that the project could be
either temporary or permanent.
COUNCIL. DISCUSSION
Councilor Moore asked if Ms. Koepping has discussed this with the downtown merchants. Ms.
Koepping said that they have not yet done so, but the merchants were potential partners. Councilor
Moore suggested asking the merchants about the Council contributing to this project some of the
funds it had set aside for the downtown. Mr. Monahan indicated that Ms. Koepping could discuss
this project with the Central Business District Association, asking them to suggest other sites.
Councilor Scheckla asked who originated this project. Mr. Monahan explained that last year the
Mayor, in his State of the City address, challenged the community to acquire permanent art pieces
to signify the change to the Millennium (as other communities in the region were doing). He said
that staff saw this as an opportunity for volunteers to contribute time, materials, and expertise.
Councilor Scheckla cited examples of highly visible murals in Ilwaco, Washington, and on the
water reservoir off the Banfaeld freeway near Troutdale.
Councilor Patton stated that she supported the concept of a mural painting. She indicated that she
did not like the location either because of its lack of visibility. Councilor Hunt cited the successful
murals in Ilwaco and on the walls of the new junior high school in Newberg. Councilor Moore
mentioned his support of the concept also.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 2000 - PAGE 2
Councilor Scheckla spoke to taking the time to research how Ilwaco involved its entire community
in producing the murals. He said that he wanted to see this project done well and located were the
most people could appreciate it. Councilor Patton commented that some business owners might be
willing to allow murals on their outside walls in order to draw attention to their business. Mr.
Monahan mentioned opportunities along the commuter rail corridor when that came online.
Councilor Moore commented that he saw this project as the first of many. He spoke to keeping this
initial project in the downtown area as a part of revitalization. Councilor Hunt mentioned the back
walls of the buildings along the Hwy 99 viaduct as possible locations. Councilor Scheckla pointed
out that they did not necessarily know where "downtown Tigard" would be located in a few years,
as downtowns did move. He cited Sherwood as an example.
Ms. Koepping summarized the Council direction as support for the concept, research into other
communities with successful projects, identification of other sites, and report back to the Council.
Councilor Moore reiterated that staff should talk with the CBDA for suggestions.
4. UPDATE ON CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAMS
STAFF REPORT
Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, presented the staff report. She introduced Basil
Christopher and Wayne Pruner, two new facilitators. She reviewed the results of the most recent
CIT survey. She noted the poor return of only 33 responses by the December 21 deadline date
(including six from the City's web page but the majority from the Cityscape). She noted that people
attended because the agenda listed a topic of interest and they did not attend because of schedule
conflicts. She indicated that a Wednesday or Thursday meeting at 7:00 p.m. every other month was
a summary of the most popular meeting time responses.
Ms. Newton questioned whether the CIT was the best vehicle for the most popular agenda topics:
issues affecting my neighborhood and updates on development activity. She noted that the
respondents did want the opportunity to call in or e-mail agenda topics. She indicated that the
Cityscape and CIT meetings were popular ways for people to obtain information about City issues
while targeted mailings worked well for neighborhood issues.
Ms. Newton reviewed the upcoming schedule for CIT meetings: Transportation Bond in February
and CIP in March, April and May. She mentioned the popular Candidates Forum held in October
during election years.
Ms. Newton discussed possibly moving the CIT meeting to the town hall room in order to cablecast
the meetings using the new camera equipment. She mentioned discussing over the next several
months with the CIT members how the City could best use the CIT meeting format as a means of
communicating with citizens. She reiterated that the CIT meeting might not be the best forum to
use for neighborhood issues. She commented that it might become obvious with cable casting the
meetings that citywide issues were the appropriate discussion items for CIT meetings.
Councilor Scheckla asked how much time staff spent on the CIT program. Ms. Newton said that,
while she did not have the exact numbers, she and Ms. Koepping worked on the program during the
week. Councilor Scheckla spoke to evaluating the program in order to determine whether it met the
City's needs. He observed that if they were holding a meeting just to hold a meeting, then the
program was not working. Ms. Newton agreed.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 2000 - PAGE 3
Ms. Newton discussed the need to work on how people obtained information on development
activity and issues affecting neighborhoods. She mentioned the community connectors program she
was working on to address that issue. She stated that she would work with the CIT members over
the next few months, and then meet with Council in May to discuss integrating the various elements
in with the City's efforts to communicate with citizens.
Councilor Patton commented that facilitators could still serve a good role for meetings dealing with
neighborhood issues, particularly contentious neighborhood issues.
COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS FROM CIT MEMBERS AND COORDINATORS
Basil Christopher asked how citizens could find out what happened as the result of a discussion or
suggestion made at a CIT meeting. Ms. Newton commented that the CIT meeting worked well for
the staff presentation of the CIP because it was an immediate exchange of information. She
explained that the City expected the citizens to follow up on requests for speed bumps, a change in
the speed limit, etc. She said that part of her job was to help citizens write the letters to the
appropriate people in order to move their issues forward
The Council thanked Mr. Christopher and Mr. Pruner for volunteering as facilitators.
The Council considered Agenda Item 8, Non-Agenda Items, at this time.
5. JOINT MEETING WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE
Budget Committee members present were Mike Benner, Gene Farnstrom and George Burgess.
5.1 Discussion of Library Expansion Options
Craig Prosser, Finance Director, explained that the attachments listed the changes he made to the
figures he presented to Council on December 14, based on further conversations with staff. He
noted the staff prioritization of the remodeling elements.
Mr. Monahan reported that, based on Council's direction last week, staff sent letters to the nine
architects who had submitted proposals, explaining the Council's desire to rethink the project. He
said that the comments staff received back from the architects were supportive of the Council's
action.
Mr. Monahan reviewed the options discussed at the Council goal setting meeting yesterday. He said
that the first option was to continue to build on this Hall Blvd site, knowing its limitations and the
possibility of not building a library to standard. He mentioned a second option to build on this site
with the expectation of building a branch library. A third option was to expand this site with the
expectation of abandoning the building when the City built a new library somewhere else (using the
abandoned library for other purposes). A fourth option was to build a new library at a new location
using the bequest money. Mr. Monahan said that the Council was interested in exploring a new
library at a different location.
Councilor Moore explained that the Council was interested in the fourth option because the City
still had critical space problems for the rest of the City facilities, even if it expanded the current
library on site. He said that a separate library gave the City flexibility in housing other departments.
Councilor Hunt pointed out that expanding the library on site would compound the existing parking
problem.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 2000 - PAGE 4
Mr. Monahan commented that the City did not have the funds to build the 42,000 square foot library
originally proposed in 1998. He discussed the Council's suggestion to build a two-story shell for a
new library, complete the first floor and leave the second floor available for future expansion. He
mentioned Councilor Hunt's point about siting the library at a different location. He noted that
other communities have used a library in the downtown as a draw for economic revitalization. He
observed that they could also choose a site not in the downtown.
Mr. Monahan said that he understood from the Council discussion yesterday that the Council
wanted to focus on the decision of expanding the current facility or building a new library. He
indicated that once the Council made that decision, it would give direction to the Library Expansion
Committee to work on the location question. He pointed out that before making that decision, the
Council needed to know what the cost would be and what the community could afford. He
observed that once they knew what size library they could afford, they might come back to the idea
of an expansion.
Mr. Prosser presented the quick figures he calculated to answer
in bequests "How million could w financed
afford? and What would that buy. He mentioned $899,000
through the Oregon Economic Development Department. He said that a 20-year bond with an
annual debt service payment of $250,000 was doable within the City financial plan.
Mr. Prosser noted that the existing building needed upgrades in any case at a cost of $355,000 (not
including the seismic upgrades). He said that he picked $100,000 out of the air as an estimate for
the additional costs to convert the library space into office space, should they move the entire library
offsite. He noted that reducing the $3.9 million by $455,000 for the remodeling left them with
$3.44 million for the library.
Mr. Prosser reviewed how he arrived at a $200,000 per acre estimate for the estimated 2.5 acres they
would need to site a library with a 15,000 square foot footprint. He pointed out that reducing the
$3.44 million by $500,000 for land acquisition left $2.9 million available for the library. He
explained that he based his $220-225 "price per square foot" on Ms. Sisson's $125 per square foot
for direct construction costs plus the indirect construction costs, landscaping, and parking. He
stated that, based on these assumptions, the City could afford a 13,000 to 14,000 square foot
building.
Mr. Monahan pointed out that the City could not build a large main library without a bond. He
noted that the costs Mr. Prosser identified for a 13,000 to 14,000 square foot branch library did not
include the extra costs of duplicate items and staff. He observed that taking more money out of the
general fund would significantly affect the City's ability to improve other buildings. or to finance its
general fund-driven positions (police, parks, etc.).
Councilor Hunt suggested selling the Ash Street properties if they decided to build a new library
offsite. Mr. Monahan reviewed how freeing up the library space for office space allowed the staff to
relocate departments within City Hall and the Water Building as a means of addressing their space
needs. He mentioned possibly selling some of the Public Works land adjacent to the Ash Street
properties also. He said that they needed to keep some land for equipment and machinery storage.
He agreed that selling those properties could provide an offset against the land acquisition. He and noted the joint ownership
Counc for Moore commented that thesale~of ting hose lpropert es cou d bthe uy anard
Water District.
additional 3,000 square feet of library space.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 2000 - PAGE 5
Mr. Prosser mentioned that his analysis did not necessarily account for delaying the completion of
the second floor of a two-story shell. Councilor Moore commented that it could cost another half
million to build the second floor of a shell and make it weatherproof.
Mr. Monahan suggested that the Committee give staff a "not to exceed" dollar amount if it was
interested in looking at a main library offsite. He said that staff would work with the Library
Expansion Committee to study what was or was not feasible. He suggested that the Library
Expansion Committee review the nine proposals received in response to the RFP for the expansion,
interview the architects on the short list, and explore choosing an architect on an hourly fee basis to
help the City with step 1 of the analysis (evaluation of the options available based on the dollar
amount that the community could afford).
Mr. Burgess said that, if they went offsite for a new library, he thought that they should look at what
the community really needed, not merely what they could afford. He indicated that 25,000 square
feet was a minimum ALA standard for a city of Tigard's size. He commented that it was silly to
only replace what they already had. He agreed with Councilor Moore that building a 15,000 square
foot footprint with the ability to expand to a second floor would meet their needs in the long run.
He mentioned a $6 million cost for a new library.
Mr. Farnstrom asked what the donors had in mind for their money. Mr. Prosser said that he
understood that Grace Tigard Houghton wanted a browsing room while Neva Root specified her
bequest for children's services. He commented that incorporating these requests within a larger
project should still honor the bequest.
Mr. Famstrom stated that he favored an offsite library. He commented that he thought that it better
served the City to keep the operational services on this campus while moving the library and its
traffic away from here.
Mr. Monahan reviewed the dilemmas identified and discussed by Council with respect to the City
Hall campus. He said that parking expansion was limited unless they demolished the Niche. He
noted that an 8,000 square foot expansion only brought the existing library up to 21,000 square feet,
which was still below the ALA standard. He stated that they have utilized as much of the site as
they could unless they displaced some City functions elsewhere. He pointed out that a future
Council might decide to build an offsite library anyway. He questioned what message the City sent
to potential donors if it used these bequests for an expansion that lasted only six to seven years. He
commented that if the Council decided to build a branch facility, then an expansion to the main
library building would not affect the intent of the donor.
Mr. Farnstrom spoke to building a 12,000 square foot one-level library with the ability to expand.
He held that the size of the property was critical to whether they decided to build a two-story
building or a one-story building with expansion capabilities. Councilor Moore questioned whether
it was more economical to build a two-story building with the shell on top versus expanding on a
single level.
The Committee discussed the question and agreed that they needed an answer from the
professionals. Mr. Burgess commented that the City might not have enough money in the future to
add on to a library located on a larger piece of property. Councilor Moore mentioned that the
existence of a second story shell might make it easier to find the funds to finish it. He described the
domino effect of their decision: selling off property in order to get the library offsite in order to
move people into the abandoned library space.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 2000 - PAGE 6
Councilor Patton stated that moving the library to another site, moving City staff into the abandoned
space, and directing the library traffic to another facility appealed to her as a solution to issues that
the City would have to contend with over the next five years. She indicated her preference for the
two-story building with a second floor shell. She mentioned her concern with the financing.
Mr. Benner pointed out that this discussion has evolved from an expansion project to a new project.
He asked what a library would be like in ten years, given the changing technology. He commented
that, with information doubling every five years now, a library could serve as a phenomenal draw
for the community. He spoke in support of an offsite library in a location that maintained the Tigard
culture, such as the downtown. He held that a two-story building created greater efficiencies in
economy. He mentioned his concern about the additional space needed by City staff. He suggested
that the Council use a citizen task force to provide input on the concept.
Mr. Monahan indicated that the Library Expansion Committee could work with professional
resources and the library staff to develop an overall concept for what the library should look like in
the future and where it should be located. Councilor Hunt requested that the Library Expansion
Committee visit with the City of Beaverton to learn how it successfully passed its library bond
measure on the same ballot on which Tigard's bond measure failed.
Mr. Monahan discussed the lengthy grass roots campaign and major public involvement program
undertaken by Beaverton to garner community support for its library bond. He commented that the
Library Expansion Committee might recommended delaying implementation of a library project
until the City had sufficient money available (in addition to the bequests) to build a library to meet
the community's needs.
Councilor Hunt stated that he preferred that the City invest the money until the moment was right to
use it. Councilor Scheckla asked what Mrs. Houghton's brother, Mr. Tigard, might think of a delay.
Mr. Monahan recommended discussing the matter with Mr. Tigard (who was already on the Library
Expansion Committee). He commented that Mr. Tigard has supported the City's direction so far.
He indicated that there was no legal restriction on Mrs. Houghton's gift requiring its use within a
certain period.
Mr. Farnstrom asked if anyone has discussed a campaign to ask Tigard citizens to make a charitable
contribution. Mr. Prosser said that Ms. Sisson indicated to him before she left that the Library
Board has discussed creating an endowment fund through the Oregon Community Foundation,
which would facilitate donations. Mr. Monahan commented that the Library Expansion Committee
could include within the defined elements of its plan a component for donations. Mr. Farnstrom
commented that he thought it was important to allow the community to participate.
Mr. Monahan summarized the Council direction as focus on an offsite location and reconvene the
Library Expansion Committee for a discussion of the Council's comments. He noted the direction
to complete the RFP proposal process and to select one of those architects to hire as a consultant to
work with the City, the Committee and Mr. Tigard on developing its plan, and to bring back to
Council a Committee recommendation. He asked for direction on the dollar amount parameters.
Mr. Monahan suggested that Mr. Prosser serve as a resource for the Library Expansion Committee
because of his experience with library siting issues as a Lake Oswego City Councilor. Councilor
Hunt suggested that Mr. Prosser and the consultant architect meet to discuss what the City could
build for the dollar amount available. Mr. Monahan indicated that, given that latitude, staff could
develop a better product because it could consider all the alternatives and present the Council with
several options.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 2000 - PAGE 7
Councilor Hunt reiterated his suggestion to utilize the Ash Street property somehow. Mr. Monahan
indicated that the City had no use for that property if it did not build a municipal building there.
The Council and Committee discussed the half-acre Ash Street property.
5.2 Preview a Proposed Fixed Asset Policy
Mr. Prosser reported that the City received a good report on the FY1998/99 audit. He discussed the
auditors' recommendation that the City adopt an official fixed asset policy. He said that their
informal policy defined the unit cost at $200 (a figure in use for the past 14 years). He explained
that this low unit cost resulted in a very large and cumbersome fixed asset list. He stated that
increasing the unit cost to $2,500 (as recommended by the auditors) put the City near the middle of
the definitions used by other governments (ranging from $1,500 to $5,000). He said that staff put
the resolution on the January 25 consent agenda.
Councilor Patton asked what the FTE impact was. Mr. Prosser confirmed that they would have less
need for tracking because of reduced capital assets.
and Budget Adjustment No. 5 to the 1999-2000 Fiscal Year Budget Obligation
5.3 Debt Service Proposed
Mr. Prosser reported that the auditors discovered that the City's general obligation debt service fund
was in a deficit situation. He explained that, since FY 1997/98, staff assumed that this fund had an
ending fund positive balance. Instead, it had a deficit that was growing.
Mr. Prosser explained that this resolution authorized staff to make a $30,000 loan from the general
fund to the general obligation debt service fund. He said that next year staff would set the tax levy
to cover all the debt service fund expenses and to recover the loan repayment with interest. He
mentioned holding the general fund harmless in this situation. He indicated that this resolution was
also on the January 25 consent agenda.
Councilor Hunt asked what the advantages were of a loan versus an outright grant. Mr. Prosser said
that with a loan, they could recover the money from the general obligation tax levy.
5.4 Preview Proposed Resolution Approving Budget Adjustment No. 6 to the 1999-2000 Fiscal
Year Budget to Provide Administrative Support to the Finance Department to Pay Costs
Related to Software Conversion and Other Required Contracts
® ® Clerical Support Position
Mr. Prosser discussed the various elements within Budget Adjustment No. 6. He explained that the
E Finance Department had no clerical support at this time and needed an administrative support
co person to handle tasks such as mailings and document production.
H Councilor Patton asked if this was a new position or a position anticipated in the five-year plan. Mr.
a Monahan stated that this was a new position. He explained that the former Finance Director had
consistently indicated his desire to run a lean department as an example to the rest of the
it organization. He pointed out that with Office Services having less and less time available to
provide clerical support to Finance, the department was facing a need for a new clerical support
position.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 2000 - PAGE 8
Councilor Patton asked why the job classification was for a "senior administrative support
specialist" as opposed to an "administrative support specialist." Mr. Prosser stated that lie provided
a list of expected duties for the position to Human Resources. Human Resources assigned the
category. Mr. Monahan commented that Finance had a unique set up that worked well for Mr.
Lowry but no other department was set up that way. Mr. Prosser confirmed to Councilor Scheckla
that Finance had nine staff people.
Allocation of Reimbursement money
Mr. Prosser explained that Tigard loaned out one of its staff to Hillsboro when it lost its Municipal
Court Supervisor. He said that Hillsboro agreed to fully reimburse Tigard for the personnel costs.
He asked to appropriate some of the reimbursement money to pay for the temporary person that
Tigard hired to backfill the position.
i Springbrook Conversion costs
Mr. Prosser stated that some items in the Springbrook conversion were budgeted for the last fiscal
year but not completed until this fiscal year. Staff needed to pay them out of this fiscal year. He
mentioned purchasing five more concurrent software licenses. He said that the four new hires
needed additional training. He said that the $40,000 total included $17,000 for ongoing licensing
and maintenance fees and the rest as a one-time cost.
Councilor Hunt asked if some of the money should come from the water fund. Mr. Prosser
explained that staff ran the costs through the program matrix, which allocated the costs back to the
appropriate funds.
Councilor Scheckla asked for clarification on purchasing five additional licenses. Mr. Prosser
explained that the 15 licenses allowed up tol5 people to use the software at the same time. He said
that they could track it if they ever went over the limit (it was a potential liability) but it was more
of an honor system.
® Microfilming
Mr. Prosser noted the request for an additional $3,000 to finish microfilming the heavily used
commercial land use maintenance records. Councilor Hunt asked if staff intended to put records on
computer. Mr. Prosser said that the five-year plan included an optical scanner, which would allow
staff to put paper documents on computer.
9 Professional Services
Mr. Prosser discussed the two items under "professional services." He said that the City was two
years behind on its Arbitrage Compliance report (a potential liability). He recommended
contracting with a Colorado arbitrage compliance service (with whom he has worked in the past) to
prepare the City's reports. He recommended that the City change its practice for handling
investments through investment banks to turning its investments over to a third party for
safekeeping. He said that he estimated the cost at $6,000 for the balance of this fiscal year.
Mr. Prosser noted that the high degree of turnover in the department created savings to offset the
$81,000 cost for a net budget adjustment cost of $34,000. He said that staff could put this on the
January 25 consent agenda also at Council's direction. The Council concurred.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 2000 - PAGE 9
5.5 Update on Springbrook Conversion
Mr. Prosser gave the Council an update on the status of the Springbrook conversion. He said that
the payroll and accounts receivable elements were up and running. He mentioned that they now
were getting their financial reports out on a monthly basis. He pointed out that they expected to be
current with the utility billing by the end of the month. He spoke highly of the Finance staff,
commenting on their hard work during this frustrating and long process. Mr. Monahan concurred
that the Finance staff has done an exceptional job in meeting this challenge.
Councilor Hunt commented that he had heard that the Springbrook software created the problems
with the utility billing. Mr. Prosser said that they did have to work out the quirks in the software
but he believed that they were on the downside of addressing those problems.
Mr. Prosser mentioned his discussion with Mr. Monahan with respect to the department's long-term
software strategy. He commented that one of the mistakes he saw in the decision to go with
Springbrook was the expectation that it would be a simple conversion process because they already
had Springbrook software in place. He spoke to documenting what the City's business needs were
and researching what software was available in the market place. He indicated that two years was a
reasonable time to wait, given the time and effort invested in the system and the need for staff to
recover from the process.
Mr. Monahan mentioned the discussion during the Council goal setting session of individual
department software versus centralized software, including questions of compatibility of software
packages between departments.
Mr. Prosser asked if the Budget Committee wanted to retain the same members that served on the
Budget Subcommittee reviewing the social service grant applications: George Burgess, Gene
Farnstrom, Joyce Patton, Bill Monahan, Finance Director. The Committee agreed to keep the same
members.
Councilor Moore asked Mr. Prosser to pass along to his staff the Council's thanks for their efforts.
6. PRESENTATION ON METRO TITLE 3 IMPLEMENTATION (RULES REGULATING
DEVELOPMENT NEAR STREAMS AND WETLANDS)
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, presented a summary of the various rules and
regulations for development near streams, wetlands, and flood plains, as embodied in Metro Title 3,
Statewide Planning Goal 5, and the Federal Endangered Species Act. (See attached printouts of
slides).
Mr. Hendryx noted that Tigard received an extension until August 2000 to comply with Title 3. He
said that the Planning Directors of Washington County decided to team up with USA to develop a
coordinated approach to implementing Title 3. He mentioned that the Board of County
Commissioners adopted the technical requirements of Title 3, effective February 5.
Mr. Hendryx reviewed in detail the technical requirements, including corridor width guidelines,
buffer guidelines, and floodplain guidelines. He said that the main change for Tigard was an
increase in setbacks along creeks and isolated wetlands from 15 or 25 feet (under Safe Harbors) to
50 feet. He commented that Tigard intended to stay out of the technical review process of
alternatives analysis and leave that to USA. He explained that USA needed to insure that the
standards were met because someone was already suing it for not having strict enough standards for
clean water in the Tualatin River.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 2000 - PAGE 10
H
a
~W
a
Mr. Hendryx said that the floodplain erosion stand dflood plain and1100 year flood plain standardsd _year except for restrictions on parking within the ten-year
boundaries. pointed out that all of short o parking
for the pa k ng (dated prior to the0se0 egulat ions
plain. He indicated that they hoped heir application
becoming effective) would be grandfathered in.
agr and staff training.
changes,
Mr. Hendryx reviewed the next stelthe local codel
agreement to reflect the Title 3 requirements, identifying ency
with Mr. Hendryx reviewed Metro's program to address Goal 5 resources for
Goal 5 had higher standards. Title 3taHe sa d
planning goals and guidelines. He mentioned that
that Mike Burton would present a more detailed overview of the process to Council in February.
Mr. Hendryx reviewed the program principles and conclusions (see attached). He discussed the ed to restrict
devel
out expectations of development and the regulations drendering a lot unbu dament ble) Hesmentionedide
resources areas to the greatest extent possible (without osed to 25-50 feet under Title 3
the setback of 200 feet from the top of the stream bank as opp
Safe Harbors. as an
ffective Mr. Hendryx discussed the use of a mix of region regulatio was the 1996 flood. gram on t the cal
urisdictions could
level. He mentioned that the new demarcation line for oods He n ration.
local j
He sa
requirements for a minimum disturbance area and restovary from thei regional Safe Harbor standards
do a case by case review of the alternatives analysis
but that took significantly more staff time. He indicated that restoration was required for any
emergency repairs made in a resource stricts, in
use of Mr. Hendryx discussed the regulations governing, setbacks in mixed-use arieas theand wetlands.
approved plan to allow flexibility in the ng an outreach Mr. Hendryx reviewed Metro's next steps
FunctionaliPlan requirements, grad a Metro
review of process,
February, public and Metro committee
Council decision by June 20, 2000. said that the City would have to
Councilor Moore asked which program took priority. Mr. Hendryx
modify its code again to meet the Goal 5 requirements, just as it did for the Title 3 requirements.
to the regi the Hendryx discussed the Chinook salmon and the O egongcoastal salmon as threatened species.
th
Mr.
the listing the West Coast t to listed the e activities that the National d d not apply to resto ration activit es undertaken as part
taking). He noted that the ESA prohibition tak of an approved plan. He reviewed the construction pstandards that ointed out thatNw thdNMS'tfind ng that theings,
including Portland's pest mitigation P
Metro Functional Plan was adequate,, anything Tigard did that was consistent with or better than the
Functional Plan would not be a takings. ds.
noted the Mr. Hendryx reviewed the setback and etn her standards
streams. He mentioned t e requirement to
perennial
prohibition of piping any open mtermitt
protect the historic meander patterns of a stream channel. hat
the
ost Mr. Hendryx said that the City Attorney's office advised him
than by speakngtat a public hearingive way to
comment on these rules was by letter,
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 2000 - PAGE 11
Mr. Hendryx commented that the regulatory world was changing and growing more complicated.
He said that the Planning Directors in Washington County have agreed to work with USA to get a
consistent understanding of the ESA regulations and a consistent approach to implementation,
similar to what they did with Title 3. He indicated that it could take up to two years to finish the
process. He commented that he would leave it to the City Attorney to explain the liability the City
faced after these rules took effect and development occurred.
Mr. Monahan asked how these new regulations affected Tigard's vector control at Cook Park. Mr.
Hendryx said that they needed to look to Portland whose program NMS set as the standard.
7. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
Councilor Hunt mentioned another meeting between himself, Mr. Wegner and the South Fork
representatives.
8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Walnut Island Annexation
Mr. Monahan reviewed the three challenges possible with respect to an island annexation. He
indicated that the residents or property owners in the area, the affected service districts, or the City
of Tigard citizens could challenge certain aspects of an island annexation.
Mr. Hendryx explained that the island or City residents could appeal the land use aspects of the
decision to LUBA (change in zoning, withdrawal from special service districts) but doing so would
not stop the annexation. He said that they could also file a writ of review with the circuit court,
asking for a review of the quasi-judicial land use decision for consistency with applicable laws. He
noted that the annexation remained valid unless the court reversed the annexation.
Mr. Hendryx said that City residents could refer an island annexation to Tigard voters. He
explained that the Council approved the annexation by ordinance. Tigard residents had the right to
refer any ordinance to the voters by petition. He said that the petition required 10% of the registered
Tigard voters' signatures (2,100), collected within 30 days after adoption of the ordinance. He
pointed out that the Walnut Island annexation involved 15 separate ordinances for 15 separate
islands. To reverse the entire annexation required 15 individual petitions. He said that the cost to
Tigard for a special election was $12,000.
Mr. Hendryx noted that Metro had no role in the annexation process unless a service provider or
special service district appealed the annexation to Metro. Such an appeal would stop the annexation
process. He indicated that staff has received no comments in opposition from service agencies.
Councilor Patton asked what might cause LUBA or the Circuit Court to reverse the land use
decision. Mr. Monahan said that LUBA looked for following local procedures and consistency with
the local Comprehensive Plan while the Circuit Court looked at consistency with applicable state
laws and local procedures.
Mr. Hendryx explained that a challenge affected only the land use and the withdrawal of the
districts; it did not affect the annexation itself. He emphasized that an appeal to LUBA or to the
court only dealt with the procedural aspects; it did not affect the jurisdictional transfer.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 2000 - PAGE 12
Mr. Monahan explained that only the residents of Tigard could challenge the jurisdictional transfer
of an island annexation; the residents of the island could only challenge the zoning or withdrawal of
the special districts. He said that the rules changed in December to allow the citizens of the
community the right to decide whether the community should take on an additional area, which it
had to deliver services to.
Councilor Scheckla mentioned his concern that the newly annexed residents would want City
services provided to them immediately. Mr. Monahan explained that staff has clearly informed the
island residents at the open houses and through mailings that, upon annexation, they would be
treated exactly the same as existing residents; they would have to get in line with everyone else for
the City programs available to residents, including the neighborhood sewer reimbursement district
program. He pointed out that the role of staff and the Council has always been to determine what
the priorities were for the funding available.
Mr. Monahan clarified that non-island annexations used a different process than the island
annexation process described by Mr. Hendryx. He said that property owners in non-island
annexations had the right of petition to challenge an annexation. Mr. Hendryx said that if the City
initiated a non-island annexation, it would have to hold a vote of the residents, unless it had the
consent of 50% of the residents.
c The Council considered Agenda Item No. 5, Joint Meeting with the Budget Committee, at this
time.
Washington Square Regional Plan Hearing
Mr. Monahan asked how long the Council wanted the public hearing on the Washington Square
Regional Plan to last on January 25. The Council discussed the issue and agreed that 10:00 p.m.
was an appropriate cut-off time.
Lewis & Clark Expedition Re-enactment
Mr. Monahan reported that he asked Mr. Fulgram for the information that the Council requested.
He said that he talked with someone from Warner Pacific who indicated that Mr. Fulgram did not
have the letters that both Warner Pacific and the City wanted to look at. He said that it appeared
that Mr. Fulgram had been telling Warner Pacific that he had Tigard on board and vice versa, while
the reality was that neither organization was on board. He recommended holding off on any action
until Mr. Fulgram provided proof that he was far enough along with someone else on board. The
Council concurred.
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled.
11. ADJOURNMENT: 9:38 p.m.
oj~wv"v ►'LQ
Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Record
Brian J. Moore, Council President
Date:
1:AD M\CAT HY\CCM\000118 AOC
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 2000 - PAGE 13
AGENDA ITEM # 3
FOR AGENDA OF January 18, 2000
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Proposed Public Art Proiect
PREPARED BY: Susan Koepping DEPT HEAD OK / ITY MGR OK tZZKk=
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Consideration of a proposal to support a piece of public art at Tigard Street near Main, on the large concrete wall
supporting the Hwy 99 bridge over the Railroad tracks.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the implementation of a project that would result in a piece of public art at the above-named site.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The attached outline proposes a process for the accomplishment of this project and is summarized here..
A community-based selection panel would be established to develop goals and guidelines for the commission of a
mural or other appropriate art piece. Partners in the project might include the Tigard Central Business District
Advisory Committee, Tigard-Tualatin School District 23-J, the Chamber of Commerce, Tigard Area Historical and
Preservation Association, other service organizations and community groups, and the City of Tigard. The artwork
would be part of the City's recognition of the new millennium and would be completed by the end of summer
2000. This community-based art project would be evaluated and, if found to be successful, could be followed by
other works of art in other parts of the community.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Consider another site in the community for a public art piece.
2. The concept of a piece of public art could be discussed by the Tigard Central Business District Advisory
Committee and a recommendation made at a joint meeting with City Council.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Goal: City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our
community.
Goal: Provide opportunities to work proactively with Central Business District businesses and property owners
and citizens of Tigard to set the course for the future of the central downtown area.
FISCAL NOTES
The estimated cost of the project is $7,000 - $8,750 based on information from the Neighborhood Mural Project
and Regional Arts and Culture Council. Those organizations have suggested that the City of Tigard act as the
fiscal agent for the project.
Proposed: Public Art Project
Contributes to Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Character and Quality of Life Goal and
A means of involving citizens in the life of the community.
Site
The concrete wall ( support for Hwy 99) by the new parking lot at Tigard and Main Street
intersection. This large, blank, unattractive wall could become an attractive element of the
central business district. See attached photo.
Community Involvement
1. Selection Panel composed of:
local citizens
artists
representatives of the school district and business community
City of Tigard
2. Execution of the piece: This site may limit public involvement in execution.
3. Fund Raising
Grants or donations
Gifts-in-kind
Fund raising events
Process
1. Establish a Selection Panel
Selection Panel
Determines: Goals and process of the project
Extent of community involvement
Suitable art form for that site
Focus and limits of the piece
Invites artists to apply or announces open competition
Interviews possible artists
Enters into a contract with the selected artist
2. Develop a list of potential artists and invite them to apply or announce an open competition.
The latter option extends the time line of the project.
3. Interview artists Names of potential artists and photos of their work are available from the
Regional Arts and Culture Council (RACC)
4. Request one or more sketches Artists are paid when sketches are requested.
5. Select the artist and enter into a contract. Selection criteria and sample contracts are available
from RACC.
6. Finish the design process
7. Execute the piece.
8. Dedication and celebration, perhaps in conjunction with a larger community event
9. Evaluate the project.
A successful project could lead to additional public art projects using different media, in
different locations, additional student and citizen involvement.
Estimated Timeline
TASK
Form the Selection Panel.
Selection Panel establishes goals, etc.,
develops a list of potential artists
and sends invitation letter
Close applications
TO'BE COMPLETED BY:
Jan. 1, 2000
Mar. 15, 2000
April 15, 2000 (If an open competition
is held, close apps. May 1)
Selection panel interviews selected applicants May 15, 2000
Request sketch(es), to be received by June 15, 2000
Select artist and sign contract July 1, 2000
Finish execution of the work of art Sept. 1, 2000
Dedicate the art and begin evaluation process City's birthday or Trains 2000 days
or other appropriate date.
Estimated Budget
Payment for preliminary sketch(es) $ 500 - 750
Artist's fee ($30.00 per hour) 3,500 - 4,000
Administrative costs ($20.00 per hour) 3,000 - 4,000
i.e. project coordination
site preparation
legal review of contract
dedication, publicity, permanent recognition
maintenance and preservation
phone calls, meetings, correspondence
Donations such as paint, brushes, scaffolding and lighting for the artist while executing the art
TOTAL $7,000 - 8,750
Regional Arts and Culture Council could oversee the project for approximately
8% - 10% of the project budget. City of Tigard can act as fiscal agent for the project.
City of Tigard involvement
1. Authorization of this proposed public art project
2. Authorization of the establishment of a community-based selection panel
3. Fiscal agent
4. Funding for the project
5. Preservation and maintenance of the site
Resources
Regional Arts and Culture Council
Neighborhood Murals
Washington County Arts & Culture Steering Committee
Arts Advisory Committees in neighboring communities
Partners
Tigard-Tualatin School District 23-J
Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Association
Tigard Chamber of Commerce
Tigard area service organizations
[AA M\SUSANMARMOUNCIL OUTLINED=
1
Ji ~
t•
Y ~ I
i~
i ~
''1
AGENDA ITEM # 4
FOR AGENDA OF 01-18-00
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
PREPARED BY: Liz Newton ~A DEPT HEAD OK _ CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
A regularly scheduled discussion with staff and CIT facilitators on the status of the CIT program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
No action needed.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Each January, May and September, Council is scheduled to met with staff and the CIT facilitators to discuss the
status of the program. The basis for this discussion will be the results of the recent survey conducted. Survey
results will be presented at the meeting.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
City Council members, staff, and/or CIT facilitators may have suggestions for modifying the CIT program
based on the survey results.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Goal No. 1 - Volunteerism: "City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the
greatest good for our community." Strategy No. 3: Strengthen the Citizen Involvement (CIT) Program.
FISCAL NOTES
Any changes to the CIT program that affect funding levels will be considered with the proposed changes.
I:\NDM\CATHY\000NCIL\AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY SHEET 000118 CIT.DOC
J ciT~
NO CIT MEETINGS IN DECEMBER OR JANIJARII
The next CIT meeting will be February 3, 2000. Agenda topics will include the proposed Transportation
Bond Projects, an update on youth activities, City Council goals, and the results of the CIT survey.
In an effort to ensure that the City's citizen involvement programs, including the CITs are meeting the community's
needs, it is important to evaluate programs periodically and make improvements.
WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE CIT PROGRAM.
Please take a minute to respond to the questions below.
1. Do you attend CIT meetings?
C3 yes O no (go to Question 4)
2. If yes, how often?
O Monthly O 6 times a year
Q 3-4 times O 1-2 times
3. Why do you attend?
O agenda topic(s) of interest to me
O to get information on topics
O to ask to have something placed on the agenda
Q other
4. If you don't attend, why not?
7. What time of the day should CIT meetings be held?
8. What types of topics or issues would you like to
see on CIT agendas?
Q general information topics
® specific issues affecting my neighborhood
O updates on development activity
O other
9. Would you like to be able to suggest agenda items
at any time rather than attending a CIT meeting to
suggest items for the next month?
O Yes, by calling or e-mailing a specific person at
City Hall with a request
O agenda topics are not of interest to me
Q too many other priorities - no time
O don't find it helpful
0 schedule conflicts
O other
3. Now often should the CITs meet?
O Monthly
O every other month
Q 3 - 4 times a year
O other
6. What day of the week should CITs meet?
O No, the current system works for me
O other suggestions
10. How do you prefer to receive information about
City Issues? (check all that apply)
O CTT meetings O Cityscape
O Oregonian O Tigard Times
O City's web page O Targeted mailings
O Other
Thanks for your feedbackl You can drop this
questionnaire off at City Hall, mail it to Liz
Newton, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
97223 or fax it to Liz Newton at 684-7297. Please
return by December 30. See you in February!
2
CIT - Citizen Involvement Team Grassroots Neighborhood-Based
CIT SURVEY SUMMARY
33 Respondents
1. Do you attend CIT meetings?
Yes 22
No 11
2. If yes, how often? (Some had more than one box checked.)
No response 6
Monthly 7
Six times a year 4
Three - four times a year 4
One to two times a year' 6
3. Why do you attend?
No response 13
Agenda topics of interest 16
To get information on topics 12
To ask to have something placed on the agenda 4
Other: 4
> Networking
> Because I don't feel we are well represented by council
> Police tell me to
> Need to keep my pulse on what's happening locally
4. . If you don't attend, why not?
Agenda Topics are not of interest to me 2
Too many other priorities - no time 5
Didn't find it helpful Q
Schedule conflicts 13
No response 2
Other: 9
> Children
> Since not in neighborhood anymore - can't get there in time
> Waste of time - you did what you wanted anyway - didn't make any difference
if I went
> Just moved here
> Job requirements don't allow time
> New to the neighborhood
> When are they, how do I find out when they meet?
> Recycle conflict
> Lack of delivered information. Now that I have found your website, I will be
better informed.
5. How often should the CITs meet?
Monthly 16
Every other month 10
Three to four times a year 6
No response 2
Other: 3
> It is just a show (to) look like you are listening to the people, people don't trust
you anymore
> As needed/useful
> When topic is generated of Citywide interest and info to address is available
6. What day of the week should CITs meet?
Monday
5
Tuesday
7_
Wednesday
15
Thursday
12
Friday
2
Saturday
0
Sunday
0
7. What time of the day should CIT meetings be held?
Night 7 p.m.
10
Same time 7 -9 p.m.
3
No response
5
What might help is a weekend meeting occasionally 1
A time that everyone can make - evening 1
No opinion
1
Evenings
4
Seven or 7:30 p.m.
2
Six P.M.
3
Seven-thirty p.m.
2
Seven - 7:15 p.m.
1
After 4:30 p.m.
1
8. What types of topics or issues would you like to see on CIT agendas?
General information topics 12
Specific issues affecting my neighborhood 27
Updates on development activity 27
Other: 6
> All
> No response
> Police protection
> Would like to have the Council and Mayor listen to concerned residents
> King City library
> Specific issues affecting my City
to
9. Would you like to be able to suggest agenda items at any time rather than attending a
CIT meeting to suggest items for the next month?
Yes, by calling or e-mailing a specific person at City Hall with a request 23
No, the current system works fine for me 6
No response 3
No opinion 1
Other: 2
> Have department heads at all the meetings and have them stay until the end of
the session
> Public comment spurs more comment
10. How do you prefer to receive information about City issues? (Check all that apply.)
CIT meetings
20
Oregonian
2
City's web site
12
Cityscape
26
Tigard Times
17
Targeted mailings
12
No response
1_
E-mail list
3
I:WDM\LIZ\CIT\SURVEY SUMMARY.DOC
AGENDA ITEM # S-1
FOR AGENDA OF January 18, 2000
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discussion of Library Expansion Options
PREPARED BY: Craig Prosser DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
1. Should the City of Tigard expand the City Library using funds from the Grace Houghton and Neva Root
bequests along with other City financing?
2. How large of an addition should be built?
3. Should the project include remodeling of the existing building?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Discuss whether the city should proceed with an up to 8,000 square foot expansion of the Library, including
remodeling of the current space. If funding beyond the bequests is used for construction, Oregon Economic
Development Department (OEDD) financing for those costs not covered by the Houghton and Root bequests
should be pursued.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On December 14, 1999, the City Council and Budget Committee discussed options for expanding the Tigard City
Library. The discussion was continued to January 18,'2000.
After the December 14 meeting, staff conducted further research on the remodeling projects. A summary table of
the remodeling projects, estimated costs, priority, timing, and additional comments is attached to this report
(Attachment A).
At the December 14 meeting, Library Director Melinda Sisson distributed three worksheets detailing the costs of
building an addition onto the current library and remodeling the existing space. Staff has revised the remodeling
costs shown on the original worksheets by reducing the cost of lighting replacement from $180,000 to $90,000 and
increasing the cost of the HVAC Upgrade from $60,300 to $85,300 based on the current information. In addition,
staff has added moving costs of $20,000 to the remodeling estimates. Revised worksheets are attached
(Attachments B, C, & D).
Also at the December 14 meeting, Finance Director Craig Prosser distributed a one-page summary of Financing
Options for the expansion and the remodeling. That summary has been updated to reflect the revised cost
estimates, and the revised summary is attached to this report (Attachment E). The consensus of the December 14
meeting was to pursue Oregon Economic Development Department (OEDD) financing for the City portion of this
project and so information regarding possible City bonds was removed from this summary.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
All alternatives have been presented to Council and the Budget Committee.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
All projected costs and financing sources are detailed in the attachments to this summary.
--D,5 ~r i
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF January 18, 2000
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discussion of Library _Expansion Options
PREPARED BY: Craig Prosser DEPT HEAD OK -d- CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
1. Should the City of Tigard expand the City Library using funds from the Grace Houghton and Neva Root
bequests along with other City financing?
2. How large of an addition should be built?
3. Should the project include remodeling of the existing building?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Discuss whether the city should proceed with an up to 8,000 square foot expansion of the Library, including
remodeling of the current space. If funding beyond the bequests is used for construction, Oregon Economic
Development Department (OEDD) financing for those costs not covered by the Houghton and Root bequests
should be pursued.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On December 14, 1999, the City Council and Budget Committee discussed options for expanding the Tigard City
Library. The discussion was continued to January 18, 2000.
After the December 14 meeting, staff conducted further research on the remodeling projects. A summary table of
the remodeling projects, estimated costs, priority, timing, and additional comments is attached to this report
(Attachment A).
At the December 14 meeting, Library Director Melinda Sisson distributed three worksheets detailing the costs of
building an addition onto the current library and remodeling the existing space. Staff has revised the remodeling
costs shown on the original worksheets by reducing the cost of lighting replacement from $180,000 to $90,000 and
increasing the cost of the HVAC Upgrade from $60,300 to $85,300 based on the current information. In addition,
staff has added moving costs of $20,000 to the remodeling estimates. Revised worksheets are attached
(Attachments B, C, & D).
Also at the December 14 meeting, Finance Director Craig Prosser distributed a one-page summary of Financing
Options for the expansion and the remodeling. That summary has been updated to reflect the revised cost
estimates, and the revised summary is attached to this report (Attachment E). The consensus of the December 14
meeting was to pursue Oregon Economic Development Department (OEDD) financing for the City portion of this
project and so information regarding possible City bonds was removed from this summary.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
All alternatives have been presented to Council and the Budget Committee.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
All projected costs and financing sources are detailed in the attachments to this summary
Q
C
a)
E
s
U
co
Q
O N
3 Q
3 O ~
3
a)
i
°n
o
a
m
. •
~ ~ E
.._c`oc
~o
cnL-a)0
c
oaas
2
n
a)
M%- 9
.
V
n
.
G a a) Co
r n
° E.4
a) 3 C
c°- cu
C
O
'
C
O
U = O
a O
CL
Co
(C U
°
_
E
a) O
(D a)
r
u) C
C N
E
,o a .c C
a) .
r O C
O
a
cn r- O O
r.,~•r ~
O 0.-
"O U U
0
ca
~'rrn
Oca
.
c
cn~'v)~'
m
a)
boa) "0a)
0
w~a
a)
CO C
N p C
.
ani c Es
ttt 2 a~
a) O
a)
vy
a) a) U) -a o
)
E c°a a)
o c co
0 a
U) C- O V 0
0
p 'a U to
-0 a
®
16
N .a 0
Q
i
C
G
a) V
.
L- O. O E
C
C
C3)
-
14-
o
C
0
- 0
F- C C
~
c
Cl)
c
g
_
E
4-
o
CL
x
U W 6"
H
o can
o
Q a
fl
.
.0 a)
mc)
oIcfi
a) a)
rn
fl- C: C:
C
O L
Co O
U
E a) W
Mn
U O
U) U p c
m
'a 5 N
CD ca 'a
O c 3 a)
a- CA
~ •X C
0 a) a) O
C N x
C o c
ac) » Q
rn °
o -a
o 7E E o ~ 3
ca -0
o
F 75 a- cu E --°a
u..0Oa0
U
c6
n
cn
c
co
x
a)
rn
c
.C
U CO
co
cm
Cl. n
Q) ~
U_
a) E
fl. to
(6 Q)
. LLl
W
LL.
U)
O
O
O
C 9 Q
N
aZ
0-
x
W
p~
W
J
J
1
J
_Z
Q
D
t
m
u)
O
0
U ~
v> w
0
U- o
N LO
w 04
t» to
C) CD
W o °v
a
C
O
W Q
o
J ~
0 a)
U ZU
~I
ti
cr.
c
L
C
F
C
CI
F
u
c
L
h
v~ J U
Ear
i O 0 C
~ o
t; ~ e.
o m F
1CCNF
oI
c"Il -q
Cl)
0
U
2 N
; U)
C V
O
U C
U
`7 U
2
O N
c
o O
O U
N v
~i
N
E o N
c
`y Lb O
~ U.
~ ~ f0
C C 7
N
1 N E C
O O
U
1 C 2 N
E c
co
Q U
w 0
.5 C&
2 u)
N
N
O
O
C
y O
w I~.S
fQ ate..
C N
O c
~ U
w
v
O N
O
~ o
0
N
W y
J U
m Z
Z
co p
w U
O
h
N
a
01
O
r
w
D
I~
a
C_
0
O
H
c N
0t
U
Z
0 c
F-
U
~ a
~ r
U _
Z
c
0
U `u
U J a
a Cl 0
~ Z E-
O Q Z i
co I- g I
N 0
N ~
U
E Z .
m N W ~
N p } F- 0
o oo z I
w Q N j Z l
m w Mull
m
a
0
4
O
O
O
N
N
O
0
Z
d
Q
H
X
d
m
D
d
w
c
u
0
a`
0
c
N
m
W
m
a
_I
m
u
0
O
v
0
N
CI
R
U_
L
H
W
W
IL
d
cn
O
O
O
U C4
C > Q
E z
U L 0
Q z
IL
X
LU
N~N
~M
W
J
J O
~ N
Oh
O eh
Z
w
J C) N
O N
h o tl.
F-
to Gq
J
Q 00 C) N
h o rn m
O o LA
0) co
m
ct> ca v>
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
h 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 N O
O O O u O V• O O O m O
O N V' Lo m I*- CO OU') O (O
U cl-
69 69 69 tf> fH 69 69 cf> 69 to v>
0 0 0 Cl
LL. 0 0 0 0
N ui o 0 0
N 04 Co m m
Ql> 6% 69 C9
CD Cl CD CD CD
IT V O co
W O
Q' (D fD ~
Q
C
0
F-
z
W
z
O
M
m
O
U
v
Q
t` O
n
J
~w
z
R'
h
N
z
O
U
h
U
U) J W
O h ❑
op
F, J
d In Fa-
~Na
C
O
U
H
; N
C O
O O
U C
U
d U
v 2
O V7
c
o O
O U
N v
d
H ~ U
w a)
O
c
U
v, to
c 5
m
E c
:oU
C N
ar °
E c
m
r
J
C
w
t F+
N
H
O
0
C
y O
w U
m
C H
O C
U) 0
d V
O N
0
O
a e
11x1°1
h
N
O
U
z
O
h
U
h
Z
O
U
h
U J
w Q
Q O O
h Z h
0-
_j
Z
m Qg
c=i>O(9
to co
V or
cm a)
co C)
69
0101010
000 co
m co O co
coI~IN ItoI I
cr> ~ v> u>
c
m
aa,
U
O
O
Q
N
O
0
aNi
N
N
O
U
C
a1
O
E
w
O
e
0
c
a)ZL) -j
_j
O Z O 0
F- J
o p Co Z
U cn a.
2
CL
a,
0
v
0
0
0
N
O
O
0"_
LLI
LU
I.l_
CY
Cl)
0
O
O_
M CO
U L O
cu a) (n
Q
CL
X
w
J
Z
L7
J
Fa"
O
F-
J
Q
F-
O
F7
m
N
I-
co
O
U
LL
N
6A
Q~
w
Q
O O
00
00
O V
O
V) 69
°O Co
N O
69 69
O OIO
O O O
O V O
OD
c
0
F-
2
W
z
O
CL
2
C
1.
a
Q
T
.a
J ~
3 a
~ LL
Z
-1
E
c
d
z
c
H
L
H
c
C
H
C
J U
O C
0
i ~ <
U) I-
691
N
c
0
U
N
v
o
0
O
N
06
a.
c
i a
c
I D
L
U
Q
N
N
O
0
c
d ~
w U
m
C
O hC
y O
~ U
0 U
O 0
w 'C
O O
~ o
O
N r
w y
J U
z
J m
w
Fa-
O D Z
ca z
N w U
O
N
r
ai
rn
r
r
6A
0
N
I -L
O
ti
EH
d9 69 V>
"
Co U °o
O fl- N
69 69 69
Cl C) C) C3
~ ~
CDf m of
691691 c6
9169169
S
.3
0
~
U)
e
aD
O
U
N
Z
o
O
F-
-
U
F-
a
U)
J
O
U
c
-
rn
c
U
J
CD
aa
) c
°
)
a
o
J
w
Q
~
a
)
-
f
o E
0 N
`
0
y
a
p
O
_
°
_
to
t-
? I-
E
a Z
d
o
c
U
U
O
°
°c
C
nF-
O
f
D0U
)7-
W4
) 0
2
m
a
in
0
0
g
0
N
N
0
0
m
E
m
a
N
x
d
L
°m
CL
U)
0
u
d
CL`
0
U
0
X
w
z
A
J
u
U
0
0
V
0
N
U_
L
W
C
C)
C
L
U
ca
Q
W
O
E
~ N
a c
O
O Q
~0
L =
N
C r-
O to
U c_
U-
Z
ca
L
J
L
O C
) t
o
C)
C
D
C)
C)
C
D
C)
C
O C
) •
-
O
w
O
c
o
a
O
0
C
O
O
C)
~
-
O
-
%
-
~
6 C
-4
CD
LO
I-
N
N
N
T
d'
M C
A
6
'D
C
fl
1
-
N
V-e
ll
O
6
4
C
fl
4
9
co
CM
to
N
d
6
O
M
Q
ti
C
O
r
E
H
U)
C)
LO
CD
C)
C)
C)
CD
C)
CO
CD
~
CD
co
C~
co
co
CD
Cn
O
't
O
CD
O
CD
W
6
C4
C6*
6
17
(5
TZ
,T
14-
co
Lo
ti
m
m
co
m
m
O
N
69
W
64
CA
1-
IV:
V+
~ O
O
ai
C CD
CD
0
L
O
O
w
O
M
~
r:
Ld
Q
et
(A
ti
69
64
CO
CD
U)
O
O
O
O
O
O
CO
O
•c-
O
O
r
O
CO
o
v
o
ti
o
~
ti
rn
O
_
°
6
~i
~
V
v
M
O
(
V-
co
co
M
l7'
1-
CO
•
FA
Ef3
CA
69
to
w
O
_
> ti
e+ ~
O
O
r
O
64
C6
CT
Q
w
(0
!
N
in
C
~ •0
p Cn j
i v
i
U
U Ur
r
N
I D
d '
Z
L C
`
0)
I U
c
a
m U)
I I
E
D U
D
i =
o
L
W
+
N
O
W
!
,
O p
a
I V
I l
o
U)
'
0
cu
~ O
w
f
"
I E
!
i
a)
Z .S CU
! O O
Im l t- ' <10
C
N
U
CD
C)
c
O
m
'NO
C
rn
(A
a)
tO N
Oi
C C
~O
.
O
C) Co 7 O
vOi
U
C
O v) W
-
a)
N
C
4=
N '
C C
N
O
L O O
L
O
O
O
a'
7
2
=
O M Co
O
CA
cu
(n Q
0
=3
(D
0
_
a
)
C
'
7
U
= cc
O
•
N
-
O
U
E
0
F-
N
O
C
CO
'
O
C
C F-
m
E
L
>
O
E vi N
O
O
7
E U O
O
"O
C
O N Q
D
a)
C~ 0-
i
a) a)
cc
C
C1 a)
C
CL a)
U
U a) .L...
-
O
L
N
N O C
O
3
C
a C'
(n
cu
C C
a)
C
N CA
(D
U
Z
LU
O 0.-
O
-0
U
C
O
p
r
O
m
U)
O
O
0 a)
L
w
L
.
(D
(n
U
C
(D
U O
.
=
3
L O
c0
O c
j
ai
C '0
_
4
a)
= O
N
t9
7
O
U - CO
CL
O
.7
U
CV
N
L p U
O L
L U
T C O
C O rn
0.
cu
C1 L
3
(n
=3
a) .C] 'C
co
a)
c
co
L
a
)
L a) rn
a)
C
E
7 =3
a)
co c
M
a)
LL
cu
.
CL
O
W Cc
O
E
•
O
7
~
~
U Cp y
a)
c
N U
O C
_
C D_ C
N O
`O
0c co LL
L a) °
O
E Qa_0
'
L
CO
~0 a)
C
U
C:
C N N
Co Ca
T
m
(n
cm
L
CO
CL
7
CD Cr c
0
2
0
O
C
~
`
N
.
a) CL
U
.
a) •„C
N
(n
C L O T
a)oZQ
cn
U
a) CU
E
C
N
'C O
a)
U U
C.
N
C a)
0 0
C
to
S
a p
v a) O
41
0
Cp
C)
0 3
~•Q-O N
U
C
C
'O
>
N
T
U
O
O CO
a) a)
cn U
0 C:
a -
C
cu _
O N
N
O
O
L
O
N
-D N
O O
-
W
C
0
CO 7
0•Q)
C)
o
CD &CL)
L
cu
U)
U C
U C
0 W •a
U, vim)
U 0)
U a)
O- m
O C
cn
'a
a)
a) C N 7
.c a)
a
.1
Q
L 7
n
C
F- a)
L CU O CT
F- m U a)
N
M
M
V`O
Financing options AD
New Library Building
01/18/2000
H
a
Gifts on Hand (Houghton & Root) $ 856,585
Interest on Gifts $ 42,415
Total Gifts $ 899,000
OEDD Financing Maximum $3,000,000
Less Remodeling exisung ouuuniy
Branch Library $ 355,000
Office Space $ 455,000
Net Available for New Site &
Est. acres needed for new building 2.5
Est. price per acre $ 260,000
Estimated land cost $ 650,000
years)
All-In Cost
Per Sq. Ft.
size @ $ 200 13,970
size @ $ 225 12,418
AGENDA ITEM # S.2-
FOR AGENDA OF January 18 2000
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discussion of a proposed Fixed Asset Policy effective July 1, 2000
PREPARED BY: Terry Muralt DEPT HEAD OK -Qt- CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Discuss the adoption of a Fixed Asset Policy to go into effect July 1, 2000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of the Fixed Asset Policy is tentively scheduled on the January 25th Consent Agenda, depending on
the outcome of Council's discussion.
Staff recommends adoption of the Fixed Asset Policy. Currently the City has been following an internal
procedure that was developed in 1990. The City's auditing firm has recommended that we formalize the policy
and increase the capital outlay level from $200 to $2,500, which is more consistent with what other jurisdictions
have adopted.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The purpose of the Fixed Asset Policy is to set guidelines in tracking and controlling the City's capital assets. The
policy defines what a fixed asset is and describes the categories in which they are tracked, i.e., Land, Buildings,
Vehicles, Office Equipment and Operation Machinery and Equipment. It explains the complete procedure of
recording fixed assets starting when the items(s) are purchased to the deletion and disposing of surplus City
personal property. The current practice at which the City capitalizes an item is when the unit cost is $200 or
more. The Auditor recommends changing the dollar amount to $2,500.
The Auditors have just completed work on the FY98/99 audit and made this recommendation. Adopting the
policy at this time also allows departments to incorporate the change in capital outlay definition in their FY 00-
01 budget requests.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
No fiscal impact. The action increases the level at which the City capitalizes assets acquired from the current
practice of $200 to $2,500.
iAcitywidc\sum.dot
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TIGARID
FIXED ASSET (CAPITAL ASSET) MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
PURPOSE:
The purpose of the fixed asset management system is to:
1. Control City capital assets by assigning accountability and responsibility to specific
departments.
2. Provide documentation of equipment loss to the insurance companies in the event of losses
due to fire or theft.
3. Provide information such as depreciation and obsolescence needed for City's enterprise
funds (Water, Sewer, and Storm Drain).
4. Provide budget information for capital replacements and additions.
5. Provide information of all City equipment and thereby avoiding duplication of equipment.
6. Provide a list of all assets and their values to assure that capital assets are properly insured.
DEFINITION OF FIXED ASSETS:
In order for expenditure to be considered a Fixed Asset, a few tests need to be passed.
Expenditure must meet all the following criteria.
1. The cost of the asset must be equal to or greater than $2,500 effective July 1, 2000. Cost is
defined as all charges necessary to prepare the asset for rendering service(s).
2. The useful life of the item must be greater than one year.
3. The expenditure is complete in and of itself.
4. The expenditure does not lose its identity or become a component of another item.
5. The transaction falls into one of the following categories:
a) Original acquisition that constitutes a new capital asset to City of Tigard. This asset can
be acquired through purchase or new construction;
b) Expansion or improvement that adds to or improves the function use of the existing
capital asset and for which the benefit will be received for a significant time over the life
of the asset. The cost of the improvement should be significant in relation to the cost of
the asset;
c) Rehabilitation or Replacement - a replacement or major construction that extends the full
useful life of the existing capital asset or so the asset can provide a broader range of
services. This can represent either total or partial replacement.
SPECIFIC FIXED ASSET CATAGORIES:
ACCOUNTS
1. Land and Improvements (original cost, filling, grading, drainage, legal costs) 701000
2. Buildings and Improvements (original cost, plus additions) 702000
3. Vehicles (includes equipment that is licensed for the highway) 703000
4. Office Equipment (cost plus freight and installation) 704000
5. Operation Machinery and Equipment (cost plus freight and installation) 706000
ASSETS NOT CONSIDERED FIXED ASSETS:
1. Repairs or maintenance of equipment.
2. Cash and securities
3. Public Works stock inventory
4. Equipment and tools costing less than $2,500
5. Materials to be consumed in operation and maintenance, such as chemicals,
automotive parts, etc.
PROCEDURE OF RECORDING FIXED ASSETS:
Additions: During the fiscal year, the Finance Department will record fixed asset additions after
invoices are paid. Items will then be tagged with a property ID number.
Deletions: All departments are to notify the Finance Department by tilling out the "RFA-
Removal of Surplus Items" form when fixed assets are ready to be sold, traded-in, sent to the
State for auction or discarded. The City Manager shall approve all items before item leaves the
City premises.
Adjustments:
1. Transfers: This type of adjustment record's intra-City transfers of assets, as well as changes
of information relating to the asset(s). Surplus assets will remain in storage until it is
determined that: (a) the asset is to be transferred to another department; (b) the asset is sold;
or (c) the asset is otherwise disposed of.
2. Other Adjustments: All other adjustments to fixed assets.
PROCEDURE, FOR PROPERTY DISPOSTION:
The following procedures is to be followed by departments in disposing of surplus City personal
property:
1. Personal property owned by the City may be disposed of only after being declared surplus
by the City Manager or designee (Tigard's AR 60.00)
2. If existing personal property is being replaced by new, it should be traded-in on the new
equipment. The only exceptions for not trading in the old personal property are;
a) It is of more value to another City department and will be used by that department.
City of Tigard - Fixed Asset (Capital Asset) Management System Page 2
Revised 01/04/00
b) It can be sold for substantially more money than offered by the trade-in.
c) A vendor won't accept it because of either no value or the City is buying on a state
contract that does not allow for trade-ins.
3. If the surplus equipment is not traded in:
a) The responsible department should complete the "RFA - Removal of Surplus Items"
form and forward it to the Finance Department.
b) The surplus will then be put into storage and the Finance Department will then offer the
item(s) to the other City departments by listing it on the Intra-Net.
c) The Finance Department will be responsible for final disposal of surplus by sending it to
the State of Oregon Property Distribution Center for auction or completing one of the
below options "(d), (e), or (f)".
d) The City may sell personal property per AR 60.015 and 60.020. The Department
disposing of the surplus will work with the Finance Department for completing this
process according to the Administrative Rules.
e) The City may donate personal property per AR 60.025.
f) The City may trade personal property per AR 60.030.
g) The Finance Department will make the appropriate bookkeeping entries in the Fixed
Asset records of all additions, deletions and adjustments.
PROCEDURE FOR PHYSICAL INVENTORY:
The physical verification of the City's Fixed Assets is very important for audit reports, the
insurance agent in determining the adequacy of the City's insurance program and to the Finance
Department in administering accountability and control of City property.
The procedure for taking the physical inventory is as follows:
1. Each department will appoint a fixed asset custodian. Each custodian will be responsible for
periodic inventories of assets and the overall management of the department's fixed assets.
2. Periodically the Finance Department will send to each department the listing of the
departmental equipment.
3. The information on the listing of each asset should be reviewed. Incorrect information
should be marked and correct inform±ion or additional information should be noted on the
listing.
4. Once the inventory has been completed, the inventory listing shall be returned to the Finance
Department with the department head signature. This certifies that the inventory was taken
and the listing is correct as noted
City of Tigard - Fixed Asset (Capital Asset) Management System Page 3
Revised 01/04/00
AGENDA ITEM # K. 3
FOR AGENDA OF January 18, 2000
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE GENERAL
OBLIGATION DEBT SERVICE FUND AND APPROVING BUDGET ADJUSTMENT #5 TO
THE FY 1999-00 BUDGET.
PREPARED BY: Craig: Prosser DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the Council authorize an interfund loan from the General Fund to the General Obligation
Debt Service Fund to offset a negative fund balance?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends consideration of this resolution at the January 25, 2000 Council meeting.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The General Obligation Debt Service Fund finished FY 1998-99 with a fund balance of a negative
$15,735. This is a violation of state law. Because the GO Debt Service Fund entered FY 1999-00
in a negative situation, it is likely that the negative balance will get worse in FY 1999-00 unless
corrective action is taken.
The negative fund balance situation developed over a number of years as property tax collections
fell short of expectations. The fund used to carry a positive fund balance to protect against this
situation, but that fund balance eroded over the past several years. Debt service levies were not
adjusted to offset this trend.
The fund first went negative in FY 1997-98 by $9,541. That fact was not recognized when the City
built the FY 1998-99 budget, which assumed a positive beginning fund balance. Because that
positive fund balance did not exist, the fund's condition worsened over FY 1998-99. It ended last
fiscal year with a negative balance of $15,735.
Once again, the FY 1999-00 budget did not recognize the fund's true condition, and the budget once
again assumed a positive fund balance. Again, that positive fund balance did not exist. Unless
corrective action is taken, the fund's condition will likely become worse in FY 1999-00.
Unfortunately, at this point the City's options are limited.
Under state law, property tax levies must be certified at the time the budget for the ensuing fiscal
year is adopted. Once the levies are certified to the County assessor, they cannot be changed. The
V(
FY 1999-00 debt service levy was.certified in June 1999, and transmitted to the County assessor in
July. That levy cannot be changed. There is no other source of revenue for this fund.
This ordinance authorizes a loan from the General Fund to the GO Debt Service Fund, to be repaid
with interest in FY 2000-01. Under state law, it is permissible to initiate such a loan as long as it is
repaid in the following fiscal year with interest. The debt service levy in FY 2000-01 can be sized
to cover debt service payments due plus the repayment of this loan.
It is important to note that the City has continued to make all debt service payments when due, and
will continue to do so.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The City has two additional options other than the one -recommended:
1. Do not loan money from the General Fund; rather just transfer $30,000 from the General
Fund with no future repayment. This option would address the shortfall in the GO Debt
Service Fund, but it would do so by drawing down the General Fund balance. This option is
not recommended because of the impact on the General Fund.
2. Do nothing, allowing the fund deficit to grow in FY 1999-00, but size the FY 2000-01 debt
service levy to cover the debt service due plus the fund deficit. At the end of the process,
this would have accomplished the same purpose as the recommended course of action, but
in the meantime, it allows a violation of state law to continue and the deficit situation to
grow worse. For these reasons this option is not recommended.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMNUTTEE STRATEGY
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
The proposed ordinance authorizes a loan of $30,000 from the General Fund to the GO Debt
Service Fund. This loan is larger than the actual negative beginning fund balance at the start of this
fiscal year. That negative balance is expected to grow in FY 1999-00, but the amount of growth
will not be known until the final property tax turn-over is received from Washington County late in
the fiscal year. The loan has therefore been sized to allow a margin for growth. This loan will
reduce General Fund balance in FY 1999-00. This loan will be repaid with interest in FY 2000-01,
however, so that the long term condition of the General Fund will be held harmless. The ordinance
corrects a negative situation in the GO Debt Service Fund.
AGENDA ITEM # 5 ,4
FOR AGENDA OF January 18, 2000
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET
ADJUSTMENT #6 TO THE FY 1999-00 BUDGET TO PROVIDE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT TO THE
FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO PAY COSTS RELATED TO SOFTWARE CONVERSION AND TO PAY
COSTS RELATED TO OTHER REQUIRED CONTRACTS
PREPARED BY: Craig Prosser _ DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR. OK Ljj~_
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the City Council approve an amendment to the FY 1999-00 Budget to create one position and increase
appropriations to pay additional costs in the Finance department?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends consideration of this budget amendment at the January 25, 2000 Council meeting.
INFORMATION S U MMAK Y
The Finance Department has experienced the need for additional funding and one additional position in FY 1999-
01. The department has attempted to identify savings in the current fiscal year to offset a portion of the needed
increases, but is unable to cover all of the identified costs. The department, therefore, requires a budget amendment
for $34,017 to allow needed work to be completed in FY 1999-00. A table explaining the elements covered by this
budget amendment is attached to this summary.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES U0NJ11JhKrill
Do not approve this budget amendment; maintain the City's FY 1999-00 budget as adopted.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
This adjustment will reduce contingency by $34, 017. A portion of this amount will be recovered through a
contract with the City of Hillsboro for a net impact of $25,492.
Item
Amount
Administrative Support
$16,164
The Administration and Accounting Divisions have no administrative support. Professional and-accounting
staff are performing clerical duties necessary to the completion of their jobs. This is a poor use of resources
and limits the ability of the department to perform necessary tasks. The department is requesting the
addition of one Senior Administrative Support Specialist to provide this support. The amount requested is
for Personal Services for five months, office supplies, and a computer. The annualized cost of this position
is $45,000.
Temporary Staffing
$8,525
The City of Hillsboro's municipal court supervisor left. Hillsboro contacted Tigard to see if it could borrow
one of Tigard's Administrative Services staff to serve as acting court supervisor until they fill that position.
Tigard has an employee, Amy Dorland, who was willing to perform this role. Tigard and Hillsboro have
entered into an agreement to formalize this arrangement. Amy remains on Tigard's payroll, but is serving
as Hillsboro's acting court supervisor. Hillsboro is reimbursing Tigard for all of Amy's payroll costs while
she is on assignment. The Finance Department is requesting the appropriation of a portion of this
reimbursement money to hire temporary staff to backfill for Amy while she is on assignment in Hillsboro.
Under Local Budget Law these reimbursement monies cannot be directly appropriated without a
supplemental budget. This action, therefore, transfers this amount from contingency. Since the additional
revenue will offset the drawdown from contingency, there will be no negative effect on ending fund
balance at the end of the year.
Springbrook Conversion
$40,164
The department began an effort in FY 1998-99 to convert the City's financial software system to a Y2K
compliant, Windows-based system. Work planned for FY 1998-99 was delayed and has been completed in
FY 1999-00. The FY 1999-00 budget, however, assumed that this work had been completed last fiscal
year. The FY 1999-00 budget needs to be adjusted to allow these costs to be paid in the current fiscal year.
In addition, at the time of the purchase of the new system, the City purchased 10 concurrent licenses for the
software. This allows 10 people to use the software at the same time. This covers just the Finance
Department staff. The City needs to install this software on computers in other departments to allow
online look-up and direct entry of data such as cash receipts. The City had to purchase 5 additional licenses
to allow these installations to proceed.
Finally, the Finance Department has experienced significant turnover this year. New staff needed training
in the new software and existing staff required training in additional features available.
The department is requesting $40,164 to cover these additional expenses.
Microfilming
$3,000
The department is requesting $3,000 to microfilm commercial land use records. The City microfilms
records for archival storage and to protect heavily used files from loss or damage. Funds budgeted for
microfilming in FY 1999-00 have been almost fully expended. The department is requesting additional
funding to microfilm commercial land use records. These records are heavily used by staff and the public,
and therefore in danger of loss or damage. Microfilming will produce two sets of film: one for permanent
archival storage and one for use by staff and the public who use these records.
The,department has identified the need for two professional services contracts to ensure compliance with
federal debt regulations and to improve handling of City investments:
Arbitrage Compliance Reporting:
Under federal IRS code, local governments which issue bonds are required to report the amount of arbitrage
earned on bond proceeds to the IRS every 5 years. If arbitrage earnings exceed allowable levels, the excess
must be rebated to the US Treasury. Tigard's five-year report was due two years ago, and has not yet been
made. The Finance Department has entered into a contract with Arbitrage Compliance Services, a
professional consulting firm, to review the City's bond and investment records, and to prepare the required
reports to the IRS. This contract costs $7,500 and was not budgeted.
Third Party Safekeeping for Investments:
The City invests funds both in the Local Government Investment Pool administered by the Oregon State
Treasury and in instruments offered through investment banks. Assets purchased from investment banks
are traditionally held by trustees for safekeeping. Many governments use a Third Party Trustee (one not
associated with the investment firm selling the asset) for safekeeping and reporting purposes. This
increases the safety of the asset by a third party "check and balance" and it improves reporting on the
overall performance of the investment portfolio.
Tigard leaves the asset with the firm which sold it the asset for safekeeping. The checks and balances in
this approach are significantly less than if the City used an independent, third party trustee. Also, because
the City purchases investments from more than one firm, our assets are held in a variety of locations. It is
more difficult to obtain a consolidated report on our portfolio performance because of the number of
entities involved. The City's total portfolio is approximately $30,000,000, of which half is invested
through private investment banks.
The department is requesting $6,000 to obtain a Third Party Trustee to increase the safety and security of
the City's investments for the remainder of this fiscal year. The annualized cost of this service will be
approximately $13,000.
oxviuK3
The Finance Department has experienced significant staff turnover this year. This turnover has produced
salary savings, which the department is allocating to a portion of the increased funding needs. The
department has also identified miscellaneous savings in materials and services, which can be used to
support a portion of these costs.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET ADJUSTMENT #6 TO THE FY 1999-00 BUDGET TO
PROVIDE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, TO PAY COSTS
RELATED TO SOFTWARE CONVERSION, AND TO PAY COSTS RELATED TO OTHER
REQUIRED CONTRACTS.
WHEREAS, the Finance Department needs an additional position to help produce the annual budget and
Consolidated Annual Financial Report and other documents and reports; to support the Budget Committee;
to develop and maintain departmental files; and to provide administrative support, and
WHEREAS, the Finance Department requires funding for completion of work tasks carried over from FY
1998-99 in the conversion of the City's' financial software package to a Windows-based Y2K compliant
system and additional training needed to fully use the new system, and
WHEREAS, the department has identified the need for additional funding for contracts ensure compliance
with federal IRS regulations regarding the management of City debt, for safekeeping of City investments,
and for microfilming of heavily used City records, and
WHEREAS, additional appropriation is required to allow the expenditure of funds on temporary services
reimbursed by the City of Hillsboro.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: the FY 1999-00 Adopted
Budget be adjusted to increase funding for the Finance Department in the amount of $34,017:
SECTION 1: The appropriations in the policy and Administration program are hereby increased by
$34, 017 and the General Fund contingency is reduced by $34,017.
SECTION 2: One Senior Administrative Specialist position is hereby created in the Finance
Department.
PASSED: This day of
2000.
Mayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
RESOLUTION Nom. 00-_
Page 1
AGENDA ITEM # to
FOR AGENDA OF 1/18/00
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE
PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK (JX6~'/CIVM GR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) has adopted new rules regulating development near streams and wetlands
in order to comply with Metro Title 3 performance standards. What are the new USA rules, how will they
affect development inside the City, and what additional steps, if any, are needed to achieve City Title 3
compliance? Staff will provide an overview of the standards. No action is necessary at this point.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
This is an information item. No action is required.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In mid-1998, the Metro Council adopted water quality and flood management performance standards, known as
Title 3. Tigard and the other jurisdictions within Metro were given eighteen months to adopt code amendments
that comply with these standards. During 1999, the City participated with other Washington Country jurisdictions
and USA in the development of a coordinated Title 3 response strategy that builds on the existing Storm Water
Management program.
As the end result of this joint effort, late last month USA adopted new water management rules implementing Title
3 in Washington County. The new rules require wider buffers around streams and wetlands and also require the
enhancement of the first 50 feet of disturbed or degraded buffer areas. Applicants are required to prepare a site
assessment and obtain a stormwater permit from USA prior to submitting a land use application to the local
jurisdiction. Existing development located within a setback area is not required to be brought into conformity with
the new riles.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRAIEUY
Growth Management Goal #1 calls for Accommodating Growth while Protecting Livability, with natural
resource protection identified as one of the action strategies under this goal.
FISCAL NOTES
No additional cost to the City in relation to the administration of the new rules is expected. The City may need to
add dollars to the budgets of City-initiated projects located near streams or wetlands, such as the library expansion,
to cover the cost of improving the condition of the required setback area. This is because the new rules require the
enhancement of the first fifty feet of buffer width, when the existing buffer is degraded.
iAcitywideWdelusa.sum
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO. Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: William A. Monahan, City Manager
DATE: December 29, 1999
SUBJECT. Title 3 Implementation
Attached is a memo prepared by Jim Hendryx, presenting the status of the
Title 3 implementation, now that USA has adopted its compliance package.
The memo contains an introduction as well as an overview 'of the rules and
the implications for Tigard. There is a lot of detail within this information
which will require further discussion with staff.
Time has been set aside on the January 18, 2000 Workshop meeting of
Council for Jim Hendryx to present this information to Council. Please
review the information attached with this memo in anticipation of the
Workshop meeting. If you have any specific questions which you would like
researched and addressed at the Workshop, please submit them either to
me or to Jim Hendryx.
WAM\jh
attachment
c: Jim Hendryx
Duane Roberts
11TI G3331US RIDE PTSIADM181 LL\122999-2. DOC
CITY OF TIGARD
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Council
FROM: Jim Hendryx /)A J
DATE: 12/26/99
SUBJECT: Title 3 Implementation
The purpose of this memo is to update Council on the adoption by USA of a
Title 3 compliance package put together by a countywide committee.
Introduction
On December 21, 1999, the Unified Sewerage District adopted new regulations
governing development near streams and wetlands. The regulations have been
incorporated into the USA Design and Construction Standards and apply to all
development taking place near streams and wetlands within Washington County,
including the City of Tigard. These regulations were put into place in order to
comply with Metro Title 3 Water Quality, Flood Management and Fish and
Wildlife Conservation performance standards. They have been accepted by
Metro as substantially complying.
Although primarily intended to meet Title 3, the new regulations also reflect a
consolidated approach toward meeting present and anticipated water quality
needs associated with the Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts and
Metro Goal 5. As is by now well known, additional and in all likelihood more
stringent stream and wetland protection measures related to these statutes are
expected to be put into effect sometime in the comparatively near future. In
anticipation of these new regulations, the USA rules go beyond Title 3 in three
main areas: by providing greater protection for intermittent streams, by
requiring the restoration of vegetative cover around streams and wetlands, and
by requiring the replacement of corridor areas in separate lots. A related
concern addressed by the USA rules is the increased scrutiny and more effective
enforcement of existing regulations. An example is a major lawsuit recently filed
against USA by an environmental group alleging USA has failed to fulfill its water
quality regulatory responsibilities.
The Title 3 compliance package was developed by a joint USA and Washington
County Planning Directors committee. The purpose of USA and all the
jurisdictions working together was to develop a consistent, county-wide set of
stream protection measures that would build on the existing storm water
management program and provide one set of rules for all the jurisdictions to
follow.
Rules Overview
The new USA rules require wider buffers around streams and wetlands and also
require the enhancement to "good condition" of the first 50 feet of disturbed or
degraded buffer areas. (Good condition is defined as a "combination of trees,
shrubs, and groundcover covering greater than 80% of the area; and greater
than 50% tree canopy".) The USA rules limit development within the sensitive
areas and the adjacent corridors. The vegetated corridors range in width from
15 to 200 feet depending on the nature of the sensitive area and the slope of the
surrounding terrain. A chart on the following page shows the widths of the
vegetated corridors for different types of sensitive areas.
Excluding certain special circumstances, such as sewer lines or roadway
crossings where no reasonable alternative exists, when buffer areas are in good
condition, no exceptions from the buffer width standards are allowed.
Exceptions to the setback widths can occur only when buffer areas are not in
good condition. A maximum encroachment of 20% of the width by -20% of the
frontage is allowed outright. For disturbed buffers of 125' or wider, an
encroachment of up to 20% of the entire corridor width is allowed outright.
Encroachments beyond these percentages may be allowed on a case by case
basis under an "alternatives analysis", or a demonstration by an applicant that
the encroachment is justified. As a last resort, an applicant may pursue a
hardship variance if the strict application of the rules would deprive an owner of
all economic use of the land. In all cases, one to one replacement of the lost
buffer area is required.
Existing development located within a setback area is not subject to the new
regulatory setbacks and is not required to be brought into conformity with the
new rules. However, any proposed expansion of the existing use would be
required to meet the new regulations.
Stormwater Permit and Local Choice
The new USA rules require that applicants prepare a site assessment and obtain
a stormwater permit from USA prior to submitting a land. use application to the
cities. This is similar to the procedure now followed with regard to wetland fill
2
Vegetated Corridor Widths
Sensitive Area Definition
Slope Adjacent to
Width of Vegetated Corridor
Sensitive Area'
per.Side2
• Streams with intermittent flow draining:
less than 25%
0 10 to 50 acres
15 feet
25 feet
i 50 to 100 acres
• Existing or created wetlands larger than
25 feet
0.5 acres
. Existing or created wetlands larger than
more than 25%
50 feet
0.5 acre
• Rivers, streams, and springs with year
round flow
• Streams with intermittent flow draining
less than 100 acres
• Natural lakes and ponds
• Streams with intermittent flow draining:
less than 25%
• 10 to.50 acres
30 feet
50 feet
• 50 to 100 acres
• Existing or created wetlands
more than 25%
Variable froin 50-200 ft
streams, and springs with year
• Rivers
Measure in 25foot increments
,
round flow
from the starting point to the top
• Streams with intermittent flow draining
of ravine (break in 25% slope),
i
3
ne
add 35 feet past the top of rav
100 acres
• Natural lakes and ponds
1 Starting point for measurement = edge of the defined channel (bankful flow) for streams/rivers, delineated
wetland boundary, delineated spring boundary, and/or average high water for lakes or ponds, whichever
offers greatest resource protection.
permits, where applications are required to obtain a Division of State Lands
permit prior to obtaining city approval to disturb jurisdictional wetlands. USA
estimates a turnaround time for the stormwater review of approximately ten days.
A final stormwater permit decision will not occur until the applicant completes the
local land use review process. The second review is intended to handle any
changes to the site plan that may occur during land use review. If dissatisfied
with USA's decision, an applicant may appeal the decision to the USA hearings
officer.
All permits, including those requiring an alternatives analysis, will be reviewed
and issued by USA. USA is willing to delegate the permit review responsibility to
those cities wishing to administer the alternatives analysis themselves, provided
those same cities sign an agreement holding USA harmless for any associated
state or federal water quality violations. At present, USA is solely responsible
for any violations of state and federal stormwater permit requirements. Any city
not wanting to be bound by USA decisions on exceptions to the setback
standards may opt out of the USA program, but would have to assume the legal
liability associated with local control. Authority and liability are aligned if USA is
responsible. The same concept would apply for jurisdictions wishing to retain
local oversight.
The main arguments against Tigard opting out of the USA program are that the
city lacks the technical expertise needed to apply the discretionary provisions of
the compliance package. USA has specialists in water quality management on
staff who would be better able to evaluate the water quality consequences of
development proposals. Put another way, unlike Tigard and most of the other
cities, USA has the expertise to get uniform decisions that do not compromise
water quality. As suggested, a related argument against local administration of
the alternatives analysis is that cities choosing to do their own permitting would
be subject to water quality-related lawsuits, such as the present one pending
against USA. This exposure is of particular concern in light of the expected
ratcheting up and more vigorous enforcement of water quality and riparian
habitat requirements.
Credit Table Approach
A key compliance idea the Washington County Title 3 committee had put forward
earlier involved allowing reduced setbacks as a credit for mitigation measures
that reduce the volume of run off and pollutants entering stream and wetlands.
The mitigation measures included tree retention, disconnected downspouts,
green or eco roofs, enlarged landscape areas, pervious driveways, corridor
enhancement, and similar design techniques. This approach was abandoned
because it was not supported by the Metro authorities as providing equal or
greater protection than provided by the Title 3 setbacks. Another reason it was
dropped is that USA did not feel the proposal's 50% reduction in buffer widths
would be consistent with its water quality management needs.
Effective Date
The effective date of the new regulations is February 5, 2000. All development
applications submitted on or after that date will be subject to the new regulations.
Applications submitted on or before February 4' and deemed complete on or
before March 151 will be reviewed under current regulations
During the period before the February 50' effective date, USA intends to conduct
training on the new rules and permit procedure for its own and for local planning
staffs and, along with the cities, provide notice of the new rules to developers.
USA and the cities also have formed an implementation committee to deal with
the timely coordination between the storm water permit and land use review
processes.
City Compliance Requirements
USA's adoption of Title 3 compliance measures and Metro's endorsement of
these measures does not automatically result in compliance with Title 3 by the
Washington County cities. This, is because Metro's primary regulatory authority
concerns city and county comprehensive plans and land use regulations. As
such, Metro requires that the cities and county each adopt plan policies that
identify compliance with Title 3 as a policy objective that may be met through
implementation of the USA standards. The Metro Council has given Tigard an
extension to August 1, 2000, to adopt the necessary conforming amendments to
the city comprehensive plan and development code.
Legal Challenge to Title 3
Last month, in response to a legal challenge to Title 3 to which Tigard was a
party, the Land Use Board of Appeals held that Title 3 could not be implemented
until the Regional Framework Plan was acknowledged by the Land Conservation
and Development Commission. Metro's position on this ruling is that it applies to
the process used to adopt and not to Metro's authority to impose stream
protection standards, and, as such, does not block implementation of the rules if
re-adopted without reference to the Growth Management Plan. The case has
been appealed by Metro to the state Appellate Court.
Impact on Cook Park
The city in mid-1997 adopted a master plan for the expansion of Cook Park. Up
to now the city has obtained land use approval for only two elements of the plan.
These include the new picnic shelter and the bandstand. Other elements have
not yet received land use approval and could be subject to Title 3. The elements
most affected by the new rules potentially include the new play fields and the
parking areas.
In order to allow the development of the park as envisioned in the master plan,
the new Cook Park consulting team has been asked to put together a Site
Development Review/Sensitive Lands application for the plan's remaining
elements. The completed application is scheduled to be submitted sometime
before the new rules take effect. The submittal requirements for these approvals
include a site plan showing the location of the proposed improvements and
utilities and also include grading and landscape plans. Another requirement is
the holding of a neighborhood meeting prior to application submittal.
Had the city not acted to expedite the preparation of a land use application, the
newly adopted USA rules would have affected the implementation of the Cook
Park Master Plan in the following ways.
Under Title 3, development is defined as including any man-made change to
real property. It further is defined as including the fill/removal of 50 or more
yards of material. Park development is not listed as an exception to the
limitations imposed by the rules.
Short term parking (less than 18 hours) may be located at an elevation of no
more than one foot below the ten-year floodplain. Since the ten-year boundary
is not depicted on the standard FEMA maps and no other relevant maps
covering Cook Park are available, a special study would have been required to
identify where this boundary lies within the park. Even so, given the park sites'
low gradient, it appears likely that a significant portion if not all of the proposed
Cook Park parking area is within the ten year floodplain and therefore could not
be constructed under Title 3.
Under current regulations, the required setback of the new sports fields from the
northerly wetland area is 25 feet. Under Title 3, the buffer width would widen to
50 feet and would include mandatory enhancement of the buffer area with native
vegetation. As suggested earlier, the construction of ball fields or other park
improvements within a buffer would not be allowed when an existing buffer is in
good condition. As also noted, a so called 20% by 20% encroachment (20% of
the frontage length by 20% of the width) is allowed outright when an existing
buffer is not in good condition. In the case of the Cook Park expansion area,
the vegetation area bordering the wetlands is degraded. As such, the proposed
sports field use would qualify for a 20% by 20% encroachment as a right. An
encroachment beyond this amount may be allowed under an alternatives
analysis process administered by USA. The approval criteria include minimizing
incursion, no practicable alternative to the encroachment, and other public
benefits of the encroachment. If encroachment were allowed, one to one
replacement of the encroachment area would be required. According to John
Roy, the field configuration included in the revised master plan is based on a 25
foot setback and does not include any leeway for a wider buffer.
As mentioned, these Title-3 related restrictions are informational at this point.
This is because the master plan land use application is on track to be submitted
prior to the effective date of the new regulations.
I ftn/ddtitlelusa
Exhibit A, Page 1 of 26
3.11 Water Quality Design Standards
3.11.1 General
Purpose
The goals and objectives of the water quality design standards are to:
• Protect water quality by reducing stream temperature, nutrient loading
(Phosphorus & Nitrogen), oil/grease pollution, herbicides and pesticides
impacts, small storm hydrology impacts, and sediment transport / imbalance.
• Reduce potential landslides that contribute to stream sedimentation
• Preserve and enhance riparian habitat for water quality and aquatic
communities.
The adverse effects to water quality and quantity of any construction or site
alteration, will be reduced by implementing the following surface water and
watershed management measures on-site.
3.11.2 Administration
A. Resource Maps
The text provisions of this section shall be used to determine whether
applications to allow development in the Water Quality Sensitive Areas and
Vegetated Corridors shall be permitted. The following maps shall be a
reference for identifying areas subject to the requirements of sections 3.11.3
and 3.11.4:
1. Water Quality and Flood Management Area maps.prepared by Metro
(Title 3 maps)
2. The National Wetlands Inventory Maps
3. The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps
4. Unified Sewerage Agency Perennial Streams Maps
5. Adopted Watershed Plan Maps
6. Locally adopted studies or maps
B. Site Assessment and Analysis
Prior to land use application, the Applicant shall provide a natural resource
assessment for the Water Quality Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors
prepared by a qualified professional biologist/ecologist. The assessment work
shall consist of a reconnaissance, and if necessary, a delineation of the
sensitive area and its condition and a determination of the vegetated corridor
width and its condition. The vegetated corridor assessment shall document
the vegetated corridor areas as good, marginal, or degraded in condition per
Table 3.2. The assessment shall contain site photographs that correlate to a
Exhibit A, Page 2 of 26
site map that documents site conditions. The assessment shall follow standard
methods outlined in the USA Technical Guidance for Natural Resource
Assessments.
Pre-development clearing to alter site conditions is not allowed, and will result
in the maximum vegetated corridor widths and require
mitigation/enhancement, regardless of pre-existing corridor conditions,
. Definitions
1. "Water Quality Sensitive Areas" (hereafter referred to as "sensitive
areas") shall include land features which serve as water quality filtering
systems, protect aquatic communities, or otherwise function to improve
the water quality and quantity management of the storm and surface water
system, and include the following:
a. existing or created wetlandst;
b. rivers, streams, and springs with year round or intermittent flow;
c. historical streams that have been channelized;
d. impoundments (including natural lakes and ponds) with average water
in the summer of one acre-foot or more, or with an average depth of
three feet or more;
e. sensitive areas shall not include:
stormwater treatment ponds or swales;
(2) stormwater treatment wetlands;
(3) detention ponds;
(4) a vegetated corridor (a buffer) adjacent to the sensitive area;
(5) an off-stream recreational lake;
(6) ditches constructed in uplands solely for the purpose of draining
roads, lots, and outfalls of storm drains.
2. The "edge of the sensitive area" along a river or stream (that is not defined
as wetlands) shall be the top of the waterway or channel bank. The edge of
1 Existing wetlands include jurisdictional and potentially jurisdictional wetlands as determined by the
Division of State Lands (DSL) and/or the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Created wetlands are
mitigation wetlands as defined by DSL and or COE.
Exhibit A, Page 3 of 26
the sensitive area around a wetland is the delineated boundary. The edge
of the sensitive area around a spring is the delineated boundary or channel
as determined by the Division of State Lands.
3. The "top of the ravine" shall be the grade break at the top of a slope that
represents the historic geologic terrace of a stream. The grade extending
from the top of the ravine, away from the stream is typically less than 25%
in slope.
4. The "starting point for measurement" is the edge of the defined channel
(bankful flow) for streams/rivers, delineated wetland boundary, delineated
spring boundary, and/or average high water for lakes or ponds, whichever
offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs, located a
minimum of 15 feet within the river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor,
shall not serve as a starting point for measurement.
5. "Development", for the purposes of Chapter 3, is any man-made change to
improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to
construction, installation or alteration of land or building, or other
structure, land division, establishment or termination of right of access,
construction of earthen berms, paving, excavation, or clearing.
6. "Existing wetlands" include jurisdictional and potentially jurisdictional
wetlands as determined by the Division of State Lands (DSL) and/or the
US Army Corps of Engineers (COE). "Created wetlands" are mitigation
wetlands as defined by DSL and or COE.
7. "Degraded floodplain areas" are those containing a predominance of
invasive non-native species such as reed canarygrass or blackberry. Refer
to USA Technical Guidance for Natural Resource Assessments for details.
8. "Frontage length" is the area in which the development fronts and is
directly adjacent to the vegetated corridor.
9. "Impervious area" shall include pavement, gravel roads, structures, public
and private roadways, and roofs. Effective impervious area is impervious
cover connected directly to the drainage system via sheet flow or piping,
and results in rapid drainage of runoff.
10. "Designee" is the entity designated by the Agency to conduct alternatives
analysis acitivites, per Agency/City Inter-Governmental Agreement (1GA)
and co-permitee status on the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit
issued by the Department of Environmental Quality.
Exhibit A, Page 4 of 26
D. Service Provider Letter and Permits Required
Prior to land use application, the Applicant shall secure a service provider
letter from the Agency specifies that the conditions and requirements that
must be met by the Applicant in order for the Agency to issue a stormwater
connection permit pursuant to Ordinance 27 and these rules and regulations.
An alternatives analysis pursuant section 3.11.2.E shall be conducted if the
proposed site plan can not meet the standards outlined in 3.11.3 and 3.11.4.
The Agency shall issue a service provider letter documenting the outcome of
the alternatives analysis, and the requirements and conditions necessary for
the Applicant to comply with water quality protection and receive a
stormwater connection permit.
Prior to construction, a storm water connection permit from the Agency or its
designee is required pursuant Ordinance 27, Section 4.13. All required permits
and approvals must be obtained and complied with under applicable local,
state and federal law.
E. Alternatives Analysis
1. An Alternatives Analysis shall be conducted if the proposed site plan can
not meet the standards outlined in 3.11.3 and 3.11.4. The alternatives
analysis shall require:
a. The Applicant prepare the Submittal Requirements outlined in sections
3.11.2.E.2.a and 3.11.2.E.1a for the type of encroachment proposed.
b. The Agency, Applicant, and City or County shall participate in one or
more meetings to negotiate the vegetated corridor encroachment and
mitigation
c. The Agency shall review the alternatives analysis pursuant the Criteria
for Acceptance as outlined in section 3.11.2.E.2.b and 3.11.2.E.3.b for
the type of encroachment proposed
d. The Agency shall prepare a service provider letter documenting the
results of the alternatives analysis and Agency's recommendation
regarding the requirements necessary to comply with water quality
protection.
2. For marginal or degraded vegetated corridors with encroachment up to
40% of the length by 30% of the width:
a. Submittal requirements
Exhibit A, Page 5 of 26
(1) Natural Resource Assessment pursuant USA Technical Guidance
for Natural Resource Assessments and 3.11.2.13
(2) Site Plan showing entire site with encroachment area and
calculations of vegetated corridor encroachment and mitigation
areas/plan
(3) Description of why the encroachment is needed
b. Criteria for Acceptance
(1) Encroachment area is mitigated by at least a 1:1 ratio on site
(2) Enhancement of the first 50 feet (or entire buffer whichever is
smaller) and the mitigation area to a "good" corridor condition per
Table 3.2 and USA Technical Guidance for Landscape
Requirements
(3) USA storm water connection permit is likely to be issued based on
proposed plans
(4) Location of development and site planning minimize incursion into
the vegetated corridor
(5) There is no practicable2 alternative to the location of the
development which will not disturb the sensitive area or vegetated
corridor; and
(6) There are other public benefits of the encroachments
3. For any good vegetated corridor encroachment or marginal/degraded
corridor with encroachment greater than 40% of the length by 30% of the
width:
a. Submittal requirements
(1) Natural Resource Assessment pursuant USA Technical Guidance
for Natural Resource Assessments and 3.11.2.B
(2) Site Plan showing entire site with encroachment area and
calculations of vegetated corridor encroachment and mitigation
areas
2 "Practicable" is defined as "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost,
existing technology, and logistics in light of the overall project."
Exhibit A, Page 6 of 26
(3) Description of why the encroachment is needed
(4) Statement and analysis of how the mitigation for encroachment
provides for the functions and values of the sensitive area and the
vegetated corridor
b. Criteria for Acceptance
(1) Encroachment area is mitigated by a 1:1 ratio or greater and is
located either on-site or off-site along the same stream or its
watershed
(2) The mitigation protects the functions and values of the sensitive
area and vegetated corridor
(3) Enhancement of the first 50 feet (or entire buffer whichever is
smaller) and the mitigation area to a "good" corridor condition per
Table 3.2 and USA Technical Guidance for Landscape
Requirements
(4) USA storm water connection permit is likely to be issued based on
proposed plans
(5) Location and site planning minimizes incursion into the vegetated
corridor
(6) There is no practicable alternative to the requested development
which will not disturb the sensitive area or vegetated corridor; and
(7) There are other public benefits of the encroachments
3.11.3 Water Quality Sensitive Areas
A. Purpose
The purpose of these standards is to ensure that activities which may impact a
sensitive area be conducted in a manner that limits disturbance, in order to
protect aquatic species and water quality, and maintain adequate conveyance.
Sensitive areas are regulated by state and federal agencies under the Clean
Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other state and federal laws and
regulations. Sensitive areas serve the following purposes:
• Serve as habitat for aquatic species;
• Circulate, uptake, and transport landscape elements (nutrients, plant
material, sediment, etc.);
Exhibit A, Page 7 of 26
• Provide for drainage of the landscape
B. Limitations and Exceptions
1. No structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns,
application of chemicals, uncontained area of hazardous materials as
defined by DEQ, pet waste, dumping of materials of any hind, or other
activities shall be permitted within the sensitive area which may
negatively impact water quality except as allowed below:
a. Maintenance practices and enhancement activities, as defined by the
DSL, are allowed within the sensitive area per criteria set forth by
DSL.
b. Development within the sensitive area shall be allowed if the required
permits are issued by the DSL and/or the COE.
2. Mitigation shall be required per the DSL and COE rules and regulations.
3.11.4. Vegetated Corridors
A. Purpose
The purpose of these standards is to ensure that development adjacent to
sensitive areas be conducted in a manner that will preserve, enhance, or create
a vegetated corridor that will protect the water quality functions and aquatic
communities of the sensitive area. Vegetated corridors serve the following
purposes:
Act as a physical buffer between development and human activities and
the sensitive area;
e Protect, enhance, or restore the water quality of the sensitive area;
o Protect the natural water purification action of the sensitive area;
Provide filtering and infiltration of stormwater runoff from adjacent
impervious areas before it enters the sensitive area.
B. Limitations and Exceptions
1. No structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns,
application of chemicals, uncontained areas of hazardous materials as
defined by DEQ, pet waste, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other
activities shall be permitted within a vegetated corridor which may
negatively impact water quality, except as allowed below:
a. Roads, pedestrian or bike paths crossing the vegetated corridor from
one side to the other in order to provide access to the sensitive area or
across the sensitive area;
Exhibit A, Page 8 of 26
b. Utility/service provider infrastructure construction (ie. storm, sanitary
sewer, water, phone, gas cable, etc.), if approved by the Agency or
City/County;
c. A pedestrian or bike path, not exceeding 10 feet in width. If the path
is impervious, then the vegetated corridor must be widened by .the
width of the path. The path shall avoid the vegetated corridor where
possible. The path shall be located in the outermost 20% of the
vegetated corridor boundary as it runs near or parallel to the sensitive
area. Proposed paths within a limited pre-existing 25-foot vegetated
corridor shall be a minimum of 15 feet from the boundary of the
sensitive area. Paths shall be constructed so as to minimize disturbance
to existing vegetation and slope stability;
d. Grading for the purpose of enhancing the vegetated corridor as
approved by the Agency or City/County;
e. Measures to remove or abate hazards, nuisances, or fire and life safety
violations as approved by the regulating jurisdiction;
f. Enhancement of the riparian corridors for water quality or quantity
benefits, fish, or wildlife habitat as approved by the Agency/
City/County, and other appropriate regulatory authorities;
g. Measures to repair, maintain, alter, remove, add to, or replace existing
structures, roadways, driveways, utilities, accessory uses, or other
development provided they are consistent with Agency/City/County
regulations, and do not encroach further into the vegetated corridor or
sensitive area than allowed by Section 3.11.4.C.5 and 3.11.4.C.6;
h. Other uses, not listed in a) through g) above, as approved by the
Agency or its Designee through an alternatives analysis process
outlined in section 3.11.2.E or a hardship variance determined through
the land use process. The Agency shall review and approve the
required mitigation plan per 3.11.4.13.2.
2. Mitigation for negative impacts to the vegetated corridor and/or
restoration of the vegetated corridor to a "good" condition, as defined in
Table 3.2, shall be required by the Agency or City/County for activities
allowed in Section 3.11.4.13.1a through h. Refer to USA Technical
Guidance for Landscape Requirements for revegetation requirements.
3. Water quality facilities planted with appropriate native vegetation may
encroach into the vegetated corridor in accordance with the vegetated
corridor averaging or reduction allowances set out in Section 3.1 1.4C.5
Exhibit A, Page 9 of 26
and 3.11.4.C.6, or may be placed within a degraded floodplain3, or may be
integrated within a vegetated corridor/sensitive area of an intermittent
stream draining less than 50 acres as approved by the Agency,
City/County, and other appropriate regulatory authorities.
C. Requirements
1. The vegetated corridor shall range from 15 to 200 feet wide, measured
horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the sensitive area, except
where approval has been granted by the Agency or City/County to reduce
the width of a portion of the corridor in accordance with the averaging or
reduction allowances noted in 5) and 6) of this section. Table 3.1
documents the Vegetated Corridor Widths and Figure 3.1 illustrates the
requirement.
2. The vegetated corridor shall be measured per the method noted in Figure
3.2 and further outlined in USA's Technical Guidance for Natural
Resource Assessments. A minimum of three slope measurements along
the sensitive area, spaced at no more than 100-foot increments, shall be
made for each property for which development is proposed.
3. The existing corridor conditions shall be certified by a qualified
professional biologist/ecologist (per Table 3.2 and USA's Technical
Guidance for Natural Resource Assessments) and clearly marked on
scaled plans. Photos of the site conditions shall be provided with the
plans. See Section 3.11.2.13.
4. The vegetated corridor shall be protected and enhanced by the Applicant
in accordance with the requirements listed in Table 3.2 and USA's
Technical Guidance for Landscape Requirements. For vegetated corridors
50 feet and greater, the first 50 feet closest to the sensitive area shall be
equal to or better than a "good" corridor condition as defined in Table 3.2.
For vegetated corridors less than 50 feet wide, the entire corridor shall be
equal to or better than a "good" corridor condition as defined in Table 3.2.
5. Vegetated corridor averaging is allowed if the vegetated corridor is
certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition. Maximum
encroachment allowed for a project site is 20% of the frontage length" of
the vegetated corridor by 20% of the required width. The area of
encroachment must be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. The replacement area must
be incorporated into the remaining vegetated corridor on the project site
3 Degraded floodplain areas are those containing a predominance of invasive non-native species such as
reed canarygrass or blackberry. Refer to USA Technical Guidance for Natural Resource Assessments for
details.
a Frontage length is the area in which the development fronts and is directly adjacent to the vegetated
corridor.
Exhibit A, Page 10 of 26
and meet the "good" condition, regardless of its distance from the
sensitive area. Averaging is not allowed in areas certified to be in good
condition. In cases where encroachment into the vegetated corridor is
necessary, averaging shall be considered prior to reduction noted in 6) of
this section. An averaged vegetated corridor in accordance with this
section cannot also be reduced in accordance with 3.11.4.C.5 below (See
example in Figure 3.3).
6. Vegetated corridor. reduction is allowed if the vegetated corridor is
certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition, extends 125 feet or
more from the boundary of the sensitive area, and vegetated corridor
averaging is not practicable. The maximum reduction allowed for a
project site is 20% of the required vegetated corridor width, provided that
the remaining corridor is enhanced to a "good" condition. Reduction is
not allowed in areas certified to be in good condition. A reduced
vegetated corridor in accordance with this section cannot also be averaged
in accordance with 3.11.4.C.5 above (see example in Figure 3.4)
7. Prior to any site clearing, grading or construction, the vegetated corridor
shall be surveyed, staked, and fenced per approved plan. During
construction the vegetated corridor shall remain fenced and undisturbed
except as allowed in Section 3.11 A.B. La through h and per approved
plans.
8. For any development which creates multiple parcels or lots intended for
separate ownership, the Agency or City/County shall require that the
vegetated corridor and sensitive area be contained in a separate tract,
signed, and fenced or otherwise physically set apart from parcels that will
be developed. For multifamily, commercial or industrial developments
the vegetated corridor shall be fenced or otherwise physically set apart
from the developed area.
9. The Agency or City/County may require an easement over the vegetated
corridor conveying storm, surface water management, and/or sanitary
sewer rights to the Agency or City that would prevent the owner of the
vegetated corridor from activities and uses inconsistent with the purpose
of the corridor and any easements therein.
10. A vegetated corridor shall be established around created wetlands (on or
off-site) in the event that fill is permitted by the Division of State Lands
and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Exhibit A, Page II of 26
Fable 3.1 Vegetated Corridor Widths
Sensitive Area Definition
Slope Adjacent to
Width of Vegetated Corridor
Sensitive Areas
per Side6
Graphic Y
• Streams with intermittent flow draining:
< 25%
• 10 to <50 acres
15 feet
• >50 to <100 acres
25 feet
• Existing or created wetlands < 0.5 acre
25 feet
Graphic 2
• Existing or created wetlands > 0.5 acre
X25%
50 feet
• Rivers, streams, and springs with year
round flow
• Streams with intermittent flow draining
>100 acres
• Natural lakes and ponds
Graphic 3
• Streams with intermittent flow draining:
>25%
• 10 to <50 acres
30 feet
• >50 to <100 acres
50 feet
Graphic 4
• Existing or created wetlands
> 25%
Variable from 50-200 ft
• Rivers, streams, and springs with year
Measure in 25foot increments
round flow
from the starting point to the top
• Streams with intermittent flow draining
of ravine (break in > 25% slope),
>I 00 acres
add 35 feet past the top of ravine'
• Natural lakes and ponds
5 Starting point for measurement = edge of the defined channel (bankful flow) for streams/rivers, delineated
wetland boundary, delineated spring boundary, and/or average high water for lakes or ponds, whichever
offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs, located a minimum of 15 feet within the
river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor, shall not serve as a starting point for measurement. See figure
3.2 for detail.
6 Vegetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in
a marginal or degraded condition. See 3.11.4.C.5 and 3.11.4.C.6 for detail.
' The vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the top of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the
vegetated corridor. The 35 feet may be reduced to 15 feet, if a stamped geotechnical report confirms slope
stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine. See figure 3.2 for detail.
Exhibit A, Page 12 of 26
Figure 3.1 Vegetated Corridor Width Graphic
STARTING
POINT
<25%
9' • intermittent streams, 10 to <50 acres drainage
la 15, sl • intermittent streams,>50 to <100 acre drainage
• wetlands <0.5 acre
N-- ?5, N
STARTING
POINT
<25%
2 . wetlands >0.5 acres
.
• rivers, streams, springs with year round flow
• intermittent streams, >100 acre drainage
• natural lakes and ponds
STARTING
POINT
3.
ff- 30, it • intermittent streams, 10 to <50 acres drainage
• intermittent streams, >50 to <100 acres
14 50'
TOP OF RAVINE
k W ►1
tF---~I
STARTING 15' WITH GEOTECH
POINT
INTERMITTENT SPRING
4.
`'0' VARIABLE MAX
• wetlands
• rivers, streams, springs with year round flow
• intermittent streams, >100 acre drainage
• natural lakes and ponds
Exhibit A, Page 13 of 26
FIGURE 3.2 Vegetated Corridor Measurement Methodology
1) Measure 50 feet horizontally for the starting point (see Table 3.1)
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE
50'
VERTICAL
DIFFERENCE
-
t STARTING
POINT
2) Determine the slope
(Vertical difference/Horizontal distance) • 100 = percent slope
3) If slope is < 25%, apply the vegetated corridor per Table 3.1
(a) If stream or spring is intermittent, measure the drainage area from the upstream drainage point of
the development determine appropriate width application. The width of the vegetated corridor
may widen as it proceeds downstream, if the drainage acreage increases past the various acreage
cut-off points outlined in Table 3.1
vs- DRAINAGE
UPSTREAM AREA
DRAINAGE - -
POINT DEVELOPMENTSITE
4) If the slope is > 25%, measure another 25 feet horizontally and perpendicular to
the starting point up the slope until you either:
(a) Find a slope that is less than 25%. In this case, determine the top of the ravine grade break and
add an additional 35 feet to mark the outside boundary of the vegetated corridor.
OUTSIDE BOUNDARY
50' 25' 25' 25' OF VEGETATED CORRIDOR
>25% >25%a 2:25% <25%
la---- H
15' WITH GEOTECH
TOP OF
RAVINE
STARTING POINT
Exhibit A, Page 14 of 26
(b) Reach 200 feet (all slope measurements >25% )
50' 25' 25' 26
0 UTSIDE
BOUNDARY OF
VEGETATED
CORRIDOR
STARTING
POINT
Exhibit A, Page 15. of 26
Table 3.2 Vegetated Corridor Standards
Existing Vegetated Corridor Condition
Requirements of Vegetated Corridor Protection,
Enhancement, and/or Mitigation
Good Corridor Condition
• Provide certification, per USA Technical Guidance for Natural
Resource Assessments, to Agency or City/County by a professional
and
shrubs
0 Combination of native trees
eoologist/biologist that the vegetated corridor meets condition
,
,
groundcover covering greater than 80% of the
runa
u
area
. Remove any invasive non-native species` within the corridor by
and
hand.
• Greater than 5001a tree canopy exists (aerial
measure)
• If impact is to occur, provide Agency or City with a native plant
or
revegetation plan appropriate to the site conditions developed by an
0 Less than 10% of the area is covered by
ecologist/biologist or landscape architect to restore condition. See
USA Technical Guidance for Landscape Requirements.
invasive, non-native species or noxious weeds
as designated by the State
0 Revegetate impacted area per approved plan to re-establish "good"
corridor conditions
Marginal Corridor Condition .
Provide certification, per USA Technical Guidance for Natural
Resource Assessments, to Agency or City/County by a professional
and
shrubs
Combination of native trees
•
ecolog'rst/biologist that the vegdated corridor meets condition
,
,
groundcovers covering 500/6-80% of the area
criteria.
and
. Remove any invasive non-native species within the corridor by
0 26-500/6 tree canopy exists (aerial measure)
hand or mechanically with small equipment, as appropriate to
or
minimize damage to existing native vegetation.
0 10-200/a of the area is covered by invasive, non-
native species or noxious weeds designated by
• Provide Agency or City with a native plant revegetation plan
the State
appropriate to the site conditions developed by an
ecologist/biologist or landscape architect to restore to a good
corridor condition. See USA Technical Guidance for Landscape
Enhancement up to "good" corridor condition required
( P
Requirements.
regardless of planned impact or not)
Vegetate corridor to establish "good"corridor conditions
Degraded Corridor Condition
• Provide certification, per USA Tcchnical Guidance for Natural
Resource Assessments, to Agency or City/County by a professional
and
shrubs
0 Combination of native trees
ecologist/biologist that the vegetated corridor meets condition
,
,
groundcovers covering is less than 50% of the
criteria
area
. Remove any invasive non-native species within the corridor by
and
hand or mechanically as appropriate.
o Less than 25% tree canopy exists (aerial
measure)
• Provide Agency or City with a native plant revegetation plan
or
appropriate to the site conditions developed by an
0 Greater than 20% of the area is covered by
ecologist/biologist or landscape architect to restore to a good
corridor condition. See USA Technical Guidance for Landscape
invasive, non-native species or noxious weeds
Requirements.
designated by the State
• Vegetate corridor to establish "good" corridor conditions
(Enhancement up to "good" corridor condition required
regardless of planned impact or not)
a Per Metro Native Plant list or other local plant list, whichever is more comprehensive
Exhibit A, Page 16 of 26
Figure 3.3 Vegetated Corridor Averaging Example
Frontage length . 200'
20% of length . 40'
Width of vegetated oomidor
at encroachment • 75'
15'
20%
f
ktth
r ;
o
w
.
Total allowable encroachment
area . 600 square feet
600 SQUARE FEET
(in this example)
15 feet (in this example)
40 feel (in this examplpi
ADDED VEGETATED CORRIDOR =
GOQ~~O¢ 600 SQUARE FEET
ENHANCED TO
~P~`GO®GG GOOD CONDITION
N~
Figure 3.4 Vegetated Corridor Reduction Example
aoPn~-im»o~ooi~ali-
~c11o~i _f
z r ti~ Wit;
10
4e
-
- era-1~ro
PSMTK3VM
PQ,*,
3.12 Flood Management Resign Standards
A. Purpose
The purpose of these standards is to reduce the risk of flooding, prevent or
reduce the risk to human life and property, and maintain the functions and
values of floodplains, such as allowing for the storage and conveyance of
stream flows through existing and natural flood conveyance systems.
B. Flood Management Areas Defined
Flood management areas shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Land identified within the 100 year floodplain and floodway as shown on
. the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance maps
2. Land identified in updated flood studies or any other authoritative data
documenting flood elevations as approved by the Agency or City/County
3. Land that has physical or documented evidence of flooding within
recorded history
Jurisdictions shall use the most recent and technically accurate information
available to determine flood areas.
C. Design Criteria
The standards that apply to the flood management areas apply in addition to
local, state, and federal restrictions governing floodplains and flood hazard
areas.
1. All fill placed in a floodplain shall be balanced with an equal amount of
soil material removal and shall not decrease floodplain storage capacity at
any stage of a flood (2, 25, or 100-yr event). No net fill in any floodplain
is allowed except when all of the following conditions are met:
a. when an area has received special protection from floodplain
improvement projects which either lower the floodplain, or otherwise
protect affected properties;
b. where the exceptions comply with adopted master plans, watershed
management plans; or subbasin plans, if any; and
c. when all required permits and approvals have been obtained in
compliance with FEMA rules and other local, state, and federal laws
regarding fill in floodplains.
2. Large areas may not be excavated in order to gain a small amount of fill in
a floodplain. Excavation areas shall not exceed the fill areas by more than
50 percent of the square footage, unless approved by the Agency.
Any excavation dug below the winter "low water" elevation shall not
count toward compensating for fill since these areas would be full of water
in the winter and not available to hold storm water following a rain.
Winter "low water" elevation is defined as the water surface elevation
during the winter when it has not rained for at least three days, and the
flows resulting from storms have receded. This elevation may be
determined from records, studies, or field observation. Any fill placed
above the 100-year floodplain will not count towards the fill volume.
4. The excavated area must be designed to drain if it is an area identified to
be dry in the summer, e.g., if it is used for a park or mowed in the summer.
Excavated areas identified to remain wet in the summer, such as a
constructed wetland, shall be designed not to drain. For areas that are to
drain, the lowest elevation shall be at least 6 inches above the winter "low
water" elevation, and sloped to drain. One percent slopes will be allowed
in areas less than 1000 sq. ft.
5. Excavation to balance a fill shall be located on the same parcel as the fill
unless it is not reasonable or practicable to do so. In such cases, the
excavation shall be in the same drainage basin, within points of
constriction on the conveyance system, if any, as near as practical to the
fill site, and shall be constructed as a part of the same development
project.
6. At a minimum, the bottom edge of the finished floor joists must be at least
one foot above the design flood height or the highest flood of record,
whichever is higher, for new habitable structures in the flood management
area.
7. Short term parking (motor vehicles remain parked for less than 18 hours
per day) in the floodplain may be located at an elevation of no more than
one foot below the ten year floodplain so long as the parking facilities do
not occur in a water quality sensitive area or vegetated corridor. Long
term parking (motor vehicles remain parked for greater than 18 hours
without being moved) in the floodplain may be located at an elevation of
no more than one foot below the 100 year floodplain so long as the
parking facilities do not occur in a water quality sensitive area or
vegetated corridor.
8. Temporary fills permitted during construction shall be removed upon
completion of construction prior to the close of the in-stream work
window as defined by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife or other
local, state or federal authority.
9. Excavation and fill required for the construction of detention facilities or
other facilities, such as levees, shall be'specifically designed to reduce or
mitigate flood impacts. Levees shall not be used to create vacant
buildable land.
10. Excavation and fill required to restore or enhance floodplains, riparian
areas, wetlands, uplands, and streams, including but not limited to the
planting of vegetation and daylighting existing storm pipes, shall be .
permitted as long as the design complies with applicable federal and state
standards.
11. The floodplain may not be modified to increase water velocities such that
stream bank erosion will be increased, unless the stream banks are
protected to prevent the increased erosion.
12. Uncontained areas of hazardous materials, as defined by the Department
of Environmental Quality, are prohibited within flood management areas.
13. Existing nonconforming uses are allowed to continue in the flood
management area. Existing nonconforming uses may be modified with
approval from the Agency or City/County.
14. If an object is intentionally placed in the designated FEMA floodway
(such as large woody debris, earth works, street or bike crossings), the
floodway shall continue to accommodate the storm or surface water flows
with no measurable increase in water surface elevation upstream or
'
downstream, unless the owners of property where the water surface
increase occurs grant an easement for storm and surface water
management. The Applicant must provide proof of compliance with
FEMA and DSL requirements.
15. Any proposed work within or modification to a floodway must be certified
by an Oregon Registered Professional Engineer as to how it conforms to
these standards and FEMA regulations.
16. For streams, creeks, rivers and other watercourses where the floodway has
not been identified, the entire floodplain shall be treated as a floodway
unless a study has been prepared by an Oregon Registered Professional
Engineer and approved by the Agency/City/County to define the floodway
limits for a stream section.
0,
h~°9
P-4
Cid
0
~'m9
0
VJP
J-j
~
y
4=4
0
Cid
fN
r
r
~°9
®
®
M4
• PC54
P~1
d--,
Cd
CIIN
C*N
r~
VJ~
® cd
Q
. rME4
Cd
r-4 r---4
W~
~.Q
N
t/]
O
t/]
P4
Cd
a
X91
v o.I
P-4
O
U
CCU
O
VV1
3
03
3
O
r~-1
cd
~A
O
ed
U
03
"Now
>~-6
C~
CA
N
CFO,
P4
CC3
U
U
a
a~
CC3
Q
a
CC3
03
u
a~
v
CC3
bi)
a~
a
O
v
.
N
V\
kn
i~l
03
rig
H ~ ~
Cd
~W
Cd
E
Cis
rri
~J
CC3
Ed
Cd
Cld
rid
4F
C
AAS~
V
•
O
i
Ct
T1
®
r/1
V 1
N
n
kn
CIA
Ct
45
3
1
Cd
r~r^
V1
VL
F-4
A
Cd
J~
O
~-4
oCd
3
Cs
9%
bi)
Vi
O
cn
•
• r=14
•
r~l
s
`oYs
,:~i
~-1
cd
CC3
0
Cd
3
0
c~
0
v
ca
O
U
w
bi)
Cd
t44
CIA
r---q
OM
pj=
,4.5
3
r/]
O
O
3-~
O
0 r=04
O
w
A-4
O
cd
a~
VJ~
v
as
O
v
a~
a~
s
• ps•4
o 'ae~
Y
03
Ce3
• r®~
VI
O
O 0
Cd
•
as
~.d
U
4-j
Cld
s
6N
~v~u+i. i oil
Now
eS foT ~l~ard
1!/j~111 chalic of Ash, and
longFa~°' ~or~h forkd tom 50
Setback a ene~ally unchange
Ball cTeeks g
feet other
ost locations' setback as v.a from
*~t Misolateclwe, tland
cre eks and
25 to 50 feet etback from intermittent
w15to50 feet s
streams ement of degraded buffer
n wed
~Requ~ed e~anc 5 of reduced buffer
O credit in term ~
V
3
o
V!
ct
•
7~8
U
V Y
•
cn
72!~
Cd
Cd
C(s
• P~
Cld
O
cn
9
cqd
cd
VI
cd
Cd
0
Cd
V)
• C'
T~
O
e
cd
C4'~
c
cis
• p•r4
O
03
r~
11
-I~
e
o3
•
7-4
P~
9
O
O
0
e
W
Cqs
O
Q
4-~
QN
C~
V1
cn
V
VJ~
cd
0
t.Ol
9
Cd,
C.~
V.ed
4214
~
V
• •
C~
o3
i
3
0
P-4
V
?~I
A
0
CC3
.5
. ,P.d
~J
0
A
W-4
U
yy~~~11
~d
Cf)
P4
0
C~9
Cd
cd
M
.
~
Cd
bj)
.
t4l
as
o r--4
03
®
o
0
kn
O
O
r--1
Cd
0y~~
fit/
CPS
U
Cld
0
0
ll~
04
Cfd
Cd
w.~
WSJ
a03
C~
tb
• vm-4
CCU
Cd
Cd
bi)
~d
t
rte"
ch
c)
1~
e
v-4
~
®
1
1
~
1
r~l
s
• p~
4-4
ed
U
VJ
4u
03
au
O
03
O
T
C44
N
0
P ,V J,
Y~
4124
\TT~~`0
VI
ed
F~
tV/
F°9
T
0
ed
t8
C61
42
W
t8
t~
V1
ll~
cd
Cd
Cd
Cid
cl3
V
Q~
A~
!4/
•
vmw4
1
n
4-4
V004
P~
V
am is miX of
Most effective PT09T vollulNtaYy
regional regulations, u0lsiftOil)
actions (including accl
ltoring•
and mol
Lions prop°
Prostam oP
~Tl~e~ regulatory arbor
1 Regional Safe Il
ltern~tives
2, Local ~ arian Dist~ict Plan
3. Local P
CC3 ~
Cd "C~
C~
cid
0
V%
/OMI~N
Fi
Cd
I-d
cn
U
~-1
wV
U
V
Cld
1
CCd
® ` v
0
Cd
6=mmd
.
11
C~
0
•vmi
p,eglonal Safe Harbor
p,esidelitial
lot is entirely within the
~ If an existing
regulated area, it can have a limit ed
he
disturbance area ~as far away from
stream as possible)"-
stream
dots 519000 sq.. ft. or less, up to 2,500 sq..
disturbance area
w ohs >59000 sq.. ft, disturbance are ,a -up to f
1 but maximum 59000 q
50% of total lot,
Cld
Cid
b
s r~
all
e r~s^^d
1~J1
`
epee
` d
•
Cqs
Ed
VJ
O
tld
O
~A
P4
Cis
B
O
r~
03
z
cd
C~
Cd
cs
rlz~
U
P~
cep
rJo
~d
O
t8,
o3
Cd
Cd
4~
a
V3 ^e
V3
03
s
QVQ1,
F~
ed
Cd
F~
PCd
V
~i--d
V
Cd
Cld
CC3
C~
u
Y ~l
03
.
14
03
co~
C$
C~
Q.~
C3
r~
Cd
1
.
C~
T~
VJ
NeXt ~~~p~' Council,
tation to Met'o GMCils, C0uncj an. feb -
.presen
PxC~ TACs and locax roposed
C aT e q, (a) M rule and th P
~
February' 8-23
Oupfogramt' each WoTtshops~ re~uire~entis' March
public
,wVelrite Functional Ilan committee review
advisory
*~,ubllcreview, C o~cil
GMC review
*1~IPA~9 ' and 1une~ 2000
~~e,~~o ~ou~cil decision
.4--J
199F tie ational Mar .nal
On August log S) published a
0 +a
Fisheries Service Oregon Coast coho salmon as
rule listing th FS
th-reatened• 249 X999, N~
~y a rule publihed March
Sound, Lower Colum e
,By s
and UPPer Willamette R:I-Ver
R:Iverg 1isted the Puget w
coast Chinook salmon as threatened.
ed rules
s
anuarY 32000 NN~FS issues Propo
1
~ coy
Cd
• cd
0
(U
1-14
•
Cid
~
-4-)
Q
Cd
(V1
\it7
wl~
a)
Ct
CPS
d-1
0 r.04
1~9
Cd
a
a)
C~
CIO
c
V
Q~
03
COD
v
C73-
-+-j
CC3
r--4
CV
~r-
;-d
• p~
0
4-4
Cld
•
CC3
yC~
r
O
VL
• 'rad
e
l~
V~
•
CC3
VJ
o
P~
V
a~
a~
a~
1
cd
rr~
rlc~
03
C~]
C~
03
1
cqd
Q
Cd
C~]
1
y1.in
tQ
5-4
~E1%
W.l
N
y4y~
t)b
~~6\
~.I
y~
4sLD.J
CC8
C~
CA
0
cd
03
Cd
~d
t8
0
C~
.
'45
a3
.ply
03
~-1
~-1
as
. 0
rM.4y.. 4
va,~
V
ed
Cdr
u
B
Q~
C~
4D
On. Limits on the
I~.abitat Kestoratl
Take Prohibitions
NM-FS strongly encourages local efforts to
ct watershed assessments to identidfycondu ~,atershwhat problems are impairing forwatershed
and to pan function
ion or conservation in reliance on
restorat
that assessment.
low
3
0
Cid
CIS
C4
03
P~
(1)
03
0
• r-~1
C/1
Cl
~~-1
~J
03
od
Cld
•Cd
e F~
V
• Pi4
3
rJo
ct
C>
C
~
®
;:3
•
C/~
O
r
®
~
U
U
~
O
4N
0
®
`V
PI
Cd
.
cf)
.4--4
• pow
"Ci
U
e
U
a~
o
O fv
o ~ •N
cd s:~ ~S)
c
.,v
o ~
C
ON
ly tiake prohibitions
s ~opose5 not to app activities:
~/IF p • n habitat restoration
to the follow s g c~ng.
~~~e planting or no sediment
~P~~,a~ ater w° only;
110 ill-w e tation
C~~ditionS~ native w
veg Standards
~no~f to s~eam~ jt-h
~Qnsistent
lacement bitat Restoration
f,,Tvce p on Aquatic 14a 1999•
in the ot Guide
~ and Enhancetnen
•
p
tit
0
4J
C~
C~
. .
.+V:~
u
U
U
U
Cid
s
s'' qqn
VJ
c3
N
cn
-U
. r-.4
.
5
t~1J
c~
U
e
41J
s
c
C
a
®
°
cfs
°
®
®
roc/
C~
0
Cd
cn
3
0
0
a~
Z
P9
0
W,J
CCU
b
• ~ CCU
r
CC3
® Q~
C
s
A PEO
O PUM
O
O
3
SIN
s
0
A
Pam
•
q®
ON
W
6 POO
all
;no
O~
W
e e~
®
o
o0
r~
od
A PM4
U
1JJ
®
~
• POO
A Poo
A
0 1~
4=4
as
aced P est Management
PoTtland Pagks In pTohibons
Lidlt on the Take 1~ an
erating and refs a
~ or 10
PPhas been oPement progT
~tie~rated pest manag the extent of
goal of reducing
years9 with. a and pesticides ia park
its use of herbicides
maiiltenanCe
Bum
Prohibitions for New Urban
Limit o~ Take Density Development
wNMFS finds that Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan is a idequate5
d to take PrOl"Ditions will not be apnance that
development govemed bY ordinance
Metro has found consistent with that
Functional Plan's
Nw=
BENI
Metro'. S F.1jetlotial -Plan
Ordinan ure or that urban reserve plan
must ass will:
davoiding
ropriate areas,
_ Be sited ill app Wetlands, areas of Wiunstable ed
slope aid similarly cons~ain
habitavvalue~ sites. ~,ater discharge impacts to
-Avoid storn~and quantitY • • .
arian buffers along
Requ,,Wri...qualitY
e adequate rip
streams.
aid intefff~,Iftelll
all P,,efmial
ust be
natlve ~1ege~at~on m
t~~tion 0f eXlsting
A11 eXlstin~, tides
preven land use
d• • ° veioT tio b
the extent allow ea y
On PT
~etaine native To th ent set'
COnvexsion5• de~~lopm t~~~ one
a~,exns~ the eater
ow-aersh1P Abe e~ulvalent to oX 2or at
back S~°u~ tr~~ height ~ pp steep slopes)
site Potedia, ~ slope el ml~a~'ion
the bT eaed e f the ch~nn
least to o
~ia
cuter all peTe
f o~ the sid
zo l &
either e of
OT,
o It
Seams
' s~auld be
at set b eck, the first 50
th ~r
mechanical en~Y
protected fTom allyor utility ed by
d,Sturbaiace,s be doditiale
ther with
ilistallations9 and should rs, to9-
-rmaturecollife
ous dense
maturing ovigor
some hardwoods aid
u
nderstor~' of native plants
mom
LBa3:euryr sTxB
of set-back hoijid be
outer too Vegetation (not i:a
entirely in natl~ 1X o f conifer,
l a~,n) with a xnaintaine
understory and0uld be
deciduous Distulbances sh
S
roundcovers.
oads
by r
Avoid stby ust be
er and where ° ~~0~ce
10 wherev POSSIIDIe~
acts t~ough d, m~imzZe imP design~g
provide' °
oOde, sizing placemen
a
t least the brldgeS and culverts to pas,
and associated debris, • • and
Year f 10 0d anover of any illterm
pTohib ~en
closing
al stream
Or pe-relini
atterns,
meander p
-Protect historic c~ea
annel ml~ation zones
food pains and
ket s or similar Rip-rap blal, 1 are got allowedVegetation
techn queg
~tlands and the
Project v~' to maintain wetland
'r ound wetlands for t1jeff
surround~g them
design , fl°od cont~
nctions• water quality
positi'.ve habitat, values,
aid gro~'ater ~e b lee"Tflola
s. Retail, X11
providing ade~ua A- -a 40 fisting n~ al wetlands.
~x
C~
Cd
C/1
a~
U
bA
c~
Cld
0 P--4
cl3 Cd
.0
4-4
°
cid
d (U
WI
cd
P--4
PL.q
.
s
yQy~,~
J •
1
7-4
. p~♦
a;
C~
cd
ON
Cid
4D
c1
C~
C~
i
cid
Cl)
®
Cd
d
C
^
Cl
V
rg~-.q
. ~l
i
Cq3
thr~aten~d
S ce'atlnt~ to
urban
h
to~ibitton . that Suc
The P do not app~y roveded
spec,lopme"t activitles'P ~ nt to city of
de\je urs ~F has
e'~1ent oCCUr that N
deVwp fd' nances uately
~
COunty deq ol the
reed in writing atatllufisdl ec~:► ,
ag tt~jn en$ in Oregon
p r otecteve: °ra gover"V'
Metro r~90on
Soso
Metro has found
that
with ordin~~ ~n urban growth that
comp y `N~fih
ctiona, Pia
fun are
ManageMent
rtt►ng
to
• For t4mFs
mF S his agreed in
t4 C t►
or the FunctIona~ Plan
adequatety prote
Find ordinancs must address the
deauate, theY Su.lcient deta11 and
afollowing issues in that urban
~~~ner that assures
to
in a will co
elopments
de`J
I nlisted Salmonids:
conserv g
~
v
0
4-
®
4--j
en
CU
U)
~
Cl)
CL
L)
a)
C
E
®
cn
c n
i~
V
E
c n
a
cn
■ ®
r~
V)
CL
a)
cu
0
w
0
mi
E
co
0
a)
>
-
CU
-
. ®
O ®
■
cn
0
■
co
■
c
W
4-0
0
~
CD
E
a
.
a)
o
W
ui
Y
I
c
■a
-0
C:
cu
cu
cu
0.
CU
cu
W
3:
•
C
cl:
Cu
0
cu
cl.
CU
C
cu
L.
:3
cu
®
-0
a)
V
_ T
crossings by roads
Avoid stream
ossible, and where °ne Must
wherever P thro 9
be provided, minimize impacts .
choice of anode, sizing, placement
meander
rotect historic str net rr►igration zones
P
P atterns and channel
stream ban
avoid kshardening
tlar►ds end Wetland functions
Protect We capacity of a►~y
Preserve the 11YdrolOgic or permanent stream t o
Intermittent pass peak flO\Jvs-
N
E
W
m
U
N
E
CD.
O
N
N
C
W
70
a)
a) -0
C= C:
CD m
C
® 70
cm 3 m
; c: E
cu co
0. E
® Cu
a)
4-a
cn
W
cn
cn
L
a)
cu
3
L.
.e
OD
~V
E
D 4-
0
V
cn
W
^E
W
L
0
0
L
cu
^co
W
cu
0
s~
0.
0
_cu
0
E
W
E
Cu
C:
0
f!1
E
N
U
W
cu
^n
W
E
0
0
0.
0
0
0
L.
0 C n
co
`E
E
C
0 C:
L. CU
> cn
cu
OD 0
W
LL 0
cn
a)
CU 'CU
0 9.
cn c
M
6 ~
_ o~