City Council Packet - 05/23/2000
C ffY F TIGARD
OREGON
Tlf%.Aon nrry vOUpgr%u
MEETING
MAY 23, 2000
COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE
TELEVISED
iAadm4Mccpkt33doc
13125 3W Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
Bill'
Revised May 19, 2000
TIGARD. CITY COlIA1GIL
BUSINESS'{ELTING
MAY _"3 -6 30 PM : CITY OF TIGAR®
. TIGARD CITY HALL
13]`25 SW HALL''BLVD'
TIGARD, GREGON':979 3_
0 r
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s).
If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda
item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set
for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager.
Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present
by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-!n sheet. Business agenda items can be heard
in any order after 7:30 p.m.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be
scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please
call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the
Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
v 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 - MAY 23, 2000 - PAGE 1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
MAY 2 3, 2000
6:30 PM
• STUDY SESSION
> EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session
under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) 8z (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.
> Briefing: Solid Waste Franchise System Challenge
> Briefing: Fanno Creek Law Enforcement
> Discuss: Community Development Department - Urban Services
> Discuss: City .Manager Review
7:30 PM
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8z Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
7:35 PM
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
7:40 PM
3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted
in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be
removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to:
3.1 Approve Salary Recommendations from the Management/Supervisory/
Confidential Group job Classification and Compensation Study - Resolution
No. 00-
COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 23, 2000 - PAGE 2
3.2 Approve Cost of Living Adjustment for Management/Stipervisory/
Confidential Group Employees, Effective July 1, 2000, and Amend the Salary
Schedule - Resolution No. 00-2,5
3.3 Agree to Enter Into an Agreement with Washington County Accepting
Community Development Block Grant Funds for Improvement to Lincoln
Avenue and Authorize the Mayor to Sign
3.4 Approve Budget Adjustment #9 to the Fiscal Year 1999/00 Budget to Cover
a Projected Deficit in the Building Fund - Resolution No. 00- 2&
Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested
to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered
immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need
discussion.
7:45 p.m.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT: PROPOSED 3 PERCENT INCREASE RATES, FEES, AND
CHARGES FOR WATER AND WATER-RELATED SERVICES
a. Staff Report: Public Works Department
b. Public Comment
C. City Council Questions/Comments
d. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 00--2--4-
8:05 p.m.
5. CONSIDER ENDORSEMENT OF THE WILSONVILLE TO BEAVERTON
COMMUTER RAIL ALTERNATIVE
a. Staff Report: Public Works Department
b. Council Comments/Questions
C. Council Consideration: Resolution Nc. 00- 25
8:25 p.m.
6. REVIEW INFORMATION AND DIRECT STAFF ON HOW TO APPROACH
ANNEXATION OF BULL MOUNTAIN AND OTHER NON-ISLAND AREAS
a. Staff Report: Community Development Department
b. Council Comments/Questions
C. Council Direction on Annexation Approach
8:55 p.m.
7. PARK SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE STATUS REPORT
a. Staff Report: Community Development Department
b. Council Comments/Questions
C. Council Direction on Whether to Hire a Consultant and Whether to Continue
Discussions with Washington County Regarding a City Park Systems
Development Charge on New Development Within the Urban Growth
Boundary
COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 23, 2000 - PAGE 3
.r
9:15 P.M.
8. UPDATE ON METRO CREENSPACES METRO INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT
a. Staff Report: Community Development Department
b. Council Comments/Questions
9:35 p.m.
9. CONSIDER ORDINANCE GRANTING TO LEVEL 3 A FRANCHISE TO
CONDUCT A TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD
a. Staff Report: Finance Department
b. Council Questions/Comments
C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 00- 21
9:40 p.m.
10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
9:45 p.m.
11. NON AGENDA ITEMS
9:50 P.M.
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under
the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) 8t (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: p.m.
13. ADJOURNMENT
I:\AD M\CAT HY\CCA\000523. D OC
COUNCIL AGENDA -M
AY 23, 2000 • PAGE 4
Itatn Afo. 3~~
For Council Newsletter dated 212-L-02
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000
STUDY SESSION
> Meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. by Council President Brian Moore
> Council Present: Councilors Paul Hunt, Council President Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken
Scheckla.
> Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; City Engineer Gus Duenas; Senior Risk Analyst
Loreen Mills; Finance Director Craig Prosser; City Attorney Tim Ramis; City
Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Community Development Director Jim
Hendryx; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; Police Chief Ron Goodpaster;
Police Officer R.L. Rogers; Associate Planner Duane Roberts; Associate
Planner Laurie Nicholson
> Briefing: Solid Waste Franchise System Challenge
Loreen Mills, Senior Risk Analyst, directed the Council's attention to the outline in the packet
detailing the events of the court challenge by AGG (a solid waste transport company) to the City
of Beaverton's and Washington County's right to require it to obtain a franchise from those
jurisdictions. She noted the decision of the US District Court judge that local governments could
not regulate the service, standards, rates or routes for mixed solid waste because it was property,
not garbage. She commented that the appeal was likely to take two years.
Ms. Mills indicated that she was working with the Finance Department and the City's Auditor to
determine how much revenue the City stood to lose in franchise fees as a result of this decision.
She mentioned City Attorney Ramis' work with the haulers to address this issue while she
worked with the Washington County and Clackamas County cities (and Gresham) on
developing an interim strategy to handle this matter consistently regionwide.
Ms. Mills noted the staff recommendation that the City develop the necessary franchise
ordinance revisions. She said that staff planned to return to Council at the June 20 work session
with an update and options based on their research into local and national programs.
Tim Ramis, City Attorney, spoke to the importance of carefully defining the real impact of this
decision in order to avoid overreacting. He pointed out that this decision made only one small
channel of the waste stream no longer subject to the old regulatory techniques. He supported
working in close concert with other cities, counties, and the existing franchise holders to create a
system that worked for everyone, including the customers. He indicated that staff would present
at least three different recommendations on how to regulate this channel, based on the three time
periods involved (immediate, from the decision to the appeal, and following the appeal).
Councilor Scheckla commented that the franchise haulers would have difficulty making a profit
if they lost the commercial customers that subsidized the residential program. Mr. Ramis
confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that AGG did not have to offer the recycling program required
by the City of its franchise haulers. Ms. Mills reiterated that staff was working on a regionwide
basis to get credit for any recyclables hauled by any hauler, possibly using a permitting system.
Mr. Ramis explained to Councilor Scheckla that the advantage to AGG of not having a franchise
was an ability to compete based on price. He agreed that establishing a level playing field was a
key part of addressing this change. He said that staff would look in to the Councilor's
suggestion of charging a fee to businesses using a non-franchised hauler.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 - PAGE 1
> Briefing: Fanno Creek Law Enforcement
Police Chief Ron Goodpaster introduced Officer Bob Rogers, the officer in charge of the
Fanno Creek Parkway project. Officer Rogers stated that they started this project in April in
response to incidents reported in the park. He reviewed the four project goals and discussed his
work to implement those goals. He mentioned using the police department database and the
WCCCA dispatch system records to track and monitor the reported nuisances as part of
implementing the primary goal: to reduce the reported nuisances to both the City and the Tigard
police.
Officer Rogers indicated that he found the park regulatory signage satisfactory with respect to
the second goal of insuring adherence to City ordinances, State laws and park policies. He
discussed the three-pronged approach he and Jeff Munro, Parks Supervisor, decided to take to
assist with the removal of the unsanitary and unsightly illegal camps in the park. He also
referred to the goal of partnering with other city and county entities to get the word out that the
parks and police departments were working together. He mentioned his conversations with the
Early Birds (the group :hat adopted the park), the installation of new signage asking people to
notify the police if they saw anything of concern in the park, and setting up a page at the police
website where people could report their concerns.
Chief Goodpaster mentioned that the police had a zero level of tolerance for campers in the
park. He mentioned a couple of recent burglaries in the area, which might or might not have
been related to the illegal campers, and the calls received from citizens concerned about using
the park. He indicated that they did not have the same type of problems in any of the other
parks so far, but if similar problems developed, the department would use Officer Rogers'
Fanno Creek Parkway program as a template to address them.
Councilor Hunt asked what Chief Goodpaster thought would happen to the campers whom the
police moved out. Chief Goodpaster indicated that a social service representative usually
accompanied his officers when they made a sweep of the park; the representative informed the
people of alternatives, although not everyone wanted those alternatives and would simply go
some place else. He spoke of the significant nuisance and concern caused by these people to the
park users in this heavily used park. He mentioned the extension of the Fanno Creek walkway
as a motivating factor for the police in dealing with this problem.
> Community Development Update
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, reported that Washington County agreed
to provide the City with $100,000 to help with the deficit the City was facing in Community
Development as a result of the reduced building activity in the urban services area. He
mentioned that they saw a recent slight upswing in activity, reducing the amount of the deficit.
Mr. Hendryx discussed the steps he has taken to reduce the Community Development staff and
budget in light of the deficit, including not filling vacant positions, reorganization of the
department, and eliminating 1.5 FTE positions in Building. He mentioned the reassignment of
the counter staff to the Building Division and the Planning/Engineering Division, a
recommendation from the department audit requested by Council, and in response to the State
auditors' concerns about tracking the direct costs to builders. He noted the change in title of the
`Development Service Technician' to the more common industry term `Permit Specialist,' and
the reclassification of the Development Services Supervisor to the lesser classification `Permit
Coordinator.'
Mr. Hendryx commented that implementing these reductions (scheduled for July 1) would help
reduce department expenditures and possibly increase the City's chances of obtaining a fee
increase from the Building Code Division. He indicated that these changes returned Tigard to
the more common separated permit functions, as opposed to the centralized permit function it
has been using.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 - PAGE 2
ME
Spa
Craig Prosser, Finance Director, explained that the Council would be adopting a budget less
than that approved by the Budget Committee because staff wanted these changes reflected in the
budget. The Community Development Department reorganization had not been far enough
along at the time of his presentation to the Budget Committee to incorporate the changes into the
budget. He suggested talking to the Budget Committee about the changes at an August meeting.
Mr. Hendryx reported that he met with the individuals who would be laid off as a result of the
reorganization, and that he was working with Human Resources on the matter. He indicated his
hope that if the economy improved, their building revenues would increase and they could staff
back up.
Mr. Hendryx reported that the County agreed to the City's request to stop providing road
maintenance service in the urban services area. Mr. Monahan reviewed the catch-22 situation
the City found itself in when it ran out of the money that the County provided to pay for this
service yet the County continued to refer its citizens requesting road maintenance to the City.
Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that the County would
take back the road maintenance in the unincorporated area on Bull Mountain. He pointed out
that the County citizens expected the same level of road maintenance that the City provided to
its residents but the County only provided funding for its lower level of maintenance.
Mr. Monahan commented that staff had expected the County to offer more money as opposed to
taking the program back. He asked if the Council wanted the City to give it back to the County.
Mr. Wegner mentioned the possibility of reassigning two employees and the need to work out
other personnel details with the County. Mr. Prosser indicated that this reduction might or
might not appear in the budget, depending on when Mr. Wegner worked out the details with the
County.
Mr. Monahan confirmed to Councilor Patton that the County cut the amount of funding it gave
to the City as part of the urban services agreement because of the Walnut Island annexation.
Mr. Wegner explained to Councilor Hunt that staff realized that it took three-quarters to one
FTE to manage the Walnut Island area, as opposed to the two FTEs from the County, which was
why they were looking at reducing the employees.
Councilor Hunt discussed his concern that the staff had assured the Council when it agreed to
the urban services agreement that this situation of laying off employees, rehiring them, and then
laying them off again would not occur. Mr. Monahan explained that the layoffs in Mr.
Hendryx' department resulted from the downtrend in the economy and the decrease in the
building fees needed to pay for those positions. He said that the employees in Mr. Wegner's
department might bet transferred. Mr. Hendryx stated that they clearly informed the new hires
in his department that the positions depended upon the iur►ding.
> Council President Moore recessed the study session at 7:26 p.m. to Executive Session
pursuant to ORS 190.660(1)(b), (e), and (h) to discuss real property transactions.
> Council President Moore adjourned the Executive Session at 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Monahan reported that the Downtown Merchants Association contacted Cathy Wheatley,
City Recorder, with a request for $3,000 for the Tigard Daze Parade. He asked for authorization
from the Council for staff to request a plan for the parade expenditures and information on the
parade organizers' other sources of funding. He mentioned the short planning horizon for the
event. Councilor Scheckla discussed his preferenze that the organizers take a year to do their
planning and then request City funding.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 - PAGE 3
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Mayor Jim Nicoli called the meeting to order at 7:47 p.m.
1.2 Roll Call
Councilors Brian Moore, Mayor Nicoli, Joyce Patton, Ken Scheckla and Paul Hunt were
present.
1.4 Council Communications: None
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
Mr. Monahan mentioned three administrative items.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: None
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to approve the Consent
Agenda.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors
Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.
3.1 Approve Salary Recommendations from the Management/Supervisory/Confidential
Group Job Classification and Compensation Study - Resolution No. 00-24
3.2 Approve Cost of Living Adjustment for Management/S upervisory,Confidential
Group Employees, Effective July 1, 2000, and Amend the Salary Schedule -
Resolution No. 00-25
3.3 Agree to Enter Into an Agreement with Washington County Accepting Community
Development Block Grant Funds for Improvement to Lincoln Avenue and Authorize
the Mayor to Sign
3.4 Approve Budget Adjustment #9 to the fiscal Year 1999/00 Budget to Cover a
Projected Deficit in the Building Fund
4. PUBLIC COMMENT: PROPOSED 3 PERCENT INCREASE RATES, FEES, AND
CHARGES FOR WATER AND WATER-RELATED SERVICES
Mayor Nicoli noted that staff has already briefed the Council on this item. Mr. Wegner
indicated that the resolution raised the water rates by 3%, effective July 1, 2000.
Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No. 00-
27.
The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 00-27, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TIGARD, OREGON, INCREASING RATES, FEES AND CHARGES FOR WATER AND
WATER-RELATED SERVICES.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors
a Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.")
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES- MAY 23, 2000 - PAGE 4
5. CONSIDER ENDORSEMENT OF THE WILSONVILLE TO BEAVERTON
COMMUTER RAIL ALTERNATIVE
Mr. Hendryx introduced Bob Post from BRW, the consulting group working on the
Wilsonville to Beaverton commuter rail alternative. Mr. Post presented a video discussing the
project as a solution to the congestion in the corridor using the existing rail tracks, and exploring
funding sources, route termination points, improvements, etc.
Mr. Post discussed the work they did to meet the requirements for federal funding, including
developing a formal set of options (no build, transportation system management, and commuter
rail). He mentioned that the ridership projections were now at 4,700 riders per day (compared to
1,500 for the express bus system). He reviewed the differing travel times for commuter rail (26
minutes), bus (54 minutes) and auto (39 minutes) in the corridor
Mr. Post mentioned the projected capital costs of $67-$73 million for commuter rail and annual
operating cost of $3.9 million ($7-$10 million and $1.1 million respectively for bus service). He
reported that their public involvement process found five central themes among the public:
strong support for commuter rail, pessimism about a workable express bus service, and support
for good coordination with the local business people, longer operating hours, and a Beaverton
Transit Center north terminus (as opposed to the Merlo Road option).
Mr. Post mentioned the Steering Committee's adoption of commuter rail as the local preferred
alternative per the federal process. He noted that the public involvement process found
continued strong support for commuter rail and a Beaverton Transit Center north terminus,
concerns about part: and ride lots, concerns that commuter rail invested too many dollars for the
reduction in traffic, and support for coordinating commuter rail with Metro's South Corridor
study (downtown Portland-Oregon City-Clackamas County).
Mr. Post reported that the draft environmental document would be completed by early July. He
indicated that they would initiate the preliminary engineering phase shortly with anticipated
completion early next year. He mentioned the parallel discussions on funding sources and
options and on who would own, operate and manage the line. He spoke of a possible operation
start date of September 2004. He asked the Council to adopt commuter rail as the local
preferred option.
Councilor Hunt asked for clarification of the park and ride lots issue, noting that there was not
sufficient parking available at the Tigard Transit Center. Mr. Post described the work his firm
has done to match the projected parking demand to the parking spaces available at each station.
He mentioned increasing the parking at Tigard using areas owned by the railroad and ODOT.
Mayor Nicoli briefed the Council on his meeting last week with Tom Brian and John
Rosenberger at the County at which he urged the County to work with the Tigard Downtown
Merchants' redevelopment plan, which was startlingly similar to several ideas that the County
had for the area. He mentioned starting to rebuild the downtown area for commuter rail in 2002.
He spoke to bringing the merchants into the process as soon as possible in order to avoid two
different plans for the same area.
Mayor Nicoli reported that the local match required by the federal government was $25 million.
He indicated that the County was looking at potentially funding $20 million of the local match,
leaving $5 million to the cities along the route. He explained that the cities could get the $5
million from the MSTIP serial levy that was rolled into the permanent tax rate by Measure 50,
eliminating the time limitations. He pointed out that the election literature clearly stated that
both County serial levies (MSTIP and WCCLS) became permanent with the passage of Measure
50, so this was not a hidden agenda item. He noted that doing so did not affect the MSTIP 3
projects. Mayor Nicoli discussed the support of the area legislators to get $25 million in
funding for this project.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 - PAGE 5
INN 1111M
Mayor Nicoli concurred with Councilor Scheckla that providing sufficient parking space was a
challenge for Tigard. Councilor Scheckla asked how they would control the park and rides so
that only commuter rail riders used them, not people simply shopping in the downtown. Mr.
Post indicated that Tri-Met would re-examine its policy of providing free transit parking space,
even though its experiment in Gresham of charging for parking did not work.
Councilor Scheckla asked how they would split the funding of the long-term maintenance of the
line between the commuter rail and the freight line. Mr. Post explained that they would
negotiate that as part of their use agreement with the railroad, indicating that usually
maintenance was allocated on use level and maintenance level expectations.
Councilor Scheckla asked what safeguards they would install to prevent accidental deaths, such
as occurred on the Westside Max line. Mr. Post mentioned the update of the entire rail system,
including signals, street and pedestrian crossings. He pointed out that commuter rail ran in a
single direction, as opposed to two light rail trains running in opposite directions.
Councilor Scheckla asked if long-term objectives included hooking up to the trolley line running
from Lake Oswego to Portland. Mr. Post said that the current Metro study looking at the
McLoughlin corridor on the east side of the river was also looking at extending the commuter
rail line into Milwaukie-Portland to tie into the current Union Pacific line or the old line running
through Oaks Bottoms. He indicated that the Metro South Corridor study was looking at other
bus and non-light rail options in the area.
Councilor Hunt suggested that Mr. Post put the video on the cable access channel to increase the
general public's knowledge of the project.
Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Resolution No. 00-
28.
The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 00-28, A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE WILSONVILLE TO
BEAVERTON COMMUTER RAIL ALTERNATIVE
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors
Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") [5-0]
Mayor Nicoli turned the meeting over to Council President Moore, leaving the meeting at 8:11
p.m.
6. REVIEW INFORMATION AND DIRECT STAFF ON HOW TO APPROACH
ANNEXATION OF BULL MOUNTAIN AND OTHER NON-ISLAND AREAS
Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner, referenced her memo presenting the staff options for the
annexation of Bull Mountain and other non-island areas (excluding Metzger). She indicated that
the staff work on a Council-initiated annexation for the November ballot would have had to start
yesterday. Mr. Hendryx indicated to Councilor Scheckla on the map the boundaries of potential
annexable land out to the City's urban growth boundary. He said that Metro would render its
decision at the end of this year on whether it would bring in the area outside the urban growth
boundary of interest to local developers.
Ms. Nicholson noted that the second option, obtaining the written consent of the property
owners and then annexing, was labor intensive, requiring the use of interns. She mentioned the
possibility that not everyone within this large area would consent to the annexation, resulting in
sporadic annexation that could effectively create islands.
Ms. Nicholson discussed the third option of the City annexing rights-of-way and creating
islands, which it could then force to annex. She pointed out that politically this option might not
be popular, and contained the possibility of court action by citizens contending that this tactic
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 - PAGE 6
took away their right to vote. She mentioned the staff recommendation of a public outreach
program, whichever option the Council chose.
Ms. Nicholson recommended Option 2, obtaining written consent to annexation, and
implementing a nubiic outreach effort similar to the Walnut Island effort. She indicated to
Councilor Scheckla that the County would work with the City in support of whichever option
the City chose but it did not specify a preferred option.
Councilor Hunt discussed his concern with using interns (proposed cost of $50,000). He argued
that the reason that the Walnut Island annexation went so well this time was because the staff
who talked to the citizens knew the answers to their questions, which interns would not be able
to do. Mr. Hendryx described how staff intended to use the interns in this labor-intensive
annexation process.
The Council concurred with Councilor Hunt's concern. Mr. Monahan discussed his
understanding of the Council's concern as direction to the staff to take the less aggressive tack
of Option 2 but starting with a public outreach program as opposed to door-to-door canvassing
for the petition. He mentioned using the community connectors and interns to gather
information and to present information to the residents before sending out the knowledgeable
staff to community groups and open houses.
Councilor Scheckla suggested testing the waters by contacting the Mountain Gate Homeowners
Association, which represented a large number of people. Councilor Patton spoke in support of
annexation but argued that they were not in a hurry; it was important to take the time to handle
this in a deliberative manner, such as testing the waters, providing information to the residents
that the City was interested in the potential annexation of the Bull Mountain area, requesting
public input, and giving the residents time to think it over.
Councilor Hunt pointed out that the Walnut Island annexation did not happen until the Council
turned the matter over to staff. Councilor Scheckla observed that the majority of Bull Mountain
homeowners were relatively recent residents (15 to 20 years), creating a different situation
without the animosity of the long-term residents (40 to 50 years) of the Walnut Island who
opposed annexation for 20 years.
Council President Moore summarized the Council's direction to staff as proceeding with Option
2 and returning with a plan based on the discussion this evening for a soft, informative approach
that went slow and easy. Mr. Monahan mentioned the elements of working with the County and
not using the interns as the first contact point but possibly using interns for data gathering. He
suggested that staff take two to three months to develop the plan.
Mr. Monahan asked if the Council wanted to break up Bull Mountain into reasonable areas for
annexation or go for the entire area out to Beef Bend Road. Councilor Scheckla suggested not
making that decision until they tested the waters with the initial approach. Mr. Monahan
commented that now staff understood that the Council goal to annex Bull Mountain was a
G longer-term goal rather than an immediate goal.
7. PARK SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGED; STATUS REPORT
Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff and consultant work on revising the
q City's four-year old park system development charges based on current conditions. He noted the
three options staff presented to Council: raising the fees inside the City, imposing a joint urban
services area-City SDC, and adopting an automatic escalator. He reported that staff has not
a been successful in getting County cooperation for the second option, which Council directed
staff to pursue. He asked for direction.
Mr. Hendryx pointed out that revising the fee inside the City would allow the City to meet its
own needs. He indicated to Councilor Hunt that he interpreted this fee as a refund situation if
Sizemore's initiative passed. Councilor Hunt spoke to waiting on this increase until after the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 - PAGE 7
November election, unle:,s they went with a 3% increase. Mr. Monahan confirmed to Council
President Moore that staff recommended looking at a fee increase and automatic escalator
following a study by a consultant.
Tian Ramis, City Attorney, explained that, under SDC law, the City had to establish a factual
basis for any fee increase but it was not required to increase the fee as much as a study might
indicate; it could limit an increase to 3%. He indicated to Councilor Hunt that it would be better
for the City to wait to increase the fee beyond the 3%, even if it had proof justifying a higher
percentage increase. Councilor Hunt suggested including the automatic escalator as part of the
study.
Council President Moore asked if there was any point in holding further discussions with the
County. Mr. Monahan explained that it was a timing issue, and that now might be a good time to
start talking again.
Councilor Scheckla asked for clarification on the consultant bid process. Mr. Monahan
explained that the City did not go out to bid for a consultant special services contract. He
mentioned using Carl Gobel because he was familiar with Tigard's system. Mr. Roberts noted
the advantage of Mr. Gobel's work with the Homebuilders Association on challenges to other
jurisdictions' SDCs; he would know what Tigard needed to do to get past the Association.
Councilor Scheckla discussed his concern with using a contractor who also worked for the
Homebuilders, citing the Homebuilders' opposition to fee increases. Mr. Hendryx observed that
they were in a climate where there would be opposition to any fee increases. He concurred with
Mr. Roberts that Mr. Gobel brought a benefit to the City because he knew what methodology
defused the Homebuilders' opposition. Mr. Ramis referenced his work with Mr. Gobel in
commenting that Mr. Gobel was quite independent of the influence of his client.
The Council_ agreed by consensus to direct staff to proceed with hiring the consultant to study
the SDCs for the City.
Councilor Hunt requested further discussion of the staff recommendation to continue
discussions with the County. Mr. Roberts indicated that the study supplying the factual basis for
SDC increases in the City could also provide a basis for imposing a fee in the urban services
area, provided the County granted the legal authority to do so. Mr. Monahan commented that if
the Council wanted to press the County on this issue, it was time to take it to a political level;
this study would provide supporting documentation for that discussion.
Councilor Hunt suggested that the City tell the County that if it wanted the City to spend money
buying parkland in the unincorporated area (as it already has done), then it should up the money
to help the City build up the fund to buy more land. The Council agreed by consensus with
pressing the County on the issue and continuing the discussions.
8. UPDATE ON METRO GREENSPACES METRO INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT
Mr. Roberts introduced Jim Desmonds, Metro Greenspaces Program Manager, and William
Eadie, Metro Property Negotiator. He gave a brief PowerPoint presentation reviewing the 1990s
Metro program, approved by voters in 1995, to spend $136 million to acquire regional
greenspaces in accordance with the master plan. He reported that staff has expended or
earmarked for projects all of the $758,000 it received as its share of the $25 million passed
through to local jurisdictions.
Mr. Roberts mentioned that two of the five greenway corridors targeted by Metro for regional
funds went through Tigard: Fanno Creek Greenway and Tualatin River. He noted the two
properties purchased by Metro and turned over to the City for management as natural areas, per
the program requirements: the 10-acre Lowrey property adjacent to Woodard Park and the 11-
acre Brown-MacDonald property at the end of Milton Court off of Bonita.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 - PAGE 8
Mr. Roberts discussed the Brown-MacDonald property, noting the forest and Fanno Creek
frontage. He pointed out its location next to the City-owned five-acre parcel proposed as Bonita
Park. He indicated that Metro wanted to discuss splitting the management responsibilities for
the 11-acre parcel, as it was a large site. He recommended that the City partner with Metro on
this site and enter into a management agreement with them.
Mr. Roberts mentioned a 6.22-acre site at Durham Road and SW 108`'' Avenue, a drainage way
forming a small tributary to the Tualatin River, which staff proposed to Metro for purchase with
regional funds. He reviewed the justification for adding acreage to the City's inventory, citing
the City park master plan standard of 11 acres per 1,000 population, and the current status of 8.4
acres per 1,000 population.
Jim Desmond, Metro Regional Parks & Greenspaces, explained that Metro preferred to turn
over the 6,000 acres acquired so far with the regional funds to the local jurisdictions for
maintenance, as the bond funds were limited to capital acquisitions; Metro had no dedicated
funding for parks operations and maintenance. He discussed the intergovernmental agreements
Metro reached with the local jurisdictions, in which the local jurisdiction responded to
immediate problems but worked with Metro on any park development of the property. He
mentioned a provision that automatically turned over any additional properties Metro bought
within the jurisdiction to the jurisdiction for management, unless the jurisdiction opted out.
Mr. Desmond spoke to Metro's goal to buy up all the remaining privately owned land along the
main stem of Fanno Creek where it ran through Beaverton and Tigard in order to protect the
greenway as much as possible. He noted that they have not had as much success as they would
like to have had. He mentioned Metro's work with the Three Rivers Land Conservancy to save
these properties.
Mr. Desmond recounted Metro's work on the vegetation maintenance on the Brown-MacDonald
property, including its intent to replant it with native plants to restore the natural habitat and to
promote the return of the wildlife. He said that Metro would expect the City to handle any
immediate problems, such as trash dumping or neighbor complaints, but it would handle the
vegetation maintenance as part of the site stabilization.
Mr. Desmond confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that Metro did provide guidelines for allowable
upgrades or permanent improvements, which had to be approved by the Metro Council. He
emphasized that the Metro Council did not want to micromanage a jurisdiction's public process;
it would allow trails, benches and other improvements that enhanced the natural area but it
would not allow community centers or swimming pools.
Councilor Scheckla asked if the IGA addressed the liability issues. Mr. Desmond stated that
Metro remained the property owner, thus carrying the liability. However, the IGA did state that
to the extent that the City was negligent or added to the risk, it had liability. Mr. Ramis
concurred that it was inevitable that both Metro and the City would be named in a lawsuit in the
event of an accident. He explained that the judge or jury, would ultimately determine who had
the greatest liability.
Councilor Hunt commented that he could not understand why they would want the corner
property at 108"' and Durham, as it was a canyon that no one could get into and the piece on the
corner served as a dumping place. Mr. Monahan explained that staff was not interested in the
corner dumping ground portion; they were interested in the drainage way they needed access to
in order to maintain it. He commented that he would like to see someone develop that corner
piece in order to get the half-street improvements. Mr. Hendryx indicated to Councilor
Scheckla that it would be difficult for the City to require the owner, in event of development of
the corner piece, to donate the property to the City.
Mr. Desmond clarified that Metro was asking for an IGA to cover the Brown-MacDonald
property on Fanno Creek and any future acquisitions on Fanno Creek. He explained that the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 - PAGE 9
Durham property did not meet Metro's criteria for purchase using regional funds, as it had no
access point on the Tualatin. He indicated that there was precedent for Metro changing the
target areas, and he would be happy to continue discussions with City staff, if the Council
supported purchase of the property. He emphasized that the Durham property was not part of
the IGA.
The Council agreed by consensus to proceed with the IGA on the Brown-MacDonald property.
The Council discussed the Durham property. Councilor Hunt indicated that, although he leaned
towards not purchasing the Durham property, he wanted to know its exact boundaries before
making a recommendation. Councilor Scheckla commented that he did not think that Metro
should be buying that property. The Council agreed by consensus not to pursue the Durham
property.
Mr. Desmond mentioned that Metro was in the process of negotiations on two other Fanno
Creek properties. He said that they would want to have the same IGA discussion in the event of
successful acquisition.
9. CONSIDER ORDINANCE GRANTING TO LEVEL 3 A FRANCHISE TO CONDUCT A
TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS IN THE CITE' OF TIGARD
Craig Prosser, Finance Director, stated that staff used the standard franchise agreement with
no modifications for this franchise request. He recommended approval.
Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Ordinance No. 00-
21.
The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 00-21, AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO LEVEL 3 A FRANCHISE TO
CONDUCT A TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD,
OREGON, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO PLACE POLES, WIRES AND OTHER
APPLIANCES FOR TELECOMMUNICATION PURPOSES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-
WAY, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THIS AGREEMENT, AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY.
Councilor Scheckla asked if the agreement provided for enforcement of the requirement to
return the public right-of-way to its original condition following installation of the fiber optic
line. Mr. Prosser explained that if the City did not find the restoration acceptable, it had the
right to bring the public right-of-way up to an acceptable standard and to bill the franchisee for
the work. Mr. Ramis indicated that a dispute would end up in court with a judge deciding what
was an acceptable level.
Councilor Scheckla mentioned his concern with the disruption this installation would create for
businesses. Mr. Ramis observed that they could not prevent the disruption.
Mr. Prosser indicated to Council President Moore that the time period of the franchise was 10
years. He commented that the company was likely to use the more recent method of installing
fiber optic cable (boring as opposed to the traditional open cut road), which lessened the
disruption. He explained to Councilor Hunt that they were declaring an emergency because
Level 3 was in partnership with NextLink, another City franchisee, and they needed to move
rapidly to lay their line in this very competitive industry.
Mr. Prosser explained to Councilor Scheckla that the franchise agreement provided for adding
into the fee calculation any land annexed after the agreement was signed.
Motion was approved by majority roll call vote of Council present. (Councilors Hunt, Council
President Moore, and Patton voted "yes." Councilor Scheckla voted "no.") [3-1 J
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 - PAGE 10
LM MMMS1
• s
10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None
11. NON AGENDA ITEMS
o John Nerski Retirement
Mr. Monahan mentioned Councilor Scheckla's concern that he was grabbing all the
opportunities to make the presentation at the retirement functions for City employees. The
Council discussed the issue, and agreed that Councilor Scheckla should attend Lt. John
Nerski's retirement and make the presentation.
o Ash Street property
Mr. Monahan reported that staff could not utilize the building located on City property at
12700 SW Ash Street; doing so would require restoration of the heating system eliminated
when the former property owner removed the underground oil tank as part of the sale terms.
He recommended authorizing the Public Works staff to raze the property using City
resources. He indicated to Councilor Hunt that making the small house useable involved
significant costs. He commented that he did not think that any social service agencies would
want it.
The Council agreed with the staff recommendation to raze the house.
National League of Cities Conference
Mr. Monahan reviewed the details of the National League of Cities Conference in Eoston orn
Tuesday, December 5, through Saturday, December 9. He asked if any Councilors were
interested in attending. Council President Moore said that he was interested but he was up for
re-election. Councilor Hunt suggested making Council President Moore's reservation available
to whoever won the November election. Councilor Scheckla indicates his interest in attending.
e Dayle Beach ]letter
Councilo_ Scheckla asked why staff replied to Mr. Beach. Mr. Monahan explained that it was
policy for staff to reply to citizen communications.
City Manager's Review
The Council agreed by consensus to request the Mayor to put his comments in writing with
respect to the City Manager's review process, as opposed to conveying them verbally to Council
President Moore.
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled.
13. ADJOURNMENT: 10:18 p.m.
~C i; ~t n.Q G~
Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
_7-
_Mayer, City f Tigard
Councit R- fdev
Date: ~7a~ ID
I: W DM\CATHY\CCM\000523.DOC
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 - PAGE 11
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9 6 4 9
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
° City of Tiga.rd ° ❑ Tearsheet Notice
1.31.2 5 ST7 Hall 1731vd .
° Tligard , Oregon 9 7 2 2 3 ° ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
° Ac-counts Payable °
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss.
I, Kathy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of this aai-d-Ti,a 1 ati n T, mes
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Ti garr3 in the
aforesaid county and state; that the Neetinq Ilicfhlights.0
Ci ty o un i 1 & R vi w Board/e+- 3=0f) fltcr.
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for OTTF, -successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
Tray 1 3, 2000
Subscribed and sworn to-before me thiQ S h_A air f P!a y , 2 0 0 0
OFFICIAL SEAL i
ROSIN A. BURGESS
Not P lic for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COM!v+ SS10N NO. 062071
Poly Commission Expires: I M; COtJ,11S510^i EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001
AFFIDAVIT -
The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full
agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. ,
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING
May 23, 2000 - 6:30 P.M.
TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON
* PUBLIC COMMENT: Proposed 3% increase to water rates, water
meter installation charges and other water-related service charges.
Staff is recommending that the rates, fees and charges for water and
water-related services be increased effective July 1, 2000, to cor-
respond with proposed sewer rate increases from the Unified
Sewerage Agency. (This agenda item will be heard after 7:30 p.m.)
* Update: Commuter Rail Project
* Update: Status of Parks Systems Development Charges
* Review. Proposed Annexation Policy
* Update: Metro Greenspaces and Review of intergoverni entP.l Aor~e-
ment
TT9649 -Publish May 18.2000.
COMMUNITY IrE SPAPERSg INC' Legal
% ao~.man Notice TT 9629
-e
Y.V. cVn 610 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
° Ci t y of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice
0 13125 S17 Hall B l Vd . ® ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
Tiga-r-d,O.regon 97223
Attn:Jerree. Gaynor Y
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss.
I, Kai"," C'
being first duly sworn, depose and saX that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of thMlcLard-Tualatl n TI mes
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
No i e of Propnsed Pee Increase
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for T1d0 -successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
April 27,1Lay4.2nno - OFFICIAL SEAL
SUZETTE I. CURRAN
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
0 COMMISSION NO. 329400
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 28.2003
Subscribed and sworn to be ore me th' pr T,? r ? 000
v
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
NOTICE OF PROPOSED PERMIT FEE INCREASE
Building Division
C1~~ 01f iga: d, Oregon
-To All Interested Parties:
Under the provisions of ORS 455.210(3)(a), the City of Tigard will re- !
quest the Tigard City Council to approve permit fee increases for their
City of Tigard, Washington County Urban Services, and Icing City com-
mercial and residential building, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical
programs. The proposed fee increase will go into effect September 1,
2000.
Copies of this proposal may be obtained at Tigard City Hall, or by mail
from the Building Division, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223,
(503) 639-4171.
A public hearing will take place on May 23, 2000, at 7:30 p.m. in Tigard
City Council Chambers, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard.
R or informiatior, Yicase contact Gary Lampelia, Building Official
(503) 639-4171.
M629 - Publish April 27, May 4, 2000.
Crrs~ rt~_ A IPW OuF.GON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
01Ak1.h&Ak_) qj7ft L\JA-, I, begin first duly sworn, on oath,
depose and say
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance
Number (s) n n 6W 1-% Q -Q-
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated Q -45 -Cr) t*S-Q3-O D copy(s)
of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _
day of JrR O.~, , 20M
1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
3. Tigard Water Department, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon
DAL
Subscribed and sworn to before me this _ day of , 20 0c)
I
Notary Public for Oregon
OFFICIAL SEAL
D L WISE Q~, . . 20o
NOTARY PUBUC-OREGON My Commission Expires:
' COMMISSION r.`O
MY COMMISSIOy EXPIRES FEB. 11. 2003
,
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 00- AD
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO NEXTLINK OREGON, INC., A WASHINGTON CORPORATION,
A FRANCHISE TO CONDUCT A TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF
TIGARD, OREGON, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO PLACE POLES, WIRES, AND OTHER
APPLIANCES FOR TELECOMMUNICATION PURPOSES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY;
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THIS AGREEMENT; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, The ten-year franchise for the communication facilities and services provided by
NEXTLINK Oregon, Inc., described in the title of this ordinance is now before the City Council for
approval. The Council believes that the franchise should be approved under the terms and conditions set
forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and by this reference made a part hereof.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The terms and conditions of the attached franchise agreement, Exhibit A, are hereby
approved and adopted as part of this ordinance as is specifically set forth.
SECTION 2. Thu Mayor is authorized to sign the attached agreement on behalf of the Council.
SECTION 3. Because of the need to have stable telephone communication and the need to have a stable
revenue flow to the City from franchise fees, an emergency is declared and this ordinance
sliall take effect upon its passage.
SECTION 4. The City Council determines that the fee imposed by this franchise is not a tax subject to
the property tax limitations of Article XI, Section 11 (b) of the Oregon Constitution.
PASSED: By UnMxy%US vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title
only, this,.)S'-' day of r) l , 2000.
Catherine Wheatley, City Record
APPROVED: This c?S -day of , 2000.
Ja s Nicoli, Mayor
Apploved as to form:
ti
ity Attorney-Date
WDM\CATHY\COUNCIL\NEXT LINK ORD.DOC
L ORDINANCE No. OO,~)D
Pagc 1
.Y
EXHIBIT "A"
A franchise agreement between the City of Tigard and NEXTLINK Oregon, Inc., a Washington
corporation.
SECTION 1. Subject to the other terms and conditions set forth in this document there is hereby
granted by the City of Tigard to NEXTLINK Oregon, Inc., (herein referred to as
"Grantee"); its successors and assigns; subject to the development ordinances
and regulations of the City, the right and privilege to conduct a telecommunications
business within said City, or such other public property as may come within the
jurisdiction of the City during the term of this agreement for the purpose of
furnishing, telecommunications services as defined in State and Federal Law.
This grant includes the right to erect, construct, place, replace, reconstruct, lay,
maintain, and operate poles, wires, switching equipment, amplifying equipment,
fixtures, facilities, appliances, structures and other devices including, but not limited
to, electronic, optical and mechanical devices customarily associated with
Grantee's function, and purpose of serving as a telecommunications utility.
This franchise is granted solely for the privilege of providing telecommunications
services as defined by State and Federal Law. This franchise does not include the.
right to conduct the business of providing a "cable system" as defined in applicable
law. Should the Grantee desire to provide a cable system within the City, it must
comply with the City's regulations relating to cable communications in force at that
time.
SECTiON 2. It shall be lawful for Grantee to make all needful and necessary excavations in any
of said streets, alleys, avenues, thoroughfares and public highways.
SECTION 3. The Grantee shall file with the City Engineer or designee maps and materials
showing all proposed underground construction work to include the installation of
additional facilities or relocation or extension of existing facilities within any street,
alley, road or other public way or place within the corporate limits of the City. The
City will review the materials submitted and notify the Grantee of any City
requirements. For repair work or other work not considered underground
construction as stated above, the Grantee shall, if possible, notify the City of the
location and general description of the work before beginning work.
All work shall be done in a reasonably safe manner taking into account City
standard traffic control procedures and in accordance with requirements of
applicable federal laws, state laws, or City ordinances. In emergencies, such
f filings shall be submitted within thirty (30) days of completion of emergency
construction work.
I
SECTION 4. When any excavation shall be made pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance,
the Grantee shall restore the portion of the street, alley, road, or public way or
place to the same condition to which it was prior to the excavation, reasonable
wear and tear excepted. All such work shall be done in strict compliance with the
written rules, regulations, ordinances or orders which may be adopted from time to
time during the continuance of this franchise by the City Council or City Engineer
or as may be otherwise provided by law. The City shall have the right to fix a
reasonable time within which such repairs and restoration shall be completed and
upon failure of such repairs and restoration being made by Grantee, City shall
cause such repairs to be made at the expense of Grantee.
SECTION 5. The Grantee hereby agrees and covenants to indemnify, save harmless and
defend the City and its officers, agents and employees from any and all damages,
costs and expenses or claims of any kind whatsoever, or nature, arising from any
injury to persons or property by reason of the negligent act or omission of the
Grantee, its agents or employees in exercising the rights and privileges granted
hereunder and by this franchise.
SECTION 6. The City, by its properly constituted authorities, shall have the right to cause the
Grantee to move the location of any pole, underground conduit or equipment
• belonging to Grantee whenever the relocation thereof shall be for public necessity,
and the expense thereof shall be paid by the Grantee. Such charges shall comply
with state statutes and administrative rules. Whenever it shall be necessary for
public necessity to remove any pole, underground conduit or equipment belonging
to Grantee or on which any wire or circuit of the Grantee shall be stretched or
fastened, the Grantee, shall, upon written notice from the City, or its properly
constituted authorities, meet with the City Engineer and agree in writing to a plan
and date certain to remove such poles, underground conduit, equipment, wire or
circuit, at Grantee's expense, and if the Grantee fails, neglects or refuses to do so,
the City, by its properly constituted authorities, may remove the same at the
reasonable and documented expense of the Grantee. The-costs associated with
the removal, relocation or extension of Grantee's facilities at the request of a
private developer or development shall be borne by such private developer or
development.
SECTION 7. All notices and approvals required under this Agreement shall be in writing. The
Grantee shall provide the City with the name, position and phone number of
Grantee staff that can be contacted for administration of this Agreement and for
contact with construction-related questions and comments.
All notices and other communications to be given pursuant to this agreement shall
be deemed to have been duly given (i) upon delivery, if personally delivered to the
person served or to an officer of the corporate party being served; (ii) two (2) days
after mailing, if mailed by United states certified mail, return receipt requested,
postage prepaid; or (iii) one day after mailing, if delivered by overnight carrier,
delivery receipt requested to the parties at the following addresses:
Such notices and approval shali be directed to the City as follows:
City Engineer, City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223
(503) 639-4171
Such notices and approval shall be directed to the Grantee as follows:
NEXTLINK Oregon Inc.
ATTN: General Manager
9000 SW Nimbus
Beaverton, Oregon 97008-7131
Facsimile Number: 503-241-8156
Telephone Number: 503-972-6863
With a copy to:
NEXTLINK Oregon, Inc.
ATTN: Legal Department
1000 Denny Way, Suite #200
Seattle, Washington 98109
Facsimile Number: 206-315-6320
SECTION 8. Upon request of the City, the Grantee shall provide available plans and locate any
underground conduit or equipment belonging to Grantee, as required for the
preparation of construction drawings.
SECTION 9. Whenever it becomes necessary to temporarily rearrange, remove, lower or raise
the wires, cables or other plant of Grantee for the passage of buildings, machinery
or other objects, Grantee shall temporarily rearrange, remove, lower or raise, its
wires, cables or other plant as the necessities of the case require; provided,
however, that the person or persons desiring to move any such buildings,
machinery or other objects, shall pay the entire actual cost to Grantee of changing,
altering, moving, removing or replacing its wires, cables or other plan so as to
permit such passage, and shall deposit in advance with Grantee a sum equal to
such cost as estimated by Grantee and shall pay all damages and claims of any
kind whatsoever, direct or consequential, caused directly or indirectly by changing,
altering, moving, removing or replacing of said wires, cables or other plant, except
as may be occasioned through the sole negligence of Grantee, Grantee shall be
given not less than ninety-six (96) hours written notice by the party desiring to
move such building or other objects. Said notice shall detail the route of
movement of such building or other objects over and along the streets, alleys,
avenues, thoroughfares and public highways and shall bear the approval of the
City. Such moving shall be with as much haste as possible and shall not be
unnecessarily delayed or cause Grantee unnecessary expense or waste of time.
a
SECTION 10. In consideration of the rights and privileges hereby granted, Grantee agrees to pay
to the City five percent of the gross revenues derived from exchange access
services, as defined in ORS 401.710 within the city limits less net uncoliectibles.
Such payments shall be made to the City every six months for the life of this
agreement on or before March 15 for the six month period ended December 31,
and September 15 for the six month period ended June 30.
Such 5% payment will be accepted by the City from the Grantee also in payment
of any license, privilege or occupation tax or fee charged for regulatory or
revenue purposes. The 5% payment is not accepted in satisfaction of payments
due to City for the failure of Grantee to perform any of Grantee's obligations
pursuant to this franchise agreement including but not limited to Grantees'
obligations to bear the cost of repairs under Section 4 and the cost of relocation
under Section 6.
The City shall have the right to change the percentage of gross revenues set forth
above, on a non-discriminatory and competitively neutral basis, at any time during
the life of this agreement provided it has made such notice in writing at least 180
days prior to the effective date of any change.
The City shall have the right to conduct, or cause to be conducted, an audit of
gross revenues as defined herein. Such audits may be conducted at two year
intervals beginning two years after the effective date of this agreement. The City
shall conduct the audit at its own expense. Any difference of payment due either
the City or Grantee through error or otherwise as agreed upon by both the City and
Grantee, shall be payable within sixty (60) days after discovery of such error.
SECTION 11. The rights, privileges and franchise hereby granted shall continue to be in full force
for a period of ten (10) years from the date this ordinance becomes effective. It is
understood and agreed that either party may terminate or renegotiate the terms of
this agreement after 180 days notice in writing. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force on the day of its passage and approval. This ordinance shall be subject
to any and all State or Federal laws and regulations.
Grantee shall not assign or transfer this franchise without the written consent of the
City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld; except that upon written
notice to the City, Grantee may assign this franchise without the City's consent to
any entity that Grantee controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with.
If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this franchise should be held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this franchise.
This franchise is subject to the provisions of applicable law, rule, or regulation,
including without limitation the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and any
applicable law, rule, or regulation. `
I
SECTION 1 2. The Grantee shall, within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this ordinance, file
with the Recorder of the City its written acM; `anco of all the terms and conditions
of the ordinance and if not so accepted by the Grantee, this ordinance shall be
void.
DATED this day of =4A,,t L , 2000.
CI OF TIGARD
GON, a Muni 'p Co r ion
By:_
ayor James ~Vicoli
ATTEST: u), V
Catherine Wheatley
City Recorder
ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE
WHEREAS, the CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, under date of , 2000
passed ORDINANCE NO. , entitled as follows, to wit:
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO NEXTLINK OREGON, INC., A WASHINGTON
CORPORATION, A FRANCHISE TO CONDUCT A TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS IN
THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO PLACE POLES, WIRES, AND
OTHER APPLIANCES FOR TELECOMMUNICATION PURPOSES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-
OF-WAY; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THIS AGREEMENT; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, NEXTLINK Oregon, Inc., the Grantee named in said
Ordinance, does for itself and its successors and assigns accept the terms, conditions and
provisions of Ordinance No. and agrees to be bound thereby and comply therewith.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, NEXTLINK Oregon, Inc. has caused this instrument to be executed
by its officers as below subscribed this day of , 2000.
NEXTLINK Oregon, inc.
By
Received by the City of Tigard
this day of .1 2000,
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO.00- a 1
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO LEVEL 3 A FRANCHISE TO CONDUCT A
TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, INCLUDING THE
RIGHT TO PLACE POLES, WIRES, AND OTHER APPLIANCES FOR TELECOMMUNICATION
PURPOSES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THIS
AGREEMENT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, The ten-year franchise for the communication facilities and services provided
by Level 3, described in the title of this ordinance is now before the City Council for
approval. The Council believes that the franchise should be approved under the terms
and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and by this reference made a part
hereof.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The terms and conditions of the attached franchise agreement, Exhibit A,
are hereby approved and adopted as part of this ordinance as if specifically
set forth.
SECTION 2. The Mayor is authorized and directed to sign the attached agreement on
behalf of the Council.
SECTION 3. Because of the need to have stable telephone communication and the need
to have a stable revenue flow to the City from franchise fees, an emergency
is declared and this ordinance shall take effect upon its passage.
SECTION 4. The City Council determines that the fee imposed by this franchise is not a
tax subject to the property tax limitations of Article XI, Section 11 (b) of the
Oregon Constitution.
PASSED: By M 'DCI ~Gj vote of all Cou~il members present after being read by
number and title only, this a3 - day of , 2000.
atherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: This day of .2000.
James-hlicoti; agor
Approved as to fo Brian Moore, Council President
City Attomey
S 275 /00
Date
i
EXHIBIT "A"
A franchise agreement between the City of Tigard and Level 3.
SECTION 1. Subject to the other terms and conditions set forth in this document there is hereby
granted by the City of Tigard to Level 3, (herein referred to as "Grantee"); its
successors and assigns; subject to the development ordinances and regulations of
the City, the right and privilege to conduct a telecommunications business within
said City, or such other public property as may come within the jurisdiction of the
City during the term of this agreement for the purpose of furnishing,
telecommunications services as defined in State and Federal Law. This grant
includes the right to erect, construct, place, replace, reconstruct, lay, maintain, and
operate poles, wires, switching equipment, amplifying equipment, fixtures, facilities,
appliances, structures and other devices including, but not limited to, electronic,
optical and mechanical devices customarily associated with Grantee's function,
and purpose of serving as a telecommunications utility.
This franchise is granted solely for the privilege of providing telecommunications
services as defined by Slate and Federal Lati:,. This franchise does not include the
right to conduct the business of providing a "cable system" as defined in applicable
law. Should the Grantee desire to provide a cable system within the City, it must
comply with the City's regulations relating to cable communications in force at that
time.
SECTION 2. It shall be lawful for Grantee to make all needful and necessary excavations in any
of said streets, alleys, avenues, thoroughfares and public highways.
SECTION 3. The Grantee shall file with the City Engineer or designee maps and materials
showing all proposed underground construction work to include the installation of
additional facilities or relocation or extension of existing facilities within any street,
alley, road or other public way or place within the corporaie limits of the City. The
City will review the materials submitted and notify the Grantee of any City
requirements. For repair work or other work not considered underground
constriction as stated above, the Grantee shall, if possible, notify the City of the
location and general description of the work before beginning work.
All work shall be done in a reasonably safe manner taking into account City
standard traffic control procedures and in accordance with requirements of
applicable federal laws, state laws, or City ordinances. In emergencies, such
filings shall be submitted within thirty (30) days of completion of emergency
construction work.
SECTION 4. When any excavation shall be made pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance,
the Grantee shall restore the portion of the street, alley, road, or public way or
place to the same condition to which it was prior to the excavation. All such work
shall be done in strict compliance with the rules, regulations, ordinances or orders
which may be adopted from time to time during the continuance of this franchise
by the City Council or City Engineer or as may be otherwise provided by law. The
City shall have the right to fix a reasonable time within which such repairs and
restoration shall be completed and upon failure of such repairs and restoration
being made by grantee, City shall cause such repairs to be made at the expense
of grantee.
SECTION 5. The Grantee hereby agrees and covenants to indemnify, save harmless and
defend the City and its officers, agents and employees from any and all damages,
costs and expenses or claims of any kind whatsoever, or nature, arising from any
injury to persons or property by reason of the negligent act or omission of the
Grantee, its agents or employees in exercising the rights and privileges granted
hereunder and by this franchise.
SECTION 6. The City, by its properly constituted authorities, shall have the right to cause the
grantee to move the location of any pole, underground conduit or equipment
belonging to grantee whenever the relocation thereof shall be for public necessity,
and the expense thereof shall be paid by the grantee. Such charges shall comply
with state statutes and administrative rules. Whenever it shall be necessary for
public necessity to remove any pole, underground conduit or equipment belonging
to grantee or on which any wire or circuit of the grantee shall be stretched or
fastened, the grantee, shall, upon written notice from the City, or its properly
constituted authorities, meet with the City Engineer and agree in writing to a plan
and date certain to remove such poles, underground conduit, equipment, wire or
circuit, at grantee's expense, and if the grantee fails, neglects or refuses to do so,
the Cit;-, by its properly constituted authorities, may remove the same at the
expense of the grantee. The costs associated with the removal, relocation or
extension of Grantee's facilities at the request of a private developer or
development shall be bome by such private developer or development.
SECTION 7. All notices and approvals required under this Agreement shall be in writing. The
Grantee shall provide the City with the name, position and phone number of
Grantee staff that can be contacted for administration of this Agreement and for
contact with construction-related questions and comments.
Such notices and approval shall be directed to the City as follows:
City Engineer. City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.. Tigard, Oregon 97223
(503) 639-4171
SECTION 8. Upon request of the City, the grantee shall provide available plans and locate any
underground conduit or equipment belonging to grantee, as required for the
preparation of construction drawings.
SECTION 9. Whenever it becomes necessary to temporarily rearrange, remove, lower or raise
the wires, cables or other plant of grantee for the passage of buildings, machinery
or other objects, grantee shall temporarily rearrange, remove, lower or raise, its
wires, cables or other plant as the necessities of the case require; provided,
however, that the person or persons desiring to move any such buildings,
machinery or other objects, shall pay the entire actual cost to grantee of changing,
altering, moving, removing or replacing its wires, cables or other plan so as to
permit such passage, and shall deposit in advance with grantee a sum equal to
such cost as estimated by grantee and shall pay all damages and claims of any
kind whatsoever, direct or consequential, caused directly or indirectly by changing,
altering, moving, removing or replacing of said wires, cables or other plant, except
as may be occasioned through the sole negligence of grantee, grantee shall be
given not less than ninety-six (96) hours written notice by the party desiring to
move such building or other objects. Said notice shall detail the route of
movement of such building or other objects over and along the streets, alleys,
avenues, thoroughfares and public hiqhways and shall bear the approval of the
City. Such moving shall be with as much haste as possible and shall not be
unnecessarily delayed or cause grantee unnecessary expense or waste of time.
SECTION 10. In consideration of the rights and privileges hereby granted, grantee agrees to pay
to the City five percent (5%) of the gross revenues derived from exchange access
services, as defined in ORS 401.710 within the city limits less net uncollectibles.
Such payments shall be made to the City every six months for the life of this
agreement on or before March 15 for the six month period ended December 31,
and September 15 for the six month period ended June 30.
Such 5% payment will be•accepted by the City from the Grantee also in payment
of any license, privilege or occupation tax or fee charged for regulatory or
revenue purposes. The 5% payment is not accepted in satisfaction of payments
due to City for the failure of Grantee to perform any of-Grantee's obligations
pursuant to this franchise agreement including but not limited to Grantees'
obligations to bear the cost of repairs under Section 4 and the cost of relocation
under Section 6.
The City shall have the right to change the percentage of gross revenues set forth
above at any time during the life of this agreement provided it has made such
notice in writing at least 180 days prior to the effective date of any change.
a The City shall have the right to conduct, or cause to be conducted, an audit of
gross revenues as defined herein. Such audits may be conducted at two year
intervals beginning two years after the effective date of this agreement. The City
shall conduct the audit at its own expense. Any difference of payment due either
i
the City or Grantee through error or otherwise as agreed upon by both the City and
Grantee, shall be payable within sixty (60) days after discovery of such error.
SECTION 11. The rights, privileges and franchise hereby granted shall continue to be in full force
for a period of ten (10) years from the date this ordinance becomes effective. It is
understood and agreed that either party may terminate or renegotiate the terms of
this agreement after 180 days notice in writing. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force on the day of its passage and approval. This ordinance shall be subject
to any and all State or Federal laws and regulations.
SECTION 12. The Grantee shall, within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this ordinance, file
with the Recorder of the City its written acceptance of all the terms and conditions
of the ordinance and if not so accepted by the Grantee, this ordinance shall be
void.
DATED this i day of I'la , 2000.
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON, a Municipal Corporation
By=
Council Present Brian Mo
ATTEST:_ ~7a
Greer A. Gaston,
CCrder- Deputy City Recorder
ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE
WHEREAS, the CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, under date of , 2000
passed ORDINANCE NO. , entitled as follows, to wit:
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO LEVEL 3 A FRANCHISE TO CONDUCT A TELECOMMUNICATIONS
BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO PLACE POLES, WIRES,
AND OTHER APPLIANCES FOR TELECOMMUNICATION PURPOSES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-
WAY; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THIS AGREEMENT; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, Level 3, the grantee named in said Ordinance, does for
itself and its successors and assigns accept the terms, conditions and provisions of Ordinance
No. and agrees to be bound thereby and comply therewith.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, has caused this instrument to
be executed by its officers as below subscribed this day of , 2000.
By
Received by the City of Tigard
i
this - day of , 2000.
i
i
f
AGENDA ITEM # u
FOR AGENDA OF 05/23/00
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Briefing - Solid Waste Franchise System Challenge
PREPARED BY: Loreen Mill ~ DEPT HEAD OK _14.hAv---- CITY MGR OK '
( IV-
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Receive briefing about the franchise system challenge by AGG and the City's short-term process plan for
response to the hauling and transportation industries.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff s short-term process will proceed as follows unless Council directs otherwise:
❖ Develop necessary franchise ordinance revisions based on AGG decision;
❖ Work with tri-county governments to develop optional plans for permitting all non-residential solid waste
collection services;
4• Meet with City's f-anchised haulers to review new franchise language & permitting plans;
❖ Develop rate amendment, if necessary, for franchised residential service; and
Return to Council for decisions to change our current process.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On 4/6/00, the U.S. District Court for Oregon issued an opinion that seriously affects the City's ability to grant
exclusive solid waste franchises. This case was brought by A.G.G. Enterprises against Washington County and
the City of Beaverton.
While the "permanent injunction" is anticipated to be signed the week of 5/15/00-5/19/00, it appears the court
decision will make the following changes in Tigard's ability to franchise solid waste & recycling services.
❖ Mixed solid waste loads which contain any recoverable recycling material will be considered "property".
As such, Tigard would not be able to deny a transportation business (i.e., AGG) from transporting mixed
waste when it is collected from a non-residential account & delivered to a sorting facility.
❖ Tigard would be prohibited from imposing standards affecting rates, franchise fees, routes, or service
standards on solid waste transportation businesses.
As you know, under the franchise system Tigard has a solid waste rate subsidy in place that allows residents to
pay a lower-than-cost rate for garbage and recycling services. Commercial and industrial customers currently
subsidize the residential rate by paying a higher rate for their services. Under this court decision, any
transportation business could come into Tigard and undercut the City's franchise rates for commercial
customers and the franchised haulers could easily lose that account. This is currently happening in other
jurisdictions.
IN 1111U
i -
Whether Tigard can successfully adjust the solid waste rates is also a question, since they may fall under the
pending Sizemore rate measure. A change in the franchise system rates will also affect the City's General
Fund. It is estimated that the General Fund would loose $164,486 next fiscal year if no new permitting process
were in place for non-residential solid waste transportation companies.
I am meeting with haulers currently franchised in Tigard, Miller's Sanitary & Pride Disposal. They have
questions about how the City will respond to this new court decision in light of the franchise contact with the
City that guarantees our haulers an exclusive right to serve accounts in their areas and earn an 8% - 12% profit
from their Tigard business. Since haulers throughout the region have the same type of questions and concerns,
staff is meeting with other tri-county agencies to develop a regional consensus in the following areas:
analyze rate impacts;
address rate-subsidy issues;
4- attempt to uniformly apply regionally the AGG case to franchised haulers as well as the transportation
companies wishing to haul solid waste; and
❖ develop a uniform permit process to protect the health and safety of citizens.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Wait to respond to the AGG case against Washington County & City of Beaverton until a similar case is
brought against Tigard.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
This will have to be determined after the City conducts its review of the case and decides on the appropriate
action for our situation. In the proposed budget, the City anticipated $234,840 in FY 00/01 revenues from solid
waste franchise fees in the General Fund. If residential is the only service line able to be franchised and the
City does not "permit" the rest of the transportation businesses, it is estimated that the General Fund would lose
$164,486 next fiscal year.
lm/docs/solid waste/AGG sum sheeCdoc
J
AGENDA ITEM # -SQS5
FOR AGENDA OF 05/23/00
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SU]vDAARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Fanno Creek Enforcement Project
PREPARED BY: Ronald D. Goodpaster DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
The issue before Council is to receive information regarding the Police Department's response to concerns
raised about transient sleepers in Fanno Creek Park.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Information only.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Police Department received numerous complaints regarding transients sleeping in Fanno Creek Park. We
have also had burglaries to our maintenance yard at Public Works on Ash Street. As a result of these issues and
concerns, we have assigned Officer Robert Rogers to a community policing project in the park. He is working
closely with the Parks Department to identify and post the problem areas with "No Camping" signs. He is also
conducting foot patrol through the park on a regular basis. Signs will be posted at the park advising that
overnight sleeping is illegal. All police reports regarding any activity at the park are being referred to Officer
Rogers for follow up.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
This community policing project addresses visioning goal community character and quality of life.
FISCAL NOTES
/ i'\citywidAqum.dcx
AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE ; May 23, 2000
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues
not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager
prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you.
NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED
VISITOR'S AGENDA Page 1
AGENDA ITEM # Jam,
FOR AGENDA OF Mgy 23, 2000
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE -Approval of salary recommendations from the
Mana ement/Su erviso /Confidential Group Job Classification and Crompee~nsat~ion Stud
PREPARED BY: Sand Zodrow DEPT HEAD OK Vy~ CITY MGR OK _
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the Council approve the salary recommendations resulting from the recently completed
Management/Supervisory/Confidential Group Employee Job Classification and Compensation Study
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve salary recommendations as presented
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City Council received a full presentation regarding the salary recommendations from this study at their
May 9, 2000 meeting. After discussing this matter, the issue was set for final Council approval at your May 23`d
Council meeting.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
As previously mentioned, the methodology utilized in this study most appropriately addresses a variety of
compensation issues, including the use of consistent internal salary relationship differentials, the establishment
of equity between positions, and a current and equitable linkage with external marketplace trends among
comparable employees. Finally, the recommendations balance the above goals and needs within the context of
the City's fiscal and budgetary realities.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
The recruitment and retention of highly qualified employees supports the delivery of many of the City's
Visioning service and project goals.
FISCAL NOTES
Budgetary impacts will be absorbed within current departniental appropriations where possible.
May 10, 2000
CITY F TIGARD
OREGON
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sandy Zodrow, Human Resources Directo
RE: Management/Supervisory/Confidential Group Employees Job Classification &
Compensation Study - Survey Results regarding Benefits
During your discussions at Study Session, May 9th, regarding the above referenced
agenda item, a question was asked about the medical benefit information that we had
collected from the other cities we surveyed. As you recall, as part of this Classification &
Compensation Study, we surveyed our seven comparable cities to gather information
regarding salaries and benefits. The cities that Tigard uses as comparables, per the
Council's direction in 1996, are Gresham, Milwaukie, Beaverton, Hillsboro, Oregon City,
West Linn and Lake Oswego.
The attached sheet summarizes the benefit information that we collected and
specifically, the health insurance costs, and employee co-pay (if any) from these seven
jurisdictions. Benefits for the City of Tigard are shown at the end of the page.
At this time, the Classification & Compensation Study Task Force (Department
Directors, Assistant to City Manager, Human Resources) is discussing some benefit
issues in greater detail, such as deferred compensation, retirement, leave and possibly
an exceptional performance award. It is anticipated that this information and any
proposals would be presented to Council at a later date.
I hope this provides your Council with the information you needed.
Thank you for your consideration.
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 -
llli
City of Tigard Benefit Survey Summary 2-Mar-00
Management, Supervisory and Confidential Employees
AGENCY POP. #OFEes MED/YSN DENTAL CAFE RETIREMNTPLAN LIFEINS. DEF. BONUS? ADDS OTHER
TOTAL/ (FAMILY) (FAMILY) PLAN? CITY % Ee % COMP BENES
bIGMT CIT lEe CITY UNDER
CONTRIB CONSIDERATION
Gresham 87,500 5501110 $390.95 $98.70 No 14.13% 0.00% 1X annual None No Pending results
of mgmt study
wfin 3-t mos
Hillsboro 69,670 485/328 $345.45 $102.64 No 9.97% 6.00% lOk None No No
(on salary)
Beaverton 68,700403/103 $551.41 $129.33 No 12.36% 0.00%59K/dept None No Yes - program
$31.81 directors not developed
40K/Others
others
Lake 34,286 300/75 $476.87 $101.35 No 15% 0% 10K None Yes' No -bonus step ifec topped
Oswego out for exceptional perfommnce
or special projcct/progtun
Oregon 22,560 140/22 $448.58 $99.76 No 18.58% 0.00% 50K Ee None No No Mgmt used to have
city $23.08 2K family longevity-no more
$200 car allowance
dept. directors
West Linn 21,405 125/35 $471.69 $76.25 No 0% 75% ann. Sal 3% dept No
max. 50K directors
Milwaukie 20,850 136/35 $387.71 $60.51 No 16.90% 0.00% 1X arm Match to No
$96.24 $15.74 max 50K $500 per
l OK prof. FY
i
3. -
S/a.3/Uu
Management Class/Comp. Salary Adjustments
Summary by Department/Division
Department Division Salary Benefits Total
Police Administration 971 198 1,169
Operations 3,659 803 4,462
Support Services 1,625 269 1,894
Total 6,255 1,270 7,525
Library Technical Services 2,116 431 2,547
Circulation 2,700 550 3,250
Total 4,816 981 5,797
Public Works Parks & Grounds 4,597 1,091 5,688
Administration 1,794 366 2,160
Sanitary Sewer 2,258 490 2,748
Storm Sewer 2,258 490 2,748
Street Maintenance 4,570 1,078 5,648
Water 6,482 1,418 7,900
Total 21,959 4,933 26,892
Community Development Administration 4,278 858 5,136
Current Planning 3,065 625 3,690
Long Range Planning 3,341 681 4,022
Total 10,684 2,164 12,848
City Administration 991 202 1,193
Network Services 3,478 720 4,198
Finance Financial Operations 1,048 213 1,261
Grand Total 49,231 10,483 59,714
Impacts 31 employees
AGENDA ITEM # . a
FOR AGENDA OF May 23.2000
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approval of a Cost of Living Adjustment for Management/Supervisory/Confidential
Group Employees effective July 1 2000 and Amendment of the Salary Schedule
PREPARED BY: Sand Zodrow DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK _
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the Council approve an annual cost of living salary adjustment for
Management/Supervisory/Confidential Group Employees to be effective July 1, 2000
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to Council direction at their May 90' meeting, approve the cost of living adjustment
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Approximately 75 employees belong to the Management/Supervisory/Confidential Employees Group and are
not represented by a collective bargaining agreement. Each fiscal year before the final adoption of the budget,
the City Council considers and makes a determination on a cost of living increase (COLA) for this group of
employees to be effective July 1. The last COLA adjustment made from this group was July 1, 1999. The City
is currently negotiating with the Tigard Police Officer's Association (TPOA), however its OPEU bargaining
unit will be receiving a 2.6% increase effective July 1, 2000 pursuant to its contract requirements. A cost of
living adjustment assists the City in maintaining a competitive market position with regard to its salary plan. In
prior years Council has considered this matter and elected to provide a cost of living adjustment for the
Management Group which matches the OPEU bargaining unit cost of living adjustment projected for July 1.
Your Council considered this matter at their May 9 h meeting. This agenda item reflects Council's direction at
that time.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Not applicable
FISCAL NOTES
Fiscal impact will be dependent upon the amount of any adjustment
i.\ciWMde\sum.dot
AGENDA ITEM # 3, 3
FOR AGENDA OF 5/23/00
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Lincoln Street Improvements CDBG Agreement
PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK #A,60,ryGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City enter into an agreement with Washington County accepting Community Development Block
Grant fiends for improvements to Lincoln Avenue?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The CDBG Policy Action Board has selected the City's Lincoln avenue, phase II, project proposal for 2000-01 Elm
grant funding. The board's fiscal year project list has been approved by the Washington County
Commissioners. The Tigard-sponsored project is the second phase of the Lincoln Street Pedestrian
Improvements project. The first phase, currently underway, includes sidewalk, curb, pavement widening, and
storm drainage improvements on one side of Lincoln Avenue between Greenburg Road and Commercial Street.
The present project will provide the same improvements to the other side of Lincoln Avenue. A copy of the
contract is available in the City Recorder's office.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None considered.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
The Action Plan under Transportation and Traffic Goal #3 calls for an examination of new funding sources. -
FISCAL NOTES
The grant funding is $120.000. The proposed City contribution to the project includes in-kind design and
management services and $89,500 in hard dollars. The $89,500 will come from gas tax revenues. The total
grant funds awarded for the two phases of the Lincoln project is $286,800.
is\citywide\sum\cdbg.wntract.l incoln
L^1i CP
L V 11- / I I
v. v
0//(7 / '(I 'c fn .c
1 16 into
AGREEMENT
between
WASHINGTON COUNTY
and
CITY OF TIGARD
This Agreement, entered into this _ day of , 2000, between Washington
County, a municipality of the State of Oregon (hereinafter referred to as the "County"),
and the City of Tigard, (hereinafter referred to as the "City"):
RECITALS
A. The County is an urban county applicant for Block Grant funds under the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act), 42 USC 301 et seq as
amended, and the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, and will receive Block
Grant funds for the purpose of carrying out eligible community development and
housing activities under the Acts and under regulations promulgated by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) at 24 CFR Part 570;
B. The County and various cities within the County, including the City, have agreed
to cooperate in the undertaking of essential community development and housing
activities;
C. The County desires to have certain services performed by the City as described
within this Agreement for the purpose of implementing eligible activities under the
Act and HUD regulations;
D. It is appropriate and mutually desirable that the City be designated by the County
to undertake the aforementioned eligible activities, so long as the requirements of
the Act, HUD regulations, state law and local law are adhered to, as provided for
herein;
E. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the cooperation between the
County and the City, as the parties in this Agreement, in implementing such
eligible activities in the manner described above;
F. The parties are authorized and empowered to enter into this Agreement by ORS
190.010 et seg., by the Constitution of the State of Oregon; and
G. Therefore, in consideration of the payments, covenants, and agreements
hereinafter mentioned and to be made and performed by the parties hereto, the
parties mutually covenant and agree as provided for in this Agreement.
ccfnr-898
2143TigardLinSt
Page 1 of 26
11 15
CITY WASHINGTON COUNTY
-nature - MAVolz Chairman, Board of County
.5aYO- Commissioners
C~--E~-ena ne-
Signature • G ~y '/~e ~v~d Recording Secretary
7 i~xd '
~Q-u a3, avvD
Da# Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Attorney for the Washington County Office of Community
Development
ccfnr-898
Page 2 of 26
INDEX TO CONTRACT AGREEMENT
PART I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Scope of Agreement and Applicability to Terms and Conditions of this
Agreement
2. Scope of Services
3. Commencement and Termination of Projects
4. Administration
5. Operating Budget
6. Compensation and Method of Payment
7. Interest in Property
8. Funding Alternatives and Future Support
9. Amendments
10. Assignment and Subcontracting
11. Hold Harmless and Indemnification
12. Conflict of Interest
13. Default and Suspension
14. Enforcement
15. Appeal
16. Termination
17. Prohibition on the Use of Debarred Contractors
18. Attorney Fees and Costs
19. Extensions
ccfnr-898
2143TigardLinSt
Page 3 of 26
PART II. FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
1. Procurement Standards
2. Environmental Review
3. Nondiscrimination
4. Property Management
5. Labor Standards
6. Acquisition and Relocation
7. Architectural Barriers
8. Nonparticipation in Political Activities
9. NonsubF-titution for Local Funding
10. Public Information
11. Applicability of Laws Under This Agreement
12. Certification Regarding Lobbying
13. Certification Regarding Use of Excessive Force
Part Ili. EVALUATION AND RECORD KEEPING
1. Evaluation
2. Audits and Inspections
3. Records
4. Retention of Records
PART IV.SPECIAL CONDITIONS
ccfnr-898
2143TigardLinSt
Page 4 of 26
PART V. EXH I BITS
A. Project Description, Scope of Activities and Anticipated
Accomplishments
B. Authorized Signature Card
C. Budget Summary
I
,
s
a
a
ccfnr-898
® 2143TigardUnSt
Page 5 of 26
PART I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT AND APPLICABILITY TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS
OF THIS AGREEMENT
A. This Agreement shall consist of the signature page, the general and special
conditions; the federal, state and local program requirements; the evaluation
and record keeping requirements; each and every project exhibit incorporated
in the Agreement; all matters and laws incorporated by reference herein; and
any written amendments made according to the general conditions. This
Agreement supersedes any and all former agreements applicable to projects
attached as exhibits to this Agreement.
B. Depending upon the specific nature of the project, services or purposes for
which Block Grant funds are being provided pursuant to this Agreement,
certain terms and conditions contained herein may be made inapplicable by
their express citation in Part IV, Special Conditions. Except as so expressly
excluded, all terms and conditions contained herein have full application,
force and effect.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. The City shall perform and carry out in a satisfactory and proper manner the
services set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto which specifies work to be
performed. The Agreement may be amended from time to time in accordance
with the general conditions for the purpose of amending the scope of work or
for any other lawful purpose.
B. Any conflict or dispute that may arise with regard to any aspect of CDBG
activities for the project shall be resolved by the County's interpretation of the
specifications contained in the original project proposal, the current Program
Policies, and the County's Office of Community Development CDBG
Procedures Manual. Any such determinatic~t made by the County shall be
final.
3. COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION OF PROJECTS
A_ Upon release of project-related funds by HUD pursuant to 24 CFR Part 58.70,
the County shall furnish the City with written notice to proceed. No work on
the project shall occur prior to the receipt of written notice to proceed from the
County.
ccfnr-898
2143TigardLinSt
Page 6 of 26
B. All project funds shal! be obligated and expended within the project year
unless the County and the City agree to an amendment extending project
activities beyond the Project Year. For the purposes of this Agreement,
"Project Year" shall mean the period from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001.
C. Any property acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds shall
be used to meet one of the national objectives set forth in 24 CFR 570.208 for
a period of twenty (20) years or until June 30, 2020 unless otherwise modified
in writing by the parties to this contract.
4. ADMINISTRATION
A. The City shall appoint a liaison person who shall be responsible for overall
administration of Block Grant funded project(s) and coordination with the
County's Office of Community Development. The name of the liaison person
shall be specified in writing and submitted to the County's Office of
Community Development. The City shall also designate one or more
representatives who shall be authorized by the City to sign the Voucher
Request and any other forms which may be required. The names of these
representatives shall be specified in Exhibit B.
B. This Agreement is subject to and supplemental to the Agreement of
Intergovernmental Cooperation entered into between the County and
participating municipalities.
5. OPERATING BUDGET
A. The City shall expend the funds received from the County under this
Agreement in accordance with the budget summary submitted by the City to,
and approved by, the County. S_!ci,':udget summary is attached to this
Agreement as Exhibit C. No line item expense in the approved budget shall
be changed without a budget revision approved by the County's Office of
Community Development. The budget revision shall specifically state the
reasons for the requested increase and a justification for the corresponding
decrease in another line item. Budget revision(s) must be approved by OCD
before any costs are incurred by the City.
B. The difference between the approved budget amount on a budget line item
and a lower or higher bid or quote, in any line item, sha!I be reported to the
County. Excess funds generated by a lower bid or quote shall be considered
3 surplus. The City may submit a budget revision requesting the use of any
such surplus, which shall be approved or denied at the discretion of the OCD.
ccfnr-898
2143TigardLinSt
Page 7 of 26
C. Matching funds identified in Exhibit C shall mean all funds from non-CDBG
sources, including in-kind contributions of staff and materials, other grant
sources, charitable contributions, volunteer labor, donated materials and
services, and similar items of value to the project. Matching funds shall be
used for project purposes, and shall be included within the scope of Audits
and Inspections conducted under Part III, Section 2 of this Agreement.
Increases in matching funds shall be reported to County and the Operating
Budget shall be revised accordingly by the OCD.
D. No later than 90 days from the date the County approves the proposed list of
activities, which includes this project, the City shall submit to the County's
Office of Community Development written evidence that substantiates the
matching funds pledged by the City are available. The availability of pledged
funds means all approvals, guarantees, or third party commitments from
subrecipients or cosponsors, have been received and will enable the City to
officially obligate those matching funds. In the event the City fails to submit
such evidence or the evidence is deemed by the County to be unacceptable,
the County may exercise its termination options under Part I Section 14 of this
agreement.
6. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT
A. Subject to the availability of funds from HUD, the County shall reimburse the
City for the services specified in Exhibit A. Reimbursement shall be requested by
the City by submitting a Community Development Voucher Request (OCD Form 2)
and a Program Accomplishments reporting form (OCD Form 3); the forms are to be
signed by the City's authorized representatives in a manner prescribed by the
County.
B. The County will make payment to the City within two (2) weeks or as soon as
practicable after said invoice is received and approved by the Washington County
Office of Community Development.
7. INTEREST IN PROPERTY
A. Real Property - In accordance with HUD Regulation 24 CFR, 570.503(b)(8),
upon expiration of this agreement the City shall transfer to the County any CDBG
funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts receivable attributable to
the use of CDBG funds. Real property under the City's control that was acquired or
improved in whole or in part in excess of $25,000 will be used to (1) meet its
original national objective for the time period specified in Part I Section 3.C of this
agreement; or (2) disposed of in a manner that results in reimbursement to the
County in the amount equal to the current fair market value less any portions
ccfnr-898
2143TigardLinSt
Page 8 of 26
attributable to expenditure of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement
to, the property.
B. Personal Property - Any personal property on hand at the time of the
expiration of the project year of this Agreement shall be disposed of in accordance
with 24 CFR 85.32.
C. Program Income
(1) The City shall record the receipt and expenditure of program income as
defined in 24 CFR 570.500(x) of the financial transactions of the project(s)
funded under this Agreement. Program income shall be reported with
each voucher request and substantially disbursed for the benefit of the
project(s) funded by this Agreement in accordance with the principles of 24
CFR 570.504 (b)(2)(i) and (ii). Program income which is not used to
continue or benefit such project(s) shall revert back to the Block Grant
Fund for reallocation by the County.
(2) The City may retain program income provided it is used in accordance with
regulations in 24 CFR 570.504, and pursuant to adopted local CDBG
program policies. The County shall determine whether income is being
used to continue or benefit a project or projects authorized by this
Agreement.
(3) Program income on hand when the Agreement expires and received after
the Agreement's expiration must be used by the subrecipient to meet its
original national objective for the time period specified in Part I Section 3.C.
of this Agreement. The County may transfer the program income to the
City, upon its termination of urban county participation provided the City
has become an entitlement grantee and agrees to use the program income
in its own CDBG entitlement program.
D. Appraisals, Promissory Note and Trust Deed
(1) For any real property acquired, constructed or rehabilitated with CDBG
funds, the City shall provide the County with an appraisal of the property.
The appraisal shall be conducted by a certified appraiser whose services
shall be paid for by the City. The purpose of such an appraisal is to: (a)
conform to any federal real property acquisition requirements, and/or (b) to
establish a baseline figure for the purpose of entering into a promissory
note and trust deed as specified below. The appraisal shall be conducted
within 45 days of notification to do so by the County.
ccfnr-898
2143Tigardl_inSt
Page 9 of 26
(2) City shall execute a Promissory Note and Trust Deed for any facility
constructed, acquired or rehabilitated with Community Development Block
Grant funds. The Promissory Note and Trust deed shall be executed at
such time as required by the County.
(3) City agrees to comply with all agreements, covenants and restrictions
contained in the Promissory Note and Trust Deed, and all applicable
federal, state and local regulations during the terms of the Promissory Note
and Trust Deed.
8. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES AND FUTURE SUPPORT
A. The County makes no commitment to future support and assumes no
obligation for future support of the activities contracted for herein, except as
expressly set forth in this Agreement.
B. Should anticipated sources of revenue not become available to the County
for use in the Community Development Program, the County shall
immediately notify the City in writing, and the County will be released from
all contracted liability for that portion of the Agreement covered by funds not
received by the County.
9. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement shall be modified by the parties only upon written amendment.
10. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING
A. The City shall not enter into any contracts under this Agreement without the
written approval of the County. Such consent shall be requested 15 days
prior to the date of proposed assignment.
B. The County shall assume no liability for acts and omissions of contractors
or subcontractors employed by the City.
11. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION
The City agrees to defend, save, hold harmless and indemnify the County, its
commissioners, employees and agents for any and all claims, damages, losses
and expenses, including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees, arising out
of or resulting from its own negligence, performance of or failure to perform the
obligations of any agreement resulting from this Agreement.
ccfnr-898
2143TigardUnSt
Page 10 of 26
12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
A. Interest of Officers, Employees, or Agents - No officer, employee, or agent
of the County or City who exercises any functions or responsibilities in
connection with the planning and carrying out of the Block Grant Program,
or any other person who exercises any functions or responsibilities in
connection with the Program, shall have any personal financial interest,
direct or indirect, in this Agreement and the City shall take appropriate
steps to assure compliance.
B. Interest of Subcontractor and Their Employees - The City agrees that it will
incorporate into every'subcontract required to be in writing and made
pursuant to this Agreement the following provision:
The Contractor covenants that no person who presently exercises
any functions or responsibilities in connection with the Block Grant
Program, has any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Contract. The Contractor further covenants that he presently
has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect,
which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance
of his services hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that in
the performance of this Contract no person having any conflicting
interest shall be employed. Any interest on the part of the
Contractor or his employees must be disclosed to the City or the
County.
13. DEFAULT AND SUSPENSION
A. Each of the following events shall constitute a default on the part of the
City:
(1) Material noncompliance with the terms of this contract, the Award,
any and all applicable state or federal laws and regulations;
(2) Mismanagement or improper use of Award funds;
(3) Failure to obligate required funds or to provide work or services
i
expressed by this Agreement;
(4) Failure to submit reports, supplying incomplete or inaccurate reports
required by Part III herein.
a
ccfnr-898
2143TigardLinSt
Page 11 of 26
111111=1- Jill I I
B. Each of the following events shall constitute a default on the part of the
County:
(1) Material noncompliance with the terms of this contract, the Award,
any and all applicable state and federal laws and regulations;
(2) Failure to provide funding for services rendered as required by this
contract and law.
14. ENFORCEMENT
A. In the event the City is found in default under the terms of this agreement
the County may:
(1) Withhold any or all of any pending or future payments until the
default is cured;
(2) Suspend all or part of this Contract or Award herein;
(3) Prohibit the City from incurring additional obligations of funds until
the County notifies the City in writing that the default is cured;
(4) Disallow or deny both the use of funds and matching credit of the
activity or action not in compliance;
(5) Take any and all other legal or equitable remedies available.
B. Any costs attributed to the program which were lawfully incurred prior to
any suspension or termination will be considered properly incurred. Any
costs attributed to the program during or after any suspension or
termination are specifically not allowed without express written consent by
the County.
15. APPEAL
In the event the County takes an action to enforce the terms of this Contract, the
Award or to enforce compliance with applicable state and federal law, the City may
appeal such action in the manner provided in this section as follows:
(1) The County shall provide the City with written notice of the default and the
right to cure, if any;
(2) The City may pursue an informal appeal by contacting the Manager of the
Office of Community Development.
ccfnr-898
2143TigardLinSt
Page 12 of 26
(3) The City may appeal the informal decision of the Manager by submitting a
written objection of the enforcement action directly to the Community
Development Policy Advisory Board (PAB).
(a) The PAB may consider oral argument, written testimony and any
other such evidence it considers relevant to a determination.
(b) The PAB shall consider all information and reach a determination
based upon the record submitted and prepare a written finding:
(c) The City shall have the opportunity to provide oral testimony if a
hearing is conducted. If a formal hearing is not held the City shall
have the opportunity to submit written objections, arguments and
other material relevant to its position.
(d) The findings of the PAB are final and no further appeal is allowed.
16. TERMINATION
A. This contract shall terminate upon any of the following events:
(1) Termination following default as defined previously;
(2) The failure by the County to provide funding for services rendered as
required by this Agreement;
(3) The unavailability of Block Grant funds from either the federal
government or through the County.
B. This Agreement will terminate upon thirty days written notice by the County in
the event funding is no longer available.
C. Upon termination of this Agreement, any unexpended balance of Agreement
funds shall remain with the County. The regulations relating to
reimbursement of Block Grant funds shall be applicable to the City for
expended funds.
D. The City shall reimburse the County for any and all funds expended in
violation of the terms of this Agreement, state or federal law.
ccfnr-898 d
2143Tigardi inSt
Page 13 of 26
17. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF DEBARRED CONTRACTORS
CDBG funds shall not be used directly or indirectly to employ, award contracts to, or
otherwise engage the services of, or fund any contractor or subrecipient during any
period of debarment, suspension, or placement in ineligibility status under the
provisions of 24 CFR Part 24. The City shall not make any award at any tier to any
party which is debarred, suspended or excluded from participation in federal assistance
programs under Executive Order 12549, "Debarment and Suspension."
18. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon and federal law.
Any action or suit commenced in connection with this Agreement shall be in the Circuit
Court of Washington County. The prevailing party, either in Circuit Court or on appeal,
shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs and disbursements as awarded
by the Court.
19. EXTENSIONS
If in the determination of the Office of Community Development (OCD) a time extension
is necessary or appropriate, an extension of the term of agreement for an additional
period may be granted to the City by the County's Office of Community Development
provided the City requests such an extension, in writing, at least two (2) weeks prior to
the last expiration date contained in this Agreement. Additional extension(s) may be
granted by the OCD Program Manager in case of extenuating circumstances.
ccfnr-898
2143TigardLinSt
Page 14 of 26
PART II. FEDERAL. STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
1. PROCUREMENT STANDARDS
A. In awarding contracts pursuant to this Agreement, the City shall comply with
all applicable requirements of local and state law for awarding contracts,
including but not limited to procedures for competitive bidding, contractor's
bonds, and retained percentages. In addition, the City shall comply with the
requirements of the 24 CFR Part 85.36 and Part 85.37, relating to bonding,
insurance and procurement standards; and with Executive Order 11246 and
the regulations issued pursuant thereto (41 CFR Chapter 60) regarding
nondiscrimination bid conditions for projects over $25,000.
B. The City agrees to submit copies of all contracts, agreements, plans,
specifications and change orders related to the project to the County's Office
of Community Development in a timely manner. No plan specification or
change order shall be used or implemented if it increases the total project
cost without approval from the Office of Community Development.
C. The City shall make available to each contractor bidding on any activity
under this Agreement a listing of minority business enterprises (MBEs).
2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A. The County retains environmental review responsibility for purposes of
fulfilling requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act as
implemented by HUD Environmental Review Procedures (24 CFR Part 58).
The County shall require the City to furnish data, information and assistance
for the County's review and assessment in fulfillment of the County's
responsibilities under 24 CFR, Part 58.
B. The City shall not proceed with the acquisition of real property or any
construction activities under this Agreement until satisfaction of all
applicable requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
C. Other Environmental Compliance Requirements:
ccfnr-898
2143TigardLinSt
Page 15 of 26
IM MM
(1) Historic Preservation. The City shall meet the historic preservation
requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
(Public Law 89-665) and the Archeological and Historic
Preservation Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-291) and Executive Order
11593; including the procedures prescribed by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation in the regulations at 36 CFR Part
800. Activities affecting property listed in or found to be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be subject
to requirements set forth in HUD Environmental Review
Procedures at 24 CFR Part 58.
(2) National Flood Insurance. The City shall not receive Community
Development Block Grant funding for acquisition or construction.for
use in any area that has been identified as having special flood
hazards and is not participating in the National Flood Insurance
Program, as provided by Section 3(a) and 202 (a) of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 USC 400(a) and 4106) and the
regulations thereunder (44 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter B, and 24
CFR, Section 570.605.
(3) Air and Water Pollution. The City shall comply with the provisions of
the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 USC Section [1857] 7401 et seg.)
and the regulations issued thereunder (40 CFR Part 15) and the
Water Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.
(4) Lead-Based Paint Poisoning. Pursuant to 24 CFR, 570.608 the City
shall comply with the HUD Lead-Based Paint Regulations (24 CFR
Part 35) issued pursuant to the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning
Prevention Act, as amended, (42 USC Sections 3535(d), 4821, and
4851 et seq.) requiring prohibition of the use of lead-based paint
whenever funds under this Agreement are used directly or indirectly for
acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, or modernization; elimination of
immediate lead-based paint hazards in residential structures; and
notification of the hazards in residential structures; and notification of
the hazards of lead-based paint poisoning to purchasers and tenants of
residential structures constructed prior to 1978.
3. NONDISCRIMINATION
A. General. The City shall comply with all federal, state and local laws prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of age, sex, familial status, race, creed, color, national
origin, or disability. These requirements are specified in Section 109 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 "as amended"; Civil Rights Act
of 1964, Title VI (42 USC 2000d et seq.); Civil Rights Act of 1968, Title VIII (42
ccfnr-898
2143TigardLinSt
Page 16 of 26
USC 3601 et seq.); Executive Order 11063, as amended by Executive Order
12259; Executive Order 11246 and the regulations issued pursuant thereto (41
CFR Chapter 60); Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968
(12 USC 1701 u); and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 USC 794);
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 USC 12101); and the Age Discrimination
Act of 1975 (42 USC 6101 et seq.). Specifically, the City is prohibited from taking
any discriminatory actions defined in the HUD regulations at 24 CFR
570.602(b)(1)-(3) and shall take such affirmative and corrective actions as required
by the regulations at CFR 570.602(b)(4). These requirements are summarized in
the following paragraphs:
(1) Program Benefit. The City shall not discriminate against any resident of the
project service area by denying benefit from or participation in any Block
Grant funded activity on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin,
disability, age, and familial status. (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI; Civil
Rights Act of 1968, Title VIII; Section 109, Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974; Age Discrimination Act 1975; Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 USC 12101); Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of
1973.)
(2) Fair Housing. The City shall take necessary and appropriate actions to
prevent discrimination in federally assisted housing and lending practices
related to loans insured or guaranteed by the Federal Government. (Civil
Rights Act of 1968, Title VIII, as amended; Executive Order 11063, as
amended by Executive Order 12259.)
(3) Employment.
(a) In all solicitations under this Agreement the City shall state that all
qualified applicants will be considered for employment. The words,
"Equal Opportunity Employer" in all advertisements shall constitute
compliance with this Section.
(b) The City shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment in connection with the Agreement because of age, sex,
familial status, disability, race, creed, color or national origin, except
when there is a bona fide occupational limitation. The City shall not
refuse to hire, employ or promote, or bar, discharge, dismiss, reduce
in compensation, suspend, demote, or discriminate in work activities,
terms or conditions because an individual has a physical or mental
disability in any employment in connection with this Agreement unless
I it can be shown that the particular disability prevents the performance
I of the work involved. Such action shall include, but not be limited to
the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer,
ccfnr-898
2143TigardLinSt
Page 17 of 26
recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of
pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training.
(Executive Order 11246 as amended; and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) (42
USC 12101); and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.)
(c) This Agreement is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 USC 1701u), as
amended, the HUD regulations issued pursuant thereto at 24 CFR
Part 135, and any applicable rules and orders of HUD issued
thereunder prior to the HUD authorization of the funding approval.
(4) Persons With Disabilities. As required by 24 CFR, Part 8.51 the City shall
conduct a self-evaluation and take corrective action to ensure reasonable
accommodation in programs and services to persons with disabilities. The
City shall provide County with a completed self- evaluation checklist, in the
form set forth in County's CDBG Procedures Manual.
(5) Contractors and Suppliers
(a) No contractor, subcontractor, union or vendor engaged in any activity
under this Agreement shall discriminate in the sale of materials,
equipment or labor on the basis of age, sex, familial status, race,
creed, color, or national origin. No contractor, subcontractor, union or
vendor engaged in any activity under this Agreement shall refuse to
hire, employ or promote, or bar, discharge, dismiss, reduce in
compensation, suspend, demote or discriminate in work activities,
terms or conditions because an individual has a physical or mental
disability in any employment in connection with this Agreement unless
it can be shown that the particular disability prevents the performance
of the work involved. Such practices include upgrading, demotion,
recruiting, transfer, layoff, termination, pay rate, and advertisement for
employment. (Executive Order 11246 as amended; and Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the Age Discrimination Act of
1975.)
(b) To the greatest extent feasible, the City shall purchase supplies and
services for activities under this Agreement from vendors and
contractors whose businesses are located in the area served by the
Block Grant funded activities or owned in substantial part by project
area residents. (Section 3, Housing and Community Development Act
of 1968, as amended.)
ccfnr-898
2143TigardUnSt
Page 18 of 26
B. In the event of noncompliance by the City with any nondiscrimination provisions of
this Agreement, the County shall have the right in whole or in part to cancel this
Agreement in accordance with Part I, Section 14.
4. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
The City, as a subgrantee, agrees that any property, equipment, or supplies purchased
wholly or in part with program funds shall be managed under the same guidelines
applicable to the County, pursuant to 24 CFR Part 85.
5. LABOR STANDARDS
A. The City shall require that project construction and subcontractors pay their
laborers and mechanics at wage rates in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, as
amended (40 USC sections 276(a)-276(a)(5), and that they comply with the
Copeland "Anti-Kickback" Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276(c) and the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.) as further prescribed
at 29 CFR Parts 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7; provided that this section shall not apply to
rehabilitation of residential property designed for residential use by less than eight
units, or to rehabilitation of rental property consisting of less than twelve units.
B. A copy of the current Davis-Bacon wages must be included in all construction bid
specifications and/or contracts over $2,000.
6. ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
A. Any acquisition of real property by a unit of government for any activity assisted
under this Agreement shall comply with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 amended as Title IV of the
Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (hereinafter
referred to as the Uniform Relocation Act) (42 USC 4601 et seq.) and the
Regulations at 24 CFR Part 42 as amended effective April 2, 1987.
B. Any displacement of persons, business, nonprofit organizations or farms as a result
of acquisition of real property assisted under this Agreement shall comply with Title
II of the Uniform Act and the regulations at 24 CFR Part 42. The City shall comply
with the regulations pertaining to costs of relocation at 24 CFR Section 570.606
and the Washington County CDBG Program Policies.
7. ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS
Any facility constructed or altered pursuant to this Agreement shall comply with design
requirements of the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS).
ccfnr-898
2143TigardLinSt
Page 19 of 26
8. NONPARTICIPATION IN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
The City shall comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act (5 USC Chapter 15).
9. NONSUBSTITUTION FOR LOCAL FUNDING
The Block Grant funding made available under this Agreement shall not be utilized by
the City to reduce substantially the amount of local financial support for community
development activities below the level of such support prior to the availability of funds
under this Agreement.
10. PUBLIC INFORMATION
A. All written materials (reports, brochures, promotional or informational items), news
releases, and other public notices produced by or for the City shall acknowledge
the source of funding as being derived from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development and provided through the Washington County Community
Development Block Grant Program.
B. For all construction projects exceeding $50,000, the City shall erect a durable and
adequately visible sign at the construction site, identifying the source of funds.
Any signage placed on a sponsored sight shall conform to the specifications
detailed in the County's Office of Community Development Procedures Manual.
11. APPLICABILITY OF LAWS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT
To the extent applicable to the City's acceptance and use of funds under this Agreement,
the City shall comply with the policies, guidelines and Uniform Administrative
Requirements of OMB Circulars A-87, A-128, (implemented at 24 CFR, Part 44), and 24
CFR, Part 85 (implemented at 24 CFR, Part 570.502).
12. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
The City certifies, by affixing its authorized signature(s) to this agreement that, to the
best of the City's knowledge and belief:
A. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of
the City, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or
employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the
entering into this cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of this cooperative agreement.
ccfnr-898
2143TigardUnSt
L Page 20 of 26
B. If any funds other than Federally appropriated funds have been paid or will be
paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or
employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Mernber of Congress in connection with this
cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard
Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its
instructions. (Available through the Office of Community Development.)
C. The City shall require that the language of this certification be included in the
award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants,
and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all
subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
13. CERTIFICATION REGARDING USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE
The City in accordance with Section 519 of Public Law 101-144, 1990 HUD
Appropriations Act, certifies by affixing its authorized signature(s) to this agreement that
the City will not use excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction
against anv individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations.
ccfnr-898
2143TigardUnSt
Page 21 of 26
PART III. EVALUATION AND RECORD KEEPING
1. EVALUATION
The City agrees to participate with the County in any evaluation project or
performance report, as designed by the County or the appropriate federal agency,
and to make available all information required by any such evaluation process.
2. AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS
A. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this
Agreement shall be subject at all times to inspection, review or audit by the
County, federal or state officials so authorized by law during the performance of
this Agreement and during the period of records retention specified in this Part III
at paragraph 4.
B. The City shall be responsible for meeting the audit requirements established
in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. Upon request of
the County's Office of Community Development, the City shall be required to
provide audit information relative to any project or activity funded under the terms
of this Agreement.
3. RECORDS
In the event the City sponsors multiple projects, each project shall be maintained
under a separate file system and kept in a manner recommended by the County.
As required by HUD regulations, the City shall compiie and maintain records as
indicated:
A. Financial Management - Such records shall identify adequately the source
and application of funds for activities within this Agreement in accordance with the
provisions of 24 CFR Part 85.20. These records shall contain information
pertaining to grant awards and authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances,
assets, liabilities, outlays, and income.
B. Citizen Participation - Narrative and other documentation describing the
process Used to inform citizens concerning the amount of funds available, the
ranges of project activities undertaken, and opportunities to participate in funded
Block Grant projects.
ccfnr-898
2143TigardLinSt
Page 22 of 25
C. Relocation - City recordkeeping must comply with the Uniform Act
implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 42. Indication of the overall status of the
relocation workload and separate relocation record for each person, business,
organization, and farm operation displaced or in the relocation workload must be
kept.
D. Real Property Acquisition - If the City acquires real property by exercising its
power of eminent domain, City acquisition files must contain the following records:
(1) Identification of property and property owners.
(2) Official Determination to Acquire - A citation of the action that constitutes
the official determination to acquire, the date of the action, and the
applicable CDBG project number.
(3) Notice of Intent to Acquire the Property - A copy of the notice (including
owner's rights), citation of the date of.transmittal to owner, and evidence of
receipt by the owner. If tenants are involved, then a general notice must
also be issued to all affected tenants.
(4) Preliminary Acquisition Notice - A citation of the date of transmittal to the
owner and evidence of receipt by owner.
(5) Invitation to Accompany Appraiser - Evidence that owner was invited to
accompany each appraiser on his inspection of the property.
(6) Appraisal Reports - A copy of each appraisal report, including reviewer's
report, on which determination of just compensation was based.
(7) Determination of Just Compensation - A copy of the resolution,
certification, motion or other document constituting the determination of just
compensation.
(8) Purchase Offer - A copy of written purchase offer of just compensation,
including all basic terms and conditions of such offer, and a citation of the
date of delivery to the owner. This date is the initiation of negotiations and
triggers the relocation requirement of making a "Notice of Displacement".
(9) Statement of the Basis for the Determination of Just Compensation - A
copy of the statement and an indication that it was delivered to the owner
with written purchase offer.
cctnr-808
r
2143TigardUnSt
Page 23 of 26
(10) Purchase Agreement, copy of recorded Deed, Declaration of Taking, Title
Report, Title exceptions - A copy of each such document and any similar or
related document utilized in conveyance.
(11) Settlement Cost Reporting Statement - A signed copy of the statement.
(12) Purchase of Price Receipt - Evidence of owner receipt of purchase price
payment.
(13) Copy of any appeal or complaint and City response.
E. Equal Opportunity - The City will maintain racial, ethnic, and gender data showing
the extent to which these categories of persons have participated in, or benefitted
from, the activities carried out under this Agreement. The City shall also maintain
data which records its affirmative action in equal opportunity employment, and its
good faith efforts to identify, train, and/or hire lower-income residents of the
project area and to utilize business concerns which are located in or owned in
substantial part by persons residing in the area of the project.
F. Labor Standards - Records shall be maintained regarding compliance of all
contractors performing construction work under this Agreement with the labor
standards made applicable by 24 CFR Part 570.605.
G. !Miscellaneous Records - The City shall maintain such other records as may be
required by the County and/or HUD.
4. RETENTION OF RECORDS
As required in 24 CFR 85.42, required records shall be retained for a period of three (3)
years following the date of the submission of the final grantee performance report in
which the activity is covered, except as follows:
A. Records that are the subject of audit findings shall be retained for three years or
until such audit findings have been resolved, whichever is later.
B. Records for Real Property and Equipment shall be retained for three years after
its final disposition. The retention period starts from the date of disposition,
replacement, or transfer at the direction of the County. Equipment is defined in 24
CFR Part 85.32 and real property is defined in 24 CFR Part 570.505.
C. Records for any displaced person shall be retained for three years after such
person has received final payment.
ccfnr-808
2143TigardLinSt
Page 24 of 26
PART M SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. The City shall execute this agreement no later than 30 days following the date of
the County's letter of transmittal.
2. Fifteen days prior to soliciting bids the City shall make available to the County's
Office of Community Development, in writing, a schedule of proposed activities to
include at least: the date of bid solicitation; date of bid opening or final date of
phone solicitations, as applicable; anticipated award date; and date of anticipated
construction. In addition, the City will provide a construction cost estimate.
3. In accordance with Part I, Paragraph 1.13., the following covenants are deemed not
applicable and are expressly deleted:
ccfnr-898
2143TigardLinSt
Page 25 of 26
7!
PART V. EXHIBITS
A. Project Description, Scope of Activities and Anticipated
Accomplishments
B. Authorized Signature Card
C. Budget Summary
ccfnr-898
2143TigardLinSt
Page 26 of 26
=11 Jill IIMIII M J
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES,
AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
1. Proiect Number and Title:
CDBG Projects #2143, Tigard, Lincoln and 92nd Avenues Sidewalk Improvements
(Phase II).
II. Description of: Project, Activities, Anticipated Accomplishments, Low and
Moderate or Other Target Group Beneficiaries.
A. Nature and Purpose of the Proiect:
Construct sidewalks, curbs and storm drainage to that portion of the street
that is substandard, lacks curbs, and storm drainage.
B. Proposed Location or Impact Area(s
The south side of Lincoln Avenue between Greenburg Road and
Commercial Street.
C. DurationlTiming of the Proiect:
July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001
D. Number of Low and Moderate Income or Target Group Beneficiaries:
230 low to moderate income persons
E. Component Activities (CDBG vs. Others
CDBG = $120,000 City = $126,100
a
' F. Quantitative Proiections for CDBG Component Activities (in units, linear
feet, square feet, etc.) for all acquisitions, construction, reconstruction,
rehabilitation, etc.:
Construct 1520 lineal feet of 5-foot sidewalk and curb; 80 lineal feet of 12
feet of 12-inch storm pipe; and 3 catch basins.
i
EXHIBIT A
S\con-00\2143 Tigard
Elam
MAR .16 2000
Project No. 2143
Project Year (funded) 2000/2001
AUTHORIZATION SIGNATURE CARD
Project Name Lincoln Street Improvements (Phase II)
Applicant's Name City of Tigard
Address 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
City, State, Zip Tigard, OR 97223
Telephone Number 503-639-4171
SIGNATURE OF INDIVIDUALS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS:
Any TWO signatures required to sign any financial document
NAME (Type or Print) SI ATURE
s
VA-r`INI~ rJCsuY~J
a -e
I certify that the signatures above are of the individuals authorized to execute
financial documents.
Date Signature of Authorized Official
City Manager
Title of Authorized Official
i:cdforms~autsiacd.doc
Exhibit B
. project No. L 1 4
Project Year (funded) 2000
BUDGET SUMMARY
Community Development Block Grant
Project Title Lincoln and 92nd Ave. Sidewalk Improvements (Phase II)
Legal Name of Entity cit of Ti and
Address 13125 SW Hall Blvd. City Tigard State OR Zip 97223
1. BUDGET LINE ITEMS:
A. PERSONNEL SERVICES
4: ;Portion Chargeable: t°
1 No of 2. Job Title' 3 Total Salary Community Develop
o
Merit:Blck Grant
6, gill 1~1!1i;;
1 Projects Engineer 2,000 0
1 Engineering Inspector 2,800 0
5. Subtotal $ 4,800 $ 0
6. Extra Help/Overtime 0 0
0 0
7. Frin e Benefits
8. TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS $ 4 , 800 $ O
Portion. Chargeable to
B. MATERIALS & SERVICES: MaferialsServices: Comm, devl Block Grant
9. Office Supplies $ 100 $ 0
10. Operating Supplies 0 O
0 0
11. Communications
y 12. Trave! and Training. 0 0
7
+ 13. Le al & Public Notices 300 0
~
14. Professional Services 31 , 400 O
209,500 120,000
15. Construction Contracts
16. Other: Specify 0
a
17. TOTAL MATERIALS & SERVICES $ 241 , 300 $ 120 , 000
j:cdforms\budsum.doc.
Exhibit C
Page 1
C. CAPITAL OUTLAY: Ponron ,r. a,j~y22hlA?_.ti,il s
_ Ca Vital.Outla a3{lo'cicGrantii
18. Capital Outlay:
Quantity Item $ $
0 0
19. Real Property Acquisition: $ 0 $ 0
20. TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $ O $ 0
21 Tota! P"' A 22 ut HC~USrr1y &
....Copt '..........COmmun~. .4~uf A~1Vat'd:
$ 246,100 $ 120,000
11. SOURCES OF PROJECT FUNDING
1. Federal $ 0 0
2. State 0 0
3.. Local Cash 89, 50.0 0
4. Count 0 O
5. In-Kind Service & Supply 36,600 0
6. Other detail 0 0
7. Subtotal $ 126,100 O
8. Housing & Community Development 0 120,000
9. TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 246,100 120,000
III. AUTHORI TION "le,
Date Authorized Signature or P oject
.f/o o a P.
Date Aut ized Signature for Project
j
S COUNTY USE ONLY
a Reviewed and approved by Washington County Office of unity Develop me ton 3 o
19 df;;f~rc
i nature
j:cdform\budsum.doc
Page 2
AGENDA ITEM # 3.
FOR AGENDA OF May 23.2000
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET ADJUSTMENT #9 TO THE FY 1999-
00 BUDGET TO COVER A PROJECTED DEFICIT IN THE BUILDING FUND.
PREPARED BY: Craig Prosser DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR. OK 4.AVXI-
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the Council transfer $150,000 from the General Fund to the Building Fund to cover a projected deficit?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this budget amendment.
INF ORMA T ION SUP,04ARY
The Building Fund accounts for all building, mechanical, plumbing and other related building fees, charges and
expenses.
The City of Tigard started charging building fees sometime prior to the 1970s. Building fees have not increased
from that time up until last year, when fees were increased an average of 51%. Costs of providing building permits,
inspections, and plans examinations have increased during this time, however.
In FY 1995-96, the City created the Building Fund to more fully account for these revenues and expenditures. It is
intended that this fund be fully self-supporting through the fees charged to builders and developers. Fund activity
(and therefore, fund balance) will fl!lctuate with changes in building activity.
Fund balance has been declining for several years, to the point where staff now projects that the fund will go into a
deficit situation by the end of the current fiscal year. Under State law, funds cannot run a deficit. Staff have taken
several steps to deal with this situation: three positions are currently vacant and will not be filled (these three
positions will be eliminated in FY 2000-01); all discretionary expenditures have been cut back or eliminated; all
overhead charges have been reviewed and adjusted as needed. In addition, staff is recommending fee increases of
30 to 45 percent, which will be presented to Council at the end of June. If approved by Council, these fee increases
would ►iot go into effect before September 1.
Even after all of these actions, the Fund is still projected to run a deficit in FY 1999-00. It is therefore necessary to
transfer $150,000 from the General Fund to the Building Fund to prevent a year-end deficit. This budget
amendment authorizes this transfer.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do not approve this budget amendment; maintain the City's FY 1999-00 budget. This would result in a deficit
in the Building Fund, which would be a violation of State law.
Rather than simply transferring money from the General Fund, set up a loan from the General Fund to the
Building Fund. Under State Law, cities may loan money from one fund to another, but the loan must be repaid
the following fiscal year with interest. Financial projections indicate that the Building Fund will not have the
financial capacity to repay such a loan for two or three years.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
This action will reduce the General Fund Contingency by $150,000 and will prevent a deficit in the Building Fund.
The General Fund has the capacity to make this transfer.
0
a
AGENDA ITEM No. 4 Date: May 23, 2000
SIGN-UP SHEET
PUBLIC COMMENT
PROPOSED 3 PERCENT
INCREASE T'S, FEES, AND
CHARGES FOR WATER AND
WATER-RELATED SERVICES
Due to Time Constraints
City Council May Impose
A Time Limit on Testimony
e
AGENDA ITEM No. 4
PLEASE PRINT
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
L
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
IL
1AADM\GREER\CCSIGNUP\PUB COMMENT.DOC
LM
7~
AGENDA ITEM # _ 44
FOR AGENDA OF May 23, 2000
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Increase Rates Fees and Charges for Water and Water Related Services
PREPARED BY: Mike Miller DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the City Council amend the current water rates, water meter installation charges and other water related
service charges to reflect increases in costs associatedmith providing these services.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Council approve the attached resolution which amends the current rates, fees and charges for water and
water related services.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Chapter 12.10.130 of the Tigard Municipal Code provides that fees and charges for water and water related
services be established by resolution of the City Council.
In 1996, the water rates for our Water Service Area were restructured to a cost of service basis and charged to
all water customers within the system. The restructuring of the rates in 1996 was revenue neutral and the last
actual water rate increase was in 1993.
The City commissioned a water rate study in 1999 at the recommendation of the Intergovernmental Water
Board (IWB). The preliminary results of the study indicated that significant increases in water rates are
necessary to pay all capital, operations, maintenance and administrative costs of the water system. However,
with the proposed Taxpayers Protection Initiative being placed on the November 2000 ballot, rate increases
greater than 3% may need voter approval if this initiative is approved. Therefore the IWB has recommended
that a 3% increase to water rates, water meter installation charges and other water related service charges be
implemented as soon as possible. Staff is recommending that these rates, fees and charges for water and water
related services be increased effective July 1, 2000, to correspond with proposed sewer rate increases from the
Unified Sewerage Agency.
Water usage charges, including customer charge and booster charges, are as follows:
Existing Rates Proposed
Customer Charge $3.56 per billing period $3.66 per illing period
Booster Charge $3.13 per billin period $3.22 per billing period
Residential $1.32 per CCF $1.35 per CCF
Multi-Family $1.30 per CCF $1.33 per CCF
ENO==="
Existing Rates Proposed
Commercial $1.53 per CCF $1.57 per CCF
Industrial $1.27 per CCF $1.30 per CCF
Irrigation $1.63 per CCF $1.67 per CCF
Also included in this proposal is a 3% increase in water meter installation fees for water meters 2-inches and
smaller. Installation fees for water meters 3-inches and greater are not changed because the installation charges are
already based on actual costs. Please note that the following table is only for installation fees and does not include
System Development fees.
Meter Size Existing Installation Fees Proposed Installation Fees
5/8" x 3/4" $325 $334.75
i" $570 $587.10
1 1/2" $830 $854.90
2" $985 $1,014.55
The following table is for other charges that are to be increased by 3%.
Existing Fees Proposed Fees
Fire Service Connection Fee $1,250 $1,287.50
Fire Rates (Sprinklers) 6" or smaller $15 per month $15.45 per month
Fire Rates (Sprinklers) 8" or larger $20 per month $20.60 per month
Temporary Use of Fire Hydrant $25 per month $25.75 per month
Reconnection charge for non-payment - during $25 $25.75
business hours
Reconnection charge for non-payment - after $35 $36.05
hours and on Holidays and Weekends
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do not increase rates until after the election November.
Increase rates greater than the proposed 3% to cover all of our capital, operations, maintenance and
administrative costs of the water system.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION CONIlV =E STRATEGY
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
The proposed rate increases are designed to help narrow the gap between water revenue and expenses, while at
the same time limiting our exposure to the proposed Taxpayer Protection Initiative.
AGENDA ITEM # PD
FOR AGENDA OF May 23, 2000
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Resolution Endorsin the Wilsonville to Beaverton Co uter Rail Alternative
PREPARED BY: J. Hendrvx DEPT HEAD OK TY MGR OK LA4+7V\
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should City Council support the Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Study Locally Preferred Alternative
forwarded by the Project Steering Committee on January 21, 2000, and recommend adoption of the Wilsonville to
Beaverton Commuter Rail Study Locally Preferred Alternative by the Washington County Board of
Commissioners? Kathy Lehtola from Washington County will be here to discuss the issue with Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council support the Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Study Locally Preferred
Alternative and recommend adoption by the Washington County Board of Commissioners.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City of Tigard participated in the preparation of the Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Study
Alternatives Analysis which examined alternatives to serve the need for transit improvement in the Wilsonville to
Beaverton corridor.
The Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Study concluded that compared to a No-Build and a Transportation
Management System (TSM), a Commuter Rail Alternative would:
9 Provide 4,650 average daily ridership as compared to 1,520 for the TSM alternative by the year 2020.
o Provide in-vehicle transit peak travel time of 26 minutes as compared to 54 minutes for the TSM alternative for
a Wilsonville to Beaverton Transit Center trip.
o Provide the most efficient transit links between regional and town centers.
v Best support state, regional, and local transportation and land use plans and policies.
e Best support increased opportunities for pedestrian-friendly and transit oriented development.
® Provide a reliable and direct link between population and employment centers in the Corridor.
a Support and encourage continued economic growth.
A series of five informational public meetings were held to give citizens and other interested parties an opportunity
to comment on the alternatives studied. The Project Steering Committee forwarded file Locally Preferred
Alternative for public comment on January 21, 2000. Five additional public meetings were held to provide citizens
and other interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Locally Preferred Alternative.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Not to support the Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Study Locally Preferred Alternative or recommend
adoption by the Washington County Board of Commissioners.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMI'fTEE STRATEGY
Transportation and Traffic - Goal #2 Improve Traffic Flow; 5) Encourage Development of Alternate Modes
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
is\citr ide\sum\commuterrail.doc
1
i
{
i
i
i
3
a
a
.:R'.
5/-23/OD RECEIVED C.O.T.
WASHINGTON
COUNTY, MAY 2 3 2000
OREGON Adrninistmti®n
DATE: May 19, 2000
TO: Wil onville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Steering Committee
2 ~c
L
FROM: athy I 1 tola, Assistant Director
Depart ent of Land Use and Transportation
SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Project Status Report
Since your last meeting in January we have made considerable progress on the Wilsonville to
Beaverton Commuter Rail Project. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you a
status report on the Study, focusing on the key elements we have been working on during the
past few months, as well as our next steps.
Locally Preferred Alternative
Following the Steering Committee's action to forward Commuter Rail as the Locally
Preferred Alternative (LPA) in January, the team conducted five public meetings in the
corridor. There was strong support for Commuter Rail expressed in all the meetings. The
LPA has been scheduled for action before the city councils of Wilsonville, Tualatin, Tigard
and Beaverton in late May and early June. (Wilsonville approved their resolution on May
15`h.) The Washington County Beard of Commissioners is scheduled to adopt the LPA on
June 6`h.
Environmental Assessment
Much of the Team's effort during the last three months has been focused on the completion of
the Environmental Assessment. We met with FTA in February to outline our progress on the
environmental work, and to identify any mid-course corrections necessary towards achieving
our objective of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The FTA Deputy Regional
Director was very supportive and helpful in guiding us through the next steps of the
environmental process.
A draft Environmental Assessment has been completed and we met with FTA on April 27`h in
Seattle to review the document. FTA's suggestions have been incorporated into the draft and
FTA is now doing a final review. We anticipate receiving authority very soon to publish the
document and make it available for public comment. We will provide you and your staff with
the document as soon as FTA authorizes its release. During the required 30-day public
comment period the Draft Environmental Assessment and supporting technical documentation
will be made available to all interested parties. We expect to conduct a public hearing during
155 North First Avenue Department of Land Use and Transportation - Administration Phone: (503) 693-4530
Room 350-16 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124-3072 FAX C (503) 693-4412
Commuter Rail Steering Committee Status Report
May 19, 2000
Page 2 of 2
the third week of the public comment period, and will be contacting Steering Committee
members regarding your availability to attend the hearing.
After the public comment period we will develop responses to all comments received, and
incorporate them into a final document. Following review by federal agencies, the FTA will
be requested to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact, bringing the environmental phase of
the study to a close. We do not expect any environmental impediments to a FONSI.
Preliminary Engineering
On February 17th Tom Brian, acting as Chair of the local sponsoring agency, notified FTA of
the Project's intent to request authority to enter Preliminary Engineering. A draft Project
Management Plan, required before PE can be authorized, was submitted to FTA in March and
is currently being reviewed. We are working with FTA to finalize the remaining
documentation necessary to receive authority to proceed. We expect approval in June and
anticipate completing PE in March 2001.
A PE budget has been developed, and Congress appropriated $500,000 in federal New Starts
funds last year. The House has earmarked an additional appropriation of $1,000,000 in
federal New Starts funds for next fiscal year. Senate mark-up is proceeding, and we are
hopeful that the $1,000,000 will be approved in conference committee. Actual receipt of
grant funds from this second anticipated appropriation, however, is not expected until after
October 2000. Therefore, we intend to split PE into two phases: Phase I beginning this June
or July using the existing funds, and Phase II which would begin sometime after the new
federal fiscal year when additional grant funds become available. It is our intent to make
these two phases seamless, allowing work on PE to continue uninterrupted. The team is
exploring alternative financing strategies to accommodate this approach.
Railroad Discussions.
Discussions with Union Pacific Rail Road, Portland and Western Rail Road and its parent
a company are getting underway. With Tri-Met's help, the Project team has retained the
a services of Kevin Sheys, an attorney with Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly in Washington
i D.C. specializing in railroad negotiations. Kevin has participated in numerous successful
negotiations with other commuter rail projects around the country. This effort will continue
during PE, with the goal of reaching agreements among the parties prior to March 2001.
Please call me at 846-3406 if you have any questions or would like a more detailed briefing.
s
a Cc: Technical Advisory Committee
Geoff Larkin and Consulting Team Members
11110
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 5-23-00
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Annexation of Bull Mountain and other non-island areas _
PREPARED BY: Laurie Nicholson DEPT HEAD OK Cer MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Staff is requesting overall direction from Council on how to approach annexation of Bull Mountain and other
non-island areas.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends option #2 outlined in the attached memorandum. Option #2 recommends that City Council
directs staff to contact property owners to obtain consents to annex. Any option that Council chooses, staff
recommends that a public outreach effort to educate Bull Mountain and non-island residents about annexing to
Tigard. Similar to the Walnut Island effort, staff would partner with Washington County on this effort.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
A "non-island" annexation is one in which the area to be annexed is not surrounded by City boundaries. The
purpose of annexing the Bull Mountain area and other non-island areas would be to simplify the City boundary
and allow efficient delivery of services to these areas. State law is different for non-island annexations than
island annexations. For non-island annexations to occur without an election, double majority consent must be
obtained. Double majority means that a majority of the property owners and voters in the area to be annexed
must sign a petition consenting to be annexed. If double majority consent cannot be obtained, then an election
must be held in the area to be annexed.
Any successful annexation approach would involve extensive public outreach, similar to the public outreach
effort that was used for the Walnut Island area. Staff could explore the possibility of partnering with
Washington County, as was done for the Walnut Island annexation effort. During this time, staff would develop
a report outlining the costs of annexation for both the City and Bull Mountain residents.
n Staff will be presenting annexation options to Council. The annexation options are as follows: 1.) Initiate
annexation of the non-island areas and send to electors. 2.) Obtain consent to annex from area property owners.
3.) Annex property and right of way whenever possible to create island areas. The attached memo details the
positive and negative aspects of each option, and some of'hc costs.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1.) Initiate annexation of the non-island areas and send to electors.
2.) Annex right of way wherever possible to create areas in the County that are surrounded by the City.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Growth & Growth Management: Goal #2. Urban services provided to all citizens within Tigard's urban growth
boundary and recipients pay for their share. Strategy 2.) Adopt criteria that outlines when and under what
circumstances areas on Bull Mountain will annex.
FISCAL NOTES
If Council chooses option #2, it would cost $50,000.
iAcitywide\4-25-00;BuII mntn..sum.rtf
7i
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Laurie Nicholson, Planning Division
DATE: April 14, 2000
RE: Bull Mountain Annexations
As part of the Walnut Island annexation process, staff requested a separate discussion
with Council to discuss annexation options for Bull Mountain and "non-island" areas.
Since the Walnut Island annexation process is now basically complete, staff decided to
return to Council to discuss the issue of Bull Mountain and "non-island" area
annexation. There has been no recent discussion of a major effort to annex the Bull
Mountain urban service area. Historically, staff has processed annexation applications
for those who voluntarily annexed to Tigard. If Council chooses none of the options
outlined below, then staff will continue to process annexation applications of those who
want to annex to Tigard.
Since the Portland Metro Boundary Commission no longer exists, State annexation law
is directly applied and, in addition, State law also requires application of Metro adopted
standards regarding how annexations will be processed in the Portland Metro area.
Metro requirements involve longer notice periods, which requires more careful planning
to insure that annexations occur at the desired time. As with any action by Council, the
public has the right to refer the ordinance to Tigard voters.
The following steps outline the process followed by the City for non-island annexations
i as required by State, Metro, and City rules:
• The City of Tigard must adopt resolutions to initiate the annexation process.
• Schedule an election of Bull Mountain area voters, or collect signatures of Bull
Mountain residents and property owners for a double majority annexation.
Mail and post notice to necessary parties 45 days prior to hearing date (necessary
parties are any county, city, or district whose jurisdictional boundary or adopted
urban service area includes any part of the affected territory or who provides any
a urban service to any portion of the affected territory, Metro, and any other unit of
local government, as defined in ORS 190.003, that is a party to any agreement for
provision of an urban service to the affected territory).
Staff must complete staff report 30 days prior to the City Council hearing.
• Send notice of the public hearing to property owners within 500 feet, 20 days prior to
the hearing.
Publish an ad in the newspaper once each week for two consecutive weeks prior to
the public hearing.
• Have the staff report packet and resolutions prepared 12 days prior to the hearing
and given to City Administration.
• Hold a public hearing before Council at which a decision is made whether to annex
or not.
• Completed annexation is sent to Metro.
• Annexation must be completed by March 31St for the annexed property to be
included on next fiscal year's tax rolls.
Bull Mountain and felon-Island annexations
A "non-island" annexation is one in which the area to be annexed is not surrounded by
City boundaries. The purpose of annexing this area would be to simplify the City
boundary and allow efficient delivery of services to these areas. The City's and County's
long-term plan for the Bull Mountain area and the non-island areas is that they will
eventually be annexed. State law is different for non-island annexations than island
annexations. For non-island annexations to occur without an election, double majority
consent must be obtained. Double majority means that a majority of the property
owners and voters in the area to be annexed must sign a petition consenting to be
annexed. If double majority consent cannot be obtained, then an election must be held
in the area to be annexed.
Staff is requesting that Council direct staff on how to proceed with the non-island areas.
Staff has identified the following options:
Option #1
Initiate annexation of the non-island areas and send to electors. This will require a
majority of the votes cast in the area to vote in favor of the annexation in a general
election. The tax rolls are not changed until the following year for any property annexed
after March 31St. Depending on when the annexation occurs, there may be a period (13
months) where service is being provided, but taxes are not being collected. Since an
election is involved, the process may not be complete within a year. To ensure that the
annexed properties are on the tax rolls for the next fiscal year, the City should attempt
' to place the annexation on the November 7, 2000 election and will need to start the
annexation process no later than mid-June to complete the process in time to make the
November election.
i
Option #2
Direct staff to contact property owners to obtain consents. This option will require
staff to contact the property owners in the Bull Mountain area being considered and
request that they sign consent forms. No election is required in the territory if the City
has the written consent of the owners of at least half the land and the majority of the
electors in the territory to be annexed. No Council initiation is necessary. If staff can
obtain a majority of the registered voter's approval, the annexations can be processed
without an election. This will be quite time intensive for staff. The consent forms may
be submitted at any time up to the date of the hearing. If the necessary number of
consents are not obtained, the hearing will be canceled for that particular area.
This annexation option would require additional staff to assist in the labor intensive
effort of contacting property owners. Staff estimates the budget for this option would
cost approximately $50,000 to pay for interns to collect petition signatures and mailing
costs. If Washington County assisted in this effort, the cost may be less Phan the
estimated $50,000 budget. If staff could begin right away, then petitions could be
signed this summer, open houses held in the fall, and the annexation process in the
winter so the annexation could be completed by March 31St of 2001. Under this option,
it is possible that some areas will sign the petition to annex and others will not. The
result in this case will be that portions of Bull Mountain and/or other non-island areas
may not be annexed.
Option #3
Annex right of way wherever possible to create areas in the County that are
surrounded by the City, or create islands A final option is to have a City policy to
annex right of ways and property wherever possible to create islands, so that
mma unincorporated areas could be annexed without voter the approval. The problem with
this option is that this approach could be challenged legally by the property owners in
the areas made into islands, and their legal challenge would be that the City is depriving
them of their right to vote through purposefully creating island territory. The process for
annexing right of ways and properties could begin next month to create island areas to
be annexed. Over the next year workshops and other forms of public outreach could be
held, similar to the Walnut Island annexation process. Council could adopt a resolution
in December declaring an annexation of island areas, and hearings could be held next
January and February so that the annexation process could be completed by March 31St
of 2001.
Any successful annexation approach would involve extensive public outreach, similar to
the public outreach effort that was used for the Walnut Island area. Although the issue
of annexation of the Bull Mountain area has been discussed at Citizen Involvement
Team meetings, the discussion was limited because staff could not provide the tax and
service information that residents had requested without first developing a detailed
report, similar to the one done for Walnut Island. A public outreach effort is necessary
because we are not clear on residents expectations of Tigard, and Washington County
has not been involved in discussions with the residents regarding its long-term service
expectations for the Bull Mountain area and "non-island" areas. Staff could explore the
possibility of partnering with Washington County, as was done for the Walnut Island
annexation effort. During this time, staff would develop a report outlining the costs of
annexation for both the City and Bull Mountain residents.
AGENDA ITEM
FOR AGENDA OF May 23, 2000
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Park System Development Charge Status Re ort
PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK ~MM/41ITiCYNIGROK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City update the parks System Development Charge (SDC) on development inside the City to reflect
current costs and adopt an automatic cost escalator to keep pace with inflation? Should the City continue to pursue
an Urban Services Area SDC?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City hire a consultant to revise last year's Park and Recreation Facilities System
Development Charges study. Based on the results of the revised study, staff recommends the City: (1.) update its
park system development charge fee structure on development occurring inside the City to reflect increases in the
cost of land and facilities since the structure's adoption in, 1996, (2.) adopt an automatic escalator to insure SDC
fees keep pace with inflation and that park service standards are maintained over time. Staff also recommends the
City continue discussions with the County regarding a City park SDC on new development inside the Urban
Services Area.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The current park SDC was adopted in 1996 and applies to new development occurring within the City limits. The
charges are somewhat low compared to other Metro area cities (see fee comparison table on page 5 of the attached
staff report). In 1999, then current demographics, park inventory, and costing information were used to develop an
updated SDC fee structure. Also developed were alternative standards for imposing an Urban Services Area SDC.
A copy of the full 1999 study is attached.
Washington County does not impose a park SDC fee. As a result, development within the Urban Services Area
does not pay a park SDC. The authority to impose a City park SDC in the unincorporated area must be provided
by the County. In March 1999, after discussing the results of the SDC fee study, Council opted to pursue a joint
City-Urban Services Area SDC and requested the County to provide the needed authorization relative to the
unincorporated area. So far, the County has taken no action on this request. In the meantime, land and
construction costs have continued to increase. According to the Washington County Assessors office, the cost of
developable residential 'land within the Tigard area has increased by 45% in the three-year period 12/96 to 12/99.
During the same period, the ODOT Construction Cost Index went up by 15%.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do not revise the park fees on new development inside the City based on the results of an updated SDC study.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Revising and extending the park SDC would support the Growth and Growth Management Goal (#1) of
accommodating growth, through a strategy of preserving open space and natural areas.
FISCAL NOTES
The annual amount generated by the SDC varies according to the fee structure and the level of building activity.
The cost of updating the 1999 SDC study to current year conditions is $6,896.
i:\citywide\som\parksdc.options.2000.doc
I
I
I
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Council
FROM: Jim Hendryx
DATE: May 1, 2000
SUBJECT: Park SDC
This memo provides updated information and outlines options for revising the City's park system
development charge, or SDC. The current fee schedule was adopted in 1996 and applies to new
development within the incorporated area. The park SDC is the City's primary and most
consistent funding source for park improvements.
Background
In January, 1999, the City completed an updated park SDC study, which covered the following
topics: (1) extension of a park SDC to the Urban Services Area, (2) adoption of an automatic
escalator, and (3) updating of the current SDC fee schedule to current dollars. Council discussed
the study findings in February, 1999, and expressed support for an Urban Services Area park
SDC.
By way of explanation, state statues authorize local jurisdictions to establish park and other SDCs,
subject to the development of a methodology for determining the amount of the SDC and the
development of a master or capital improvement plan with cost estimates detailing how the fees
will be expended to meet fuiure pornn~~u-.eds. With With rcnard to the Tigard Urban Services Area, the
methodology study requirement was met by the 1999 SDC study, while the 1999 Tigard Park
System Master Plan met the master plan requirement. The park master plan looked at park needs
in the City proper and the Urban Services Area. The plan provided a ten-year list of acquisition
and improvement projects to meet these needs. To satisfy SDC requirements, the list identified
capital improvement projects that may be funded with SDC revenues and listed the estimated cost
and time of construction of each improvement.
An additional ►equirement for the City to begin charging a park SDC in the Urban Services Area is
specific legal authority from the County. In March, 1999, as directed by Council, the City formally
requested the County to provide the required legal authorization. According to the County counsel
at the time, two methods are available that would accomplish this task: either the County could
impose the SDC on the City's behalf, or the County could grant the City the authority to impose an
SDC. Should the County decide to provide the needed authority, an IGA would be needed to
authorize the City to collect and spend the charge on City projects.
Up to now, the County Commission has taken no formal action on the City's request. In late April
of this year, Washington County Chair Tom Brian suggested the City initiate a dialogue with the
Homebuilders on the subject of the proposed SDC. In response to this suggestion, Jim Hendryx
contacted that organization. Kevin Wing of the Homebuilders indicated initial opposition, but is
soliciting comments from his membership. Copies of the City/Homebuilders correspondence
regarding the SDC are attached.
Recommendation
In February, 1999, following review of the SDC study results, Council opted not to revise the
existing City fee on development inside the City, and instead directed staff to pursue with the
County the extension of an SDC to the Urban Services Area. With more than a year now having
elapsed with no progress on the Urban Services Area SDC, staff recommends Council update the
current fees on development inside the City.
The attached 1999 fee coiiparison taula shows- current and updated fees for Tigard and provides
a comparison with the year-ago fees of the other Metro area park providers, including the Tualatin
Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD), whose boundaries include somewhat more than half
of all county residents. As indicated, both the City's current and revised fees fall within the mid-
range of the charges by other Cities and THPRD.
Raising the park SDC inside the City would not preclude the City from continuing to pursue an
Urban Services Area SDC. As confirmed by the City Attorney's office, the City can always adjust
the fee structure later should the County ultimately decide to authorize the SDC.
The first step in implementing an updated park SDC inside the City would be the updating of the
SDC methodology study to reflect current conditions. This would be followed by a Council
hearing and adoption of the study. The cost of updating the 1999 study to current year conditions
using the same consultant who prepared the 1999 shady is estimated at $6,896. The consultant is
available to start work on the study on June V. The amount of time needed to complete the
study is four to five weeks.
In addition to raising the fee structure within the City, staff also recommends the City adopt an
automatic cost escalator. Many cities with park SDCs have adopted automatic escalators in order
to keep their fee structures in step with inflation. The most common formula indexes the fee
adjustments to changes in land and construction costs. The 1999 SDC study included a version of
this formula.
i/irpn/duane/parks.sdc.countymemo.doc
Park SDC Fees Calculated in 1999 Park SDC Study
Existing Revised Revised
City & Urb City Only
Single family detached $1,050 $1,180 $1,410
Single family attached 660 740 890
Apt. per unit 540 610 730
Mobile Home 740 830 990
Comm/Indus (per employee) 49 85 91
PARKS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE COMPARISON
FOR METRO AREA CITIES
1999
Single Multi-
Citv Family/unit Family/unit Other
West Linn $ 2,400 $ 1,698 none
Lake Oswego 2,281 1,558 none
THPRD 1,950 1,499 manufacture homes:
$1,375
Wilsonville 1,943 1,477 nonresidential:
$51/employee
Hillsboro 1,499 1,499 non-residential:
1,125 in PUD $251/parking space for
commercial & industrial;
$187/parking space for
commercial & industrial
in PUD
Tualatin 1,400 1,400 none
Forest Grove 1,295 1,295 none
Tigard 1,050 detached 540 manufactured homes:
660 attached $740/unit in a park;
$1,050/unit on a single
tax lot
non-residential:
$49/employee
Gresham 1,038 1,038 none
Oregon City 955 630 none
Milwaukie 950 620 manufactured homes:
$600/unit in a park;
$950/unit on a single
tax lox
Sherwood 841 841 none
s
i
I I/IrpNduana/sdasur.aoc
E
r7
AGENDA ITEM # S
FOR AGENDA OF 5/23/00
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Metro Greens aces IGA
PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK Y MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE OUNCIL
Should Council direct staff to finalize and return to Council with an intergovernmental agreement with Metro
for the management of a Metro-purchased ten-acre Greenspace? Should the City consider the local
management of two Metro Greenspace candidate sites located in Tigard?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Council direct staff and the City Attorney to finalize the agreement and also express interest in the management
and operation of the two Tigard-area candidate sites.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
At the April 11, 2000, Council meeting staff presented a status report on the City parks and open space program.
Among several other Greenspaces items, staff mentioned that Metro, using regional Greenspaces funds had
purchased a 13-acre forest property, located along Fanno Creek near Bonita Road, known as the
McDonald/Brown property. Staff also mentioned that Metro had asked the City to consider local management
of the property and that staff anticipated submitting for Council consideration a Metro/City IGA transferring
control of the property to Tigard. At the May 23`a meeting, Metro staff will overview the main elements of a
proposed agreement and answer any questions Council may have.
Metro staff also wishes to discuss with Council the City's level of interest in two other riparian sites located
inside the City as well as the agency's current goals and work plan for the Fanno Creek Regional Trail Corridor
project. The attached memo discusses the agreement and the Metro-identified properties.
i OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do not authorize staff to return to Council with a proposed agreement.
Do not indicate interest in the two other Metro-identified properties.
3
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STIZATEGY
Community Aesthetics Goal #1 calls for "Developing strategies to balance needs of new and infill development
with the need to provide protection of defined aesthetic qualities valued by those who already live and work in
Tigard."
FISCAL NOTES
Metro, using regional Greenspaces funds, purchased the property. The City and Metro would share maintenance
responsibility for the property. However, the City would be solely responsible under the IGA for the cost of any
proposed improvements to the Metro property. At the same time, the IGA does not obligate the City to carry out
any improvements.
i:\citywide\sum\grecnspaces.mcdonald.i ga
I
i
I
M.j
1
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Developme
Shaping A Better Commun
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Council
FROM: Jim Hendryx
DATE: 5/11/00
SUBJECT: Metro Greenspaces Properties
Metro Greenspaces staff are scheduled to participate in the May 23rd Council meeting
to discuss Fanno Creek Greenway Corridor and other riparian properties located in the
City. These include the McDonald/Brown, Tiedeman Road, Northeast Metzger, and
Durham Road properties. Metro wishes to determine the City's level of interest in the
Tiedeman Road and Northeast Metzger properties and to enter into an
intergovernmental agreement for the joint management of the McDonald/Brown
property.
McDonald/Brown
At the April 11, 2000, Council meeting staff presented a status report on the City parks
and open space program. Among several other items, staff mentioned that Metro,
using regional Greenspaces funds, had purchased a thirteen acre forest property,
located along Fanno Creek near Bonita Road, known as the McDonald/Brown property
(see map attached). Staff also mentioned that Metro had asked the City to consider
local management of the property and that staff anticipated submitting for Council
consideration a Metro/City IGA transferring control of the property to Tigard. At the
May 23`d meeting, staff will update Council on the status of negotiations with Metro and
outline the elements of a potential site-specific agreement for the local management of
the property in question. Metro staff also will be present to discuss the agreement;
Metro's current goals and work plan for the Fanno Creek Target Area, especially as
FIR ST
9W ~ITH{Id CT ~~8~7\/l1M ■/~/W ■ H YI, ■ni■ 1
esov■ ■a~.■...
B. wntse e~ s er e,
f ~
RFrnec74%'~~W OE HiT Property
I
COCONYI REEKCT-,
ry
, LI_ I_ z r l (
DRIVE
l 1tomI~
1
LIT
•
1\ -1
01
L I 1 I \ t
NEf ST-
P3 ~ 11
f.
I\1. I 7 I 1I - j M4RACT1, ll _
Y"
8RD
A 1~
' I I~ I\ } i II - v
II ----I_ < I--------- -1
(
sw-~__
I 1 I j I I ~CAROLiE C- I I I -_I'I <
Light gray: Subiect property
- - \ -
1 Dark gray: City greenway
ICI' I
these relate to the Tigard portion of the corridor; and to answer any questions Council
may have.
The rectangular-shaped McDonald/Brown property is relatively flat and is surrounded
on parts of two sides by City-owned greenway. The railway line and the Fields open
space property, respectively, are located on the two other sides. The vegetation
consists of heavily wooded, mature coniferous and deciduous trees and brushy
understory vegetation. As depicted in the attached maps, Fanno Creek flows east west
through almost the entire 1,600-foot length of the property. The purchase by Metro has
preserved a natural area property with substantial stream frontage in an urban
neighborhood.
Tigard-Metro IGA
Because it is impractical and duplicative for Metro to manage individual Greenspace
properties scattered over a wide area, Metro's standard procedure is to transfer the
land it purchases to willing local park providers for operation and maintenance.
Last year, the City assumed management and planning responsibility for a seven-acre
Metro-purchased property located adjacent to Woodard Park. The proposed
Brown/McDonald agreement will be similar to the so-called Woodard Park Addition
agreement. Both are based on Metro's model IGA.
A main feature of the model agreement is that it requires the willing local park provider
to develop a management plan for the properties over which it assumes control. The
plan, which must be approved by the Metro Council, is required to set forth the types
and levels of public use, the location of trail and other improvements, and management
and maintenance standards. Prior to the development of a formal management plan,
the local park provider is obligated to manage the property as a natural area. In the
case of the McDonald/Brown property, because of its large size, Metro tentatively has
suggested dividing the land into City and Metro maintenance sections. Under this plan,
the City would focus on maintaining the edges of the property, while Metro would be
responsible for maintenance and vegetation management of the remainder or central
portion of the parcel.
Among other potential uses, the property is located on both sides of Fanno Creek and
would provide right-of-way for the future extension of the Fanno Creek trail. It also
connects to the City's proposed Bonita Park and would provide passive recreation
opportunities to complement the park's proposed active uses. For these reasons, staff
recommends Council support the completion of an IGA for the City management of the
Brown/McDonald parcel.
i d,•, ;
Ul~
ell" {js. 5~.3.~p. Y~;ydi: ~~yy,1.• r+.Kp
M
10'
AM,
IIN
ale tk Net
lit
y 1'
>+t` ~ l t ~~1 • ~1, s W? Y -Rit 1 ~ . 1 c 5~'~ r ~ rer q iYY.
Via' 4
MIR-
zl~ - - AL
F}j { y-tl terra}~ i~ F irT
71
ALA 17
wr§
i.. stn St} e i 4" ~ ~ ,~!',E•~ fit. _je
~ r .!t - • fad`, ~t.
` err i '~Q~'~ e.~+t ~ ~pe~'j V ~i /j / `."'q.`,
.t "pY', 4.i ~ =~,tr. Ne 'R•~ R :ao~' ~ : r - h h- . t { i k ~ . rf
y i r r r."
a •~r.« ~ titi.i~ as ~ R~~i~yA~ ~ ~ E~7p' '1`''-~' g ' - ti✓
t~ . ,rr r 7g ^ . e as ~ ~.4,` i; >j •~s L.-~^^'!r~ - .
! i t l , ' ..II t u~.ai" . ("r I 1 { ' ti 1 ' C~ 3 i -1 in
' ; t:!r3. r~~ 4g~: l ` b: ~ej'af4'.t I mo`` _ •sa r ' IRA
x i^I{!• f,! ~~~.y'~iq,R~ U ~ ~ Z'r,~•'/~J'~!_.ti j~:: l~ ~ 1~J.. . I ~ 1 9'.~ ~ 1 ji i ~au.~ ._i d~n. .3
" 't"6►rtt!• ' 11 S„~+ iG•~ ' ~'F • 7 $1 - { { r , .a.r. Y f
C 1 r. r
{k tom'- er t S 1 _ 1 u m 3 ! r ! s hni J.
G~
O~
1 1
- ' I-
1
#s C3
Il 44
C I 1_ I I 1
,y b I 1
1
~ \ I 11 1 1 I
I
I
I FANNo cRP !
I ,
i
1 i 11"I -
(1J I /
} ~ ~Z~ I I I I
1 I I f ,
i i Zj I i t I r ~
o
I
Iz~ 5\oR-OANNO y. CREEK FANNO C& C
T
Tiedeman Greenspaces Candidate Site
As suggested above, Metro is interested in putting into public ownership other
potentially available properties located within the Fanno Creek riparian area. As
mentioned in the April 11`h report to Council, the agency currently is negotiating for the
purchase of a three-acre property located along Tiedeman Avenue on the other side of
Fanno Creek from Woodard Park. The property in question, known as the Swan Farm,
includes low bank frontage, a horse pasture, three buildings, and natural area.
A critical element in Metro's decisions about the Tiedeman property is the City's level of
interest in the site. Metro staff has indicated that a City commitment to local
management will materially affect Metro's decision on whether or not to purchase the
land. Discussions with Metro regarding the City's interest in the three acres, involving
City Planning and Public Works personnel, have occurred. So far, such items as Metro
covering the up-front costs needed to stabilize the property, which could include
building demolition and potential land and building uses, have been discussed. Staff
has contacted school district administrators about the site and they have expressed an
interest in using the natural area portion of the property for Fowler Middle School
environmental activities. A map of the site under discussion is attached.
This property is contiguous to the seven-acre Woodard Park addition, but, because it
was privately owned at the time, was not included in the Woodard Park Concept Plan
developed in 1995. Other than a small parking area serving Woodard Park and the
school's proposed educational use, potential uses of the property have not been
identified as yet. As with the Woodard Park expansion, a public process would be
needed to develop a plan for and integrate the property into the adopted Woodard Park
master plan. Because of its proximity to Woodard Park, staff recommends cooperation
with Metro on City management of the property and its integration into the Woodard
Park concept plan.
Northeast Metzger Candidate Site
In addition to the main stem of the creek, Metro's Fanno Creek Corridor refinement or
work plan also calls for Metro to pursue tax lots located within certain so-called upper
watershed or headwaters areas. An important difference between main stem and
headwaters sites is that Metro will provide only 50-75% per cent of the acquisition cost
of headwaters sites, with local government and/or non-profit partners expected to
provide a 25-50% match. In April of this year, the Metro Council formally added the
nine-acre forest parcel located along the South Fork of Ash Creek to Metro's map of
headwaters target sites.
The City unsuccessfully attempted to purchase the property, known as the Senn
property, in the mid-1990s. At that time, the City and owner were unable to agree on
the purchase price. The 1994 City Forested Natural Areas Inventory described the site
as a high quality natural area and recommended its protection. The adopted Park
AR-D- ---7-- --ST= - - - = TIGARD :SL--== -:I_.: _
MFADOV ----ST I \
Fowler I Woodard
Tiedernan
Middle Property ~ Park i i
ticnooo I \
"
~ ~ l ~~s I ~S \
D-A
-
\ -
-I---- i ~ r--.-J SOPS[..-S ~
fir
4 4
ERROL-
NMI,
1 ,
° - -
SW KI
- - WALNUT
{ 04 -
- - --L-OLA =LN- - - - r -T
ii
_
7,___ T__
J -1 - i 1-~ 1
- _ NE Wtzger,
-
- Property -
s,r
:JI
i ~ I II
L
--LOCUST - - - `fir-S1 - -I-
-
Mr I -A- Pr LELEI ~ IA„ -.F
-S~ST ~uf rbI j--- e1 I Ic~1 t-p~-~ property Light gray: ~r--- r-`
-~i -
OAK.
x f I - Dark gray: v of Por land
A.~
TIELDT
I _ -
IN
mom
System Master Plan identifies the acquisition of the site and its maintenance as natural
area as a medium priority need for the Metzger area.
Currently, a developer holds an option on the property and is conducting due diligence
studies. Should the property come back on the market, Metro is considering the
purchase of a long-term option. As with the two previously mentioned properties, the
City's level of interest in the site would be a critical element in Metro's decision making
process. In regard to this, a major difference between this and the Fanno Creek
riparian sites is the 25% local match requirement. A current appraisal of value is not
available, but based on the site's attributes and development potential, the local match
amount could be in the $200,000 range. Given the City's funding commitments to other
park projects and the limited availability of park dollars, the required City match would
have to come from a grant or donation.
At this time, because the status of the property is unknown, and because the City's
financial capability is low, Metro is looking for only a tentative expression of the City's
level of interest in the site. The City's commitment would be to the concept of
preserving the property under local management, should it become available, with the
understanding that donated or grant funds to cover the required City's contribution to
the project would be a key and necessary part of any cooperative deal with Metro
concerning the property.
Because Northeast Metzger has no active or passive parks at present, and because the
site is the only property within NE Metzger identified in the Park and Open Space
Master Plan, and as long as no City dollars are involved, staff supports cooperating with
Metro on the property. The property was identified in the City Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) at one time. It was abandoned as a CIP project because the asking price
was above market value. If the financing can be worked out, and the City does not
have to contribute any hard dollars, nothing has changed to reduce the desirability of
preserving this relatively pristine redwood forest property as City open space.
Durham Road Greenspaces Nomination
In mid-March, staff submitted a new Greenspaces nomination to Metro for their
consideration. The site is located at the northwest corner of Durham and 108`h Ave. It
consists of the undeveloped portions of four tax lots. The land is a heavily wooded, V-
shaped drainageway that forms the upper part of a Goal 5 resource area identified by
the City. The rationale for Metro to identify this site is that it is located along a short
tributary of the Tualatin River, which is a regional Greenspaces target area. Metro staff
has been asked to comment on the site at the May 23rd meeting.
Park Level of Service Standards
The Park System Master Plan adopted in 1999 sets an ideal City park service level
standard of 11 acres per thousand population. Currently, the City provides 8.5 acres of
IBM moll
S.W. NERVE S EET _ _
I -
r
f:1, - - l - 1 -L L
;iS
. rr r 1~ 1
Ea
ROOK 1 TE I-J - -
C.
t-, F
s~yo~RHgM - - 1 El~l eO
Q C a
R6ad
r
I
A L[J _l \ k
W TITA
- r 71TAP
Rl_Q=
_
_ Urban LT_
setvims ~ DO R CT
Ar6a
1 I
i , it i ~ - -
- -
I I
parkland for every 1,000 residents. To develop this overall acreage and other service
standards, the master plan compared the amount of park acreage and number of
recreation facilities provided in Tigard to standards recommended by the National
Recreation and Park Association. These standards were further refined to address
regional recreation needs by comparing them with standards for comparable
communities in Oregon, and by evaluating the geographic distribution of parks
throughout the community. The recommendations for Tigard park and recreation
standards were based on this evaluation and on the results of the community
involvement process.
Adding Greenspaces purchased by Metro to the City's park inventory would move the
City that much closer to the City's ideal service level standard. As such, it is in the
City's best interest to cooperate with Metro on its Fanno Creek Corridor acquisition
program. As put forward by the regional government, this cooperation would be based
on the understanding that any properties proposed for local management would be
considered on an individual basis and that the City would have to buy off on any
property before its management could be transferred to the City. The basis for
cooperation is the understanding that any Metro-purchased property Council did not
consider suitable or as meeting the City's requirements would not have to be added to
the City's park inventory.
I/Irpn/dr/pa rks. metro. iga
1'bWr-%
wdc,
3/DD
5~,
NC~s
sp
~N
y ens a'~es
ire p
14istoTy of
r1ef am
pTogr
with various
ed
Metro work
~In early 1990's, art~~rs to develop the
d a te P
a~ priv
Plan•
Green~Pac~s ma,ge-r ose is to protect na~ral
*~'rima~7' pub s in the pudic interest.
-r
resource a
z
LEGIDII'IT~ STRIP
the Metro
9 voters 4PTOved
xeglon s his provided X136
In 1995 the allot Meas-are. and acquire land
GreensPaces B astex ply a
carry out them o~nt~
to
illion ° target areas. Of this am
m
SPec~flc areas end
on was allocated for ne o~al ~ X111 mllh sitions of g
stream co~idor aCqul roviders
park p
significance• h to local
$215 million passed tl~oug acts.
for locally significant pToj
3
cal funds ~'as ~'158~~00•
Tigard's share of to
ark pro~'iders to
d
was ore 01 the first p Council app ove
~ Tig~d uisition, When parcel,
complete an acq street P
3 acre F em the purchase Of the 3 • e of Moulitatia.
located on the a0~h slop ended o~
ds have Beebe completed by
:W All Tigard local ~n r~ ects to
earmarked foL local p J
the date the local share p
December2000, ro~am
terminates.
4
L~U~yy11 1
was.
~a~get ~eaS
another fey`'
xam mill continue ant down.
~,Regional PT og money is SP
ears until all bond reenspaCe projects
(2
y of regional ~
The map o _ cre natal areas and
~ la~ne a Tonal Slgnlficance
includes ~Tidoxs of rig
str'am co
5
LEGIBILITY STRIP
eek Co~ldoand its hea awri ors
Fanno Cy
area is identified as one of the stye
ar
corridor projeetS.
when Metro usual
FQr Vractical target are its as,
purchases landxithin fer the land to wll
is to trans lia
practice ent.
local-park PrOvid'eTs for tocal management.
6
-Monona
-Imllljjijjl NOW
Dow.
S creekside
two
o far, Metro has PJrchased
.Topertles
e.,; bordering
Lowe'ry PT op
~'~he 7-acTe mallagern ~ent transferree
woodaTd-PaTk. aster plan for City in 1999 , based on a developed
of NV oodarc~~'ark,
expansion
pro~ess•
through a public ~~onald propel'
The 11-acre B rownllO~I g e~nent of this site
999 • gaiia-
puTchased e transferred to city
has n .
of be
'
Metro has targeted two
This year, ro eYties in Tlgatd: one
additional p main stem and one
Fanno Creek
headwaters site.
maiaagemeTlt
Local of e~'o9 S consideration
o l'eve. of
An important part iti~s is the
of acquisition OpPortun eme~t
in local manag
in$erest .
local in~.erest exists ad pjjrv,,.tjLas
of neW Greelispace
11
c - ompeted, managemen
l
based- on
transferred to local elltlty
9
~p7gII,ITY STRIP
ark provider
del ICJ A T equire5local ent Plan.
Metro m e
develop a Resougce Mara
to
ants ln'lude
Matia elem
Inventor' of resources usf types and le~~els O~ public
~~escription o vements
a leg of tr~:ils or Other impro ~ s tandards
~'NI PP intenan
*Management and ma
responsible for cost on such as
Local entity
incthe p a
proveme
r~t
l congrudloia aired ~o
trai
ement plan process r~q ent'~
~'M~nag staff and public in'volvern
include Metr o
lolollill If 11111,11
LEGIBILITY 3TRtP
flan is Ca11Pd Interim loyal
ncluo~es g~ d nos
secolla type g, p an. I r to ado'Ptl°n
liana amen
• r~~uixed to to 11ow P lan. Guidelines
en~~ is
of QUrce ~anag~me~~
inClud~ o
~~.ural area
as a be gin
~Nianage n
use may nit
,WFoa ~1 use
al pubic plan In Place infoxm
gen~ent
Ma
allowed
• n of site allowed except for
Igo alteratio
tion malaagement or security
vegeta
nts is to
improveme cal
onsibility of lo PTOVicle-rd
~,Maln resp - hborhood or citizen
respond to neig
complaints
~z
Overall foal of Interim and
Resource Management Plans is to
insure pro~erty is maintained as a
natural open spare.
13
NIM,
~mw
con
' urchased by MetIO list
te
~,,i1-acre foxest sl P
year. end of M"toll COATt-
2wLocated at the n°~h .1 ~,ooded, and "With
*property is flat, heaVl y some places
uliderstOq Prop eta~.ion
in in
vi`es'
cluding blackberrY lent~°~g~ the
~,Fanno Creek fVOWS site. 14
~.it.-.
~ i ~ .G , ~ j. - t 3Y•i~~5sti s \i ~fi j ~f e
•..tYY~ Rr .,r Z - a ~a a 9 ~S mp qC~ si~~;~+ kJ{~
`l
J i. r ~t • r
J
i
gg i i~7 5 f t" is + t~~ N` t Y I
rY .t_ 1h r1 r ~';i t r. tt F r 1.,. 1 ~ 5 J tte +i.{{'f Lyj~~( +yk's •It~ y'f11 i'tT, +^ri i~ .r ~,t ~~~~t`t' 'Y
-3'`-'L ~ ° 3 'J 4 a - r i, .S:Sf~)~;1't~1 ~t Si~ji`{F.'y,ii•~~~+''~::,~j~%;=~erw'•tl i
p''t tt _h t, tt r ~.f - y ti >;ft 1~ l 1'*j' ,
I iS: S 1 3 3 1 t }t t
2 i J la 5' 3 7 it a tr A tti•'
Al i' - { 4 t't 1J K,LL, t ~i~4„~,~ 1 •i~~ S ~ '+p ) \s•1
9; ~ " jj'' t►'.i t i ' 1 t t 1 1 , JJ + {..i,',~ r,li1
ara~:yj r. + 7. .1+~ i it f` aji ~S?u.>16'I• t
~~~~{l~ ilk ~ _tttl J r ~ 11 r ►r►•++1~"`.s.v .~•;"PgA}1'i•~5.~, ul w~:`~ r
t~} i 1 1 , ry.,~n•. i r +t+t~ la ;~1 ,J 1 ~tkt .t`J<+ .(j~4/, 4i l ris► pY 1.
, 64r' ~1 . l tt i; t y1'., ) 7~• 1 f1 r ti t~ +2 U`-'p~7- t_-i+ +.a 4+'! •Y lt.r
~1~ j 1~* r CSI' { }7* ~r Sy.~yi}J~ r 4n't~ yr1~'• +1 x { 2" r ~S. ;j '~l ~`•ls- T~.tt t~'t `~k}~ 4 4
~1~~»l 1~ 7~11~y" } ,itt~l~~~ttt V~ r 4i+~~51~.~}s•,f tfk~t{. „1 ~~.7 t y J+i~e [4 w•: Ti ' y!
4 b ~ 1 c~ }1~ ~1 "•q'l' ,Sy . tft 'ftt I'ft"".
3 MAT
~m
U`i..i:` av'~+x+~` ,~1~~11 tig e~~~~/. 1~~:,~'~• 1,' •t •P4.,~'a,-2k
} ~.~e ~'}~"`~+~"Y {):~r~►~~ti~~v#E4ir`,~C`` ~ %~,!'fi~~4 ~ M
4! 0
t 1 1
~ 1'
a
I r
Ilk
1 a.~~. , a
I try ~ L~.. '
u4A
~ L
•.1
y'If i
~ I
t ; il• .,u:~ 1st ' i~4~
l~ IJ~~"' . I `f ~ c~ yri ~ ~ ~ °o-t3i` ~~•C+_' 1 ~ + ~ ! 7~~~i ~ ~ ~ t. ~."•T{~,p ~ i.
' t+. ' ~+.r~•l~a ! • a~ .l~..t~~~e Nl~lG~,~~~ , nI t ~ , « cac
a
r `
LYt1Y 1 ~ ~ r
l~~~l~~L~ ~ Y
n
~~i
~r t
i/` ~ ~ .1' t ~ } t
s : r ti r ..t
f,
~w ~ ~ . dT ~R y fix' P t ~f ~i'. k: ~
1 .:r
z
t
i
~
t '
C
Y
~ Zr
M ~ 1
~
t
~ S ~
~ rY .
~4
p
a.y .
Yam„ t' 4.
~R r
4
~ 4
~r , • r
t
:za
.r
, :1•`. ~Z': ~ , r 1 ~ ~ ' ~ / btu
y+~" ~~'.ti,. fir' ~ ~ ~ ~ Iv`~, > } , { ''iP ' ~
.araFnaia4~7"~TI
CN
i ~
t.
} 1 _
a
~e
~,.{Y3f~ )mot .
~i V 1 f~
t ~
It- ~
y; ~,w Imo- r , .i•^ t 4`t t: C 'i f °`S.`'i/~
IF tM 0-0
C~1~".•.!f ~ y Yr~~f"~g-l~ ~ t r• i;~.s~ •r. • t~ ~3 zf1'
• ti' ~ yf ° ♦ ~j t t
J7 k - r Y~~j.'rt1~• -i t~~~1,.Q •,i w"C4L y y
t r~•+''~~ .;tip t, ~'jtrV ~1~ =,(~~'t~~ .`i+ •
i~tt •~t t~ Y4' ? 4 1 ~Y ; a
#..'y: ''ae_, f t'J ~~tf 7f,.. ^dr d •4. J e`
w-~r f t~,Jf- w ~1
Ilk,
04
f '1 1r"~ at FA ~i•F;'F ''1 ~T ''[Nt~~,~~ itt" . r _ •1s.,~,,,,.~1j,'{.`t..
{sr , its ^ 1
~Z..
00.
AID 9ti } r + ..~!'4~ .1f ,t •f'' ::}~'T4'~ ~,'1 'c.°. i.. ~i ~ ~ ~ y^ ~t ,'il~ t~ 1
Yll
Al O c
1 i S
'ti Ef yy~u rt .
+t '1 1° y1 ~y. 't ~a F •~v1 t, •t~
lFhA Ft '~va S. tu'~~r ~r.N'xl.t ~j ✓~K~i`.•a7~,y~.~y~ ~i~''i:a'l_;; .
..4'-, .-r r:. ` i~ ~yi!w `,t~[-. fi r ,~rj~ptf,5,ii~~...,J ~,:'y'► f~, r'j`•
~ { ~ ~ t;~i 2?'.ti=t s' lg Y•.~`i." '1 ..c^'~'1 ~Si~'~~~•Y~.rl: ~ ~ ' ta''
+ `p,.'S~', r ,'t.r: ~7L•'~~p~_•{~~'~},~ry}•.~+~," t..~5`.j;a} r {Nt •f, i
~N~:r. ,-,v. ,1. j,~: '"~t~",'`,~C'yi~'k.i~'' yrt Y~lt• - ..'+-it"`Y...t••~ i t•'• '!l'i~; ~ ~ iw~M M•
'Ff .:.fps ~ a S. ~ ~ t" + r" t.~} : ~ '•[l;•
,t~-•~R2~+M•.,~'S ,~t:l;~~~C't4~~;...,. ry-,-;T=.,~l,j.Y,_;'','1'1'e~a-•i`L;~"3~ ~:'t •tif.
{ ~~ty~'{ ~ ~ ~tY~+~' • t, t. , Y'~ ; Lk.J1.+S*`•.=•r+'. } -'wl t"`et~^.J! F "iT" ~ ' std: u t :S~
+ t r .tti~ ~';,+±~.•~•:4!'~~~:°'"`aLr.{':~rr~" i=_t•y'~~' ~
1, ti .,b! ^-S~P'A'~ t ^`aiLr~ ~ ,r'?•-•-,~1;!'~y~~' L~/• ~9 ' F~~ '
..~1'4~ ► 1kyr~~ ~~0.•~J j~ 7
' `.F'' 1 , ti`t' i ~ , r' l.,t.^, ,y' ,~•s! i _
1. A'~tJI'„~.. ~ ~1 x Yi r'+ ~t 'S~. '1. +K r3f 'Cta'..
e.~ ~ t SAY S i r ♦ ;1 ..v { i ~ .
f SCI ~ +`ti c •r 1 t Yl~~~ i-9 i } ~1 y Y
js/ i f_i j. .c ~.,N a"a r 4, 3+r• ~ `tr ~ ~~1 t1yt ~ °%1""'~', S4'1 i } >
dWo
wMetro requests City provide local
management.
°
of resp onsibilities proposed OV
wSplitting o es central
manages edges and Metro ~anag
portion.
22
NMI
complete
gecom~en~ation: City enter
Management plain a~a
Int~rirn withetxo for joint
M
into IC,A
management. 7.3
interPTOPe
for Clty
'asolas
ri ht of way for future Fanno
~Provldes g
Creek trail. reenway p ~0pert1es
to existing ~collusuous ed Bonita Park•
and PrOPOS
rese rving area from
* Assist MetTO in p
development.
24
I
of X'.,t ~~t(,',~
r ~ tih il .xf ti '~ytf,~t+M` iLa~~' 4 t ro~~".r ~ ~,yw~ .
3
3~ "5""~ ~771~nm
s`~ ~ ) ~
i x t ~ r~^Z.~zF~^', s~ ~'~"~i ~ w..~'.~+✓~.5:~ S , Mf?~~~>3t'
~„q R~_z7~!rgrr,QY-~ ~..~w~'^~~e~ ..~w+a'S~.r+
li'd` ~
ry
1~
` ~ya
5
t{ ,
s ~ l
o1.{W' ' f~. 6~
I
ri R'~T
~ .{TRT~T
V ~ TT~T T (Y
'
.1
LE~~.~~Ty STS
{Y
~
1
t 1
~q ~ I~;,
.a
~ ~
'1
~ ~
1
`~i Ij, j~ t ~
r N
a
, 1
4 ~ ' t
»r
r
- , r
-mom
.vr
r +,•.~~ft7'~`, t~.r • t t/r. l - i • . r . ~1~ 11'~ . !'ti! 'v „v• y~ !
+f+
° ~~1~"i. " 4~..~ Yr , ~ ^.I•-•' f~~jC//"t
• ry ~Y. 'lI`S.r ,~r • . f~'I/:{~',
r J ~~Ta3~~ iii.!"1 s i •.`r,y.,'-fd/`ti' ~tj~ , Tdr 7:
~•y,t •y~•n Y' ~ •r` 1 t d i 1 ~ ' • ; 4, ~ w y'am' ~ ' !
1 ' .~,~~~y'ff r~~} , , ;l ~o~:; 't.l i.:1% .r rv ^et•';T'„4 yg ;4t•,.,, x 1~
• :d 1X..X'tr 1 t ~~•i ro
► ..r ~ 'd i;.; y,,• {~5. ` x'`4.1 1„ '•'~-i'~'~il, rv7 ~yc~"~ :^e „a.. r
~
(4++ .~7 ..~~~,s,*~ ,I ~~k '-,r'y ~C ° .r;1~~.,~ . E• (t`t~' i •:1 • w
+~ie -v~•t~{~,,s.~ +•.,5•t ~ •r :,'{`'r ~ 'Ai f• ~s ~t`.`t' 'a ~-df~ •i r_~'f
( a~~i ~..`5,,.~-.r •'~l~ H ~ •n .t r... j~• ~.+41r=Z~. !LCZ!~ SY.)~• ~ •~>.l}~•' _ ►
~T'~•s~' a•i`;~.=3r'•!;'':zr~lrt'~j~.~'rt.#~ 5 i !.':+~.I1•~•{{~~t`•;+ l1~T•~-'y. =t J:,~zCC~~~~'~ `:Di'+"~1' ;mot
;,t~~ ti j`; ~ 1°-3 1i+ie'•.••5~`a*"~ f, S ; , , 8 - tJ t'.:t+}' J' n t. i' ` . ' -b ' .l..w rt e
i tt C i ~ `t t^,. i ,',rjn- t~.;~•.~t ~ Ri( ~ y ~ rtA~ 1~` ..ytr`1rt • i ry1' r~r R 1 '1;
~ ~,L r.'~'ti ~ ~ `*~t cZt"i" ~ ,.~1,'+ ' r' ! f'cc~~~i'i • 'r"1~7 ,~~t I'iY..3 ~ Z ^ .1~ ~1L
15
y i t•~ ►'x' fay, .f,S ;i. +''ki
r` t ,xt,:
.a ~Z,~,`',. +jQj~~~; ~'~L- ;~`.~'.'1 ~'1~ ;.~i'. ul...,.~. •1e.y3"''I• ~ -y/
~y ~ Y,.1.~ !1 ',.~..a'' -1•. t11''~~T~T 4rt l7~'i., .4~A f' ~:f_ +'.fTs' ~ '1 ' ~ ,C,y, .i'7i•~s~
":~3=' '+V ~s..,`- ~ : `':,`iu,~e•; ~i ~t• .•r~•` ~t{~'J,~ ' to ,Q,~idi a.'t ~ lr.
c ~.-~tic~ r•~ ':r. tt! ~:.'.,~,4 4•~ t- ~ 1' Xu a(j1/ i +r
Lie,
, ~~.~~„tt1t~ ►`~i~M.'s•,~ , 1' ~ ► q ~ r i'' ~a B !fV % ~,y1nA, yf i:+I.•a ....i%+. ~i »r' i •y " S, '
i.C f ~~~~fff' i', - , F, , 1`~ ,t y ~%j;lrjt•• '-+f ~"~r:.7. -Yti i,G~, f..,
-e 2'. 'Zd4r.~~.'S'i Ov.t'~tSNLi1r S:~ ~It ~,r j 4;t'•.~; 1 ; r '
~F_ i a'4,~s-~:I':~.'s'' t>•. i t•Cirogil, u~ 1 • r•f,'1 , $~l`° a
. `r • tjK Z.'."~'~yy5~7~ ..t '.tl~ r :.In"~
."-`~7 , 4-• t, •-!`t.i # 1.<~'Y.~a. .,~~5~'r1'y * i . `Q 4_ w.ld
_Y ~ ,ytiy~ _.'•i.•.r 3_r~'1 ~ .~Y`~' ~~.g~ `~j}jr }7r'' y l rT ^'r J'r-:,ti
'RC" "R"te. :y G -::4w' • _ , t.. , l i. } Y -4 ps a •~aj,~~~7► t~ •~.S '1 ~ • ~ 'r
_.C y er• ~~1.`' _ fi~'I, ~ yt r ,yam'
~itii it `~y~ ` ~ • * { ~ i ~,•~;5: `•Y•~''SrT'1 r 4~ ~ t~ sti.~lyj•, ~ je•"~~7 ~
- . • ir' < . ' `c Ya~_ N 1 '~td'!_3~'! . •t •''R a.
1i- .1`~''737'~y~..f^ pr',': ':i+.~+..:-~ 'r r ,tu.~+ i~r.~"'f~r • :r. ~~t~= j-.
ri-. R `x _l r-1 l' R,a ~„,i! / 1.1 ~.y,•,y~- _ L j.r t`
. Y j 1.+♦.•y i , f ~ .C ~ x i.N
. r •.l}l'~~- + .V S,JVY°};.a 1 \ ,-T
- ~~-"-t. ~ tit r.~•.:; b:~k l~', 3 `~{,f !~.'t.~:.s :.1 r
i.~,~ 't-: t jt-'i .=•~v .i_. .,ate.
y: - v?. ; y i 1' L~ f✓ritirft~}v .,r, --r ~r ~f
• ! ~ °43'i •l.I ~ iy r: ►i3'. r?'-r~~ 7 - -k.~_1•`"t Jed'
W-3
, :.:'•t`' ' ~rpy'3yw~ y/>- ~.~.~•,-y' f ~1 ti, x' ~ • s ~'~~h r -~•V tF • .
'`f j K`r~' .K.- ^~!"~r+. ~`!C~r~•,:*~f•~~+L_. 7'.L1 T"' :~Rrl ;1t :'tl~tT f~ ~S
i. ! - ~"-'r'Y~ :Y' - ~ ' + ,~',r p+~j f•` ~ • A, ~ •,!a ,.Y :t,~ ~.i,.~l
irk ~~r - ! .::-t;Y ~ ~+~i i`- r~~' ~ ~ ,mot ►
'''r'te',~}.'~: t:.~t. Y "rT^>..=~i g : .;.Y r', 'r.,(x~ ,~'x * rt t
Ale' ! ~.f 7 i.i+SF".
~~,y~.y,~'.~4ff'-rT.~s"~. r~jf• w.st s-~t" •~+.c ,t~, P,- •~`~vew"~,-~~ + "``~~~a
_ - wt{'9' 1s~ .kl ~ ,'h.• 4~.,.`✓..r/'~ -~-n r. _ i e~y. . t~f v' !
I.~ f~4 •t r I tF. s
f
all"
~tanda~ds
C,ty paTk NeTeage
cation for considering
~pverall Jus ark ~nventory•
add~~ions to City p
oVela Space 1VIaster r~~ and a11service level standard
established all ove
arks and na~ral areas per
bli
of I I acres of P Based on Pu
1,000 POpulation. Comparison witih
i,tVolVement process,
ies and national standards. 28
similar cit
OEM
financial
the 11-acre
*III order to avoid creat~iog a
standard,
obl~lgation, Councll a pted
and as all ideal or Visio rd.
stand erational sta
and nUt as a~ oP together ia
ark plan was P-Ut elation
V1hen the p kland toPOP
tie ratio of par C u~ently
199$ 9 , the
es P er thousand.
was 1.6 acY 8.4 acres Per thousand.
is
service leve
l ~n space and
wLa~-~ supply available fo e °p pensive
ey nd m 29
parks is small
2-22-19B9 12:42PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 50322518GO P.1
mu"RAFT
PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
CITY OF TIGARD
fj"RA~w
March 3, 1999
ECONOMIC REsouRCB ASSOCIA'T'ES, INC.
P.O. Box 9190
Portland, Oregon 97207
2-22-1,999 12:43PM FROM CARL GOEBEL S0322S1860 P.2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
DEMOGRAPHICS 2
CITY 2
URBAN SERVICES AREA 3
ACQUISITION ANU DEVELOPMENT COSTS 6
PARK LAND INVENTORY 6
PARK STANDARD CHOICE IMPLICATIONS 9
PARK, GREENWAY ARID TRAIL NEEDS 1 1
UNIT COSTS 12
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 13
ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURES 14
APPENDIX .........................................................................•16
2-22-1999 12:43PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251860 P.3
ECOiNOMIc* RESOURCE -
ASSOCIATES, INC.
r_
TIGARD, OREGON
PARIS & RECREATION FACILITIES SDCS
Submitted: March 3, 1999
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to revise the City of Tigard's parks systems development charges. Parks
systems development charges are assessed to new developments for the acquisition and development of
parks, greenways and paved trails. They are based on the cost of providing these services to new City
patrons.
Besides the geographic area within the City boundaries, the report calculates systems development charges
for the City's Urban Services Area (USA). The City's USA includes the unincorporated area within its urban
growth boundary.
The city currently has a systems development charge for parks facilities. The fee is $1,050 for single family
development, $660 per unit for multi-family dwelling units, $540 per apartment and $740 per mobile home.
Additionally, the City currently assessed a park's SDC of $4.90 per employee for new commercial or
industrial development inside the City. These fees are based on a 1994 standard of 6.65 acres of park and
greenway land per 1,000 residents and 1.092 of recreation land per 1,000 employees.'
i
This report updates the financial, demographic and parks inventory information associated with the Tigard
i parks and recreation facilities SDCs. Further, it revises the City's Interest Area definition used in the 1994
1 report to incorporate only the City's adopted Urban Services Area. The methods used to derive SDCs in
this report remain the same as those approved by the City in 1994.
3
a
a
- ' p'.^.rks and Recreation F.,olides Systems Development Charges, C; y of Tigard, Eeoaomnc Resource Associates,
Inc. and 3C Draggoo & Associates, November 18, 1994
ECONOMIC RESOURCE
Associates, Inc.
~T N ~ W
Z "~~~YD Q TA LORS F
w
. METRO DRC to
RD co Market Profile
LO N
N ? OAK ST Prepared For A
. Duane Roberts
fl
pAKQ`A ~analys3sarea
w 1
'
S a p~.o FSS
1' O n si
sung stria
`IVALP
m
T 6-
. .
19
+ GAARDE tifcDONA
L_ . D: ST.`
m
MOUNTA t N ; :a m
:BON4 •TA. RD
Kin' City
J'
RD •:.:FU14HAt~ RD:.
BEND w o
5
600 NE
F' JCHER Po
and, a m3irr~a '
RD j ` . (503) 797-1742
Durh ~P
. TUALATIN METRO A
?lot date: Avgwe 313, 2948
(RO........--- c pqK,, ST
N
S O~ METRO DRC p lD
r~~ sT ~~'o Market- Profile
• ~ ~ ~ Prepared For ~ N
C' WA LN U1 nua~,eRot~~es D
C7 ArolJsft Area
~.J Tigard
O
,x
c.. t7
AROE ST Mc DOHA L D ST
Q UwDeMed Co-mrage
.ly tom` ` ` ( 11 LLl J
(n
_ l SA T•T LER S -I N
CF)
DURHAM RD =
C ~
TUA L A T I N 600 NE Grand Ave
Mand, OR 97232.2736
- ~~i791•]iK1
. 1 • . RD.
9g~~ P
J METRO N tP
J
date: De[emInr 14, 1949
2-22-1.999 12:S2PM FROM CARL GOEBEL S0322S18GO P.1
71
00, of Tigard
Park and Recreations System Development Charges Page 6
ACQIJXSXTXON AND DEVELOPAIENT COSTS
The 1994 Tigard Park and Recreation Facilities SDC report provided a detailed estimate of the acquisition
and development costs for each of five park types. We have adjusted these costs for land value and
construction price changes since 1994.
The Washington County tax assessor tracks the average residential lot price for "improved home sites" for
each urban area in the County. The Tigard land prices have increased from $39,000 in 1994 to $57,900 in
1998. The average annual rate of land price increases is 8.22 percent. The land component of the 1994 park
acquisition expense has been increased by this factor.
The most representative local pricing guide for Table 3
development costs is the Oregon Construction Cost Estimated Park Costs
Index as determined by the Oregon State i4ighway ark Type Land Development
Department. The index monitors the bids offered eighborhood Park 59,385 $146,493
Community Park $59,385 $105,800
for excavation, crushed rock, mixed asphalt, pocket parks 59,385 $51,649
reinforcing steel, structural steel, and structural Linear Parks $29,692 - $27,089
concrete. The Department also provides a reenwa s 29,692 $5,314
composite index using all ofthese factors. Based on
the composite index, the cost of park development
has increased at an average annual rate of 4.12 percent.
The 1998 estimated cost of acquiring and developing parks is shown in Table 3. The City's latest park
acquisition partially confirms the accuracy of using this approach. Recently, the City and County jointly
acquired the 11.68 acre Cache Creek Park site on Bull Mountain. According to the City, the cost of buying
the property was in the range of $700,000. Thus, the City paid approximately$60,000 per acre. We also
confirm the accuracy of this approach by estimating total park acquisition and development costs to mcct
i the Master Plan standards. The results ofour computations compare favorably with the capital improvement
i
$ and recommended project costs identified in the Master Plan.
i
PARK LAND INVENTORY
i
A generally accepted park planning practice is to categorize parks by type. The purpose is to assure that the
appropriate facilities are located according to function, impact and need. The park types applicable to Tigard
are defined in the Master Plan and are repeated for easy reference below.
Neighborhood Parks: Neighborhood parks are the foundation ofthe parks and recreation system,
providing accessible recreation and social opportunities: to nearby
ECONOMIC R1SOURCE
Associates, Inc.
2-23-1'999 11:41AM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251880 P.2
City of Tigard
Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 7
residents. When developed to meet neighborhood recreation needs, school
sites may serve as neighborhood parks.
C_ ommuni parks: Community parks provide a variety of active and passive recreational
opportunities for all age groups. These parks are generally larger in size
and serve a wider base of residents than neighborhood parks. Community
parks often include developed facilities for organized group activity as
well as facilities for individual and family activities.
Pocket Parks: Pocket parks provide recreation opportunities for residents in areas not
adequately served by neighborhood parks, such as town centers or areas
of high density development.
Linear Parks: Linear parks may be developed along built or natural corridors to provide
opportunities for trail oriented activities and nature-oriented outdoor
recreation. Linear parks may also provide some active and passive
recreation facilities to meet neighborhood needs, especially in areas not
adequately served by traditional neighborhood parks. Linear parks
connect residences to major community destinations.
Greenway : A greenspace or greenway is an. area of natural quality that protects
valuable natural resources and provides wildlife habitat. It also provides
opportunities for nature-related outdoor recreation, such as viewing and
studying nature and participating in trait activities.
Trails and Connectors: A public access route for commuting and trail oriented recreational
activities, including sidewalks, bikeways, multi-use trails and paths.
Currently, the City of Tigard has 321 acres of park Table 4
and greenway land (See Table 4). The basic Summary of Park Inventory
information for each City park is listed in the ark Type Units Original Developed
e
appendix of this report. In the greenways of the Community ood Acres 29.06 8.76
Acres 102.87 50.03
City, the City of Tigard currently has 1.91 miles of Pocket Parks Acres 0.15 1.15
paved trail. Also Listed in the appendix to this Linear Acres 36.77 23.90
reenways Acres 162.22 0.66
report is a breakdown of greenway corridors that Total 321.07 84.50
contain pathways and the approximate length of Trails Miles 1.91
each trail.
ECONOMIC RESOURCE
Associares, Inc.
MEW
2-22-1.999 12:55PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251860 P.1
City of Tigard
Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 8
In addition to park land, existing city residents have contributed directly to park purchases through the
existing parks systems development charge. Additionally, others have made contributions to build up the
existing park inventory. Some monies contributed has not yet been spent. However, the funds must be used
for the purchase and development of park lands. Thus, these funds, or the parks that could be purchased with
them, is part of the City's existing park inventory. The City currently has $1,357,096 on hand.
Assuming the same level of park development as Table 5
currently exists, the funds on hand are sufficient to Park Inventory with Spending of Current Balance
buy 6.6 acres of park land and develop 21 acres of Park Type Adjusted Developed
Neighborhood 20.33 9.34
neighborhood, community, pocket parks linear parks Community 109.70 53.35
and greenways (See Table 5). Kinear et Parks 0.16 1.23
39.21 25.48
nways 172.99 0.70
According to the City, there are currently no parks 342.38 90.10
or recreation facilities within the USA.
IFA
STANDARDS
With the adoption of the 1994 SDCs, the City adopted a method for computing parks and recreation
P standards that recognizes that employees and residents both benefit from these facilities. Tl►e basic
assumption of the City's method is that people (whether residents or employees) have similar propensities
to recreate for each hour of available time. While the type of recreation might differ, the probability of
recreating remains relatively constant.
The City's approach is more conservative than that used by other jurisdictions. At uses a more detailed
method of determining the available recreation time and specifically takes account of differences in season,
age of the population, and city residents working outside the city's boundaries. In addition, travel time for
both resident and nonresident employees
Table 5 from home to work is factored into the
City Standard - Existing Servic v 1 computations.
cpulatio Em Yee
Park Category Arno n Per
Per 1,000 J/ I Neighborhood parks are built primarily for
Neighborhood 20. 0.S 0.000 the residents in close proximity of the park.
Community 109.7 69 .231 Thus, employees are unlikely to use
Pocket Parks 0.16 0. 04 0.000
--near 39.21 0.990 0.082 neighborhood parks. Community parks and
Total Parks 169.39 4.324 0.313 trails are used by employees. They play
Greenways 172.99 2.965 1.959
Total Parke and Greenways 342.38 7.279 2.272 ball, use picnicking areas, walk the trails . .
Paved Trails ' 1.91 0.033 0.022 . etc. Greenways are a special category as
these facilities generally do not provide
ECONOMIC RESOURCE
Associates, Inc.
2=22-1,999 12:GGPM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251860 P•2
Cityoj?igard
Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 9
recreation opportunities to either residents or employees (other than the trails dealt with separately).
Greenways enhance the general community by providing open space, wetlands, mitigation of flooding .
etc. Thus, all, resident and business enjoy them alike. It is the residential and commercial property enhanced
by the proper provision of greenway spaces.
Using the City's previously adopted method, existing demographics and park inventory, the City has the
park and recreation standards shown in Table 5. Consequently, the City currently provides 7.3 acres of parks
and greenways for every 1,000 residents and 2.3 acres for every 1,000 employees.
However, the City is planning for the Table ,7
provision of park services to the USA. City and USA Standard - Existing Service Lcvel
There are no parks and recreation facilities Population Employee
currently in the USA. Thus, the USA adds Park Category Amount Per 1,000 Per 1,000
Neighborhood 20.33 0.458 0.000
population and employment to the City but community 109.70 2.331 0.187
does so at the cost of lowering the City's Pockt t Parks 0.16 0.003 0.000
Linear 39.21 0.833 0.067
existing service level standards. The Total Patios 169.39 3.625 0.254
inclusion of the USA decreases the City's Greenways 172.99 2.464 1.927
parks standard by more than an acre per Tots Parks and Greenways 342.38 6.089 2.181
1,000 residents. Paved Trails 1.91 0.027 00211
~
An alternative method for developing City standards is detailed in the most recent Park System Master Plan.
In that document, the recommended City standard is based on a combination of existing, local (neighboring
jurisdictions) and National Recreation and Park Association standards. The Park System Master Plan sets
standards of 2.5 neighborhood park acres, 3.5 community park acres and 5 acres of greenspace/greenways
for a total of 11 acres per 1,000 residents. This is much more than Tigard's current service level.
PARK STANDA" CHOICE IMPLICATIONS
The city is free to adopt any park and recreation standard it chooses. The standard chosen has implications
on the amount of the systems development charge for both residents and businesses. Generally, the higher
the selected standard the more can be collected from new development. The recreation opportunities in the
City can be expanded at a more rapid pace.
However, choice of a standard exceeding the City's current service level also has implications for current
residents. Principles of equal treatment require that existing and new customers bear comparable
ECONOMIC RESOURCE
Associates, Inc.
?-22-1.999 12:56PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251860 P.3
City of Tigard
Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 10
ell wv%"d-
Table 8 responsibility in meeting the City's Apark and
Park Inventory Value recreation needs. As residents and employees,
ark Type Adjusted Developed Value whether current or new, cannot be excluded from
Neighborhood 20.33 9.34 $2,575,460
ommunity 109.70 53.35 $12,159,132 parks and recreation facilities, both current and new
Pocket Parks 0.16 1.23 72,838 customers must provide for these facilities in equal
Linear • 39.21 25.48 1,854,582 proportion. Thus, the adoption of a standard
Greeaways 172.99 0.70 $5,140,130
Total 342.38 90.10 $21,802,143 exceeding current service levels in the creation ofan
SDC places a financial burden on existing
businesses and residents.
In Table 8 we first calculate the value of the existing park inventory (including cash balances) based on the
park acquisition and development costs shown in Table 3 on page 6. The current value of the City's park
inventory is estimated to be just less than $22 million.
We next calculate the park requirements Table 9
using the recommended standards of the Master Plan Standard - Existing City
Park System Master Plan for the current Park Type Required Developed Cost Liability
City population. The result is then valued Neighborhood 92.27 92.27 18,996,826 $16,421,366
Community 129.18 129.18 $21,338,781 $9,179,649
rte"` in the same manner as the current City Pocket Parks 0.00 0.00 $0 72,838)
inventory. Based on these computations, linear 0.00 0.00 $0 ($1,854,582)
Greenways 221.45 0.90 $6,580,247 $I,440,117
the City needs an additional 100 acres of Total 442.91 222.35 915,854 $25,1 13 712
park land and more of the land needs to be
developed (See 't'able 9).
In total, the value of the park system at Master Plan standards would be worth $47 million. As the City
invested $22 million and needed to invest $47 million to meet the needs of the current community, adoption
of the Park System Master Plan standards creates an unfunded liability of more than $25 million. This
liability cannot be charged to the growth sector. Current businesses and residents must bear it.
Should the City wish to adopt an SDC based on the Master Plan standards, the current park liability must
be addressed simultaneously. While the City does not have an obligation to immediately bring the parks up
to the adopted standards, it must have a reasonable and implementable plan for doing so. Without such a
plan, the SDCs could be challenged based on unequal treatment.
ECONOMIC RESOURCE
Associates, Inc.
2-22-1.999 12:57PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 50322518GO P.4
City of Tigard
Park and Recreation System Development Charges _ page I1
The liability oftae City grows ifthe USA is Table 10
included in the analysis. As shown in Table Master Plan Standard - Existing City and USA
1 0 a n at d d i t i o n a l Park Type Required Developed Cost Liability
46 acres of ark land needs to be urchased Neighborhood 111.03 111.03 $22,858,058 $20,282,598
p p Community 155.44 1$5.44 325,676,030 13,516,898
and developed to meet the Master plan Pocket Parks 0.00 0.00 $0 ($72,838)
standards for the current USA. This would Linear 0.00 0.00 0 ( 1,854,582)
Greenways 222.06 0.90 6,598,105 $1,457,975
cost the City another $8 million. Again; Total 488.52 267.371$55,132,193 $33,330,050
this amount could not be charged to new
customers and a plan would need to be.
developed to address the park deficiency.
In the remainder of this report, we assume the City does not adopt the Park System Master Plan
recommended standards at this time. Considerably more work needs to be done regarding the financing of
deficiencies before SDCs could be calculated incorporating these standards. Such work is outside the scope
of this report.
P,t1BY, GP-P ENw-AY ANDT1DAK1.1L ?EEr
In the remainder of this report we assume the City will adopt an existing service level standard for parks that
are based on either the current City population and employment or that of both the City and USA. As a
result, we compute future park needs on these standards.
However, in making value calculations we have used the costs shown in Table 3 on page 6. The per acre
land costs are consistent with those paid by the City for its most recent park acquisition. The Master Plan
computes the total park acquisition and development costs to meet the needs of the City and USA in the year
2008 (population 57,000). The total cost to bring the entire park system up to the Master Plan standard is
just less than $50 million (includes CIP and Other Recommended Projects).
Using the Master Plan standards, the Metro 2015 population of 66,500 for both the City and USA and the
park and development costs shown in Table 3, we calculate the value of the fully developed park system to
be $82.7 million. As shown previously, $21.8 million -oars haI& already been invested. To meet the
needs of existing residents and businesses, another $33.3 million will need to be invested. Lastly, growth
will require additional investments of $27.6 million. Tn other words, based on these calculations, the City
Ar-
ECONOMIC RESOURCE
Associates, Inc.
2-22-1999 12:58PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251860 P.5
City of Tigard
Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 12
will need to invest another $60 million to serve the Table 11
needs of the 2015 population. City Park Needs- Existing Service level
ark Type Acres Developed Cost
eig orh 9
The methods used for computing park and recreation ood .12 4.19 1,55,673.9
Community 48.03 23.36 5,_24,099.8
costs in the 1994 SDC report (adjusted for inflation) Pocket Parks 0.07 0.54 531,893.6
generates comparable financial results as those used Linear 17.17 1 J J6 $812,062.8
Total Parks 74.39 39.25 7,323,730.0
in the Master Plan. Thus, we continue to apply these reenways 67.51 0.27 $2,005,878.0
methods in the derivation of park needs based on Paved Trails 0.75 0.75 83,041.9
existing service level standards. Utilizing the Total All City Recreation $9,412,649.99
current park service level standard for the City as
applied to the 2015 population and employment for the City, Table 11 identifies future park needs by type.
The City needs to spend and estimated $9.5 million to meet the growth requirements of the City.
Table 12 While the standards are lower when the USA is
City and USA Park Needs- Existing Service Level included with the City, the City will earn additional
Park Type Acres Developed Cost park funds by including the USA. The reason for
Neighborhood 10.18 4.68 $1,289,382.8
Community 53.65 26.09 5,946,58'7.4 this is that the USA is growing more rapidly than the
Pocket Parks 0.08 0.60 35,622.5 City. Table 12 shows the park needs that must be
Linear 19.I8 12.46 $907,008.2 addressed by the year 2015 when both the City and
Total Parks 83.08 43.83 $8,178,600.9
Greenways 73.53 0.30 2,208,304.7 USA are being developed.
Paved Trails 0.81 0.81 $23,054.5
Total A11 Ci and USA Recreation $10,409,960.11 UNIT COSTS
The combination of park standards, per acre costs
for land and development and the anticipated units served (resident or employee) form the basis for
establishing the cost of providing parks for each unit of City growth.
A weighted average of the development and land costs was used to compute the total cost of meeting the
City's parks standard. We estimate that on average, it will cost approximately $100,000 to buy and develop
the (and for an average City park, $30,000 per acre of greenway and $110,000 per mile of paved trail . The
0
average City park cost is computed by weighting individual park costs. Besides buying and developing land
N
for parks, greenways and trails, the City must periodically develop a plan for when to buy land, what types
of parks are to be developed and the best location for the parks given anticipated development. In other
words, a park master plan should be developed and approved by the City to provide operational guidance
to the development of the Tigard park system. We estimate the cost of such a plan to be $54,000.
As shown in Table 13, it costs the City approximately $525 to acquire and develop parks and recreational
opportunities for the average new resident. Close to $100 is needed for each new employee.
ECONOMIC RESOURCE
Associates, Inc.
2-22-1999 12:68PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 6032251860 P.6
City of Tigard
Park and Recreation S)stem Development Charges Page 13
P'-
Table 13
Unit Costs City - Existing Service Level
Standard Cost Per Capita Cost Per Employee
park Type Caplm- Employee Developed Lan Total Developed Land Total
Total Parks 4.314 0.313 $198,610 $226,796 $425,405 $13,449 $16,160 29,610
Greenways 2.965 1.959 $64 $88,034 $88,098 2 $58,162 $58,204
Paved Trails 0.033 0.022 3,647 $0 $3,647 92,410 0 2,410
Total. All City Recreation $202,321 $314,830 tlCost $15,901 74,322 $90,223
Cost of Master Planning $956
Cost Per Capita Per Em to ee $91
We conducted the same analysis for the City and USA together. Because of the lowering of park and
recreation standards, the per unit costs are lower.
Table 14
Unit Costs City and USA - Existing Service Level
Standard Cost Per Capita Cost Per Employee
Park Type Capita Employee Developed Lan Total Developed Land Total
Total Parks 3.625 0.254 166,779 $190,551 $357,330 $10,916 $13,117 $24,033
Greenways 2.464 1.927 $1,111 $73,163 $74,275 $41 57,219 $57,260
Paved Traits 0.027 0.021 $0 0 $0 $2,371 $0 2,371
Total All City Recreation $167,891 $263,714 $431,604 $13,328 70,335 $83,664
Cost of Master Planning $4,574 $887
Cost Per Ca ita $436 Cost Per Em to ee $85
SXSTcros DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
Systems development charges are levied at the point of application for a building permit. If the building
permit is for remodeling an existing business or dwelling, no systems development charge is assessed if
the remodel is not an expansion of the existing living or work space. Otherwise, for all remodels and
new developments, a systems development fee is assessed based on the number of people or employees
who are expected to live or work in the space.
For residential sector, we have established the Table 15
average number of people who will live in various Persons per Residential Unit
types of dwellings. This information was obtained City of Tigard, 1998
Residential Unit Household Size
from the 1990 U.S. Census of Population and Single Family 2.70
Housing. Multi-Family 1.70
Apartments 1.40
Mobile Homes 1.90
ECONOMIC RESOURCE
Associates, Inc.
a
2-22-1999 12:S9PM FROM CARL GOEBEL S0322S18GO P.7
City Of Tigard
Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 14
tell" The number of persons working in a proposed commercial development varies greatly with the type of
use. Thus, it is not possible to provide an average as a guideline in the same manner as for the residential
sector. Consequently, each permit application for the expansion or new construction of business related
space trust be evaluated separately for the number of employees who are expected to work within the
space. The systems development charge is then based on the determination of the total number of
employees who will conduct business within the proposed business space.
The maximum systems development Table 16
charge that could be levied by the System Development Charges
City of Tigard under the various Type of Development City City & USA
Single Family Units $1,410 $1,180
alternatives discussed within this Multi-Family Unit $890 $740
report are shown in Table 16. Apartments 730 $610
Because the City has not changed its Mobile Domes $990 $830
Commercial - Per 10 Em to ees 910 $850 f- 1
SDCs for five years and changes in
the standards due to park purchases,
the City SDCs need to be increased from their current level.
The method for calculating the SDCs has not changed since 1994. However, all of the underlying
information has been adjusted to bring it current. Depending on the boundary chosen for which the SDC
is to be charged, it costs the City between $1,410 and $1,180 for each average single family unit to
provide for parks and recreation.
ANNUAL ADJUs'i TENT PROCEDURES
Land and development costs rise each year. The SDCs calculated in this report are based on 1994 prices
inflated to 1998 costs by using price indices. We have demonstrated that the application of the indices
can lead to realistic results. Consequently, we recommend that the City adjust the SDC fees annually.
The new fee should be determined by multiplying the existing fee by the average of two indices, one
reflecting change in developmentlconstruction and the other reflecting changes in land acquisition costs.
The average of the two indices is a reasonable approach as the SDC fee is almost equally split between
land acquisition and development costs (the average Tigard park is 47 percent development and 53
percent land acquisitions).
The index for the land acquisition component is the cost of residential tract land in Tigard as determined
by the Washington County Appraiser. The 1998 lot price used in this report is $57,900 and should be
used as the "base' of the land acquisition index in the first annual adjustment to the SDCs proposed in
this report.
ECONOMIC RESOURCE
Associates, Inc.
2-22-1,999 12:59PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251860 P.8
City of Tigard
Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page iS
The park development costs are adjusted by the Oregon Construction Cost Index that is available from
the Oregon Department of Transportation. We used the most recent period composite index to calculate
SDCs in this report (second period of 1998 - 131.3). Consequently, the index value for this most recent
period becomes the "base" for the first annual SDC adjustment. The City can use either quarterly or
annual indices to make the adjustment. As can be seen from the entire series, quarterly values fluctuate
more dramatically due to the nature of the bid process.
:"'rr .-.;K!_!;l',wlS-_,x:•..,r'-`'•i?:r_^:;fP.: _;_:Y;:i~l=_ii :.7r:-... ~,y.;: :{•=~~M•~;'•:-:{r'•
r^•
1 -
Where:
S13C: . = Systerit TJeuc optneriti;C) argg.teiiA ;adjusted- : '
B'ase'
ACI A+vera a gF:the_:lar tl` ;CI ::ari~3 ` eyeIoptiierit: (DCI;j costs: in es
ic.
>
iA1~7D•
Where:.... . .
:.CI ::]Land: +Cost.IideX
L = Cost of residential:_1af.pnca]p.er.W;asi i[n ton County Tax-Assessor
_ DCl a...:. Develojin~efCosl:Itid.X .
C. Ore oli Coristi uctiorR: Cost.Index .Depai ent:.of Trahsportatio' n
ACI Avegir';of.tte4anr3;Claricl:deveop erit,(T3Cl.):ros .indices; .
r
ECONOMIC RESOURCE
Associates, Inc.
• 2=22-1,999 1:00PM FROM CARL GOEREL 5032251560 P•9
City of Tigard
Park and Recreation System Developmend Charges Page 16
APPENDIX
doa-
TfGARD PARK INvFNlroRY
ECONOMIC RESOURCE
Associates, Irc.
r 2-22-1999 1:00PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251$60 P.10
City of Tigard
Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 17
Park and Greenway Inventory by Type
City of Tigard, 1998
Percent
Park Type Park Acres Type Totals Developed
Neighborhood Park Albertson 's 3.50 19.06 0%
Jack Park 5.50 100%
Woodard Park 3.26 100%
Lowery Addition 6.80
Community Par Cook Park 79.05 102.87 45%
Summerlake Park 23.82 60%
Pocket Parks Liberty Park 0.75 0.15 100%
Main Park 0.25 100%
Ye OZ Windmill 0.15 1007.,
Contributed 71-0-03
Linear Parks Englewood Park 14.97 36.77 90%
Fanno Creek Par 21.80 45%
Commercial Park 0.75 70%
Contributed 0.75)
Greenways 113th Place 0.63 162.22
135th Avenue 0.24
74 76th Avenues 3.14
erkley Creek/Cooper Creek l & 2 6.39
Black Bull Park 2.00
Bonita Road & Industrial Park 7.31
Brook-way 2.30
Cache Creek 11.68
Capstone 2.13
Castle At Brittany 0.78
Clydesdale 0.30
Colony Creek Estates 3.08 1%
Creekside Park 1.00
Dover Landing & Court 3.39
Durham Road 0.32
Estate Drive 1.70
Fair aven St. SW 0.06
Fern Street 2.63
Finley Park 0.38
Genesis 2&3 5.07
Gentlewoods 1.27
reenburg Roa 0.11
Hi lshire Woods 30.62
ollytree 1.30
ack Park 1.00
Johnson Street 0.29
eron 3 5.01
ea otv lade 4.10
ECONOMIC RESOURCE
A.ssociafes, Inc.
+ 2-22-1999 1:01PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251860 P.11
City of Tigard
Park and Recreation System DeveIOPment Charges Page 18
Park and Greenway Inventory by Type
City of Tigard, 1998
Percent
Park Type ark Acres Type Totals Developed
Merestone 1.25
Morningstar 8.27
North Dakota 2.14 5%
Pathfinder 1.80
Pick's Landing 6.40
Rebecca Park 0.88 5%
Renaissance Wo s 2.74
Riverview Estates 2.82
Schec a Park 1.40
Shady Lane 1.96
Summer Hills Park 4.01 5%
W 135 th & Scholls Perry 5.07 5%
Terrace Trails 2.50
Tigard Street & Addition 3.31
i iaCe ~.'70
Tualatin Country Club 2.25
Tualatin Drive 0.42 5%
Tualatin River (Hickox Property) 0.09
Willowbrook Farm 0.59
Windsor Place 2.63
Winter Lake Drive 3.03
Ye O Windmill 7.36
Yolo Estates 2.37
otal Acres 321.07
ECONOMIC RESOURCE
Associates, Inc.
Aft
March 3, 2000
Kevin Wing CITY OF TIGARD
Metro Homebuilders Assoc.
15555 SW Bangy Road OREGON
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Dear Kevin:
This letter is written to update you and the Metro Homebuilders on the status of
the City of Tigard's long-standing interest in extending the City parks SDC to the
City's Urban Services Area. As you will recall, the Services Area is located
adjacent to Tigard's western edge and is an area where the City provides such
services as land use review and building inspection under an inter-governmental
agreement with Washington County. Currently, the area is developing without
parks at the rate of roughly two hundred housing units per year. The reason the
City wishes to extend the parks SDC to the Urban Services Area is to maintain
this area's quality of life as it urbanizes.
While the Urban Services Area is designated for future annexation into Tigard,
the problem is that by the time this occurs much of the land needed for parks will
have been lost to development. In order to facilitate sound planning and growth
management within this area, existing and future demands for park services
must be anticipated and met in advance of annexation. This is why Tigard has
begun discussions with Washington County, which does not itself provide park or
other so-called urban-level services, on the implementation of a City Urban
Services Area park SDC.
As part of its efforts to address the adjacent area's park needs, the City has
completed a park master plan that covers the City and the Urban Services Area.
However, the City has no funding source to implement the plan in the Urban
Services Area. Tigard is designated as the area's future park provider, but
currently has no funding source to improve conditions. While it is true that a
parks SDC would add to the cost of new development, without funding for parks
the area will be less attractive as a place to live.
The City's attempts to meet the urgent need for additional parkland in the area
are supported by the residents of the Urban Services Area. We frequently hear
from these citizens about their rising concern over the loss of open space around
them as in-fill and new development occurs. Last year, during a series of
westside community involvement meetings, residents of the unincorporated area
voiced strong support for parks. If Tigard, as the future services provider for this
area, is going to be successful in beginning to address the concern about
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
maintaining the quality of life in this area, it needs the authority to begin, charging
a park fee to new development.
Between June 1997, when the City first began providing services in the Urban
Services Area, to early October 1999, the City issued permits for 488 housing
units inside the area. Had the City parks SDC, been in place during this period,
approximately one half million dollars in park SDC revenues would have been
collected and been available for park improvements. The longer we wait, the
more funds are being lost and the less vacant land is available to begin to meet
the area's park needs.
In conclusion, adoption of an Urban Services Area park SDC would provide the
City the means to begin to bring park services on a par with park services inside
the City. A survey of neighboring cities indicates that the proposed charge,
approximately $1,200 on a single family house, is in the mid-range of what other
cities currently charge. Although the SDC would add to the cost of new housing,
the overall impact would be comparatively small, especially given the upper end
housing being built within the area.
I am enclosing for your reference a copy of the Tigard Parks Master plan and an
updated parks SDC study, both of which cover the Urban Services Area. Jim
Hendryx will call you sometime within the next few weeks to discuss the City's
proposal.
Sincerely,
William A. Monahan
c Tom Brian
i/Irph/dr/sdc. homebuilders.doc
„r
Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland
tal . ",Striving for Affordability, Balance and Choice"
RECEIVED C.O.T
APR 0 5 2000
April 3, 2000
Administration
Mr. William Monahan
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Bill:
This letter is in response to your letter of March 3`d, regarding the city's interest in imposing a parks
System Development Charge in the city's Urban Services Area. I have spoken briefly with Jim
Hendryx on this topic, and this letter will serve as a more formal response to the proposal.
To put it simply, we would be opposed to the City extending its parks SDC in the Urban Services Area.
Our Association is opposed to the use of Systems Development charges to fund parks systems for a
number of economic and philosophical reasons. We argue, along with many noted economists, that
from a public financing perspective, an equity and fairness perspective, and a cost/benefit analysis
perspective, SDCs are a poor tool for park infrastructure financing. (See attached, page 3-4) Simply
put, p is~ yide primarily general community benefits and are'thezefore r gl tfuiiy fund6d'hy geneA
taxes. In fact, the only perspective from which a parks SDC makes sense is a political perspective, as it
places the costs of general community benefits on a select subset of the community: new home buyers.
The proliferation of the use of parks SDCs by local governments aside, we continue to believe that their
use is unconstitutional, and have recently initiated a lawsuit that may test this idea. Without going into
great detail, we believe it to be extremely difficult for any parks SDC to meet the legal tests that have
been established by the Supreme Court with regard to exactions upon development. Namely, it is
impassible to establish an "essential nexus" (Nollan v Cal rornia Coastal Commission) between the
action of constructing a new home and the incidence of placing a specific, measurable demand on a
jurisdiction's park system. More recent court cases have suggested that the link between two actions
i necessary to meet the essential nexus test must be direct and causal, rather than incidental and/or vague.
i
i
Further, we believe it to be impossible for a parks SDC to meet the test of "rough proportionality".
(Dolan v City of Tigard) Any methodology based upon vague concepts of park availability and level-
c f-service standards, and not on any measurement of actual park usage or deYnaiid for park`usage, has no
way of demonstrating any proportionality, let alone even rough proportionality.
3 These same arguments were, in fact, recently upheld by a District court in Iowa in which the Home
a Builders Association of Greater Des Moines sued the city of West Des Moines over a parks impact fee.
The court unanimously found that "the exactions against developers... were not impact fees, but rather
an administratively convenient way to raise revenue for parks with no relationship to park demand or
usage."" In Oregon, "impact fees" without any measurement of impact are otherwise know as taxes.
15555 SW 13angy Road, Sui(e 301, take Oswego, Oregon 97035
11hone:503.684.1880 • Fax: 503.684.0588 • www.hbamp.com • www.homebuilder.com
"Do business with a member, it's good for our itidushy"
i
While still affirming our objections to parks SDCs in general, we would also have procedural concerns
if the city decided to move ahead on this. First of all, it would require an inter-governmental agreement
between the city and Washington County, and would likely require Washington county to adopt a parks
SDC methodology. This would place the county in the interesting legal quandary of making a
legislative decision that finds that new homes built in the Urban Service Area create an impact upon a
parks system, yet none of the other homes built within the county's jurisdiction do. Because SDCs are
(hopefully) based upon measurements of impact, they may not be selectively applied without a rational
reason for doing so.
There would also be a potential problem with the operations/management and maintenance of parks
facilities after they are constructed. As you know, SDC funds may only be expended on capacity
increasing capital improvements.
These procedural questions could easily be solved if the city were to take the action of annexing the
Urban Service Area into the city.
While I hope that this clearly states our position on parks SDCs, our Associations is by no means
opposed to healthy, productive park systems. In fact, members of the HBA of Metro Portland have
contributed more park land to area jurisdictions than any other group of people. We simply believe that
parks are an integral part of a community and are rightfully funded by the entire community.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Best Regards,
Kevin Wing
Director of Local Government Affairs
HBAMP
KW/kbo
Eric: EcoNorthwest Memo
CC: Tom Brian
NINE
f
JX71~. 7. CCR'J17 "''11?•1701i1'1 16-6 VJM lrW4W O1 r'V^ IIV. 71./ . ...r• a...
making ethodology. However, a consistent Atodology is
presented, and this likely satisfies the statutory requirements of an
improvement fee methodology?
The methodologies for implementing SDCs in Oregon have been very
inconsistent, both across implementing jurisdictions, and over time. The
relatively limited body of case law does not appear to constrain SDC
methodology significantly as long as the basic criteria for implementing an
SDC are followed. Namely, as long as a government,body can point to some,
generally-relevant costs and devise a method that allocates..them among
various classes of payers, it can assert that it has applied "late-making
principles" larder the statutes and implement the SDC. But precisely because
of the paucity of case law on these issues, it is important to evaluate SDCs
from a true, public finance economics perspective, since that perspective may
ultimately prevail in case law.
2. Is there a Rationale for rasing SOCs to Finance Park and
Recreational Facilities?
Urban park and recreational facilities traditionally have been financed
by local property taxes and user fees. In 1967, for example, the average city
parks program, in the United States was 15.4 percent financed by user charges
and 85.3 percent financed by property taxes? This dual structure of parks
financLng reflected the underlying, dual nature of the economic benefits of
park and recreational activity. The use of SDCs to finance parks, in contrast, is
at odds with the characteristics of the, services parks provide.
Specifically, the park and recreational services have attributes of both
public and private goods. Public goods, in economics parlance, are goods that
can be enjoyed simultaneously by many people without diminishing the
enjoyment by any one of them; in fact, the benefits of true public goods are so
ubiquitous that it is difficult to exclude some consumers from consuming
them (the non-excludability principle) or to levy charges to ration their use.
Parks have some public good attributes, because the very presence of park
facilities and other public open space in the immediate environs of homes or
businesses can enhance the quality of neighborhoods, and it is difficult to
exclude an individual property from enjoyir..g these benefits or to levy a
charge to ration the enjoyment. Hence, levying property taxes to finance local
parks makes economic sense because it is a general tax, to finance a service
with generalized benefits.
But park and recreational services also have many private-good
attributes. Some services, like tennis courts, swimming pools and camp sites,
z This latter issue is addressed in ORS 223.307(2).
City and County Data Book, US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
various years.
ECONORTHWEST a PORTLAND 3 1/5/00
-
oil 11 mills
, Jr,+• a. aCxxr LW-WC vI c~.v+nrtcirwVC.arufN 4w• 71 _P r w
dearly fail the non- eludability test; only a few citizens time are able to
enjoy a tennis court, for example, and the use of the court is easily rationed
through pricing. It is appropriate to finance such quasi-private goods through
user charges, rather tax devices; user charges are selective devices to finance a
service that provides selective services.
The historical pattern of property tax and user charge finance of parks
changed in the late 1970s. Park SDCs gained particular currency after the
passage of Proposition 13 in 1977 in California, which slowed the rapid
growth of local property tax revenues. The use of SDCs and other non-
property tax devices permitted California to nearly double its spending on
urban park -and recreation services in the five years following the passage of
Proposition 13, while increasing user fees only slightly from 19.2 to 20.6
percent. In Oregon, similarly, communities have turned to SDC financing of
parks as resistance to local property tax levies increased in the last decade.
In my view, SDCs are a poor replacement for property tax and user
charge finance. In the public good dimension, for example, the use of SDCs is
particularly inappropriate because it involves the use of a selective revenue
device to finance a service with generalized benefits. Of course, it is this very
characteristic that makes them so appealing politically; only new
development is burdened for the general benefit of public at large, From a
public finance perspective, however, such instruments are discriminatory
and inequitable. .
Nor are SDCs a good replacement for user charge revenues, because
SDCs are not levied at the time of use, or in proportion to actual use. Thus,
the SDC is also inappropriate when parks and recreational services mostly
involve quasi-private goods and rationing is needed to ensure efficient and
equitable access to the service.
In summary, from the perspective of public finance economics, the case
for the use of SDCs to finance park and recreational services is extremely
weak. The use of SDCs to finance park and recreational services is inherently
fraught with problems of inequity and inefficiency. Property tax and user fee
devices have a sounder basis in public finance principles.
3. The Methodology of the Proposer! THPRV SDC
In addition to the general concerns expressed above, I also have
concerns with the methodology employed in t~e report. Before discussing
those concerns, however, it is helpful to revie , the methodology.
The proposed Tualatin parks SDC calculation involves the following
steps:
e Population and employment growth data were obtained from Metro
for the THPRD.
ECONORTHMST a PORTLAND 4 1/5/00
ww=
April 6, 2000 Cffy OF 11GARD
Mr. Kevin Wing
Director of Local Government Affairs
Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland
15555 SW Bangy Road, Suite 301
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Re: Systems Development Charge and Washington County Urban Services Area
Dear Kevin:
Thank you for your letter of April 3, 2000, responding to my letter regarding the City's
interest in creating a Parks Systems Development Charge in the City's urban services
area. I have asked our City Attorney to review your position that the County cannot
create Parks SDC in this specific area of the County.
I axpect to have a response from our attorney very shortly. Perhaps you can advise
your legal counsel of our need for revenue to create park lands in this area so they are
prepared to discuss the matter once our attorney renders his opinion. In addition, if you
have any other thoughts on how we might provide parks to this under-served area as
!,-ban development occurs, I would like to hear them.
We will be back in touch with you very shortly.
Sincerely,
4
William A. Monahan
City Manager
c: Tim Ramis
Jim Hendryx
1:ADM\BI LL\000406. DOC
i
13125 SW Hail Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF May 23.2000
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: An ordinance granting to Level 3 a franchise to conduct a
telecommunications business in the City of Tigard, Oregon, including the right to place poles, wires,
and other appliances for telecommunication purposes in the public rights-of-way; authorizing the
Mayor to sign this agreement; and declaring an emergency.
PREPARED BY: C. Prosser DEPT HEAD OK _ CITY MGR. OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Council approve an ordinance to establish a new franchise agreement for
telecommunications services provided by Level 3?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the franchise agreement.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Level 3 has requested a franchise from the City of Tigard to offer telecommunications service within
the City limits. The attached ordinance establishes that franchise, including the rights and
responsibilities of the City and of Level 3. The agreement requires that Level 3 pay a franchise fee
each year equal to 5% of its net revenues generated within the City of Tigard. This ordinance
contains an emergency clause to allow Level 3 to begin work on its fiber network immediately upon
granting of the franchise.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do not approve the local telephone access franchise agreement.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
Telecommunications franchise agreements generate General Fund revenue based on 5% of the
franchisee's revenues generated within the City of Tigard.
r
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Coun it n
FROM: Bill Monahan, City Manager
DATE: May 19, 2000
SUBJECT: City Manager Benefits
Council requested that I provide a chronology of changes to my benefit package resulting
from my annual review. I have prepared the information below of those benefits that have
changed since November 1994.
Automobile Allowance
Initially - November 1994 - $250 per month
Changed - November 1996 - $300 per month
Now - May 2000 $300 per month
Blue Cross Blue Shield Coverage
Initially - November 1994 - City paid for Plan II (1 paid
$121.76 to obtain Plan IV)
Changed - November 1996 City paid for Plan IV
Changed -July, 1999 BCBS discontinued Plan IV
for Tigard, reduced to Plan II
Now - May, 2000 Plan II Coverage
Life Insurance
Initially- November 1994 City paid up to $1,000 to purchase
I term life insurance
i Changed - November 1996 Option provided that I could
i purchase the insurance and be
reimbursed $1,000
Now - May 2000 1 receive $1,000 upon showing
proof of paying $1,000 for term
a insurance
May 19, 2000
City Manager Benefits - Page I of 2
11011 ~~Illllllij!Ij
Management Lease
Initially- November 1994 3 days per year
Changed - May 1996 Added 2 days, for total of 5
Now - May 2000 5 days per year
Vacation
Initially- November 1994 Credited with 10 years of
experience; earn @ 12 hours/mo.
Proposed change - November 1996 Requested change to 16 hours
per month - not approved
Changed - November 1999 Due to attaining 15 years of
experience, City policy grants
14 hours per month
Now - May 2000 Earn at 14 hours per month
Retirement
Initially - November 1994 City contributed 14%
Changed- 1996 After Measure 8 was sorted out,
retirement benefits for manage-
ment employees reduced by 11%
per year for 3 years. In return,
salaries adjusted by 1 % per year.
1996 - reduced to 13%
1997 - reduced to 12%
1998 - reduced to 11 %
Now - May 2000 11%
1AAD MkB ILL10005I9-3.DOC
II
I
I
f
May 19, 2000
City Manager Benefits - Page 2 of 2
Ir
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: Bill Monahan, City Manager
DATE: May 16, 2000
SUBJECT: City Manager Review
During the Study Session portion of the May 9, 2000, City Council meeting, I was asked to
provide Council with similar information as I provided last year for my performance review.
I reviewed my file and noted that in 1999 1 was asked by City Council to provide my
compensation request for consideration. Therefore, I am providing you with the following
request:
1) Last year, after a compensation analysis of our comparable jurisdictions, Council
granted a 5% merit increase effective May 15, 1999. A. COLA of 2.5% was
granted, consistent with my contract. The contract provides that I receive the same
COLA as granted to management staff. Management staff will receive a 2.6%
COLA this July.
2) Last year I suggested that Council consider granting to me and all management
staff an erriployer contribution to a deferred compensation plan. Council expressed
a desire to a different management retirement plan (or study) at a later Council
meeting. I renew my request. Human Resources staff, as part of the management
classification and compensation analysis has been gathering information to discuss
with Council in June.
3) Presently I earn vacation at the rate of 14 hours per month, the accrual rate for an
employee with 15-plus years of service. I propose that effective May 15, that my
accrual rate be increased by two (2) hours per month to the maximum accrual level
of the City for management staff -16 hours per month. This is an increase of three
vacation days per year. If granted, I would reach the maximum four and one-half
years ahead of the normal schedule.
4) 1 have attached a comparison of City Manager compensation showing the same
comparable cities as used last year. Both the 1999 comparison and the updated
2000 comparison are attached. If Council feels that a merit increase is justified, the
comparables may serve as a guide.
s
a I would be pleased to provide additional information as requested.
Attachment
1:\AD M\B 1 LL\000516. D OC
C
. r,.i: ire
C OF TIGARD
TO: Bill Monahan
FROM: Cathy Herbert - Sr. Vuman esources Analyst
RE: City Manager Compensation Review - May 2000
DATE: May 19,2000
Attached is the revised City Manager Compensation Review conducted this month. All
figures from other jurisdictions were obtained from the Human Resources Departments at
those jurisdictions. For the City of Tigard, I used the population figure from the
"Proposed Budget - Fiscal Year 2000-01 "pamphlet prepared by our Finance Department.
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions!
13125 SW Half Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
CITY MANAGER COMPENSATION REVIEW - MAY 2000 i
i I
JURISDICTION POPULATION SALARY RET. PLA ER CONT EE CONT DEF.COM VEHICLE OTHER EFF.DA
Gresham 86,000 $9,414 PERS 14.13% 0% 9% of sal. $350/mo 0 711199
Hillsboro* 69,670 $8,746 PERS 9.79% 6% $625/mo City car 0 7/1/99
Tigard 39,672 $8,217 iCMA 11% 0 0 $3001mo 1K Life
2.5 COLA o 7 1 99 ,
Lk.Oswego 34,280 $8,750 PERS 14.99% 0 $200/mo $350/mo 0 1/1/00
kiilwaukie 20,200 $7,594 PERS 16.90% 0 $500/yr m $250/mo 64 hrs Iv 7/1/99
Tualatin* 21,405 $7,889 PERS 10.06% 6% $4171mo $250/mo 3 addl 711199
vac. Days
W. Linn 21,450 $8,229 PERS 14.09% 0 0 City car 50K Life
Sherwood 10,500 $8,333 PERS 16.67% 0% 0 $3001mo $60/mo - 12/1/99
cell phone
OR. City 23,000 $7,083 PERS 18.58% 0 0 #300/mo 0 11/1199
* Gross monthly salary for Hillsboro and Tualatin reduced by 6% for mandatory 6% PERS contribution
1999 Carpensation Review
RETIREMENT chi DEFERRED COMPENSATION
CITY MANAGER
Retirement Deferred Compensation
Agency Total Employee Retirement Employer Retirement Employer Deferred
Sala Contribution Contribution Com ensation Contribution
Gresham $9,140. $ 0 0% 1$1,291. 14.13% $823./mo. 9.00%
* Hillsboro 8,533. 512.. 6% 752. 08.81% 625./mo. 7.00%
Tigard 7,826. 0 0% 861. 11.00% 0 0%
Lake Oswego 8,333. O 0%, 1,132. 13.58% 200./mo. 2.00%
Milwaukie 7,372. 0 0% 885. 12.00% 42./mo. 0.05%
Oregon City 6,564. 0 0% 1,164. 17.73% 0 0%
* Tualatin 7,493. 450. 6% 654. 08.73% 417./mo. 5.5%
West Linn 7,574. 0 0% 909. 12.00% 530./mo. 7.00%
* Sherwood 6,891. 413. 6% 486. 07.05% 0%
* Employee required to pay 6% PERS Contribution
TTl T T A T T TfTTlTT A P'rrr