City Council Packet - 09/18/2001a
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS FOR REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
> EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an
Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced
Identifying the applicable statute. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend
Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information
discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or
making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
> ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
0 Commemoration of Tigard's 40°i Year - 9/25/01. Agenda distributed to City Council.
TV Coverage will start at 6:30 p.m.
O League of Oregon Cities Conference - November 9-11 in Eugene (Information In the City
Council mail last week.)
Holiday Tree Lighting
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s).
If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda
item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set
for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager.
Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present
by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard
in any order after 7:30 p.m.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be
scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please
call 503-639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications
Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;
and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow
as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the
Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, x309 (voice) or 503-684-
2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACKED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - September 25, 2001 page 1
Agenda Item No.
Meeting of 11- l3- Dl
MINUTES
TIGARD CITE' COUNCIL MEETING
September 18, 2001
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Mayor Griffith called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.
1.2 Roll Call: Mayor Griffith; Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Patton and Scheckla.
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications at Liaison Reports: None
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items
City Manager referred to the Administrative Items for Review Agenda, which
is on file with the City Recorder. These items were reviewed in more detail at
the end of the meeting.
2. DISCUSSION OF SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE ON MAJOR COLLECTORS
City Manager Monahan referred to a request from the Summerfield Civic Association
to delay the discussion of this item until November 20, 2001. Consensus of the City
Council was to reset this agenda item as requested.
(Agenda Item No. 4 was discussed at this point in the meeting.)
3. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
Budget Committee Chair George Burgess called the meeting to order at 7:09
p.m.
• Roll Call: Chair Burgess; Committee Members Benner, Dirksen, Griffith Moore,
Moszer, Patton, Scheckla, Sherwood, and Zuffrea.
3.1 Update on Financial Issues
- Cook Park Project/OECDD Loan
Finance Director Prosser updated the Budget Committee on the Cook Park
loan In the amount of $2.29 million. This item is also one of the matters to
be review in the Supplemental Budget Hearing (see Item 3.2). Additional
details on this loan are on file with the City Recorder.
- Photo Radar
Several positions had been designated in the Budget for the anticipated
enforcement and processing relative to implementation of Photo Radar. Mr.
Prosser reported that the cost:benefit ratio of the program does not appear
to work for the City of Tigard. This program was tabled.
COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 2001 page 1
Telecommunication Franchise (Qwest vs. The City of Portland)
Mr. Prosser briefly reviewed the court case with regard to the Qwest vs. the
City of Portland franchise fee matter. This case could impact the City of
Tigard. Qwest has advised the City of Tigard they will not be sending the
franchise fees usually collected by the City until the outcome of the above-
referenced case is known. The amount usually received from Qwest is
approximately $45,000 per year. Verizon advised that they will continue
to pay franchise fees, but under protest. If Qwest is successful, Verison will
expect a refund. The total amount of franchise fees collected by the City of
Tigard that could be affected is $420,000 per year.
League of Oregon Cities has hired a financial expert to sort through the
issues relating to the Qwest matter. It was noted that the City may need to
start thinking about a reserve amount for franchise fees during the Budget
process.
Other Items
Mr. Prosser added that a position was added in the Finance Department.
One of the responsibilities of this new position is to review all fees and
charges. A draft summary of current fees and charges was distributed to
departments for review.
3.2 Supplemental Budget Hearing
- Open public Hearing: Budget Committee Chair Burgess opened the public
hearing.
Present Staff Report: A detailed outline of the funds that were under
review for this supplemental budget hearing is on file with the City
Recorder. The supplemental budget focused on the Parks SDCs and
Underground Utility Fees. Finance Director Prosser reviewed the
information that had been previously distributed to the Budget
Committee.
- Receive Public Testimony: There was no public testimony.
Close Public Hearing: Budget Committee Chair Burgess closed the
public hearing.
- Budget Committee Consideration: Motion by Budget Committee Member
Benner, seconded by Budget Committee Member Moszer, to approve the
Supplemental Budget for the City of Tigard and refer it to the City Council
for a Public Hearing on October 9, 2001.
COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 2001 page 2
The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Budget Committee members
present (10-0):
Chair Burgess and Committee Members Benner, Dirksen, Griffith
Moore, Moszer, Patton, Scheckla, Sherwood, and Zuffrea all voted yes.
3.3 Status of Fiscal Year 2000-01 Year-End (preliminary results)
Finance Director Prosser reviewed the status of the FY 2000-01 year-end
budget. Mr. Prosser distributed the unaudited ending fund balances for the
current fiscal year and reviewed the information with the Budget Committee.
He noted that most fund balances looked good.
❖ Budget Committee Meeting Adjourned: 7:33 p.m.
❖ Council Meeting Reconvened: 7:35 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 5 was discussed at this time.
4. UPDATE ON INSURANCE PROGRAM
Risk Manager Loreen Mills Introduced this agenda item regarding updated information
for the City's insurance program for property, casualty, and worker's compensation.
Ms. Mills introduced Ron Graybeal, the City's Agent of Record. Mr. Graybeal
summarized information on worker's compensation, property and liability insurance as
well as introducing the proposal that it may be time for the City to consider becoming
self-insured. A PowerPoint presentation was delivered to the City Council and a copy
of the presentation is on file with the City Recorder.
The City participates in City County Insurance, which is a "pool," and not an
insurance company. The process of how to determine whether self-insurance is the
way to proceed reviewed. The process would include an actuarial study to determine
the amount of funds to set aside to cover a percentage of potential claims. Another
step would be to determine where certain additional insurance policies should be
purchased to limit the aggregate losses. The funding mechanics, claims handling, and
a traditional insurance comparison would also need to be reviewed. Self-insurance
would not be proposed for employee medical benefits or workers' compensation. An
actuarial study will be completed in December or ]anuary and recommendations will
be brought to the City Council to determine whether a self-insurance program should
be incorporated into the Budget process.
COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 2001 page 3
City Council meeting recessed at 7:06 p.m. and the Budget Committee convened at 7:09
p.m. (See Agenda Item No. 3.)
5. DISCUSSION OF STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Community Development Director Jim Hendryx introduced this agenda item.
Associate Planner Duane Roberts presented the staff report and referred to a
PowerPoint presentation (both of which are on file with the City Recorder).
The issue before City Council was whether the City should grant Community Partners
for Affordable Housing's (CPAH) request for a $10,000 fee reduction.
Ms. ]III Sherman, representing CPAH, gave an overview of affordable housing
financing. Associate Planner Duane Roberts reviewed the staff recommendation as
contained in the Council Agenda Item Summary.
City Manager Monahan noted that the rent-free office space that the City donates to
CPAH will be made available through this year only. In response to a question from
Councilor Scheckla, Associate Planner Roberts noted that the City Attorney's advice
was to avoid waivers of fees; however, a potential option is that the City would give
money from the General Fund to CPAH for fees.
Discussion followed on what types of affordable housing is offered in other
communities in the area. It was noted that it was difficult to find projects that qualify
for affordable housing funding.
Council members discussed social service funding and the Council goal with regard to
affordable housing. There was also some discussion about setting funding that was
targeted for affordable housing opportunities rather than have these requests be
combined with social service funding requests during the budget process. City
Manager Monahan said that a Council decision should include setting standards for
funding criteria for affordable housing. He informed the Council that Hawthorne
Villa (a low-income housing center) will likely ask for a tax abatement from the City
of Tigard. He advised that the City Council should decide the level of contribution
for affordable housing from the City's budget. In addition, Mr. Monahan noted that
in a few years the City will need to determine whether the Tigard taxpayers should be
asked for a five-year operating levy in order to keep the General Fund at a level to
maintain current programs.
COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 2001 page 4
After discussion on the staff s recommendation nthat as budget amprovide endment tr0a0nsfIn fee relief to
erring $8 000
CPAH, the Council cons
from the General Fund to CPAH should be placed on an upcoming agenda for
Council consideration. In addition, Council indicated that affordable housing
contributions (whether it should be separated from social services when considering
the budget) should be discussed during the next goal-setting session.
6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None.
7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None.
> City Manager Review Administrative Items:
® Mayor Griffith reported the success of a "walk" that occurred on Saturday,
September 15, as a memorial resulting from the tragic events of September 11.
This candlelight walk started at Main Street and ended at City Hall. The event was
well organized and well attended. There was also an event in memory of victims
and to show patriotic support last Friday at Cook Park.
An agenda was distributed to the City Council for the September 25, 2001, City
Council meeting. Cable television coverage for the Council meeting will begin at
6:30 that evening. Tigard's 40th "Birthday" was on September 11, 2001, but
because of tragic events in New York the celebration planned for that day was
postponed to September 25, 2001.
Information was distributed to the City Council in its mail distributed last week
regarding the League of Oregon Cities Conference, November 9-11, 2001, in
Eugene, Oregon.
City Manager Monahan noted there was interest expressed by the downtown
merchants to conduct the holiday tree lighting on Main Street at Liberty Park.
After brief discussion, the consensus of City Council was to support the holiday
tree lighting at Liberty Park rather than hosting the tree lighting at the City Hall.
Community Development Director Hendryx distributed a memorandum dated
September 17, 2001, from Albert Shields to Bill Monahan regarding the house
that is to be moved to Cornelius but is now located on SW North Dakota
Street. A copy of this memorandum is on file with the City Recorder. This
structure should be removed from its current location this upcoming weekend.
Staff is working with Emmert Construction so that situations such as this are
avoided or are taken care of more quickly in the future.
Councilor Dirksen reported on a recent Water Consortium meeting. He advised
that Commissioner Sten was recommending moving forward with a regional
water provider. Future proposals discussed included a water maintenance
program and a potential water conservation rebate to customers.
COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 2001 page 5
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled.
9. ADJOURNMENT: 9:09 p.m.
PatWerife Wheatley, RAttest:
yor, 1 1 rd
ate: ✓ al U
COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 2001 page 6
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
Commemorating
the City of Tle®rd`s 40" Year!
6:30-6:40 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD,
ROLL CALL, AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - MAYOR GRIFFITH
❖ Pledge of Allegiance to be Led by Boy Scout Troop 419
6:40 - 6:50 PM
2. WELCOME ex READING OF PROCLAMATION - MAYOR GRIFFITH
6:55-8 PM
3. SPECIAL GUESTS
❖ Washington County Chair Tom Brian (Tigard Mayor - )an. 1987 - December. 1988;
Letter to be read by Councilor Patton)
❖ US Representative David Wu (Letter to be read by Representative Wu's spokesperson.)
❖ Former Mayor )ohn Cook (Tigard Mayor - )an. 1984 - Dec. 1986)
•o• Former Mayor Gerald Edwards (Tigard Mayor - )an. 1989 - March 1994)
❖ Senator Gordon Smith (Letter to be read by Councilor Moore.)
❖ Governor )ohn Kitzhaber (Letter to be read by Councilor Scheckla.)
❖ Beaverton Mayor Rob Drake (Letter to be read by Councilor Dirksen.)
❖ Pioneer woman reading letter (2-3 minutes)
❖ Tigard-Area Resident Bev Froude
❖ Former Mayor lack Schwab (Tigard Mayor - April 1994 - May 1994)
❖ Tigard Resident Betty Moore
❖ Tigard Resident Pat Keerins
❖ Tigard Resident Martha Bishop
•o• Tigard Resident Bibianne Scheckla
❖ State Representative Max Williams
1941 soldier departing from Tigard (2-3 minutes)
❖ Tualatin Valley Fire ex Rescue Representative Bob Wyffles,
❖ School District Representative - Carol Rutschman
❖ Tigard Chamber of Commerce Representative - President Sheri Matheis
❖ Person talking about life in Tigard at that time and City's incorporation
COUNCIL AGENDA - September 25, 2001
page 2
8:00 PM
4. BUSINESS MEETING
4.1 Council Communications $t Liaison Reports
4.2 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
8:15 PM
5. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
8:20 PM
6. PROCLAMATION
a. World Population Awareness Week, October 21-27
8:25 PM
7. 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:
7.1 Approve City Council Minutes: ]uly 10, 17, 24, and August 14, 2001
7.2 Approve the Dedication of Reserve Strips as Public Rights of Way
7.3 Approve Policies for Solid Waste Rate Actions - Resolution No. 01-
7.4 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Award Contract for the Construction of Embedded Crosswalk Lighting
System to R. Rouse Electric, Inc.
b. Award a Personal Services Contract for Electrical Inspections and Plan
Review to Clair Company.
• 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.
8:30 PM
8. PUBLIC HEARING - FINALIZE FORMATION OF SANITARY SEWER
REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 20 - SW ROSE VISTA DRIVE
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Staff Report: Engineering Staff
C. Public Testimony
d. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments
e. Staff Recommendation
f. Close Public Hearing
g. Council Motion: Should Council approve the finalization of Sanitary
Sewer Reimbursement District No. 20?
8:40 PM
9. UPDATE FROM THE NEW LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE ABOUT
THE RECOMMENDED SITE FOR THE PROPOSED NEW LIBRARY
a. Staff Report: Library Staff
b. Presentation by the New Tigard Library Construction Committee Members
C. City Council Discussion and Direction to the Committee
COUNCIL AGENDA - September 25, 2001 page 3
. I A s
9:00 PM
10. CONSIDER REVISING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 13. 091
REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICTS
a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff
b. Council Questions/Discussion
C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 01-
9:10 PM
11. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER REVISING
CHAPTER 7.40, NOISE ORDINANCE
a.
b.
Open Public Hearing
Staff Report: Community Development Staff
C.
Public Testimony
d.
Council Discussion, Questions, Comments
e.
Staff Recommendation
f.
Close Public Hearing
g.
Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 01-_
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
9:40 PM
12. CONSIDER REVISING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.09, BUILDING
APPEALS BOARD
a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff
b. Council Questions/Discussion
C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 01-
9:45 PM
13. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
9:50 PM
14. NON AGENDA ITEMS
9:55 PM
15. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go Into Executive Session. I an
Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced
identifying the applicable statue. All discussions are confidential and those present may
disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend
Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any
information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any
final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
10:00 PM
16. ADJOURNMENT
I:W D WCAniY=X010925.DOC
COUNCIL AGENDA - September 25, 2001
page 4
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be
scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please
call 503-639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications
Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;
and
Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it Is important to allow
as much lead-time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the
Thursday preceding the meeting date by calling:
503-639-4171, x309 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for
the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL ex BUDGET COMMITTEE AGENDA - September 18, 2001 page 1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
September 18, 2001
6:30 PM
l . WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council
1.2 Roil Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications at Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items
6:35 PM
2. DISCUSSION OF SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE ON MAJOR COLLECTORS
a. Staff Report: Public Works Staff
b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments
❖ Recess Council Meeting
❖ Convene Budget Committee Meeting
7:00 PM
3. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
a. Call to Order - Budget Committee Chair
b. Roll Call
3.1 Update on Financial Issues
• Cook Park Project/OECDD Loan
• Photo Radar
• Telecommunication Franchise (Qwest vs. The City of Portland)
3.2 Supplemental Budget Hearing
• Open Public Hearing
• Hear Staff Report
• Receive Public Testimony
• Budget Committee Comments/Questions
• Close Public Hearing
• Budget Committee Consideration: Motion to approve the Supplemental
Budget for the City of Tigard and refer it to the City Council for a Public
Hearing on October 9, 2001.
3.3 Status of Fiscal Year 2000-01 Year-End (preliminary results)
❖ Adjourn Budget Committee Meeting
COUNCIL ar BUDGET COMMITTEE AGENDA - September 18, 2001 page 2
❖ Reconvene Council Meeting
7:30 PM
4. UPDATE ON INSURANCE PROGRAM
a. Staff Report: Administration Staff
b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments
7:45 PM
S. DISCUSSION OF STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff
b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments
8:15 PM
6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
8:25 PM
7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
8:35 PM
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If
an Executive Session Is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be
announced identifying the applicable statue. All discussions are confidential and
those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news
media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3),
but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held
for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive
Sessions are closed to the public.
9:00 PM
9. AD]OURNMENT
\\TI G333\US R\D SPTS\ADM\CATHY\CCA\010918.DOC
COUNCIL at BUDGET COMMITTEE AGENDA - September 18, 2001 page 3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Honorable Mayor & City Council L ~,q,.
Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder CA11
July 18, 2001, Agenda - Sidewalk Maintenance Discussion
DATE: September 14, 2001
_E&rr, 4Z-
Tas1
,)o 0x211
11-20V
The attached letter from Karen Mathews of the Summerfield Civic Association was
received late in the day on Friday, September 14. It is related to Bill Monahan's
memorandum (Item No. 1 of the September 14, 2001, Council newsletter) regarding
the Sidewalk Maintenance discussion and the request that this item be postponed until
November 20, 2001.
Attachment
I1ADM\CATHYM000NCILISIDEWALK MAINT.DOC
MM VV T CIVIC ASSOCIATION
10650 S.W. Summerfield Drive
Tigard, Oregon 97224
620-0131
September 14, 2001
Mayor of Tigard and the
Tigard City Council
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
To Whom It May Concern:
The Summerfield Board of Directors has directed me to write and request that the
Agenda item, "Discussion of Sidewalk Maintenance on Major Collectors" be postponed
until November. This would allow us more time to prepare to address the many issues
involved.
Thank you, Karen L. Mathews
Administrator
cc: Summerfield Board of Directors
Paul Owen, City of Tigard Liaison
AGENDA ITEM
FOR AGENDA OF
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
a
9/18/01
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discussion of Sidewalk Maintenance on Major Collectors
PREPARED BY: Howard Gregory DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK _
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Discussion of sidewalk maintenance responsibility along major collectors.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to perform sidewalk maintenance adjacent to City properties.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
At the July 17, 2001 Council meeting staff was instructed to update the inventory of the sidewalks along the major
collectors. Currently we have 121,133 feet or 22.94 miles of sidewalk along major collectors of which 62,450 feet
are residential and 58,683 are commercial. There arc 627 feet of residential and 1,418 feet of commercial sidewalks
that require repairs. The City now has responsibility for 23,928 feet of sidewalk adjacent to City-owned property of
which 440 feet need repair. If the City takes responsibility for the sidewalks along major collectors this will
increase its responsibility to 145,061 feet or 27.47 miles.
If the City intends to assume responsibility for maintenance of sidewalks along major collectors, we recommend
the following procedure.
• Only residential sidewalks
• Sidewalks would be accepted only after they are inspected and found to meet City standards.
• Property owners would be notified in writing of the necessary repairs. After repairs are complete, a re-
inspection would be conducted prior to acceptance, to ensure that the sidewalk meets City standards.
• The Engineering Department will perform initial inspections for acceptance.
• Notification to the property owners would be made as their sidewalks are accepted. Notification would include
the City's acceptance of maintenance responsibility for their sidewalk. Although the City would accept
responsibility for structural maintenance, the property owner would remain responsible for keeping it clear of
dirt, leaves, ice or any other hazard. The CityAttomey's memorandum states that the City can assume some
portion of the responsibility and liability. For example, it could assume responsibility and liability for repairs to
damaged sidewalk without assuming responsibility or liability for keeping sidewalk free from obstruction,
debris, ice, snow, etc.
• All sidewalks accepted for City Maintenance would be inspected every two years by Public Works staff. Any
sidewalks found to be in need of repairs would be prioritized according to the severity of the repairs required.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
• Reject the staff recommendation
• Accept the maintenance responsibility for residential sidewalks along major collectors.
• Give staff further instructions as to how to proceed.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Community character and yualiT fife. Community aesthetics No. 1
Develop strategies to balance needs of new and infill development with the need to provide protection of defined
aesthetic qualities valued b those who already live and work in Tigard.
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Memorandum from Loreen Mills on sidewalk liability review.
2. Copy of City of Tigard codes 7.40.070 and 15.12.010.
3. Memorandum from the City Attorney.
4. Draft Council minutes from 7/17/01
FISCAL NOTES
e If Council accepts staff recommendation there is no additional cost.
• If Council chooses to accept maintenance responsibility for sidewalks along major collectors that meet City
standards, the estimated annual increase to the budget will be $ 1,590.00 for 100 feet of repairs.
10 yards of concrete $790.00
Construction materials $500.00
Band tools $300.00
I:W,DWACKET=109186SIDEWALK AIS.DOC
Attachment 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ed Wegner, Director of Public Works
,zo FROM: Loreen Mills, Sr. Management Analys%
RE: Sidewalk Liability Review
DATE: October 2, 2000
sid wal kmaintenance important
As part of Council's policy discussion about right-of-way aintena, it is l ty form
In
consider the liability associated with responsibi that would require sidewalk liability
reviewing current case law, I don't see anything
being moved away from the property owner/manager. Before a policy decision is made
in this matter, let me identify what exposures come with the decision.
In determining liability exposure and cost, one a that tt d ete eine 0what 00 sidewalks owill f
be maintained. Ed Wegner has informed m 85 feet
sidewalks along collector streets and about another 45,000 lineal feet along the City's
properties or rights-of-ways we need to maintain.
program, our
e additional
Based on 130,000 lineal feet of sidewaiSeni cesproposed
(CC1S) wllnnot charg
current earner, City Council Insurance if th see
premium. Higher premium costs could be charged in
fCCIS haseinforrr►ed me that
maintenance program.
much litigation over the sidewalk they are only aware of one jurisdiction that current does sidewalk maintenance, the City
of Salem.
ve etation around and over the sidewalk, proper
mainte ance
Concrete maintenance, managing 9 ewalk
drainage, and ice/snow removal as soma areas of I~ab~(ity clams from iargenolder
programs. City of Salem is currently experiencing rem the
trees along their sidewalks and finding the repofTi sidewalk before it farting aoprogram
tree difficult at best. Identifying the issues facing 9
would be necessary to reduce liability.
The usual type of risk in any maintenance program would be an increased exposure for
workers comp claims if the City does the work in-house. Claims arising Cout of urrent ye Risk
ownership would be personal injury for trips and falls by pedestrians. referred receives a few calls regarding sidewalk liability each month. to a Ci hirer is n R sk and
to the adjacent property owner. If this were to change program,
Public Works staff would spend time in response.
In order to have discretionary immunity as a defense in trip and fall claims, I would
recommend the following be addressed before accepting maintenance responsibilities
for sidewalks:
Inventory current condition of the sidewalks (this would include identifying hazards
that may cause or result in accidents leading to injuries);
Develop standards for preventive maintenance and emergency response for
sidewalk repair,
Provide for effective concrete repair (in-house or by contract);
➢ Establish the fre uen and level of on-ooin ins ection of sidewalks;
➢ Determine how and when the sidewalks will be brought up to meet ADA compliance
standards (if they don't already); and
A Adopt a repair plan and budget authority to bring the sidewalks into compliance or
up to standard prior to accepting the liability exposure.
In any maintenance program, the City may receive a claim of negligence if the following
are not in place:
Inspection
Maintenance
Response
Documentation
Trained staff
will attend the Council Work Session on 10/17/00 for this discussion.
c: Liz Newton
Ln-awdocsfinsurance/sidewalk liabiI4.doc
Attachment 2
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
ARTICLE III. NUISANCES AFFECTING
PUBLIC SAFETY.
7.40.050 Noxious vegetation.
(a) The term "noxious vegetation" does not
include vegetation that constitutes an agricultural
crop, unless that vegetation is a health hazard, a
fire hazard or a traffic hazard, and it is vegetation
within the meaning of subsection (b) of this
secnon.
(b) The term "noxious vegetation" includes:
(1) Weeds more than ten inches high;
(2) Grass more than ten inches high
and not within the exception stated in subsection
(a) of this section;
7.40.060 Trees.
(a) No owner or responsible party shall
permit tree branches or bushes on the property to
extend into a public street or public sidewalk in a
manner which interferes with street or sidewalk
traffic. It shall be the duty of an owner or
responsible party to keep all tree branches or
bushes on the premises which adjoin the public
street or public sidewalk, including the adjoining
parking strip, trimmed to a height of not less than
eight feet above the sidewalk and not less than ten
feet above the street.
(b) No owner or responsible party shall
allow to stand any dead or decaying tree that is in
danger of falling or otherwise constitutes a hazard
to the public or to persons or property on or near
the property. (Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit C(5)(2)(a) and
(b)),1986).
(3) Poison oak, poison ivy, or similar
vegetation;
(4) Dead trees, dead bushes, stumps
and any other thing likely to cause fire;
(5) Blackberry bushes that extend into
a public thoroughfare or across a property line;
(6) Vegetation that is a health hazard;
(7) Vegetation that is a health hazard
because it impairs the view of a public
thoroughfare or otherwise makes use of the
thoroughfare hazardous.
(c) No owner or responsible party shall
allow noxious vegetation to be on the property or
in the right-of-way of a public thoroughfare
abutting on the property. The owner or
responsible party shall cut down or destroy grass,
shrubbery, brush, bushes, weeds or other noxious
vegetation as often as needed to prevent them
from becoming unsightly or, in the case of weeds
or other noxious vegetation, from maturing or
from going to seed. (Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit
C(5)(1)),1986).
7.40.070 Streets and sidewalks.
The owner or responsible party shall keep a
public street and/or sidewalk abutting their
property free from earth, rock and other debris
and other objects that may obstruct or render the
street or sidewalk unsafe for its intended use.
(Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit C(5)(2)(c)), 1986).
7.40.080 Vehicles not to drop material on
streets.
The owner or operator of any vehicle
engaged in the transportation of excavation or
construction materials shall be responsible for
keeping the public streets and sidewalks free from
such materials, including but not limited to, earth,
rock and other debris that may obstruct or render
the street or sidewalk unsafe for its intended use.
(Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit C(5)(2)(d)), 1986).
7.40.090 Greenway maintenance.
(a) The owner or responsible party shall be
responsible for the maintenance of the property,
subject to an easement to the city or to the public
for greemway purposes. Except as otherwise
7-40-3
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 15.12. SIDEWALKS
15.12.010 Maintenance and repair of public
sidewalks.
15.12.010 Maintenance and repair of
public sidewalks.
It is the duty of all persons owning lots or
land which have public sidewalks abutting the
same, to maintain and keep in repair the
sidewalks and not permit them to become or
remain in a dangerous or unsafe condition.
"Maintenance" includes, but is not limited to, the
removal of snow and ice. Any owner of a lot or
land who neglects to promptly comply with the
provisions of this section is fully liable to any
person injured by such negligence. The city shall
be exempt from all liability, including but not
limited to common-law liability, that it might
otherwise incur to an injured party as a result of
the city's negligent failure to maintain and repair
public sidewalks. (Ord. 91-12 §1, 1991: Ord. 85-44
§3, 1985).®
15-12-1 Reformatted 1994
09/04/2001 16:13 FAX 5036847297 Cit3 of Tigard
RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN 503 243 2944
4 Public Works Q002
Sep 4,01 16:14 No-012 P.02
Attachment 3
RAMIE
Practicing as
Hibbard Caldwell fthultn
kamia & Cmw
In Oregon Oty
ATTORNSYS AT d.AW
1727 N.W. Hoyt Street
Pbrilund, Oft" 97209
(509) 2224402
Paz: (561) 249-3944
TO:
FROM:
bAT6;
RR;
MEMORANDUM
John Roy, City of Tigard
Gary Firestone, City Attorney's Office.
September 4, 2001
Sidewalk Responsibility and liability
BACKGROUND
TMC 15.12,010 currently makes the adjoining property owner responsible and liable fbr all
aspects of aldowalk maintenance and repair. The City leas been considering assuming responsibility and
liability for at least some aspects of sidewalk maintenance and repair.
ISSUES
Could the City develop a scheme in which the City assumes responsibility and liability for repairs
but leaves the adjoining property owner maponsible and liable fbr keeping the sidewalk flee of debris,
snow, ice, etc.?
ANSWER
The City can assume partial responsibility and liability. It is poodblc to havo the City responsible
fbr repairs for damage and have the 4oining property owner responsible !br keeping the sidewalk clean
and fm ofobstruction and debris. Ifthe City assumea responsibility fbr maintenance, it must also assume
liability for improper maintenance. However, even Ifthe City does a mme responsibility and liability for
repair, it would be entitled to discretionary hmnunky if the City makes a discretionary policy ehoioe
adopting an inapection and repair program and fbltows that program.
ANALYSIS
At common law, tiro governmental entity that was responsiblefor the right ofway was responsible
09/04/2001 16:13 FAX 5036847297 City of Tigard
.RRMIS CREW CORRIGAN 503 243 2944
Memorandum re: Sidewalk Responsibility and Liability
September 4, 2001
Page 2
4 Public Works 10 003
Sep 4,01 16:14 No.012 P.03
and liable for damages caused as a result of a failure to properly maintain a sidewalk within the right of
way. See McQuillan, 19 Municipal Corporations (3d ed) Chapter 54. However, courts have accepted
that local governments may change the common law rule by adopting code that imposes responsibility
and liability on adjoining property owners. McQulllatr, Section 54.08; Noonan v. City vfPardand, 161
Or 213, 88 P2d 808 (1939).' Virtually all local jurisdictions in Oregon Impose responsibility and liability
on the adjoining property owners.
Because the transfbr ofresporWbility and Lability fiwn the city to the adjoining property owners
was solely the result of City ordinance, the City retains the power to reassume any or all of the
responsibility and liability for sidewalks in the right of way. Tho City has three basic choices:
1. It can keep the existing 8yatem, in which the adjoining property owner is responsible for
all maintenance and repairofthesidcwalk and keeping the sidewalk ft efrom obstruction,
debris, snow, ice, etc.
2. Tho City can assume all responsibility and liability.
3. The City can assume some portion ofthe responsibility and liability. For example, It could
assume responsibility and liability fbr repairs to damaged sidewalk without assuming
responsibility or liability for keeping sidewalk free from obstruction, debris, ice, snow, etc.
In choosing between the options, the City needs to be aware ofthree things. First, the City cannot
assume responsibility without assuming liability' Attempts to avoid all liability have beau defeated by
the courts, who have held that such attempts violate Article i Section 10 of the Oregon constitution,
which guarantees a remedy for Wuries. Mallson v. Astoria, 39 Or 577, 65 P 1066 (1901).
'There is some possibility that under the Tort Claims Act, a City cannot avoid liability by
transferring liability to adjoining property owners. Sao Michard v. Cloy q ftrtland, 98 Or App 226,
778 P2d 985 (1989) aff1d on o/laer growxb 310 Or 235, 796 P2d 1184 (1990). If the Court of
Appeals position in the Pritchard case Is eventually upheld by the Supreme Court, ira City attempts
to avoid liability by transferring responsibility and liability to adjoining landowners, both rho City and
the adjoining landowners would be liable. However, we believe that the better rule is that the City
cannot transfbr liability from kBolf without also transferrin responsibility, but If the City transfer®
both responsibility and liability, the tmnear is eftotive.
'Under the Tort Claims Act, the City is responsible for its torts. If the City has the duty to
repair, any breach of that duty is a tort. The City Cannot have the rauapontdbdlity without the liability.
09/94/2001 16:13 FAX 5036847297 City or Tigard
.RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN 503 243 2944
Meneorandum ro: Sidewalk ltnaibility and Liability
September 4, 2001
Page 3
4 Public Works IA004
Sep. 4.01 16:15 No.012 P.04
Second, the responsibility and liability provided ibr in TMC 13.12.010 assumes no active
wrongdoing by any party. If a third party damages or places obstructions on the sidewalk, that party is
on least partially responsible for the cost of repair and liable for any damages to others. Even if the City
assumes responsibility and liability fbr repairs to damaged sidewalks, If the 4oining property owner
causes the damage, the 4oining property owner should be rosponsible for the repairs and liable for
damages to third parties.
Third, irthe City makes an informed policy decision to adopt a program fbr sidewalk inspection
and repair. It can avoid liability by following the policy. White the Tort Claims Act has waived immunity
for torts by governments, governments retain immunity fbr discretionary decisions. ORS 30.265(3Xo).
Adopting a program of sidewalk Inspection and repair is a discretionary decision fbr which the City is
Immune under ORS 30.265(3Xe). Rae wy v City of Salem, 76 Or App 29,707 P2d 1295 (1983). To
be entitled to Immunity, the decision must be evade by a policy maker with discretion. The City can
consider Its budget in adopting or emending its program. While the City may have liability for Ming to
follow its program. 7bw v 0V of oa, 115 Or App 464, 466, 839 P2d 1104 (1492), it would be
Immune If it follows Its program, even if that program does not avoid all possible harm.
q:1,MR111prdtii"-ak rM2KWp
Attachment 4
Draft Minutes
Excerpt - July 17, 2001 (Agenda Item No. 3)
3. REVIEW RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE
Public Works Director Ed Wegner introduced this agenda item. Property
Manager John Roy reviewed the history of the right-of-way maintenance
program noting that maintenance had been addressed through a complaint-
driven process over the years. A copy of the Staff Report is on file with the
City Recorder.
Mr. Wegner noted that there has been success with notifying property
owners of their responsibilities with regard to maintenance of areas along the
right of way. Recently, after notice was received, property owners resolved
maintenance issues for rights of way along Hall Boulevard and Sattler Street.
Mr. Wegner said that staff was not opposed to providing maintenance along
streets such as Durham Road and Sattler Street, but noted the need for
consistency. He also said that, if the City maintains Durham Road right-of-
way areas, this might trigger requests for maintenance for other streets.
The current staff proposal for a City right-of-way maintenance program
covers areas that are adjacent to City properties or properties that are
adjacent to steep slopes, ditches, and state and railroad rights of way. The
Budget Committee did not approve the proposal for an enhanced right-of-
way maintenance program. City Manager Bill Monahan advised that, if an
enhanced program is decided upon by the City Council, then the City
Council would need to determine how the program would be funded.
In response to an inquiry by Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Monahan noted that
no agreement with Summerfield residents has been located with regard to
maintenance responsibilities of rights of way.
Councilor Dirksen commented that the right-of-way maintenance situation
should be reviewed, noting there Is no long-term funding for an enhanced
right of way program within the City. In the shorter term he noted the City
Council needed to focus on what could be afforded at this time.
Mr. Paul Owen, Summerfield Liaison, addressed the City Council. (A copy
of Mr. Owen's letter dated July 17, 2001, is on file with the City
Recorder.) Mr. Owen noted disappointment with the staff's
recommendation, which dealt only with right-of-way maintenance and not
the liability concerns with regard to the sidewalks. He noted the high use of
Excerpt - Tigard City Council Minutes - Agenda Item 3 - July 17, 2001 Page 1
the sidewalks because of the close proximity to the high school. Mr. Owen
requested the City consider maintenance of right of way on fully improved
collector streets.
'T'here was discussion on the liability issue with regard to sidewalks. The
liability responsibility rests with the landowner abutting the sidewalk.
Mr. Wegner referred to an earlier discussion with the City Council that
included the proposal that if a sidewalk was brought up to standard, the City
could accept the sidewalk and assume the liability and future repairs. This
proposal was not pursued.
City Council discussion followed. Councilor Patton noted she was opposed
to continuing the complaint-driven maintenance program used in the past,
which was inconsistent, piecemeal, and inequitable. She also opposed
maintaining Durham Road specifically citing the need for equitable treatment
for other areas in similar circumstances. She said she would have liked to
support a citywide enhanced right-of-way maintenance program, but the City
does not have the money to do this now given other funding needs and
scarce resources. She recommended staff continue an aggressive education
campaign advising property owners of their responsibilities to maintain
adjacent rights of way. At this time, she said the City should "go back to
basics" and to be consistent, which will mean that those who have received
maintenance before, will not continue to receive this service.
Councilor Scheckia noted that, in the past, exceptions have been made. He
referred to SW North Dakota Street where traffic islands and diverters were
constructed at the request of those who lived in that area.
Councilor Scheckla noted that he liked the compromise position suggested
by Paul Owen, which was to have the City recognize that the sidewalks,
curbs, and streets, were designed and built by the City of Tigard and the
City would therefore be responsible for the maintenance, repair, and liability
for said improvements. If the City agreed to the above, then Summerfield
would agree to maintain the 15-foot planter strip as it Is now without
liability.
Councilor Dirksen noted that the maintenance of right of way is a luxury that
the City could not afford at this time. He advised that he thinks the sidewalk
issue is separate from the maintenance of the planting areas along the rights
of way. He said he would be willing to consider the City taking over control
of the sidewalks that meet City standards and to implement a citywide
program for this. After discussion, it was clarified that the sidewalk
Excerpt - Tigard City Council Minutes - Agenda Item 3 - July 17, 2001 Page 2
maintenance Councilor Dirksen was referring to was for those sidewalks along
major collectors only.
Mayor Griffith noted that he, too, would have liked to have seen the
enhanced right-of-way maintenance program implemented, but also agreed
with the other Councilors that this was more than the City could afford. He
concurred that maintenance of the sidewalks along major collectors, once
brought up to standards, has some merit. He suggested that he would like to
continue to review options about how an enhanced maintenance program
could be implemented.
There was discussion on a maintenance fee that might represent an
alternative for funding and implementation of an enhanced right-of-way
program.
Councilor Patton advised she still had some concerns with providing service
for only certain areas.
Mayor Griffith summarized the majority of Council direction with regard to
the sidewalk issue which would be for the staff to review the cost of
accepting the maintenance of sidewalks (once brought up to City standards)
for major collectors for non-commercial (residential areas). He clarified he
did not expect staff to prepare a complete inventory of sidewalks indicating
those that need to be brought up to standard, but requested a "ballpark"
figure about what it would cost the City to maintain sidewalks once they are
accepted by the City. City Manager Monahan noted that it had been
determined that insurance (liability) costs would be negligible. Homeowners
would maintain responsibility to keep sidewalks clear of debris, ice, and
snow.
In response to a question from Summerfield resident Paul Hunt whether the
City would consider providing maintenance on rights of way (plant areas),
Mayor Griffith advised that this would be an item he would like to discuss
with Mr. Hunt and Mr. Monahan at an upcoming meeting scheduled for the
three of them. Mr. Monahan noted that the City provides contract service
to help the City of Durham to maintain its parks, but this is one government
entity providing assistance to another government entity. There are
restrictions (Associated Oregon Industries) with regard to governments
providing services to the private sector.
[AADM\CATHM M\EXCERPT 7-18-01 RIGHT OF WAY MAINTENANCE2.DOC
Excerpt - Tigard City Council Minutes - Agenda Item 3 - July 17, 2001 Page 3
AGENDA ITEM It •J
FOR AGENDA OF September 18, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Joint meeting with the Budget Committee _
PREPARED BY: Craig Prosser DEPT HEAD OK -d-CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Informational meeting and approval of a Supplemental Budget for the City of Tigard.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
No action required - see Information Summary
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This is the first quarterly meeting with the Budget Committee for FY 2001-02. The agenda for this meeting is
attached to this summary. The agenda includes several informational items to bring the Committee up-to-date on
several financial issues. The agenda also includes approval of a Supplemental Budget for the City of Tigard.
Under state law, Supplemental Budgets are required when a jurisdiction wishes to make changes of more than 15%
to any one fund or if a jurisdiction needs to recognize and appropriate additional resources in a fund. By law, the
jurisdiction must publish notice of the Budget Committee meeting, convene the Budget Committee, conduct a
public hearing on the Supplemental Budget, and obtain the formal approval of the Supplemental Budget by the
Committee. After those steps are completed, the Supplemental Budget is referred to the City Council for adoption
and a second public hearing. (This process mirrors the annual budget adoption process.)
Public notice of the Budget Committee meeting was published on September 6, 2001. On September 18, it will be
necessary to adjourn the City Council meeting immediately prior to beginning the Budget Committee meeting. The
Budget Committee will then be formally convened. The Budget Committee will follow the attached agenda, open
a public hearing on the Supplemental Budget and receive testimony (if any). Following the public hearing, the
Committee will need to formally approve the Supplemental Budget by motion. Once the Budget Committee
agenda is completed, the Budget Committee meeting will be closed and the City Council meeting will be
reconvened. Final adoption of the Supplemental Budget by the City Council is scheduled for October 9.
A Supplemental Budget is required to recognize and appropriate the OECDD loan revenues for the Cool: Park
Project in the Parks SDC Fund and to adjust resources and appropriations in the Underground Utility Fund. A full
explanation of these adjustments in included in the attached materials. These are the only two funds affected by
this Supplemental Budget.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
L September 6, 2001 letter from Craig Prosser, Finance Director, to the Budget Committee
2. Budget Committee. Agenda
3. Supplemental Budget narrative explanation
4. Supplemental Budget financial summary (Attachment A to narrative explanation)
FISCAL NOTES
Parks SDC Fund $2,230,000
Underground Utility Fund $45,000
Attachment 1
September 6, 2001
Jim Griffith
10915 SW Fairhaven Way
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. Griffith,
The next meeting of the Tigard Budget Committee is scheduled for Tuesday,
September 18, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. This meeting will occur
during a regularly scheduled City Council Study Session. Although the Budget
Committee will not convene until 7:00 p.m., members may want to come at 6:30. At that
time, the City Council will receive an update on sidewalk maintenance along major
collectors. This issue arose out of Budget Committee deliberations in May when we
discussed right-of-way maintenance issues. Other items on the Council study session
agenda following the Budget Committee meeting, which may be of interest to committee
members, include an update on the City's insurance program and a discussion of
affordable housing issues including a request for financial assistance from the City.
The agenda for the Budget Committee portion of the meeting is attached. One of the
important items of business this evening will be a public hearing on a Supplemental
Budget. By state law, any time a jurisdiction wishes to increase resources in a fund or
increase appropriations by more than 15%, it must approve a supplemental budget.
The process required by state law requires a hearing and approval by the Budget
Committee before the budget is moved on to the City Council for adoption.
Because of the hearing on the supplemental budget, it is important that we have a
quorum for this meeting. If you are unable to attend this meeting, please contact
Heather Burris at 503-639-4171 est. 431 or e-mail her at heather(fti.tigard.or.us.
I look forward to seeing you on the 18th
Sincerely,
Craig Prosser
Finance Director
cc: Bill Monahan, City Manager
Gus Duenas, City Engineer
Ed Wegner, Public Works Director
Attachment 2
Agenda
Tigard Budget Committee
Tuesday, September 18, 2001
7:00 p.m.*
Town Hall
1. Update on Financial Issues
■ Cook Park Project/OECDD Loan.
■ Photo Radar
■ Telecommunications Franchise (Qwest vs. The City of Portland)
2. Supplemental Budget Hearing
3. Status of FY 2000-01 Year-End (preliminary results)
* Although the Budget Committee (Meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m., members are
encouraged to arrive at 6:30. At that time, the Council will receive an update on the
status of sidewalk maintenance on major collectors. Since this was an issue during
budget deliberations, citizen members of the Budget Committee may be interested in
this discussion.
Attachment 3
City of Tigard
Supplemental Budget
Parks SDC Fund and Underground Utility Fund
September 18, 2001
The City of Tigard's budget for FY 2001-02 was adopted in June 2001. Since that time,
staff has identified changes that need to be made to two City funds of sufficient magnitude
that the City must adopt a Supplemental Budget.
Under state law, jurisdictions may not increase the resources in any of their funds (except
for recognizing gifts, grants or donations) without first adopting a Supplemental Budget.
State Law establishes that any increases to resources in any one fund of more than 10%
must first be approved by the Budget Committee following public notice and public
hearing. The Budget Committee hearing is scheduled for September 18.
The City of Tigard Supplemental Budget will affect two City funds: Parks SDC and
Underground Utility.
Parks SDC Fund
The Parks SDC Fund budget as originally adopted included $821,764 of systems
development charge funds for the construction of Phase I of the Cook Park Master Plan.
This plan calls for the installation of additional parking, sports fields, trails, restrooms and
other amenities in Cook Park. Because of limited funds available, however, this master
plan was to be implemented over a three to four year period. The extended construction
period would have prolonged disruption in the park, increased construction costs due to
inflation, and delayed the time at which Tigard citizens would enjoy the benefits of these
improvements. In addition, this project required the use of almost all of the Parks SDC
money available, which limited the amount of work that could be done in other City parks.
In July 2001, the City was awarded a grant of $250,000 by the Oregon State Parks
Department for the Cook Park Project, which allowed an acceleration of the construction
schedule. In addition, the City applied for a loan from the Oregon Economic and
Community Development Department (OECDD) to cover the portion of project costs not
covered by the grant.
On August 2, 2001, OECDD approved the City's application for a $2.23 million loan. The
term of the loan will be 10 years and the interest rate will be set in December following a
state bond sale. OECDD expects the final interest rate will be less than 4.5%. Loan
repayments will be made from Parks SDC money. Final loan documents will be submitted
to the City for approval later this fall.
The Supplemental Budget recognizes the OECDD loan as a revenue to the parks SDC
Fund and appropriates that portion that is likely to be spent in FY 2001-02. This action
does not change the original appropriation of City funds to allow that money to be used for
debt service or other parks projects as needed.
Underground Utility Fund
The Underground Utility Fund contains payments from developers used to place utilities
(electrical and telephone) underground. These projects are carried out in conjunction with
street improvement projects paid for by other funds. The FY 2001-02 Budget included
$40,000 for placing utilities underground. The Budget was based on the assumption that
projects underway in FY 2000-01 would be completed before the end of the fiscal year.
Last Fiscal year (FY 2000-01) the fund included money to pay for undergrounding utilities
as part of the Walnut St. and 121 st Ave. Intersection Improvements. That project was
substantially completed during FY 2000-01, but in August, the City received a bill for an
additional, $41,000 of work performed by Washington County. The FY 2001-02 Budget
assumed that all work on this project would be completed and paid for last fiscal year. It is
necessary to adjust the budget in the Underground Utility Fund to allow for this payment in
addition to the work planned for FY 2001-02. The Supplemental Budget recognizes the
actual FY 2001-02 Beginning Fund balance (which is $28,007 higher than estimated in the
Budget), plus $10,000 of other revenues from miscellaneous fees- and payments. These
additional resources, in combination with the Fund contingency will be sufficient to make
this final payment of the Walnut & 121 st Ave. Project.
Supplemental Budget
The actual changes to the Parks SDC Fund and the Underground Utility Fund required as
part of this supplemental budget are shown in attachment A.
Attachment 4
Attachment A
FY 2001-02
Supplemental Budget # 1
FY 2001-02 Supplemental Revised
Revised Budget Revised
Budget # 1 Budget
Parks SDC Fund
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance
Property Taxes
Grants
Interagency Revenues
Development Fees & Charges
Utiltity Fees and Charges
Miscellaneous Fees and Charges
Fines and Forfeitures
Franchise Fees and Business Tax
Interest Earnings
Bond Proceeds/Principal
Other Revenues
Transfers In from Other Funds
Total
395,331 267,037 662,368
0
0
250,000
250,000
0
0
502,322
502,322
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,600 6,000
15,600
0 2,230,000
2,230,000
0
0
0
0
$1,157,253 $2,503,037 $3,660,290
Requirements
Community Service Program
Public Works Program
Development Services Program
Policy & Administration Program
General Government
Program Expenditures Total
Debt Service
Capital Improvements
Transfers to Other Funds
Contingency
Total Requirements
Ending Fund Balance
Grand Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.$0
$0 $0
$0
$0
$1,071,764
$1,682,000 $2,753,764
$0
$0
$80,000
$250,000 $330,000
$1,151,764 $1,932,000 $3,083,764
5,489 571,037 576,526
$1,157,253 $2,503,037 $3,660,290
Underground Utility Fund
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance
Property Taxes
Grants
Interagency Revenues
Development Fees & Charges
Utility Fees and Charges
Miscellaneous Fees and Charges
Fines and Forfeitures
Franchise Fees and Business Tax
Interest Earnings
Bond Proceeds/Principal
Other Revenues
Transfers In from Other Funds
Total
Requirements
Community Service Program
Public Works Program
Development Services Program
Policy & Administration Program
General Government
Program Expenditures Total
Debt Service
Capital Improvements
Transfers to Other Funds
Contingency
Total Requirements
Ending Fund Balance
Grand Total
296,962
0
0
0
58,000
0
0
0'
0
16,300
0
0
0
$371,262
.0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
$40,000
$0
$6,000
$46,000
325,262
28,007 324,969
1,540
10,000
$39,547
$0
$45,547
($6,000)
$39,547
0
0
0
58,000
0
0
0
0
17,840
0
10,000
0
$410,809
0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
$85,547
$0
$0
$85,547
325,262
$371,262 $39,547 $410,809
City of Tigard
FY 2000-01 Year End
Unaudited Ending Fund Balances
FY 2000-01
FY 2000-01
Favorable
Fund # & Flame
Budget
Est. Actual
(Unfavorable)
100 - General Fund
Beginning Balance
$6,835,731
$7,043,095
$207,364
Revenues
14,358,530
14,045,985
(312,545)
s
dit
E
(16,240,462)
(13,803,090)
2,437,372
ure
xpen
Total
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
$4,953,799
$7,285,991
$2,332,192
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
6,082,150
Difference
'$1w03;849 s,<
200 - State Gas Tax Fund
245
$244
$414,838
$170,593
Beginning Balance
,
128
882
1
1,868,129
(13999)
Revenues
enditures
l Ex
t
T
,
,
(2,109,074)
(1,846,405)
262,670
p
a
o
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
$17,299
$436,562
$419,263
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
149,452_
Difference
7 7 $287;110;:'
205 - County Gas Tax Fund
069
$57
$60,006
$2,937
Beginning Balance
,
000
173
171,233
(1,767)
Revenues
Total Expenditures
,
(188,685)
(157,322)
31,363
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
$41,384
$73,917
$32,533
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
_ 37,068
-
Difference
:
° $36,849
210 -Traffic Impact Fees Fund
111
554
2
2,944,235
390,124
Beginning Balance
,
,
000
100
1
1,280,686
V 180,686
Revenues
Total Expenditures
,
,
(2,978,110)
(1,848,173)
1,129,937
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
$676,001
$2,376,747
$1,700,746
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
1,990,478
Difference
$386,269?
Page 1 of 7
City of Tigard
FY 2000-01 Year End
Unaudited Ending Fund Balances
Fund # & Name
215 - Tree Replacement Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
Difference
220 - Electrical Inspection Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001 _
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
Difference
225 - Parks SDC Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
Difference
230 - Underground Utility Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFB.F 20Q1-02
Difference
FY 2000-01
FY 2000-01
Favorable
Budget
Est. Actual
(Unfavorable)
$171,652
$206,594
$34,942
33,000
25,145
(7,855)
(51,463)
(47,345)
4,118
$153,189
$184,394
$31,205
178,140
$57,348
$120,895
$63,547
189,666
233,641
43,975
(230,557)
(195,033)
35,524
$16,457
$159,503
$143,046
160,000
($497)_
$820,870
$917,117
$96,247
596,000
518,565
(77,435)
415,252)
(1
(773,456)
641,796
,
$1,618
$662,226
$660,608
395,331
$266,895
$399,392
$387,223
($12,169)
78,000
102,210 ►
24,210
(190,000)
(164,465)
25,535
$287,392
$324,969
$37,577
296,962
$28;007
Page 2 of 7
City of Tigard
FY 2000-01 Year End
Unaudited Ending Fund Balances
Fund # & Nama
235 - Criminal Foreiture Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
Difference
240 - Worker's Compensation Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
Difference
245 - Building Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFis FY 2001-02
Difference
FY 2000-01
FY 2000-01
Favorable
Budget
Est. Actual
(Unfavorable)
$106,709
$65,583
($41,126)
8,000
22,869
14,869
(23,000)
(17,995)
5,005
$91,709
$70,458
($21,251)
53,520
;'$1x
$324,778
$364,101
$39,323
54,000
79,693
25,693
0
0
0
$378,778
$443,795
$65,017
423,102
$20',69-3:,
$101
$220,086
$219,985
1,002,348
1,393,609
391,261
(895,135)
(819,784)
75,351
$107,314
$793,911
$686,597
539,956
1;$25.3;955
250 - TIF Urban Service Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
Difference
$616,177
$636,624
$20,447
431,000
563,049 1
132,049
(47,335)
(37,447)
9,888
$999,842
$1,162,227
$162,385
1,006,705
'$155;522
Page 3 of 7
City of Tigard
FY 2000-01 Year End
Unaudited Ending Fund Balances
E~
ca
H
N
Fund # & Name
255 - Urban Service Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
Difference
300 - Facility Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
Difference
305 - Metro Greenspaces Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
Difference
310 - Park Levy Improvement Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
Difference
FY 2000-01
FY 2000-01
Favorable
Budget
Est. Actual
(Unfavorable)
$18,312
$3,925
($14,387)
775,716
960,999
185,283
(759,320)
(479,463)
279,857
$34,708
$485,461
$450,753
153,997
$331
$879,163
$871,159
($8,004)
749,000
631,546
(117,454)
(1,155,000)
(47,515)
1,107,485
$473,163
$1,455,190
$982,027
1,420,859
$34331-
$0
$0
$0
240,811
161,816
(78,995)
(240,811)
(161,816)
78,995
$0
$0
$0
0
$0
$218,518
$215,686
($2,832)
7,000
20,347 1
13,347
(225,518)
(120,000)
105,518
$0
$116,033
$116,033
10,000
$106;033
Page 4 of 7
City of Tigard
FY 2000-01 Year End
Unaudited Ending Fund Balances
FY 2000-01
FY 2000-01
Favorable
Fund # & Name
Budget
Est. Actual
(Unfavorable)
315 - 69th Avenue LID CIP Fund
Beginning Balance
$68,545
$71,229
$2,684
Revenues
46,812
2,732
(44,080)
enditures
Total Ex
(68,545)
(41,028)
27,517
p
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
$46,812
$32,932
($13,880)
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
50,000
Difference
($17;068);
320 - Dartmouth LID CIP Fund
Beginning Balance
$11,753
($5,145)
($16,898)
Revenues
1,000
15,051
14,051
Total Expenditures
(12,753)
1,388)
11,366
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
$0
$8,518
$8,518
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
10,000
Difference
($1;482)
400 - Bancroft Improvement Bond Fund
Beginning Balance
$1,320,575
$1,450,350
$129,775
Revenues
2,770,745
2,465,092
(305,653)
Total Expenditures
(3,874,082)
(2,349,774)
1,524,308
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
$217,238
$1,565,667
$1,348,429
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
217,238
Difference
$1;348;429:
450 - G/O Bond Debt Fund
Beginning Balance
$14,817
$42,541
$27,724
Revenues
299,383
300,768
1,385
Total Expenditures
(288,500)
(288,500)
0
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
$25,700
$54,809
$29,109
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
40,424
Difference
$14,385.
Page 5 of 7
City of Tigard
FY 2000-01 Year End
Unaudited Ending Fund Balances
Fund # & Name
500 - Sanitary Sewer Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
FY 2000-01
FY 2000-01
Favorable
Budget
Est. Actual
(Unfavorable)
$7,631,639
$6,751,951
($879,688)
1,972,000
1,817,814
(154,186)
(2,496,328)
(1,304,196)
1,192,132
$7,107,311
$7,265,569
$158,258
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
Difference
510 - Storm Sewer Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
Difference
520 - Water Quality/Quantity Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
Difference
530 - Water Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
Difference
8,279,097
'($1;0131528)'
$982,312
$777,978
($204,334)
1,104,000
1,028,516
(75,484)
(1,614,617)
(1,157,329)
457,288
$471,695
$649,165
$177,470
960,638
($3'11;473)
$1,527,232
$1,656,602
$129,370
157,000
196,502
39,502
(836,046)
(114,822)
721,224
$848,186
$1,738,282
$890,096
1,149,297
$588,985
$3,547,858
$4,721,073
$1,173,215
5,095,825
5,186,473 E
90,648
(7,179,720)
(4,759,112)
2,420,608
$1,463,963
$5,148,433
$3,684,470
5,289,023
($140,590)
Page 6 of 7
City of Tigard
FY 2000-01 Year End
Unaudited Ending Fund Balances
Fund # & Name
FY 2000-01 FY 2000-01
Budget Est. Actual
540 - Water SDC Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
Difference
550 - Water CIP Fund
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
Difference
Total All Funds
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Total Expenditures
Projected EFB FY 2000-2001
Budgeted BFB FY 2001-02
Difference
1:\FIM[Year-End Fund Balances.xls]Variance Description
$601,764
$377,830
239,800
645,095
(840,000)
(298,549)
$1,564
$724,375
65,829
":$658';546::x,
$3,791,648 $3,895,979
75,120 324,761
(3,600,000) (90,528)
$266,768 $4,130,212
3,985,979
:$144;233
$32,802,319
$34,211,556
33,439,884
34,062,324
(47,560,313)
(30,924,533)
$18,681,890
$37,349,347
32,945,245
°$4;404;102
Page 7 of 7
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
($223,934)
405,295
541,451
$722,811
$104,331
249,641
3,509,473
$3,863,444
$1,409,237
622,440
4C C7L 70/1
$18,667,457
i
--D;.54r; ba. -ed
glib/oI - RAel re
711.
Attachment A
FY 2001-02
Supplemental Budget ;i(Revised)
FY 2001-02 Supplemental FY 2001-02
Revised Budget Revised
Budget #1 Budget
Parks SDC Fund
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance
Property Taxes
Grants
Interagency Revenues
Development Fees & Charges
Utiltity Fees and Charges
Miscellaneous Fees and Charges
Fines and Forfeitures
Franchise Fees and Business Tax
Interest Earnings
Bond Proceeds/Principal
Other Revenues
Transfers In from Other Funds
395,331 266,895 662,226
0
0
250,000
250,000
0
0
502,322
502,322
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,600
9,600
0 1,431,847
1,431,847
0
0
0 0
Total
Requirements
Community Service Program
Public Works Program
Development Services Program
Policy & Administration Program
General Government
Program Expenditures Total
Debt Service
Capital Improvempnts
Transfers to Other Funds
Contingency
Total Requirements
Ending Fund Balance
Grand Total
$1,157,253 $1,698,742 $2,855,995
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0
$1,071,764 $1,431,847 $2,503,611
$0 $0
$80,000 $266,895 $346,895
$1,151,764 $1,698,742 $2,850,506
5,489 0 5,489
$1,157,253 $1,698,742 $2,855,995
Page 1 of 2
Attachment A
FY 2001-02
Supplemental Budget # 1
FY 2001-02 Supplemental FY 2001-02
Revised Budget Revised
Budget #1 Budget
Underground Utility Fund
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance
296,962
28,007 324,969
Property Taxes
0
0
Grants
0
0
Interagency Revenues
0
0
Development Fees & Charges
58,000
58,000
Utility Fees and Charges
0
0
Miscellaneous Fees and Charges
0
0
Fines and Forfeitures
0
0
Franchise Fees and Business Tax
0
0
Interest Earnings
16,300
1,540 17,840
Bond Proceeds/Principal
0
0
Other Revenues •
0
10,000 10,000
Transfers In from Other Funds
0
0
Total
$371,262
$39,547
$410,809
Requirements
0
Community Service Program
0
Public Works Program
0
0
Development Services Program
0
0
Policy & Administration Program
0
0
General Government
0
0
Program Expenditures Total
$0
$0
$0
Debt Service
$0
$0
Capital Improvements
$40,000
$45,547
$85,547
Transfers to Other Funds
$0
t
$0
Contingency
$6,000
($6,000)
$0
Total Requirements
$46,000
$39,547
$85,547
Ending Fund Balance
325,262
325,262
Grand Total
$371,262
$39,547
$410,809
Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEM # `
FOR AGENDA OF 9/18/01
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGEND E _ Insurance Program Update
DEPT HEAD OK G4A! - ITY MGR OK 1AIPITLI
PREPARED 611" oree~ n M'ills
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Obtain updated information regarding City's insurance program for property, casualty & workers' compensation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive information update.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
JBL&K, Inc. is the City's Agent of Record for property, casualty & workers' compensation insurance purposes.
This meeting is designed to give Council a general update on the insurance program overall and highlight aself-
insurance review currently being conducted by City staff and our Agent of Record.
Timing for a review of self-insurance options or a higher self-insured deductible is right since the insurance market
is "hardening" (insurance coverage is not as accessible and premiums are much higher).
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
Cost of the actuarial study needed for the self-insurance review is covered through insurance commissions
earned by our Insurance Agent of Record.
Loreen\H:\DOCS\Insurance\CC update agenda sum sheet 9-18.doc
W
u
Y
h
42
ca
COD
As
Cal
GD
CO§
CD
ca
am
~i
-
P
~
c
w
Tot
ca
rm.
ca
COD
at
w
w
Co
Cc
go
®
MEM
m
m'
~
fA
CPJ
fA
V~
fA
vm
4400p'
6o
w
Go
w
NJ
w
co
C%1
w
_
_
cm
e
w
cm
go
~a
V~
40
46
vm
fi*
vm
fia
01%
4*
Fine
MINN
loom
CD
Am Aak
AIM
t~ ~ 'IC' M M N N T- V- V) O
WO
L
w
M
e~®
9
CO
~
M
EF}
M
co
N
N
N
N
N
ti
6F? ,
co
M
Cn
M
E9
O
00
rl-
O
co
6F}
co
M
V-
O
CO
r
EF}
N
O
O
O
O
O
>11
C)
CD
C)
CD
C=)
U)
00
co
CN
CD
■ ®
69
69.
6F}
6
61).
C)
CD
C)
C~
O
O
C l
CO
C>
-
CD
C)
~
~
~
O
ti
r
Ca
ti
V-
C)
ti
O
O
r
ti
O
O
r
ti
CA
r
ti
CA
rn
r
ti
r
ti
co
CA
ti
ti
ti
CO
CA
ti
C7
6C.).
ii.
ca
Go
ca
rxm
via
B®
CO
m
w
CM
CO
wr
~
e
v
g
cvs
GD
Va
I
"M
w
cm
w
r"
co
cm
on
w
mom
"M
V~
"M
"m
eee®
atft-
1®
Amok
CA
O O O O co co
V-: c- O O O O
O
L
r
N
tf}
Co
N
O O
00
i
O O
C N
r b~}
ti
r
O N
00 O
r`
d r
O N
0
r,
O
O N
M r`
N O
CF) O CA O
r
r to
ti
O
O
r O
ti
co O
O
r to
ti
co
CY)
~ O
r- r• OR
rn r, o
ti
r`
N C)
O
~ Lf)
r lf3
ti
C) E
6% 2 -a
CL U
"2 C
Rf ~
C ~
d
x
U) W
r
TAW
~
m
m cc
LrD
cm
C
coo
rz
cc
®0
Go
m
®
c
W
r
Co
~
IMP
w
w
cr)
w
s`
e
mo
S®
coo
vm
®
`
~
Ik
AM
CM
do
a
I
l
calm
a
Co
Co
co
co
c"
c"
Go
Co
CD
c"
cm
CD
cm
DOE I
N
N
V-
vm
Tmm
AIM
a®
Lr) C) LO CD
O
T-
V-
~
V
M N N
M
O
w
O
N cr
l-
ti
N
v
V+
O
r
ti
r
O
r
ti 0
r
0
r
O
O
O
ti
O
~
691
i
ti
O
O
co
C,4 c)
co
C)
'
N
4
ti
14
co
0)
CO
r
r
O
`
r
69.
ti
Cn
O
O
r
CA
r
CD
O
M
ti
co
O
CC)
r
M
CO
N
N
r
69.
ti
ti
(A
ce)
U')
U)
tf)
ti
N
'
co
N
N
E!3
~
r
~
E
n CD
CD
5,
0 0 °o
o
0
0
0
o ui C
Ld
cn
T
co
®
J
(
D
d
I
I
F=
E
9-
-,77
VLA
EMWO-ld
116
t4S
O
J
C
I Q
®
®
®
0
CD
®
O
C)
0
Q
®
®
C)
CD
®
®
®
®
Q
®
LO
(D
Ul)
(Y)
N
N
T-
T-
~
~
~
619'
0
1
C~
!i9
O
O
O
O
LO
C!1
O
C)
O
N
V-
Am Alk
Amok
A EL
VIEW
Ibm
libm
Ong
goo
CID
I:
coo
A
co
to
e®
cc
cc
e~
law
Im
cc
ca
e
A
am
cc
ca
F
w
cm
ca
cc
ewe
e~
eee~
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 9/18/01
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Affordable Housing Strategies II
PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
toe
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City grant Community Partners for Affordable Housing's (CPAH) request for a $10,000 fee reduction?
What special incentives, in addition to those already provided, should be the City adopt to further its affordable
housing goals?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Consider providing $8,000 in fee relief to CPAH.
2. As part of the overall affordable housing strategy, earmark an annual portion of the Social Services and
Community Events Fund to partially off-set fees and changes imposed on affordable housing development.
3. Set a numeric target for additional affordable units.
4. Support making County tax-foreclosed properties available for affordable housing development.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In May 2001, CPAH submitted a written request asking the City to consider reducing by $10,000 the fees that
normally would be imposed on its recently approved 26-unit Village at Washington Square affordable housing
project. CPAH also asked the City to consider a policy of fee reductions to help promote affordable housing. On
July 17, 2001, Council considered the reduction and policy incentive requests and set September 18th as the date
for further discussion.
Jill Sherman, CPAH Acting Director, will be present at the meeting and will provide a five-minute PowerPoint
presentation on the basics of affordable housing financing.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Do not provide $8,000 or a lesser amount in fee relief for the Village at Washington Square low-income
housing project.
2. Grant CPAH's full $10,000 request.
3. Do not set aside Social Services and Community Event funds to help foster affordable housing.
4. Set aside a different amount or use a different funding category to provide the financial incentive.
C
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Growth and Growth Management Goal #3 calls for the City to encourage and support "private sector programs to
maintain diverse and affordable housing".
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. September 5, 2001 memo from Jim Hendryx - "Affordable Housing Incentives"
2. Letter dated July 18th, 2001, from Jill Sherman - "System Development Charge/Building Fee Waivers,
Reductions or Deferrals"
3. Undated CPAH memo - "Action Agenda for Affordable Housing"
4. 2001-02 City Social Services and Community Events budget page
5. July 17, 2001 "Affordable Housing Services" Council packet
6. September 10, 2001 memo from Bill Monahan - "City of Tigard Community Contributions"
FISCAL NOTES
No funds are budgeted for affordable housing fee relief. The cost of fully meeting CPAH's request for a fee
reduction is $10,000. Staff recommends that $8,000 in relief be provided, with the funds coming from the
general fund contingency. The proposed on-going incentive fund to promote affordable housing production
would come from a set-aside amount within the Social Services and Community Events budget category.
i/citywide/affordable housing III
Attachment 1
nik
CITY OF TIGA RD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: City Council
FROM: Jim Hendryx
DATE: September 5, 2001
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Incentives
Background
In May 2001, Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) submitted a written request
asking the City to consider reducing by $10,000 the fees that normally would be imposed on its
proposed 26-unit Village at Washington Square low-income housing project. In making this
request, CPAH also asked the City to consider adopting a policy,of fee reductions as a tool for
fostering affordable housing generally. On July 17, 2001, Council considered the project-specific
fee reduction and long-term policy requests and set September 18th as the date for further
discussion. A copy of the July 17th packet and minutes are attached (Attachment #5). Also
attached (Attachment #2) is a memo from CPAH following up on the July 17th Council meeting and
providing examples of Oregon cities that provide SDC waivers, reductions, or exemptions.
Council also grappled with the issue of affordable housing last year. At its April 25, 2000 meeting,
Council considered the "Regional Affordable Housing Strategy", adopted by Metro Council. This
report provides a list of tools and approaches that could be used by local jurisdictions to facilitate
the development of affordable housing and meet local production targets. Sheila Greenlaw-Fink,
Director of the Tigard-based Community Partners for Affordable Housing, participated in the
Council discussion. Based on local conditions and circumstances, she identified a top ten list of
strategies for priority consideration. At the conclusion of its discussions, Council directed staff to
return with further information on Ms. Greenlaw-Fink's top ten list. At its August 19, 2000 meeting,
Council discussed the list and asked staff to schedule a follow-up meeting on the affordable
housing issue sometime after the November general election, when the outcome of various
funding-related ballot measures would be known. In relation to this meeting, Ms. Greenlaw-Fink
submitted a memo outlining CPAH's top three list of policy incentives to increase opportunities for
affordable housing (Attachment #3). With the subsequent passage of Measure 7, the proposed
follow-up meeting was postponed indefinitely and Council did not review the new CPAH
information.
Page 1
Overview of City Actions to Support Affordable Housing
In recent years, the City has taken a number of actions to implement City affordable housing goals.
Many of these are discussed in the staff memo included in the July 17th packet and are briefly
mentioned here.
Financial_ Incentives:
• Since 1996, Tigard has provided a property tax exemption for low-income housing owned and
operated by Community Partners for Affordable Housing. In 2000, the value of the waiver was
approximately $9,000. Other non-profit housing providers also are eligible. The waiver is
automatically renewed each year provided the organization continues to meet the criteria.
• The City financially supports the Good Neighbor (homeless) Center located on Greenburq
Road, contributing $15,000 annually to the agency's operating budget.
• The City provides free office space to CPAH in a City-owned building located on Burnham
Street. The value of the space, which CPAH shares with Neighborshare, is estimated at
$8,000 annually.
Grants:
• During the mid- to late-nineties, the City applied for and received three Community
Development Block Grants (altogether $460,000) to improve the roads and sidewalks around
the CPAH-owned and -operated Villa La Paz low-income housing project.
ReguIatorX Changes:
In 1998, the Community Development Code was revised to allow accessory dwelling units, or
so-called granny flats, and to allow for adjustments to parking requirements for special resident
populations, including low income households, who as a group tend to own fewer cars than do
City residents generally.
• In the late nineties, the City created a housing maintenance code to protect the quality of the
City's existing housing stock and hired a housing inspector to be responsible for its
enforcement.
• The Washington Square Plan, scheduled to be considered for implementation by early next
year, is supportive of allowing opportunities for a variety of housing types. The justification is
that additional housing options are needed to provide nearby housing for shopping mall and
nearby business center employees.
Page 2
CPA►H's Top Three List
In its late-2000 memo to Council on affordable housing planning, CPAH narrowed its list of
recommended housing promotion strategies to three: 1) the adoption of a numeric target of 100
new affordable housing units by 2003; 2) fee waivers, reductions, or deferrals; 3) donation of tax-
foreclosed properties to nonprofits for the development of affordable housing. Staff comments on
these strategies are included in the recommendation section of this memo, which follows.
Staff Recommendations
As discussed in earlier Council meetings, low-income housing needs continue to far exceed
supply. Therefore, in addition to the City's current pro-housing strategies and approaches, staff
recommends the Council consider:
1a. Annually identifying a set amount, initially $5-10,000 per year, that would be available to
reduce fees and charges imposed on affordable housing development. The funds would
come from the .5 % of the City budget annually dedicated for Social Services and
Community Events (Attachment #4). Any unused housing incentive dollars would be carried
over to the following year.
The adoption of a housing set-aside will impact funding available for other non-profit social
service requests.
1 b. Requests for funds within the set-aside amount should not be required to follow the budget
cycle. Accepting such request any time during the year would allow greater flexibility and
allow housing providers to take advantage of special loan or grant allocations or land
availability, which may not follow the budget cycle. Direct staff to develop procedures for
reviewing such requests.
2. Set a numeric target for affordable housing creation at the 100-unit, or some other level, by
2004. This would provide a (non-mandatory) benchmark to measure progress toward
meeting low-income housing needs.
3. Direct staff to work with Washington County, which has statutory authority over all tax
foreclosed properties, and the other cities to make such properties available for affordable
housing development.
4. Lastly, with regard to the CPAH project-specific request for a $10,000 fee waiver, consider
contributing $8,000. The $8,000 would offset the amount of the park SDC fee increase,
which was adopted after the financing plan for the Washington Square project was
completed. Direct staff to return to Council with a budget amendment to transfer funds from
the general fund contingency.
By way of explanation, effective May 10, 2001, the park SDC fee schedule was revised
upward to reflect the current costs of land and development. Under the new schedule, the
multi-family rate increased from $540 to $850 per dwelling unit. As applied to the 26-unit
Village at Washington Square project, the park SDC fee increase amounted to $8,060 ($310
unit x 26) in additional charges.
I/Irpln/duane/affordable housing III
Page 3
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INC.
July 18, 2001
AIL Attachment 2
Rtuv JUL rQ v t-UU I
P.O. Box 23206 , Tigard, OR 97281-3206
Tel: 503-968-2724 - Fax: 503-598-8923 , www.cpahinc.org
Mr. William Monahan, City Manager and
Mr. James Hendryx, Community Development Director
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: System Development Charge (SDC)Building Fee Waivers, Reductions or
Deferrals.
Dear Jim and Bill:
This letter is to follow up on our discussions about System Development Charge (SDC)
and Building Fee waivers, reductions or deferrals. At our last meeting, city staff
expressed interest in receiving information about SDC/Fee-related policies that are
currently in place in other cities in Oregon. Below are descriptions of policies that
Salem, Eugene and Ashland have adopted in order to help facilitate the development of
affordable housing in their jurisdictions. These examples are taken from METRO's
Regional Affordable Housing Strategy.
Please note that I have listed only policies that refer directly to SDC and/or fee waivers.
Both the jurisdictions listed below as well as other jurisdictions have adopted other types
of policies that make the development of affordable housing more feasible. To take just a
couple of examples: Corvallis makes low interest loans to affordable housing projects
with no payments of interest or principal for the first five years; and Gresham offers
federal pass through dollars (HOME) as grants to projects (whereas Washington County
loans their HOME dollars).
SDC Waivers, Deductions or Eaem~tions
Salem
The SDC imposed under City Code Chapter 41 exempts 1) housing provided by the
Salem Housing Authority, and 2) any housing unit that receives city administered federal
housing funds and is affordable to families below 80% median household income (MM).
Eugene
SDCs are exempted for rental housing for households below 60% MM (cap of $115,000
per year).
0 0
Ashland
SDCs are deferred and secured by a second mortgage that is treated as a loan and accrues
6% interest annually. The SDC and the interest must be paid only if and when the
property is sold for a use than affordable housing.
Fee Waivers. Reductions or Eaemotions
Eugene
Waives planning and permit fees for affordable housing projects, up to a total of $50,000
per year.
The establishment of an SDC/fee reduction policy in Tigard would benefit both current
and future affordable housing projects. I hope this information proves useful as the City
considers its affordable housing policies. Do not hesitate to call me at 503-968-2724 with
any questions. We appreciate your time and effort in this matter.
Sincerely,
&--e-4 L"-
Jill Sherman
Acting Executive Director
Attachment 3
Community Partners for
Affordable Housin + inc.
Action Agenda fb r Affordable Housing
CPAH appreciates the opportunity to partner with the City of Tigard on their goal to
promote affordable housing. ~ks the City considers the adoption of additional incentives
that promote affordable ho CPAH appreciates the opportunity to present this Action
Agenda which describes CP H's 'top date' policy incentives for immediate
consideration by the City.
Set a Elua drV TAE !
The City of Tigard has included the promotion of affordable housing as one of its key
goals for the last several yeas. CPAH asks that the City refine their goal by setting a
numeric target. The Regional Affordable Housing Strategy recommended that
jurisdictions set targets base# on a mere 10% of the projected need-for Tigard this
would equal 320 affordable emits by 2003. CPAH recognizes that an additional 320 units
(while modest compared to 4ctual need) may not be a realistic goal at this time.
'T'herefore, CPAH asks that the City set a goal of 100 additional affordable units by
2003.
These fees have an enorumuo impact on the feasibility of any particular project,
particularly because they aro required at such an early stage in the project. CPAH
recommends that the City Consider: waiving zoning fees, reducing and deferring
permit fees and deferring $ystem Development Charges (SgDC9). CPAH recommend
the City set aside a dollar artnount to be used for fee waivers and deferrals each year.
Waivers and/or reductions would be offered to nonprofits that construct or renovate
housing serving households lat or below 50% of area median income.
Lang CM and Av 11011
Tigard's supply of land available to develop for housing is limited. In addition, as noted
before, there is little to no bWldable land zoned R-40. CPAH recommends that the City
consider donation of tax-f eclosed properties to nonprofits for the development of
affordable housing and laud baubi g and land assembly.
Attachment 4
City of Tigard,
Oregon
Social
Services
and
Community
Events
Budget Unit:
1500
24a ,
Each year, the City appropriates funds to support Social Service and Commu-
nity Event activities that assist or benefit Tigard Citizens. Community organi-
zations are invited to submit requests in February of each year. A subcommit-
tee of the Budget Committee meets to review Social Service requests and to
recommend fianding in the Proposed Budget. Community Event requests are
proposed as submitted, for review by the Budget Committee and the Council
Actual
Actual
Adopted
Proposed
Approved
Adopted
1998199
1999100
2000101
2001102
2001102
2001102
American Red Cross (Transportation)
$1,067
$1,000
$1.100
$1,100
$1,100
$1,100
Christmas in April
0
3,000
2,500
3,000
3,000
3.000
Good Neighbor Center
8,688
15,000
20,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Loaves 3 Fishes - Senior Center
17,000
18,000
18.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
Luke Dorf Inc.
6,889
7,000
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
Neighborshare (CAO)
9,444
11,000
11,000
15,000
15.000
15,000
Rape Crisis Center
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
Shelter - Domestic Violence Center
2,878
3,000
3,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
Tualatin Valley Centers
24,139
25.000
18.000
18,000
18,000
18,000
Total Social Services
$70.105
$84,000
$83,100
$81,600
$81,600
$81,600
Broadway Rose Theatre
$8.244
$10.000
$10,000
$10.000
$10,000
$10,000
Festival of Balloons
5,778
10.000
10.000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Fourth of July
4,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
Tigard Blast
0
0
0
10.000
5,000
5,000
Tigard Country Daze
3,444
1,000
0
0
0
0
Tigard High Graduation Ceremony
500
500
500
500
500
500
Tigard 40th Birthday
0
0
0
2,000
2.000
2,000
Train Days
2.500
0
4,000
0
0
0
Tualatin'River Keepers
0
1,000
1.710
2.000
2,000
2.000
Tualatin Valley Community Band
1,122
1.200
1,250
1.750
1,850
1,850
Total ArtstEvents
$26,088
$31.200
$34.960
$43,750
$38,850
$38,850
Total Requests Granted
$96,193
$115,200
$118,060
$125,350
$120.450
$120.450
The Budget Committee policy is to set total events and social service appro-
priations at .5% of the prior years operating budget. The policy limit for
FY 2001-02 is $124,045. The Adopted Budget includes a total of $120,450.
84
Attachment 5
Aft
W 0
AGENDA ITEM # 5
FOR AGENDA OF July 17, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE
PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City grant Community Partners for Affordable Housing's (CPAH) request for a $10,000 fee reduction?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Council consider the written and oral testimony and decide as it sees fit regarding the request.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City presently provides tax abatement for affordable housing, but has no policy regarding fee reduction.
CPAH has requested the City provide $10,000 in fee relief for its new 26-unit Village at Washington Square
affordable housing project. The fee relief would allow the organization to reduce the rent on one three-bedroom
unit to a level affordable to a family earning 30% of median income. CPAH has also asked the City to consider the
adoption of a long term policy supporting fee reductions.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Grant the request for $10,000 in fee relief.
Provide a lesser amount of relief.
Do not grant the request.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE ST A EUX
Growth Management Goal #3 states that "The City encourages and supports private sector programs to maintain
diverse and affordable housing". Strategies identified to achieve this goal include making incentive programs
available to providers of affordable housing units. These incentives include the waiver and property tax abatement
for affordable housing projects or reduction of SDCs.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1- Memo from Jim Hendryx concerning CPAH fee reduction request
Attachment 2 - CPAH letter dated May 17, 2001
Attachment 3 - CPAH letter dated June 15, 2001
AML
Attachment 4 - Village at Washington Square project summary
Attachment 5 - City Attorney memo dated April 9, 2001
Attachment 6 - Council meeting minutes of September 19, 2000.
FISCAL NOTES
The amount requested by CPAH is $10,000. No funds have been budgeted to meet this cost. In order to meet
this request, General Fund revenues would need to be shifted from some as yet unidentified line item.
i/citywide/affordable. feereduction
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Council
FROM: Jim Hendryx
DATE: July 3, 2001
SUBJECT: CPAH Request for Fee Reductions for the Village at Washington Square
Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH), the Tigard-based non-profit affordable
housing provider, has asked the City to consider reducing by $10,000 the fees that normally would
be imposed on its recently approved 26-unit Village at Washington Square affordable housing
project. A copy of the letter requesting the reduction is attached. According to CPAH Executive
Director Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, the fee reductions would allow one three-bedroom unit to rent at a
level affordable to a family with an income at 30% of median income vs. having to raise the rent to
a level affordable to family with an income at the 50% of median level. The request specifically
asks for reduction in Traffic Impact Fee, Park SDC, or building permit fees in that priority order.
The letter also asks the City to consider adopting a policy of fee reductions for affordable housing.
Metro Housing Policy
Current regional policy related to affordable housing is defined in the Regional Affordable Housing
Strategy Plan or RAHS. Adopted by Metro Council late last year, RAHS is intended to provide the
policy direction for local affordable housing objectives and strategies and the specific actions
needed by local governments and others to reach affordable housing production goals. This list
includes fee reductions and waivers.
The strategy's primary objective is to increase the supply of housing for the highest need
households: those earning 50% of median income. Within Washington County, the RAHS
identifies the highest need households as including the elderly, people with disabilities, farmworker
families, large families, recent immigrants, victims of domestic violence, single mothers, and ethnic
and racial minorities.
In addition to objectives and strategies, the RHAHS establishes affordable housing production
goals based on current and future affordable housing needs. The five-year production goal, sub-
totaled by jurisdiction, is 10% of the overall projected benchmark need for affordable housing.
Tigard's five-year goal is 320 units. The goal is non-binding, but its adoption imposes an obligation
on the City and other jurisdictions to promote affordable housing and to strive to meet the
quantitative goal.
City Housing Policy
City Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.1.1 addresses housing and states that the City shall provide an
opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent
levels. In support of this policy, Tigard, since 1996, has provided a property tax exemption for low-
income housing owned and operated by CPAH. This allows CPAH to reduce rents.
In 1998, the City established a "community vision" goal of encouraging and supporting private
sector programs to rehabilitate existing, and develop new affordable housing (Growth Management
Goal #3). Strategies identified to achieve this goal include making incentive programs available to
providers of affordable housing units. These incentives include fee waivers and reductions and
property tax abatement.
At its July 25, 2000, meeting, Council considered the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy and its
list of potentially available tools that could be used by local jurisdictions to increase opportunities
for affordable housing and meet local production targets. Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, Community
Partners for Affordable Housing Director, participated in the Council discussion. Based on local
conditions and circumstances, she identified a top ten list of strategies for priority consideration.
These included the following:
Density bonuses
Transfer of development rights
System development charges
Permit fees
Property tax exemptions
Land cost and availability
Local regulatory constraints and approval process
a Parking requirements
Enterprise foundation regional acquisition fund
Real estate transfer tax
At the conclusion of its discussion, Council directed staff to return with further information on Ms.
Greenlaw-Fink's top ten list. At its August 19, 2000 meeting, Council discussed the list and asked
staff to schedule a follow-up meeting on this agenda item sometime after the election, when the
outcome of various funding-related ballot measures would be known. After the election, this
follow-up meeting was postponed indefinitely, until the ramifications of Measure 7 could be better
understood.
Current Tigard Contributions to Affordable Housing
Currently, except for federal Community Development Block Grants funds passed down by
Washington County, the City is the only county jurisdiction providing any financial assistance to
affordable housing projects. The City contributions include tax abatement for the Villa La Paz
Apartments, $8,574, and a single family dwelling on Tangela St, $446. Tax abatement for the
proposed Village at Washington Square, if provided, is projected at $6,140. In addition, the City
provides office space at 9020 SW Burnham St. rent free, valued at $8,420 per year. This totals to
$23,580 per year in tax abatement and rent relief for Community Partners for Affordable Housing.
Statewide, very few jurisdictions provide financial incentives to promote affordable housing.
Legal Issues
The City attorney's office, in an April 2000 memo, commented on a request for special treatment
for affordable housing when the new park SDC fee schedule was before Council by recommending
against the granting of fee waivers or reductions for the park, and by extension, other SDCs. The
reason was that this would open the City to legal challenge from those who were not granted the
waiver. A copy of the memo in question is attached. It concludes "adopting a waiver would result
in substantial risk of expensive litigation, with no assurance (the City) would prevail".
While the memo recommends against waivers or reductions, it also refers to an alternative and
more legally defensible approach to helping affordable housing, should the City wish to provide
such help. This approach involves using general fund revenues to pay the SDC fees. According
to the memo, this method is consistent with current City codes and is less subject to legal
challenge. As recently confirmed by City Attorney Gary Firestone, a donation or transfer of funds
by the City is within the scope of its authority and is less fraught with legal concerns than an
outright fee waiver would be.
City Non-Profit Funding Procedure
The City annually reviews one-time "social funding requests" from non-profit agencies. This review
is included as part of the regular City budget process. The deadline for submitting requests is
February of each year. The Budget Committee policy is to set total events and social service
appropriations at 0.5% of the prior year's operating budget. The proposed 2001-02 budget, which
went to Council on June 12th, included a recommended budget that was $4,000 under the policy
limit. No formal or written guidelines or criteria have been put in place for reviewing these "social
funding requests" requests.
CPAH did not follow this "social funding request" process because they understood that the City
did not want them to compete with other non-profits. Another reason is that CPAH wished the City
to consider adopting a policy of fee reductions for affordable housing.
Summary and Conclusion
CPAH has requested a $10,000 fee reduction on its 26-unit affordable housing project now
underway near Washington Square. CPAH also has asked the City to consider a policy of fee
reductions for affordable housing. According to the City attorney, the City could, via the general
fund, provide some fee relief for affordable housing without undue legal risk. Last year, Metro
adopted a Regional Affordable Housing Strategy that sets a non-binding five-year housing
production goal for Tigard of 320 units. City comprehensive plan policies and community vision
goals support and encourage affordable housing. Council has considered but taken no action
regarding the list of proposed local affordable housing promotion strategies included in the regional
report. Since 1996, the City has provided tax abatement for affordable housing.
In the absence of Council consideration of specific strategies and measures for implementing
Metro and City policy, staff has no clear basis for making a recommendation regarding the CPAH
request. Under the circumstances, the request should be considered on an ad hoc basis until a
formal affordable housing strategy is put into place. In the short term, staff recommends Council
consider the written and oral testimony and decide as it sees fit regarding the present fee reduction
request. If Council decides fee relief for this particular project is appropriate at the requested or
some other level, the City should use General Fund dollars to provide the relief, as recommended
by the City Attorney. The budget implication of this decision is that lost dollars would have to be
taken from other City operations. Staff has not considered and has no recommendation at this
time regarding where this shift in budget allocations should occur. The longer-term issue of
refining the City's affordable housing policies should be considered at some later date.
I/Irpn/dr/affordablehousing.chparequest
WAffohii,
FOR APPORDAELr HOUSING, INC.
May 17, 2001
Attachment 2 AIR&
W
P.O. Box 23206 Tigard. OR 97281-3206
Tel: 503-968-2724 • Fax: 503-598-8923 - www.cpahinc.org
h&. William Monahan, City Manager cmd
Mr. James Hendryx, Community Development Director
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Bill and Jim:
This letter is to follow-up to our letter dated May 9, 2001. Community Partners for Affordable
Housing would like to request that the City of Tigard approve one of the following fee reductions
for the Vdlage at Washington Square.
With the recent 58,000 increaso of Parks System Development Charges as well as higher than
anticipated zoning costs, fees for this project have increased by almost $20,000, and total more
than $143,000. We are requesting that the City consider a waiver a $10,000 or 71/6 of those fees.
A $10,000 reduction will mitigtlte fee increases and allow us to maintain one 3-bedroom unit at a
rent level affordable to a very low-income family (at 301/9 of area median income vs. having to
raise the rent to a 50% level).
While we have ranked them in order of our preference, we understand the City's budget may
dictate which is most feasible.
Preference 1: We ask that the City consider a reduction of $10,000 in the Traffic Impact
Fee on this project, or
• Preference 2: Alternately, we ask that the City consider a reduction of $10,000 in the
Park System Development Charge, or
a Preference 3: Alternately, we ask that the City consider a $10,000 reduction in building
permit fees. .
We would like the City to consider implementing fee reductions on all affordable new
construction housing project;--of which we recognize there will be a limited number. The
irnportance of these fee reductions to the overall cost-of sucSsadd cts$ s ban wel l documented.
In the proposed Village at Washington Square, fees and SI $5,500 to the cost of each
unit.. Jurisdictions such as Portland who waive over half of tes are able'to ensure that more
and better quality affordable housing is available, making it possible for retail and service sector
employees to live near work, support their families and contribute to the community.
AIRL
r
FAaETW0
(,'rs-f! of InGM D
both because car ownership and number of trips is
im'
CPAH's projects gtc IOSs:v
larriP ess to nd services.
lower than average, and because we target sites with access J At our our transit sit and
project s. have
Additionally, we inoorposate regi onal op
incorporated a community tamer, play area and butterfly garden.
ons as additional ways in which the City can impact affordable
Again, as you consider these opti to limit the potential impact on City
housing production, we believe there are reasonable ways act he reductions could be
budgets. Fee reductions could be capped at 510-25,000 per plil
available only to projects serving households at less than 40-501/6 of area nian income. .o ven
theCit~
itod number of units b b* built, this would have a very limited impact
Jhp,Ux
e,getitrffitavn.
We appreciate all that the City has accomplished to date and the willingness gn happy to ponsi a additional
additional tools. We look forward to hearing from you, an would information at your request.
Sincerely,
Sheila Greenlaw-Fink
Executive Director
AMM Aft
Attachment 3
P.Q. Box 23206 • Tigard, OR 97281-3206
Tel: 503-968-2724 • Fax: 503-598-8923 • www.cpahinc.org
June 15, 2001
Mr. William Monahan, City Manager and
Mr. James Hendryx, Community Development Director
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Bill and Jim:
We have put together some sample materials to help illustrate the issues discussed in our June 1
meeting. We hope this will help clarify the impact of our request to the City for limited fee
waivers on affordable housing projects. We want to reiterate that an.overall policy on fee waivers
is our preference, rather than a case-by-case request. Much like tax abatement, this type of
incentive helps address the City's goal on affordable housing. We hope the City of Tigard will
continue to play a leadership role in Washington County on this issue, and look forward to
working with you to address these issues with other jurisdictions, including the County.
The samples provided are just that-each project is complex and unique, with multiple sources
of funding and different target populations. The amount of subsidy required to make a particular
project work is tied to the population targeted (income level, family size, age, special needs), the
level of rehabilitation needed to existing structures, and the nature of the construction challenge.
The charts we've attached respond to some of the questions you raised in the meeting-questions
commonly asked about affordable housing.
What is affordable housing? Household pays no more than 30 percent of its gross income on
rent plus associated housing costs (.e.g., utilities).
Income Targeting: In affordable rental housing, rents are targeted to households at particular
levels of area median income (AMI).
2001 HUD Area Median Income AMI
No. of
People
10C°!o
AMI
30%
AMI
40%
AMI
50%
AMI
60%
AMI
1
39,100
11,730
15,640
19,550
23,460
2
44,700
13,410
17,880
22,350
26,820
3
50,300
15,090
20,120
25,150
30,180
4
55,900
16,770
22,360
27,950
33,540
5
60,400
18,120
24,160
30,200
36,240
6
64,800
19,440
25,920
32,400
38,880
No. of
Bedrooms
No. of
People
Median
Income
30%
AMI
40%
AMI
50%
AMI
60%
AMI
0
1
39,100
260
347
456
554
1
1.5
41,900
270
366
480
585
2
3
50,300
324
441
576
702
3
4.5
58,150
374
512
665
810
4
6
64,800
416
648
740
902
Assumptions: 1.5 people per bedroom; utility allowances $33, $44, $53, $62, & $70 respectively.
The above charts show 2001 ANII for different household sizes and rents that would be
affordable to households at these different levels of ANU. For homeownership programs it is
typically families at 80-120% of area median income, while for rental housing it is increasingly
those at 50% of area median income or below. For a family of 3, this would mean an income of
between $15,090 and $25,150 annually. Rents considered affordable to this family would need to
fall with $324-576 monthly range. To create or preserve housing at these rent levels requires a
variety of financial tools, illustrated in the next table.
What financial tools support affordable housing?
Goal of Tool
Method Used
Specific Examples
Improve first position (private debt) financing to
■ Lower interest rate
Oregon Affordable Housing Tax
allow more debt to be supported.
• Higher loan to value ratio
Credit
■ Extended loan term
■ Reduced debt cover ratio DCR
Reduce operating expenseslsubsidize
■ Reduce operating expenses
Property tax abatement
operations to increase dollars available to
• Provide operating subsides
• Project4ased section 8
support debt or reduce rents needed to cover
operations
Reduce cost to develop project
■ Reduce City tees & charges
Reduce or waive fees and SDCs
• Reduce land costs
■ Reduce design Wor construction
costs
Subordinate or Gap financing
• Fill gap .between amount of private
Grants (CDBG)
debt that can be shorted and total
■ Low interest, second position
development cost
loans (HOME)
The above chart briefly summarizes some key goals in impacting affordability, and methods to
achieve them. For instance, the Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit is utilized by private
lenders on behalf of housing developers to effectively reduce the interest rate on private debt by
4%, thereby increasing the amount of debt an affordable complex can service. Property tax
abatement decreases annual operating expenses, thereby allowing us to serve lower-income
households (for whom we charge lower rents). Reduced or waived fees help "fill the gap"
between the private debt that can be supported and the cost to develop the project. There are a
limited number of ways to fill the gap in affordable housing projects, and local incentives are
critical.
Income Targeting and impact on Debt Service Capacity: The income levels of the
households that the project will serve determines the amount of private debt that the project can
support, which in turn determines the size of the gap that needs to be filled to make the project
feasible. Clearly, additional tools are needed to fill the gap when the project targets households
at lower incomes.
nit Size
No. of
Units
Mo Rent at 60%
AMI
Annual
Rent
Mo Rent at 30-
50%
Annual Rent
ludo
1
554
6,648
260
3,120
1 BR/ 1 BA
2
585
14,040
270
6,480
1 BR/ 1 BA
5
585
35,100
480
28,800
BR/ 1 BA
5
702
42,120
513
30,780
BR/ 112 BA
1
810
9,720
374
4,488
BR/ 11/2 BA
1
810
9,720
520
6,240
BRI 11/2 BA
5
810
48,600
665
39,900
BR/2 BA
0
902
-
416
-
BR/2 BA
3
902
32,472
578
20,808
BR12 BA
3
902
32,472
740
26,640
Total
230,892
167,256
-aundry Inane 2,600
2,600
Total Gross Inane 233 492
169,&%
Vacancy 59b 11,675
8,493
usted Gross Income 229 817
161,363
tin 91445
91,445
I 130 372
69.918
Available for Debt Service at
debt cover ratio of 1.15: 113,367 60,798
Dow would a $10,000 fee waiver impact an affordable project, like the Village at
Washington Square? With a gap of $10,000 (for instance when Parks SDCs increased
recently), you need to be able to support additional private debt, typically done by raising rents,
or securing operating subsidies. To maintain lower rent levels, we simply cannot take on
additional debt. Depending on the developer's mission, and funders requirements, targeting may
not be flexible and changing the targeting at this later stage of the project may not be an available
option.
0. 0
We have attempted to convey complex information in a fevi pages. Jill Sherman, our housing
development manager, would be happy to walk through this in a work session with staff or
council. This summer I will be taking a 3-month sabbatical, working part-time on specific
projects, and Jill will serve as our acting director. (I look forward to spending time with my 6-
year old this summer, and will be taking a few family trips). I will return full-time on September
17. While I am still available for meetings on a limited basis, I am certain that Jill, and our
finance consultant, Robin Boyce, can answer any questions you might have.
We look forward to working with you on this and other housing issues. Please let us know your
preference for proceeding on this issue. We would be happy to discuss your ideas for other ways
to present this information. Thank you in advance for your continuing assistance.
Sincerely,
Sheila eenlaw-Fink
Executive Director
VILLAGE AT WASHINGTON SQUARE
11157 - 11163 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard
Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) is a nonprofit affordable
housing developer,serYing the Tigard-Tualatin area. CPAH provides safe and healthy affordable
housing along with support and skill building activities to low-income individuals and families in
our community. The Village at Washington Square represents CPAH's fourth development as an
organization, and will bring the total number affordable housing units owned by CPAH to 146. CPAH has
assembled a highly qualified team of development professionals to work on this new construction project.
The need for affordable multifamily rental housing in Washington County in general, and Tigard
specifically, is well documented. While Washington County is one of the fastest growing and most
prosperous counties in Oregon, an increasing number of residents do not benefit from this affluence -
over 20,000 families live below the poverty line. They are the bank tellers, shop clerks, secretaries and
other service, retail and manufacturing workers that support the growth of the Washington County
economy. Within Washington County, Tigard-Tualatin is one of the least affordable areas to live, despite
a large concentration of employment opportunities. The unfortunate reality is that many who work here
cannot afford to live here.
The Village at Washington Square will be a new construction development providing rental
housing affordable to a range of lower income households, with rents affordable to families at 30%, 45%
and 50% of the area median income.
The Design of the Village at
Washington Square includes three
residential buildings with a total of 26
dwelling units, and a community .
building all arranged around a central.
courtyard/play yard. Over half of the
units will be three and four bedroom
units, which will allow us to meet the
affordable housing needs of large
families. Eleven of the units will be e. ~4
traditional apartments, while the other as- E
15 will be townhouse style units with entrances on the second floor. The development will include 31
parking spaces. The development site contains 36,720 square feet and a single-family home on the
property that will be removed to allow the full site to be redeveloped. The development will include a
small green space with benches, a path and a butterfly garden.
The Community Centerwill be the focal point of the support, skill building and community
building activities offered to residents and will include a small computer center. Youth programs will
include homework mentoring, access to computers and high speed Internet, after-school crafts and story
hours and an eleven week Summer Youth Program. Adult programs will include Neighborhood Watch,
GED tutoring, access to computers and high speed Internet, job search mentoring and an individual
Development Account Program.
ANIL
The Village at Washington Square will provide affordable housing for a minimurn of sixty (60) years,
with inaximum rents regulated by covenants on the property. Financing costs for the development will be
covered through partnerships with private investors, lenders, non-profit foundations, Washington County
and the State of Oregon:
Financial Partners
as
P~l•
Ct~ritni;pb"
F
f 1 ' YY
.,4" e:.-ewt".,S.iu':; r~~,.~u"s,:'
Wn.
/ i...r ..M.,VS.-."t. -a...,.u
f
Washington County
$ 487,700
HOME low interest loan &
Department of Housing
CDBG Grant - AWARDED to development
Services
Oregon Housing and
$100,000 *
Housing Development Grant,
Community Services Dept.
* plus Low Income Housing Tax Credits and
Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credits -
AWARDED to development
Private Loan - lender to
$ 975,391
20 year loan utilizing Oregon Affordable
be determined
(estimated)
Housing Tax Credits to reduce interest costs to
develo ment
Private Equity -investor to
$ 1,827,085
Equity investment in return for Low Income
be determined
estimated
Housing Tax Credits allocated to the investor
Equity by CPAH
$ 49,000 Deferred fees, equity includes grant from First
Consumers National Bank
yob-4,.. '"'t4^•
y'.'' s.>!{f<11 ~rr k" 5~.}_ `"1 :'ti e. A,~,Y.
5>^tt Jig.` ~ 4^R" 1'+l~'[•l j
~
~O~ 4~r•}~~i ~..~Z~f.
~
~ S ~~.?'hv-IL
~
)i~ "f ~ j iF
T. -
~~~~'n .v~~Y Yj.G~'
{>.v
'
S
i
_
.k✓','K. .
"K
~
'
~~3,
xr3'.. +•~:.SxrJ,.- t .'r.
%
r,~f L..:,f t "}.a`sd'cE
Development Team
A'r~. a c. Y n t `
.D:~t?ry 3'. '...2 .E
~n 3~`rz B~':
O[Dt
Housing Development Center
Development Consultant
Carlton Hart Architecture P.C.
Architect
Seabold Construction
General Contractor
Pinnacle Realty Management Company
Property Manager
Preston Gates & Ellis
Legal Counsel
Blume, Loveridge & Co.
Audit Services
rIHT cd ' VJ1 et" tObNM KHMib LKLW CWHlL-:-- h'• e
Attachment
R~iMI6
CHEW
CGRRIGAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(s0)
FxP3)w•sw
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tigard City Council
William A. Monahan, City Manager
FROM: Timothy V. Ramis, Gary Firestone, City Attorney's Office
DATE: April 9, 2001
RE: Waiving or Reducing Parks System Development Charge
BACKGROUND
The City currently has a Parks SDC and is considering revisions to the Parks SDC rates. An affordable
housing group has asked the City to consider reducing, waiving, or deferring` the Parks SDC for projects
that qualify as affordable housing.
ISSUES
What concerns should the City have concerning adopting provisions that would allow waiver of Parks
SDCs for affordable housing projects?
ANSWER
If the City adopts a waiver of Parks SDC charges for affordable housing, the risk of litigation by other
developers is increased. Other developers could challenge a waiver on statutory, equal protection, or
takings grounds.
'To avoid unnecessarily long and confusing sentences, the rest of this memorandunx will refer
only to "waiver." "Waiver" will include total, partial, temporary, and/or pennaoent waiver.
V1HY G1 '0i Ot>;We",1 KHI'i15 k,KtW I.VKK1l,FflY
11
L
Memorandum re: Parks SDC Waiver, Reduction, Deferral for Affordable Housing
April 6, 2001
Page 2
ANALYSIS
r.J
Developers have challenged SDCs at the local level on a wide variety of grounds. We are unaware of
any litigation on the particular issue of waivers for affordable housing, although the issue has been at least
discussed when other local governments have considered adopting some type of favorable treatment for
affordable housing providers.
Litigation Considerations
If the City adopts a waiver for affordable housing and that waiver is challenged, the City would have to
expend substantial sums in litigating the sum. A legal challenge is likely to cost the City far more in legal
fees than Would be saved by any affordable housing waivers. While the City may have arguments that
waivers are justifiable and legal (see below), there is a likelihood that a court would rule against the City,
which would create even greaten financial consequences for the City. It might have to pay damages and
might have to refund SDCs to developers.
SSuatuto Argot
One legal argument that could be made against waivers for affordable housing is that the state statutes
require uniformity and require that developers pay an equitable share. ORS 223.304(1) requires that:
"'The methodology shall promote the objective of future system users contributing no more than an
equitable share to the cost of existing facilities." The statutory framework does not specifically prohibit
SDC waivers, deferrals or reductions. However, developers could argue that the intent of the statutory
scheme is to impose uniformity by limiting the discretion of local governments with respeetto how SDCs
are structured. ORS 223.304(1) and the rest tithe SDC statutes can be interpreted as requiring equitable
treatment for developers. However, a proponent of waivers would argue that as long as those who do
pay are required only to pay an equitable share, the system complies with the statutory requirement. The
problem with this argument is that the actual cost of the infrastructure to be paid by SDCs does not go
down by the amount of the waiver granted, If the lost revenue is recaptured by increasing the costs to
SDC payers, then the "equitable share" principle of the statute is violated. A city could avoid this
problem by using general fund revenues to make up for money lost to waivers; however, the net financial
result to the City would be the same as giving general fund grants to affordable housing projects.
Issues Arising. Under the EauaLProAeo Lo_a_Clattse ofht11 Constitution
Developers could argue that exempting certain classes of developers from SDCs violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, by impermissibly treating developers of non-affordable
housing differently from developers of affordable housing. The test for validity under the Equal
e wr e~ ' eii vj=o; w"'1 rKH'li5 I.KtW WK IGHN N.4
Memorandum re: Parks SDC Waiver, Reduction, Deferral for Affordable Housing
April 6, 2001
Page 3
Protection Clause, when no fundamental rights or suspect classes are implicated, is whether a distinction
that results in differential treatment rationally furthers legitimate governmental interests. Fostering
affordable housing would likely be found to be a legitimate governmental interest. Advocates of
affordable housing would likely argue that an SDC waiver rationally furthers that interest.
If developers pursue an equal protection argument, they may argue that a different standard should be
involved because their basic property rights are involved. The current U. S. Supreme Court may be open
to this argument. A reduction for affordable housing that is made up for from general tax revenues rather
than from increased SDCs has a good chance of surviving even under a more stringent standard, but this
again requires substantial expenditure from general fund revenues.
Issues Azising Uudex theTa in s Clause of the U.S. Constitution
The strongest challenge would likely be that an SDC waiver for affordable housing results in a "taking"
in violation of the U. S. Constitution. This concern arises because affordable housing waivers could result
in a less perfect fit between the impact of new developments that pay the SDC and the amount of the
SDC. If SDCs were increased to offset any affordable housing waiver, a strong argument could be made
by developers that they are being forced to bear a burden that should be shared by all and that the
requirement to pay even higher SDCs is a taking. While courts have never accepted that a requirement
to pay is a taking, the argument is a strong one and would appear to be a logical extension from recent
Supreme Court decisions. However, if the waiver does not result in an increase in SDCs but instead is
made up for from general fund proceeds, the developers' argument loses most, if not all, of its legal basis.
deed to Amet d Eode
The Municipal Code neither prohibits nor expressly permits waivers for affordable housing. If the City
decides to allow waivers, it should amend the code and include the waiver as part of the code.
CONCLUSION
While the City may be able to legally justify waivers for affordable housing, adopting a waiver would
result in a substantial risk of expensive litigation, with no assurance it would prevail.
GA9ffiT5gsrdlaff0U3W aivc.wp d
cc to Dwayne Roberts 5123/01
Attachment 6
were in favor of the staff recommendations. Council members indicated that they
were in favor. The direction to support the staff recommendations was unanimous.
9. DISCUSSION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGIES
Staff Report and Discussion: Community Development Director Jim Hendryx gave a
presentation on the "Top Ten Affordable Housing Strategies." Topics covered in Mr.
Hendryx's presentation included:
o Density Bonus
o Transfer of Development Rights
m System Development Charges
o Permit Fees
Property Tax Exemption
o Land Cost and Availability
e Local Regulatory Constraints and Discrepancies in Planning and Zoning
Codes/Local Permitting or Approval Process
® Parking
s Enterprise Foundation Regional Acquisition Fund
s Real Estate Transfer Tax
A copy of Mr. Hendryx's PowerPoint presentation is available at the City Recorder's
office.
Councilor Scheckla asked how quickly the Council needed to act on the
recommendations to promote affordable housing. Mr. Hendryx responded that
Finance Director Craig Prosser suggested that the Council wait until the November
election results were available, since some of the issues on the ballot may impact the
City. Councilor Scheckla suggested the Council revisit the issue after election results
are known. Assistant to the City Manager Liz Newton proposed that Mr. Hendryx
return to the Council with a list of prioritized recommendations in late November or
early December. Councilor Scheckla stated that he would like to know the budgetary
impact of the recommendations.
Mr. Hendryx introduced Sheila Greenlaw-Fink from Community Partners for
Affordable Housing (CPAH). Ms. Greenlaw-Fink stated that she hoped the Council
would not delay action on the affordable housing incentives until the November
election. She stated that CPAH needed to move forward on projects now or
opportunities may be lost. She identified some limited cost items such as: tax
abatement, permit fee incentives, and advocating for affordable housing at the County
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 - PAGE 8
level. Ms. Greenlaw-Fink pointed out that the financial Impact of many of the options
was nominal.
Councilor Patton asked if CPAH had a specific project in mind that will be coming
before the Council prior to the November election. Councilor Patton pointed out that
the State and County will also be affected by the November elections. She stated that
this was an inopportune time to try to influence these jurisdictions. She continued by
saying that although supportive of affordable housing, the Council has to take into
account the potential repercussions to the City. Councilor Scheckla and Mayor
Griffith concurred with Councilor Patton.
Mr. Hendryx concluded by saying that the goal of the presentation was to get Council
direction. Ms. Newton summarized by confirming that Mr. Hendryx would return to f
Council with a list of prioritized recommendations, along with the cost impact and a
description of the process involved in implementing each recommendation.
10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None
11. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None
12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:54 p.m.
Attest:
Greer A. Gaston, Deputy City Recorder
Mayor, City of Tigard
Date:
I:\ADM\CATHY\CCA\000919. DOC
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 - PAGE 9
Draft - Excerpt of City Council Meeting Minutes - Agenda Item No. 5
July 17, 2001
5. REVIEW REQUEST FROM COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FOR FEE REDUCTION REQUEST
Community Development Director ]im Hendryx introduced this agenda item wherein
the Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) is requesting a $10,000 fee
reduction for its new 26-unit Village at Washington Square affordable housing project.
Associate Planner Duane Roberts reviewed the staff report, which is on file with the
City Recorder. As part of the staff report, a memorandum from City Attorney Ramis
is on file, which addressed waiving or reducing Park System Development Charges. In
response to the question as to what concerns should the City have regarding adopting
provisions that would allow a waiver of Park System Development Charges for
affordable housing projects, City Attorney advised that the risk of litigation by other
developers is increased. Other developers could challenge a waiver on statutory equal
protection or takings grounds.
City Manager Bill Monahan noted that this request represented an instance where the
staff wanted to show to the City Council the full contributions (from CPAH and other
agencies) being requested of the City. In a memorandum attached to the Council
Agenda Item Summary the current Tigard contributions to affordable housing is
outlined.
Council discussion followed with regard to the level of contribution to affordable
housing by the City given the City's capacity and responsibility to deliver services. Mr.
Monahan, in response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, noted that the City of
Tigard probably does more than most cities in the State of Oregon with regard to
contributing to affordable housing. The City of Portland probably does more than the
City of Tigard in the way of making such contributions.
]ill Sherman, representing CPAH, addressed the City Council and reviewed CPAH's
request for a yearly contribution as well as for the City to have a stated policy on how
a fee reduction can be obtained. If a policy was stated, then CPAH would know how
they could go about meeting the criteria.
There was discussion on the tax abatement approval that CPAH received from the
City of Tigard. It was noted that CPAH makes annual application for this tax
abatement to the City of Tigard. In order to be absolved of any property taxes, at
least 51 % of the taxing entities must approve the abatement. Therefore, CPAH
Draft Minutes - July 17, 2001, Agenda Item No. 5 - Community Partners for Affordable
Housing Request for Fee Waiver - Page 1
needs to receive tax abatement approval
Tualatin Valley Fire a Rescue District and
the abatement.
from the Tigard-,Tualatin School District,
the City of Tigard in order to qualify for
Mr. Monahan suggested that if the City Council would want the City of Tigard to
assist CPAH with regard to the SDC fees that the fees could be paid to the SDC fund
by the City's general fund. Another suggestion was that if the City Council chooses to
pay the SDC fees then the amount funded could be applied as a credit against future
requests for funding from CPAH.
Councilor Patton commented that one of the City Council goals is to address
affordable housing in the City of Tigard. She noted the need to schedule some time
for a long-term policy discussion on what the City's effort will be with regard to
affordable housing. At this time, she noted that the issue was to consider the fee
waiver request. She advised that the City now addresses affordable housing through
its social services program. Councilor Patton said that when the City Council discusses
affordable housing, the City Council should also decide whether affordable housing
should be part of the social services funding consideration. She referred to recent law
enforcement incidents at the Villa La Paz housing development. She said there is a
need for CPAH to communicate closely with the City of Tigard and to make efforts to
see that the Village at Washington Square project did not develop similar law
enforcement problems as has been experienced at Villa La Paz.
Councilor Dirksen noted that he would like to grant the amount requested by CPAH
but understood Councilor Patton's concerns. He advised that he viewed this request
as being different from social services in that it is a one-time request for a
development.
Councilor Scheckla noted that he agreed with Councilor Patton.
Also discussed was the alternative of reducing the amount of assistance requested from
the full $10,000, to this year's social services non-allocated funds ($4,000).
Mayor Griffith noted that it was difficult to determine "where to draw the line." He
said he agreed that a policy needs to be established with regard to affordable housing
and social services funding. He also noted that the request from CPAH for this money
could be done as a budget adjustment if considered to be an emergency; however, he
did not think that this request qualifies as an emergency. He said there is a need to
strive for equity for all City of Tigard citizens when allocating resources.
It was determined that an affordable housing strategies discussion would be scheduled
tentatively for the September 18, 2001, City Council workshop meeting.
\\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\ADM\CATHY\CCA\010717 -AFFORDABLE HOUSING.DOC
Draft Minutes - July 17, 2001, Agenda Item No. 5 - Community Partners for Affordable
Housing Request for Fee Waiver - Page 2
Attachment 6
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor annd City uncil Members
FROM: Bill Monahan DATE: September 10, 2001
SUBJECT: City of Tigard Community Contributions
On June 27, 2001 1 wrote a memo to Council on the status of City of Tigard community
contributions. I attached a list of all City cash contributions and utility payments given to
social services and community events. In addition, a list of in-kind contributions made in
calendar year 2000 and 2001 was included. I am providing Council with another copy of
the June 27, 2001 memo and adding information on the City's contributions to the
community through funding School Resource Officers and the Youth Services Officer.
These officers are provided to the Tigard-Tualatin School District for nine months of the
calendar year.
In looking at the City's contributions to social services, community events, and support of
school activities, it is not easy to fix on a total cost to the City, nor is it easy to determine if
the City's contribution is appropriate. I am, however, providing the information to Council
so that the Council has all available information before it, as it determines whether to
expand the level of City contributions to community social services or events.
The following is an estimate of the City contributions to these activities:
Social Services and Community Events (cash contributions) $120,450
Social Services Utility Payments (estimated based on FY 00-01) $ 9,500
In-kind Contributions $ 7,000
School Resource Officer Salaries (nine months) $156,829
Youth Services Officer (nine months) $ 39,446
Total City of Tigard Contributions for FY 01-02 $396,225 estimated
1AA MIBIWIVIEMOSWIAYOR & WCOMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS UPDATE.DOC
FY 2001-02
School Resource Officer
Personal Services Costs
SRO
Mike Eskew
Rick Peterson
Glen Scruggs
Total
FY 2001-02 9 Month
Total Total
63,374 47,531 9-Month Amount funded by Grant plus School District
76,207 57,155
69,524 52,143
209,105 156,829
FY 2001-02
School Resource Officer
Personal Services Costs
FY 2001-02 9 Month
YSO Total Total
Sheryl Huiras 52,594 39,446
Grand Total 261,699 196,274
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Bill Monahan
DATE: June 27, 2001
SUBJECT: City of Tigard Community Contributions
The city has been approached over the past few weeks with various requests for
contributions to either social service agencies or community fund raising events. During
the June 26 study session meeting of council, council reiterated a prior position that since
the city has an established funding cycle for social services and community events,
consideration of new proposals on a case-by-case basis should not be promoted.
Staff will make sure to voice the council direction as new requests are received over the
coming months. In addition, we will provide information through the Cityscape and the city
web page advising the community of the city's process for accepting applications for social
service and community event funding. I'll ask Craig Prosser to prepare an information
sheet to send to those groups seeking funding so they can make application during the
next budget cycle.
For your information, I have attached a recently completed table of all city contributions to
social service and community events. The table, prepared by the finance department,
shows the actual contributions made by the city in fiscal years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001.
In addition, the approved budget figures for the upcoming year are shown. Please note
that in-kind contributions made over the past couple of years to community events and
agencies are shown. We discovered that the Burnham Street house, leased to CPAH and
Neighborshare, has had water billings charged to the city. In accordance with the lease
with the two social service agencies, the obligation for paying the water bill properly rests
with the agencies. As a result, contact has been made with the agencies and they have
agreed to pay water fees for the upcoming year.
Over the next few weeks, staff will be developing actual figures for the in-kind city
contribution to the recent balloon festival.-That information will be provided to council as
soon as it is available.
aft
I:UDWOLLWEMOSCOMMUNMY CONTMUTIONSDOC
CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS
CASH CONTRIBUTIONS
SOCIAL SERVICES & COMMUNITY EVENTS BUDGET
ACTUAL
ACTUAL APPROVED BUDGET
AGENCY
FY 99100
FY 00101 FY 01102
American Red Cross (Transportation)
1,000
1,100 1,100
Christmas in April
3,000
2,500 3,000
Good Neighbor Center
15,000
15,000 10,000
Loaves & Fishes - Senior Center
18,000
18,000 20,000
Luke Dorf Inc
7,000
7,500 7,500
Neighborshare (CAO)
11,000
11,000 15,000
Rape Crisis Center
1,000
2,000 3,000
Shelter- Domestic Violence Center
3,000
3,000 4,000
Tualatin Valley Centers
25,000
18,000 18,000
Broadway Rose Theatre
10,000
10,000 10,000
Festival of Balloons
10,000
10,000 10,000
Fourth of July
7,500
7,500 7,500
Tigard Country Daze
1,000
0 5,000
Tigard High Graduation Ceremony
500
500 500
Tigard 40th Birthday
0
0 2,000
Train Days
0
4,000 0
Tualatin River I<eepers
1,000
1,710 2,000
Tualatin Valley Community Band
1,200
1,250 1,850
TOTAL SOCIAL SERVICES &
COMMUNITY EVENTS BUDGET
$115,200
$113,060 $120,450
UTILITY PAYMENTS*
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
AGENCY
FY 99100
FY 00101 FY 01102
Burnham St House
431
497 Unknown at this time
John Tigard House
0
7 Unknown at this time
Senior Center
9,072
9,011 Unknown at this time
TOTAL UTILITY PAYMENTS
$9,503
$9,515 Unknown at this time
*See Attachment I for detail
TOTAL CASH CONTRIBUTIONS
$124,703
$122,575 $120,450
IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS
AGENCY
2000**
2001'** 2002
Balloon Festival
49,378
54,241 Unknown at this time
Holiday Tree Lighting
8,187
8,600 Unknown at this time
Tigard Daze
0
2,085 Unknown at this time
Tigard Blast
108
108 Unknown at this time
4th of July
1,279
1,339 Unknown at this time
Homecoming Parade
320
550 Unknown at this time
John Tigard House
36
36 Unknown at this time
Senior Center Steering Committee
1,293
1,293 Unknown at this time
Senior Center Lease/Insurance
287
718 Unknown at this time
Burnham St House
180
180 Unknown at this time
TOTAL IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS
$61,066
$69,148 Unknown at this time
**See Attachment 2 for detail
***See Attachment 3 for detail
ACTUAL
ACTUAL PROPOSED
FY 99100
FY 00101 FY 01102
TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS
$185,770
$191,723 $120,450
co O O
J I- - O
Q O fl~ Il~
O O
0) M O O
ca M O O
C9 O O I-
_ O
co r
7 r
m
z
r
CC) O O
O
U
C O
w
P
C
~
d N
LL
W to
W
O
a
` CD
O
'
N 'd
ti O
N
Q
N ti O
O ~
Q
f" O
O
G
C)
LL.
N N O O
Cd LO O O
U I-~ O O
<O
N I~
N
Z
LO O O
U ti O O
In O O
U M
W cfl
w
d
0
N
H
Z
W
Q
I}L
F-
J_
F-
O I- O
N oc r O
> N
a) 4)
O O
~ 2 2
.a
U E rn
a p
O C_ C
C O
O O O
co -7
~ can, °o, °o,
~CAOO
L 0
E x
7
m
` U N O O
.O C ~ O O
C
o
0
a~
cn aoi
J
M O O
o co Cl O
CV O O
C CA
O O CV
N
C
v~ E V
E
0
U
n
r
n
N
DO
N
M
(O
m
CA
N
r
o O
c O Cn o o
O O
CA
A-- M 0 M
O CA 0
co
O O O
Cl
N
C O O O
O
E O O N
N
M
M
Z
0 f6
E a
2
x
V
Q
N O O
N O O
N
t
3
f` O
`
00
CD cl) IT
t-
a
O f`
N
L_
r
d
O
O
O
N
w
0
LL
y
N
0
U
Z
Y
Z
N O N
a ti o 1-
r,: C3 r-:
0
rnm Cl
E_
0C) C)
N 0 Cl 0 0
CA Co
H Cl
O O O O
m O O O O
0 C O O co co
0 r
O CA
M J co co
N O O N
CO ~ ti O O f`
O > r` O O r-
N dam' OMC)_ M
CO r~ CA
lL
M
N
C C
0 0
CM c
m m o c
0
~ 0 v U
Y U ~ f6
o
CC d a I-
M
IZ
w
w
C)
O
O
CV
Ix
O
LL,
H
O
V
Z
Y
z
E
C~l
o
N
c5
m rnoC;
L
O
cn
c
N M O O
`
O O O
C
CO C O
C)
j f~
U
N
O
.C
d
N
~
d
J
M
`O
(
D O O
C
~ O O
N
(m {n
C
cN
0
C)
r
+
N
in E
U
E
0
U
0 0
O 0 m 7 m rn O o
M O O
M ~ _
C O O O
C) O CO O
O 0
m
Ea
O
Z
>.NOO
j 1~ O O
r- - CD
CD m C)
O
.C
N O O
.O w. ~ O O
co cu O O O
O O O
O O O
N O O
O 0 CO
~ O
n~
O CO O
T O O O O
C O O C;
CD
O (C
= i co
N O O
C 75 1-: q q
O > ti co CD
W M OOD
CO LJ O_
r- M
IM
ti
M
M
(C
N
O
CV
r
rn
M
O
O
C
LO
ti
co
M
M
N
ti
O
r
O
O
O
O
CD
co
N
N
N O
.O
` L
O C
W O
~ a) v U
U
~a.(L
0
FOR AFFORDABLE ROUSING, INC.
Affordable Housing
Finance
Jill Sherman
Acting ExecUUV6 Director
What is affordable
housing?
■ Household pays no more than 30
percent of gross income on rent and
utilities
■ In affordable rental housing, rents are
targeted to households at particular
levels of area median income (AMI)
Area Median Income
No. in
HH
100%
AMI
60%
AMI
50%
AMI
30%
AMI
1
39,100
23,460
19,550
11,750
2
44,700
26,820
22,350
13,400
3
50,300
30,180
25,150
15,100
4
55,900
33,540
27,950
16,750
9
Affordable Rent
Calculation
■ What is the affordable rent for a family of 3
that earns 30% of area median income?
■ Annual income: $15,100
■ Monthly income: $1,258 *.30 = $377
■ Less utility allowance: $377 - $53 = $324
Affordable Rents
Size of
unit
30%
AMI
50%.
AMI
60%
AMI
1 BR
270
480
585
2 BR
324
576
702
3 BR
374
665
810
4 BR
416
740
902
Assumptions: 1.5 people per bedroom;
utility allowances $44, $53, $62, $70
Debt Service Capacity
Proled A: Protect @;.
Unit
No. of
Mo. Rent at
Annual
Mo. Rent at
Annual
Available for Debt
Service:
18,671
99,363
Slze
units
3076 AM[
Rent
ti076 AMI
Rent
2 BR
10
324
38,880
702
84,240
3 BR
10
374
44,880
810
97,200
Total
20
83,780
181,440
Adjusted Gross Income
81,472
174,268
Operating Expenses
80,000
60,000
Net Operatinglncome
21,472
114,268
Amount of Debt that
Project Can Support
Term: 30 Years
Interest Rate: 8%
Project A can afford a $212,046 loan
Project B can afford a $1,128,461 loan
What does this mean?
Lower rents mean that less debt can be
supported and additional strategies and
tools need to be utilized (i.e., property
tax abatement, Washington County
HOME low-interest loans, fee
reductions)
`pillage at Washington
Square
o Development targets households at 30 -
50% AMI
■ Combination of financial tools is critical
■ Support staff recommendation for
$8,000 fee reduction
1 11
Additional Strategies
• Adopt numeric target
• Work with Washington County to make
tax-foreclosed properties available
■ Adopt policy to offer fee reductions to
affordable housing developments
ta. t ~ ' y
'4
L ru
~
~ / ~
7 i t w ~ z c' iS'~ I~Sa 13., 'j ~ Ft ~y~it r~ yu,~f r u V~ f
~ ~ JR ~{it~ ~
-
~
}~tl~
-L ~t Tf~
} t Y`~. ] ~P „
~
~
~
C S.1
?
~
~
4
<~~rr
k
'
y
l
(
y
~F ~1 ~f ~
iJYt til~l~ ~i r
LM~
~ , ~,4
:.j
/R
~
~
t
~
t a
f
.
,
%
}
r~ ~k
'
r
:
~c
1".
-
,
•t:
.
.
,,l
n,"<
::rw
~;".:.ri.: .
.iZ3_:~~
~ ~'b 1 J~ ~ r' ...s i:~fr jm lti'/~ ~'Y~&jj ~ .i 1~~~,,~ 1r ~7r '~~r ~ Ti14'T t < Fr;~ ~ t iA b~4~~ylukly. ,R, fW~+~tty~,h'~f y~-t~t t ,t
~i { S r.. 'I ~ cX r + * .1~ i 1 '}'2~ t'{fit ~ ~t p i r ~ 5 i... { t ixY.~,p~°~~ ~ l ~ '~~,~i7.`~'~yw 4 t~1 ^
t t ~ q, f+{ „ 1 :'f.. f t . ,r} 4, i,3P .c1.. ~o- ...+A. J',(, ,tY ...n..
. _.,i~ , „A ,
. r'
'4`1 tv~._:_A'Pi .,.^r?1:~ u t~ f ~'lt; 3 ~ s.k ;r'~l~ ~ ~ Y` ~ y -11,~~`2~r~'!?a`~.`,~ ~-s~'~.'w,~~+'T~?~k,{,,~k..~~,..,
~-v G v L-4- v 6
g , KI Y
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CC:
DATE:
Bill Monahan
Albert Shields
Emmert - House on No. Dakota - Status
Jim Hendryx, Gary Lampella, Hap Watkins
Monday, September 17, 2001
This summarizes the status of our latest "moving without a permit/storing a building"
case with Emmert International.
BACKGROUND:
ACIm/n.
-V &nS
For the fourth time in two years, Emmert International has moved a house in Tigard a).
without a permit to permanently site it, and b). for the purpose of storage (since it has
been left up on dollies for seven weeks.)
Previous instances have included houses at Hall & Oak, Durham Rd., and 72"d &
Dartmouth. Emmert removed the Hall & Oak house after we declared it dangerous and
declared we would demolish it ourselves. Durham was permitted and moved shortly
after we posted Stop Work orders. 72"d & Dartmouth was demolished by the property
owner only after we declared we would seek substantial penalties against him. In each
case, the City made every effort to allow for voluntary compliance.
The latest case, of a house at No. Dakota and 115th, began with a move over the
weekend of 7/28-29. A demolition permit had been taken out on the house but it was
noted on 4/12 that it would be moved by Emmert instead. No moving or oversized load
permits were taken out or applied for. On 7/30 the house was found severed from its
foundation and moved to an adjacent tax lot where it had been left on dollies, 6 ft. from
the curb. We posted Stop Work orders citing the "no permit" and "storage" violations.
On 8/1 we moved directly to issuing a summons to court on the two violations. On 812
we received a faxed request for an oversized load permit giving a 9/2 move date.
Following a hearing on 8/15 the court found Emmert International guilty of both
violations, imposed a fine of $1,000, and ordered removal of the building by 9/2. It was
not removed. On 9/12 we petitioned the court to find Emmert in contempt and to
authorize the City to demolish the structure. We served Emmert with a copy of that
petition that day and on the next day we again received a faxed oversized load permit
application, this time giving a move date of 9/23. Additional information needed to
process that application has been requested but has not yet been provided by Emmert.
The court has set a hearing date of 9/25 on the contempt petition.
That hearing and the removal of the building might be delayed if Emmert appeals the
original decision or appoints an attorney. Rather than allow the building to thus remain
"in storage" for an extended period we have taken administrative action under the
municipal and building codes that is independent of court action: as we eventually had
to do with the house on Hall & Oak we have declared the building to be a dangerous
structure, ordered it to be removed or demolished by 9/23, and declared that if that is
not done, the City may itself have the structure demolished and bill Emmert for any cost.
We have requested bids from demolition contractors.
ASSESSMENT:
With the repetition of these violations, the City has taken progressively sterner initial
measures in the enforcement process, in this case moving directly to summons instead
of first issuing a Notice of Violation. In each case, the City's actions have been
effective, leading to eventual compliance, but we believe that, if the failure to get permits
and the repeated storage were truly "oversights," compliance would have come much
sooner and the violations would not have been repeated.
Emmert may now choose, as they did with Hall & Oak, to cut their losses and remove
the house. While we hope they do, they may instead try to achieve further delay. To
correct the situation as soon as possible and to demonstrate to Emmert the City's
determination to uphold its regulations, we plan to vigorously and seriously pursue
demolishing the structure ourselves if Emmert does not now remove it forthwith.
MUNICIPAL CODE/PROCEDURES:
In its findings from the 8/15 hearing, the court found that there was an arguable
TMC 1420.070(d)and the
contradiction between the City's prohibition on storage,
City's issuance of an oversized load permit. The problem develops when the requested
move date is substantially later than the date the structure is to be (or, in the Emmert
cases, was) severed from its foundation. From the court's opinion: "respondent may
claim with some justification that the City consented to delaying the move until that date
and therefore authorized the 'storage' of the structure." For this reason the court
imposed no penalties for the period between the application approval and the named
move date, thus providing "free storage" for Emmert.
To make it abundantly clear that an oversized load permit does not constitute
permission to "store" a building and to prevent any such interpretation being applied to
the next phase of this case with the newly applied for oversized load permit, we have
delivered a letter to that effect to Emmert and have made appropriate changes in a
notice sent to oversized load permit applicants.
t~
The principle we are applying is that a building, once removed from its foundation and
perched on dollies is inherently dangerous to the degree that it lacks permanent and
approved support and anchorage and represents an attractive nuisance and fire hazard.
However, it is reasonable and prudent to plan to have some time cushion between
severing a building from its foundation and a pre-approved date to haul it elsewhere.
For instance, severing on Friday before a planned (and approved) Sunday move with
the building thus being "parked" on dollies for 36 to 48 hours would seem to be prudent
and appropriate. Therefore, the City considers that when permits have been issued
authorizing a building to be permanently re-sited or to be moved as an oversized load,
"parking" the building on dollies for a period of 48 hours or less on the same tax parcel
before moving it further will be considered to be a part of the process approved by the
issued siting or oversized load permit. If such a structure is "parked" in such a manner
for more than 48 hours it will then be considered to be a). stored, and b). dangerous, it
will be declared to be a dangerous structure, and its immediate removal or demolition
will be ordered.
We are reviewing the relevant sections of the municipal code and of documents that
pertain to demolition and oversized load permits to identify any changes needed to give
notice of the above and to provide for enforcement. We will submit to Council within the
next 60 days any suggested revisions to the municipal code.