City Council Packet - 12/18/2001
(IY F TIG
OREGON
TIGARC CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 2001
COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED
i
i
i
i
i
H:UEANNIE\DOCS\CCPKTI
f
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
!!I IN
Revised 12-18-01
.x
CITY OF TIGARD
P
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 AGENDA - December 18, 2001 page 1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
December 18, 2001
6:30 PM
STUDY SESSION
> DISCUSSION OF REGIONAL DRINKING WATER AGENCY INITIATIVE
> JOINT MEETING WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE
- Briefing on the preliminary financial forecast
- Briefing on the budget preparation process
- New library construction project update
- Bull Mountain Annexation Study update
> UPDATE ON THE WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
• 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. 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 malting any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
7:30 PM
1. BUSINESS. MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8z Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
i 7:35 PM
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
t 7:40 PM
3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted
in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be
removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to:
COUNCIL AGENDA - December 18, 2001 page 2
3.1 Approve Council Minutes for October 23, 2001
3.2 Receive and File:
a. Update on Progress for Review and Amendment of the Tigard
Municipal Code
3.3 Adopt a Resolution Establishing Annual Adjustments to Parks System
Development Charges - Resolution No. - 01 - _
3.4 Adopt Resolutions Acknowledging City Sponsored Events and Approving the
Modified Standard Agreements for the:
a. Balloon Festival - Resolution No. 01 -
b. Fourth of July Event - Resolution No. 01 -
C. Broadway Rose Theater - Resolution No. 01-
3.5 Appoint Gretchen Buehner, Jodie Bienerth, and Eileen Webb as Members of
the Planning Commission, and appoint Tom Wolch as Alternate to the
Planning Commission -Resolution No. 01 -
3.6 Local Contract Review Board (LCRB)
a. Adopt a Resolution Granting an Exemption to the City Purchasing Rules
(10.015) and Allowing Oregon Electric Group to Continue to Perform
the Energy Conservation Retrofit Rebate Program of City Facilities -
(LCRB) Resolution No. 01 - 02
b. Approve Engineering Services Contract with Century West Engineering
Corporation to Complete Design of Gaarde Street Improvements, Phase
2
3.7 Approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Beaverton for the
Construction of a Water System Intertie, and Authorize the City Manager to
Sign the Agreement
Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested
to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered
immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need
discussion.
7:45 PM
4. INTRODUCTION OF GRETCHEN BUEHNER, JODIE BIENERTH, AND EILEEN
WEBB AS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND
INTRODUCTION OF TOM WOLCH AS ALTERNATE TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
• Mayor Griffith
7:50 PM
5. CONSIDER AN OPTION TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR THE PROPOSED
NEW LIBRARY SITE PENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE PASSAGE OF THE
BOND MEASURE BY TIGARD VOTERS
a. Staff Report: Library Staff
b. Council Discussion
C. Council Motion: Should Council approve the option to purchase property for
the proposed new library?
COUNCIL AGENDA - December 18, 2001 page 3
8:00 PM
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON A BALLOT MEASURE FOR THE MAY 21, 2002,
ELECTION FOR GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR A NEW LIBRARY. (The
Bond Measure includes: property acquisition; building design, construction, and
furnishings; street improvements; and parking.)
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Staff Report: Library Staff
C. Public Testimony
d. Council Discussion
e. Close Public Hearing
f. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 01 -
8:20 PM
7. UPDATE ON THE TREE LIGHTING EVENT FROM THE TIGARD CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSOCIATION
a. Staff Report: Community Development Department
b. Council Discussion
8:30 PM
8. ANNEXATION POLICY DISCUSSION
a. Staff Report: Community Development Department
b. Council Discussion
8:40 PM
9. PRELIMINARY WASHINGTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICE
(WCCLS) POTENTIAL LOCAL OPTION LEVY
a. Staff Report: Library Staff
b. Council Discussion
8:50 PM
10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
9:00 PM
11. NON AGENDA ITEMS
9:10 PM
12. 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. 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.
9:30 PM
13. ADJOURNMENT
\\TI G333\ U S R\D E PTS\AD MCAT HY\C CA\011218. D OC
COUNCIL AGENDA - December 18, 2001 page 4
NEI
-1:1111 11 1! INS!, I IN
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS FOR REVIEW
DECEMBER 18, 2001
E7hestudy Session Is held in theRed Rock Creek Conference Room. Enter at the back of Town Hall The
courages Interested citizens to attend all or pan: of the meeting. If the number of attendees exceeds
ty of the Conference Room, the Coundi may move the Study Session to the Town Hall.
> EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS
192.660(1)(e) to discuss a real estate transaction. 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.
> STUDY SESSION
• DISCUSSION OF REGIONAL DRINKING WATER AGENCY INITIATIVE
• JOINT MEETING WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE
- Briefing on the preliminary financial forecast
- Briefing on the budget preparation process
- New library construction project update
- Bull Mountain Annexation Study update
• UPDATE ON THE WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
> ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
• Item 3.6b set over to 1/8/02 -Approve Engineering Service. Contract with Century
West Engineering Corporation to Complete Design of Gaarde Street Improvements, Phase
2
• Distributed e-mail from Stu Byron - public testimony on library and annexation.
• City Manager Review Information (from August) was placed in Council mail packets
• Captain Wheeler is retiring on December 31. Capt. Wheeler will be leaving at 11:30
a.m. that day, so if you would like to wish him well, please stop by In the morning.
Refreshments will be served.
• Council members have or will be receiving a letter from the Chamber of Commerce for
a community reception for elected officials. The letter is an invitation and there is no
cost for the Mayor U Councilors to attend. Councilors who attend will be
acknowledged. This fimcdon is scheduled for January 24, 5-7:30 p.m. at the
Greenwood Inn. The Chamber asks that we RSVP by December 22.
Executive Session -
The Public Meetings Law authorizes governing bodies to meet In executive session in certain
limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as "any meeting or part of
a meeting of a governing body, which Is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain
matters."
Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions:
192.660 (1) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents,
If the body has satisfied certain prerequisites.
192.660(l) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests
to have an open hearing).
192.6600) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital.
192.660(l) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this Instance.)
192.660(l) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations.
192.660(l) (f) Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from
public Inspection." These records are specificaliy identified in the Oregon
Revised Statutes.
192-660(l) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the
governing body Is competing with other governing bodies.
192.660(l) (h) - Legal counsel - Executive session are appropriate for consultation with
counsel concemIng legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or
litigation likely to be filed.
192.660(l) (I) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy
directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related
performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or
staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The
standards, criteria and policy directives to be used in evaluating chief
executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open
to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment.
192.660 (1) (j) - Public investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with
private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or
liquidation of public Investments.
192.660 (1) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board.
Agenda Item No. ~f !
Meeting of 2- 2 / - 02
MINUTES
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
December 18, 2001
STUDY SESSION
Mayor Griffith opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Council Present: Mayor Griffith, Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla
(arrived at 6:36 p.m.).
> DISCUSSION OF REGIONAL DRINKING WATER AGENCY INITIATIVE
Intergovernmental Water Board Members (IWB) Present: ]an Drangsholt
(King City), Norman Penner (Tigard Water District), Patrick Caroll (City of
Durham), and Bill Scheiderich (At-Large Representative).
Public Works Director Wegner introduced this agenda item. The purpose of
the discussion is to update the City Council and IWB on the progress and the
future timetable of the Regional Drinking Water Agency Initiative. He noted
the work for the last nine months involving Portland City Commissioner Sten.
The highlights of Mr. Wegner's presentation are contained in the written
materials on file in the City Recorder's office. In addition, there was reference
to a progress report on the Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative that is
also on file in the City Recorder's office.
Councilor Patton explained the concerns by some jurisdictions or agencies as
they consider whether to move forward for financing the needed capital
improvements for a regional water supply system. She noted that some
jurisdictions did not agree with a one-agency concept. Both options that
Tigard is now reviewing Joint Water Commission (JWC) or the Regional
Agency-- will require capital improvement investment.
The next step will be to proceed with more study of the Regional Drinking
Water Supply Initiative with a contribution from the City of Tigard at
approximately $20,000. Councilor Patton said she was concerned that some
water sources may not be considered for the regional agency. There was
discussion on Tigard's efforts in pursuing the ]WC or the Regional Water
Supply Agency. Councilor Patton noted both sources should be pursued.
There will be a need to identify and secure a primary and secondary water
supply.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 18, 2001 page 1
r
Mayor Griffith said the City should move forward as quickly as possibly insofar
as the City's contract for water supply with water would expire in 2007.
Councilor Patton advised because of the need to coordinate with a number of
participants, that delays were likely.
Mr. Wegner noted that financial decisions could be made within the next year.
Plans are to present Council with information on the JWC and Regional Water
Supply Agency Initiative on a parallel timeline so that cost figures are available
that will help in the decision making.
There was discussion on the progress with the JWC. Councilor Patton said the
]WC wants to continue to work with the City of Tigard. Mr. Wegner noted
that without a new water source for JWC, the City couldn't become a partner
in the JWC. The JWC study will take approximately 18 months to 2 years to
complete.
Discussion followed on what long-term goals (criteria) the IWB and City
Council would suggest for a long-term water supply. Ms. Drangsholt advised
she was concerned about the Bull Run and the Columbia Wellfields becoming
the region's sole source of water. Mr. Wegner noted that the City could still
contract to buy water from others. Councilor Patton pointed out an area of
concern in that she did not think the current Bull Run management would be
able to identify and add another source of water in the near future primarily
because of some underlying political issues. It was noted that the amount of
funds that Tigard will need to contribute toward the regional study might
change if other agencies drop out. Although not official, it is reported that
Metro and Hillsboro do not want to participate in the Regional Drinking Water
Supply Initiative.
In response to a comment from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Wegner confirmed
that it is possible that the efforts with regard to this regional water supply
initiative could fall apart. The reality may be that the City will remain a
wholesale water customer for the long term.
> JOINT MEETING WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE
Budget Committee Members present: Mike Benner, Sydney Sherwood, Greg
Zuffrea.
Finance Director Craig Prosser led the discussion on this agenda item
- Briefing on the preliminary financial forecast
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 18, 2001 page 2
Staff developed a five-year financial forecast. In the short term, the City is in a
good financial condition. Mr. Prosser distributed a draft estimate indicating
projections for some of the key funds.
- Briefing on the budget preparation process
Departments are being asked to "hold the line." No new positions should be
added to budget requests (with a few exceptions where funding has been
identified). Departments are to limit estimates for materials and services.
Also, each department was asked to project how 5 percent could be cut from
the budget. It looks as if revenue sharing will increase slightly to about
$600,000.
Mr. Prosser distributed a draft calendar for upcoming Budget Committee
Meetings.
- New library construction project update
if the bond measure is successful, decisions will need to be made on what to do
with the existing library building.
Donations and gifts have been received for a total of $1 million, which can be
used for the proposed new library. The City has also set aside $200,000 that
could be contributed toward the new library. The proposed bond measure will
ask for general obligation bond issuance in the amount of $13,000,000.
- Bull Mountain Annexation Study update
Mr. Prosser distributed information on the Bull Mountain Annexation Study.
The study's findings show that the annexation of this area would generate tax
dollars that would pay for services on the "operating side," however, the
capital funding needs in the area for parks and streets are significantly higher
than what the area would generate. It was suggested that Washington County
i be asked to participate some of the capital needs.
- ICMA-USAID Program
i
Mr. Prosser briefed the Budget Committee on this program wherein delegates
from the County and City will exchange information with a City and County
government in Indonesia. ICMA and USAid will pay trip expenses. The City
Manager and Finance Director will be among those traveling to Indonesia in
February. Mr. Prosser said delegates from Indonesia might be attending some
of the Budget Committee meetings.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 18, 2001 page 3
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:47
p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (e) real property transactions.
Executive Session Adjourned: 7:56 p.m.
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8L Local Contract Review Board
Mayor Griffith called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m.
1.2 Roll Call: Mayor Griffith, Councilors, Dirksen, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla.
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports: None
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA
• Gretchen Buehner, 13249 SW 136' Place, Tigard, Oregon, commented on
annexations and advised of her concerns with piecemeal annexations.
3. CONSENT AGENDA:
Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Dirksen, to adopt the Consent
Agenda as follows:
3.1 Approve Council Minutes for October 23, 2001
3.2 Receive and File:
a. Update on Progress for Review and Amendment of the Tigard
Municipal Code
3.3 Adopt a Resolution Establishing Annual Adjustments to Parks System
Development Charges - Resolution No. - 01 - 74
3.4 Adopt Resolutions Acknowledging City Sponsored Events and Approving the
Modified Standard Agreements for the:
a. Balloon Festival - Resolution No. 01 - 75
b. Fourth of July Event - Resolution No. 01 - 76
C. Broadway Rose Theater - Resolution No. 01- 77
3.5 Appoint Gretchen Buehner, Jodie Bienerth, and Eileen Webb as Members of
the Planning Commission, and appoint Tom Wolch as Alternate to the
Planning Commission - Resolution No. 01 - 78
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 18, 2001 page 4
3.6 Local Contract Review Board (LCRB)
a. Adopt a Resolution Granting an Exemption to the City Purchasing Rules
(10.015) and Allowing Oregon Electric Group to Continue to Perform
the Energy Conservation Retrofit Rebate Program of City Facilities -
(LCRB) Resolution No. 01 - 02
b. Approve Engineering Services Contract with Century West Engineering
Corporation to Complete Design of Gaarde Street Improvements,
Phase 2
3.7 Approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Beaverton for the
Construction of a Water System Intertie, and Authorize the City Manager to
Sign the Agreement
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
Mayor Griffith - Yes
Dirksen - Yes
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Patton - Yes
Councilor Scheckla - Yes
4. INTRODUCTION OF GRETCHEN BUEHNER, JODIE BIENERTH, AND EILEEN
WEBB AS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND
INTRODUCTION OF TOM WOLCH AS ALTERNATE TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
Mayor Griffith welcomed the new Planning Commission members.
5. CONSIDER AN OPTION TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR THE PROPOSED
NEW LIBRARY SITE PENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE PASSAGE OF THE
BOND MEASURE BY TIGARD VOTERS
Library Director Margaret Barnes presented the staff report. A copy of the staff
report is on file in the City Recorder's office. Staff recommended that the City
Council approve the option to purchase 3 parcels of land from Mr. Fred Fields for the
proposed new library site pending approval of the passage of the bond measure by
Tigard voters. A copy of the Option Agreement is on file it the City Recorder's
office.
Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Moore, to approve entering into
an Option Agreement for the purchase of property from Mr. Fred Fields and
authorizing the Mayor to sign the Option Agreement.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 13, 2001 page 5
sirill
The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present:
Mayor Griffith - Yes
Councilor Dirksen - Yes
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Patton - Yes
Councilor Scheckla - Yes
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON A BALLOT MEASURE FOR THE MAY 21, 2002,
ELECTION FOR GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR A NEW LIBRARY. (The
Bond Measure includes: property acquisition; building design, construction, and
furnishings; street improvements; and parking.)
a. Mayor Griffith opened the Public Hearing
b. Library Director Margaret Barnes presented the staff report. A copy of the
staff report is on file in the City Recorder's office. Staff recommended that
the City Council approve the proposed Ballot Measure for the May 21, 2002,
election for General Obligation Bonds for a new library.
C. Public Testimony
Highlights of the presentation from public testimony of the New Tigard Library
Construction Committee (NTLCC) members were shown on PowerPoint slides. A
copy of the PowerPoint presentation is on file with in the City Recorder's office.
• Curtis Tigard, 11778 SW Royal Villa, Tigard, Oregon, is a member of the
NTLCC. Mr. Tigard read a prepared statement in support of the new
library. Mr. Tigard noted the importance of the library for Tigard's future
and requested the voters be given an opportunity to decide on whether a
new library should be constructed. He referred to his sister, Grace T.
Houghton, who left one-third of her estate ($816,000) to the City to
enhance the library.
• Marvin Diamond, 9270 SW Maplewood Drive, T 212, Tigard, OR
97223, is a Tigard Library Board member and President of the Tigard
Library Foundation. Mr. Diamond supported the proposed ballot measure
noting the importance of a vital library in a growing community. Mr.
Diamond noted the new library would accommodate the community for
the next 20 years. The Library Foundation will work to raise funds to help
support construction and also establish an endowment fund to maintain the
library once it Is built.
In response to a question from Mayor Griffith, there was brief discussion on
whether there will be adequate time to get the word out to the public
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 18, 2001 page 6
about the proposed new library. The NTLCC is anticipating that they can
keep pace with a schedule designed to make the community aware of the
proposed new library. In addition, Councilor Patton said it was hoped that
a citizen-initiated political action committee would be formed to promote
the new library.
• David Chapman, 9840 SW Landau Place, Tigard, OR 97223, Chair of
the NTLCC reviewed the PowerPoint material regarding the process
followed, which resulted in the recommendation of the proposed ballot
title.
• Sue Kasson, 16570 SW 93' Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97224, member
of the NTLCC and the Library Foundation presented information about the
numerous programs offered by the Library. She said that a new library
would play an essential role in the community and asked that the Council
place the ballot title on the May ballot.
In response to a question from Mayor Griffith about new programs,
NTLCC member Sue Kasson noted that the community room would open
a "new world" of possibilities for programming. Library Director Margaret
Barnes also noted there would be increased opportunities to partner with
the School District, Portland Community College, and service clubs. She
added that programs could be offered in a more consistent manner.
• Kathy Sleeger, 14720 SW 1001, Tigard, OR 97224, reviewed
PowerPoint slides to assist viewers in imagining what a new library might
look like. Most slides viewed were of the Midland Branch of the
Multnomah County library depicting similar furnishings and taking
advantage of outdoor views of wildlife/wetland areas.
• Sue Carver, 10155 SW Hoodview, Tigard, OR 97224, advised she is a
member of the NTLCC and a 30-year citizen of the City of Tigard. She
referred to information about how the community has grown, which has
strained the ability of the current library in offering services. She noted the
role of the library to provide citizens to learn and grow intellectually as well
as providing a place for civic events that shape a community.
The NTLCC members are available to make presentations in the
community. Project updates are also posted on the City's web site.
• City Manager Monahan noted that the City Council received one e-mail
communication from a citizen with regard to the proposed new library.
This communication, from Stu Byron, is on file in the City Recorder's
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 18, 2001 page 7
Mill
office. Mr. Byron was not In favor of a new library because of increased
taxes.
d. Council Discussion
• Councilor Patton praised the NTLCC, the Tigard Library Foundation, and
the Tigard Library Board for their hard work and wonderful support. She
noted the timing of the ballot measure and said she recognized the
implications this may have during the current economic situation. She said
the Committee worked hard to bring in a recommendation that was a
prudent and reasonable amount, scaling back from initial proposals. She
pointed out that the library Is there for everyone and is available to the
public during good and bad economic times serving a multitude of needs.
There was brief discussion on costs. While the requested limit of the ballot
measure was for General Obligation bonds up to $13 million, the Library
Foundation hopes to further decrease these costs.
• Councilor Dirksen complimented the NTLCC for doing an excellent job.
He noted the Committee was prudent in scaling back from an initial
recommendation of $17 million to $13 million for a proposed new
library.
• Councilor Scheckla said he agreed with the comments from Councilor
Patton and that the Committee did an excellent job.
• Mayor Griffith said he agreed with the comments by the Council members.
He noted appreciation of the work done by the Committee and Councilor
Patton.
e. Mayor Griffith closed the public hearing.
f. Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Moore to adopt
Resolution No. 01-79.
RESOLUTION NO. 01 79 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF TIGARD SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS A
PROPOSAL TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY COUNCIL TO SELL GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS UP TO $13,000,000 TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY,
TO DESIGN, BUILD AND FURNISH A NEW LIBRARY OF
APPROXIMATELY 47,000 SQUARE FEET, AND TO PROVIDE PARKING
AND RELATED STREET IMPROVEMENTS
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 18, 2001 page 8
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present:
Mayor Griffith - Yes
Councilor Dirksen - Yes
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Patton - Yes
Councilor Scheckla - Yes
7. UPDATE ON THE TREE LIGHTING EVENT FROM THE TIGARD CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSOCIATION (TCBDA)
Tyler Ellenson, President of TCBDA presented information on this agenda item. Mr.
Ellenson advised that it had been August since he had been before the City Council
requesting that the Council accept the withdrawal, of behalf of TCBDA, of a proposed
Economic Improvement District (EID). The withdrawal was requested because the
required number of Central Business District businesses did not support the EID.
Mr. Ellenson reported that the TCBDA plans to continue to move forward and
concentrate more on the businesses on Main Street. The next goal for the Association
will be to develop membership. In addition, TCBDA will continue to support efforts
promoting the downtown.
Mr. Ellenson said this year's Halloween event was very successful approximately
1000 children and adults visited the downtown area. The Tree Lighting event was
sponsored through efforts of TCBDA, the City, and Tigard Area Chamber of
Commerce and was also successful.
Mr. Ellenson announced that TCBDA meetings are held the second and fourth
Tuesdays, noon, Southwest Office Supply.
Mayor Griffith noted that the proposed commuter rail station for the downtown
would impact the businesses. Mr. Ellenson confirmed with the Mayor that TCBDA
would want to be included in the planning for the area.
The next event to be planned by TCBDA will be the Tigard Blast in August.
8. ANNEXATION POLICY DISCUSSION
Community Development Director Hendryx presented the staff report, which is on file
in the City Recorder's office. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the chart presenting policy
questions. He also explained the difference between the double majority and island
annexation processes. In response to a question from Councilor Moore about legal
ramifications if the City says "no" to an individual who wants to annex to the City,
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 18, 2001 page 9
Mimi
Attorney Ramis advised as long as the City does not violate the Urban Services
Agreement, the Council has wide latitude in considering annexations. Mr. Monahan
advised that three annexation requests for properties not yet developed would be
forwarded to the Council for consideration. He noted that there are advantages to
annexing undeveloped land Including the collection of parks system development
charges.
After discussion, Council consensus was to delay further discussion on annexation
policy until after the meeting with Bull Mountain residents. At that meeting, (January
31) the City Council may know more about the level of interest from the Bull
Mountain residents regarding annexing to the City.
Council also discussed their concern with using either the island or double majority
method of annexation where people are compelled to annex. In the past, Council has
avoided "hostile annexations."
There was support from the Council to process annexation requests for undeveloped
parcels. Annexation of developed areas would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Gretchen Buehner, Tigard resident, noted the importance of reviewing annexations
neighborhood-by-neighborhood. She said, for example, the Fern Street area is in
need of street improvements.
9. PRELIMINARY WASHINGTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICE
(WCCLS) POTENTIAL LOCAL OPTION LEVY
Library Director Margaret Barnes presented the staff report. The staff report is on file
In the City Recorder's office. She outlined the history of WCCLS along with the
benefits derived from the WCCLS organization. WCCLS is analyzing the current and
future needs of public libraries in the County to meet growing demand for local library
services. WCCLS has nearly expended a reserve fund and it has been known that at
the end of fiscal year 2003, a new local option levy would need to be proposed or
some other funding revenue developed. A proposed local option levy will be voted
on by the Cooperative Library Advisory Board (CLAB) on January 2, 2002. If
CLAB agrees with the need for a local option levy, they will so advise the Washington
Count/ Board of Commissioners who will determine whether, when, and how much
should be established and presented in a ballot measure.
Discussion followed:
• Councilor Scheckla noted his concern in protecting Tigard's ability to pass our new
library bond measure. He added that voters might be confused with the two
requests for library funding. He said he would rather just support the City of
Tigard's bond measure proposal.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 18, 2001 page 10
• City Manager Monahan noted that revenues would decrease when compared to
need under current funding resources. He advised that the WCCLS funding
formula is based on a number of criteria.
• Councilor Patton noted she, too, would like to see the new Tigard library funded
but also understood the significance of the funding provided by WCCLS. She said
she would like to see additional information with regard to identifying critical
needs. For example $11 million is allocated for central services support - what
does this entail? She also would like information regarding potential new libraries
being established (or those that might be added) since percentages of increases are
included in funding levels. Perhaps some libraries may not come online
immediately and a phased-in funding schedule might translate into a reduced
funding need.
• Councilor Dirksen asked questions regarding existing funding. Ms. Barnes
explained that there would be a funding shortfall unless the local option levy is
presented and approved or other funding options are identified and implemented.
Ms. Barnes recapped her understanding of Council direction:
• Council is concerned that the initial level of funding is too high and asked for
analysis of a phased-in funding package insofar as the amount requested appears to
be overly inflated in the early years.
• More information is needed about what is being funded for Central Services.
• More information is needed about the distribution among libraries including those
jurisdictions that anticipate adding more square footage (timing).
10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS - None
11. NON AGENDA ITEMS None
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at
10:49 to under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (h) pending litigation.
> STUDY SESSION - ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS REVIEWED
• An e-mail from Mr. Stu Byron (copy on file in the City Recorder's office) was
distributed to the City Council.
• City Manager advised that some information pertaining to the City Manager's
review was placed in the City Council's mail packet.
• Police Captain Bob Wheeler is retiring on December 31 after 30 years of service.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 18, 2001 page ] 1
City Manager advised of a letter from the Chamber of Commerce Inviting
Councilors to a community reception on January 24, 5-7:30 p.m., at the
Greenwood Inn.
13. ADJOURNMENT: 11:10 p.m.
' r>,C IN
Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Rec der
yo , i f r
ate:
\\TIG 3 3 3\U SR\DEPTS\ADM\CATHY\CCM\011218.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 18, 2001 page 12
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360 Legal T1, 9976
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Notice
Legal Notice Advertising
i
cii.y of Tigard CITY OF TIGARD
,13125 SW Hall Blvd. ;
OREGON
Tiga.rd,Oregon 97223
A
jAccounts Payable
NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF BALLOT TITLE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a ballot tide for a measure
referred by the City of Tigard was filed with the City Elections
Officer of Tigard on December 18, 2001.
The ballot title caption is,
Tigard Public Iabrary General Obligation Bond Authorization
STATE OF OREGON, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLI ) Pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code Section 1.12.030, an elector
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) SS' dissatisfied with the ballot title may file a petition with the City ,
Elections Officer, no later than 5 p.m. on December 28, 2001, for
1, Kathy S ny r. review of the ballot title by 'the Council.
being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 a For further information, contact City Recorder/Elections Officer j
Director, or his principal clerk, of the T j ga rd- Cathy Wheatley at cathy(Oci-ngard•or•us or 503-639-4171, Ext. 309.
a newspaper of general circulation as defined TT9976 -Publish December 20, 2001.
and 193.020; published at 'ri gCL in the
aforesaid county and state; that the Library Bona
Ra l Zc~ti Title izr~r~aL~t Authorization
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for O11B successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
December 20,2001
Subscribed and sworn to befor me this 20t1i day-Of December, 2001
~ Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires: ~ y
AFFIDAVIT
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360 Legal
N641ce T7' 9973
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
ti -y of Tigard ° ❑ Tearsheet Notice
131.25 ST? Ball Blvd.
911.gard, Oregon 97223 ° ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
Accounts Payable °
AFFIDAVIT OF Pt
STATE OF OREGON, ) s5 CITY -OF T'GMD
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON,)
OREGON
I, Kathy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and say the _i
Director, or his principal clerk, of the -i49 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
a newspaper of general circulation as del PROPOSED CITY OF TIGARD BALLOT MEASURE
and 193.020; published at Tigard FOR THE MAY 21, 2002 ELECTION j
aforesaid county and st te; that the P.r. op The Tigard City Council will conduct a public hearing to receive
Public Heari.ng~Ileasurc for. comments from Tigard voters on a
Bard proposed ballot measure
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed concerning.a proposed new library. The hearing will,be held.011
entire issue of said newspaper for OIIF W TuI Hall Bouleovardr Tg 18, Oref 7:30 pm Duuiin in hering helCo3ulnccil
consecutive in the following issues: will consider forwarding to following: g,
• A proposed ballot measure authorizing the City Council tb
December 1-3,2001 sell general obligation bonds of approximately $13,000,0Q
for a new library to:
- acquire property
- design, build, and furnish the building
- provide necessary street improvements
provide parkiii
Further information may be obtained from City Recorder Cathy
Wheatley (cathy®ci.tigard.or.us); 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,
Subscribed and sworn 4o before me this Tigard., OR 9'1223; telephone, 503-639-4171, Ext. 309.
TT9973 Publish December 13, 20D1.
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
f
AFFIDAVIT
;I IgI~I 'III
S+L4dA,J
AGENDA ITEM # 5 i 12 0
FOR AGENDA OF Dec 18.001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discussion of Regional Drinking Water Agency Initiative
PREPARED BY: Ed We ner DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK tX ~vf 1
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Public Works staff will update the City Council and the Intergovernmental Water Board on the progress and
future timetable of the Regional Drinking Water Initiative.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff to review the presentation on the Regional Drinking Water Agency Initiative. At the January 15, 2002
City Council workshop, will discuss with IWB partners our next steps for continuing with this process.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On April 25, 2001, the Portland City Council passed a resolution (#35994) directing the Commission to work
with elected officials in the Region to identify and analyze alternative institutional governance arrangements
for water utilities. This resolution also directed the Bureau to provide assistance to the Commission in
working jointly with management staff of other water utilities in pursuit of preferred alternatives.
Two general meetings were held in May and June for elected officials, staff, citizen groups and individual
citizens to discuss the concept of a regional drinking water supply and transmission agency. After this
meeting, staff from the participating agencies began working together to develop criteria, conduct research on
various governance models and develop recommendations. On October 18th a follow up meeting was held
to obtain public comment. On November 15, 2001 the staff completed an in depth briefing for elected
officials and representatives on the proposed criteria and analysis of governance models.
A report to investigate the potential for new arrangements for providing water utility service in the
metropolitan area is being developed. The report will discuss the criteria and discussion of some governance
alternatives, and recommendation on how we might choose to continue our investigation. Once the draft
report is complete, a copy will be sent to each of you.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
i
• Work with Portland on a wholesale contract.
• Continue working with the Joint Water Commission and others to study alternatives for additional
water source in the Hagg Lake area.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Securing a long-term water supply is both a Council and Vision Task Force goal
ATTACHMENT LIST
• Portland City Council Resolution #35994
• Minutes of October 18, 2001 - Public comment meeting
• Copy of Power Point of November 15, 2001 meeting
• Minutes of November 15, 2001 meeting
• Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Criteria
• Institutional agreements
FISCAL NOTES
This water supply option will have a financial impact on the rate payer of the water services area. We are
not yet far enough along to develop projected costs.
The next step agreement may be a commitment of agencies to proceed with the next steps and contribute
$10,000 each towards that effort.
RESOLUTION No. 3 5 9 9 4
Endorse the development of a regional water entity including the Portland Water Bureau and direct the
Commissioner-in-Charge to work with elected officials and water agencies to study the interest,
feasibility, and creation of such an entity and report to the Council no later than September 15, 2001
(Report)
The City of Portland ordains:
Whereas, the Portland Water Bureau has provided high quality drinking water to
residents of both the City of Portland and other cities and special water
districts in the Portland metropolitan area for over 82 years; and
Whereas, in 1979, nineteen cities and water districts signed 25-year wholesale
contracts for the purchase of water from the City of Portland; and
Whereas, the Portland Water Bureau now provides drinking water for over 840,000
Oregonians; and
Whereas, in 1989, the Water Bureau began discussions with the metropolitan area-
water providers as to how they might work together to plan for future long
term water supply and transmission needs; and
Whereas; in 1993 the regions' water providers jointly funded a series of studies
and plans to meet future needs, and elected officials approved the resulting
Regional Water Supply Plan in 1996; and
Whereas; in 1996, the region's elected officials formed and serve on the Regional
Water Supply Consortium to guide water supply planning; and
Whereas; in 1997 the Water Bureau also began preliminary discussions with its
wholesale customers to develop new long term wholesale contracts; and
Whereas; for some time, and in several forums, there have also been discussions in
the region about the feasibility of the formation of one or more regional
water authorities, or similar entities; and
Whereas; the Portland metropolitan area has adequate, high quality water
resources to meet the needs of fish, people and the environment; however
the region lacks sufficient storage and transmission to develop these
resources in the most efficient, effective manner; and
Page I of 2
35994
Whereas; the competing demands for water resources for municipal and industrial
needs, the listing of threatened and endangered species, the designation of
in-stream flow requirements, increasingly expensive treatment mandates,
stringent water quality regulations and unprecedented growth, make it
incumbent on all water utilities to maximize the use of the best water
sources as efficiently as possible; and
Whereas; developing these resources in amore coordinated regional manner will
provide far greater benefits to the region's citizens than a series of
individual water development projects; and
Whereas; it may be easier, less costly, and obtainable in a more timely manner, if the
institutional framework for pursuing these resources were within one
operational regional entity;
Whereas; the Commissioner-In-Charge of the Water Bureau has briefed the Council
on these issues and ideas, and the Council is fully supportive of pursuing
further work in this arena;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The Commissioner-In-Charge of the Water Bureau is directed to work
with other elected officials in the region to identify and analyze alternative
institutional and governance arrangements for water utilities;
2. The Water Bureau is directed to provide staff assistance to the
Commissioner-In-Charge and to work jointly with managers and staff of
other water utilities in the pursuit of preferred alternatives;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:
1. The Commissioner-In-Charge will report back to the Council and other
elected officials and water utilities in the region with their jointly
developed preliminary assessment no later than September 15, 2001.
Adopted by the Council, APR 2 5 2001
Commissioner Erik Sten GARY BLACKMER
Jeanne LeJeune Auditor of the City of Portland
April 19, 2001 ~c.t , ,t ~1 f ci' Y < F "t
Page 2oft
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative
Public Comments on Proposed Criteria
October 18, 2001
And
Verbatim Notes from Groups and Individuals
A meeting of the Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative for citizens was held
October 18, 2001 at Metro. The purpose of the meeting was to gain citizen input into the
criteria that would be applied to options for a regional drinking water supply agency's
governance model. The criteria have been developed by the staff of the 13 participating
water agencies.
Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder welcomed the group and gave a brief overview
of the services that Metro provides. Greg DiLoreto of the Tualatin Valley Water District
gave background information to the 54 attendees. He introduced staff to the project and
identified the 13 participating agencies (Cities: Beaverton, Gresham, Hillsboro, Portland,
Tigard and Tualatin; water districts: Clackamas River Water, Clean Water Services,
Powell Valley Road, Tualatin Valley, and West Slope; PUD's: Rockwood; water
authorities: Sunrise)
Mr. Diloreto indicated that staff developed and refined the criteria as their first
task, and then researched over 30 governance models from throughout the United States
and Canada. He reviewed the purpose of the meeting, and gave attendees information on
the timeline for completion of the project. He said there would be additional meetings
and there would be more opportunities for public comment. He said the information
gathered at this meeting would be included in the written report to the participating
elected officials. He then ii-at:oduced Ed Tenny, of HDR Consulting who reviewed each
of the criteria and provided background information on the intent of each criteria. The 16
citizens attending the meeting were then divided into four groups, given the proposed
criteria and chart-packs and asked to write their comments and suggestions. They then
reported their comments back to the full group.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Mark Knudson of the Portland Water Bureau
referred to the next steps in the project and again reviewed the timeline, the tasks, and the
next public meetings. There was a question as to what the venue was for public comment
i on the Rockwood, Gresham and Clackamas River Water proposed pipeline, and an
expression of frustration that there was no one place to go to, to voice opposition to that
project. There were also requests from citizens to be kept informed of the next steps, and
to build in opportunities for public comments at every future meeting.
The first item below is the comments or queMons that were posed to Ed Tenny as .
he described each criteria. Following that are the verbatim notes from each group which
is their input to the criteria. The groups are numbered by the sequence in which they
reported their comments to the larger group as a whole. Following the notes from the
Public Comments on Proposed Criteria
October 18, 2001- Verbatim Notes Continued - Page 2
four groups are individual comments that were submitted in writing either at this meeting
or afterward.
Comments or Questions From The Public As the Criteria Were Being Described.
1. I thought this started out as the Bull Run Agency, how did it get beyond this?
2. What about the cost of creating this agency; neighborhood associations in east county
are already unhappy about costs.
3. Do the patrons get to vote?
4. Would the whole area be in one taxing district for raising the capital?
5. What does "point of delivery mean"?
6. Are all of the systems hooked together now?
7. What will happen to the Powell Valley Road Water District?
8. What about wells, would they go to this new agency?
9. Is this for water only? Some of us want the new agency to generate electricity too.
10. How many people will be on the board?
11. Why is there a suggested form?
12. This morning's article in The Oregonian inferred the Board wouldn't be elected, is
that true?
Group #1
1. Why such short public notice? (i.e. only 16 citizens here; Oregonian article on
10/18/01.)
2. Tendency to preserve each district/jobs should be to reduce jobs and be more
efficient! (i.e. create another layer of government.)
3. How will expansion be handled? (i.e. there were plans to build 3`d dam, now not in
favor; if done may not be in the situation we are in) or filtration plant, raise the dam.
4. Emphasis on public perception (i.e. Willamette River bad; ASR cure for all ills; 3`a
dam not environmentally sensitive).
5. Next meeting?
6. How.- would this be approved? Public vote? Inter-agency agreement?
7. Common contract for all members?
8. Postage stamp rates! Creates everybody equal (i.e. people far away pay same as those
close to Bull Run).
9. Why not just renegotiate contracts before creating new agency? Is new agency really
necessary?
10. Who sets standards? How and to whom does public address concerns? (i.e. quality)
11. How does Clark County Washington figure into this?
12. Is this the prelude to privatization?
13. Concern shall be elected - citizen involvement on the board.
Group #2
1. Criteria #1 - Change word "members" to "providers".
2. Criteria 94 - Change word "agency" to "area" and "needs of the area".
3. Criteria #5 - Agencies should retain rights to their distribution system, and assets.
Public Comments on Proposed Criteria
October 18, 2001- Verbatim Notes Continued - Page 3
Group #2 (Continued)
4. Criteria # 8 - Want ability to expand authority of the agency and utilize the State
constitution provision to finance improvements - power generation for dams.
(Article II, Section D of the Oregon Constitution.)
5. Criteria #10 - Agency needs to be made up of elected officials from the area they
represent.
6. Criteria # 17 - Some infrastructure needs to be kept by the individual providers in
their area - the agency will be responsible for:
A.) the dam
B.) the conduit
C.) the filter plant
D.) Powell Butte Dist.
E.) Trunk lines to providers.
7. Criteria # 18 - Citizens should have a right to vote in the providers areas.
Group #3
1. Do not have to buy all water from agency. May be some water a district does not
want. Work with highest quality water first. No Columbia and Willamette.
2. As above (referring to criteria #1.)
3. Backup supplies - aquifer storage and recovery included.
4. Remove the word "all" and add "plan and build supply transmission as far as
Powell Butte. "
5. Don't turn over water rights.
6. Ok (referring to criteria #6.)
7. No clear-cutting (let the flowers bloom).
8. Each agency sets customer rates.
9. Power generation.
10. Elected by district population.
11. Direct access to elected officials.
12. Ok, but bigger does not always mean better. (referring to criteria #12)
13. Maximize public input to water source.
14. Ok (referring to criteria #14).
15. Define water resources.
16. Ok (referring to criteria #16).
17. Ok (referring to criteria #17).
18. Ok (referring to criteria #18).
19. Sustainable watershed management plan.
Group #4
1. Concerns about "all water". Some are oppolld to a certain source ...the
Willamette River.
2. "All water" should be considered.
3. If you are a member you are turning over your water rights... existing and future.
Public Comments on Proposed Criteria
October 18, 2001- Verbatim Notes Continued - Page 4
Group #4 (Continued)
4. The citizens served should have input on the source of the water they are
provided, have a vote.
5. We should have public meetings and/or voter approval on new water sources.
6. Will it be possible for an individual member to exclude a specific source?
7. Where will "objective information" about water sources and water quality come
from. Will we be in complete reliance on the supply agency for information?
8. Develop costs and services and allow the patrons to determine if they want to
join.
9. Re-write Criteria #10. Each member will have representation. Individual
agencies will select a person to serve on the governing board, in addition there
should be at-large board members.
10. Regarding Criteria #18 - Concern - Who will determine the cost of water sold to
non-members?
11. Work with neighborhood groups to distribute information - work closely with
local groups, local bill stuffers.
12. Fear that large regional agency will not respond to local concerns.
13. If Portland is expected to turn over the Bull Run system - what's in it for us?
(Referring to Portland ratepayers.)
14. We are concerned about being stuck with the liability that Portland brings to the
group ...such as a poor distribution system.
15. How can somebody withdraw and reclaim their water rights and assets if this does
not pan out?
16. Overall Comments:
a. Water supply agency should aggressively pursue region wide water.
management activities - including aggressive conservation programs and
conservation pricing to preclude and/or delay the need for new supply
and/or storage.
b. The water supply agency should have effective public and/or regulatory
oversight to protect the broad array of ratepayer interests.
C. The water supply agency board should be elected.
d. The water supply agency meetings should be open to the public. At the
very least, minutes of closed meetings should be provided. Especially
with so many important issues yet to be decided.
n e. The water supply agency should fairly compensate members for assets
N turned over - including both existing and potential new assets. For ,
example, City of Portland ratepayers should be fairly compensated for the
existing and potential supply assets in the Bull Run Watershed.
f. The water supply agency should pursue a diversified portfolio of supply
sources and demand management.
g. Move all six Preferable Criteria to the Essential Criteria category.
Public Comments on Proposed Criteria
October 18, 2001- Verbatim Notes Continued - Page 5
Comments Offered by Individuals
CIIBRI Preliminary Comments, offered by Frank Gearheart
• Criteria #1 - Providers should be purchasers. Membership may lead to many political
problems.
• Criteria #2 - OK. No Willamette Source.
• Criteria #3 - OK.
• Criteria #4 - Change "agency" to "the area" (Metro i.e. Tri-County)
• Criteria #5 - Oppose transfer of all assets. The "entity" should not operate the
"providers" distribution system.
• Criteria #6 - OK.
• Criteria #7 - OK.
• Criteria #8 - Are municipal providers adequate?
• Criteria #9 - Sale and delivery of water only? Electrical generation and sale.
• Criteria #10 -Board elected by the citizens. Not appointed!
• Criteria #11 - Method of direct access: open meetings (State ORS).
• Criteria #12 - OK.
• Criteria #13 - OK. Subject to state codes.
• Criteria #14 - OK.
• Criteria #15 - OK.
• Criteria #16 - OK.
• Criteria #17 - Combining infrastructure and operations - Bull Run Lake, Dams 1 and
2, Conduits 2, 3, 4, Powell Butte Reservoirs.
• Criteria #18. - Citizens right to vote on sources of water.
• Criteria #:9 - No management by consensus.
Comments Offered with no name attached.
• More public involvement.
• More diverse groups.
• Diverse input.
• Public official input.
• Public officials of all agencies including non-participating!
Comments of Jim Hansen - Tigard
• Please add the following sentiment:
No mixing of treated Willamette River water (sewage etc.) with good
Pure, Bull Run water.
Public Comments on Proposed Criteria
October 19, 2001- Verbatim Notes Continued - Page 6
Comments and Questions from Fran Hyson
• Cost of this project.
• No Willamette or Columbia water blend.
• Will there be a yearly dues membership charge?
• Will a PUD lose its authority to join?
• Will each entity receive benefits to give their assets as some districts have no wells?
• Will there be revenue bonds or right to tax customers without their approval?
• Non members cost of water that do not contribute to cost of improvements, etc.?
• Will each entity be responsible for their. repairs, pipes, growth, maintenance, etc?
• Why not form a PUD to supply water to all districts to purchase water wholesale and
possible cost effective, due that they are only a water wholesale supply source?
Comments offered with no name attached
• Is this agency necessary -
1.) Could the same source/supply issues be addressed by making existing supply
systems more efficient?
a. Consolidate Clackamas River systems.
b. JWC system.
c. Bull Run system.
2.) Create inter-ties to allow for emergency supplies.
a If making a regional system -
1.) Elected board based on regions or population.
2.) Begin by identifying common goals:
a. source water protection.
b. Equal rates.
c. Citizen input to elected representatives.
d. Then establish if such an agency can or should be created.
Comments offered by Paulette Rossi
• Program for low-income residents region-wide.
• Elected members to the board in proportion to number of customers served by water
agency or in proportion to quality of water put into water pool.
• Criteria #7 and #15 should be combined. Must use sustainable best management
practices to use water and protect watersheds.
• Water rates set by each agency.
• No third dam.
Musi be public hearing with official recorded ciM.en testimony.
Public Comments on Proposed Criteria
October 18,2001- Verbatim Notes Continued - Pagel
Comments offered by Kathy Newcomb
• Step 1 - Too complex. Go back to the idea of Bull Run and financing the
improvements for Bull Run (down to Powell Butte). Then affected cities should get
together for joint piping.
• Step 2 - Again, too many sourced. PRIORITIZE. Bull Run #1. Clackamas 2"a
Tualatin/Trask P (Willamette when free of deformed fish.)
• Include ASR as backup. (Not the Willamette River).
o "All"- too much. Define area, to Powell Butte, including dams and pipes to Powell
Butte. Let individual cities etc. do their own. Let groups of cities do their own
cooperative transmissions.
• (Referring to Criteria #5) No. Too complex again. Start with Bull Run. Maybe
eventually add Clackamas. Then Tualatin/Trask. (Then Willamette after deformed
fish are solved.)
• ' (Referring to Criteria #6) OK.
• (Referring to Criteria #7) OK? Yes, if logging is banned and roads are removed
from Bull Run.
• (Referring to Criteria #8) OK.
• (Referring to Criteria #9) and power.
• (Referring to Criteria #10) should not be appointed by cities and water districts;
should be elected by population.
• (Referring to Criteria #11) Relates to "appointment" specified in #10. Not applicable
as written.
m (Referring to Criteria #12) OK.
• (Referring to Criteria #13) Should include public input always, where water
resources are concerned.
• (Referring to Criteria #14) OK and see V.
• (Referring to Criteria #15) Applies mostly to all 4 systems? 1)BR, 2)TT, 3)CR and
4) Willamette, which is not preferable.
• (Referring to Criteria #16) OK.
• (Referring to Criteria #17) OK.
• (Referring to Criteria #18) OK, but not including Willamette unless popular vote
approves.
• (Referring to Criteria #19) OK, with sustainable. 10
Additional Comments offered bV Kathy Newcomb on 10-24-2001
• Priorities should be established. The Bull Run system is the first priority. The
criteria which have been developed are too extensive, in that they include all local
water systems, and are therefore highly subjectlostrong opposition. Any governance
system should be developed FIRST for the Bull Run system, with the thought that
additional water systems could be added as appropriate.
Public Comments on Proposed Criteria
October 18, 2001- Verbatim Notes Continued - Page 8
Additional Comments from Kathy Newcomb (Continued)
Regarding #5 ("Member agencies will turn over all of their water rights, etc..."):
This should be deleted. In our group a Clackamas-area man objected to the idea of
agreeing to turning over all Clackamas water rights without any discussion. We
agreed and reported his/our concern. But our group did not discuss the idea at all that
some water rights and supply facilities are so objectionable that they should not be
included in a regional system. Again, priorities should be established. The Bull Run
system is the first priority.
• Regarding time for public comment: I recognize the time crunch you have explained.
Nevertheless, somehow, there needs to be time for consideration of these criteria. As
you can see in #2, it did not even occur to us to discuss the inclusion of objectionable
water facilities and systems.
Comments offered by Scott Forrester
e Please answer fully all '!policy positions" of the National Sierra Club, while quoting
the statement being answered. Please review and comment on every "topic" and
every sentence. (Sierra Club policy positions were attached to this comment.)
R
A progress report from the staff -
Regional November 15, 2001
Drinking • Introductions & Oackground - Erik Sten
Water • Public Comment: 2 minutes each,
total maximum 30 minutes
Supply • Criteria Development and Governance
Initiative Model Research - Ed Tenny
• Discussion and Further Direction from
Elected Officials - Ed Tenny
2
Phase I - Conceptual Analysis Phase I - Conceptual Analysis
Timeline 2001-2002 Timeline 2001-2002
• May -July, 2001 • August - November, 2001
• General exploratory meetings • Criteria development
• Water providers decisions to participate • Governance model research
• Issues Identification • Public Input on criteria
• Public input • Briefing for elected officials, further direction
3 4
Phase I - Conceptual Analysis We face increasing
Timeline 2001-2002 competition for water supplies
• December 12, 2001
• Staff draft report and presentation to elected • Families
officials
• Public Input • Fish
• January 24, 2002 • Farms
• Elected officials directions to staff regarding • Factories
next steps
i
5 6
1
We also face... Regional Water Supply
• More stringent regulations
o Increasingly expensive treatment
o Lack of sufficient storage and transmission
i
• Aging infrastructure
• Fast growing region r
r III
• Increasing public interest in drinking water quality
~ e
38 agencies provide drinking Water resource management
water in the tri-county region. and utility operations can be
made more...
• 15 in Clackamas County • 13 in Multnomah County • Efficient
• Cost-effective
• 10 in Washington County • Reliable
• Environmentally sensitive
9 10
How? A New Approach
Through better regional...
•
• Cooperation Water providers form a new regional Agency
~
• Coordination to provide more efficient use of water
i
• Management resources and water utility services.
11 12
2
Agencies Exploring Possibilities The Charge to the Staff
• Clackamas County Washington County
- Clackamas River Water - City of Beaverton • Recommend criteria to be applied to
- Sunrise Water Authority - City of Hillsboro potential regional changes.
• Multnomah County - City of Tigard
- City or Gresham - City or Tualatin • Explore relevant governance alternatives.
- city or Portland - Tualatin Valley Water District . Report back by the end of 2001.
- Powell Valley Road Water - Clean Water Services
District - West slope Water District
- Rockwood PUD METRO
17 14
Criterion #1: Background to #1
The Agency WIII have • Would create critical mass necessary to
achieve fiscal and operational goals.
responsibility to provide all • The average cost of water could be less
water supply and transmission if all water supply is obtained from the
Agency.
to its members. • Lack of commitment could make it
difficult to plan effectively for future
supply needs.
IS 16
Criterion #2: Background to #2
The Agency will develop and • The Agency and its members would be
protect sources that meet responsible for setting standards.
standards & These standards could be higher than
quality quantity those set by U. S. EPA and the state.
requirements established by • The Agency would be responsible for
its members. supply planning.
1) 19
3
Criterion #3: Background to #3
The Agency will have a
reliable supply of water to • several participating entities focused on
the need for reliability and backup
meet current and future supplies.
needs, with back up supplies • Best management practices for water
to meet seasonal or utilities mandate a sound backup supply
emergency needs. and plan.
19 20
Criterion #4: Background to #4
The Agency will plan for and • A key goal of the new Agency should be
build capital improvements to to make future capital investment by
the region as cost-effective as possible.
meet all supply and • This criterion is based on the belief that
transmission needs of its capital costs can be controlled best by a
broad ratepayer base combined with
members. common planning and investment.
21 22
Background to #5
Criterion #5;
Members will assign their • The Agency would need to share access
water rights and supply and to water rights and supply and
transmission facilities to the transmission facilities.
regional drinking water supply • There are numerous ways to obtain
Agency. access that would have to be resolved.
23 2,
4
MENEM
Criterion #6: Background to #6
The Agency will be responsible . Water supplied to distribution systems
for meeting state and federal would meet Agency-adopted standards
water quality standards at the and meet or exceed U.S. EPA
point of delivery to its standards.
members.
26 26
Criterion #7: Background on #7
The regional drinking water • Not all entities will wish to join.
• Some will want to obtain water from
supply Agency may contract other sources.
for the sale of water to • some will have a continuing need to
buy water from suppliers.
non-member agencies. • Wholesaling water will help manage
rates and debt more effectively.
27 20
Criterion #8 Background on #8
The Agency will have the • This Agency would become an ongoing
i utility and would need flexibility to
authority to modify its modify Its mission as circumstances
evolve.
responsibilities and services as . There may be some desire to combine
agreed to by the members. functions other than supply and
I transmission, now or in the future, by
I some or all members.
M w
5
Criterion #9: Background to #9
The Agency will be created • Powers to include but not be limited to:
- setting rates and charges
under Oregon law to have the - Collecting revenues
full and usual - Issuing dent
- Hiring staff
municipal powers. - Entering into agreements
31 32
Background on #10
Criterion #10: • Oregon law offers a number of governance
The regional drinking water alternatives.
• No single alternative is likely to meet all
supply Agency will be created criteria perfectly.
under existing Oregon law. • Our first effort should be to find ways to
make existing alternatives work.
• New legislation would be a desired path only
if existing vehicles cannot be made to meet
our needs.
33 34
Criterion #11:
The Agency will make the most Background to #11
efficient and effective use of • The Agency must be a responsible steward
water resources to meet the of resources.
N needs of its members, consistent • It must manage resources in an effective
with sustainable development, way without waste.
best management practices and • It must manage resources in conjunction
with other users, such as fish and irrigators.
integrated resource management . It must practice conservation of water
a strategies. resources.
35 36
6
Criterion #12: Background to #12
The Agency will be an
enterprise utility, obtaining its • Agency intended to be financed without
revenues from rates, charges, exercising general taxing authority.
and the issuance of debt • More research would be required on
methods by which various kinds of
related to the sale and entities can incur indebtedness.
delivery of water.
37 38
Criterion #13: Background on #13
Each member will have • Key Issues would need to be resolved in
the next phase:
representation on the -Governing body: elected or appointed?
Agency's Board of Directors. - Elected at large or by districts?
- Votes weighted? By what?
39 40
Criterion # 14:
Individual customers Background on #14
receiving water from the
Agency will have direct access • The Agency would have the full and usual
i powers of a municipal corporation.
a to the Agency's . It would be follow the same open meeting
Board of Directors and to the and public information provisions of any
elected public officials of the other public agency.
+ members.
,1 ,2
7
Criterion #15:
The Agency is intended to be Background on #15
organized and operated to • Maintains focus on a primary purpose of
minimize duplication or this effort.
inefficiencies resulting from • A new Agency must be an improvement
separate supply ownership on the status quo to be worth pursuing.
and management of supplies.
43
M
Criterion #16: Background to #16
The Agency will participate in
• Confirms that the Agency would be a
the programs and activities cooperative participant in resource
within the watersheds management.
• Places focus on the multiple use
Of its SOUrCeS. concept at the broad watershed level.
,5 46
Criterion #17: Background on #17
Creation of the Agency will • The staff recognizes that expansion and
not result in increased overall improvement of services, increased
costs for water by virtue of regulation, and other factors may result
in increased costs over time.
combining infrastructure and • There are, however, a number of
operations. opportunities for efficiencies and
increased effectiveness.
,7 y
8
We reviewed many examples. Tampa Bay Water
• Carryon Regional Water • Metro Water Dist. Of 1974 - 6 members (3 counties & 3 cities)
Authority (rexas) SouO*rn Cal.
• Central Arkansas Water • Monterey Peninsula Water • Exclusive Supply and Transmission
• central Wyoming Reglonai Mgmnt. Dist. • Wholesales water to non-members
Water • San Diego Water Authority
• Denver Water Board . South Central Connecticut • Unitary rate
• tlodda Water Management Regional Authority • 9 board members (appointed elected
Disbkts • Soud*m Nevada Water
Greater yanaouver Regional Authority officials), non-weighted votes
• Louisville strict Water Co. • Tampa Bay Water • General corporate powers
• Massachusetts Water • Tarrant Regional Water DISC.
Resources Authority (Te-S)
N s0
Tarrant Regional Water District San Diego Water Authority
1924 - 4 members 1944 - 23 members
• Exclusive Supply and Transmission, some • Exclusive Supply and Transmission
.distribution • Contracts water sales to non-members
• Wholesales water to 28 non-members • Unitary rate
• Unitary rate • 34 board members (appointed elected
• 5 elected board members, non-weighted officials), weighted votes
votes • General corporate powers
• General corporate powers
51 52
Greater Vancouver B.C. Governance Alternatives
Regional District
1967 - 22 members Under Existing Oregon Law
• Exclusive Supply and Transmission
i • Chapter 190: Intergovernmental
a • Wholesales water to non-members Agreements
a Unitary rate • Chapter 261: Peoples' Utility Districts
• 35 directors (appointed elected officials) • Chapter 450: Water Authorities
• General corporate powers • Chapter 264: Special Districts
• Chapter 268: Regional Service Districts
5] H
9
loll
OREGON EXAMPLES Where we are on governance
• There are successful examples to learn from.
• South Fork Water Board • Joint Water Commission . No example Is perfect for our needs.
• Sunrise Water Authority • North Cackamas Water . We may be able to fulfill your criteria within
• NWD/Sherwood IGA Commission existing models.
• Willamette Water Supply • Rockwood/C3adcamas I • If not, legislation would be the next step.
Agency • Clean Water Services • Form should follow function. Governance
should follow consensus on criteria.
SS 56
What's next?
• Feedback from elected officials.
• Phase I report issued Dec 12, 2001.
• Discussion and review by officials and
agencies.
• Further direction to staff on Jan 24, 2002.
57
i
i
i
i
10
Eli
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative
Meeting of Elected Officials Staff and the Public to Learn About Criteria and
Research Completed To Date
Meeting (dotes - November 15, 2001
(Meeting held at Metro)
A general meeting for elected officials, water managers and the public was held
on November 15, 2001 at Metro to discuss a status report on the Regional Drinking
Water Supply Initiative. Metro Council Rex Burkholder welcomed the group. He
spoke about Metro's role in disaster planning and land use planning and growth and
talked about both of those issues being important to water supply planning.
City of Portland Commissioner Erik Sten also welcomed the attendees, which
numbered about 125, and indicated he was pleased so many people were in
attendance. He said this was a key issue for the region and there were many specific
issues to be thought through. He gave a little background, indicated that in May and
June there were general meetings of the region's water suppliers to discuss issues of
common interest in water supply and transmission. He said there has been a long
history of coordination among the water providers, but that the structure of the various
agencies makes future planning sometimes cumbersome. He said he asked the
various water agencies to let him know if they had a serious interest in exploring
partnerships. Fourteen agencies had indicated to him they were interested and staff
was directed to begin exploring key issues. On October 18th the staff held a workshop
for citizens to get their input into draft criteria.
Commissioner Sten said that tonight the purpose of the meeting was to have
staff present their criteria and talk about their research on governance models. He
indicated this was moving in an exciting direction; that there had been a lot of citizen
input to date, and he was pleased with the work completed thus far. He ended by
saying that he was "extremely excited about this. Our forebears had a similar
opportunity 100 years ago, and we have a opportunity now to plan well for the next
100 years, it just looks different. We have a chance to do something historic and I
hope we don't think small."
Ed Tenny, consultant to the project began by saying that the staff had
developed criteria, received public input, revised the criteria and researched various
kinds of governance. He indicated the staff will not generate a proposal; it is a policy
decision of the elected officials as to whether or not a specific proposal would be
developed. He said there were many people in the audience and elsewhere who
thought there was a proposal on the table and that this was a public hearing. He
indicated that the staff had done a lot of thinking about the various issues and options
and involved citizens earlier in the process (at criteria development) than would
normally be the course and thus some folks thought that a specific proposal was now
coming forth. He reiterated that the purpose of this meeting was to get elected official
1 `
Room
input into the criteria, tell them about the governance model research that had been
done to date, and to get any direction necessary before preparing a report for the
elected officials of the participating agencies.
In facilitating the meeting, Mr. Tenny indicated that this evening there would be
public comment first on the agenda. He said that in the past several citizens had
complained that public comment was always last on the agenda and at that point
some elected officials had left and they felt their comments weren't heard.
The first to speak was John Wish, speaking for Physicians for Social
Responsibility. He said "it is more desirable, effective and economical to prevent
contamination of drinking water supplies than to pay for treatment, or to clean up an
already polluted source." Mr. Wish went on to say "The Oregon Chapter of the
Physicians for Social Responsibility strongly supports using uncontaminated drinking
water supplies. That means we strongly support going first to the Bull Run. PSR does
not want bur citizens to drink Willamette River or other contaminated source water."
(PSR's comments are attached and titled "Bull Run Watershed - The Safest Drinking
Water for All!')
Jane Malarkey spoke as an individual citizen. She said it was important to have
only Bull Run water being provided in the region and she was irritated to think anything
else was being considered. She said she saw no concerted effort for conservation.
She also indicated that when she jogged around Washington Park reservoirs she felt
that anything could be dropped in the water supply, and there needed to be much
more security.
Tom Cropper spoke next. He said this was not a democratic process; that this
was an inter-governmental agreement process. He said he felt the group was trying to
"transfer Portland and Multnomah County property to Metro." He said water rights
should not be transferred to a group that isn't elected. He felt the Willamette and
Columbia rivers were polluted and shouldn't be used as drinking water sources.
Tom Boon said that in the past the public had demanded new sources of water
and the Bull Run was developed. Now the engineers were teiling the public what
sources to drink and he wanted to reverse the process so that the public was again
telling the engineers what to do. (Mr. Boon, Secretary for the Bull Run Heritage
Foundation, submitted comments titled "Bull Run Authority", which are attached.)
Frank Gearheart of Citizens Interested In Bull Run, Inc. said he thought that in
some water agencies there were management problems and bored staff and they
weren't listening to citizens regarding water issues. He said this has resulted in
citizens having to prepare initiatives to take to voters to undo what public officials had
+ done. He cited the City of Sherwood as an example. Mr. Gearheart then went on to
I address specific criteria. He said that Criteria #5, related to assigning of water rights
to the new agency, was not acceptable without a vote of the people. Criteria #13
2
o
should have directly elected officials on the board of the new agency. Criteria #14,
regarding having direct access to the board of the new agency; there wasn't anything
new about this and this appears to circumvent the ability of citizens to vote. Criteria
#16, related to watersheds, this would bring in the watershed of the Willamette River
and that wasn't acceptable. He said that only the Bull Run should be regionalized.
(CIIBRI's comments are attached.)
Scott Forrester spoke next. He indicated he was speaking as an individual
citizen but that he held several positions in organizations, including the Friends of the
Clackamas River and the Sierra Club's Water Committee. He said originally this was
"a great kernel of an idea" but that staff decided to make this a bigger basket and that
all we would have is a "metro agency with staff on the board." He said this was not a
democratic process and that staff had gotten too far ahead of the game and that
citizens are starting to stand up and take notice.
Scott Fernandez spoke as an individual citizen but felt he was speaking for the
citizens of the City of Portland. He felt the costs of administration would be too high
for this agency and that Portlanders would have no voice and they would have a loss
of ownership of the assets of the Bull Run water supply and transmission facilities. He
recommended terminating this process immediately and that Portland should go back
to negotiating the next long term wholesale contracts.
Bruce Pollock then spoke. He said he was a professional scientist and that he
had run for a position on the Tualatin Valley Water District's Board, and that now
maybe it was good he hadn't won. He said he had gotten a good look at the
Willamette Treatment plant and felt the Willamette could not be cleaned up or made
safe for drinking water through treatment, and that he had great concerns about its
water quality. He felt that if the Willamette were used for drinking water we would
have sick and deformed infants.
Jay Formick of the City of Portland's Public Utility Review Board indicated his
group was developing it's own set of criteria for such a regional agency, and they
would provide that criteria to the Portland City Council. He said they had three key
values: 1.)There be strong public participation, 2.)the cost-of-service principle be
adhered to, 3.)conservation is a condition. He spoke to two specific criteria. On
Criteria 14, related to building capital improvements, he said Portlanders will have to
a pay twice, and on Criteria #5, related to assigning water rights, he wanted to know how
' Portland ratepayers would be compensated.
} Tom Long, Citizens For Safe Water - Tigard spoke. He said no one wants the
Willamette River as a drinking water source and if the Willamette became part of the
drinking water sources for the new agency there would be serious problems. He
urged the elected officials to make this a pioneering opportunity and to let the citizens
have a voice; that people had good ideas.
3
S i
Vill
A 1,;
'im Hansen, also of Citizens For Safe Water - Tigard, urged that citizens have
a rig, vote on these issues. He said that even if the Willamette River were proven
to be a good source of water the citizens should still be able to vote as to whether or
not they wanted it, because of the stigma attached to it.
Barbara Kemper indicated she was interested in water supply and appreciated
the fact that the public was first on the agenda. She said there was little public
knowledge about these issues and urged the public officials not to rush into this and to
take the time to do it right. She urged the elected officials to thinking about testing the
Willamette and Columbia waters first on a pregnant daughter or a grandchild first, and
then see how they would like it as a permanent drinking water source.
Kathy Newcomb from Citizens For Safe Water said that she had been at the
previous meeting to give public input that that the public's input was not considered in
the final draft criteria. She indicated she also agreed with the point made previously
by those who had spoken. She felt this should be a phased in process, starting with
the Bull Run and that citizens in the region would like to be owners of the system, not
renters as it is now.
Phil Dreyer of Not In My Pipes PAC said the public had a right to vote on which
source of water they wanted to drink from and that this process was far from a
democracy. (Comments attached and titled "What They Are Saying About Willamette
River Water". Other attachments he submitted are "Drop wells; add storage to Bull
Run"The Oregonian, In My Opinion Column, July 1, 1992. Memo from Joseph Miller
to Regional Water Supply Plan Project, June 19, 1995. Testimony of Harold T.
Osterud, MD at a Congressional Hearing shortly before the Bull Run Trespass Act was
repealed, August 15, 1977.)
Randy Roop of the Friends of Barden Park spoke. He said his group had
halted the floodplain mining of the Clackamas. He said he used to be pleased to drink
well water. He said he works closely with the Water Master from Oak Lodge. He
referenced statements from the American Water Works Association about the need to
use pure water for drinking water purposes, and he felt the deformed fish of the
Willamette River made that water undrinkable.
Regna Merritt of the Oregon Natural Resources Council thanked Commissioner
Erik Sten for all of his work to protect the Little Sandy River. She said that on this
issue her telephone had been ringing off of the.hook and that in this process they were
putting the cart before the horse. She was concerned about drinking any source other
than the Bull Run. She felt it was important to determine which sources would be
included in the regional agency's system first.
With the conclusion of citizen input, Mr. Tenny began the briefing with a power
point presentation. The presentation provided information related to:
the water needs of the region in the future,
what the current governance arrangements are,
4
what the various criteria are that are being recommended by the staff
should the elected officials want to look at a regional supply and
transmission agency,
what the research showed on governance models throughout the
country,
what the timeline are for this project and the next steps.
Then the elected officials began to give their input. Herb Brown of the
Rockwood PUD said there was a lot of controversy over this issue. He said he was
not interested in turning over the assets of the PUD and asked for a show of hands of
other elected officials who would consider turning over their assets to a regional
agency. However, the elected officials did not feel that the timing was right for this
show of hands and until more details were worked out.
Joyce Patton of the City of Tigard said she was not prepared to say what her
City Council would do and as the liaison person for her Council and the Inter-
Governmental Water Board (representing Tigard, King City and Durham) she was here
to listen.
Richard Burke of the Tualatin Valley Water District indicated he was speaking
for himself and not the TVWD Board. He commended Erik Sten for the kernel of the
idea that has been proposed, and for the staff work that has been done. He felt
however, that this had "grown into a Frankenstein and we need to kill it." He felt these
criteria did not help his constituency and that there was something to be said for
multiple jurisdictions. He felt a new agency would simply be "empire building",
especially through criteria #8. He wanted to "see a re-distribution of the wealth" and
simply "fine tune things in the small districts." He felt a lot of water providers had been
working under pressure of the re-negotiation of the wholesale contracts with Portland
and felt that task should be aggressively completed.
Mayor Becker of Gresham said the City of Gresham does not have a water
source and that they need reliance in quantity and quality. They wanted to look at a
new agency as an option for Gresham to have ownership.
Erik Sten said a lot of citizens have talked about water sources. Portland has
been neutral on what sources the suburbs should use. He did say however, that
Portland would not join an agency in which a source would be the Willamette River
and that the sources to be used would have to be explicitly stated up front. He talked
about the wholesale contract negotiations and indicated that what Portland had heard
throughout the discussions was that wholesale contractors wanted ownership in the
system and that this approach would equalize costs for everyone. He said Portland
was ready to share ownership of the Bull Run through an agency that was
democratically run and economically favorable to all. He felt that it was very important
that if owners of other sources did not want to join this agency that everyone should
know now. He particularly wanted to hear from Clackamas River Water.
Commissioner Sten noted that he was alright with either an agency that included
selected other sources, or one that was Bull Run orientd.
5
Now
Larry Soderholm of the Joint Water Commission said there had been a
workshop in Hillsboro and they were not in favor of joining any agency. He said they
had a good source and wholesaled water. He said he was speaking for the
Commission.
Lisa Meylan of the Tualatin Valley Water District said she was trying to keep an
open mind. She thought some parts of this were very good. She said this was going
to lead us to the lowest or highest common denominator. She particularly liked
Criteria #11 related to sustainable development and best management practices. She
was concerned that the Bull Run used to be a "protected area" and now it's just a
"managed area". She liked the idea of the staff having opened up to the process to
citizens and felt that we should not fast track this process. She said that what she had
heard was the'following:
citizens wanted the Bull Run as the source,
no Willamette or Columbia water should be a drinking water source,
people wanted conservation,
Portland wants compensation,
citizens wanted directly elected officials on the board of the new agency.
Joyce Patton said again that she was keeping an open mind and she agreed
with Lisa. She said she had some questions about some criteria but that so far there
was no "deal breaker" for Tigard. Since Tigard did not have a source of its own, some
kind of regional agency they could have ownership in as good for Tigard. She
indicated what was needed was an emergency backup for distribution systems. She
also said that all we are talking about here is the potential for further discussions.
Sandra Ramaker of the Rockwood PUD wanted to know why the word
"transferring" water rights had been changed to "assign" water rights. She wanted to
know who pays for that and how much.
Tony Weller of the City of Tualatin commended Erik Sten for his patience while
other jurisdictions posed these questions. He thought it would be helpful to clarify the
source issue and hoped that sources of water wouldn't become a stumbling block to
forming a new agency. He suggested that the owners of the water sources let the full
group know as soon as possible whether they "were in or out". He said that things
come in time but that this would get simpler when we knew who was participating
further and who wasn't.
Richard Burke said he "did not want to rain on anyone's parade" and suggested
that those interested go back to the original idea of just using the Bull Run as the
source, and that then maybe there was a chance for the next steps to occur.
Vicki Thompson of the City of Gresham suggested making it simple and starting
out with the Bull Run as the water source and then talk to other sources. She thought
it was important to take "baby steps, and this is too big".
6
John Huffman of the Powell Valley Road Water District indicated they would
speak with their ratepayers about these issues and then provide feedback.
With no further comments at this time, Ed Tenny commended everyone for their
patience in getting through the briefing and for their comments and participation. He
reminisced that when he left as the administrator of the Portland Water Bureau in 1991
we were trying to address logging in the Bull Run and back then water providers were
suing each other. He said water providers in this region, unlike many places in the
United States, had come a long way on their own to discuss and decide important
regional drinking water issues, and that in fact, they were far ahead of many places.
7 `
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative
Criteria
The following criteria were prepared by the staff of the 14 agencies participating
in the Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative. Citizen input was obtained in a public
workshop on October 18, 2001. The criteria were revised following the workshop and
are being presented to elected officials of the participating agencies in the November 15,
2001 briefing. The criteria are shown by number for ease in reference, and are not in any
priority order.
1. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will have responsibility to provide all
water supply and transmission to its members.
2. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will develop and protect sources in the
Region that meet quality standards and quantity requirements established by its
members.
3. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will have a reliable supply of water to
meet current and future needs, with backup supplies to meet seasonal or
emergency needs.
4. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will plan for and build capital
improvements to meet all supply and transmission needs of its members.
5. Members will assign their water rights and supply and transmission facilities to the
Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency.
6. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be responsible for meeting state
and federal water quality standards at the point of delivery to the members.
7. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency may contract for the sale of water to
non-member agencies.
8. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will have the authority to modify its
responsibilities and services as agreed to by the members.
i
a 9. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be created under Oregon law to
have the full and usual municipal powers provided under Oregon law, including but
not limited to, the ability to set rates and charges, collect revenues, issue debt, hire
staff and enter into agreements.
10. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be created under existing Oregon
law.
11. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will make the most efficient and
effective use of water resources to meet the needs of its members, consistent with
sustainable development and best management practices and integrated resource
management strategies
12. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be an enterprise utility, obtaining
its revenues from rates, charges and issuance of debt related to the sale and
delivery of water.
13. Each member will have representation on the Agency's Board of Directors.
14. Individual customers receiving water from the Regional Drinking Water Supply
Agency will have direct access to the Agency's Board of Directors and to the
elected public officials of the members.
15. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency is intended to be organized and
operated to minimize duplication or inefficiencies resulting from separate supply
ownership and management of supplies.
16. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will participate in the programs and
activities within the watersheds of its sources.
17. Creation of the Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will not result in increased
overall costs for water by virtue of combining infrastructure and operations.
Expansion and improvement of services increased regulation, and other factors
may, however, result in increased costs in the future.
a
a
1
a
a
3
yFn - Tth=:-L
t
INSTITUTIONAL A GENIENTS OPTIONS FOR WATER SUPPLY
UNDER CURRENT OREGON LAW
Task or Function Ch. 268 (Metro) Chapter 190 IGA Ch 261 PUD Ch 264 Ch. 450
Regional Service Entity Water District WaterAuthority
District
Powers/Authority
Own-ot'Lease Yes Entity Yes Yes Yes
Land
Set Rates & Yes Entity Yes Yes Yes
Char es
Taxation Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Condemnation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ordinance/ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Legislation
Contracts Yes _ Yes Yes Yes Yes
System Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Operations
Wholesale/ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Retail
~
Employees Yes Individual/Entity Yes Yes Yes
Formation Council/Board Council/Board BCC/Voters BCC/Voters BCClVoters
Council Consent Council Consent Council Consent
Governing Body
Number 6+1 A eement 5 5 5 or 7
Elected` Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Appointed No By Council/Board No No No
'rerm Y y4Years , BvCouncii'Brard 4 t':ars_ 4YWarc :4Years
Election Laws Yes No - - ~-Y,s
Yes Yes
Finance
Taxation Yes No Vote Vote Vote
Tax Base Election Tax Base Election Tax Base Election
General Yes No Statute Statute Statute
Obligation Bonds Yes Yes Yes
Revenue Bonds Yes Yes, Ch. 288 Yes Vote Yes, Ch. 288 Yes, Ch. 288
Assessment Yes Chapter 190 No Statute Statute
District (LED) Agreement Yes Yes
SDC's Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Rates Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Other Char es Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
SRF, Grants, Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Loans
Budget
Local Budget Yes Entity No Yes Authority Audit Yes Entity District Yes Authority
Public Contracting Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Tort Liability Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Public Records Yes Yes- "Yes -Yes Yes
Public Meetings Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
a.
IMM
kY ~•i+ a. M F;! ly.y ~°dd 'uy r~ ikr s5t ~ kl ;y, -7: - i " ~`°,ard
R dii~-'A J•i,~ -4~ " ` 4r1~ . ~ r at C ~Y # ~ a 3"f"~'J`+k.F'•. f u y <i
J~ C v ff ).cat ~ ZL t +!,~s~'fl / 7};+ ti i •e ~,^5N , 'l r ~y,,. ry
:~i ~r'[y.~~ sk.•.f,. ~1 t Y;l,:~r7 ir. rh%.;sh~ ^I y;, ri l ';\+:~5'.1 „tl,'. .r ,~.s~nls~'!,.,F~ 7~;~',~k~ •:~.'~Ct .iF +fII, r'~'~Y,•+_ •i~.<r~ .•i .X~,~. c°..;. ~L 1 ~+r
Z, < •yy, l r i, ,e ati l tr~(~o1S7 ^ 3r .°r~?• !!~y~ ,~rrv~~,k.~ . o r j e e`
~.;v ~:'r~y'`. .Aln.vJ r~,'4 -.v r v,,; ,.~hi ~aT !.a¢ .f w..s~t,K trr1 }!y..i~11~,,.;T. *¢!•y~~, ..fifi,~tti~T'v}I ! ,~!;~,r-.~ ~ ti~Y. i.'.f~~. +v'I.nEr '~11,
~;n •kJ'~. .,n '1 xc~d`: `(r4 fir: )':t~'+ ,t ~:Sv: r. + r/ ~`E.G/.r~i~~'j~'` ~+~~`Y1~~~;""?, Co :r y~1i• q`qq~ i r:,; ,.s ~,r5~t
~ 1 .ve `:i.: , ,t. <4.•r ~T.` Jt ^rts ',,-rv a~~y+.},. wtiy j•w rY, K•< r~~. 1?~..r~"'~F''~',;r~ ~ti. r
ti yo. A r~i § .4 r h 1:,>>. ;,}c~~~ k s 1 y, G i xrr~`~ ; t y of{•'; , s1~,
: V{v,lr.~tt'
X'',`-{`,, • zrA'"W.A1> r 5'';krr~ 7
i ,.~.'t^t 1. `f :1y •i rF p~ ' titY~ i. La r r. 'I~ •CI 1 ' r i''~f.. L_+.svd,a.'!s,..~+,.,.~ ~y r y; 4
~a:.~A;~3wi,;„i.:.ia, r '+,C,, . ir;r.i~ / r'._. .:S' ~:a.~~.ui./L.Z:u~'
z*
uu
f( ~ I I f
314; • y,rfa ~ ^°~~t'°I 1'~ , ,
a t d n...
om"
r 1
ItK 1y k^..r 7~ i 11,11 f 7 -
~a:. 4 ~ ~ r'.•d . , to-~'..~. 2;~~1~~ i. Y
.l
u;;.{ III L -
-19
,4• ~R~ _ 1111 i k
` c t
,.r• 7 i7 ! i J
%
•~rt ~yq ir~i ~4 1 m r
X2, qs
_ ~ 4tfi_~ rx '.4=; omr 7r. ..s = e,>t~ .'ry'
.j+ ,•~'f:~;=•sy.. •....:Tai...' ;r .r.~;~~il,y,~~4d:4'+~' sr r'~.'1oa TY' j
` N n .m-1~ rTe^i•„RT ,il ~r:J .•A•rQ+~.r•1 .
•,1
December 12, 2001
TO: Elected Officials:
City of Beaverton Powell Valley Road Water District
Clackamas River Water Rockwood PUD
Clean Water Services Sunrise Water Authority
City of Gresham City of Tigard
City of Hillsboro City of Tualatin
METRO Tualatin Valley Water District
City of Portland West Slope Water District
FROM: Your Water Managers
SUBJECT: Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative
Progress Report
Earlier this year, you directed us, your water managers, to investigate the potential for
new water utility service arrangements in the Portland Metropolitan Area. In August
2001 we began our work. This report is the product of our work to date.
This report provides background on the regional issues, a brief summary of the process
we have undertaken, a discussion of criteria we suggest should guide our thinking, a brief
discussion of some governance alternatives, and a recommended avenue along which
some of our organizations may wish to continue this investigation.
We deliberately looked at a very wide range of potential arrangements involving various
water sources and various governance alternatives. We felt it was important to take this
opportunity to understand others' issues and concerns and to seek the optimum feasible
outcome. We have always felt it was too optimistic to assume that an improved model
could be developed that would be desirable for all of our organizations. However, we
have identified a number of areas of common interest and approaches to the future that
may be attractive to some of our members.
HIM Engineering, Inc. 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Telephone
Suite 1200 425 453-1523
Bellevue, Washington Fax
Employee Owned 98004-5538 425 453-7107
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative
Progress Report
Page 2
We have taken public input at several points in our study process. We have presented
some interim findings to elected officials as well. In some cases, we have modified or
revised criteria in response to this input. In other cases, we have added background and
explanatory information in order to make our intentions more clear. This report reflects "
the responses we received from you and the public, along with our own thoughts. We
hope you will find this report helpful as you deliberate the future of water resource and
utility services in our region.
Sincerely:
0,,~" ~cQ ljfe
David Winship Michael Mo ' sey Ed Wegner
City of Beaverton METRO City of Tigard
Dal utila Mark Knudson Mike McKillip
Clackamas River Water City of Portland City of Tualatin
Bill Gaffi Tom Pokorny Greg iLorelo
Clean Water Services Powell Valley Road Tualatin Valley
Water District Water District
~Rouse David I~arvey rnes~ erry Amol
City of Gresham Rockwood Water PUD West Slope WD
s
hompso John Thomas
City of Hillsboro Sunrise Water Authority
Table of Contents
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative
Progress Report
Executive Summary 1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................7
A Review of the Process ...............................................................................................................11
Criteria Development ...................................................................................................................13
Governance Alternatives ...........................................................................................................23
Recommendations and Next Steps .........................................................................................27
Appendices
Appendix 1: Map of water providers in the Portland metropolitan area
Appendix 2: City of Portland Commissioner Erik Sten's letter of March 21,
2001 to elected officials in the Portland metropolitan area
Appendix 3: Portland City Council Resolution #35994 of April 25, 2001
supporting the initiative
Appendix 4: Letters of interest from participating water providers and
illustrating key issues and concerns
Appendix 5: Public comment - includes notes of proposed criteria from the
public workshop on October 18, 2001 and written testimony and
proposals from the public comments periods at the meetings of
May, June, October, and November, 2001 and as submitted at
other times
Appendix b: Summary of Cooperative Water Supply Organizations
Appendix 7: Descriptions of regional governance models from Tampa Bay,
Florida; San Diego, California; Tarrant, Texas; and Vancouver,
B.C., Canada.
Jeanne l..e jean Consulting
ERIE=
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
In March 2001, City of Portland Commissioner Erik Sten issued an invitation to the water supply
community in the Portland Region that took many by surprise. In a letter to elected officials
representing the 38 water providers, he proposed that the region consider forming a new
governmental structure to provide water service. He suggested several reasons for believing that
a more regional approach to water supply management in the Portland area would yield
substantial benefits to ratepayers and to the environment. In May and June, Commissioner Sten
invited other elected officials to attend a meeting where this idea could be discussed and interest
could be assessed.
In August 2001, interested water providers agreed to join together to research the potential of this
regional idea. This group, eventually expanding to fourteen member agencies, assigned senior
water managers to work with elected officials to assess the possibilities for improved water
service to the region through changes in governance and structure.
Over the following six months, these water managers and their consultants carried out a number
of tasks to fulfill their assignment, including:
Achieving consensus on the assignment;
Adopting criteria that would be important to positive outcomes;
Investigating other governance models in Oregon and elsewhere;
Exploring the governance alternatives available under Oregon law;
Taking public comment and input at several meetings and individually;
Presenting a workshop to the public and a separate workshop for interested elected
officials;
Agreeing on an assessment of the potential for forward movement on the regional
initiative;
Agreeing on a recommendation for further study by some members of the group; and
Presenting a report to summarize these findings and to request further guidance from
elected officials.
Jeanne j.e jeune Gonautfing
lie
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
The Assignment
The managers' group was asked to determine whether a scenario could be found that would meet
tht key criteria established in response to Commissioner Sten's initiative. In order to merit
further !onsideration; such a scenario would need to have the potential support of a critical mass
of participants in the region. The group would attempt to identify fatal flaws in possible
scenarios and to determine which, if any, scenarios would clearly fail to earn sufficient support.
Finally, the group was charged to report these findings to their elected officials by the end of
2001, in o; Jcc that fL ther steps could be considered. -
The Criteria
The grou;, identified seventeen criteria that would be important to address when considering the
concept of a full, regional water supply entity managing multiple sources of supply. An
important distinction should be drawn between the criteria as they might apply to the full, multi-
source concept and the criteria as they might apply to a more limited, less bold initiative. These
criteria could not be entirely fulfilled by a limited initiative but the group felt it important to
stress that sho t-terra steps, perhaps of an interim nature, should not be undertaken in ways that
would compromise the ability of long-term solutions to achieve these objectives. The managers
undertook this effort with the understanding that they were to think in terms of 50 to 75 years or
more.
1 The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will have responsibility to provide all
water supply and transmission to its members.
2. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will develop and protect sources in the
legion that meet quality standards and quantity requirements established by its members.
3. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will have a reliable supply of water to meet
current and future needs, with backup supplies to meet seasonal or emergency needs.
4. The Pegional Drinking Water Supply Agency will plan for and build capital
improvements to meet all supply and transmission needs of its members.
5. Members will assign their water rights and supply and transmission facilities to the
Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency.
6. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be responsible for meeting State and
Federal water quality standards at the point of delivery to its members.
7. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency may contract for the sale of water to non-
member agencies.
2 ]ectme Le jeane Gomiufting
a
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
8. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will have the authority to modify its
responsibilities and services as agreed to by the members.
9. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be created under Oregon law to have
the full and usual municipal powers provided under Oregon law, including but not limited
to the ability to set rates and charges, collect revenues, issue debt, hire staff, and enter
into agreements.
10. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be created under existing Oregon law.
11. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will make the most efficient and effective
use of water sources to meet the needs of its members, consistent with sustainable
development, best management practices, and integrated resource management strategies.
12. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be an enterprise utility, obtaining its
revenues from rates, charges, and issuance of debt related to the sale and delivery of
water.
13. Each member will have representation on the board of the Regional Drinking Water
Supply Agency.
14. Individual customers receiving water from the Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency
will have direct access to the agency's Board of Directors and to the elected public
officials of the members.
15. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency is intended to be organized and operated to
minimize duplication or inefficiency resulting from separate supply ownership and
management of supplies.
16. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will participate in the programs and
activities within the watersheds of its sources.
17. Creation of a new Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will not result in increased
overall costs for water by virtue of combining infrastructure and operations.
3 Jeanne tl.e jean Gc>»3cclfing
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
Governance (Models
The group studied the governance features of many regional water entities around the U.S. and
Canada. Several conclusions were drawn from this investigation:
No two solutions used elsewhere are exactly alike. It seems that successful governance
alternatives must inevitably be tailored to local history, circumstances, and attitudes.
Most of the governance models adopted elsewhere could be accomplished under existing
Oregon law.
The range of solutions to regional water issues around the country is very broad.
The managers believe that governance solutions can be devised that will meet the needs
of the participants, if elected officials decide to proceed in the attempt to make a new
agency succeed.
Oregon's existing laws suggest five basic approaches to creation of new governance:
Intergovernmental Agreements ORS Chapter 190
e• Peoples' Utility Districts ORS Chapter 261
Water Districts ORS Chapter 264
3 Regional Service Districts ORS Chapter 268
*e Water Authorities ORS Chapter 450
The managers found that the ORS 190 Intergovernmental Agreement approach could best
address the needs of a significant number of participating agencies for a limited initiative
involving only the Bull Run and Columbia South Shore Wellfield supplies. A 190 Agreement
approach might also provide the foundation to achieve the larger goal of a multi-source
management agency in the future.
Public Comment
At each of its public meetings, the managers group took public comment and input. In addition, a
number of individual citizens offered comments and suggestions independently to the managers'
group and the consultants. Many of these comments were quite specific in nature but a few
themes emerged from the process:
Several people expressed the desire that existing entities not surrender ownership of
water resources or capital assets to a new agency.
Several people expressed concern about the relative desirability of various water sources
in the region. A significant theme of these views was a desire to avoid the use of the
Willamette River as a drinking water source.
A number of individuals commented that a new agency should offer significant
advantages over existing arrangements before being pursued further.
4 Jeanne le jeune Gondu[ting
0
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
Recommendations
The professional judgment of the managers is that a regional entity empowered to coordinate the
management of all of the Portland Region's major sources of supply, treatment, and transmission
would be very much in the public interest now and well into the future. Such a regional
approach would offer the broadest potential economies of scale, environmental benefits through
coordinated development and use of the various sources, and the greatest assurance of
developing supplies in a manner consistent with sustainable development and integrated resource
planning goals.
However, input received during this process from some elected officials and members of the
interested public, led to the conclusion that a single step toward such an integrated regional water
utility operation would be unlikely to succeed at this time. At this time, the managers
recommend two immediate steps in this regional initiative process:
1. Renew the region's commitment to increasing transmission interties and additional
supply storage among the sources of the region, as proposed in the Regional Water
Providers' Consortium's planning process;
2. Proceed in development of a regional entity under ORS 190 that would, in effect,
regionalize the control and operations of the Bull Run and Columbia South Shore
Wellfield supplies.
The key elements of the recommended ORS Chapter 190 scenario are:
- The water managers concluded that no one scenario for change would be likely to attract the
support of all the agencies involved
- They also concluded, based in part on input from elected officials, that a new governance
mechanism involving more than one major source was probably not feasible at this time
- Finally, a majority of the managers felt that one scenario had the potential to meet the key
criteria for a significant number of the participating agencies and was, therefore, worth
recommending for further investigation and development. The key elements of the
recommended scenario are:
An organization formed by intergovern mental agreement under ORS 190
An organization that would have effective management and planning control of water
sources and capital assets, but would not necessarily assume ownership of them from
their current owners
An organization that would provide for representation by all the creating entities,
potentially through appointment of elected officials from the creating entities to
constitute the Board of Directors
The sources of supply to be controlled and managed by this agency would be the Bull
Run River and the Columbia South Shore Wellfield.
~Tl 5 Jeanne 1.e leave Cansufting
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
Participating agencies would not be required to obtain all their water through the new
agency but would be required to establish firm purchase commitments through a
nomination process.
Core services would be supply, treatment, and transmission of Bull Run and South Shore
Wellfield water to member agencies and wholesale customers.
Other functional aspects of the water utility business could be consolidated within the
new agency, as members desired.
Next Steps
1. A meeting of elected officials and the public is scheduled for January,24', 2002 to gather
their response to the report and its recommendations. This meeting will include
commitment to a detailed implementation planning phase of this process by those
agencies wishing to proceed.
2. An agreement by participating agencies to contribute toward the costs of the planning
stage of this process.
3. Development of a detailed work plan for research, analysis, documents, and other efforts
needed to enable creation of a new organization would be the next step.
i
a
a
i
i
1
6 Jeanne Le Jectne ocnstdti"
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
er s
Geography and climate bless the Portland Metropolitan Region with an abundance of fine water
resources. Until relatively recently in our history, this forgiving abundance allowed communities
to plan independently to meet their growing water demands. The need for regional cooperation
and coordination was minimal. As the region's population and water demand have grown, the
ability of each community to remain independent with regard to water has grown increasingly
problematic and expensive. Dramatically increasing pressures from increased regulation and
from environmental concerns have contributed to the need for planning and operations beyond a
local level.
During the 20`h Century, the number of governmental agencies providing water service in the
three counties of the Portland Region increased dramatically. In 2001, the three-county area has
38 water providers serving about 1.3 million people. See Appendix 1 for a map of the region's
water providers and sources. This is a brief summary of the providers in the three counties in
2001:
Washington County has ten water providers, six of which have participated in this study. The six
Washington County providers participating in this study serve a population of about 350,000,
which is about 89% of those served by all water utilities in the county.
Clackamas County has fifteen water providers, two participating in this study. The Clackamas
County providers participating in this study serve about 93,000 of the county's consumers, which
is about 35%n of all those served by water utilities in Clackamas County.
In Multnomah County, there are thirteen water providers, including four participants in this
study. The four study participants serve some 650,000 consumers, about 96% of those served by
all water utilities in the county.
In total, participants in this study serve over 1,000,000 customers, or about 82% of all those
served by water utilities in the three-county area.
Over the past twenty years, the growing need for cooperation and coordination has accelerated
substantially. The drivers of this growing pressure fall under several important categories:
1. Population and growth have increased demand on resources substantially. Expanding
sources of supply to meet increasing demands will be necessary and expensive.
2. Increased knowledge and awareness of environmental and ecological issues have had
two primary effects:
a. Dramatic increases in the number and stringency of water quality and
treatment regulations have increased the cost and value of water.
b. Recognition of instream water needs for a wide variety of purposes have
placed effective limits on the portion of the region's water bounty that can
7 Jeanne J.e jeane Gandulting
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
be committed to municipal and industrial uses. A wide range of
regulations such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act
drives instream water needs. Implementation of ESA requirements, which
are now being developed, will undoubtedly require that more water must
be left in streams. Clean Water Act regulations establish limits on
discharges to streams and will also require that more water be left in
streams in the future. Other Federal and State regulations have a similar
effect and this trend can be expected to continue.
3. The natural aging process of existing infrastructure indicates that significant
investments in water infrastructure will be needed throughout the region over the next
fifty years, thus increasing the cost of water.
4. There is a need for more capacity for storage and transmission from supply sources
around the region.
There is a loj►g history of water interrelationships in the region, preceding these recent drivers.
The City of Portland has provided water to neighboring cities and special districts for nearly a
century, through long term wholesale contracts. The cities of Hillsboro, Beaverton, and Forest
Grove formed the Joint Water Commission to develop and deliver water from the Tualatin/Trask
system, later to be joined by Tualatin Valley Water District. Clackamas River Water has
provided water on a wholesale basis to neighbors for many years. Recently, the Sunrise Water
Authority was formed through a merger of the Mount Scot and Damascus Water Districts.
Sunrise, in turn, has joined with the Oak Lodge Water District to form the North Clackamas
Water Commission. These are only a few examples of the increasing trend toward closer
relationships among water utilities in the region. In short, sub-regional cooperation in water
affairs is widespread and widely successful in the Portland area. But until recently, these efforts
have focused simply on developing and delivering water resources from a single major source.
In 1989, the Portland Water Bureau invited the region's water utility organizations to join in a
regional planning effort. The goal of this effort was to create common, accepted water demand
forecasts, water supply and conservation strategies. Over the decade that followed, the group
generated studies that redefined the region's demand forecasts, supply alternatives, and strategies
for transmission and storage improvements. For the first time, the entire region shared one
baseline of critical data. The participants in this planning effort formed an ongoing organization,
the Regional Water Providers' Consortium, to continue the work of cooperative water supply
planning.
In 2000, the Portland Water Bureau joined with its existing and potential wholesale customers to
begin the process of negotiating new long-term contracts for the sale of water. The existing 25-
year agreements will expire during the first decade of the 21st Century. As the negotiating
discussions proceeded, it became apparent that a key goal of several Portland wholesale
customers was participation in the ownership of their water supply.
8 ]eemne Le ]eune Go d"Iti"
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
In response to the challenges facing water utilities as we enter the new century and in response to
the desire of others for water supply ownership, Portland City Commissioner Erik Sten offered a
new proposal to the region in March 2001. Sten proposed that the region consider forming one
or more new, regional water utility organizations, outside existing governmental structures, to
manage the region's water needs. Commissioner Sten's March letter to elected officials is
included as Appendix 2 to this report. Subsequently, the Portland City Council unanimously
endorsed Sten's initiative in a resolution, also attached as Appendix 3to this report.
The foundation for Commissioner Sten's interest were:
Despite adequate high quality water sources in the region, we lack sufficient water
supply infrastructure to meet future needs effectively and efficiently. A coordinated
regional approach to meeting these needs would be most effective.
Increased competing demands for available water resources and increasingly expensive
regulatory requirements provide substantial incentives to maximize our best resources as
efficiently as possible.
Regional solutions can meet our future needs with the least potential rate impact on the
region.
The region should focus its future supply on its best sources rather than develop
additional sources that are less desirable. The Commissioner cited the Bul I Run,
Clackamas, and Tualatin/Trask as the most desirable sources.
Based on these premises, Commissioner Sten ' invited water agencies to "join together in an
exploration of our regional water potential" and to "join with us in developing alternatives and
seeking better ways of organizing and conducting our water utilities in the future." Sten stressed
that he entered this exploratory initiative without a preferred alternative in mind and unready to
remove any reasonable concept from consideration.
In response to Commissioner Erik Sten's proposal, fourteen agencies joined in a cooperative
exploration of the potential. These agencies are:
Cities of:
Beaverton
Gresham
Hillsboro
. Portland
Tigard
Tualatin
LI 9 Jeanne ~e Jeune Gontulti»g
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
Water Districts:
Clackamas River Water
Powell Valley Road Water District
Tualatin Valley Water District
West Slope Water District
PUDs
Rockwood PUD
Water Authorities:
Sunrise Water Authority
Other Agencies:
Clean Water Services
METRO
Together, these agencies provide water to about 80% of the population in the counties of
Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington.
The balance of this report consists of a report on concepts, ideas, criteria, and scenarios. Being
staff members, this working group is not a decision making body. Rather, the goal of the group
has been to bring information to their decision-makers that would allow key choices to be made
on an informed basis.
The managers have concluded that a broadly based, regional water supply agency that could
coordinate development and management of all the major sources of water in the Portland region
would be in the public interest in many ways. In our view, implementation of such a regional
approach should be the long-term goal of water providers in the region. As a first step, the
managers believe there is a basic regional concept that holds promise for future development for
some, but likely not all, of the entities that have participated. The body of this report closes with
a summary of that concept.
i
10 Jeanne l..e leune Gondulting
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
Commissioner Sten proposed concepts to the region's elected officials in March 2001. In April
2001, the Portland City Council unanimously passed a resolution of support for Mr. Sten's
position. In May 2001 Commissioner Sten invited all of the water providers in the area to a
general meeting in the City of Tualatin. At this meeting, elected officials and senior staff
discussed his concept in general terms, in order to determine their level of potential interest.
Observing members of the public were given an opportunity to address the group.
A second general meeting was held at the City of Gresham in June 2001 to explore the concept
further and to determine a plan for moving forward. Again, public input was taken. At the
conclusion of this meeting, entities interested in participating in exploration of the concept were
asked to identify themselves by letter. In their responses to Commissioner Sten, each of the
agencies identified key issues of interest to them. These letters of interest are included in this
report as Appendix 4. Participants would be asked to help fund the first phase of the exploratory
effort. Subsequent to this meeting, a body of managers representing participating agencies met
to move forward.
In order to accomplish the exploratory tasks of this initiative, each participating entity appointed
a senior manager to represent its interests and concerns. This group of managers has guided the
process through this first phase. The participants are:
City of Beaverton David Winship
Clackamas River Water Dale Jutila
Clean Water Services Bill Gaffi
City of Gresham David Rouse
City of Hillsboro Joc Thompson
METRO Michael Morrissey
City of Portland Mark Knudson
Powell Valley Road Water District Tom Pokorny
Rockwood Water Harvey Barnes
Sunrise Water Authority John Thomas
City of Tigard Ed Wegner
City of Tualatin Mike McKillip
Tualatin Valley Water District Greg DiLoreto
West Slope Water District Jerry Arnold
Through a contract managed by the Tualatin Valley Water District, the group retained Ed Tenny
of HDR Engineering, Inc. as a consultant to coordinate and facilitate the process. The City of
Portland contracted with Jeanne LeJeune of Jeanne LeJeune Consulting to support the process as
well. Staff members and attorneys for participants made substantial contributions in terms of
research and insight.
t t Jeanne j.e jeane Can3alting
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
The managers took an orderly analytical approach to the issues. These were the steps in that
process:
1. Clarify the objective and assignment.
2. Identify criteria that would be important to a positive outcome.
3. Identify and review examples of other regional entities
4. Create conceptual scenarios for possible outcomes
5. Compare these scenarios to the identified criteria
6. Receive and consider public input
7. Report to their elected officials on findings
8. Offer recommendations if appropriate
The managers met on a weekly basis from August through December 2001. A workshop for the
public wrts conducted at METRO in October 2001, to outline the work to date and to take input.
A similar workshop for elected officials was held at METRO in November 2001, where public
input was also taken.
In order to assess the solutions that other communities have used to meet similar challenges, we
identified and investigated a number of regional water entities in the U.S. and Canada. Two
methods were used to identify potential subjects of this investigation: (1) soliciting names of
entities from the staff of participating agencies and the consultants to this process; (2) a review
of utility websites linked to the website of the American Water Works Association to identify
those that suggested that it was the result of a cooperative venture or merger. The entities thus
identified were contacted by phone and email to obtain information that was not available on
their websites. In most cases, underlying legal agreements and legislation were obtained. This
investigation provided a general sense of the concepts and approaches used by others to address
issues similar to our own. This investigation was not designed to provide details on each entity.
The first phase of this process was not designed to provide answers or conclusions. The task was
more modest and could be summed up as follows:
- Determine whether a scenario can be found that would meet the key criteria established in
response to Commissioner Sten's initiative. In order to merit further consideration, such a
scenario would need to have the potential support of a critical mass of participants in the
region. Identify fatal flaws in possible scenarios and determine which, if any, scenarios
would clearly fail to earn sufficient support. Report these findings to elected officials by the
end of 2001, in order that they may consider further steps.
12 Jeanne J.p Jeune Gowaf ing
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
The managers spent a great deal of its time discussing criteria that should be applied to various
scenarios in order to determine their viability. The group felt that the criteria would, in fact, be
the key guidelines for any further work under this initiative. After extensive review and some
discussion, the group decided on seventeen important criteria that should be kept in mind as
alternatives are considered.
It is important that the reader keep the intentions of the group in mind when considering these
criteria. The group did not intend to convey the idea that any successful new arrangement must
fulfill all of these criteria. Rather, these criteria were designed to provide guidelines with regard
to desirability and importance of certain potential features or characteristics. Some criteria are
extremely important to a few members of the group but relatively less important to others. A
few were critical to all participants. In short, these criteria are intended to be guidelines, not
requirements and there was no consensus among the managers with regard to the importance or
relative weight of the criteria.
Further, the group has assumed from the outset that it was unlikely that a scenario could be found
that would be attractive to all participants. Our task has been to determine if there is a scenario
(or scenarios) that are sufficiently appealing to a critical mass of participants to warrant moving
forward.
1. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will have responsibility to provide
all water supply and transmission to its members.
This criterion proved to be controversial from the outset, within the managers' group, among
elected officials responding at the November 2001 workshop, and among some members of
the public. A majority of the managers felt that it would be crucial in an entity managing
multiple sources of supply and involving joint ownership. Some felt that it would prohibit
the further participation of their agencies.
The majority of the managers felt that it was essential to have members of a new entity
purchase all of their water through the new entity for three specific reasons:
A. Sufficient predictable water supply revenue would be necessary to make the
agency cost-effective and to avoid redundant capital investments. The average
cost of water for all participants could be less if all water supplies were obtained
from the entity.
B. If members of the new entity took only some of their water through the entity,
they would be likely to peak off of the entity's supply, making the water too
expensive to remain viable and creating a subsidy of peak users by base load
users.
C. Planning for future supply needs would be made very difficult by what could
amount to the creation of a "market" in wholesale water sales, making it very
difficult to predict long term demand on a given supply.
13 Jeanne Le Jeune Consulting
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
An important nuance should be noted in this criterion. The intention is that participating
entities would buy all of their water through the entity but this does not mean that all water
would have to come from that entity's own sources only. In other words, the entity itself
could have the capability of purchasing water from other sources as desirable, making it
available to its members. The. distinction from today's practice would amount to a group of
water providers (those making up the new entity) buying water from other sources of supply
under one contract instead of several. Some feedback on this criterion indicated a
misunderstanding to the effect that a requirement to purchase all water from the entity would
mean that no other sources could be utilized.
A substantial amount of comment from members of the public was received on this criterion.
Much of this comment emphasized the desirability of an agency that would utilize only Bull
Run water. Others added that exploration of future supply alternatives such as Aquifer
Storage & Recovery (ASR) would be desirable. Some asked if an individual participating
member in the new entity could exclude a specific water source from the supply reaching its
user°.
i
The majority of the managers felt that the criterion is an important one if a new entity is to be
viable but it is a criterion that should not be understood as limiting sources of supply. The
question of desirability of certain supplies over others, while important, is not an integral
aspect of the criterion.
2. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will develop and protect sources
in the region that meet quality standards and quantity requirements
established by its members.
The intent of this criterion is to assert that the agency's governing body would establish these
standards and requirements, rather than having them imposed by other bodies. Obviously,
such standards would need, at a minimum, to achieve standards established by State and
Federal law. However, nothing would prevent this entity from establishing and maintaining
standards higher that those mandated by law, as is currently the case in several instances in
the region. The managers felt it was important to make the point that standards and
requirements would not be established by individual member agencies or by other entities.
The entity would do its own supply planning, as part of the overall Regional Water
Providers' Consortium process.
Public comment received on this criterion was essentially limited to suggestions that the
region's sources should be prioritized and that the Willamette and Columbia Rivers should
not be used as sources for any new water supply agency.
to 1eanne'I-e Ieune Con6alting
e
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
3. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will have a reliable supply of
water to meet current and future needs, with backup supplies to meet
seasonal or emergency needs.
Best management practices for water utilities definitely indicate the need for backup and
emergency supplies as an alternative to the primary source(s). Ideally, such supplies should
be unlikely to be exposed to the same risks and outages as the primary source(s). This
criterion was adopted simply as an assertion that this basic water supply function should be a
part of any new entity's mandate.
The only public comments received on this criterion were to the effect that Aquifer Storage
& Recovery could be a sound backup or emergency supply. Throughout the public input,
there are remarks to the effect that water conservation should be a more active part of the
supply plan in order to minimize reliance on backup supplies. In Oregon, aggressive water
conservation planning is a specific part of "best management practices" for water utilities.
Where the managers have indicated the need for best management practices, it is with the
understanding that aggressive water conservation programs are an integral part of utility
management.
4. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will plan for and build capital
improvements to meet all supply and transmission needs of its members.
The background understanding of this criterion includes recognition that capital investments
in the region's water supply, transmission, storage, and distribution systems will be necessary
no matter how the region organizes itself to meet these needs. We feel that a key goal of the
new agency should be to make future capital investment by the region as cost-effective as
possible. A broad ratepayer base combined with common planning and investment can
control capital costs best, thereby reducing costs to the individual consumer. This criterion
intends to make clear that capital investment in the water supply system should be by the
agency itself, not by constituent members individually.
Public comment on this criterion was limited to issues regarding who should make decisions
about source expansion and development. Some specific recommendations were offered to
the effect that source development should be specific to expansion of the Bull Run supply,
including a third dam in the Bull Run watershed and that the new agency's responsibility
should extend only to Powell Butte. Another comment received from the public was to the
effect that there should be no third dam constructed in the Bull Run watershed.
5. Members will assign their water rights and supply and transmission facilities to
the Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency.
This criterion proved to be very controversial among all parties. The key to understanding
the intent of this criterion is the word "assign. " Initially, this criterion was drafted to say that
members should "transfer all their water rights and supply and transmission facilities..." The
word "transfer" was changed to "assign" in response to public input as well as to concerns
among some managers.
fal 15 Jeanne Le jeune Con.3ulting
P
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
The intent of the criterion is to assert that the inability of any new regional water agency to
provide the benefits desired would be severely limited if it did not even control its sources
and means of supply. However, the managers did not intend to limit the means of this
necessary control to ownership transfers of water rights or, necessarily, of facilities. While
transfers of ownership might be one effective option, it appeared that relatively few
participants would be willing to give up ownership, at least for now.
Public input focused on the sense that participating governments should retain their water
rights and their assets. There was also a good deal of discussion among the managers and
some input from the public with regard to distribution systems. Some participating entities
have an interest in combining distribution systems and other assets while others are interested
in supply and transmission facilities only. The staff criterion is based on the assumption that
the bedrock reason for being of a new regional agency would require effective management
control, if not ownership, of supply, transmission, and supply storage components. However,
the issue of distribution systems and other assets is not crucial to this criterion and could be
considered elsewhere as an optional element.
A second element of concern that arose in discussion of this criterion is the question of
compensation to member utilities for assets that might be transferred to a new entity. Public
comment specifically suggested that City of Portland ratepayers should be compensated for
the existing and potential supply assets in the Bull Run watershed. This is a complex and
controversial issue that needs to be addressed only when and if asset transfer is envisioned.
6. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be responsible for meeting
State and Federal water quality standards at the point of delivery to its
members.
This criterion is intended to assert that a new regional agency would assume responsibility
for meeting applicable standards at, but not beyond, the point at which its member agencies
assumed control of the water in their own distribution systems. So tong as distribution
systems themselves were not under the management and control of the agency, it would not
be responsible for compliance beyond its point of delivery. No public comment was received
on this topic.
~T~ 16 jecmne j.e jeune Condoning
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
7. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency may contract for the sale of
water to non-member agencies.
The managers adopted this criterion with several thoughts in mind:
It is unlikely that all water service providers in the Region would choose to enter into
any new agency.
Some entities that would not be part of a new agency would have a continuing need to
purchase water in order to meet their customers' demands.
Continuing to make water available to such providers from major sources is essential
to the Region's well being.
Wholesaling water will help a new agency manage its rate and debts more effectively,
through spreading its costs over a broader base and through the planning tool of long
term sales agreements.
Some input was received from citizens suggesting that the public should have a right to vote
on agreements to wholesale water or to purchase wholesale water in a given area.
8. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will have the authority to modify
its responsibilities and services as agreed to by the members.
If a new agency were to become an ongoing, functionality utility it would need flexibility to
modify its mission and scope as circumstances evolve. Some potential members of a new
agency expressed interest in combining functions other than simply supply and transmission
in the future. This criterion was not intended to assure or outline future changes in mission
but simply to accommodate the potential for such changes, should they emerge. As the
criterion is written, any such changes would require the approval of the members.
To a certain extent, this criterion recognizes the complex, changing definition of water
utility's responsibilities. Only a few years ago, the idea that such an agency would be
responsible for supporting fish habitat, for efficient plumbing fixtures in support of
conservation, or for contributing to the quality of receiving waters in the Region would have
been out of the question. Today, this gradual broadening of responsibilities in recognition of
the broad ecological impact of water resource development and use is commonplace. We
expect changes in the definition of a water utility's mission to continue and with these
changes, necessary modifications in the ways that utilities work.
i
1
17 Jeanne J.e Jeane Candalti"
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
9. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be created under Oregon
law to have the gull and usual municipal powers provided under Oregon law,
including but not limited to the ability to set rates and charges, collect
revenues, issue debt, hire staff, and enter into agreements.
This criterion is intended to indicate that a new agency should be a true, functioning utility
operation and not simply a committee of participants. It is also designed to assure citizens
that a new agency should not be designed to be insulated from public involvement and input
any more than any other Oregon governing agency.
The only public comment received on this criterion was to the effect that a new agency
should have the ability to expand its authority to utilize the State constitution provision to
generate power and use the financing mechanisms from Article 11, Section D of the State
Constitution.
10. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be created under existing
Oregon law.
The managers felt that it would be faster, easier, and least expensive if the outcome of this
process were an entity that could be created without the need for new legislation. Oregon
law offers a number of governance alternatives. No single alternative is likely to meet all
criteria perfectly. Our first effort should be to find ways to make existing alternatives work.
New legislation should not be absolutely ruled out as an approach, but should be utilized only
if existing vehicles cannot be made to meet our needs. No public input was received on this
criterion.
11.The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will make the most efficient and
effective use of water sources to meet the needs of its members, consistent
with sustainable development, best management practices, and integrated
resource management strategies.
This criterion is related to three related issues: (1) making the most efficient and effective
use of water; (2) sustainable development; (3) integrated resource management.
Making the most efficient and effective use of water sources is, of course, one of the primary
reasons for initiating this investigation in the first place. An outcome that did not achieve
+ gains in this arena would hardly be worth pursuing. Therefore, it is a bedrock criterion for
moving forward.
a
i
The concern for sustainable development as an approach to managing a water utility
recognizes the extent to which water utilities are now classed among the many users of our
water resources and can no longer set aside dedicated supplies for their exclusive use.
Therefore, resources must be managed in a way that sustains their productivity and quality
for all users into the indefinite future.
1UR 18 jecunne J.e jeune Gon~ufti»g
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
Integrated resource management is really a reference to management strategies designed to
take into consideration all the demands on water resources and to manage them in a way that
supports sustainable development.
With regard to this criterion, the managers' group discussed the importance of requiring a
new agency to work closely with watershed councils and other bodies engaged in resource
management.
As noted above, "best management practices" for water utilities is an umbrella term for a
series of management practices including strong water conservation. A great deal of progress
has been made in the Portland Region in water conservation in recent years. This was one of
the first areas outside the and Southwest to consider conservation as a source alternative in
water resource planning, rather than as simply a management tool. Clearly, this criterion
implies that this emphasis would continue and be strengthened over time.
A few public comments were taken under the heading of this criterion. Some citizens said
they agreed with this criterion. One person suggested that logging should be banned in the
Bull Run watershed. Others said that there should be no clear cutting in watersheds.
12. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be an enterprise utility,
obtaining its revenues from rates, charges, and issuance of debt related to
the sale and delivery of water.
This criterion was adopted in order to reassure everyone involved that a new agency, as
envisioned, would not be a general taxing agency and would be required to operate from its
own revenue sources, in traditional enterprise utility manner. The manner in which such an
agency might be organized under law would have a bearing on the manner in which it
would raise revenues and set rates and charges. However, these variations under different
governance forms were felt to be issues that would require research and legal advice, but
not likely to constitute fatal flaws in the concept.
Some public input was received on this criterion. Some suggestions were made that the
agency should generate electrical power and sell it to raise revenues and offset water rates.
Others thought that each participating city or district should set its own customers rates.
Still others suggested that all members should be "created equal" and pay the same rate for
water regardless of geography and cost of delivery.
13. Each member will have representation of the board of the Regional Drinking
Water Supply Agency.
The details of governance for a new agency of the kind discussed here remain to be
researched and outlined in specific detail. The managers felt that a bedrock issue was the
need for each participating entity to have representation in some appropriate and effective
form. The implications, issues, and possibilities within this broad requirement were
discussed extensively but could not be resolved pending further legal research and input
Fal 19 Jeanne J.e Jeune Gondedting
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
from elected officials. The broad issues involved are discussed further elsewhere in this
report.
Several key questions would have to be answered before one could move forward on this
idea, including:
Should the governing body of such an agency be elected or appointed?
If appointed, should the appointees be elected officials or not? Does it matter?
If elected, should election occur at large or by district?
If elected, should votes be weighted in some fashion? If so, by what criteria?
Number of customers? Assets contributed? Water consumed?
How many members should such a board have? One or more for each entity? One or
more per consumer? A smaller number, in a representative structure?
These are the classic questions involved in creating governance alternatives and would
require resolution. The managers felt that it was appropriate, if this process moves into an
implementation study phase, to create an outline of the functional organization first and
then to consider governance issues, attempting to match the latter to the former as well as
possible.
Some citizens said they felt that the agency's board should be made up of elected officials
from the entities they represent. Others felt that a regional agency board should be elected.
Still others felt that a board should be elected by districts. There was one suggestion that
each member organization should have representation in the form of an appointed
representative but there should be at-large board members as well. One person suggested
that the board of such an agency should include a public official representing all water
suppliers in the region, not simply those participating in the agency. The broad range of
citizen comment reflects the range of possible models.
14. Individual customers receiving water from the Regional Drinking Water
Supply Agency will have direct access to the agency's Board of Directors
and to the elected public officials of the members.
This criterion was added by the managers in response to public comments at the October
18, 2001 public workshop. The public concern was that an agency board might be
insulated and isolated from the public and that the public might not have easy access to the
board. One person even expressed a fear that an agency board could make decisions in
private, without being subject to open meetings' laws. The essential point of this criterion
is to assure the public that the managers envision a governance body and system subject to
the same public input and involvement as other governing bodies in Oregon.
20 Jeanne J.e Jeane Gamalting
r
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
15. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency is intended to be organized
and operated to minimize duplication or inefficiency resulting from
separate supply ownership and management of supplies.
This is among the basic reasons for considering a regional agency in the first place. To put
it simply, this criterion reflects the view that a new agency would have to be more efficient
and/or effective than the existing arrangements in order to justify consideration.
Obviously, a world of operational and organizational details would necessarily be
identified, considered, and resolved before one could be sure that this criterion would likely
be fulfilled. This work would be reflected in the scope of further work within this process.
Only two public comments were received regarding this criterion. One was to the effect
that "bigger does not always mean better." The other observed that despite a tendency to
preserve each district and its own jobs, the number of jobs should be reduced and
everything would be more efficient.
16. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will participate in the programs
and activities within the watersheds of its sources.
This criterion confirms that a new agency would be a cooperative participant in resource
management, along with watershed councils and other responsible bodies. The criterion
places focus on the multiple use concept at the broad watershed level. There were a few
positive responses to this criterion in general but no specific public input.
17. Creation of a new Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will not result in
increased overall costs for water by virtue of combining infrastructure and
operations.
The managers' group recognizes that expansion and improvement of services, increased
regulation, increased participation in environmental programs and other factors will
increase the cost of water services over time. Creation of a new agency will not make that
fact go away. To be viable, however, a new agency should provide the likelihood of
minimizing the impact of these inevitable cost increases through greater efficiency;
increased effectiveness; design and implementation of more effective, regional
conservation plans; a broader rate base; and regional planning to reduce redundancy and
duplicative investment.
This concludes a summary of the seventeen criteria adopted by a majority of the managers
working on this project. In addition to comments summarized under each criterion above,
these are some additional comments received from the public with regard to criteria:
. The agency should have effective public and/or regulatory oversight to protect the
broad array of ratepayer interests.
The agency meetings should be open to the public. At the very least, minutes of
closed meetings should be provided.
21 Jeanne Jde Jetme Cvnmulting
s
Illigg
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
The agency should pursue a diversified portfolio of supply sources and demand
management.
40 How would this agency be approved? Through inter-agency agreement or by a vote
of the people?
Is a new agency really necessary? Should Portland just re-negotiate wholesale
contracts before considering a new agency?
. Couldn't existing Clackamas, Trask/Tualatin, and Bull Run systems be made more
efficient now, with more interties provided for emergency supplies, instead of
creating a new agency?
. There was a question as to why Clark County was not included in the discussions and
invited to consider membership.
. There was a question as to whether creation of a regional agency was a prelude to
privatization.
There was a suggestion that a regional system should be created with an elected board
based on regions or population. We should begin by identifying common goals.
Suggested common goals were source protection, equal rates, citizen input to elected
representatives.
One person asked that the managers' group take a position on each of the policy
positions of the National Sierra Club on water.
Information on all the public comments and notes from the public meetings of May, June,
October and November can be found in Appendix 5.
22
Jeanne J..e jeune Gar~cslt;ng
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
The attachments to this report include information on a number of alternative governance models
in the U.S. and Canada. These details were gathered by staff and are intended to provide a
conceptual representation of the solutions that other jurisdictions have adopted to resolve
governance issues. This research has not been exhaustive in detail and every nuance of these
examples may not be complete. However, the range of alternatives identified, both in Oregon
and around North America, illustrates several points about the governance issue:
No two solutions are exactly alike. Governance alternatives must inevitably be tailored to
local history, circumstances, and attitudes.
Most of the governance models adopted elsewhere could be accomplished under existing
Oregon law.
The range of solutions to regional water issues around the country is very broad and many
solutions that seem to work elsewhere would not be likely to meet our criteria.
The managers have no doubt that governance solutions can be devised that will meet the
needs of the participants, if elected officials provide the will to make a new agency
succeed.
Most of the cooperative or combined entities we have reviewed were formed under some
significant pressure. This pressure came in many forms, including water shortages; legislative
pressure to rationalize operations; rapid population and demand growth; conflict over source
development; dramatic increases in rates; and, most often, combinations of these factors. The
largest entity of this kind in Oregon, Clean Water Services (formerly Unified Sewerage Agency),
was formed in large part due to an order of the Environmental Quality Commission that no
permits for new construction could be issued until Washington County resolved pressing sewer-
related pollution problems.
Most of the cooperative entities we looked at provide water supply, treatment, and transmission
services. The water providers that created the new entities have most often continued in
existence as water distributors, buying their supplies from the new entity. In some cases, new
entities have taken over all operations and the creating entities were dissolved.
Almost all of the cooperative entities are required to meet all of the water needs of their members
and all members are, in turn, are required to buy all their water through the entity. The goal of
these commitments is to create a new entity with real, lasting authority to address the issues that
led to its creation. Interviews show that cooperative entities in which parties were allowed to
decide on a case-by-case basis whether to participate in new source development or creation of
infrastructure, or could go elsewhere for water, undercut the ability of the entity to meet its
mission to fashion regional solutions to the problems they face. Nearly all of these entities have
provisions for withdrawal by members, but withdrawal is difficult; this characteristic is
deliberately designed to promote predictability and stability.
FOR 23 Jeanne J.e Jeane Gowalting
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
Most of the regional entities we reviewed have very broad municipal powers. As a rule, they can
plan, hire, fire, contract, build infrastructure, buy and sell water, sell bonds and debt, hold water
rights, and generally perform the functions of a government agency and water utility.
In most cases, boards governing the entities we investigated are appointed. In most cases, the
governing bodies of the participating organizations appointed board members. A few have
directly elected boards. In some cases, these appointees are utility managers, in others they are
elected officials from participating governments. The question of whether appointed board
members should be elected officials or not is most often specified in the documents creating the
agency. Several entities indicated that this organizational structure of elected member boards
appointing members of the agency's governing board is designed to provide accountability to
voters and reinforce the role of the members at the same time.
Some appointed governing boards have one board member from each member agency, each with
one equal vote. In other cases, voting is weighted based on population, capital contribution,
assesses: ✓aluation or a combination of these factors. In instances of weighted representation, it
is common to have multiple representatives on the board so multiple votes are not concentrated
in one individual. In a single instance from our sample, unanimity is required for all board
decisions. In a very few other cases, certain major capital projects require more than majority
approval or have a higher quorum requirement than other votes.
Most boards have fewer than ten members but their size ranges upward to thirty or more.
In most instances we examined, new entities usually involve the transfer of assets from members
to the new entity. In some cases, these assets were exchanged without cost and in other cases
they were sold. In the case of assets transferred without consideration, it was maintained that,
since all involved entities were public agencies representing the same ratepayers, it was not
appropriate to impose charges on the new entity and create new debt. When assets were
exchanged for consideration, it was maintained that a particular group of citizens should be
reimbursed for their previous investments.
A summary of governance alternatives reviewed in Oregon and around the nation is attached to
this report in Appendix 5. More detailed information on four agencies thought to be of particular
interest for the Portland effort is also included in Appendix 6. These four are Tampa Bay Water,
San Diego County Water Authority, Greater Vancouver Regional District, and Tarrant (TX)
Regional Water District.
In Oregon, the staff identified five potential governance alternatives for consideration:
Intergovernmental Agreements (Chapter 190)
Peoples' Utility Districts (Chapter 261)
Water Districts (Chapter 264)
Regional Service Districts (Chapter 268, ORS)
Water Authorities (Chapter 450)
24 Jeanne Le Jeune Cntsatting
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Repott
These five alternatives offer a widely varying ability to fulfill the criteria outlined above. Each
has its own political resonance in the Portland regional context, as well. No single governance
alternative clearly achieves all of the criteria we have outlined.
The managers' group reviewed information on entities around the country and in Oregon. It
reviewed summary, preliminary information on the five alternative governance models provided
by attorneys for several of the participants. In essence, the group used a process of elimination
approach to arrive at its conclusions and recommendation. In the Recommendations section of
this report, the managers suggest that a regional agency that could coordinate management and
development of all the major water sources in the region should be our region's long-term
objective. The managers recommend a specific first step to create a new agency under ORS 190
to manage and develop the Bull Run and Columbia South Shore Wellfield supplies. Even if this
Intergovernmental Organization approach for Portland's existing supplies were the final product
of this effort, it would be worth undertaking. Some of the reasons for identifying this first step
option are:
The Region already has a Regional Service District (RSD) in METRO, which carries out
a variety of regional activities and service under a variety of management structures. If
this alternative were desired, it would probably be more efficient and effective to place
water supply operations under METRO than to create a new RSD. The managers found
little support for this approach among elected officials or the public.
A PUD under Chapter 261 could achieve many of the goals outlined by our criteria.
However, it is inconsistent with PUD concepts to operate a utility operation without
actually owning the assets involved. It would be difficult if not impossible to assure
representation of the establishing agencies on a PUD board. Establishing a PUD would
require creating another elected body in the region. Most managers felt that a PUD had
reasonable potential for achieving the criteria, but was politically more difficult to
achieve than an ORS 190 Intergovernmental Agreement. In part, this is simply because
Oregonians are more accustomed to 190 arrangements. There are only three water PUDs
in Oregon.
Creation of a new water district under ORS Chapter 264 was rejected as an alternative
because it would be subject to withdrawals of customer base by cities in the Region, thus
bringing its long-term stability into question. Moreover, a District could not assure
representation of each participating agency on the Board.
A Water Authority under ORS 450 could meet a number of the key criteria identified but
suffers from shortcomings identical to those of a PUD.
25 Jeanne 1.e Jeune Consulting
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
An ORS 190 Intergovernmental Agreement approach has strengths and weaknesses, which are
addressed briefly, in the Recommendations section of this report. For purposes of this general
discussion, a few broad advantages recommend this model to the managers:
1. It is a familiar form to Oregonians which people understand and can work with;
2. It has great flexibility in the law and can be adapted by the terms of intergovernmental
agreements to achieve more of our criteria than any other option.
3. It is relatively easy to make changes in ORS 190 agreements over time, as circumstances
change and/or new members decide to join the entity.
4. An ORS 190 organization structure allows the creating agencies to have direct input and
participation in the management of the agency.
i
26 Deanne J~e Jectne Gondtdting
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
° COMMON ® ® ® 1511,
GO 0
After consideration of all the issues touched upon in this brief summary report, and considering
the comments received from the public and from elected officials during this process, the water
managers charged with investigation reached several conclusions:
There is no likely scenario for change in the regional structure of water services that will
serve the needs of all the agencies involved. Any further steps would need to be
undertaken by and for those agencies that perceive a common interest in pursuing a given
scenario.
The professional judgment of the water managers group is that a new regional agency to
manage and develop all of the major sources of water in the Portland area would be
highly desirable. Such a move would make water supply and service more efficient and
cost-effective. It would have substantial benefits to the environment and would represent
good public policy. However, the managers recognize that it may not be feasible to step
directly from the status quo to a full, multi-source regional agency.
There is substantial interest among some agencies in pursuing an ORS 190 arrangement
that would achieve many of the criteria outlined above for those agencies and could be a
stepping stone to further regionalization in the future, should that be desired.
There is the potential among these interested agencies to create sufficient critical mass to
enable a new agency to move forward successfully.
: Detailed analysis and review will be necessary to flesh out any possible scenario to the
point that interested agencies could make final decisions on proceeding. "Front end"
commitments to a final outcome would be unrealistic to expect until more details can be
developed and understood.
Given these basic conclusions, the managers see the potential for progress toward a new entity
along these general lines:
1. Governance
Interested parties would form the new agency under ORS 190 through intergovernmental
agreements. In order to achieve the key criteria outlined above, the agreements would
need to be drawn to give the new agency the maximum operational and governance
independence consistent with the intergovernmental nature of the arrangement.
An ORS 190 organization could leave assets, including water sources, under current
ownership but could make their operational use subject to joint management and control.
It would provide for representation by all the creating entities. By appointing elected
officials from the creating entities to the new board, a direct connection to the public
elective process could be maintained.
27 Jeanne J.e Jectne Gondedti"
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report
It will be necessary, if we proceed, to do more research on the limitations and potential of
an ORS 190 organization to operate independently. The means by which such an entity
could finance capital improvements, for example, must be clarified. We have not asked our
attorneys to proceed to this level of investigation without a mandate to move forward in
this process.
2. Water Sources
The recommendation is that the sources for consideration under this new ORS 190
organization would be the Bull Run River and the Portland Wellfield. While major
improvements in cost, effectiveness, and environmental management could be achieved by
including more sources, this does not appear to be politically viable at this time.
The recommendation is that participating entities would not be required to obtain all of
their water through the new agency but would be required to establish firm purchase
commitments in order to provide for fiscal stability and sound planning. These purchase
commitments are envisioned to follow the model of "nomination of supply" that has been
extensively discussed in Portland contract negotiations with its wholesale customers.
Under this concept, members request an amount of water to be delivered from the agency
over a given period. The agency balances the total of these requests and rationalizes them.
Each participant is then provided with an assurance of receiving supply that will not fall
below the floor of his or her nominated amount.
3. Services
Core services would be supply, treatment, and transmission of Bull Run and South Shore
Wellfield water to member agencies and to wholesale purchasers. Flexibility would be
included to allow member agencies to place other functional aspects of their water utility
operations within the new agency, if desired. Such aspects might include laboratories,
operations centers, distribution systems, business services, or any o:'per aspect of their
operations that were water-related or ancillary to water services. A "fire wall" could be
created in the structure, we believe, that could isolate costs and benefits of services other
than supply, treatment, and transmission if desired.
28 Jeanne Le jeune Consulting
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report ±
Recommended Next Steps
1. A meeting of elected officials and managers on January 24, 2002. The purpose of this
meeting will be to gather the response and input of elected officials. Each participating
entity would be asked to indicate whether or not they intend to continue with the effort to
create a new entity along the lines recommended in this report.
2. Those entities wishing to proceed would enter into an agreement to move into a detailed
planning phase of this process. Each would contribute toward the budget for that effort.
The first task would be to develop a detailed work plan for research, analysis, documents,
and other efforts needed to enable creation of the new organization.
The water managers group has found this exploratory work to be important and suggestive of
ways in which our region can begin to move toward improvements in water service for the
future. We hope that this work will be useful as the elected officials of our region consider the
alternatives before us.
29 jwnne I e jetwe Camulting
S4ctd
AGENDA ITEM # f2,55i D rl
FOR AGENDA OF December 18, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Quarterly Meeting with Budget Committee
PREPARED BY: Craig Prosser DEPT HEAD OK _CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Quarterly meeting with City Budget Committee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
No action required. Information update.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Quarterly meeting with Budget Committee. Staff will present a verbal update on the following topics:
Five-year Financial Projections
FY 2002-03 Budget Process
New Library Construction status
Bull Mt. Annexation Study status
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
NA
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
NA
ATTACHMENT LIST
None
FISCAL NOTES
NA
r2/ ~~(ol
raft F und
City of Tigard
FY 2002-07 Financial Plan
General Fund
Projected Ending Fund Balances
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000 - -
$4,000,000 - - - - - I
i
$2,000,000 -
FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 - 5 6 7
j
($2,000,000) - - - - - - - -
($4,000,000) - - - - - - -
I
~ ($6.000,000) -
i
($8,000,000) -
I
($10.000,000)
j p Ending Fund Balance j
1
Dj?4
T
DUV401OKUMUnt Funds
I
City of Tigard
FY 2002-07 Financial Plan
Development Funds
Projected Ending Fund Balances
$4,000,000
$3,000,000 - - -
I
I
$2.000.000 - - - -
$1,000.000 - - - -
I
$0 - - - -
FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 4 5 6 7
($1.000.000) - - - -
($2.000.000) - - - - - - - - - -
($3,000,000)
® Electrical Inspection a Building 0 Urban Services
2
L)RAFT
1:uods
.4r;.
. of Tigard 1
Gity Financial Plan 1
2002-07 d
~Y d n9 Fund Balances _ -
P.oad -Projected ~ _ - - - - ,
$9,000,000
$~,ooo,ooo - - $7,000,000
-
$6,0 - - _ 1
$5,000.000 - - '
p00 000 - - 7 1
$3.p00,000 - ~f - : p5-06
F-Y pA-05
$2 000 000 F`r 03-04
02- 3 -
$1,000.000 r' Fy01-OZ _ - _US. r-ee $0 99-00 --t FeA ❑ T~~ ImP _ _
~$1 ,000,0001 - CourtY Gas Tax Q~-- _ _
Tax ■ - . -
`52 Opp 0001 fl grate Gas.
3
I
Water Funds DRAFr
- - '.;..n-=~,c~ -r?~z°4z?'..VY?`~'z€4'S;`'x.~L' ~i:>s3s.~~.'°rit•• *~lt,'~:-,z.st.{-.sr+C s. .J..- -
City of Tigard
FY 2002-07 Financial Plan
Water Funds
Projected Ending Fund Balances
$25,000,000
$20,000.000
$15,000,000 - - - -
$10,000,000 - - -
$5,000,000 - - - - - -
$0
FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07
0 Water ® Water SDC O Water CIP
4
i
ISO
DRAN-
wmds
bewer FU" et
ZyA.•yl'fYN'C,++4sT+` - ~?~=C~i±C~fi.
City of Tigard
FY 2002-07 Financial Plan
sewer Funds
Projected Ending Fund Balances
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000A00 - -
i
1 $4,000,000
f, $2.000,000
FY 05-06 FY 06-07
$0 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05
FY 99-00 FY 00-01
p Sanitary m storm 13 Water Quality/Quantity - - -
5
~a off
Halo,
FY 2002-03
City of Tigard
Budget Calendar
® February 1, 2002
• Budget requests and revenue due to Finance
• Social Services/Arts/Events funding requests due.
IN Week of February 25, 2002
• Social Services Subcommittee meets
® May 6, 2002
• Budget Committee begins meeting May 6, 13, 20, (27129?)
® June 18, 2002
• Council adopts budget
TIDE BULL MOUNTAIN
AiNNEXATION STUDY
h~A
M wk
CITY OF TIGrARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LONG-RANGE PLANNING
NOVEMBER 2001
THE BULL MOUNTAIN
ANNEXATION STUDY
PRODUCED BY:
THE CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DIREGToR, JAMES N.P. HENDRYx
LONG-RANGE PLANNING
BARBARA SHIELDS, LONGRANGE PLANNING MANAGER
JULIA HAJDUK, AssoCIATE PLANNER
JOEL GROVES, GIS SPECIALIST
BETH ST. AMAND, ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER
JODI BUC:f IANAN, INTERN
NOVEMBER 27, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SW HALL BLVD.
TIGARD, OR 97223
503/639-4171
TIDE BULL MOUNTAIN
.ANNEXATION STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION P. 1
1. STUDY AREA PROFILE P. 2
2. URBAN SERVICES IN THE STUDY AREA P. 6
3. COSTS AND REVENUE OF ANNEXATION
UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS - SCENARIO 1 P. 9
4. COSTS AND REVENUE OF ANNEXATION
LONG TERM CONDITIONS - SCENARIOS 2 AND 3 P. 12
5. ANNEXATION AND TAXATION P. 17
6. CONCLUSIONS AND KEY POLICY ISSUE P. 18
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS BY SUBAREAS
APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF ESTimATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
APPENDIX C. COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS BY FUNDS
APPENDIX D. ANNEXATION AND TAXATION
APPENDIX E. METHODS OF ANNEXATION
APPENDIX F. BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION QUESTION AND ANSWER
PACKET
APPENDIX G: RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE COLLECTION RATES FOR THE BULL
MOUNTAIN STUDY AREA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since adoption of the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan in the mid-1980s, the Bull Mountain area
has been identified as eventually being within the City limits of Tigard. In 1993, the State Legislature
passed Senate Bill 122, which required the coordination and provision of urban services for lands
within the Urban Growth Boundary. In 1997, Tigard and Washington County entered into an urban
services agreement that transferred land development and building permit activity to the City.
The Tigard City Council established a goal for 2001 to establish an annexation policy for non-island
areas, such as Bull Mountain, and directed staff to study the feasibility of annexing the Bull
Mountain area. "The Bull Mountain Annexation Study" is an outcome of Council's direction.
"The Bull Mountain Annexation Study" provides a context for policy issues related to annexation of
Bull Mountain.
Since the demand for services and generated revenue is dependent on the number of people living in
the area, the study examines the costs and revenues of annexation based on growth scenarios. Three
growth scenarios were developed for the purpose of this study: current conditions (Scenario 1),
buildout (Scenario 2) and moderate development (Scenario 3).
A comparative analysis of the three scenarios constitutes the quintessential portion of this study.
Scenario 1 assumes that no future growth occurs in the area and is used as a starting point for a
comparative analysis. Scenario 2 assumes that all buildable land will be developed and built out at
the maximum densities under current land use regulations. Scenario 3 assumes that development will
occur at lower density (50% of the "buildout" growth). While Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 reflect two
extreme conditions for comparison purposes, Scenario 3 provides a conservative estimate of what
could occur in the study area.
A capital improvement funding strategy for roads and parks is the key policy issues in all three
scenarios. The estimated need to provide an adequate level of service for parks and roads is the most
critical aspect in evaluating the Bull Mountain annexation issues. Furthermore, the projected park
and transportation improvement costs exceed the projected revenues in the three scenarios.
This report does not contain a fully developed strategy addressing the funding issues. However, it
does identify the discussion parameters to provide a context for the decision making process. A
possible strategy would consist of a variety of alternatives, as identified in Section 6 of the report:
• Use a portion of the General Fund to address capital improvements.
• Assistance from Washington County to address some or all of the capital improvement needs.
• Form Local Improvement Districts to address specific capital improvement needs, such as parks
and roads.
0 Delay improvement of streets until funding sources are available.
• Obtain grant fundings to address portions of capital improvements.
• Identify the effective sequence of annexing specific sub-areas of Bull Mountain_
The study identifies several alternatives and policy choices for Council's review and discussion over
the next few months. Public outreach must follow. Ultimately, annexation of the Hull Mountain
study area is a policy issue that deserves considerable discussion by the City and those people most
affected.
INTRODUC'T'ION
One of the Tigard City Council Goals is to provide urban services to all citizens within Tigard's
urban growth boundary and that recipients of services pay their share. In March 2001, the Tigard
City Council directed staff to conduct a study of the Bull Mountain area (see map on page 2) to help
Council evaluate policy recommendations related to annexation of the Bull Mountain area. The
purpose of this study is to determine if the City of Tigard should pursue annexation based on an
analysis of annexation's costs and benefits to both the City and current Bull Mountain residents.
In order to be assured this study addressed the concerns of Bull Mountain residents, the City and
Washington County held a Focus Group meeting in July 2001. The Focus Group meeting gave
residents an opportunity to ask questions related to the Bull Mountain area. The meeting was
attended by over 100 people and provided a direct input to the scope of the study. As an outcome
of this effort, two documents were initiated. The first is "The Bull Mountain Annexation Study,"
and the second is the "Bull Mountain Annexation Question and Answer Packet."
The study report is divided into six main sections.
Section 1 provides background and a current profile of the study area in terms of
population, development and zoning.
Section 2 provides information on the levels of urban services provided to study area
residents.
Sections 3 & 4 examine the costs and revenues of annexation based on three growth
scenarios: current conditions, buildout, and moderate development.
Section 5 provides information on how annexation will affect taxation rates for
residents, and how it will affect expenditures and revenues for the City.
Section b summarizes the findings and raises key policy issues for Council to consider.
Appendices A through F provide detailed background information, which was used
in preparing the report and the "Bull Mountain
Annexation Question and Answer Packet."
NOVEMBER 2001 Trm Buu. MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY PAGE 1
1. STUDY AREA PROFILE
The Bull Mountain Study Area consists of approximately 1,440 acres of land located west of the City
of Tigard (see map below) in Washington County, within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The
Study Area abuts Beaverton and Tigard on the north and east, respectively, King City to the
southeast, and unincorporated County land outside the Urban Growth Boundary to the south and
west.
The land in the Study Area is sloped- - -
steeply in some areas-allowing for views Buii~B1/ig,StuiJy o'ea~Vicinity. IV16 {
at higher elevations. Traditionally a
farming area, the last decade brought
x f Portia
additional home developments to the area.g rton~ U'
Today, both farms and subdivisions co-
exist here. Although the identified area is
now outside the City limits, the City of
Tigard provides many urban services to TIg rd
residents. In 1997, the City of Tigard and L } w w
Washington County entered into an Urban
Services Agreement, which transferred
responsibility for land use decisions, ego
Bul! Mt Study Area
building and development-related r -
engineering to the City of Tigard. The
County adopted the City of Tigard i /TLatatin
Community Development Code for the A~k - H.1, _
Bull Mountain area, which applies
standards to any new development in the area!
Currently, approximately 7,300 people live in the Study Area, according to 2000 Census data. There
is no commercial or industrial zoned land in the Study Area. Most of the property is zoned R-7, a
medium density residential zone requiring lots of a minimum of 5,000 square feet. The area consists
of a combination of (1) a mix of larger undeveloped lots, (2) larger lots developed through the
County under different standards, and (3) smaller lots that are built to the minimum density allowed
under the current zoning regulations.
Given the existing development pattern and topography, this study divides the Bull Mountain area
into 4 subareas: North, South, East and West (see map, next page).
Section 2 of this report further discusses current and anticipated service provisions for the Study Area.
NOvEMBER 2001 THE BUI.I. MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY PAGE 2
i
ROU
~ Areas ~
ciw ot'Ciasra u ~F.
,E~a .-~1 ~'Cam- i ~ ~
y
N
0 800 Feet w
E
800 on01 s
North
This subarea is located south of Barrows Road, north of Baker Lane and Roshak Road, east
of the urban growth boundary and west of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
easement line. The North area consists of approximately 383 acres and a population of
2,813: This area has a combination of R-7, R-12 and R-25 zoning; however, all of the
higher-density (R-25) residential lots were developed as single-family home subdivisions.
While there are several larger lots, there are very few redevelopable or vacant lots in this area
due to steep slopes. This area is largely built out with only about 10% of the area identified
as vacant or redevelopable. Based on the household growth rate of 2.2% identified by Metro,
it is estimated that this area will be built out in 4.5 years.
West
The western subarea is bordered on the south and west by the Urban Growth Boundary. It
is bordered on the east by SW 150'' and to the north by Roshak Road and Baker Lane. The
western area consists of approximately 259 acres with 944 people. The majority of the area
has been developed with large lot subdivisions, which are not expected to be divided further.
However, 15.3% of the land in this area is identified as vacant or redevelopable. The zoning
in this area is R-7 (medium density residential). Based on the 2.2% household growth rate
identified by Metro, it is estimated that this area will be built out in 6.9 years.
South
This subarea is generally located west of SW Peachtree, east of SW 150U', north of Beef Bend
Road and south of High Tor Drive. The southern area consists of approximately 507 acres
of land and 3,077 people. The zoning is primarily R-7 (medium density residential) with a
small portion of R-25 (medium-high density residential) to the south between Foxglove #2
subdivision and Beef Bend Heights. Many of the subdivisions were developed with large lots
that are not expected to be divided further, as a result, this area has larger lots with only
limited infill potential. This area has about 10.6% vacant or redevelopable land. Based on
the 2.2% household growth rate identified by Metro, it is estimated that this area will be built
out in 4.8 years.
East
This area is generally located east of the Mountain Gate subdivision, south of Bull Mountain
Road and north of Beef Bend Road. The eastern area consists of approximately 282 acres
with 434 people. This area has most of the Study Area's growth potential, with almost 40
percent of the land identified as vacant or redevelopable. The zoning is R-7, which calls for
a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Based on the 2.2% household growth rate identified
by Metro, it is estimated that this area will be built out in 18 years.
NOVEMBER 2001 THE BUI.L MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY PAGE 4
Table 1, Bull Mountain Study Area Profile
Bull Mountain Study Area Profile
Study Area is 1,440 ac, or 2.25 sq miles, or 62,726,400 square feet`
Total Assessed Acres is 1130 ac or 1.77 sq miles
North West South East Total
Total Acreage 383.8 259 507. 282.31 1432.5
Total Population 2000 Census 2813 944 30771 4341 72681
Median Average Household Size 2.85 3.00 3.0 1.881 2.9
Number of Housing Units 948 331 11061 1601 254
Total Assessed Value Bid and land)* 98 668 803.00 02 772 030.00 261,492,712.001 61 350 130.0 624 283 675.
Median Assessed Value bld and land 174 440.00 215 960.0 239 550. 283 760. 227,75 .00
% Remaining for Development 10.0% 15.3% 10.64 39.9°/ n.
Projected Rate of Population Growth 2.0% 2.0% 2.0°4 2.0%2.0%
Projected Timeline to Reach Buiidou 4.5 years 6.9 years 4.8 years 18 years
' Data from Magic, Sept. 2001, which reflects Wash. Cty. Tax Assessor's records.
Note: Subarea totals do not add up to the overall total due to scale; these are only approximations
This total is less than the 2143 from the overall calcuation; this reflects rounding down
Also, please note that GIS sq R was used, which is not as accurate as surveyor's measurements.
All square footage Is approximated.
1 From Metro's Data Resource Center. 2 Also from Metro. Based on household growth rate for the City of Tigard at 2.2 percent.
The above table provides a general overview of the Bull Mountain area by four subareas.
The following is a summary of the major assumptions and sources, which were utilized in preparing
Table 1:
0 population, housing unit and household data were obtained from Census 2000 information;
0 land data and assessed value information were obtained from the City's MAGIC GIS system,
which uses Washington County Tax Assessor data,
* the growth projections utilize Metro's 2.2 percent growth rate for households or housing units, and
2.0 percent for population.; this rate could vary based on the econonr y and other factors;'
0 "Redevelopable land" refers to partially developed lots; these large lots are not built to minimum
density, and could potentially be subdivided for "infill."
i
i
i
i
i
i
' The City has approved approximately eight subdivisions in this area with approximately 432 lots total. All lots and
infrastructure in these subdivisions were built to City standards. It is not anticipated that growth will continue at this
rate, however. Therefore, for this study, the Metro assumptions of 2% were used to develop future population
forecasts, and 2.2% for future housing units.
NovEMBER 2001 THE BULL. MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY PAGE 5
20 URBAN SERVICES IN THE
STUDY AREA
As stated earlier, although the Study Area lies in unincorporated Washington County, the City of
Tigard already provides some urban services to residents. In 1997, the City of Tigard and
Washington County entered into an Urban Services Agreement, which transferred responsibility for
land use decisions, building and development-related engineering to the City of Tigard. The
remainder of the Study Urea's services are provided by either Washington County or regional service
agencies, such as Clean Water Services, etc. Table 2, next page, identifies each service for the Study
Area, the current provider, and compares the current level of services to the projected level of
services under annexation.
NOVEMBER 2001 THE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY PAGE 6
Table 2: Service Provision in the Bull Mountain Study Area
Police Washington County provides The C!V of Tigard wquld provide Yes
1.0 officers/ 1000 people 1:5 offic&s[1000 people Ttieie,wouldbe
(.5 standard; .5 from Enhanced Patrol) an•ipiErease•of
approximately
.5 officers/1000
people
Fire/Rescue Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue provides Tualatin'Yalley-Fire & Rescue No
services. continues to provide; services.
Parks Washington County does not provide Tigard's Parks'standard'is 7.65 acres is
parks services. for every: l;OOQresidents.;Tl is: The City .
includes Gc6enways; trai4, open provides park
space •ad improved Tarks Until' services:
parks could•tie prgvid'ed ,in 3011
Mountain,,the City ratio would;be
approximately 6.7411'600.
General Road Washington County through the Urban The City's road maintenance Yes
Maintenance Road Maintenance District. General performs'maintenance on regular The•Gity
street maintenance by the County is schedules as.well as on a,.complaint- : provides.
primarily on a complaint-driven basis. dnven;baisisrTypicalfmaintenance additional road
Typical maintenance activities include: activities includemaintenance
services.
• pothole patching 0 pothole patching.
• grading graveled roads • grading gravele.'c7 roads
• cleaning drainage facilities • cleaning drainage facilities
• street sweeping • street sweeping
• mowing roadside grass and brush • mowing roadside'grass and.
(only the shoulder strip) brush (shoulder strip + ditch
• maintaining traffic signals line)
• replacing damaged signs ; e maintaining traf, c sigr}41s
• replacing darnagedsigns
installingan,irepiaciiigstreet
markings
• 'crack sealing
• vegetation rerhoval foi•visiom .
clearance
• street light tree trimming for
'light clearance
• . dust abatement. on graveled
roads
Sanitary Sewer Clean Water Services (CWS) The; City.of Tigaid will meet the No
same level of service-as CWS. All
service levels for CWS and
surrounding jurisdictions must be
uniform by July 2603.
NOVEMBER 2001 THE BU'LI. MOUNTAIN ANNEXAI-ION STUDY PACE 7
Storm Sewer Clean Water Services (CWS) The City of Tigard will meet the No
same level of service as CWS. All
service levels for CWS'and
surrounding jurisdictions must be
uniform by July 2003.
Water Intergovernmental Water Board ;Service remains the same. Tigard No
contracts with the Tigard Water District !,Water-: District will continue to
to provide water. p'rov'ide water butwill bill directly.
Street Light Washington Countyadministers 'Me City of Tigard will assume all Service remains
Maintenance Service Districts for Lighting for PGE. streetlight operations and the•same biit .
Residents pay. an annual operations and. maintenance for existing lights. propertyowners
maintenance assessment. Residents do not pay a separate are not assessed
assessment. for &C
operation of the
lights.
Community The City of Tigard provides building. Tlie City of Tigard will continue to Only-change-iii
Development and services-including land use decisions; provide building services to this area. 'service-is that
Building Services building and engineering-under an the City reviews
intergovernmental agreement with A'll land use decisions will continue legislative
Washington County. to be':reviewed under the City matters.
standard a' ail through the City's
All land use decisions are reviewed Bearing process. The City would be
under the. City standards and through the review authority for legislative
the City's hearing process with the actions as well (zone changes,
exception of legislative actions (zone comprehensive plan amendments,.
changes, Comprehensive Plan etc).' '
amendments, etc.)
Library Washington County Cooperative 'Me City of Tigard, which receives No
Library Services (WCCLS) approximately 62% of its funding
Consortium, which provides funding through `the WCCLS. Bull Mountain
through the county tax to area libraries, residents would have influence' on
including'Tigard. the-library's:services, and'could
.advocate for the services they want. s
Schools Both the Beaverton School District-and -Annexation does not change school No.
the Tigard School District provide district boundaries.
service based on district boundaries.
Garbage Collection Residents'are charged rates.established- The Cit franchises City garbage Service remains
by Washington County for service colleetion; and the Bull Mountain the same, Pout
provided by Pride. Residents pay, the area-would.becomepart of the :rates will.diffef.
fee depending on the size of container franchised area. The service provider . See. Appendix
they use. remains.the same but residents w6n1d ' G for rates.
=lie charged the rates established by,
City. Council based on the size of the
container the use.
NOVEMBER 2001 THE Bum. MOL4NTtuN ANNEXATION STUDY PAGE 8
3e COSTS AND REVENUE OF
ANNEXATION UNDER CURRENT
CONDITIONS - SCENARIO 1
Introduction
The previous section showed how annexation would affect services in the Bull Mountain area;
however, there are additional considerations affecting the City's decision to annex. The City must
also project the study area's demand for services and the cost and revenue of providing those
services.
The following section looks closely at the City's projected revenues and costs to serve the study area
if it were annexed in the near future. For estimation purposes, this scenario (Scenario 1) assumes
that all currently approved subdivision lots will be built with no future growth occurring. While it is
highly unlikely that no further land development will occur, this scenario creates a starting point for
evaluation.
Service Demand
The demand for services in the Study Area is dependent on the number of people living in the Study
Area, and the number of housing units. The area has approximately 7,300 residents living in 2,545
housing units, according to Census 2000 data. As of this date, an additional 164 building lots have
been approved. Assuming that all approved lots are built, it is expected that over 2,700 housing
units and 7,680 people will live in the Study Area, under current conditions.
The major objective of the report is to examine costs and revenues associated with the City services
for the entire area. This provides a solid understanding of the key parameters affecting the area
which will ultimately help in the decision making process.
It should be emphasized that the amount of services required for the study area will also vary by
subareas due to differences in population and development densities. Appendix A provides details
on all four subareas. This information could be used in examining specific strategies for different
subareas.
Based on the projected population and number of housing units, Table 3, next page, contains the
City's expected revenues, operating costs, and capital improvement costs associated with each City
fund for the entire Study Area.
NOVEMBER 2C01 THE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY PAGE 9
Table 3 Projected Revenues and Costs by Funds for Bull Mountain Area
(Scenario 1)
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Balance
Cost
General $2,161,822 1,298,469 $863,353
State Gas Tax $319,081 391,932 ($72,851)
Sanitary Sewer $202,904 $85,597 $117,307
Storm Sewer $97,524 78,188 $19,336
Water $1,767,550 691,659 $1,075,891
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance
Capital Revenues
General $863,353 0 $863,353
State Gas Tax ($72,851) 0 ($72,851)
Sanitary Sewer $394,830 0 $394,830
Storm Sewer $82,000 0 $82,000
Water $1,075,891 $322,854 $753,037
Traffic Impact Fee $370,640 0 $370,640
Parks SDC $268,960 $13,105,000 ($12,836,040)
Water SDC $334,724 0 $334,724
Based on the above table, the following is a summary of issues that need to be addressed in
considering annexation of the Bull h1ountain area:
• with the exception of the State Gas Tax Fund, the operating costs are significantly less than the
respective revenues for all funds;
annexing the study area in the near future would create a significant need for land and park
improvements to meet the City's cut-rent level of services for parks; the projected park
improvement (CIP) costs (Appendix B), exceed the projected revenue (park SDCs)
approximately 49 times;
o water system improvements are needed regardless of annexation. Sufficient revenue is projected
to address capital needs;
NOVEMBER 2001 THE Bum. MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY PAGE 10
® Scenario 1 does not assume one-time capital costs for most funds except for Water and Parks
because the limited growth will not pay for improvements.
Summary: The estimated need to provide an adequate level of service for parks is the most
critical aspect in evaluating the Bull Mountain area annexation in the near future.
Capital "costs for transportation are not assured with this assumption. However,
transportation improvements ultimately will be needed. Scenarios 2 and 3 identify
potential capital needs; however, a certain level of transportation improvements will
also be needed with Scenario 1. Scenario 1 does not reflect capital improvements for
transportation.
NOVEMBER 2001 THE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY PAGE 11
4. THE COSTS AND REVENUES OF
ANNEXATION IN THE LONG TERM -
SCENARIOS 2 AND 3
Introduction
The previous section (Section 3) showed the Study Area's estimated demand for services based on
current population and housing units. However, for purposes of calculation, Scenario 1 assumes no
further growth. Bull Mountain will continue to grow in the long term and, therefore, this must be
considered.
This section examines two additional scenarios, Scenario 2 and Scenario 3. Both of these scenarios
assume future growth in the Study Area will consist of 5,000-sq.ft. lots with single-family housing
units. This assumption is based on the current R-7 medium density residential zoning, which
requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet.
Both growth scenarios are based on the following assumptions:
• Future growth projections are based on the amount of "net buildable land" in the Study Area.
"Net buildable land" refers to available land that can accommodate housing units. This excludes
land that is publicly owned, owned or under option by the Trust for Public Lands, reserved for
right-of-way, wetlands, with a slope exceeding 25 percent, or already developed to its minimum
development potential. This also excludes all lots in existing and approved subdivisions.
• Buildable land consists of two categories: vacant and partially developed. Vacant lands are those
without housing units. Partially developed lots are oversized lots that are not built to the
minimum density, and have the potential to be divided.
• Both scenarios are based on aerial photographs and tax assessor data in determining the net
buildable land in the Study Area.
Scenario 2: "Buildout"
This scenario assumes that all buildable lands will be developed and "built-out" by the year 2019.
Based on current average household sizes, it is projected that the Study Area would have 12,905
residents and 4,824 housing units.
Based on the number of additional homes and residents projected in this scenario, service demand
would increase. Table 4 details those changes by examining each of the City's expected revenues,
operating costs, and capital improvement costs associated with each City fund at the buildout.
NOVEMBER 2001 TI IE BULL. MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY PAGE 12
Table 4 Projected Costs and Rey,- Ynues by Fund for
Bull Mountain Area at BL Ilout (Scenario 2)
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Balance
Cost
General $3,06,006 $2,260,681 $1,545,325
State Gas Tax $335,816 $628,011 ($92,195)
Sanitary Sewer $361,318 $143,739 $217,579
Storm Sewer $173,664 $131,300 $42,364
Water $2,968,150 $1,161,450 $1,806,700
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance
Capital Revenues
General $1,545,325 $267,200 $1,278,125
State Gas Tax ($92,195) $252,500 ($344,695)
Sanitary Sewer $5,486,693 $1,510,100 $3,976,593
Storm Sewer $1,139,500 0 $1,139,500
Water $1,806,700 $542,094 $1,264,606
Traffic Impact Fee $5,150,540 $12,718,600 ($7,568,060)
Parks SDC $3,737,560 $22,033,000 ($18,295,440)
Water SDC $4,651,439 $816,400 $3,835,039
Based on the above table, the following is a summary of issues that need to be addressed in
considering annexation of the Bull Mountain area:
• with the exception of the State Gas Tax Fund, the operating costs are significantly less than the
respective revenues for all funds;
• as compared to Scenario 1, the needed operating costs will more than double to serve the entire
Bull Mountain area at buildout, which is proportional to the population and development
increase;
• the significant need for road improvements and parks (Appendix B) would be the major
consideration in the development and annexation of the Bull Mountain area;
Novr,V1I3ER 2001 THE BUi.t. MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY PAGE 13
M ~'I I
e the projected park and transportation improvement (CIP) costs (Appendix B) exceed the
projected revenue;
e there are one-time capital costs associated with all funds except for Sanitary Sewer.
Summary. The estimated need to provide an adequate level of service for parks and roads is the
most critical aspect in evaluating the Bull Mountain area annexation at buildout.
Revenues for these improvements do not fully address capital costs.
NOVEMBER 2001 THF_ BULL. MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY PAGE 14
Scenario 3: Moderate Growth
Introduction
This scenario assumes that development will occur at a lower density, or 50% of the new growth in
Scenario 2. Scenario 3 allows for current land-use patterns on Bull Mountain, which includes the
following. some existing lots are larger than 5,000 sq ft.; some homes occupy more than one tax lot;
some owners do not want to further develop their property. The Study Area would have 10,235
residents and 3,755 housing units approximately by the year 2010.
Based on the number of additional homes and residents projected in this scenario, service demand
would increase. Table 5 details those changes by examining each of the City's expected revenues,
operating costs, and capital improvement costs associated with each City fund.
Table 5 Projected Costs and Revenues by Fund for
Bull Mountain Area, Moderate Growth (Scenario 3)
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue 0perating Batance
_ .
aCosr
General $2,974,309 $1,843,752 $1,130,557
State Gas Tax $424,978 $509,303 ($84,325)
Sanitary Sewer $281,324 $114,005 $167,319
Storm Sewer $135,216 $104,134 $31,082
Water $2,354,165 $921,240 $1,432,925
One-time Capital Costs
.Fund Fund:Balance/ ,apitalIm)provemenfs Balauee
Ca .ital 1Levetues..: .
.
General $1,130,557 $267,200 $863,357
State Gas Tax ($84,325) $252,500 ($336,825)
Sanitary Sewer $2,917,890 $1,510,100 $1,407,790
Storm Sewer $606,000 0 $606,000
Water $1,432,925 $429,996 $1,002,929
Traffic Impact Fee $2,739,120 $12,718,600 ($9,979,480)
Parks SDC $1,987,680 $17,482,500 ($15,494,820)
Water SDC $2,473,692 $816,400 $1,657,292
NOVEMBER 2001 THE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY PAGE 15
Based on Table 5, the following is a summary of issues that need to be addressed in considering
annexation of the Bull Mountain area:
• with the exception of the State Gas Tax Fund, the operating costs are significantly less than the
respective revenues for all funds;
• the significant need for road improvements and parks (Appendix B) would be the major
consideration in the annexation of the Bull Mountain area;
• the projected park and transportation improvement (CEP) costs (Appendix B) exceed the
projected revenue;
• there are one-time capital costs associated with all funds except for Sanitary Sewer.
Summary: The estimated need to provide an adequate level of service for parks and roads is the
most critical aspect in evaluating the Bull Mountain area annexation in the Moderate
Growth Scenario. Capital costs exceed projected revenues.
NOVEMBER 2001 THE BULL. MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY PAGE 16
ANNEXATION AND TAXATION
In all scenarios, this report focuses on service provision and its costs. This section provides a
comparison of the tax rates for the study area.
The following is a brief summary of the Bull Mountain area taxation (see Appendix D for details).
o Property owners in the Bull Mountain area are grouped into two tax districts: 51.78 and 23.78.
The City of Tigard tax district is 23.74.
o Bull Mountain property owners (tax districts 51.78 and 23.78) now pay the following taxes for
general government services and would continue to pay them under annexation: Washington
County, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Port of Portland and Metro.
o Bull Mountain property owners (tax districts 51.78 and 23.78) now pay the following taxes to
support General Obligation bonds, and would continue to pay them under annexation:
Washington County, Portland Community College, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Port of
Portland, Metro and Tri-Met.
e Bull Mountain property owners (tax districts 51.78 and 23.78) would cease paying the following
taxes for general government services, as these services would be assumed by the City of Tigard:
Washington County Enhanced Patrol, Washington County Road Maintenance, and Washington
County Street Light Assessment.
® A home with an assessed value of $227,755 would pay an additional $256.50 per year if annexed.
Those taxes support the full government and operations of the City of Tigard, and the additional
services provided to City versus County residents, as detailed in Table 2, in Section 2. It also
includes one existing general obligation bond for the City of Tigard. For a detailed breakdown of
taxes, please see Appendix D.
The Federal government offers the Entitlement Communities Program to those cities with a
population of at least 50,000. The program makes cities eligible for HUD grants, which can be used
for neighborhood revitalization, affordable housing, and to improve community facilities and
services to primarily benefit low- and moderate-income persons. Under all scenarios, the City's
combined population is projected to be over 50,000. The City would become eligible for the
Entitlement Communities program after it reaches 50,000 population, which is dependent upon the
' area's growth rate.
i
a
s
NOVEMBER 2001 THE BULI. MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY PAGE 17
6. CONCLUSIONS
AND KEY POLICY ISSUE
Summary of Conclusions
• With the exception of the East Subarea, the majority of the Bull Mountain area is almost built
out.
• Assuming buildout of approximately 12,905 residents and 4,824 housing units for the entire
Study Area, each subarea could reach buildout at different times.
• Annexation under scenarios 2 and 3 would make the City an Entitlement Community in the
future. Additional funding may become available to Tigard.
• Revenue projections are mostly dependent upon growth. The rate and amount of growth
determines revenue forecasts.
• The Study Area has extensive capital needs, mostly road and park improvements.
• Capital costs for road improvements and park improvements exceed revenue projections.
Key Policy Issue
Based on the above conclusions, the key policy issue is a capital improvement funding strategy.
Possible strategies:
Use a portion of the General Fund to address capital improvements.
Assistance from Washington County to address some or all of the capital improvement needs.
Form Local Improvement Districts to address specific capital improvement needs, such as parks
a and roads.
a
Delay improvement of streets until funding sources are available.
a
Obtain grant funding to address portions of capital improvements.
Identify the effective sequence of annexing specific subareas of Bull Mountain.
Appendix E identifies the various methods of ann=aion available to the City of Tigard.
NOVEMBER 2001 THE BUI.I. MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY PAGE 18
Appendix A
!lest Sub Area
Scenario 1
ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost F Balance
General $319,504 137,066 $182,439
State Gas Tax $39,195 52,524 ($13,329)
Sanitary Sewer $24,792 10,514 $14,278
Storm Sewer $11,916 9,604 $2,312
Water $217,120 84,960 $132,160
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $182,439 $0 $182,439
State Gas Tax ($13,329) $0 ($13,329)
Sanitary Sewer .$0 $0 $0
Storm Sewer $0 $0 $0
Water $132,160 $39,669 $92,491
Traffic Impact Fee $0. $0 $0
Parks SDC $0 $1,675,000 ($1,675,000)
Water SDC $0 $0 $0
t\TIG333\USR\DEPTSILRPLN1Barbara\ANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix A.doc Pagel
Appendix A
West Sub-Area
Scenario 2
Ongoing Operatin Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $574,613 $364,571 $210,042
State Gas Tax $82,293 $98,183 ($15,890)
Sanitary Sewer $50,707 $22,076 $28,631
Storm Sewer $24,372 $20,165 $4,207
Water $455,860 $178,380 $277,480
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $210,042 $0 $210,042
State Gas Tax ($15,890) $57,800 ($73,690)
Sanitary Sewer $832,995 $235,000 $597,995
Storm Sewer $173,000 $0 $173,000
Water $277,480 $83,265 $194,215
Traffic Impact Fee $781,960 $1,928,000 ($1,146,040)
Parks SDC $567,440 $3,375,000 ($2,807,560)
i
Water SDC $706,186 $195,700 $510,486
i
i
3
\\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\LRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix A.doc Page 2
Appendix A
'west Sub-Area
Scenario 3
On oi tin Costs
Fund Revenue O Operating Cost T Balance
General $447,059 $261,864 $185,194
State Gas Tax $60,744 $76,404 ($15,660)
Sanitary Sewer $37,750 $16,295 $21,455
Storm Sewer $18,144 $14,885 $3,259
Water $336,490 $131,670 $204,820
One-time Ca ital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $185,194 $0 $185,194
State Gas Tax ($15,660) $57,800 ($73,460)
Sanitary Sewer $416,498 $235,000 $181,498
Storm Sewer $86,500 $0 $86,500
Water $204,820 $61,467 $143,353
Traffic Impact Fee $390,980 $1,928,000 ($1,537,020)
Parks SDC $283,720 $2,497,500 ($2,213,780)
Water SDC $353,093 $195,700 $157,393
i
1
\\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\LRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix A.doc Page 3
Appendix .A
South Sub-Area
Scenario 1
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $887,928 $541,657 $346,271
State Gas Tax $132,698 $164,764 ($32,066)
Sanitary Sewer $85,761 $35,598 $50,163
Storm Sewer $41,220 $32,517 $8,703
Water $735,080 $287,640 $447,440
One-time Capital Costs
Fund [Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $346,271 $0 $346,271
State Gas Tax ($32,066) $0 ($32,066)
Sanitary Sewer $93,893 $0 $93,893
Storm Sewer $19,500 $0 $19,500
Water $447,440 $134,253 $313,187
Traffic Impact Fee $88,140 $0 $88,140
Parks SDC $63,960 $5,400,000 ($5,336,040)
0
Water SDC $79,599 $0 $79,599
7
\\TIG333\JSR\DEPTS\LRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix A.doc Page 4
1=92= M____
Appendix A
South Sub-Area
Scenario 2
Ongoing Operatin Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $1,244,099 $778,549 $465,549
State Gas Tax $189,207 $256,469 ($67,262)
Sanitary Sewer $119,091 $50,757 $68,334
Storm Sewer $57,240 $46,365 $10,875
Water $1,048,110 $410,130 $637,980
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $465,549 $267,200 $198,349
State Gas Tax ($67,262) $42,900 ($110,162)
Sanitary Sewer $1,165,230 $124,300 $1,040,930
Storm Sewer $242,000 $0 $242,000
Water $637,980 $191,415 $446,565
Traffic Impact Fee $1,093,840 $5,444,000 ($4,350,160)
Parks SDC $793,760 $7,768,000 ($6,974,240)
Water SDC $987,844 $365,600 $622,244
\\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\LRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix A.doc Page 5
Appendix A
South Sub-Area
Scenario 3
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $1,057,617 $673,712 $383,905
State Gas Tax $159,624 $207,997 ($48,373)
Sanitary Sewer $101,639 $42,821 $58,818
Stomp Sewer $48,852 $39,110 $9,742
Water $884,235 $346,050 $538,185
One-time Ca ital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $383,905 $267,200 $116,705
State Gas Tax ($48,373) $42,900 ($91,273)
Sanitary Sewer $604,283 $124,300 $479,983
Storm Sewer $125,500 $0 $125,500
Water $538,185 $161,511 $376,674
Traffic Impact Fee $567,260 $5,444,000 ($4,876,740)
Parks SDC $411,640 $6,570,000 ($6,158,360)
Water SDC $512,291 $365,600 $146,691
I-ALRPIMBarbarMANNEXATION Final Report\AppendixA.doc Page 6
r
BONN
Appendix A
North Sub-Area
Scenario I
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $722,853 $516,800 $206,053
State Gas Tax $124,602 $144,651 ($20,049)
Sanitary Sewer $75,949 $33,426 $42,523
Storm Sewer $36,504 $30,533 $5,971
Water $690,230 $270,099 $420,131
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $206,053 $0 $206,053
State Gas Tax ($20,049) $0 ($20,049)
Sanitary Sewer $158,895 $0 $158,895
Storm Sewer $33,000 $0 $33,000
Water $420,131 $126,063 $294,068
Traffic Impact Fee $149,160 $0 $149,160
Parks SDC $108,240 $5,175,000 ($5,066,760)
Water SDC $134,706 $0 $134,706
\\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\LRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix A.doc Page 7
Appendix A
North Sub-Area
Scenario 2
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $936,587 $699,038 $237,550
State Gas Tax $165,167 $188,222 ($23,055)
Sanitary Sewer $101,639 $44,308 $57,331
Storm Sewer $48,852 $40,474 $8,378
Water $914,940 $358,020 $556,920
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $237,550 $0 $237,550
State Gas Tax ($23,055) $42,900 ($65,955)
Sanitary Sewer $984,668 $575,400 $409,268
Storm Sewer $204,500 $0 $204,500
Water $556,920 $167,097 $389,823
Traffic Impact Fee $924,340 $2,846,600 ($1,922,260)
Parks SDC $670,760 $6,795,000 ($6,124,240)
a
Water SDC $834,769 $189,200 $645,569
7
\\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\LRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix A.doc Page 8
Appendix A
North Sub-Area
Scenario 3
Ongoing Operatin Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $828,156 $621,312 $206,844
State Gas Tax $143,742 $165,637 ($21,895)
Sanitary Sewer $88,794 $38,561 $50,233
Storm Sewer $42,678 $35,224 $7,454
Water $796,260 $311,580 $484,680
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $206,844 $0 $206,844
State Gas Tax ($21,895) $42,900 ($64,795)
Sanitary Sewer $572,985 $575,400 ($2,415)
Storm Sewer $119,000 $0 $119,000
Water $484,680 $145,425 $339,255
! Traffic Impact Fee $537,880 $2,846,600 ($2,308,720)
Parks SDC $390,320 $5,917,500 ($5,527,180)
' Water SDC $485,758 $189,200 $296,558
i
i
\\TIG3331USR\DEPTS\LRPLN\BarbaraLANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix kdoc Page 9
-Mill
Appendix 'A
East Sub-Area
Scenario 1
Ongoing Operatin Costs
Fund Revenue
Operating Cost Balance
I _T
General $231,537 $102,946 $128,591
State Gas Tax $22,587 $29,993 ($7,406)
Sanitary Sewer $16,403 $6,059 $10,344
Storm Sewer $7,884 $5,534 $2,350
Water $125,120 $48,960 $76,160
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $128,591 $0 $128,591
State Gas Tax ($7,406) $0 ($7,406)
Sanitary Sewer $142,043 $0 $142,043
Storm Sewer $29,500 $0 $29,500
Water $76,160 $22,869 $53,291
Traffic Impact Fee $133,340 $0 $133,340
Parks SDC $96,760 $855,000 ($758,240)
Water SDC $120,419 $0 $120,419
\\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\LRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix A.doc Page 10
Appendix A
East Stab-Area
Scenario 2
Ongoing O eratin Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $1,050,707 $418,523 $632,183
State Gas Tax $99,150 $85,137 $14,013
Sanitary Sewer $89,880 $26,598 $63,282
Storm Sewer $43,200 $24,296 $18,904
Water $549,240 $214,920 $334,320
One-time Ca ital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $632,183 $0 $632,183
State Gas Tax $14,013 $108,900 ($94,887)
Sanitary Sewer $2,503,800 $575,400 $1,928,400
Storm Sewer $520,000 $0 $520,000
Water $334,320 $100,317 $234,003
Traffic Impact Fee $2,350,400 $2,500,000 ($149,600)
Parks SDC $1,705,600 $4,095,000 ($2,389,400)
Water SDC $2,122,640 $65,900 $2,056,740
\\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\LRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix A.doc Pagel l
Appendix A
East Sub-Area
Scenario 3
Ongoing Opera tin Costs
Fund Revenue • Operating Cost Balance
General $641,478 $286,864 $354,614
State Gas Tax $60,868 $59,265 $1,603
Sanitary Sewer $53,142 $16,328 $36,814
Storm Sewer $25,542 $14,915 $10,627
Water $337,180 $131,940 $205,240
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $354,614 $0 $354,614
State Gas Tax $1,603 $108,900 ($107,297)
Sanitary Sewer $1,324,125 $575,400 $748,725
Storm Sewer $275,000 $0 $275,000
Water $205,240 $61,593 $143,647
Traffic Impact Fee $1,243,000 $2,500,000 ($1,257,000)
Parks SDC $902,000 $2,497,500 ($1,595,500)
i Water SDC $1,122,550 $65,900 $1,056,650
i
3
\\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\LRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix A.doc Page 12
Appendix B
CIP Assumptions:
Assumptions are that Bull Mountain Road, Beef Bend Road, 150`h Avenue, Menlor Street
and Sunrise Lane will have to be reconstructed and widened to collector standards. These
improvements will be sometime in the next 20 years and are included in Scenarios 2 and
3, but not Scenario 1.
By Area:
North
Menlor Street - From existing pavement across ravine to Scholls Meadow #2 (2,500')
Sunrise Lane - North to existing paved area (1000')
1501h Avenue - Bull Mountain Road to Sunrise Lane (1,150')
West
Bull Mountain Road -Beef Bend Road to 1501h Avenue (3,450
South
Beef Bend Road - 13151 Avenue to 1501h Avenue (5,085
Bull Mountain Road -150`h Avenue to 133`a Avenue (4,122')
150 Avenue - Bull Mountain Road to Beef Bend Road (5,950')
Source of information: City of Tigaid Engineering Department
IALRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix B.doc
Appendix B
Assumptions
Streetlight Operating Costs
$7 per light per month for streetlights in local streets
$10 per light per month for streetlights in major collectors
Road Maintenance Assumptions
Frequency of Maintenance
Scenario I
North Cycle every 5 years
West 6
South 6
East 6
Scenario 2
North Cycle every 4 years
West 4
South 4
East 4
Scenario 3
North Cycle every 4.5 years
West 5
South 5
East 5
Source of information: City of Tigard Engineering Department
lALRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix B.doc
Appendix C
Total All Areas
General Fund
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Balance
Cost
Scenario 1 $2,161,822 $1,298,469 $863,353
Scenario 2 $3,806,006 $2,260,681 $1,545,325
Scenario 3 $2,974,309 $1,843,752 $1,130,557
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Balance
Capital Revenues Improvements
Scenario 1 $863,353 $0 $863,353
Scenario 2 $1,545,325 $267,200 $1,278,125
Scenario 3 $1,130,557 $267,200 $863,357
i
i
c
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final ReporhAppendix C.doc Pagel
Appendix C
Total All Areas
State Gas Tax Fund
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fu nd< FZevenu ®perat~n~`. Bat~ir3+~e
Scenario 1 $319,081 $391,932 ($72,851)
Scenario 2 $535,816 $628,011 ($92,195)
Scenario 3 $424,978 $509,303 ($84,325)
One-time Capital Costs
Fttn~! Faand BaianGef Capital ! iatance
C a! Reveroues #M Myern~nts
. _
Scenario 1 ($72,851) $0 ($72,851)
Scenario 2 ($92,195) $252,500 ($344,695)
Scenario 3 ($84,325) $252,500 ($336,825)
i
i
a
i
i
i
I:ALRPLMSBarbarMANNEXATION Final ReporhAppendix C.doc Page 2
Appendix C
't'otal All Areas
Sanitary Sewer Fund
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Balance
Cost
Scenario 1 $202,904 $85,597 $117,307
Scenario 2 $361,318 $143,739 $217,579
Scenario 3 $281,324 $114,005 $167,319
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Balance
Capital Revenues Improvements
Scenario 1 $394,830 $0 $394,830
Scenario 2 $5,486,693 $1,510,100 $3,976,593
Scenario 3 $2,917,890 $1,510,100 $1,407,790
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix C.doc Page 3
MUM
M M 1-- -
Appendix C
'T'otal All Areas
Storm Sewer Fund
Ongoing Operating Costs _
Fund Revenue Operating Balance
Cost
Scenario 1 $97,524 $78,188 $19,336
Scenario 2 $173,664 $131,300 $42,364
Scenario 3 $135,216 $104,134 $31,082
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Balance
Capital Revenues Improvements
Scenario 1 $82,000 $0 $82,006
Scenario 2 $1,139,500 $0 $1,139,500
Scenario 3 $606,000 $0 $606,000
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix C.doc Page 4
Appendix C
Total All Areas
Water Fund
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Balance
Cost
Scenario 1 $1,767,550 $691,659 $1,075,891
Scenario 2 $2,968,150 $1,161,450 $1,806,700
Scenario 3 $2,354,165 $921,240 $1,432,925
One-time Ca ital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Balance
Capital Revenues Improvements
Scenario 1 $1,075,891 $322,854 $753,037
Scenario 2 $1,806,700 $542,094 $1,264,606
Scenario 3 $1,432,925 $429,996 $1,002,929
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final ReporS\Appendix C.doc Page 5
Appendix C
'T'otal All Areas
Traffic Impact Fee Fund
f'
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Balance
Capital Revenues Improvements
Scenario 1 $370,640 $0 $370,640 t
Scenario 2 $5,150,540 $12,718,600 ($7,568,060)
Scenario 3 $2,739,120 $12,718,600 ($9,979,480)
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final ReporhAppendix C.doc Page 6
Ap pend8x C
Total All Areas
Parks SDC Fund
One-time Capital Costs.
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Balance
Capital Revenues Improvements
Scenario 1 $268,960 $13,105,000 ($12,836,040)
Scenario 2 $3,737,560 $22,033,000 ($18,295,440)
Scenario 3 $1,987,680 $17,482,500 ($15,494,820)
i
i
s
I:\I_RPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix C.doc Page 7
Appendix C
Total All Areas
Water SYNC Fund
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Balance
Ca Ital Revenues Improvements
Scenario 1 $334,724 $0 $334,724
Scenario 2 $4,651,439 $816,400 $3,835,039
Scenario 3 $2,473,692 $816,400 $1,657,292
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix C.doc Page 8
Appendix D
July 1, 2001-June 30 2002
Estimated Property Tax for a House
With an Assessed Value' of
$227,755
.
Yyk~n` A. ? .Y
07f::;sy Unincorporated Washington county
City of TIgaM Unincorporated Washington County i" ` n - D s
Tax Area 23.74 Tax Area 23.78 Tax Area 51.78 neiotti21. n.. _
? otl8t Rate Amount t sr :•~rrio0nt•=
Taxing District Rate Amount Rate Amount jgRalMV1
School
Ed. Service Dist. - NW Regional 0.1538 $35.03 0.1538 $35.03 0.0000 $0.00 0.1530 $35.03 0.0000 $0.00
Portland Community College 0.2828 $64.41 0.2828 $64.41 0.0000 $0.00 0.2828 $64.41 0.0000 $0.00
Tigard School District -23J2 5.9892 $1,364.07 5.9892 $1,364.07 0.0000 $0.00 0.0000 $0.00 0.0000 $0.00
Beaverton School District-482 0.0000 $0.00 0.0000 $0.00 0.0000 $0.00 4.6930 $1,068.85 0.0000 $0.00
Total Education Taxes' 6.4258 $1,463.51 6.4258 $1,463.51 0.0000 $0.00 5.1296 $1,168.29 0.0000 $0.00
General Government
Washington County' 2.6957 $613.96 2.6957 $613.96 0.0000 $0.00 2.6957 $613.96 0.0000 $0.00
Tualatin Valley Fire 3 Rescue3 1.7762 $404.31 1.7752 $404.31 0.0000 $0.00 1.7752 $404.31 0.0000 $0.00
Port of Portland, 0.0701 $15.97 0.0701 $15.97 0.0000 $0.00 0.0701 $15.97 0.0000 $0.00
City of Tigard, 2.5131 $572.37 0.0000 $0.00 2.5131 $572.37 0.0000 $0.00 2.5131 $572.37
Metro, 0.0966 $22.00 0.0966 $22.00 0.0000 $0.00 0.0966 $22.00 0.0000 $0.00
Washington County Enhanced Patrol 0.0000 $0.00 1.0534 $239.92 (1.0534) ($239.92) 1.0534 $239.92 (1.0534) (S239.92)
Washington County Road Maintenance 0.0000 $0.00 0.2456 $55.94 (02456) ($55.94) 0.2456 $55.94 (0.2456) ($55.94)
Wash. County Street Light Assessmene $0.00 $35.00 ($35.00) $35.00 ($35.00)
Total General Government 7.1507 $1,628.61 5.9366 $1,387.09 1.2141 $241.52 5.9366 $1,387.09 1.2141 $241.52
General Obligation Bonds
Washington County 0.2659 $60.66 0.2659 $60.56 0.0000 $0.00 0.2659 $60.56 0.0000 $0.00
Portland Community College 0.2683 $61.11 0.2683 $61.11 0.0000 $0.00 0.2683 $61.11 0.0000 $0.00
Tigard School District • 23J 1.0476 $238.60 1.0476 $238.60 0.0000 $0.00 0.0000 $0.00 0.0000 $0.00
Beaverton School District -48 0.0000 $0.00 C.0000 $0.00 0.0000 $0.00 1.6736 $381.17 0.0000 $0.00
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue 0.0531 $12.09 0.0531 $12.09 0.0000 $0.00 0.0531 $12.09 0.0000 $0.00
Port of Portland 0.0006 $0.14 0.0006 $0.14 0.0000 $0.00 0.0006 $0.14 0.0000 $0.00
City of Tigard 0.0558 $14.99 0.0000 $0.00 0.0658 $14.99 0.0000 $0.00 0.0658 $14.99
Metre 0.2273 $51.77 0.2273 $51.77 0.0000 $0.00 0.2273 $51.77 0.0000 $0.00
Td-Met 0.1372 $31.25 0.1372 $31.25 0.0000 $0.00 0.1372 $31.25 0.0000 $0.00
Total General Obligation Bonds 2.0658 $470.50 2.0000 $455.51 0.0658 $14.99 2.6260 $598.06 0.0658 $14.99
Grand Total 15.6423 $3,562.61 14.3624 $3,306.11 1.2799 $256.50 13.6922 $3,153.47 1.2799 $256.50
Notes
1 Assessed Value no longer equals Market Value
2 Annexation to a city does not change the school district %~,at serves the area
3 Permanent rate set by Measure 50
4 Education Taxes are limited by Measure 5 to no more than $5 per $1,000 of Real Market Value, but Measure 50 established permanent rates per $1,000 of Assessed Value. The dtata rpesented is from the Washington County
Assessors Office which is resonsible for monitoring tax rasa.
5 Those areas that are served by Street Lighting Disbicca pay for the cost of operating and maintaining the street lights. Washington County reports that the average annual assessment per household is $35. Actual assessments will
very by district.
Appendix E
METHODS OF ANNEXATION PROVIDED BY ORS CHAPTER 222
Method: Prior -Election El dfioi.i
consent requirerriient within' requirement
required? City? vtiiitfiin territory
to' b6 annexed?
City Initiated - By the legislative body of the City, on its NO NO (City charter does YES
own motion [ORS 222.111(2)] (requires public hearing not require, but
and Ordinance which will set election and effective date Council can send to
upon passage) election if desired)
Subject to referendum
Owner Initiated - By petition to the legislative body of YES NO (City charter does YES (if prior
the city by owners of real property in the territory to be not require, but consent of
annexed. [ORS 222.111(2)] (requires public hearing and Council can send to electors and land
Ordinance which will declare the territory annexed upon election if desired) owners is not
condition that a majority of votes cast in the territory provided, as
being annexed favor annexation or as described in a, b Subject to referendum described in
or c below) subsection a, b or
c below, prior to
action)
a. 100% Owner and Maiorityof Electors - by YES NO NO
written consent to annexation by all the owners
of land and not less than 50% of the electors, if Subject to referendum
any, in the territory [ORS 222.125]
b. Triple Majority - by written consent to annex YES NO NO
of more than half of the owners of land in the
territory who also own more than half of the land Subject to referendum
in the territory and of real property therein
representing more than half of the assessed
value of all real property in the territory [ORS
222.170] (Triple majority discouraged because it
may not be constitutional)
c. Double Majority - by written consent of a YES NO NO
majority of the electors in the territory along with
the written consent of property owners of more Subject to referendum
than half the land area in the territory. (ORS
222.170(2))
Island annexation - When territory not within a city is NO NO (City charter does NO
surrounded by the corporate boundaries of the city, or by not require, but
the corporate boundaries of the city and the ocean shore Council can send to
or a stream, bay, lake or other body of water, except election if desired)
when the territory not within a city is surrounded entirely
by water. [ORS 222.7501 Subject to referendum
Appendix F
BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION QUESTION AND
ANSWER PACKET
ANSWERS TO THE JULY 2001 FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
CITY OF TIGARD
NOVEMBER 27, 2001
BULL MOUNTAIN STUDY AREA:
IDRAvr ANSWERS TO THE FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
A. WASHINGTON COUNTY
1. What is the County's long-term outlook on services to this area if Tigard does not
annex Bull Mountain? (Answerprovided by Washington County and the City of Tigard)
Washington County has no plans to change existing levels of County service to the area. If
the annexation does not occur, service delivery would continue as it is. The County would
continue to provide a basic level of service as it does countywide. Municipal-type services
would be provided on a fee-for-service basis (building permits, street lighting, etc.) or
through special service districts (Urban Road Maintenance District, Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol
District, a possible future Park and Recreation District if voters set one up, etc.). The City of
Tigard is continuing to provide some services such as planning, engineering, and building
services in accordance with an intergovernmental agreement between Washington County
and the City. This agreement is in effect for 5 years from the date it was executed (May,
1997) and may be renewed for an additional 5 years by mutual agreement. In addition, the
agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement or by either party between the months of
March 1 and July 1 of any year with 90 days written notice.
2. What are the County's current responsibilities to Bull Mountain residents? What is the
vision of the County (i.e., what the County sees as its main roles in the future, as it
applies to its entire area of governance)? (Answer provided by Washington County and the City
of Tigard)
Washington County has indicated that it sees itself both as a provider and as a convener (one
who convenes or brings together partners in a given situation) of services. The County
covers 727 square miles, 85% of which is rural. The population is over 450,000 residents;
90% of them live within the Urban Growth Boundary (half in their 12 cities, half in the urban
unincorporated areas). Services the County provides to everyone include public safety (the
Sheriff's Department, the jail, parole and probation, Community Corrections, the court
system, district attorneys, victims' services, etc.), the county-wide road system (including
maintenance and new capital construction), Juvenile Services, Housing Services, Health and
Human Semites (health clinics, child and family welfare, public health, restaurant
inspections, solid waste and recycling), Assessment and Taxation, marriage licenses,
passports, animal shelter and adoption services, funding support for the county's 12 libraries
(city-supported and otherwise. For example, Tigard receives 62% of its overall operating
funds for the Tigard Library which serves a population of 53,519), Aging and Veterans
Services, Consolidated Emergency Management and support for Citizen Participation
Organizations. Washington County does all this with the second leanest per capita staff of
any County in the State of Oregon.
According to Washington County, it cannot meet many more needs with current resources.
Thus, the County strives for efficiencies in government, and also engage in broad
Page 2
partnerships with the private and non-profit sectors. Currently, Washington County is
engaged in a broad outreach effort called Vision West, which is bringing together the best
minds in the County in areas ranging from education to health care, transportation, safety and
the environment. Their on-going charge is to make sure public and private agencies converse
and collaborate to improve the communities' future.
The specific services the County provides include:
• Roads - as part of the Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD), Bull Mountain property
owners pay for and receive both County and URMD levels of maintenance to County and
public roads in the area. County policy allocates available road maintenance funding with
priority given to the major system (arterials and major collectors) throughout the County.
Neighborhood roads (minor collectors and local streets) are the lowest priority, and as a
result, have deteriorated relative to the major system over the years. The URMD is a special
district that does provide road-related maintenance and repair on these minor collector, local
and public roads in the urban unincorporated areas of Washington County. It provides a
paved surface to fair or better conditions. The URMD also provides $100,000 per year for
the Neighborhood Streets Program.
• Law enforcement - Bull Mountain is part of the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District; thus its
property owners pay for and receive both County and ESPD levels of law enforcement
service. The County service level is .5 officers per 1000 and the ESPD provides an
additional .5 officers per 1000 residents for a total of 1 per 1,000 residents.
• Building services and Planning - the County currently has an intergovernmental agreement
with the City of Tigard, under which the City provides land development and building
services to residents of Bull Mountain directly, saving them the trip to Hillsboro. The
County adopted the City's Development Code for this area. This agreement is in effect for 5
years from the date it was executed (May, 1997) and may be renewed for an additional 5
years by mutual agreement. In addition, the agreement may be terminated by mutual
agreement or by either party between the months of March 1 and July 1 of any year with 90
days written notice.
■ Street lighting - not required, but usually built in by developers with payment organized
under a Service District for Lighting. This annual fee is included on a property owner's
property tax assessment. Assessment varies from $32 to $37 per year, on average. The
assessment amount is determined by three factors: 1) the number of property owners in each
district, 2) the number of lights in the district, and 3) the type of lights. The assessment
covers the operation of the lights, and is provided by the County through a contract with
PGE. PGE owns the lights and will continue to own them upon annexation.
• Library services - supported through the Washington County Cooperative Library Services
(WCCLS) consortium. This is funded partially by County tax. The City of Tigard receives
62% of its overall operating funds for the Tigard Library from the WCCLS. Funding levels
are determined by circulation, open hours, collection expenditures, etc.
Page 3
• Park services - none.
• Fire protection - Bull Mountain residents receive fire protection directly from Tualatin Valley
Fire and Rescue, to whom they pay a separate tax or assessment as part of their property
taxes.
• Community organizations - the County provides basic support for the Citizen Participation
Organizations. CPO 4B has represented Bull Mountain over the years; however, it is
presently inactive.
• Code Compliance - compliance with standards found in the City of Tigard Development
Code are enforced by the City of Tigard Code Compliance Officer as part of the
intergovernmental agreement between the City of Tigard and Washington County. The
County continues to regulate standards that are not covered in the City's Development Code
including: solid waste, animal control, noxious vegetation, junk/cars and noise.
(To see the difference between the County level ofservice and the level ofservice the City will
provide ifannexed, see table 3 in this document.)
3. Why did the County decide to be a County and not an urban/rural County that
provides City services? How was the County 2000 vision created? (Answer provided by
Washington County and City of Tigard)
With approximately 200,000 County residents now living in urban unincorporated
neighborhoods (outside cities), the demand on the County for neighborhood services has
been steadily increasing. Planning for growth at the neighborhood level, traffic management,
enhanced police patrol, local street maintenance and zoning enforcement are a few examples.
These are the types of services that a city normally provides. Related to this is the issue of
equity. City property owners pay City taxes to receive these local services, as well as County
taxes for countywide programs. For years, County taxes paid by City property owners
subsidized a portion of local services the County provided to urban unincorporated
neighborhoods.
The subsidy issue was raised by Cities and this was corrected in 1986 when the Board of
County Commissioners adopted County 2000, a long-term financial plan. Recognizing its
financial limitations and the underlying theme that the County cannot be all things to all
n citizens, County 2000 makes a distinction regarding the financing of traditional services that
are of countywide benefit versus municipal-type services that benefit specific geographic
areas. Updated in 1994, County 2000 focuses general purpose tax dollars on services that
benefit residents countywide, regardless of whether they live inside or outside cities or in the
rural area.
The current County 2000 plan is the result of a comprehensive public review process during
which the County gathered extensive public feedback, suggestions and evaluations. Every
Board since 1986, including the current one, has maintained a policy that cities will
eventually provide neighborhood services to the entire urban unincorporated area, sometimes
Page 4
lig
in partnership with special districts like Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District and
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue.
The County has maintained a position of "aggressive neutrality" with regard to annexation,
with practicality and resident interest driving the timeline. However, lack of annexation may
significantly impact the infrastructure of affected communities, potentially resulting in a
lesser quality of life. For this reason the County is also working closely with Metro, the
cities and special districts in setting Urban Services boundaries, preparing for future
annexations (Senate Bill 122). In 1997, the County entered into an intergovernmental
agreement with the City of Tigard, turning over certain urban services including land
development, building permits and some local road maintenance for the Bull Mountain area
to the City. This agreement is in effect for 5 years from the date it was executed (May, 1997)
and may be renewed for an additional 5 years by mutual agreement. In addition, the
agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement or by either party between the months of
March 1 and July 1 of any year with 90 days written notice.
4. Explain how Senate Bill (SB) 122 relates to the annexation process. (Answerprovided by
Washington County and City of Tigard)
In 1993 the state legislature passed Senate Bill 122, which requires the coordination and
provision of urban services for lands within the urban growth boundary. It requires the
collaboration of counties, cities and special districts to determine which jurisdiction will be
responsible for the long-term provision of urban services (such as sanitary sewers, water, fire
protection, parks, open space, recreation, streets/roads, and mass transit) to residents of
unincorporated areas. The County, the CPOs and SB 122 Citizen Involvement Advisory
Committees have been working with the cities of Beaverton, Tigard and Hillsboro for the
past few years helping settle urban services boundary. lines. The City of Tigard and
Washington County have had an Urban Services Agreement in effect since 1997 that
transfers land development and building permit responsibility to the City of Tigard. This
agreement is in effect for 5 years from the date it was executed (May, 1997) and may be
renewed for an additional 5 years by mutual agreement. In addition, the agreement may be
terminated by mutual agreement or by either party between the months of March 1 and July 1
of any year with 90 days written notice.
5. Who should residents talk to at the County about annexation and County service
issues? (Answer provided by Washington County)
If it is a question of policy, the appropriate contact is their County Commissioner Roy Rogers
or County Chairman Tom Brian. Staff points of contact are Walt Peck, County
Communications Officer, 593-846-2013, or Anne Madden, Sr. Program Educator,
Department of Land Use and Transportation, 503-846-4963.
6. If there is no parks department at the County, how does the County deal with park
issues? (Answer provided by Washington County)
The County parks effort is focused on Hagg Lake and Metzger Park. Hagg Lake is supported
entirely by user fees and Metzger Park is supported 2/3 through a Local Improvement
Page 5
District (LID) and 1/3 through user fees collected from the rental of Metzger Hall. The
County owns other properties that are designated as parks but are not developed. The only
park land that has been purchased in the Bull Mountain area is a portion of the Cache Creek
site, however, there are no plans at this time for the County or City to develop it. Otherwise,
all other park services in the County are provided by local park providers such as Tigard,
THPRD, and Hillsboro. The remaining unincorporated areas receive no park services if they
are not in the THPRD territory. Individuals living outside the THPRD district can pay a non-
resident price to use THPRD facilities.
7. What is the Washington County permanent tax rate? (Answer provided by Washington
County)
The County rate is $2.2484 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. It should be noted, however,
that the permanent rate does not include special district assessments such as the URMD or
ESPD. For a complete breakdown of assessments paid on property taxes, refer to Table 6 at
the back of this document.
8. How much money is now available for infrastructure under Washington County?
(Answerprovided by Washington County)
The County does not have a dedicated amount of resources available for infrastructure
improvements. Most large projects (such as the new jail) are funded through voter-approved
bond measures. Other projects, such as transportation improvements, are funded through the
discretionary distribution of property tax resources.
For sewer related capital improvement projects, Clean Water Services updates a five-year
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) annually during the budget process. From this
document, an annual construction program is developed and included in the annual budget.
The Sanitary Sewer Construction Fund in the current FY 2002 budget includes more than
$52 million. Proposed treatment facility projects account for $24 million; collection capital
projects, $23 million; and planning and support projects, nearly $5 million.
However, the CIP generally supports the major sewer projects; a transportation analogy
might be the funding of the State or County road system. As with improvements to the local
street system, the local sanitary sewer system is generally funded by the adjacent (or directly
benefited) property owners. As a result, most of the local sewer system is funded by
development or through local improvement districts (LIDs). The District's Board recently
adopted a revised LID ordinance that does provide financial incentives, under certain
conditions, for the sanitary sewer projects.
Page 6
9. What local service levies (i.e., Washington County Enhanced Patrol) or LIIDs do Bull
Mountain residents pay for in addition to the current County tax rate? (Answer provided
by Washington County)
• The Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD); the URMD tax rate is $.25 per thousand
assessed valuation.
County policy allocates available road maintenance funding with priority given to the major
system (arterials and major collectors). Neighborhood roads (minor collectors and local
streets) are the lowest priority, and as a result had deteriorated relative to the major system
over the years. The URMD is a special district that does provide road-related maintenance
on these minor collector, local and public roads in the urban unincorporated areas of
Washington County. District revenue is from a property tax that residents voted to assess
themselves in 1994 and is unique to Washington County (as far as we know). Since
formation of the URMD, neighborhood roads have improved. In 1997, Ballot Measure 50
passed, which made the URMD permanent.
• Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District (ESPD); the ESPD tax rate is $1.0534 per $1,000 assessed
valuation
The ESPD program began in 1988 and provides (approximately) an additional .5 officers-per
1,000 residents. This is in addition to the County-wide provision of .5 officers per 1,000
residents.
• Service District for Lighting (SDL)
Property owners of urban unincorporated areas pay for their street lighting services (if they
have street lights) through the SDL. The average charge is somewhere between $32 and $37
per year per property owner. The assessment amount is determined by three factors: 1) the
number of property owners in each district, 2) the number of lights in the district, and 3) the
type of lights. The assessment covers the operation of the lights, and it is provided by the
County through a contract with PGE. (Source: Washington County)
B. SEWER/WATER/STREETS
1. Will residents be forced to hook up to sewer or City water? If so, how much will it cost
per household? If not, how can residents get access to City sewer or water, and how
much will it cost to do so? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
Once sanitary sewer is available in proximity to a property, the property owner has the option
to connect after paying the appropriate fees. There is no fee to be paid until property owners
choose to connect to the sewer, and there is no obligation to connect to the sewer if property
owners continue to use an existing septic system as it is now being used. Property owners
may, however, be required to connect to sewer if there is a sewer reimbursement district and
Page 7
they do work that requires a building or land use permit. For residential developments, any
building permit for a new building or for an addition, modification, repair or alteration
exceeding 25% of the value of the building will trigger the need to connect to sewer. They
would also be required to connect to sewer if their septic system fails.
If the City chose to provide sewer service to fully developed subdivisions on septic, it would
most likely be accomplished through a reimbursement district under the existing City
program. The City would not be likely to propose a project unless there was an expectation
that one-half of the owners would connect within three years. The City engineering staff
estimated the cost of providing sewer service based on an existing subdivision in the Bull
Mountain area. Based on this scenario, it is estimated that the cost would be approximately
$6,000 per household. Under current policy, property owners must connect to the sewer
within three years from the time sewer becomes available to take advantage of any benefits
of the Incentive Program. However, if a property owner is able to wait fifteen years after the
district formation date to connect, there is no reimbursement fee (except for the connection
fee that is currently $2,407.50, which all property owners have to pay regardless of when
they connect. This fee may increase over time.). In addition, the property owner is
responsible for the cost to bring the sewer line from the main line to the residence.
Existing property owners on wells would not be required to connect to municipal water. For
new developments, or in instances where property owners wish to connect to water, the
property owner or developer would be required to pay for a water meter (price depends on
the size of the meter required/needed) and, if needed, extension of the water main across the
frontage of the property. Construction of a new well or to replace an existing well is
determined on a case by case basis depending on many factors. For information on well
placement or construction, contact the State Water Resources Department at 503-378-3739.
2. Are any street improvements planned? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
The City of Tigard, in cooperation with Washington County has scheduled to make minor
improvements to the Bull Mountain/Roshak Road intersection. Bull Mountain Road, Beef
Bend Road, 150a' Avenue, Menlor Street and Sunrise Lane have been identified as needing
improvements (widening, resurfacing, etc.) to be brought up to collector standards in the
future (within the next 20 years), however, they have not been incorporated into the City's or
County's Capital Improvement Plan.
C. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
1. Will development trends on Bull Mountain change if annexed? (Answer provided by City of
Tigard)
The County developed its comprehensive plan for Bull Mountain in 1983. It established
development standards which guided development. Tigard and Washington County have an
Urban Planning Agreement that has been in effect since 1997, which gives Tigard the
authority to review and approve land use applications, building permits and engineering
permits. The area has been reviewed under the City's regulations since that time, while
maintaining consistency with the County Comprehensive Plan standards for the area. When
Page 8
the Urban Planning Agreement was developed, findings were made that indicate that "the
City has functionally equivalent plan and zoning designations ...because of the historic
coordination between the County and the City." It is not anticipated, therefore, that there will
be any change in the current development patterns as a result of an annexation. Should a
property owner seek a change of land use designation to develop property in a way not
allowed under the present zoning, the application would be reviewed and decided by the
Tigard City Council in accordance with the City's standards.
2. Will the residents have a say in the vision for the Bull Mountain area? Will they get to
decide how Bull Mountain should look? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
Yes, residents will have a say in the vision for the Bull Mountain area. Residents will have a
say in who their representatives are by participating in the election process. If the Bull
Mountain area is annexed into the City of Tigard, residents would have an opportunity to
participate in any public process that would change plans for the area. However, the current
zoning and development code standards will continue to apply and there are no plans for
changes in the near future. If standards or zoning were desired to be changed at some later
date, there would be notification to all affected property owners within 500 feet of a subject
site and opportunities for public involvement at public hearings prior to any changes taking
effect.
3. Will they be forced to accept a more citified look, such as sidewalks and street lights?
(Answer provided by City of Tigard)
Existing developments would not be forced to "upgrade" to a more urban look. New
developments, however, are required to provide infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, lights,
street trees, etc.) improvements. In addition, there may be opportunity through the City's
capital improvement program (CIP) process to make street improvements in areas needing
them which would result in upgrades as well. The City's annual CIP formulation process
provides opportunities for citizen input through a wide variety of means including Citizen
Involvement Team meetings, intemet email, written correspondence, Planning Commission
public hearing, and City Council public hearing prior to adoption of the CIP projects for
implementation. Major streets such as Bull Mountain Road and Beef Bend Road may be
widened at some point in the future to provide additional capacity and to accommodate
alternative modes of travel (additional lanes, sidewalk on both sides, and bike lanes).
Potential funding sources could be the Washington County Major Streets Transportation
Improvement Program, the Countywide Traffic 'Alrnpact Fee, or a bond issue that requires
voter approval.
4. Will adding Bull Mountain to the City of Tigard create a need for additional multi-
family built-density areas on Bull Mountain or within the City of Tigard? (Metro 2040
Growth Plan) (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
No. Both the City of Tigard and Washington County currently meet their target population
goals by requiring development to build at no less than 80% of the maximum zoning allowed
in that zone. The existing zoning, adopted by Washington County, in Bull Mountain will
Page 9
continue to apply and new developments will continue to be required to build to minimum
densities.
5. Will zoning be changed because of annexation? (Answerprovided by City of Tigard)
No. The Urban Planning Agreement between the City and Washington County, and the
City's development code, requires the City to apply the equivalent County zoning to land
annexed into the City and not make any changes for at least one year. If, however, it is
mutually agreed upon by both County and City Planning Directors at the time of annexation
that the County designation is outdated, an amendment may be initiated before the 1 year
period is over. There are no plans to change the zoning in this area. If zoning were desired
to be changed at some later date, there would be notification to all affected property owners
and opportunities for public involvement at public hearings prior to any changes taking
effect. Notice would be provided to all property owners within 500 feet of a site specific land
use proposal. In addition, public notice would be published in the local newspaper (usually
in the Tigard Times).
D. PARKS
1. Will annexation change the mindset of the City towards purchasing green space on Bull
Mountain? Will Bull Mountain buy land for parks if annexed? (Answer provided by City
of Tigard)
Tigard has allocated Metro green spaces money to purchase land in the unincorporated area,
but has not spent parks System Development Charges (SDC) generated by development in
Tigard. The City's primary funding source for park improvements is the park SDC on new
development. The park SDC is collected at the time a building permit is issued and is used
solely for park acquisition or development. At present, the park SDC imposed on a single
family house inside the City is $1,600. Because the City lacks jurisdiction and Washington
County doesn't charge a park SDC, a single family house constructed in the Bull Mountain
area contributes no fees for parks. Tigard is designated as the area's future park provider, but
currently has no funding source to improve parkland conditions outside the unincorporated
area in Bull Mountain. Annexation would allow the City to begin collecting the park SDC
on new development within the annexed area. From June 1997, when the City first began
1 providing services in the Bull Mountain area, to August 2001, the City issued permits for 776
{ permits for single family and 56 multi-family housing units inside the Urban Services Area
(Bull Mountain). Based upon the current City fee structure, had the City had authority to
{ collect park SDCs during this period, approximately $1.3 million in SDC revenues would
have been collected and been available for park acquisition and development. Over the last 8
months (March to October 2001), 200 permits were issued with a potential $328,000 of parks
y SDC funds going uncollected. The longer the area waits to annex, the more funds are lost
and the less vacant land is available to begin to meet the area's park needs. In addition,
property values are continuing to rise, making land all the more difficult to obtain.
The City's primary source of funding for park maintenance is the City General Fund.
Property taxes paid by City property owners and businesses provide the revenue for the fund.
The unincorporated area does not pay City property taxes.
Page 10
Bull Mountain annexation would not necessarily provide immediate revenue for parks. As
new development occurs over time, park SDCs would be collected which could be used for
park acquisition and improvements within the area. Revenues collected from property taxes
would be used for the on-going maintenance of park facilities throughout the City. At the
time of annexation, the beginning SDC and maintenance fund balances would be zero, unless
the City Council chooses to provide start up funding from City resources (the General Fund).
2. What are the chances of Bull Mountain getting a park if it isn't annexed? (Answer
provided by City of Tigard)
County policy is that it does not provide park services within the area it governs and it does
not charge a parks SDC. To date, the City Council has chosen not to invest limited City park
dollars in providing park services in the unincorporated area. The City has applied some of
its Metro greenspaces dollars to the Cache Creek property in the Bull Mountain area, as has
Washington County. There are approximately 12 acres, but no development of the site using
general fund dollars has been planned. Without additional funds, the City would not
purchase additional park lands in the unincorporated area.
3. Will the study select locations for parks on Bull Mountain? What is the likelihood of a
park located on the spine of Bull Mountain? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
No, .the scope of the study does not include selecting parks. However, in 1999, Tigard
adopted a park system master plan that covered both the incorporated and Urban Services
Areas. The plan identified future park needs and priority improvements. In the Bull Mountain
Area, it identified the need for three neighborhood parks and one community park. An
exception is that the City and County jointly acquired a 12-acre site on Bull Mountain for a
nature park. The park is not open to the public at this time because the City does not have
funds for park improvements and maintenance outside the City.
In general, buildable residentially zoned property is very expensive, particularly property
with a view amenity, such as the spine of Bull Mountain. A portion of the powerline corridor
is close to the Bull Mountain summit. The park master plan identifies the potential
opportunity for a playfield and a regional pedestrian and bicycle trail within the powerline
corridor, however there has been concern about developing within this corridor and no
development would be planned until these concerns are addressed and development and
maintenance funds secured.
E. LAw ENFORCEMENT
1. How will Law Enforcement service differ between County and City? (Answer provided by
City of Tigard)
The County currently provides .5 off cers/1000 people county-wide and an additional .5
officers/ 1000 people in the ESPD (Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District); the City of Tigard
provides 1.5 officers/1000 people. If the entire Bull Mountain area were annexed at its
current population, the City would need 10 additional officers and 3 additional cars to serve
Page I I
Mimi
RONNIE 1111111
this area at the City's current service level. The City's average response time for Priority 1
calls is 3.5 minutes, for Priority 2 calls the average response time is 3.5 minutes and for
Priority 3 calls the average response time is 6.5 minutes. Priority 1 calls are defined as calls
involving threat of physical injury to life or property, Priority 2 calls are urgent, but not life
and death matters (still dispatched immediately), and Priority 3 calls are routine calls, which
must be dispatched within 15 minutes. Tigard Police continues to work under a mutual aid
agreement with other jurisdictions which allows for Tigard to provide officers in anoiher
jurisdiction with aid when necessary and vice versa, however, this is generally for large scale
need situations.
2. How will the City provide service to the area, since annexing adds a lot more land and
people to the police service district? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
The City's police department will respond to calls originating in the Bull Mountain area. The
level of service will be provided at the City's standard ratio; see #1. If the entire Bull
Mountain area is annexed, the City will most likely create a new patrol district for the area.
The City police department has indicated that they would want to locate a kiosk in the Bull
Fountain area, with the annexation. The Chief of Police envisions the kiosk to be a small
substation which would be used by patrol to make telephone calls, write reports, meet people,
make computer queries, receive and give out information and to create a high visibility of a
police presence in the area. It would not be staffed full time and would be used daily on an
as needed basis by the officers. In the future, when the level of activity warrants it, they
would like to have it staffed part-time.
3. How will the proposed Washington County Police consolidation affect us: will it
eliminate the benefit of annexing to the City in the Law Enforcement area? (Answer
provided by City of Tigard)
It is unknown at this time how such a consolidation would affect law enforcement services in
Washington County, if it occurred. There are numerous questions about such a consolidation,
which include cost, service levels, local control and local identity, that have not been
addressed. At this point, there are more questions than answers. To date, the study of
consolidation of police services in Washington County has been promoted by the
Washington County Police Officer's Association and a private citizen. Cities and the County
have not suggested consolidation.
Page 12
MEW
F. ANNEXATION PROCESS AND OPTIONS
1. What is the process of annexation, and who votes on it? (Answerprovided by City of Tigard)
The following table identifies the methods of annexation available:
Table 1 - METHODS OF ANNEXATION PROVIDED BY ORS CHAPTER 222
Method: Prior consent Election'.'. E[eaonf '
required? requirement within. regtureuteq$
-city? i~+iitlun.terrtory.
• ti~>be'a~iri'eiled`
City Initiated - By the legislative body of the City, on NO NO (City charter does YES
its own motion [ORS 222.111(2)] (requires public not require, but
hearing and Ordinance which will set election and Council can send to
effective date upon passage) election if desired)
Subject to referendum
Owner Initiated - By petition to the legislative body of YES NO (City charter does YES (:f prior
the city by owners of real property in the territory to be not require, but consent of electors
annexed. [ORS 222.111(2)] (requires public hearing Council can send to and land owners is
and Ordinance which will declare the territory annexed election if desired) not provided, as
upon condition that a majority of votes cast in the described in
territory being annexed favor annexation or as Subject to referendum subsection a, b or c
described in a, b or c below) below, prior to
action)
a. 100% Owner and Majority of Electors - by YES NO NO
written consent to annexation by all the owners
of land and not less than 50% of the electors, if Subject to referendum
any, in the territory [ORS 222.1251
b. Triple Majority - by written consent to YES NO NO
annex of more than half of the owners of land
in the territory who also own more than half of Subject to referendum
the land in the territory and of real property
therein representing more than half of the
assessed value of all real property in the
territory [ORS 222.1701 (Triple majority
discouraged because it may not be
constitutional)
M c. Double Majority - by written consent of a YES NO NO
majority of the electors in the territory along
with the written consent of property owners of Subject to referendum
more than half the land area in the territory.
[ORS 222.170(2)]
a Island annexation - When territory not within a city is NO NO (City charter does NO
surrounded by the corporate boundaries of the city, or not require, but
by the corporate boundaries of the city and the ocean Council can send to
shore or a stream, bay, lake or other body of water, election if desired)
except when the territory not within a city is surrounded
entirely b water. ORS 222.750 Subject to referendum
Page 13
2. Can the City annex only part of Bull Mountain? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
Yes. A preliminary recommendation will be made by City Council on how best to approach a
possible annexation. Among the options are full, partial, or no annexation. Whichever
course is chosen will be further refined in an outreach plan if Council directs staff to pursue
annexation. In addition, individual parcels meeting the established City standards (they must
be adjacent to the City limits, they must be able to be accommodated by necessary services,
etc. - see Comprehensive Plan policy 10.1.2), may submit an annexation application at any
time.
3. Can the area become its own city? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
ORS 221.020 and 221.031 allow for property owners to petition for incorporation of a city in
an unincorporated area and sets forth the process. However, ORS 221.031 (4) states that
when the area proposed to be incorporated lies within an urbanized area, the petition must be
accompanied by a resolution approving the proposed incorporation by the city or cities
whose proximity would otherwise prohibit incorporation. The City Council has not
considered this issue.
4. Is there the possibility of any other city annexing the area? (Answerprovided by City of
Tigard)
No. The Bull Mountain area is in the Tigard's Urban Services Area, which means that this
area has been identified by Washington County and the City of Tigard as being part of the
City of Tigard in the future. The area was identified in an Urban Planning Agreement
between the City of Tigard and Washington County which was signed in 1988. Both
jurisdictions have adopted this as an Area of Interest in their comprehensive plans. The area
south of Beef Bend, however, is in King City or its Urban Services Area.
G. RIGHTS AND LAWS
1. How will property owner rights, laws, processes of law, and mediation differ between
the current County standards and City standards? (Ansiver provided by City of Tigard)
In general, land use regulations will be the same as now, since the City of Tigard administers
land-use regulations in the area. Municipal code standards will replace County code
requirements and enforcement will be ultimately in municipal court. While we can not
provide an analysis of all issues in this document, below is a list of some common issues
which explains the difference between the City standards and County standards:
Page 14
Table 2 - Corti arison of standards for Washington Coun and Ti and
Topic County standards in Bull Muuritain area Ci .sEaixards in Bu111vlQtmtaii;area
Noise No specific decibel level restrictions. Very Specific - decibel levels may not exceed
Construction may not occur between 7pm 50db between the hours of lam and IOpm or
and 7 am Monday-Saturday and not at all 40db between the hours of IOpm and lam.
on Sundays or holidays. Between 7pm and Construction activity is prohibited between the
IOpm no excessive people noises such as. hours of 9pm and lam Monday through
yelling, etc. After lOpm enforcement is at Friday, 9pm-8am Saturday, 9pm-9am on
the sheriff officer's discretion. Sunday.
Tall grass and Complaint based- letter issued telling Complaint based- letter issued telling property
weeds property owner to cut if nuisance exists owner to cut if nuisance exists
Livestock Covered in City of Tigard Title 18 so there "When an agricultural use is adjacent to a
is no difference between City and County residential use, no poultry or livestock, other
since the intergovernmental agreement than normal household pets, may be housed or
between Washington County and the City provided use of a. fenced run within 100 feet of
of Tigard was signed in May, 1997. any nearby residence except a dwelling on the
same lot." TDC table 18.510.1 foot note 6.
Abandoned/ On-street is enforced by Sheriff. On-street is enforced by the Police.
inoperable Private property - can not have more than 5 Private property - can not have any in-
Vehicles vehicles stored unless they are in a structure operable vehicles stored (other than in a
or are driven in a 48 hour period. structure), however there is no limit on the
number of vehicles stored as long as they are
operable.
Home Covered in City of Tigard Title 18 so there Anyone doing business out of the home must
Occupations is no difference between City and since the have a home occupation permit:
intergovernmental agreement between Type I - no employees or customers - cost is
Washington County and the City of Tigard $175 in the URB ($30 in the City), good for
was signed in May, 1997. (Properties in the duration of business
City are charged a lesser fee at this time Type II - up to 1 employee or volunteer and 6
because the URB fees represent 100% cost customers per day. Notice to property owners
recovery whereas the City fees are partially within 500 feet prior to decision. Cost is $883
subsidized by general fund dollars.) in the URB ($545 in the City), good for
duration of business.
The Washington County standards are very
similar to the City's except it must be Note: additional regulations apply, see 18.742.
renewed annually, allows a few more
customers (up to 10, versus 6 in the City),
and does not have a limit on the hours of
operation (so businesses such as bed and
breakfasts were allowed in the County but
no new ones will be allowed under current
City standards).
Business Tax None Required to be paid yearly for anyone
engaging in any business within the City of
Tigard. Tax is based on the number of
employees and ranges between $55 per year
for up to 10 employees to $220 per year for 51
or more employees.
Accessory Covered in City of Tigard Title 18 so there Detached accessory structures may not exceed
Structures is no difference between City and County 528 square feet on sites less than 2.5 acres or
since the intergovernmental agreement 1,000 square feet on sites larger than 2.5 acres.
between Washington County and the City May not exceed 15 feet in height, may not be
of Tigard was signed in May, 1997. The located in the front yard setback. Side or rear
Washington County standard however, is: and setbacks are 5 feet.
Page 15
Detached accessory structures may not
exceed 600 square feet for lots up to 12,000
square feet, 5% of the total lot area for lots
between 12,000 and 24,000 square feet and
may not exceed 1,200 square feet for lots
larger that 24,000 square feet. Special
setbacks for structures for livestock or
poultry. If greater than 120 square feet,
setbacks of the underlying zone apply. If
less than 120 square feet, side or rear yard
setback is 3 feet.
Tree Removal Covered in City of Tigard Title 18 so there Commercial forestry is prohibited.
is no difference between City and County Commercial forestry is the removal of 10 or
since the intergovernmental agreement more trees per acre per calendar year, not
between Washington County and the City associated with a development. Removal of
of Tigard was signed in May, 1997. In less than 10 trees per acre per calendar year is
addition, in certain areas in Bull Mountain, permitted. If trees are removed as part of a
based on the Bull Mountain community development, a mitigation plan must be
plan, tree removal for development is reviewed and approved.
limited to 50%.
Storage of RV's May store 1 RV or boat on private property, Can not be located on the street for more than
however, it may not be occupied. 10 days per calendar year. May be stored on
private property as long as it is outside of
vision clearance areas. May not be occupied.
Animal Control Washington County Animal Control Washington County Animal Control regulates
regulates licenses, nuisances, removal of licenses, nuisances, removal of dead animals,
dead animals etc etc
The above table is a GENERAL summary only, and it is strongly recommended that all
property owners contact the City of Tigard and/or Washington County if there is a specific
issue they would like information about. In instances where the City standards are more
restrictive than the County standards, uses that were in existence and legally created prior to
the Urban Services Agreement would be considered pre-existing non-conforming. A pre-
existing legal non-conforming use may remain but may not be enlarged or expanded and may
not be discontinued for more than 6 months without losing its non-conforming status.
2. How will the City's Development Code and Municipal Code affect the daily life of a
Bull Mountain resident? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
In most cases the answer is that it won't, since land-use issues are now reviewed under
Tigard's land-use code standards. There are additional County code issues relative to home
occupations, construction hours, and public rights-of-way, that will come into play when
annexed, however, citizens will see little difference from what they see now. People are
encouraged to evaluate individual differences between the two jurisdictions by reviewing the
various standards themselves.
Page 16
3. Will existing home businesses (specific example was a bed and breakfast) have to
change the way they operate? Will they need to pay more for permits? !Flow will
annexation affect home businesses? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
The bed-and-breakfast operation will become a nonconforming use in Tigard. A pre-existing
legal non-conforming use may remain but may not be enlarged or expanded and may not be
discontinued for more than 6 months without losing its non-conforming status. The City will
be considering regulations for bed-and-breakfasts in the future. Existing home businesses
would be required pay an annual business tax.
Land-use permits are currently based on County fees, which are more than City fees. The
City of Tigard is studying its fees, and they may change. All City home occupation standards
now apply within the Urban Services Area with the exception of the existing County
regulations that the City adopted, including prohibiting outside storage, distribution of
materials or sales outside the home, and parking of a commercial vehicle as part of a home
occupation, which are all part of the County code.
4. Currently, residents of Bull Mountain enjoy life as a rural community. Will annexation
affect the current standards involving livestock, farmland, and rural atmosphere?
(Answer provided by City of Tigard)
The Tigard Development Code provisions related to livestock state that when an agricultural
use is adjacent to a residential use, no poultry or livestock, other than normal household pets,
may be housed or be provided use of a fenced run within 100' of any nearby residence,
except a dwelling unit on the same lot. Existing conditions would remain nonconforming
unless changed by development.
Regarding farmland and the area's rural character: Those areas considered for annexation
are zoned for urban development at 5,000 sq-ft. lots. That is no different from Washington
County. There are, however, many larger undeveloped lots that probably would still consider
themselves "rural". These areas are most likely to be found in the eastern sub-area and found
throughout portions of the southern sub-area. Please refer to the comparison provided in
Table 2 above, that shows how some identified issues differ between the City and County.
For specific issues, you will need to contact the City and/or County. There is no requirement
1 for properties to develop, however, if land develops, it is required to be developed to the
minimum density. The minimum density is calculated at 80% of the maximum. Washington
County recently adopted similar standards.
i
+ H. OTHER QUESTIONS
i
1. (Some) Bull Mountain residents like the County because the County has pretty much
left them alone. Will the City continue this laissez-faire attitude? (Answer provided by City
a of Tigard)
It was not clear what exactly was meant by this question since there are rules and regulations
in the County that every resident must follow and if they are found to be in violation of a
standard, appropriate action would be taken to bring them into compliance. The City of
Page 17
Tigard does not go out "searching" for violators of land use and development standards,
however, if a resident or property owner is found to be in violation of a standard (and is not a
pre-existing non-conforming use) the City's code compliance officer would work with them
to bring them into compliance. Washington County and the City of Tigard have a variety of
standards and regulations. Table 2, above, illustrates some of these differences. Both
jurisdictions are complaint driven with regards to enforcement of regulations and standards.
2. How will the City identify what the residents want before and after annexation? (Answer
provided by City of Tigard)
The City held a Focus Group meeting with Bull Mountain residents in July 2001; the
questions in this document reflect residents' queries at that meeting.
The issue of annexation is subject to Council direction. Based upon the direction Council
decides on, public outreach will be determined.
3. Does annexation affect school boundaries? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
No, school district boundaries for elementary, middle and high schools are determined by the
school districts. In addition, there are two school districts: the Tigard-Tualatin School
District and the Beaverton School District. The City is not a decision maker in the district or
school boundary lines, however we do provide data, as requested, on the number of lots
approved which helps each district in their school boundary decision making.
4. What is the difference in service levels between the County and the City?
The following table summarizes the level of service provided in the County and what will be
provided by the City if the area were annexed.
Table 3: Service Provision in the Bull Mountain Stud Area
L4 Police Washington Couhty,ptovides " The City of Tigard would provide 1~es :
1.0"oflicers/LOO ,,people 1 S officers/1000,people Thterewouldbe
(.S standard, .S fiom Enhiariced Patrol} an nncr~ase;of
,approximately, .
]?ire/Rescue Tualatin Valley,Fire &,Rescue g avrdes Tualaiih Valley Fire & Rescue J No
services: continues,to.provide services:.
Page 18
Parks Washington County does not provide Tigard's Aarks'sfai bard is.7.65•-acres °g,es
parks services. for every 1;OQ6 residents. nis The City.
includes-G eenway"s' ,trails; open provides park,
space and, iMpioved-parl s. U4til • seiices.
parks could e.provided inii l
Mountain, the: dty; ratio would be
appioximately-674/1000'.
General Road Washington County through the Urban The City's road xnamtenance Yes
Maintenance Road Maintenance District. General perfom~s.mamfenance on'regula the City .
street maintenance by *'County is schedules:as w6H.~as on.a.t;ortiplaint- . .provides:,
primarily 6n a:complaint=driven basis . driven .liasis Typi%almaihtenance additidn,li :toad
Typical maintenance activities include: activities;include: ma~ntenatce
• services:~;: . .
• pothole patching • pothole patching
• grading graveled roads • grading gravAedroa,
• cleaning drainage facilities. a elean{ng drainage fi(cilIties
• street sweeping • .stceeVs weep> g, '
O mowing roadside grass and brush • mowinifoa' ide"grass"and, - -
+
(only the.shoulder strip). brush. ('shoul'der strip; ditch
• maintaining traffic signals: ; tine,7,
• replacing damaged signs maintaining tiaflic-signals
• tepl'a%iiig.dar►iaged signs..•
• installing and rep'acuia street ,
markiing`s
• cracksealing
• vegetation removal for;vision
clearance
• stieet3ight tree trimining for,
light' clearance
• dust abatement on graveled.
road
Sanitary Sewer Clean Water Services (CWS) The Ctty' of Tigard will meet the No
same•lpyef.6f seivice as CWS: All.
service lev.'els foi.CWS:and
surioundng jursdictions:must be
unrtbm 6y duly 2003.
Storm Sewer Clean Water Services (CWS) The City of Tigard wrllmeet the •Ntt
same level of service as EWS'. All..
service levels for CWS ana
surrounding jurisdretions'•must
un forM 6y:July -2003:
Water Intergovernmental Water Board Seivice.remains the same. Tigard:; `No
contracts with.the Tigard Water District Water District will continue to :
to provide water. provide water but will bill -directly:'
Page 19
Street Light Washington County administers Tlie;(;ity_ of Tigard will assume all Service remains
Maintenance Service, Districts: for Lighting for PGE. 'street liglit',pperations and the same'but
Residents pay an annual•..*i ions and mawtenauce: for•existing lights. property.owners
maintenance assessment.' Residents do.not pay a separate arenotrasseSsed
`assessment for the
operahomoti~e
Community The City of Tigard provides building The City; of Tigard will continue to Odly change uI
D,velopment and services-includingiand use decisions, provi& bultdifig sernces"to this area aerv,,ce is than
Building Services building.and.eogi iecring-raider an lira Clty _resiiews•
intergovernmental agreement with Altlandiise, deb. Wonsmill continue legislative
Washington County. • to~be renewed under the:City . matters.:
•-standar&and through the City.'s
All land use decisions are reviewed 'hb faring process : The Citywould-be
under-'the City standards andahrough tlie;TevYew authority for:legislative
the CIty's hearing process with the, acts'tins as.well (zone changes,. .
exception:of legislative aetions (zone eannpreh¢nstve plan amendments, .
changes, ComprelYensive, an ety)
amendments; etc
]Library Washington Coupty;Coopcrahve T1ie City gf X'}gaxd, which receives Nb
Library Services (,I CCLS) appro~clxnatel 49
t 1%:64ltsfundin
COnSOrtlun],.1YhZC#LTOVIt1CS.fllndirlg' "dill htl'{aV✓'~?k LS BullMountam
through the coutif~r ilk to areas hl;~raries, tegldehtsrwouldJiave Itifluence;6a,
including Tigard (he "16" i s seryaces, and could,
d7Qcat, fon•the,setvices'theyvapt
Schools Both the'.Beaverton School-Distinct-and Annexation does not• change. school No ,
the Tigard ;Schoolistrtct'provide' dzstnct lioundsrics
service Based on'iiistnct bisuiidaries i
Garbage Collection Residents are chargejd rates;estabhsfied yThe.'CI}y,~'ranchises City garbage Sbrviee•xemalas`'
byWashington Couh ' `fibr;serv;ce~ -coIr't6 'ptthe ButfMountaiu the sauiO. b
provided by..Pride ,,Residents pay the 'area would bncome parC;gf the rates vs!IlI'dlffer
fee depettding on the size ofcontainer lranchlearea The service provider g, f pcrcIx
iheyitsg Yrnaili the same;but resiilents~voull9 ;trttliYi
cared the
li' rates established by report.far.rates .
City cll bas4il oii: the size of the
eontaiiie[;the use
Page 20
I. COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS (Answers provided by City of Tigard)
1. What is the difference between the Washington County permanent rate vs. City of
Tigard permanent rate?
The County rate is $2.2484 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. The City of Tigard's rate is
$2.5131. The County permanent rate pays for countywide services such as juvenile justice,
jails, courts, social services, etc. The City permanent rate pays for local services such as
police, parks, library, and a portion of land use planning and street maintenance services.
Following annexation, Bull Mountain property owners, like all City of Tigard property
owners, will pay both permanent rates. It should be noted that the permanent rate does not
include special district assessments such as the Urban Road Maintenance District or
Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District. Upon annexation, Bull Mountain property owners will not
pay the special district assessments anymore. For a home assessed at $227,775, this amounts
to a difference of $256.50 per year. Refer to Table 6 for a complete breakdown of property
tax assessments.
2. )Flow would annexation affect Tigard's "tax base" and tax rate?
Since the passage of Measure 50, there are no longer any tax bases in the State of Oregon.
Measure 50 eliminated tax bases in favor of permanent tax rates. Tigard's rate will not
change as a result of annexation. Following annexation, the City permanent tax rate will be
applied to assessed values in the newly annexed area, producing additional property tax
revenue for the City to help pay for City services provided to those areas.
3. What would property taxes be if annexation happens?
Property taxes will be based on Tigard's permanent rate and the total assessed value of your
property. The tax rate is permanent. For a home assessed at $227,755, annexation would
increase taxes by approximately $256.50 per year. See the attached Table 6 for a complete
breakdown of all the assessments paid in the County and the City of Tigard. If the assessed
value increases, the property tax paid will increase as well, however, it should be noted that a
property's assessed value can only be raised a maximum of 3% per year.
4. Would there be any additional taxes beyond property taxes (such as existing local
option taxes in Tigard)?
Currently, the City of Tigard has one General Obligation Bond tax levy for construction of
the Civic Center and transportation improvements. For a home assessed at $227,755, it
equates to approximately $51.77 a year. The last year of this levy is FY 2002-03. Tigard
does not have a Local Option Levy.
Bull Mountain property owners now pay the following taxes for general government
services, and would continue to pay them under annexation: Washington County, Tualatin
Valley Fire & Rescue, Port of Portland and Metro. Bull Mountain property owners (like
Tigard property owners) now pay the following taxes to support General Obligation bonds,
Page 21
and would continue to pay them under annexation: Washington County, Portland Community
College, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Port of Portland, Metro and Tri-Met.
However, Bull Mountain property owners would cease paying the following taxes for general
government services, as these services would be assumed by the City of Tigard: Washington
County Enhanced Patrol, Washington County Road Maintenance and Street Lighting
districts. For a home assessed at $227,755, the net increase (after subtracting the special
district assessments and adding in the City of Tigard permanent tax rate and one general
obligation bond) in property taxes would be approximately $256.50 a year.
5. What potential local option taxes are on the horizon? (schools, roads, etc.)
Tigard is considering placing a General Obligation Bond levy on the ballot in 2002 to build a
new library. The size of the bond is currently under development, so the tax impact is not yet
known. This information will be developed well in advance of the election.
The Tigard-Tualatin School District is also considering a General Obligation Bond levy to be .
referred to the voters in 2002. Annexation to the City does not affect school district
boundaries, however, so annexation will not affect this levy. (Attendance boundaries for
elementary, middle and high schools are set by the respective school district. Annexation has
no impact on the attendance boundaries.)
The Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) is considering going out
for a local option levy in 2002, however, if this levy were approved it would be paid
regardless of whether annexation occurred.
Other overlapping jurisdictions may also be considering bond levies or Local Option Levies,
but the City has no information on these plans.
It should be noted that any decision on proposed bonds rests solely with the voters in the
district to be served.
6. How much additional revenue for Tigard would annexation generate? What would the
additional revenue be at build-out?
The table on the next page shows the Projected Revenues and Costs by Funds for Bull
Mountain Area upon annexation with the existing population. Numbers in parentheses
represent balance shortfalls.
Page 22
Table 4-A - Ongoing O ea~tin Costs
P`iund Revenne. Operating . $adance
General $2,161,822 1,298,469 $863,353
State Gas Tax $319,081 391,932 ($72,851)
Sanitary Sewer $202,904 $85,597 $117,307
Storm Sewer $97,524 78,188 $19,336
Water $1,767,550 691,659 $1,075,891
Table 4-B - One-time Ca ital Costs
Fuld < Funit lalancel: Capital Improvements Bafagce
GaIa:Rcvenues.
Traffic Impact Fee $370,640 0 $370,640,
Parks SDC $268,960 $13,105,000 ($12,836,040)
Water SDC $334,724 0 $334,724
The next table shows the Projected Revenues and Costs by Funds for Bull Mountain Area at
build-out which is 80% of the maximum buildable using vacant and re-developable land.
Table 5-A - On oin O eratin Costs
pd! Reuenue::. Operating ! Balance
General $3,806,006 $2,260,681 $1,545,325
State Gas Tax $535,816 $628,011 ($92,195)
Sanitary Sewer $361,318 $143,739 $217,579
Storm Sewer $173,664 $131,300 $42,364
Water $1,767,550 691,659 $1,075,891
Page 23
Table 5-B - One-time Ca ital Costs
Fund Fund )Balance/ Capital Imro ~eanents Balance
C$ :ital. Revenues
Traffic Impact Fee $5,150,540 $12,718,600 ($7,568,060)
Parks SDC $3,737,560 $22,033,000 ($18,295,440)
Water SDC $4,651,439 $816,400 $3,835,039
7. How is the annexation study being paid for?
Funding for this study comes from the City's General Fund.
S. How much money will be available for infrastructure under Tigard versus under Washington
County?
The Bull Mountain Study, prepared by the City of Tigard, identifies infrastructure needs for
the entire area. Transportation and park improvements exceed revenue projections. At this
point funding strategies have not been determined to address the infrastructure needs of the
area.
9. If annexation happens, how much of the Bull Mountain revenue stream will stay in the Bull
Mountain area? How much will stay in Tigard, and where will it go?
The City does not segregate revenues by geographic area. Revenues are used to provide
needed services to all citizens. As part of the annexation study, the City is in the process of
identifying those services needed in the Bull Mountain area, and if annexed, the City will
provide services.
10. By annexing, would the additional revenue coming to Tigard actually outweigh any
additional costs to the City?
The tables (4A, 413, 5A and 513) above show that, in some funds the City would have increase
in revenue whereas in other funds the City would see a shortfall in order to provide the level
of service currently provided to City of Tigard residents.
11. Are there additional benefits (such as grants) that become available to the City of Tigard if
they annex Bull Mountain that aren't available now? Are there any negative consequences to
the City if they don't annex Bull Mountain?
The Federal Government offers the Entitlement City Program to those cities with a
population of at least 50,000. The program makes cities eligible for HUD grants. The 2000
Census shows Tigard's population as 41,223. If Bull Mountain is annexed, 7,268 current
residents will be added, for a total of 48,491. If the Bull Mountain area is fully built out to the
minimum density, the study projects an additional 5,637 residents. The City would be
Page 24
eligible for Entitlement City grants in the year it reaches 50,000 population, which depends
on the area's rate of growth.
In addition to grants, certain state shared revenues (such as cigarette tax, liquor tax, state
revenue sharing, and state gas tax) that are shared with cities based on formulas that include
(among other factors) population. The share of these revenues to Tigard will increase with
annexations.
The City currently provides some services to the Bull Mountain area under contract to
Washington County: These services (such as land use permitting and building inspection)
will probably continue to be provided as along as fees charged for these services continue to
cover costs. However, Bull Mountain residents also use City of Tigard facilities for which
they are not assessed; i.e., the library and parks. ` rowth in population in an un-annexed
area, such as Bull Mountain, requires increasing levels of service from the City without a
corresponding increase in funding. This can result in lower levels of service for all citizens,
whether they live in un-annexed areas or within the City itself.
kirplan/julia/annexation/Draft answers to the questions.dor.
11/7/01 3:24 PM
Page 25 .
Appendix G
Residential Garbage Collection Rates
for the Bull Mountain Study Area
Cart Size Washington County City of Tigard
Monthly Urban Rates' Monthly Rates2
Mini Cart $17.91 $16.10
(20 gallon)
32 gallon $19.30 $18.75
60 gallon $28.01 $29.25
90 gallon $33.12 $35.50
1. County rates as of June 1, 2001. Urban refers to collection within
the metropolitan service district boundary.
2. City rates as of January 1, 2002
3. All rates include yard debris collection.
4. To be consistent with City requirements, curb rates (0-5' from curb)
are used for both County and City.
I:\LRPLN\Barbara\ANNEXATION Final Report\Appendix G.doc
AGENDA ITEM # .52,
FOR AGENDA OF December 18, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update on Washington Square Regional Center Plan Implementation Program
PREPARED BY: Barbara Shields DEPT HEAD OK /hAV CITY MGR OK G 1111
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Staff will update Council on the Washington Square Regional Center Plan Implementation Program and receive
comments from Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
N/A. Review only.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
At the August 21, 2001, meeting, Council directed staff to move forward with the implementation process of the
Washington Square Regional Center Plan, Phase II, Implementation. Although Council approved the Plan and
related Comprehensive Plan and Code amendments in February, 2000, Council delayed enactment of these
documents until Phase II addressed a number of issues related to transportation, stormwater, natural resources,
parks and open space. At the August 21, 2001, meeting, Council directed staff to coordinate a meeting between the
City of Beaverton and Washington County, recognizing the multijurisdictional nature of the Plan.
On December 3, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Code
amendments based on Task Force recommendations related to Phase II, Implementation of the Washington Square
Regional Center Plan.
Staff is coming back to Council to discuss the major issues of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan
Implementation Program at the December 18, 2001, study session meeting. A PowerPoint presentation will focus
on (1) discussing the City's approach, efforts, and available implementation tools in the regional context; (2)
multi jurisdictional coordination efforts initiated by the City; and (3) the major elements of the Washington
Square Regional Implementation Program. On January 22, 2002, Council is scheduled to review the Washington
Square Regional Center Plan package, including a resolution implementing the Plan.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
\\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\LRPLN\Harbara\washington square\IPMPRG\12-18ccreport.doc
a
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Growth and Growth Management Goal #1: Growth while protecting the character and livability of new and
established areas, while providing far natural environment and open space throughout the community; Strategy # 3:
Address planning acid growth issues associated with Regional Center.
ATTACHMENT LIST
None.
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
\\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\LRPLN\Sarbara\washington square\IPMPRG\12-18ccreport.doc
III&
s 1
AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : December 18, 2001
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues
not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager
prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you.
NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED
lt.-~~~--J T3~.e-~"~~ soa ~~c~ ~t r~✓
/3~y Src~ /3(~ ~L3 W ~a~ N~✓rJ L~
VISITOR'S AGENDA Page 9
long=
AGENDA ITEM # 3'-
FOR AGENDA OF December 18.2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Receive & File: Update on Progress for Review and Amendment of the Tigard
Municipal Code
y V
PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatle EPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OKWW-41
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Receive and file the summary of the progress made this last year of the review of the Tigard Municipal Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
No action requested of Council. The report is an update only.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Staff identified a number of sections throughout the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) that merited review for
potential update (amendment). Attached is a chart showing the progress made so far on the sections identified.
City Recorder Cathy Wheatley will contact departments for those items that still need to be reviewed and possibly
scheduled before the Council if staff determines that proposed amendments are warranted. The remaining TMC
sections will be scheduled on the Council's tentative agenda in 2002.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
Chart showing progress made so far in the Tigard Municipal Code Review.
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
I:WMPACKET'01=01121SUMC REVIEW AIS.DOC
Tigard Municipal Code Review (TMC)
Section of Code Description Amended by Ordinance
No,/Date
1.01 Citing official name &
purpose of the TMQ 01-19/October 9, 2001
authorized City Recorder to
edit TMC
1.12 Initiative & Referendum - 01-19/October 9, 2001
Updated to establish
deadline for initiative
petitions.
1.16 Civil infractions. On tentative agenda for
(This involves enforcement, June 25, 2002
court, prosecutor.)
1.17 Appeals to Civil Infractions To be reviewed by
Hearings Officer Community Development
2.06 Residency requirements for 01-22/November 13, 2001
certain city officials -
repealed.
2.08 Planning Commission To be reviewed by
Community Development
2.09 Building Appeals Board - 01-12-A/September 25,
reduced number of board 2001
members from 14 to 7
2.12 Park & Recreation Board To be scheduled in 2002.
Cathy to review history of (Administration/Com-
termination of prior board. munity Development)
Jim H. to look at function
and update if needed.
2.16 Municipal Court - Update Photo radar will not be
for Photo Radar pursued at this time.
2.20 Jury Trial Scheduled for January 22,
2002
2.24 Criminal Procedure Scheduled for January 22,
(update fees 2002
2.26 Witnesses Scheduled for January 22,
(update fees 2002
Page 1
Section of Code Description Amended by Ordinance
No,1Date
2.28 Police Reserves - removed 01-17/October 9, 2001
requirement that reserve
officers could not be over
age 60
2.30 Police Department Scheduled for January 8,
2002.
2.32 Jail Reviewed - Chief
Goodpaster advised no
issues with this section.
2.36 Library 01-13/ August 28, 2001
2.40 Nominating Procedures Reviewed with Council -
no changes recommended.
2.44 City Council Reviewed with Council -
no changes recommended.
2.46 Local Contract Review 01-24/November 27, 2001
Board
2.52 Abandoned, Found, Seized Scheduled for January 8,
& Stolen Property 2002
2.56 City Recorder - updated 01-19/October 9, 2001
lana e
2.58 Finance Officer - updated 01-08/June 26, 2001
language
2.60 City Attorney - updated 01-19/October 9, 2001
language
2.64 City Center Development To be scheduled.
Delete? Administration
Revenue and finance. Scheduled for January 22,
Review of fees. 2002.
3.24 System Development Under review.
Charges (City Attorney)
3.28 Tigard Urban Renewal To be scheduled.
Agency Fund - Repeal? Administration
3.44 Sale of Surplus Real 01-09/June 25, 2001
Proper
3.50 Non Profit Council discussion
Corporation/ Low Income occurred in 2001. Needs
Housing further review.
5.04 Business Taxes To be scheduled.
Communi Development)
Page 2
Section of Code Description Amended by Ordinance
No,/Date
5.10 Dectectives & Merchant 01-05/June 12, 2001
Police (repealed this
section
5.12 Cable Communication 01-20/November 13, 2001
5.14 Telecommunications To be scheduled. Finance
5.16 Sound Trucks To be scheduled.
(Community Development)
5.20 Liquor License Application Fee Adjustment (by
Resolution No. 01-45)/July
10, 2001
7.40 Nuisances (noise ordinance 01-13-A/September 25,
was updated) 2001
7.48 Public Assemblies Scheduled for February 12,
2002
7.52 Public Property Use To be scheduled. (Public
Works
7.56 Indecent Conduct To be scheduled. (Police
Department.)
7.60 Abandoned Vehicles To be scheduled (Police
Department)
7.78 Property Forfeitures To be scheduled (Police
Department)
7.80 Camping Prohibited To be scheduled (Police
Department)
7.100 Exclusion from Library 01-13/August 28, 2001
9.04 Parks, Rules & Regulations To be scheduled (Public
Works Department)
10.28.022 Prohibiting Parking To be scheduled (Police
Department)
10.28.030 Truck, trailer 01-23/November 13, 2001
11.04 Solid Waste Management 00-34/December 12, 2000
11.08 Burglary & Alarm Systems 01-21/November 13, 2001
11.10 Theater Regulations To be scheduled (Police
Department)
13.09 Updating Reimbursement 01-11-A/September 25,
District Program 2001
14.04 Building Code Scheduled for December 11,
2001
14.06 S ecial Inspections Scheduled May, 20027777J
Page 3
Section of Code Description Amended by Ordinance
No./Date
14.16 Property Maintenance (no update needed
14.20 Moving of Buildings 01-18/October 9, 2001
14-- Residential Driveway Slope To be scheduled.
New (Engineering)
14-- Demolition Permits To be scheduled.
(Engineering)
15.08 Street Vacations Scheduled for April'02
(Community Development)
15.12 Sidewalks No change - looking @
maintenance fee
(Transportation Financing
Strategies Task Force
I:\ADM\CATHY\COUNCIL\TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE REVIEW.DOC
Page 4
AGENDA ITEM # . 3 _
FOR AGENDA OF 12/18/01
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Park SDC Annual Adjustment Formula Amendments
AOW" &%Qw-
PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK 111Y W40
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should Council adopt technical changes to the "Formula for Parks SDC Annual Adjustments".
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution making the proposed technical changes to the automatic esculator.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On April 10, 2001, Council adopted Resolution 01-13 establishing annual adjustments to parks system
development charges. The proposed amendment will correct two mistakes contained in Exhibit "A", the formula
for computing the proposed adjustments. As currently written, the exhibit refers to Measure 5 "appraised values".
This wording unintentionally ties the annual adjustment to the Measure 5 limit on the rate of increase in property
taxes. The amendments correct this problem by deleting the reference to Measure 5 and by changing "appraised
values" to "real market values".
The second proposed change involves deleting the sentence "The annual index for each year will be selected
beginning with the index for December 2002." The reasons are that the sentence is both unnecessary and
inconsistent with the text of the annual adjustment resolution, which states that the implementation of the annual
adjustment will begin in January 2002.
The proposed changes have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
No alternatives considered.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
No relevant goal under the Parks and Recreation set of goals appears to apply.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Resolution
FISCAL NOTES
The proposed amendments would insure the park SDC keeps pace with inflation over time and is not limited by
Measure 5. The amendments also would insure that the implementation of the annual adjustment begins in
January 2002, as intended by Council.
i/citywide/res/parksdc.techchange
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO.01-
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS TO PARKS SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City adopted Resolution No. 96-11 on February 27, 1996, imposing a Parks
System Development Charge (Parks SDC), adopting a methodology for the imposition of Parks
SDC charges, and a capital improvements plan, consistent with state law; .
WHEREAS, the City adopted Resolution 01.J2. on 44-10.()l , modifying the amount of
Parks SDCs consistent with the previously adopted methodology;
WHEREAS, components of the adopted methodology for Parks SDCs include the cost of
residential land and construction costs;
WHEREAS, published indices provide reliable information on changes in the cost of residential
land and construction costs;
WHEREAS, if Parks SDC charges are not adjusted with sufficient frequency, an increase in an
SDC charge to reflect changes in the cost of land or construction may become substantial;
WHEREAS, if Parks SDC charges are not adjusted with sufficient frequency, the City will collect
less money to fund parks than the adopted methodology calls for;
WHEREAS, annual increases in Parks SDC charges based on reliable indices will result in
incremental increases in SDC charges while remaining consistent with the adopted
methodology;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Tigard City Council resolves as follows:
Section 1: The Parks SDC shall be adjusted annually on January 1st of each year
beginning in 2002. The formula to be used in determining the adjustment is
attached as exhibit "A".
PASSED: This lb day of L , 2001.
yor Ci y VP and
ATTEST:
G('
City Recorder, City of Tigard
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
Page I
AGENDA ITEM # ~4-
FOR AGENDA OF December 18.2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Acknowled¢e that the Balloon Festival 40' of July Event and Broadway Rose
Theater are City Sponsored Events and AQprove Resolutions Establishing the Modified Standard Agreements for
All Three Events
PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatle DEPT HEAD OK TY MGR OK 1/ V wh
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Review the resolutions establishing the modified standard agreements for the Balloon Festival, 4th of July Event,
and Broadway Rose Theater.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the resolutions as proposed
INFOIWATION SUMMARY
On October 9, 2001, the City Council reviewed Resolution No. 01-58 (attached) that revised the procedure to grant
City sponsorship to City events and established a standardized agreement form. The City Council directed staff to
work with the sponsored event organizers to tailor the agreements to meet the needs for each event.
On November 20, 2001, the City Council reviewed the modified agreements with event organizers. After
discussion, it was determined that the staff would return with these modified agreements for formal Council
approval and are hereby submitted (three proposed resolutions attached).
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Suggest additional modifications to the agreements.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
The City of Tigard Vision Task Force and Action Planning Committee Strategy for Community Character and
Quality of Life calls for development of an overall approach for sponsoring community events, including long-
standing events and new events, and development of a philosophy for event sponsorship.
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Proposed resolution with agreement attached for the Balloon Festival.
2. Proposed resolution with agreement attached for the 41h of July Event.
3. Proposed resolution with agreement attached for the Broadway Rose Theater.
4 Copy of Resolution No 01-58 revising the procedure to grant City sponsorship to community events.
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
I:\ADM\PACKET'01\20011218\1 SPONSORSHIP.DOC
Attachment 4
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO.01_
A RESOLUTION REVISING THE PROCEDURE TO GRANT CITY SPONSORSHIP TO
COMMUNITY EVENTS AND REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 00-01.
WHEREAS, various groups organize and put on community and cultural events for the benefit
of the citizens of Tigard; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard from time to time offers support for some privately organized
and operated events in the form of cash payments, in-kind services, fee waivers, and/or access to
City facilities or insurance; and
WHEREAS, it would be appropriate for the City to support certain privately organized and
operated events as a sponsor duc to the number of Tigard citizens participating or volunteering
for the event, the role of the event in creating a greater sense of community in Tigard, and the
economic, artistic, and cultural benefits of the event to Tigard residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, City sponsorship, with a commitment for long term participation, improves the
ability of event organizers to plan for the long term and to obtain other sponsors and financial
support; and
WHEREAS, the City did establish three sponsored community events in 2000 by way of
Resolution No. 00-20 for the Tigard Festival of Balloons, Resolution No.00-21 for the Tigard 4`h
of July Event, and Resolution No. 00-22 for the Broadway Rose Theatre Company.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
Section The procedure for City Sponsorship of Cultural Events, included in this
Resolution as Attachment A, is hereby adopted. The procedure adopted by
Resolution No. 00-01 shall no longer be in effect.
Section 2• The standardized agreement form, included in this resolution as Attachment B, is
hereby adopted as the agreement form that the City shall use for agreements with
organizers of sponsored events. The standard form may be modified on a case-
by-case basis to fit the particular circumstances of a sponsored event.
Section 3: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage.
PASSED: This Q day of 2001.
. '0 AQMZ?
ayor Cr 1 o gard
A EST:
City Recor er - City of Tig rd
I:%ADMICATHYIEVENTSISPONSORIRESOLUTIN-SPO R.DOC
Page 1- RESOLUTION NO. 01-
Mom
ATTACHMENT A
CITY SPONSORSHIP OF CULTURAL EVENTS
I , The City of Tigard will formally recognize by Council resolution those community and
cultural events that it wishes to sponsor. Sponsorship will continue until terminated
under the terms of the sponsorship agreement. All sponsored events shall remain the
responsibility of the event organizer and are not official City events.
2. City sponsorship may include City support (cash payments, in-kind services, fee waivers,
and/or access to City facilities or insurance), as identified in the sponsoring resolution. If
City sponsorship includes cash payments, the sponsoring resolution will identify a target
funding amount. A target amount may be adjusted, however, during the City's annual
budget process. City sponsorship may include coverage by the City's insurance policies
only with the written approval of the City's Finance Director and Risk Manager.
3. In identifying events for City sponsorship, the City will consider the following factors:
a. The number of City residents participating in the event.
b. The number of City residents volunteering for the event.
C. The role of the event in creating a greater sense of community and Tigard
identity.
d. Economic, artistic, and cultural benefits of the event to Tigard residents and
businesses.
e. The level of support for the event raised from other sources.
f. The event is held within the corporate limits of the City of Tigard.
4. The City may require events sponsored by the City to list the City as a sponsor in
publicity and promotional materials that list sponsors. The City may require the event to
include the City's logo on any materials or displays that display other sponsors' logos.
5. Non-sponsored events may be considered for funding during the City's annual budget
process on a year-to-year basis.
6. The organizer of a sponsored event shall be required to enter into a sponsorship
agreement with the City.
7. The sponsored event and the organizer of the sponsored event are independent of City
control and have no authority to act for the City. The sponsored event and organization
are not agents, employees or officers of the City for any purpose.
8. The City may review sponsored events and the actions of the organizers of sponsored
events at any time to determine continued compliance with agreements, sponsoring
resolutions, and applicable code provisions and may take appropriate action, including
termination, for noncompliance.
I:\ADM\CATfiY\FVENTS\SPONSOR\RESOLUTION - ATTACMENT A.DOC
t
ATTACHMENT B
SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT
This sponsorship agreement is between the City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal
corporation (City) and , a (Organizer).
RECITALS
a. Organizer is the organizer of the (the Event) and has asked
the City to be a sponsor of the Event. Although open to the public, the Event put
on by Organizer is a private event and not an official City event.
a. City has passed a resolution which provides procedures and policies for City
sponsorship of events.
b. City has passed a resolution which authorized City sponsorship of the Event,
subject to execution of this Sponsorship Agreement.
C. City and Organizer have agreed to the scope of the City sponsorship and the
relationship between the City and Organizer as set forth below.
AGREEMENT
1. (OPTIONAL - to be used if the City requires Organizer to provide insurance. Not
applicable if City provides insurance.) This agreement shall be effective when Organizer
provides certificates of insurance as required by Section - below.
2. This agreement shall remain in effect until terminated as provided in Section below.
3. City shall reimburse (pay) Organizer up to for fiscal year , for costs
incurred to put on the Event, as provided for in Resolution . Payment
shall be made only after Organizer provides proof that the costs have been incurred and
paid by the Organizer and were costs of the Event. (Payment shall be made no more than
60 days prior to the Event to pay costs of the Event.) The amount of funds, if any, that
the City will provide for future fiscal years shall be determined by the Tigard City
Council in its sole discretion.
SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT
Page 1
4. A. (OPTIONAL) City shall make the following City facilities available for use by
Organizer:
The dates and times of use of the City facilities shall be specified in a permit that must be
applied for at least days before the Event. All fees for the permit may be waived.
B. (OPTIONAL - PROBABLY FOR BALLOON FESTIVAL ONLY) Organizer
shall have the right to use the following areas of Cook Park for the duration of the
Event:
(attach map)
During the period that Organizer has the right to use these areas, Organizer may
determine who may engage in commercial activities within these areas. For all other
areas Organizer shall have no right to exclude persons or prevent them from engaging in
commercial activity.
To provide security for equipment, goods and other property of Organizer during the
Event, camping within the exclusive area is permitted to Organizer and those permitted to
camp by Organizer. This section constitutes the camping permit authorized by TMC
Section 7.80.020.
5. (OPTIONAL) City shall provide the following in-kind services to the Organizer:
(FOR BALLOON FESTIVAL) City shall police Cook Park during the Event.
Organizer shall have no right to control or direct City police operations and City
employees. Nothing in this section relieves Organizer from responsibility for
damage to City property or other property resulting from the Event.
City shall provide litter clean up for the Event within Cook Park. Organizer shall
have no right to control or direct City employees. Nothing in this section relieves
Organizer from responsibility for damage to City property or other property
resulting from the Event.
SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT
Page 2
6. (REIMBURSEMENT ALTERNATIVE) If the Event does not take place because of
weather or other reason outside the control of the Organizer, the City may reimburse
Organizer for expenses incurred by Organizer prior to the cancellation up to the amount
stated in Section 2. If the Event is canceled by Organizer for reasons within Organizer's
control, the City shall not pay any funds to Organizer and Organizer shall return to the
City all fimds paid by the City to Organizer in connection with the canceled Event within
ten (10) business days of the cancellation.
(PAYMENT ALTERNATIVE) If the Event does not take place because of weather or
other reason outside the control of the Organizer, Organizer shall repay the City the
amount paid pursuant to Section 2, provided however, that Organizer shall not be
required to refund any amount actually expended for the Event before cancellation. In
determining whether proceeds from the City have been expended, Organizer shall
balance expenditures for the Event against revenue related to the Event, and all excess
income up to the amount stated in Section 2 shall be used to repay the City.
If the Event is canceled for any reason, the City shall not provide any in-kind services
after the date of cancellation. If the Event is canceled for any reason, the City's facilities
shall be available to the Organizer on the same basis that they are available to any other
person or entity.
If the main location of the Event moves outside the City limits of the City of Tigard for a
given year, the City may terminate or reduce payments and/or the provision of services as
it determines appropriate. The termination or reduction shall be decided by the City
Council in its sole discretion.
7. Organizer shall identify City as a sponsor of the Event and Organizer shall provide the
following rights to City:
(Include as appropriate)
A. The right to have a booth at the Event.
B. The right to have banners at the following locations: , (list)
such banners to be provided by Organizer and to be of a size and design chosen
by City and placed in accordance with City's directions.
C. The right to have (number) additional signs at locations specified by
City and at a distance of at least (number) feet from other signage, such
signs to be provided by Organizer.
D. The right to signage on all courtesy vehicles, if any, used by Organizer in
connection with the Event.
SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT
Page 3
E. The right to credit as follows in all print advertising of a size larger than
(number) square inches placed by Organizer in connection with the Event:
inclusion of City as listed sponsor.
F. The right to be named in all press releases issued by Organizer.
A. The right to be listed in any list of sponsors or to be included in any
acknowledgment of sponsors.
H. The right to (number) pages of advertising in the official program
produced by Organizer.
1. The right to have the City logo displayed on an equal basis with other sponsors.
J. The right to use photographs and film of this Event generated by the City, its
employees, agents or volunteers.
K. The right to erect a courtesy tent or host a similar area at the Event at a location
designated by Organizer.
L. The right to make public address announcements during the Event.
Nothing in the identification of the City as a sponsor shall state or imply that the
Organizer is an agent of the City or that the City is responsible in any way for the Event.
8. Organizer shall provide sufficient means by which the public may obtain information
about the Event, including but not limited to adequate phone lines to handle inquiries
about the Event. The information phone lines shall be answered by a person or by a
message that includes Event location, schedule and pricing information. Organizer shall
provide City a written public information and communication plan at least 90 days before
the Event. The City may require revisions to the plan. If Organizer fails to provide a
plan or to comply with the plan, the City may terminate this Agreement, suspend or
reduce payments, or deny Organizer the use of City facilities or services. City's only
obligation to provide information about the Event shall be to provide the Events
information telephone number and/or web site address.
9. Food and Beverage Service.
A. Warranty. Organizer represents and warrants that it will cause all food and
beverage vendors to represent and warrant, as a condition of their participation in
the Event, that they will comply with all food service, sanitation and other
regulations applicable to their services at the Event.
SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT
Page 4
B. Alcohol. If alcohol is served at the Event, Organizer will use its best efforts, and
will cause its vendors to use their best efforts, to comply with all applicable laws
and regulations, including City regulations, regarding the service of alcohol to
intoxicated or underage persons, and to encourage the safe use of alcohol.
C. Proof of Liquor Liability Coverage. If alcohol is served at the event, Contractor
shall provide proof of Liquor Liability coverage required by Sections 13 and 15
of this Agreement.
D. Music. Organizer represents and warrants that all music played at the Event,
whether live, recorded or publicly broadcast, will be duly licensed for public
performance by ASCAP, BMI, SESAC or such other performing rights societies
or copyright owners as may be required by law, or else in the public domain.
Organizer will indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any liability
arising out of the performance of music at the Event.
10. The City and Organizer enter into this agreement at arms-length and their only
relationship is contractual. Neither party is an employee, agent, partner, or co-venturer in
relationship to the other. Organizer is and remains an independent entity and has no
authority whatsoever to act for the City. Organizer is not an officer, employee or agent
of City as those terms are used in ORS 30.265 Organizer's officers, employees and
agents are not the officers, employees, or agents of City those terms are used in ORS
30.265. Organizer, its employees and officers shall not hold themselves out either
explicitly or implicitly as officers, employees or agents of City for any purpose
whatsoever, nor are they authorized to do so. Organizer shall include a provision that it
is not an agent of the City in all contracts it enters into with third parties.
11. Organizer is solely responsible for the organization and operation of the Event and
accepts responsibility and liability for all personal injury, property damage, and other
damages arising from or related to the Event. The City has no responsibility for the
organization or operation of the Event. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Organizer
agrees to fully indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its elected and appointed
SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT
Page 5
fill
officials, employees and volunteers from and against all claims, damages, losses and
expenses incidental to the investigation and defense thereof, based upon or arising out of
or incidental to damages or injuries to persons or property, in any way related to the
Event, or any activity associated with the Event, except for claims, damages, losses and
expenses that are solely attributable to the actions of the City. Organizer's agreement to
indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City extends to all claims damages, losses and
expenses caused by or alleged to be caused by the fault or negligence in whole or in part
of Organizers agents, contractors, sub-contractors, employees or any third-parties that
are in any way related to the Event. This provision is essential to the City's agreement to
sponsor the Event and may not be severed from this agreement. [OPTIONAL This
indemnity extends to but is not limited to all claims, damages, losses and expenses
relating to operation of hot-air balloons, the operation of any carnival rides or games, and
the sale or consumption of food or drink in connection with the Event.] [OPTIONAL X
This indemnity extends to but is not limited to all claims, damages, losses and expenses
relating in any way to fireworks, including injuries or damage resulting from explosion,
fire, noise, shock or other direct or indirect effects of fireworks whether or not the
damage or injury occurred from a planned or unplanned use or explosion.] [OPTIONAL -
FOR CITY INSURED EVENTS X Nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted or
applied to reduce or limit in any way the insurance coverage provided by the City under
Section 14.
12. Organizer shall include in all Event-related contracts with third parties a provision
requiring the third party to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the City as to any claim
arising from the actions or negligence of the third party and shall include in those
contracts a provision requiring the third parties to maintain adequate liability insurance
naming the City as an additional insured. Organizer shall require written contracts of all
third parties that provide food or beverage service, rides, fireworks displays, or that
operate balloons and shall require that the insurance match that required of Organizer and
be appropriate to the type of service or goods provided. Organizer shall require any third
party serving alcohol at the event to obtain Liquor Liability coverage. Limits for Liquor
Liability coverage must match the limits required of Organizer for Commercial General
Liability coverage. The Liquor Liability endorsement must be attached to the certificate
of insurance provided to the City. Organizer shall provide City with the name, address
and phone number of all third parties with which it contracts, a general description of the
work the contractor will perform, a copy of each contract, and a certificate of insurance.
Organizer shall also provide City with the name, address and phone number of all other
sponsors of the Event.
13. (If applicable). Organizer has chosen to use City property and facilities for the Event
based on Organizer's inspection of the property and facilities and determination that the
property and facilities are appropriate for the Event. Organizer accepts that the City is
not responsible for any defects, imperfections, or lack of suitability of the City property
and facilities.
SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT
Page 6
14. During the term of this sponsorship agreement, Organizer shall purchase and maintain
insurance of the types and in the amounts specified in this section. Organizer shall
furnish acceptable certificates of insurance to City at least 60 days before commencement
of the Event, or within ten (10) days after execution of this agreement if this agreement is
executed less than 70 days before the Event. Certificates of insurance must be provided
to the City prior to any payment or furnishing of facilities or services by City. Organizer
shall indemnify City for any liability or damages that City may incur due to Organizer's
failure to purchase or maintain any required insurance. Organizer shall be responsible for
the payment of all premiums and deductibles. Organizer shall maintain insurance of the
types and in the amounts described below.
A. General Liability Insurance (Not applicable to Events for which City provides
insurance)
Organizer shall obtain, at Organizer's expense, and keep in effect during the term
of this agreement, Comprehensive General Liability Insurance covering Bodily
Injury and Property Damage on an Aoccurrence- form (1996 ISO or equivalent).
This coverage shall include Contractual Liability insurance for the indemnity
provided under this agreement. The following limits of insurance will be carried:
Coverage Limit
General Aggregate $1,000,000
Products - Completed Operations Aggregate 2,000,000
Personal and Advertising Injury 1,000,000
Each Occurrence 1,000,000
Fire Damage (Any one Fire) 50,000
Medical Expense (Any one Person) 5,000
Employers Liability 500,000
B. Liquor Liability Coverage
If alcohol is to be served at the event, Liquor Liability coverage will be endorsed
to the Commercial General Liability coverage. Limits for Liquor Liability
coverage will match the limits provided for the Commercial General Liability
coverage. The endorsement must be attached to the certificate of insurance
provided to the City.
SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT
Page 7
C. Commercial Automobile Insurance
Organizer shall also obtain, at Organizer's expense, and keep in effect during the
term of this agreement, ASymbol V Commercial Automobile Liability coverage
including coverage for all owned, hired, and non-owned vehicles. The Combined
Single Limit per occurrence shall not be less than $1,000,000. This requirement
applies if the Organizer provides transportation to or from the event for
participants.
D. Workers Compensation Insurance
Organizer shall provide coverage for all employees coming under the scope of
State Workers Compensation laws. This shall include Employers Liability
Insurance with coverage of not less than $500,000 per accident.
E. Additional Insured Requirement
The City of Tigard, its officers, directors, employees, and volunteers shall be
added as additional insured with respect to the Event. All Commercial General
Liability insurance policies will be endorsed to show this additional coverage.
F. Insurance Carrier Acceptability
An insurance company acceptable to the City of Tigard must underwrite
coverages provided by the Organizer.
G. Evidence of Insurance
As evidence of the insurance coverage required by this agreement, the Organizer
shall provide a certificate of insurance to the City. No use of City facilities,
payment or other benefit will be provided by the City to the Organizer until the
required certificates have been received and approved by the City. The certificate
will specify and document all provisions required by this agreement. A renewal
certificate will be sent to the City 10 days prior to coverage expiration.
H. Cancellation Provisions
Coverage may not be canceled or materially changed without 30 days' written
notice to the City. The notice of cancellation provision shall be physically
endorsed on the Commercial General Liability policy.
Failure of City to demand such certificate or other evidence of full compliance with these
insurance requirements or failure of City to identify a deficiency from evidence that is
provided shall not be construed as a waiver of Organizer's obligation to maintain such
insurance.
SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT
Page 8
(FOR 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS ONLY) The City agrees to include the Event as an
insured activity under its existing liability insurance policies.
The insurance required under this Paragraph shall require the insurer to give City not less
than thirty (30) days' notice prior to termination or cancellation of coverage.
Organizer shall require all entities it contracts with to provide service at the Event to
provide insurance with the same limits required of Organizer.
15. Organizer shall adhere to all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations,
executive orders and ordinances and obtain all required permits. Required permits may
include but are not limited to:
Park Reservation Permit
Parade Permit
Noise Limit Permits
Liquor Licenses
Food Handler Permits
Public Assembly Permits
Fees for permits for the Event may be waived.
16. Notices. All notices required or permitted to be made under this Agreement shall be in
writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given when delivered or sent by prepaid
certified or registered mail or fax:
If to Organizer, to:
(Address) (Fax)
If to City, to:
(Address) (Fax)
or such other address as either party may designate in writing to the other party for this
purpose.
17. Other Warranties. Organizer represents and warrants that:
A. Organizer has the full right and legal authority to enter into and fully perform this
Agreement in accordance with its terms without violating the rights of any other
person;
B. Organizers trademarks do not infringe the trademarks or trade names or other
rights of any other person;
C. Organizer has all government licenses, permits or other authorizations necessary
SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT
Page 9
11111W Nommmauffamm
to conduct the Event as contemplated under this Agreement; and
D. Organizer will comply with all applicable laws, regulations and ordinances
pertaining to the promotion and conduct of the Event.
B. Organizer will ensure that all persons and entities it contracts with to provide
services or goods at the Event shall have the knowledge, experience and capacity
to provide the goods and services.
18. Records and Reporting
A. Organizer shall maintain a complete set of records relating to the Event, in
accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures. The records must be
maintained for at least three years from the date they are generated. Organizer
shall permit the authorized representatives of the City to inspect and audit all
work, materials, payrolls, books, accounts, and other data and records of
Organizer relating to the Event while this Agreement is in effect and for three
years after termination of this Agreement. The obligations imposed by this
section shall survive termination of this Agreement.
B. Organizer shall request funding on an annual basis for future years within the
City's established budget cycle. The request for funding shall include:
i. Financial statements from the previous yearOs Event.
ii. The budget for the Event to the year for which funding is requested.
iii. An Event schedule.
iv. A list of events associated with the Event.
V. The amount of funds requested and the purpose for which the funds will
be used.
vi. A list of all other services, facilities, or other benefits, that Organizer is
requesting from City.
C. Failure to comply with subsections A or B of this section shall constitute cause
for termination of this Agreement by the City.
19. Governing Law and Consent to Jurisdiction. This Agreement is subject to and shall be
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon, except for choice of law
provisions. City and Organizer both consent to jurisdiction in the state and federal courts
located in Oregon. Organizer shall comply with the clauses required in every public
contract entered into in the State of Oregon as set forth in ORS 279.312, 279.314,
279.316 and 279.320, which are hereby incorporated by reference.
20. Non-Assignment. Neither party shall assign this Agreement without the prior written
approval of the other party, except that City may assign this Agreement to any successor
entity.
SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT
Page 10
21. Complete Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the
parties and supersedes all other agreements, if any, express or implied, whether written or
oral. Organizer has made and makes no representations of any kind except those
specifically set forth herein.
22. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their successors
and assigns.
23. This agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of the parties. Either party may
terminate this agreement for no reason by providing notice of termination one year prior
to termination. Either party may terminate this agreement for default by providing 30
days' notice. If the other party may cure the default and does so within 30 days, the
agreement shall not terminate. City may terminate this agreement without notice by vote
of the City Council if the City Council determines that it is in the public interest to do so.
Any breach of this agreement shall be considered a default. The indemnification
provisions shall survive termination.
24. Except for those responsibilities expressly reserved to the City Council, all rights and
duties of the City may be exercised by the City Manager or designee.
ORGANIZER SPONSOR
[Name] City of Tigard
[Signature] [Signature]
[Date] [Date]
I:\ADhACATH"EVENTS\SPONSOR\RESOLUTION - ATTACHMENT B.DOC
SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT
Page I I
i
AGENDA ITEM # 3,
_
FOR AGENDA OF December 18, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE _ Appointme,~nnts to the Planning Commission
PREPARED BY: Susan Koenpna I~VV DEPT HEAD OK 4ITY MGR OK
Im
WN*,
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Appointments to the Planning Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution appointing Gretchen Buehner, Jodie Bienerth and Eileen Webb as members of the
Planning Commission, and Tom Wolch as alternate to the Planning Commission.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On November 8' and 19', 2001, the Mayor's Appointments Advisory Committee interviewed candidates for
openings on the Planning Commission. Attached is a resolution which, if adopted, would approve the
appointments recommended by the Mayor's Appointments Advisory Committee.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Delay action on the appointments.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Goal: City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our
community.
FISCAL NOTES
none
I:\AD M\S USANK\TA5KFORC\P CS UM 12'00.D OC
• ~:3~? it/~G~
RECEIVED C.O.T.
O C T 2 5 2001 CITY OF TIG D
Administration OREGON
CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION
Name: GRETCHEN E. BUEHNER _ Date: 10/20/01
Address (Res.): 13249 SW 136th Place, Tigard, 97223 Res. Phone: 503 684-1031
Address (Bus.): P n Box 1 2 3 3_ Portland. OR 9 7 2 0 7 Bus. Phone: 5 0 3 684-1031
E-mail:
Length of Residence in Tigard: 8 months Suggested by:
Where did you live previously: u n; n r a r p o r d Wash Co. next to King City
Educational Background: see resume attached
Occupational Status and Background: see resume attached
How long have you been employed with this firm: 1987
Previous Community Activity: s pe r e s u m e attached
served on Portland Variance Committee 1985-1989, Code Re-write
committee, Portland; o an use work a over metro area
Organizations and Offices: Q n P r a c. i m
Other Information (General Remarks):
Boards or Committee Interested in:
Any other pertinent information you want to share?
Please return this orm to Susan Koeppingl City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1:' 9,'_S °Z6'WA9R%1vd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
GRETCHEN E. BUEHNER
P.O. Boat 1233
Portland, Oregon 67207
503 614-1031
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
11/87-present Sole proprietor. Real estate (transactions, foreclosures, workouts, land use, bankruptcy), general
business (for profit and non profit), arbitration, and estate planning.
2/93 - 6/93 Legislative Asst. (part time) Or. Legislature; Rep. Tom Brian (Legislative and administrative
drafting, advise on pending legislation, staff legislative Emissions Task Force.
12/90-12/92 Adj. Instructor, Pioneer Pacific College. Business Law, Real Estate Law, Legal Research, Ethics.
2/89 - 2/90 Hearings Officer, Part time, Oregon Liquor Control Comm. (temp.); Employment Division, Dept.
of Human Resources.
5/87-11/87 Managing Partner, Shapiro & Buehner. Real estate (foreclosures, bankruptcy, workouts) general
business.
10/86 - 5/87 Foreclosure Officer/In-House Counsel, Peelle Financial Corp. Real estate foreclosures, general
general business and commercial.
1981-1986 Partner, 1985, Associate, 1981, Bodie & Buehner, P.C. (Jeffrey C. Bodie, P.C.). Real estate,
business, estate planning, personal injury, dispute resolution.
1979 -1981 Law Clerk. Research, writing, litigation (certified clerk). George O. Tamblyn. Goldsmith,
Siegel, et al. Clerk Pro Tem. Multnomah County Circuit Court.
1975-1978 Research Assistant. UGHSC, Department of Dermatology. Basic research, biochemistry of skin.
EDUCATION
J.D., Northwestern School of Law, Lewis & Clark College, 1981.
Graduate Study, Portland State University, Physiology, 1972-74.
B.A., Mills College, Biochemistry and History, 1972.
ACHIEVEMENTS
Multnomah Bar Association, Award of Merit, 1996.
Oregon State Bar, Public Service Award, 1989.
Delegate, Women in Law Delegation in Asia, 1989.
Outstanding Volunteer Service, Youth Service Center, 1988, 1989, 1990.
City of Portland, Special Proclamation, 1987.
GRETCHEN E. BUEHNER
-2-
City of Portland, Spirit of Portland Award, 1986.
Bureau of National Affairs Award, Northwestern School of Law, 1981.
ACTIVITIES
American Bar Association
Purchase and Sale of Residential Real Estate Comm., Section of Real Property, Probate and Trust Law,
1989 - present.
Litigation and Dispute Resolution Comm., Section of Real Property, Probate and Trust Law, 1993 -
present. Vice-Chair 1997-99. Speaker - 1997 Spring Meeting.
Oregon State Bar
Continuing Ed., Speaker, Solo and Small Firm Success, 1995; Residential Real Estate Transactions, 1985.
Professional Liability Fund, Continuing Legal Ed., Speaker. "Earnest Moneyand Disclosure Agreements",
1994; "Home Offices Since Soliman", 1993; "Learning the Ropes", for new lawyers, 1988.
Lawyer Referral Committee, 1995-98.
Bar/Press Committee, 1989 - 1992.
Public Service and Information Committee, 1986 -1989. Chair, "On Your Own" subcommittee, 1988.
Oregon Law Related Education, Law Day Conference, Speaker, 1988.
Real Estate Section, Continuing Education, Speaker, 1986,1987; Continuing Legal Education Committee,
1985-1987; Legislative Committee, 1984-86.
Multnomah Bar Association
Group Insurance Committee, 1992 - present, Chair 1994-95, 95-96.
Continuing Education Committee, 1996-99.
Continuing Education Speaker, "Non Profit Organizations, Formation and Troubleshooting", 1995.
Non Profit Organizations
Portland Baroque Orchestra, Board Member, 2001-present.
Interfaith Outreach Ministry, Board Member, Homeless services, 1993 - 1995, Secretary 94-95.
Tigard Water Board -Board Member 1997-2001.
City of Tigard - Visioning Task Force, member, 1997-present.
Washington County
Transportation Plan CAC, member, 2000-present.
CPO 4-K President, 1999-2000; Vice President, 1998-99.
GRETCHEN E. BUEHNER
-3-
City of Portland
Variance Committee, 1985-1989.
Zoning Code Re-write Committee, 1988.
Budget Advisory Coordinating Committee; Chair, 1985-87; Vice-Chair, 1984-85.
Planning Bureau Budget Advisory Committee, 1983-86. Chairperson, 1984-85.
Management Review Committee, 1985-1987.
Revenue Subcommittee, 1984-85.
State of Oregon - Public Member. Board of Psychologist Examiners. 1989-90.
City Club of Portland
Government and Taxation Standing Committee. 1990-1993.
Vice Chair 1991-92; Chair, Conflicts subcommittee 1990-91.
METRO -Budget Committee, 1988-89, 1989-90.
Southwest Neighborhoods Information, Inc.
Immediate Past-President, 1986-1987.
President, 1984-1986; Vice-President, 1983-84; Secretary 1983.
Chair, Candidate's Fair Committee, 1984.
Chair, Wilson Park Neighborhood Association, 1982-85.
Westside Youth Service Center Youth Accountability Board, 1984-1989.
PUBLICATIONS
CLE, Solo and Small Firm Success. Ch. 2B, "Tax Issues for Setting Up Your Office." OR State Bar,
1995.
CLE, Non Profit Organizations, Formation and Troubleshooting. Ch. 3, "Troubleshooting IRS and Other
Business Issues Facing Non Profit Corporations. Mult. Bar Assoc., 1995.
"Taiwan, Thailand, and India, Legal Systems in the Orient." For The Record. Vol. 3, No. 6 (June, 1989).
CLE, Real Estate. Ch. 6, "Non-Judicial Trust Deed Foreclosures." OR State Bar, 1987. Co-author,
Cleve Abbe.
CLE, Real Estate. Ch. 12, "Practical Tips about Representing Neighborhoods, Developers and Local
Government in the Land Use Process." OR State Bar, 1986. Co-authors Frank Josselson and Susan Quick.
CLE, Residential Real Estate Transactions. Ch. 9, "Strict Foreclosure and Time is of the Essence."
Oregon State Bar, 1985.
CLE, Family Law. Ch. 7, "Legal Aspects of Medical Problems." Oregon State Bar, 1980 update. Co-
author, George Tamblyn.
"Isolation of Substrates for Epidermal Transglutaminase from Bovine Epidermis." Biochemistry
Biophysics Research Committee. 73:470, 1976. Co-authored by M.M. Buxman, M.D.
"Isolation of Substrates for Epidermal Transglutaminase from Bovine Epidermis." Clinical Research.
24:262A, 1976. Co-authored by M.M. Buxman, M.D.
Oct-26. 2001 1:13PM No.1343 P. 2
0r, T 2 6 2001
Adrninistratti n
Citizen Con- nnittee Interest Application CITY OF TIC
ARM
OREGON
Date: 1®la y ~ 131
c\o Jl re 'BI6 x3c- K- t+ E-mail: o~D -,0 . C rA,
Name:
Address (Res.): a a IS SW f Yl t 1-U ENl 10K. Res. Phone: ti 0 5) 59 X - 89 a7 _
Address (Bus.): gf9w Sw t~~ ST. _ Bus. Phone: ~.SCf~~ q Q,- SOaa x
Length of Residence in Tigard: 3 U 4 K's Suggested by:
Where did you live previously:
Educational Background:- :R, So SINME
I kN t y E• Ks %TY -
Occupational Status and Background: P&Q;Kf1CT 61-W G t tJ E aK yJ
N~ t N E,6R 1 t 6r- Po•KTLA Nb
]How long have you been employed with this firth:
Previous Community Activity: liskty E
Organizations and Offices: hSCPt 4G- SP QU
,,PaRTS CAP CLUB
Other lnfor:nation (General Remarks): a ltRUG B66tJ iM\teLv64Z) atj sarn6- f sP&crS
t7F 't"HC- t76\jC-[sPma,)-r- PRoC~5ss _•ttau ~ ~PPDRTtAN t-r
v.5 6 MY tKNBv3C.6DG6• -ro -TKy -m - r V6W m t t t -Mt)
A Boards or Committees interested in: p Lft~ N I fl) C Cot&tAisslo(Q
N
Any other pertinent information you want to sham?,. S ar 1-u g RE5 t D CSL i S `4-
T H Q, S M A chi'- G t=•a wjal OV:, cn r- Go ANYAkkiy I-ry
please return this form to Susan Koepping, City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. Tigard, OR 97223
13125 SW Hail Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
cuar,rerrsaruc,+wreaesrnaT
V A ti
Nam
i GENE. O.O.T.
City of Tigard OCT 18 2001
Citizen Comminee Interest A ID
Thank youThank you for iinterest Please print this form fill out and return to* Susan Koe pping City of Tigard
Name: EILEEN L. WEBB Date:
September 28, 2001
Address (Res.): Res. Phone:
8050 SW Larch St. _ yn`l3`1 r 503-452-7941
Tigard, OR 97223-5842
Address (Bus.): Bus. Phone:
AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 503-639-3400
7477 SW Tech Center Dr.
Portland, OR 97223-8051
Email Address: Suggested by:
Eileen.Webb@amec.com (work) Susan Koepping
Bbeadster@netscape.net (home)
Length of Residence in Tigard: Where did you live previously:
I have been a Metzger resident for over 6 years (since September 1995). Portland, OR (1979 to 1995)
Educational Background:
Graduate B.S. in Geology, Portland State University, Portland, OR 1986
Post-Baccalaureate Coursework, Portland State University, Portland, OR 1986 - 1987
Occupational Status and Background:
I am a Project Manager/Geologist with AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. A copy of my corporate resume is
attached.
How long have you been employed with this firm:
For over 11 years, I have been employed at AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc.
Previous Community Activity:
Please see the attached Volunteer Experience Summary.
Organizations and Offices:
Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. - Lifetime Member, past leader, Community Service Coordinator for Girl Scout
Troop 501.
Interim Chair of the Oregon Mortgage Bankers Association - Commercial Real Estate Committee
Other Information (General Remarks):
Boards or Committee Interested in:
Tigard Planning Commission
Any other pertinent information you want to share?
Please return this form to Susan Koepping, City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
9/25/01\11:34 AM
CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION.xis\CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPL Sheet 1 of 1
f
VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE SUMMARY
Eileen Webb
Dates Organization city State Title/Position
9/01-12/01 Oregon Mortgage Bankers Association Portland, OR Chair - Commercial Real Estate Committee
(Interim)
9/01-8/02 Girl Scouts U.S.A. Tigard/ OR Community Service Coordinator
Portland Metro Girl Scout Troop 501
11/00 Portland Bead Society Portland OR Embellishment Bead Show Volunteer
1/00-12/00 OSU Extension/ Hillsboro OR CPO-4M Representative
Citizens for Community Involvement
of Washington County
11/00 Portland Bead Society Portland OR Bead Show Volunteer
9/00-8/01 Girl Scouts U.S.A. Tigard/ OR Community Service Coordinator
Portland Metro Girl Scout Troop 501
6/00 Portland Bead Society Portland OR Bead Show Volunteer
9/99-8/00 Girl Scouts U.S.A. Tigard OR Troop Leader #1640
1199-Ongoing Citizen Participation Organization Metzger OR CPO-4M Member
12/98 Oregon Public Broadcasting Portland OR Winter Drive Television Volunteer
11/98 Friends of Trees Portland OR Tree Planter
9/98-8199 Girl Scouts U.S.A. Tigard OR Troop Leader #1640
8/98 Girl Scouts U.S.A. Richland WA Twilight Camp Volunteer
9/97-8/98 Girl Scouts U.S.A. Tigard OR Troop Leader #1640
1/97-8/97 Girl Scouts U.S.A. Tigard OR Troop Leader #1640
3/97-Ongoing Unofficial Community Connection Tigard OR Community Recycler and Materials Supplier
for Schools, Churches, and Girl Scouts
12/95-life Girl Scouts U.S.A. Portland OR Lifetime MemberNolunteer
11/96 Girl Scouts U.S.A. Seattle WA Senior Girl Scout Science Exploration, Seattle
Science Center
9/94-8195 Girl Scouts U.S.A. Portland OR Troop Leader #270
9194-8/95 Girl Scouts U.S.A. Portland OR Neighborhood Chair #13-9
9/94-6/95 Jason Lee Grade School Portland OR Classroom Volunteer
5/93 Habitat for Humanity Portland OR Volunteer
4/92 Project Linkage Portland OR Volunteer
9/93 NW Portland Women's Shelter Portland OR Volunteer
4/92-4/95 Living Enrichment Center Wilsonville OR Volunteer
4/90-5/91 Women in Community Service Portland OR Volunteer
9/81 Girl Scouts U.S.A. Kings Lake WA Camp Volunteer
4/80 Girl Scouts U.S.A. Stevenson WA Neighborhood Volunteer
9176-6177 Girl Scouts U.S.A. San Leandro CA Trainer, Outdoor Biological Instructional
Strategies-OBIS
9176-6f77 Girl Scouts U.S.A. San Lorenzo CA Assistant Troop Leader
9/77-6/77 Girl Scouts U.S.A. Denver CO Assistant Troop Leader
6177 Girl Scouts U.S.A. San Lorenzo CA First Class Girl Scout Award
8/74 Girl Scouts U.S.A. San Leandro CA Camp Counselor-Twin Peaks
6/73 Petitioner-Save the Stanislaus River San Leandro CA Volunteer Precinct Verification
9125101\11:35 AM
Land Use Aool.AsWolunteer Summary ShAAt 1 nf 1
ame&
Eileen Webb, P.G.
Project Manager/Geologist
Professional summary
Ms. Webb is a geologist with over 12 years project management experience in regulatory site
closure, site characterization, risk-based corrective actions, regulatory compliance permitting,
groundwater quality explorations, and remedial investigations. Ms. Webb has project managed
a wide variety of facilities including brownfields redevelopments, Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) facilities, the Beaverton School District, telecommunications tower sites,
an iCN Pharmaceuticals Laboratory, saw mills, a wood treatment plant, automobile parts
manufacturing plants, a computer board etching plan, marinas, and numerous service stations.
She has served to close a hazardous waste biotreatment facility Oregon, challenging land
disposal restrictions. Ms. Webb has supervised risk-based corrective action assessments
ecological risk assessments for sites contaminated with heavy metals, halogenated volatile
organics, and petroleum hydrocarbons.
Professional qualifications
Registered Professional Geologist, Oregon, 1994
Education
B.S., Geology, Portland State University, Oregon, 1986
Post Baccalaureate Coursework, Geology, Portland State University, Oregon, 1986-1987.
Memberships
Oregon Mortgage Bankers Association
Citizens Participation Organization Member, CPO-M4, Metzger, Oregon
Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. Lifetime Member
Summary of core skills
Risk-Based Corrective Action Site Closure
Ms. Webb has led several service station sites to regulatory site closure in Oregon using
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA)
guidance. These efforts have included Beneficial Water Use Determinations, a Human Health
Risk Assessments, a Conceptual Site Hydrogeologic Models, and Ecological Risk
Assessments. Based on the data gathered, it often can be shown that soil and groundwater
contaminants at a site do not pose a threat to potential human and ecological receptors, nor
would they be likely to in the future. Ms. Webb has achieved a "No Further Action"
determination from the DEQ for one site and is awaiting the same for two more in the immediate
future.
Brownfield Redevelopment and Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment
Ms. Webb has managed numerous Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), remedial
investigations, and feasibility studies to assist brownfield redevelopment projects throughout
Oregon, including a former medical laboratory, a former dry cleaner, ODOT facilities, a public
school, several service stations, a wood chip transportation facility. These sites required
remedial investigations, hazardous waste determinations, risk assessment, remedial action
work plan preparation, soil and groundwater remediation system design to accommodate
Resume, Page I Earth 8 Environmental, Portland, Oregon Webb Elieen.doc
Eileen Webb ame
development, construction worker occupational exposure assessment, and closure plan
preparation. Brownfield projects are challenging and require the cooperative efforts of site
owners, occupants, regulatory agencies, contractors, architects, and other stakeholders. Ms.
Webb has worked to accommodate construction schedules while facilitating environmental
cleanups and investigations.
Hazardous Waste Characterization, Remediation, and Disposal
Ms. Webb managed the remediation of two hazardous waste sites to regulatory standards. One
site was cleaned up using aboveground innovative bioremediation technologies for the
treatment of chlorinated herbicides ("Agent Orange" and dioxins) in soils. Using these methods,
Ms. Webb reduced cleanup costs from a projected $2 million for incineration to approximately
$600,000. At another ODOT site, sampling and analysis efforts by another consultant indicated
hazardous levels of lead in soils, potentially leading the client to expensive cleanup and disposal
at a hazardous waste landfill. Ms. Webb recommended additional representative sampling and
analysis and showed that the lead levels were elevated but not hazardous, thereby limiting the
final cleanup and disposal costs.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Project Management
Ms. Webb has managed several remedial investigations and is currently managing the remedial
investigation and feasibility study for a former dry cleaner site in Vancouver, Washington.
Contamination was discovered during site redevelopment, and AMEC took the opportunity to
install a soil vapor extraction system during building construction. The site is receiving oversight
from the Washington Department of Ecology. Ms. Webb also managed a large-scale Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at a former medical laboratory, the largest of its kind in
the world during operational years. The laboratory used a multitude of analytical methods and
associated chemicals and produced numerous waste streams. Ms. Webb produced the
extensive, complex documentation necessary to implement the remedial investigations with
oversight of the DEQ Voluntary Cleanup Program. In addition, she completed the first two
phases of the remedial investigation and prepared the work plan for the third phase. The site is
located in the City of Portland drinking water well field and is contaminated at depth with
numerous volatile organic compounds as dense nonaqueous-phase liquids.
Employment history
1990-Present Project Manager/Geologist, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., Portland, Oregon
1989-1990 Environmental Scientist, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
1988 Teaching Assistant, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon
1987 Geologist, Mt. Hood National Forest, Gresham, Oregon
{ 1986 Geologist, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland, Oregon
1985 Geologist, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Willard, Washington
I
1984 Summer Scientific Trainee, Oregon Water Resources Department, Pendleton, Oregon
Presentations / publications
j Spadaro, J.T., E. Webb, H. Schmid, A. Degher, K.J. Williamson. 1998. Bioremediation of
j Soils Containing 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop, and Silvex. Designing and Applying Treatment
I Technologies: Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. G.B.
Wickramanayake and Robert E. Hinchee, eds. Battelle Press. pp. 183-188.
Spadaro, J.T., E. Webb, H. Schmid, A. Degher, K.J. Williamson. 1998. Bioremediation of
Contaminated Soils. The Battelle First International Conference on Remediation of
[.,,esuHerbicide
Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, California.
me, Page 2 Earth & Environmental, Portland, Oregon Webb Elieen.doc
Awk
Eileen Webb
C1M=*a0
Detailed core skills or details by project
RISK-BASED CORRECTIVE ACTION
Ms. Webb has directed several sites toward regulatory closure using risk-based corrective
action tools, such as beneficial water use determinations, hydrogeologic modeling, and
ecological risk assessment.
Former Merritt Truax Service Station, Jefferson, Oregon
A petroleum release to soil and groundwater was remediated by a groundwater and soil
treatment system, which operated for approximately four years. Although liquid petroleum
hydrocarbons remain in groundwater, the contaminant plume is stable and has not migrated off
site. Ms. Webb directed completion of a risk-based correction action evaluation, an ecological
risk assessment, a beneficial water use determination, and groundwater modeling for the site,
which show no complete exposure pathways. The DEQ has agreed verbally to site closure,
which is pending.
Former Franko Service Station, Merrill, Oregon
Ms. Webb conducted steps to site closure for a riverside site with petroleum hydrocarbon impact
to soil and groundwater. After one year of soil vapor extraction treatment and groundwater
monitoring, Ms. Webb lead the site toward closure using risk-based corrective action tools. The
DEQ projects issuing a "No Further Action" finding in early 2001.
Former Service Station and Bulk Oil Storage Facility, Gladstone, Oregon
Ms. Webb directed site closure after soil and groundwater remediation was completed for a
petroleum hydrocarbon release. Ms. Webb showed a low potential for risk to beneficial water
use receptors. The site was issued a "No Further Action" determination by the DEQ.
Former Galvanizing Operations Site, Portland, Oregon
Ms. Webb directed a former galvanizing facility to regulatory closure using risk assessment
tools. The facility had impacted an adjacent stream with zinc. Ecological risk assessment
results showed that even if zinc levels were remediated, the existing physical stressors far
outweighed the potential threat to ecological receptors from excessive zinc levels. The DEQ
issued a letter of "No Further Action" for the site.
ODOT Equipment Staging Site, Clackamas, Oregon
Ms. Webb conducted a beneficial water use determination for an ODOT site contaminated with
solvent from illegal dumping. The site currently is undergoing phytoremediation under the
direction of ODOT. Site closure is pending.
Tri-Met Bus Maintenance Facility, Portland, Oregon
Ms. Webb conducted a beneficial water use determination for a public bus maintenance facility
impacted by a diesel and hydraulic fluid release. Polychlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) had impacted shallow groundwater. Ms. Webb eliminated the perception of a threat to
downgradient groundwater and surface water users. The BWUD was used to develop
appropriate remedial efforts at the site.
BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AND PHASE Ii ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
ODOT, U.S. Highway 97 Right-of-Way, Grass Valley, Oregon
Ms. Webb conducted a Phase II ESA for ODOT for highway redevelopment planners. Volatile
organics, and heavy oil were detected in several soil and groundwater samples over the length
of the central Grass Valley.
Resume. Page 3 Earth & Environmental. Portland, Oregon Webb Elieen.doc
Add%L
Eileen Webb
ame
Former Gasville Service Station and Dry Cleaner, Portland, Oregon
Managing In preparation for brownfield redevelopment activities, Ms. Webb performed a direct-
push and hollow-stem auger drilling exploration for soil and groundwater sampling and testing.
Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in soils in association with a service station which
formerly operated at the site. In addition, PCE was detected in shallow soils. The water table is
greater than 100 feet below ground surface and is not impacted. Ms. Webb is working directly
with the client and its architects to design a soil remediation system, with a subsurface
equipment compound. The system is being aesthetically designed to accommodate low-
visibility and low-noise impact to the site and adjacent properties. Construction is expected to
begin in summer 2000.
Service Stations, Various Sites in Oregon
Ms. Webb monitored and observed the decommissioning and excavation of underground
storage tanks at numerous sites throughout Oregon, including former and operating service
stations, military installations, highway department maintenance facilities, and commercial and
light industrial facilities. The contaminants of concern have included gasoline, diesel, waste-oil,
and chlorinated solvents. The magnitude of petroleum hydrocarbon impacts to the subsurface
at these sites ranged from minor impact to widespread contamination, resulting in the
implementation of complex remedial actions. She has monitored the installation of numerous
vapor extraction systems, conducted over-excavations of impacted soils for both on- and off-site
treatment, and achieved a clean closure for multiple properties. She has also assisted in the
development and installation of on-site groundwater treatment systems.
Proposed Water Transmission Line, Clackamas County, Oregon
A proposed water transmission line in SE Mather Road, Clackamas County, Oregon, will be
located adjacent to one Superfund site and several other sites where soil and groundwater
contamination is documented. Contaminants at these sites include PCBs, PAHs, VOCs,
SVOCs, petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and dioxins. Because of concerns for worker
exposure during trench excavation near the contaminated sites, Ms. Webb conducted a
subsurface soil and groundwater drilling exploration at the proposed location of the water
transmission line. Soil and groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for suspected
contaminants. Test results indicated PCBs and dioxins in soil and groundwater. Based on the
concentrations, depths, and boring locations relative to the proposed trench, Ms. Webb
prepared a summary report recommending that trench workers take extra effort to prevent soil
and groundwater exposure by properly utilizing personal protective clothing (i.e., boots, gloves,
disposable coveralls) during excavation activities. The client also has requested that Ms. Webb
manage site safety for its contractors and provide direction to the workers to minimize exposure.
AGRA personnel will be present during all construction activities. Groundbreaking is expected
to begin by fall 2000.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Fred Meyer Store, Vancouver, Washington
Ms. Webb currently is managing the remedial investigation end feasibility study for a former dry
cleaner site in Vancouver, Washington. Contamination was discovered during site
redevelopment, and AMEC took the opportunity to install a soil vapor extraction system with
granular activated carbon (GAC) during building construction, thereby keeping construction
schedules on track. Clean effluent is discharged to the air under the auspices of a SWAPCA
discharge permit. Through oversight from the Washington Department of Ecology, Ms. Webb
Resume. Page 4 Earth & Environmental, Po tland, Oregon Webb Elieen.doc
Ad%
• Eileen Webb
amqu
discovered groundwater contamination to a depth of at least 50 feet beneath the store and
beneath the adjacent interstate highway. RI/FS tasks to date have included the use of push
probes, hollow stem auger, barber dual rotary, and air rotary drilling to determine the extent of
groundwater and soil contamination. Current groundwater remediation efforts include the
installation of air-sparging test wells and development of a feasibility testing design for air
sparging, ORC/HRC, and permanganate treatment. Remediation system installation is
anticipated by summer 2001.
Former Medical Laboratory, Portland, Oregon
Ms. Webb managed the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of a former medical
laboratory located in the City of Portland municipal well field. Illegal dumping had generated
severe groundwater contamination problems. Ms. Webb designed and conducted a multi-
phased investigation in coordination with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) Voluntary Cleanup Program. Results of two investigations indicated multiple solvent
chemicals PCE, TCE, cis- 1,2-d ich loroethene, trans- 1,2-dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride in
subsurface soils and groundwater across the 15-acre site. Dense nonaqueous-phase liquid
(DNAPL) was discovered at over 35 feet below ground surface. Completion of RI work
indicated groundwater contamination over 100 ft below ground surface in an aquifer used by
municipal water located less than 0.25 miles from the release area. Through her efforts, Ms.
Webb directed and developed a good working relationship with the out-of-state client, the City of
Portland Water Bureau, the DEQ, and neighboring property owners. In summer 2000, based on
the results of the RI work, a six-phase heating remediation system was installed and operation
began. Remediation is anticipated to be completed in 2001.
Former Dry Cleaner and Service Station, Portland, Oregon
in 1995, a gasoline release to soils was detected at a former service station and dry cleaner
facility in the Hollywood neighborhood area of Portland, Oregon, during UST decommissioning
and removal. In addition, tetrachloroethene (PCE) also was in soils. A soil vapor extraction
system was installed and operated by others in the former UST cavity in 1998, resulting in the
recovery of nearly 900 gallons of gasoline. Because the landowner wanted to redevelop the site
for use as a commercial retail facility, soil remediation would require coordination during site
construction and redevelopment activities. Ms. Webb conducted additional subsurface
characterization by drilling and sampling in 1999, to delineate the soil contamination. While
tested soils contained gasoline and diesel concentrations up to 16,000 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg), groundwater was not affected. Ms. Webb conducted a follow-up, shallow subsurface
exploration in the area of the former dry cleaner to target remnant PCE. PCE was detected in
soils at less than the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Preliminary Remediation
Goal of 19 mg/kg for industrial soil. It is calculated that 2,000 to 3,500 cubic yards of
contaminated soil exist in the former UST cavity area. At this time, Ms. Webb is directing the
project toward a remedial strategy using a newly-designed SVE system to capture petroleum
vapors. The system will be installed during the redevelopment of the site as commercial retail
businesses. System installation is expected to be completed and operated begun by fall 2000.
I
Because of the coarse nature of the subsurface materials, the contaminant concentrations and
depths, it is likely that the soil will be remediated within one year. Although the site qualifies for
cleanup under DEQ Soil "Matrix" Level 2 cleanup rules, Ms. Webb also is proposing risk-based
cleanup levels for the soil allowing more flexibility in remediation options.
Resume, Page 5 Earth & Environmental, Portland, Oregon Webb Elieen.doc
Eileen Webb
aaiexc,,%,_7
HAZARDOUS WASTE CHARACTERIZATION, REMEDIATION, AND DISPOSAL
Baldock ODOT Maintenance Station
Approximately 150 cubic yards of subsurface soils at an ODOT facility were impacted by
chlorinated herbicides containing F027-listed hazardous waste constituents ("Agent Orange") as
designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The herbicides were identified as
2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop, Silvex, and the dioxin compound 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
(2,3,7,8-TCDD). The only remediation option available at that time was incineration at a cost of
$2 million. Alternatively, soils were excavated and placed into specially-designed biotreatment
cells. Ms. Webb directed the development, design, construction, and operation of an herbicide
bioremediation system in 1996 and generated project-specific monitoring and sampling
techniques and schedules, and continually evaluated bioremediation progress. Over half the
soils were cleaned up within one year to federal and state regulatory standards. The remaining
soils were cleaned up within the next year. The final soils were transported in their biocell
containers to a state-approved Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill as the first contaminated
shipment of its kind to challenge the new Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV: Final Rule
(1998). The site was granted regulatory closure in early 2001.
Milton-Freewater, Oregon ODOT Site
Automobile batteries burned on the ground surface in a riverside Milton-Freewater, Oregon
location resulted in impacting site soils with lead. Initial soil sampling and analysis performed by
another consulting firm indicated hazardous levels in the samples, projecting excavation and
disposal of contaminated soils at Subtitle C landfill expenses. Ms. Webb shouted that their
sampling efforts were not representative of site conditions and directed the resampling and
analysis of representative soils. Test results indicated elevated, but not hazardous, levels of
lead in soils. The contaminated soils were excavated and disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill.
Resume, Page 6 Earth & Environmental. Portland, Oregon Webb Elieen.doc
CJTIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION Page 1 of 2
City of Tigard
MEAL
InteresUm-plicaffen
PDF Version of Chen Interest Apply tion
;Thank you for your interest. Please print this form, fill out and return to: Susan
Koepping, City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 or Fax to (503)
684-7297.
Name: T V l ovna s 1= . "I e Lj Date: 10 23101
Address (Res.): Res. Phone:
W43 SW 14&4-ti Ave; (~03~ 524-14 5
` 1 ard, oR 97224
Address (Bus.): Bus. Phone:
K&o 6V Wain-+ S+ NIS 17 6 (57 3) BiFly-7'f~ o
N; (1 5 bawo , o R. 9 712.3 - 5b2S
Email Address: Syggested by:
+0VV'- tnwk'ladA a C". ww_ln'-5.61, . ate. US CIly V1. U,-, 1'6~
Length of Residence in Tigard: Where did you live previously.
2 rl~ yrs. 13e'-,' ueC~'n+n
Educational Background: Ct~it( 'Fn5~heev1 V
Jur~s Dom,+~~- J
Occupational Status and Background:
I , - C_ w4stlIV15 + C.L..~Y Pe we+v„e~ 0-1*
fd IACI use, ow.d - A(mspov-+A-hov)
How long have you been employed with this firm: \d yrs .
Previous Community Activity:
be-avedmv,, Cwmw, tssrao 1983- f`19
canvevr+L✓N ~~QNVt11M, l~n~+ltMrSSrvvr ( } ZC~bG~
Organizations and Offices: ~.V15'~"1'1'lA~ OT I ~►'rSpo~r ,y ~N~ ini'_Cr.~
http://www.ci.tgard.or.us/VOLLJNTEERPAGE/citizen_committee interest appli.htm 10/23/01
CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION Page 2 of 2
~vecfpv► ~r
Other Information (General Remarks):
Boards or Committee Interested in:
P1
iav1ln:vn C0wsvti1SS'q0v%
Any other pertinent information you want to share?
Please return this form to Susan Koeppin& City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,
Tigard, OR 97223
Did you find what you were looking for? If not, let us know!
City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 97223 (503) 639-4171
http://www.ci.tgard.or.us/VOLLTNTEERPAGE/citizen_committee ikiterest appli.htm 10/23/01
AGENDA ITEM # 3, Cy a,
FOR AGENDA OF Dec 18, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A Resolution granting exemption to the City Purchasing Rules 10.015)
and allowing Oregon Electric Group to continue to perform the energy conservation retrofit rebate program
of City facilities. ; //1n ~n
PREPARED BY: John Roy DEPT HEAD OK WWWO GV► NTY MGR OK Kj~Ni-
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Local Contract Review Board authorize waiving the Purchasing Rules 10.015, Exemptions of
Contracts under certain dollar amounts for the energy conservation retrofit rebate program for City Facilities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Authorize staff to waive the Purchasing Rule 10.015 and allow Oregon Electric Group to continue with the
energy conservation retrofit rebate program of City facilities.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In January of 2001, City staff advertised for bid for an electrical service provider for City facilities. The bids
were submitted based on qualifications and hourly service rate. Oregon Electric Group was selected as the
company to provide the electrical service and a service contract was signed on February 20, 2001. In
September of 2001, staff became aware of Portland General Electric's intent to raise utility rates from 30% to
50%. During this same time period, staff was pursuing with Portland General Electric it's consumer energy
rebate program which deadline was November 30th. Staff began working jointly with Oregon Electic Group
and PGE to begin surveying all City facilities. This information was provided by facility as it was complete.
In staffs efforts to meet the deadline for authorization for the rebate program, Oregon Electric Group was
selected to perform the necessary work because they agreed to honor the hourly rates identified in their
current service contract and perform the additional work. In an effort to meet the November 30th deadline,
staff was unable to initiate and complete the required process as outlined in the City's Purchasing rules.
I
The initial purchase order and contract with Oregon Electric Group for electrical services at all City facilities
i was in the amount $7,500.00. Currently we have outstanding purchase orders for the retrofit work in the
amount of $32,724.95. The value of the rebates received totals $5,788.72. All City facilities except City Hall
have qualified for the rebate program and are currently being retrofitted. City Hall has been surveyed but did
not meet the PGE November 30th deadline for the rebate program. Staff will continue to work with PGE to
obtain any rebates that may be offered for City Hall in the future.
At this time staff is requesting that Council authorize Oregon Electric Group to proceed with completing the
City Hall facility as well, and we will continue to work with PGE on the rebate that will be available and
details will be provided as soon as those become available. In addition, as part of this exemption request,
staff would like the exemption to be applied to the energy conservation project recently completed by Oregon
Ell
.o
Electric Group at the Senior Center since this was also a component of expanded energy conservation
project.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED W
No other reasonable alternative has been considered.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Original purchase order opened with Oregon Electric Group
2. Current open purchase orders with Oregon Electric Group for Retrofit project
3. Energy surveys by facility
4. Resolution
FISCAL NOTES
This project will be funded through cost savings and existing apporpriations from capital projects already
completed. The rebates from Portland General Electric will offset revenue to the General Fund. The
project cost savings and appropriations are listed below;
Contracts for unscheduled repairs $10,000.00
Engineering costs related to facility repairs $ 8,000.00
HVAC replacement @ Niche $ 3,180.00
Replace window @ Water Building $ 4,154.64
Overhead security door @ Niche $ 4,098.00
Repaint exterior @ Niche $ 1,770.00
ADA upgrades @ Water Building $ 1,522.31
TOTAL $32,724.95
Sdnd Billings to:
City of Tigard City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, 97223 PURCHASE E
Pit: (503) ) 6 639-4171 Fax: (503) 634-1471
Vendor: OREGON ELECTRIC GROUP P® Number: W20488
1010 SE 11TH AVE
PORTLAND, OR 97214 r er Date:
(503) 234-9900 Expected Delivery Date: 7
Shipping Instructions:
Payment terms: 30 days
Deliver to: ATTN: AMANZANO PO Status: Open
13125 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD, OR 97223
Comment:
Quantity Unit Price Amount Description Balance Due Account
1.0 19,286.00 19,286.0 Retrofit Canterbury Storage, Niche and 19,286.00 650-2160-601000
Water Building with Energy Efficient
Lighting Systems as per the attached
PGE Worksheets (PGE Project Nos.
1085325, 1085437, & 1085439) for the
total amount of $19,286.00 to qualify
for PGE incentivcs/Rebates of
$3,790.00. Start retrofit work as soon
as possible, upon receipt of PO and
complete entire project no later than
November 30, 2001. Only coil white
fluorescent lamps shall be used.
TOTALS: 19,286.0 19,286.00
,)o 3r - 7 750 / a
Oke- NJ- vo 30 - a 7J - ~5., i o
+ ~ i3, 7S/- v U
1 - /oo - to/vo - 75v /:2Q
+ til: c:. Lt ~ SS ~ a
+
s
1. Our Purchase Order Number must appear on all invoices, packing slips, and correspondence.
2. Unless you notify us within ten (10) days of the date of this order, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions printed
on the reverse side of this purchase order, and those incorporated by reference.
IIITE: VENDOR PINK: ACCOUNTING
BY ANARY: PURCHASING FILE GOLDENROD: RECEIVING
AUTHORIZED
L
Cl~y~of ~ga'ps to:
13125 SW Halt Blvd City of Tigard
Tigard, 97223
Ph; (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 639-1471
Vendor: OREGON ELECTRIC GROUP P® Number: W20507
1010 SE I ITrl AVE
PORTLAND, OR 97214
(503) 234-9900 Expected Delivery Date: ?
Shipping Instructions:
Payment terms: 30 days
Deliver to: PO Status: Open
12800 SW ASH
TIGARD, OR 97223--
Comment:
Quantity Unit Price Amount Description Balance Due Account
1.0 2,163.80 2,163.8 Retrofit Public Works Building(s) with - -
Energy Efficient Lighting System as
per the attached PGE Worksheet (PGE
Project No. 1086831) for the total
amount of $8,655.25 to qualify for
PGE Incentive/Rebate of 41,243.72.
Start retrofit work as soon as possible,
upon receipt of PO and complete entire
project no later than November 30,
2001. Only cool white fluorescent
lamps shall be used.
I.0 2,163.80 2,163.8 2,163.80 510-6250-750120
1.0 2,163.80 2,163.8( 2,163.80 500-6200-750120
1.0 2,163.85 2,163.8 2,163.85 530-6270-750120
TOTALS: 8,655.2 8,655.25
1. Our Purchase Order Number must appear on all invoices, packing slips, and correspondence.
2. Unless you notify us within ten (10) days of the date of this order, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions printed
on the reverse side of this purchase order, and those incorporated by reference.
WHITE: VENDOR PINK: ACCOUNTING
AUTHO ED BY VARY: PURCHASING FILE Gf 'ENROD: RECEIVING
Send Billings to:
City of Tigard Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd City of TigaU
Tigard, 6 97223
Ph: (503) ) 639-4171 171 Fax: (503) 639-1471
C S
Vendor: OREGON ELECTRIC GROUP P® Number: W205508
1010 SE I ITH AVE
PORTLAND, OR 97214 En de. 11 ~H,'2661
(503) 234-9900 Expected Delivery Date: 7
Shipping Instructions:
Payment terms: 30 days
Deliver to: PO Status: Open
13125 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD, OR 97223
Comment:
Quantity Unit Price Amount Description Balance Due Account
1.0 4,783.70 4,783.7 Retrofit CAO/CPAH (corner of 4,783.70 100-6100-750120
Burnham & Ash), Enginecriing
Modular, Inspection Modular, & PD
(Salley Porte) Buildiings with energy
efficient lighting systems as per the
attached PGE, worksheets (PGE Project
No. 1085545 & 1086773) for the total
amount of $4,783.70 to qualify for
PGE Incenetives/rebates of $755.00.
Start retrofit work as soon as possible,
upon receipt of PO and complete entire
project no later than 11/30/0 1. Only
cool white fluorescent lamps shal l be
used.
TOTALS: 4,783.7 4,783.70
Agah,
1. Our Purchase Order Number must appear on all invoices, packing slips, and correspondence.
2. Unless you notify us within ten (10) days of the date of this order, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions printed
on the reverse side of this purchase order, and those incorporated by reference.
WHITE: VENDOR PINK: ACCOUNTING
ACITI FOR ZED BY NARY: PURCHASING FILE Go' )ENROD: RECEIVING
s ,
P Portland General Electric Company
16280 SW Upper Goones Ferry Road • Portland, Oregon 97224
November 16, 2001
Mr. Arnie Manzano
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Mr. Manzano:
Thank you for your application to participate in PGE's Large Building Lighting Program. Your application
has been reviewed and preapproved. Enclosed is our Large Building Lighting Program Terms and
Conditions with Exhibit A (Program Application) and Exhibit B (Computerized Lighting Worksheet). This
form also details the terns and responsibilities of City of Tigard and PGE during the duration of this
project. Preapproval is contingent upon our receipt of the Terms and Conditions form. Please
complete both sides and return it in the enclosed envelope by November 27, 2001. After this date, our
incentive offer will no longer be valid and your project will need to be resubmitted and reviewed under
the current program guidelines in effect at that time. This form is needed before any rebate can be
paid.
WMW111.11, ISO
1086831 City of Tigard Public Works, Tigard $1,243.72
Should the scope of your project change, these changes need to be submitted to our office in writing
and receive our approval prior to equipment installation. A week before your estimated completion
date of December 1, 2001, a Business Representative will call you requesting invoices (for material
and labor costs). Once invoices are received we will arrange to verify installation of the proposed
measures. After verification is complete your check will be processed.
According to IRS rules, we are required to report on Form 1099-MISC any incentive payment by us fcr
non-dwelling unit energy conservation measures paid to you. Because PGE cannot offer tax advice to our
customers, if you have any further questions please contact your personal tax advisor.
We look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions, please call your PGE
N Business Representative, Verlea Briggs, at 503-603-1657.
Sincerely,
G om
Cherie Merwin
Commerciallindustrial Operations Lead
c: Verlea Briggs
Project 1086831
Enclosures
gsk
Connecting People, Power and Possibilities ~
nl~ 1,11
d'
I•
• Commercial & Industrial Po and General Electra
Energy-Efficiency Programs G A
1~1~12
• ~C.IJ
Project Nante:
LARGE BUILDING LIGHTING PROGRAM Project Number: /P
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Buildings Over 20,000 Square Feet
L o F Q*r
,.-,Aft NhL Vz. 4 . ly 1 Ac 14l'ZAODwarrant that I am the authorized representative of the Customer, v t _v_
/}ar~ciar ,m,pij oiv¢S.dEoda:l4icomeTurecurn
that will be receiving the POE incentive and under penalties of perjury I certify that the Customer's Taxpayer Idcnti6c n N er (TIN) is
,
~J O O ~i Q _ and that the Customer is not subject to back-up withholding.
N~[1;~giCPoikiit Saii'rD'o'r £o'd"al'Seaiiij/AW:
Customer must strike out language certifying it is not subject to backup withholding if the Customer has been notified that he is subject to Backup withholding, and
has not received notice from the internal Revenue Service advising them that Backup withholding is not required.
. The Customer warrants it is a nonresidential POE Customer who is planning to purchase energy-efficient equipment that will be installed for
permanent service in POE service territory.
2. THE CUSTOMER UNDERSTANDS, AGREES AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT POE, ITS EMPLOYEES AND RS CONSULTANTS MAKE NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR
DAPLIED, TIIAT THE INSTALLATION OF MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT OR WORKMANSHIP IN ANY FEATURES OR MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECTS,
COMPLY WTTTT APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, CODES, OR INDUSTRY STANDARDS, OR WILL RESULT IN ANY PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT, ENERGY
SAVINGS, OR MEASURABLE ENERGY-RELATED BENEFITS.
3. After submission of project to POE and upon reasonable notice, the Customer shall give POE access to the facility and records, both prior to and
after the installation of proposed EEMs, as defined in the enclosed Exhibit B, Computerized Lighting Worksheet, for the purpose of observing
and monitoring the operation of the existing equipment. Access to the facility will be given to POE for a period of two years following the
installation of EEMs for the purpose observing and monitoring the operation of the installed equipment. Any monitoring will be at POE's
expense. POE may use the information described in the Application (the "Project") in its own promotional and informational publications. POE
shall inform the Customer prior to the publication of such information and agrees to honor any request from the Customer to keep the
Customer's name confidential for a period of up to two years.
4. The Customer shall install, service and maintain the EEMs in accordance with all manufacturer recommendations and specifications.
5. POE has no obligation to provide any payment to Customer except according to and under the terms of this Agreement.
6. POE's liability under the Agreement is expressly limited to Payment of the rebates as specified by this Agreement. In no event shall POE be
liable for any lost or prospective profits or any other special, punitive, exemplary, consequential, incidental or indirect losses or damages (in tort,
contract or otherwise) under or in respect of this Agreement or for any failure or performance related hereto howsoever caused, whether or not
arising from POE's sole, joint or concurrent negligence.
7. Customer agrees to defend, protect, release, indemnify and hold POE, its officers, directors, agents and employees and its affiliates, their
respective officers, directors, agents, and employees, harmless from and against any and all losses, damages to persons or property, injuries or
deaths of persons, liability, claims, liens, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character, including environmental liability, and
including the amounts of judgements, penalties, interest, court costs, and legal fees incurred by POE, its affiliates or their respective officers,
agents and employees in defense of same ("Claims") arising in favor of any person, corporation or other entity, including the parties hereto and
their employees, contractors and agents, arising from or occurring by reason of the actual or planned construction, maintenance or operation of
the Projects. The parties hereto agree, and Customer affirmatively states and warrants to POE, that its indemnity obligation will be supported by
liability insurance to be furnished by it; provided that recovery under or in respect of this indemnity shall not be limited to the proceeds of any
such insurance. Customer shall have the right to self=insure the indemnity obligation with the consent of POE.
8. The Customer agrees to hold harmless, indemnify and defend POE from any claims, cost, damage or expense arising from misrepresentations to
third parties of energy savings by the Customer.
9. This Agreement shall extend to and be binding upon POE and the Customer and their respective successors and assignees except that the
Customer shall not be entitled to assign its entire interest in this Agreement or any portion thereof without the prior consent of POE. Such
consent by POE will not be unreasonably withheld.
10. This Agreement may only be modified in writing and the modification must be signed by both parties.
II. The Waiver of any portion of this Agreement by POE shall not affect POE's right to insist upon strict performance of this Agreement or of any
of POE's rights or remedies hereunder.
12. This Agreement is the entire agreement between parties and supersedes all other communication and representations whether oral or written.
13. In the event of any legal action to enforce any of the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable, including
attorneys' fees, at trial and on appeal.
14. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon without regard to conflict of law principles.
15. The Customer understands that:
• Preapproval for a project does not necessarily guarantee payment of a rebate or incentive. Actual payment is contingent on
verification of equipment installation at the facility.
• Custom retrofit/replacement measure rebates will not exceed 25% of the installed incremental costs of the measure (excluding
fluorescent lamp or ballast disposal costs, or in-house labor) as supported by invoices.
• All custom measures must be cost effective according to the measure life and have a simple payback greater than 2.0 years.
• The combined lighting measures must have estimated savings of at least 35% electrical savings over existing conditions. Exceptions
to this 35% requirement may be granted by PGE on a case by case basis.
• The Customer shall provide PGE with evidence of proper implementation of the Project (the "Evidence"). The Evidence shall be in
the form of accounting records, contractor and/or vendor invoices and visual inspection by PGE or its representatives. PGE may
reasonably accept or reject all or part of the Evidence.
• Projects must be comprehensive, cost effective, meet proper light levels as determined by the Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America, include lighting control options whenever appropriate and have a simple payback of greater than 2.0 years.
• Incentives for approved partial building projects will not exceed 25% of the installed incremental cost (excluding tluore zZat lamp or
ballast disposal costs, or in-house labor) as supported by invoices.
16. The Customer understands that PGE does not pay'rebates or incentives for the cost of disposal for PCB-containing ballasts or the disposal of
fluorescent or HID (high intensity discharge) lamps. The Customer and/or the lighting contractor arc responsible for the proper disposal of
waste materials. PGE shall not be liable for any cost, penalty, damage or expense arising out of the storage, disposal or transfer of PCB-
containing ballasts or of any fluorescent lamps waste material, including but not limited to Hazardous Substances. The term "Hazardous
Substances" shall mean any hazardous, toxic, infectious or radioactive substance, waste and materials as defined or listed by any Environmental
Law. The terms "Environmental Law" shall mean any federal state or local statute,, regulation or ordinance or any judicial or other
governmental order pertaining to the protection of health, safety or the environment. For information concerning fluorescent lamp and HID
disposal, call The Resource and Conservation Recovery Act Hot Line at 1-800-424-9346. For PCB ballast disposal information, contact Thc
Toxic Substances Control Act-Hot Line at 1-202-554-1404. For state regulations, contact the DEQ Hazardous and Solid Waste Management
Office at 1-503-229-5913.
17. Any unused ballast(s) must be removed. Any unused lamp holders must either be removed or rendered inoperable.
18. Rebate payments arc NOT available for: Delamping and/or the use of reflectors without upgrading the lamp or ballast system; new fixtures or
conversions using T12 or TI O lamps; T8 or T5 fixtures or conversions that use magnetic ballasts; new mercury vapor fixtures; new T8 U-bent
fixtures; compact fluorescent conversions that have medium or low power factor and/or non-dedicated bases; one-piece screw-in compact
fluorescent lamps; four-foot, four-lamp conversions without reduced wattage ballasts; new or converted exit signs using compact fluorescent or
incandescent lamps.
19. PGE will provide to the Customer an energy efficiency Rebate in an estimated amount of S for the installation and
MI implementation of the project described in the Application (the "Project") enclosed as Exhibit A; Large Building Lighting Program Application
and Exhibit B, Computerized Lighting Worksheet information hereto. The final rebate amount shall be in PGE's sole discretion, based on the
criteria described herein, and final invoices and verification by PGE,aatt project completion.
20. The Customer shall complete the project by /(~Ctivim &,C'_ goo/
21. Total rebate amount must exceed $100. All potentially qualifying projects must be pre-approved and may be pre-inspected by PGE prior to the
installation of the equipment. Incentives in excess of $600 will be reported to the IRS as taxable income on Form 1099-MISC. PGE shall not be
responsible for any tax liability imposed on the Customer as a result of any Incentive given pursuant to this Agreement. Customer agrees to
consult their own tax advisor for information concerning its tax liabilities.
E-+
H
b 22. The Customer understands that PGE recommends a lighting quality analysis be performed that includes a review of the task illumination
requirements as recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). The Customer also understands and accepts
the light levels as proposed by the Customer's selected lighting professional. In situations where the number of lamps is being reduced in a
lighting fixture or where reduced wattage electronic ballast(s) arc used, the Customer understands that the light levels may be lower.
/ understand and agree to the terms and conditions of this agreement and certify that the information provided to PGE for the purpose of executing
this agreement are true and accurate and that / am duly authorized by Customer to enter into this Agreement on its behalf.
Customer: r-7,,'p
Customer: 'f W A I-pC t~l 2-Pry
PxWtctl.N*e $ignirit3ee Date
mill
NOR=
Commercial & Industrial Portland General Electric
Energy - Efficiency Programs
Program Application
Project Type: existing 108 6 1
Program: lighting 1
PGE USE ONhY -
Wfi,
,,Date Rbceyv~d : ' i~ ~~~1~ RateSct~iedule ~ ',`{~~.l~I~~ ~ tit ~ •+t~~~'';~~"tY' i Lt+rrns t t t
RecetvedBy ~+t x 4 i.,`•tt r„ s-c .4.~ ~`taiiO~~o~SG~~~~ 1,~-7G~E~; p~
.Pro ect'N'utriberh YO13(08J ~ ; ` 1 ~ y~3 CRTN ~ xs
SIG'Codb Q r a p 7 ~~i . 4 ~ PGE Rep ~ `ter erCea G Bnggs A, 5,%
nilf 1411 - tu•., . ~ tiC .u:i C•S.~dTF~it."i71s.~:n'! .y.
I
1 1 1111111
Company Name: City of Tigard
Contact Person / Title: Arnie Manzano
Phone: (503) 535-2672 Fax: Email:
Mailing Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd City / State / Zip Code: Tigard, Oregon 97223
Application submitted by: PGE Rep
1 1 1 1I i l l
Project Facility Name: City of Tigard Public Works
Project Facility Address: 12800 SW Ash Ave City / State / Zip Code: Tigard, Oregon 97223
Building Sq Ft: 40,000 Project Area Sq Ft: 20,000 Est. Completion Date: 12-01-01
Partial Building: N Facility Type: Office/Municipal
Days / Hours of Operation: Weekdays: Weekends: Annual: 3000
Business Energy Tax Credits: None
1 1 1 1 1 1 !1 1 1
Company Name: Oregon Electric
Mailing Address: City / State/Zip:
Contact Person/ Title: Rob Teague
Phone: (503) 535-2672 Fax: E-mail:
Comments: 20,000sgft balance left for EE.
Return Application to: Portland General Electric Phone: (503) 603-1680
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Program Fax: (503) 603-1720
16280 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road www.portlandgeneral.com
Portland, OR 97224
CITY OF TIGARD•WORKS OFFICE.xts WORKSHEET 12 11115x001 11.32 AM
Portland General Ele ie PGE Lighting Rebate Spreadsheet Version Oct 1, 2001 ALL PROJECTS MUST BE PRE•APPROVEDI
OctoberI version 2001 CITY OF TIGARD WORKS OFFICE POE Pr.I.n Numb.,
LARGE Building Lighting Program 1086831
prepared
tSMALL- 20,000 sq. IL or less; LARGE ■ Over 20,000 sq. fL) by: GEORGE BOTH 3031
It Pattal, enter Y -10'
Location Existing Existing Etwr Wow EEM Proposed x'wr W&W aa,.d Annual Total kWH Installed Rebate %
Description Code Equipment TTra Quantity Fix Code Equipment T7p. Quanuty Ft. Wan. Hours Saved Costs a Amount savor
1 : 6E441 41oo74 Law. F40T12,,td 4' T12 2 112 6F4.1R 4•'44my'E"TorE RW 4• TO 2 too 184 3000 552 $147.00 $10.00 479%
basal (Reduced W.e494) baAaa1 R.boH
2 1612421 4W.2law, F40Tt2,eb 4• T12 16 96 6F42R I',21.q.,F37Te,1NE RW 4• T1 JB so 1656 3000 4568 $2,355.64 $360.00 47.9%
baba (R.0.4 Wae) basal R4aon
CFI.Cawerilm Mod2armet
3 6EO60 I-d..unt Go ..It 60-0 1 so 6SI18 dad st.dbase 14uw, HPF, M " 1 u 42 30DO 126 $40.32 $5.00 700%
low TMD CFL
CFL cemr.tort Mod l wilt
4 6E100 bturtda4urd l0ow,e loowae 20 too 6$123 deduladb.so 1•23w. HFF. Mo* a 20 23 1540 3000 4620 $1,149.25 $100.00 77.0%
10w THD
Now TI Fkare, 4' 31aw
afoot 2law. F06TI2, 4td
5 ~eEa21 1• n2 ✓6 nl 6N41R g21uE,aw(a.dvo.d NEW 6 7s 714 3000 2152 3680.88 $120.00 56sx
/ bWSt Waimea) ba1.41(d.l.eped) 4' TO
6 6E431 4 toot Slaw. F40T12, 41st 1', 34.w. F321 VE, RW 1' T1 *
bwiil 4• T12 3 1st 8Fd3R 3 75 228 3000 661 3420.00 S30.00 soli
(ae6x.dw.0,1.)b.u,u a.a.H
7 ✓6E521 / toot 2 law. FNT12. aid r712 173 6NU30 New TO R.0ra, 7, 3 lamp NEW 2 to 165 1000 498 $315.00 $0.00 490% *
batla4l F83ITIVE U-b.1 T1
a 6EX50 lncs'de.ur4E,d99n UK E.4 1 SO BXNEW N,wE.aSign. LEp LED ENEWXR
FLbrs 50 Wall 1 3 47 6760 412 $145.00 515.00 941%
1New TIFl.br4 Ir ahmp,
9 6EMH8 M4klba5d.,400wat14 MH 6 461 6N1149 F32TVE,HLO",%.(4' N~TI 6 6 22S 1161 3000 5664 $228.96 $68.72 511%
krw6)
/bo72 law, FeeT12 HO, N.w 14 FLU., V. 4 t". NEW /
10 EEH21 4Mbaa,m Ir 12NO 11 252 6N046 ro2TUE,Hlob.SUU(a• 4. TI 11 150 1421 3000 4264 $2,072.00 2350.00 40.5%
lamp.)
toot2kmp.FNTl2.std N- TO FYtOre, s•, 412mP NEW 1
11 6E821 bWal r n2 6 173 IN 641 F3211rEArlampa) 1. 8 no sot 3000 1572 $848.00 5160.00 3s 4%
CFL c_..i., Medway wish
12 6EO75 I-d..wl75w.0 75wae 5 75 65118 dedutedbacel•nw,HPF. ML"' 5 11 215 3000 855 $253.00 $25.1X1 760%
Mw THO
398 mwl pf'E4i.wy' Its -w,l q.).•PrvpouJ' Cost Total • "i Tod
Total Building Affected Area
40,000 10,000 $8,655.25 27,241.72 itoo.
Square Footage Square Footage teb,l.
t.
C.d. Rat.,- Numb., Total F 'udry LWh 57613 k.. my J,.po..l ..U ..J* •in-h-' I.ba
Llahtk:g Powat 13-ity(LPO) 0.42 w,hantl% - -
Oregon LPO Cole 0.60 w.eWq ESTIMATED Before After Estimated Annual KWH Savin s 26,527
Raw. Rabat. 9
35% Savings Check 51.4% Savings PAYBACK 4.9 4.2 Cost Effectiveness for this project 0.3263 0.3770
Qualification Criteria' yeas years Current Average Electric Rate (&%M) 0.087 cE t.I.dt
Light Levels must be consistent with IES Guidelines. Estimated Annual Dollar Savings $1,777
LPD should be consistent with current Oregon Energy Code. Rebate as a % of installed costs 16.4%
THIS SHEET DOES NOT REPRESENT A PREAPPROVAL FROM PGE FOR THIS PROJECT. The slated rebates are based on the proposal submitted to dale.
PGE makes no warranty, express or Implied, that the Installation of the proposed measures Included as part of this, the Project, will result In any productivity Improvement, or energy savings.
Should hot scope of work change from the above, these changes need to be submitted In writing to POE for approval prior to the purchase or Installation of measures to be eligible for any rebates or Incentives.
reject Noes Uated Below:
1
. .2
1
P%3
October 24, 2001
Mr. Arnie Manzano
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. Manzano:
Thank you for your interest in our Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency program. Your Small Building
lighting rebate requests have been reviewed and preapproved. Preapproval is contingent upon our receipt
of the enclosed PGE Small Building Lighting Program Terms and Conditions form. Please complete
both sides and return it in the enclosed envelope by November 15, 2001, After this date, our incentive
offer will no longer be valid and your project will need to be resubmitted and reviewed under the current
program guidelines in effect at that time. This form is needed before any rebate can be paid.
1085325 City of Tigard Canterbury Storage, Tigard $605.00
1085437 City of Tigard Niche, Tigard $550.00
1085439 City of Tigard Water Building, Tigard $2,635.00
Total $3,790.00
A week before your estimated completion date of December 1, 2001, a Business Representative will call
you requesting invoices (for material and labor costs). Once invoices are received we will arrange to
verify installation of the proposed measures. After verification is complete your check will be processed.
Should the scope of the projects change at any time after PGE has preapproved a project, these changes
must be submitted to our office in writing. All changes must be reviewed and preapproved by PGE before
any qualified rebateslncentives will be considered.
According to IRS rules, we are required to report on Form 1099-MISC any incentive payment by us for non-
dwelling unit energy conservation measures paid to you. Because PGE cannot offer tax advice to our
customers, if you have any further questions please contact your personal tax advisor.
If you have any questions, please call your PGE Business Representative, Verlea Briggs, at 503- 603-1657.
Sincerely,
Cherie Merwin
Commercial/Industrial Operations Lead
c: Vetia Briggs
Project No. 1085325, 1083437, 1085439
Enelosurdee
Connecting People, Power and Possibilities
• Commercial & Industrial
• Energy-Efficiency Programs Portland General Electric
Project Name: - 8 7
.lf ~C
SMALL BUILDING LIGHTING PROGRAM Project Number: /08 5
"PERMS AND CONDITIONS - Buildings 20,000 Square Feet and Less-Wa4t,
/D~S`>
l Q warrant that I am the authorized representative of the Customer, tni I T r~ 1
Caw cn Nam as owe au (Waal locoas Tae Return
that will be receiving the E incentive and under penalties of perjury I certify that the Customer's Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) is
3 U or and that the Customer is not subject to backup withholding.
Mme Digit redenl Tax m 4,e4.v Social Sec-ity No.
Customer must strike out language certifying it is not subject to backup withholding if the Customer has been notified that he is subject to Backup withholding, and
has not received notice from the Internal Revenue Service advising them that Backup withholding is not required.
I. The Customer wan-ants it is a nonresidential PGE Customer who is planning to purchase energy-efficient equipment that will be installed for permanent
service in PGE service territory.
2. THE CUSTOMER UNDERSTANDS, AGREES AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT PGE, ITS EMPLOYEES AND ITS CONSULTANTS MAKE NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
THAT THE INSTALLATION OF MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT OR WORKMANSHIP IN ANY FEATURES OR MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECTS, COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE
LAWS, REGULATIONS, CODES, OR INDUSTRY STANDARDS, OR WILL RESULT IN ANY PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT, ENERGY SAVINGS, OR MEASURABLE ENERGY-
RELATED BENEFITS.
3. After submission of project to PGE and upon reasonable notice, the Customer shall give PGE access to the facility and records, both prior to and after the
installation of proposed EEMs, as defined in the enclosed Exhibit B. Computerized Lighting Worksheet, for the purpose of observing and monitoring the
operation of the existing equipment. Access to the facility will be given to PGE for a period of two years following the installation of EEMs for the
purpose observing and monitoring the operation of the installed equipment. Any monitoring will be at PGE's expense. PGE may use the information
described in the Application (the "Project") in its own promotional and informational publications. PGE shall inform the Customer prior to the publication
of such information and agrees to honor any request from the Customer to keep the Customer's name confidential for a period of up to two years.
4. The Customer shall install, service and maintain the EEMs in accordance with all manufacturer recommendations and specifications.
5. POE has no obligation to provide any payment to Customer except according to and under the terms of this Agreement.
6. PGE's liability under the Agreement is expressly limited to Payment of the rebates as specified by this Agreement. In no event shall PGE be liable for any
lost or prospective profits or any other special, punitive, exemplary, consequential, incidental or indirect losses or damage- (in tort, contract or otherwise)
under or in respect of this Agreement or for any failure or performance related hereto howsoever caused, whether or not arising from PGE's sole, joint or
concurrent negligence.
7. Customer agrees to defend, protect, release, indemnify and hold PGE, its officers, directors, agents and employees and its affiliates, their respective
officers, directors, agents, and employees, harmless from and against any and all losses, damages to persons or property, injuries or deaths of persons,
liability, claims, liens, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character, including environmental liability, and including the amounts of
judgements, penalties, interest, court costs, and legal fees incurred by PGE, its affiliates or their respective officers, agents and employees in defense of
same ("Claims") arising in favor of any person, corporation or other entity, including the parties hereto and their employees, contractors and agents,
arising from or occurring by reason of the actual or planned construction, maintenance or operation of the Projects. The parties hereto agree, and
Customer affirmatively states and warrants to PGE, that its indemnity obligation will be supported by liability insurance to be fumished by it; provided
that recovery under or in respect of this indemnity shall not be limited to the proceeds of any such insurance. Customer shall have the right to self-insure
the indemnity obligation with the consent of PGE.
3. The Customer agrees to hold harmless, indemnify and defend PGE from any claims, cost, damage or expense arising from misrepresentations to third
parties of energy savings by the Customer.
This Agreement shall extend to and he binding upon PGE and the Customer and their respective successors and assignees except that the Customer shall
not be entitled to assign its entire interest in this Agreement or any portion thereof without the prior consent of PGE. Such consent by PGE will not be
unreasonably withheld.
0. This Agreement may only be modified in writing and the modification must he signed by both parties.
Over -
1 I
It. The Waiver of any portion of this Agreement by PGE shall not affect PGE's right to insist upon strict performance of this or of any of PGE's
Agreement
rights or remedies hereunder.
12. This Agreement is the entire agreement between panics and supersedes all other communication and representations whether oral or written.
13. In the event of any legal action to enforce any of the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable, including attorneys'
fees, at trial and on appeal.
14. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon without regard to conflict of law principles.
15. The Customer understands that:
• Preapproval for a project does not necessarily guarantee payment of a rebate or incentive. Actual payment is contingent on verification of
equipment installation at the facility.
• Custom retrofit/replacement measure rebates will not exceed 30% of the installed incremental costs of the measure (excluding fluorescent lamp
or ballast disposal costs, or in-house labor) as supported by invoices.
• Approved Short Term Incentives will not exceed 25% of approved incentives for a project.
• All custom measures must be cost effective according to the measure life and have a simple payback greater than 2.0 years. Exceptions to this
requirement may be granted by PGE on a case by case basis.
• The combined lighting measures must have estimated savings of at least 35 % electrical savings over existing conditions. Exceptions to this 35%
requirement may be granted by PGE on a case by case basis.
• The Customer shall provide PGE with evidence of proper implementation of the Project (the "Evidence"). The Evidence shall be in the form of
accounting records, contractor and/or vendor invoices and visual inspection by PGE or its representatives. PGE may reasonably accept or reject
all or part of the Evidence.
• At no time will the total incentive paid for a project exceed 60% of the installed incremental cost as supported by invoices.
16. The Customer understands that PGE does not pay rebates or incentives for the cost of disposal for PCB-containing ballasts or the disposal of fluorescent
or HID (high intensity discharge) lamps. The Customer and/or the lighting contractor are responsible for the proper disposal of waste materials. PGE shall
not be liable for any cost, penalty, damage or expense arising out of the storage, disposal or transfer of PCB-containing ballasts or of any fluorescent
lamps waste material, including but not limited to Hazardous Substances. The term "Hazardous Substances" shall mean any hazardous, toxic, infectious
or radioactive substance, waste and materials as defined or listed by any Environmental Law. The terms "Environmental Law" shall mean any federal
state or local statute, regulation or ordinance or any judicial or other governmental order pertaining to the protection of health, safety or the environment.
For information concerning fluorescent lamp and HID disposal, call The Resource and Conservation Recovery Act Hot Line at 1-800-424-9346. For PCB
ballast disposal information, contact The Toxic Substances Control Act Ho. Line at 1-202-554-1404. For state regulations, contact the DEQ Hazardous
and Solid Waste Management Office at I-503-229-5913.
17. Any unused ballast(s) must be removed. Any unused lamp holders must either be removed or rendered inoperable.
18. Rebate payments are NOT available for. Delamping and/or the use of reflectors without upgrading the lamp or ballast system; new fixtures or conversions
using T12 or T10 lamps; T8 or T5 fixtures or conversions that use magnetic ballasts; new mercury vapor fixtures; new T8 U-bent fixtures; compact
fluorescent conversions that have medium or low power factor and/or non-dedicated bases; one-piece screw-in compact fluorescent lamps; four-foot, four-
lamp conversions without reduced wattage ballasts; new or converted exit signs using compact fluorescent or, incandescent lamps.
19. The Customer shall complete the project by.aa1j'jLe6L) 11C2t0 1
20. Total rebate amount must exceed $100. All potentially qualifying projects must be pre-approved and may be pre-inspected by PGE prior to the
installation of the equipment. Incentives in excess of $600 will be reported to the IRS as taxable income on Form 1099-MISC. PGE shall not be
responsible for any tax liability imposed on the Customer as a result of any Incentive given pursuant to this Agreement. Customer agrees to consult their
own tax advisor for information concerning its tax liabilities.
21. The Customer understands that PGE recommends a lighting quality analysis be performed that includes a review of the task illumination requirements as
recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). The Customer also understands and accepts the light levels as
proposed by the Customer's selected lighting professional. In situations where the number of lamps is being reduced in a lighting fixture or where reduced
wattage electronic ballast(s) are used, the Customer understands that the light levels may be lower.
22. The Customer understands that to be eligible for consideration of a short term incentive (STI) the project must be submitted to PGE after January I, 2001
and no later than September 28, 2001 and the project completed, equipment installed and operational, invoices received and project verified by PGE no
later than December 15, 2001.
I understand and agree to the terns and conditions of this agreement and certify that the information provided to PGE for the purpose of executing this
agreement are true and accurate and that I am duly authorized by Customer to enter into this Agreement on its behalf.
Customer. ` T y E~ ! 1 Cr~4 JJ
y-,
Customer: A P w, L_ D0 L ftNZk~l 10 d U
Printed Name Signature Date
Ovar.
t lly ugafu t antoruery aturaye vv~ uwncc, . ,.car
Portland General Electric PGE Lighting Rebate Spreadsheet Version 6.1 ALL PROJECTS MUST BE PRE•APPROVEDI
2001 City Tigard Canterbary Storage PGE Project Number
small Building Lighting Program 1085325
prepared
(SMALL- 20,000 sq. ft. or less; LARGE as Over 20,000 sq. IL) by' oregon electric 3000
If Short Term Incentive, enter STI 1
Location Existing Existing Equip. wawa EEM Proposed Equip. Wetta saved Annual Total kWH Installed Rebate %
Description Code Equipment Type Quantity Fix Code Equipment T)i.c Quantity Fix wane Hours Saved Costs' Amount Sand
Incandescent 90w.6 CFL Conversion, Modularw,th
1 Outdoor GE090 90 watt 2 90 6S123 dedicated bass 1-23w,HPF, 0 2 23 134 3000 402 $118.00 $10.00 74.4%
bwTHD
e foot 2 lamp, F96T12 H0, New TO Future, 5', 4 lamp,
2 indoor SEH21 old ballast WT12HO 13 252 GN846 F32T57E,HLOballast. (4' NEW s 13 150 1326 3000 3978 52,808.00 $325.00 40.5%
lamp) 4' TO
3 6E821 a foot 2Imp. F96T12. std e' T12 6 173 6N844 New TO Fudur., 5',1 lamp. NEW e' 6 110 373 3000 1134 $988.00 $120.00 36.4%
ballast F32TalE. (1' lamps) 4'T6
4 SE421 4 fool, 2lamp, F4DT12, old 1 Tt2 1 96 8F42R 4', 2Imp, F32T5/E RW 4' TO
1 SO 46 3000 138 $69.00 $10.00 17.9%
ballast (Reduced Wattage) ballast Retrofit
Incandescent 40watt CFI.Recessed Conversion,
5 Bath 6E040 Iowan 4 cep 6CR15 Modularwilh rouser and
dedicated bate 1.15w, HPF, Recessed 4 is top 3000 3D0 $97.00 540.00 62.5%
low THU
Incandescent 100 watt CFL Conversion, Modular with
6 StmilliHall SE100 100w.11, 2 100 6SI23 dedicated bate l•23w, HPF, 0 2 23 154 3000 462 $61.00 $10.00 77.0%
low THD
7 Storepa 6E441 4 foot 41amp, FI0T12, std 4 a P32TSIE RW 1' T6
ballast C T12 9 192 6F44R (R (Reduced d Walupe)belbsl Ralrofil 9 1DO 525 3000 2484 $609.00 $45.00 47.9%
8 AttiGE421 1 belfool, 2 icot llcat amp. F10T12, std 1' T12 2 96 6F42R 4.2lamp. F32T61E RW C TS 2 SO 92 3000 276 $129.00 $20.00 47.9x
(Reduced Wattage)ballast R.trofil
Incandescent 1DOwatt CFL Conversion, Modular with 9 stair 6E100 1DOwe111 1 100 FSI23 dedat.dbass 1.23w, HPF, p 1 23 77 3000 231 $61.00 $5.00 T7.0%
low THU
10 Can Room 6E821 5 foot 2lamp, F96T12, std 5' T12 1 173 6N844 New TO Fixture, 5', 4 law. NEW s' 1 110 63 3000 189 $166.00 $20.00 36.1%
ballast F32T6lE,(4'1amps) 4'T8
11 dank blank 0 blank blank D 0 0 0 0 0.0%
12 blank blank 0 blank blank 0 0 0 0 0
41 -rout gry.'E.Wing" 41 -tout gty.Rroposed' Cost Total ' Rebate Tots)
Total Bull Idin9 Squiere Affected Area Sgyere 1r1w art e PG for and wish to
5,000 2,000 apply for the e PGE BETC Pau $5,106.00 =605.00 6100 min.
Footage Footage Through, enter BETC rebel.
Code Reference Number Tout Ev'rdn"Wk 21,129 a any upon cos en car u
Ughting Power Densily(LPO) 1.97 wattslsg6
After
Oregon LPD Code 0.00 1 wanueg it
ESTIMATED Rebore Rebate Rob
ot* Estimated Annual KWH Savings 9,594
35% Savings Check 44.8% Savings PAYBACK 7.9 7.0 Cost Effectiveness for this project 0.5322 0.5365
Qualification Criteria: years yeah Current Average Electric Rate (5)KWH) 0.067 CE L',nil
Light Levels must be consistent with IES Guidelines. Rebate as a % of installed costs 11.8% Estimated Annual Dollar Savings $643
LPD should be consistent with current Oregon Energy Code.
THIS SHEET DOES NOT REPRESENT A PREAPPROVAL FROM PGE FOR THIS PROJECT. The stated rebates are based on the proposal submitted to date.
PGE makes no warranty, express or Implied, that the Installation of the proposed measures Included as part of this, the Project, will result in any productivity Improvement, or energy savings.
Should the scope of work change from the above, these changes need to be submitted In writing to PGE for approval prior to the purchase or Installation of measures to be eligible for any rebates or Incentives.
Project Notes Lis led Below:
2
I
3 » » _ _ . _ _
111 all
Iwco,c~u.o~r nr1
vvumn,oncr- 1 JU
l,iry ugaro mule
Rebate Spreadsheet Version 6.1 ALL PROJECTS MUST BE PRE-APPROV
Portland General Electric PGE Lighting ~ PGEProlOdNumber
2001 City Tigard Niche 1065437
sma Building Lighting Program prepared
by. George Roth 3~
(SMALL- 20,000 sq. IL or less; LARGE = Over 20,000 sq. ft.)
If Short Tarm Incentive, enter STI
W+ttsf S+ved Annual Total kWH Installed Rebate
Location Existing Existing Equip. Watts) EEM Proposed Eq°ID•
Amount
ul mall) TrDe Quantity Fix Code Equipment Tree quantity Flx Watts Houn Saved Costs
Description Code Eq p
4 foot 2lamp. F40T12, std 4, 2 tamp. F32TBfE RW 4' T8 3 50 tag 3000 414 5195.00 530.00
1 Hall GE421 ballast 4' T12 3 96 6F42R (Reduced Wallape)ballast Retrofit
Incandescent 100 wall CFL Conversion, Modular
too wan 1 too 6St23 with dedicated base 1-23w, 0 1 23 77 3000 231 538.00 $5.00
2 Main envy 6E100 HPF, low THD
Incandescent 100 wall CFL Conversion, Modular
100 wa8 1 100 65123 with dedicated base 1.23w, 0 1 23 77 3000 231 576.00 $5.00
3 Rest room 65100 HPF.law THD
41oot 41amp, F40T12, std 4', 4lamp. F32T81E RW 4' T8 6 too 552 3000 1656 $491.00 $30.00
q' T12 6 192 6F"R (Reduced Wattage) ballast Retrofit
4 Train canter 6E441 ballast
4 foot 2lamp. F40T 12, std 4', 21amp. F32T81E RW 4' T8 1 50 46 3000 138 559.00 510.00
65421 4' T12 1 96 6F42R (Reduced Wallage)Dallasl Ronofil
5 ballast
4 foot 2lamp. F40T12, std 4', 21amp, F32T87E RW A' TB 2 50 92 3000 276 5728.00 52 .
6 Paw 0. office 6E421 ballast 4' T12 2 98 6F42R (Reduced Wattage) ballast Rolronl
41oot 21emp, F40T12, std 4', 21amp, F32T81E RW 4' T8 4 r~ 184 3000 552 5316.00 540.00
7 main office 6E421 ballast 4' 712 d 96 6Fd2R (Reduudwettege)banasl Retronl
4', 3-lamp, F32T8)E, Rw 4' TB 75 228 3000 684 5387.00 530.00
41oc131amp,F40T12,std
g Risk managemen 612431 4'T12 3 151 SF43R (Reduced Wattago)Dattast Retrofit 3
banasl
4 toot lamp, F4oT1Z, std 4', 34amp, F32TBlE, Rw 4' T8 2 75 152 3000 458 $258.00 520.00
9 HR dir 65431 bollast 4' T12 2 151 6F43R (Reduced Wettago) Datlast Retrofit
4', 34amp. F32TBfE, RW 4' TO 75 152 3000 456 5258.00 520.00
4 fool 31amp, F4oT12, std 2
10 HR Spec 65431 ballast 4' T12 2 151 6F43R (Reduced Wattage) ballast Retrall
4 foot, 4lamp. F40Tt2, std 4', 41amp, F32TBlc RW 4' T8 3 t00 278 3000 626 5216.00 515,00
11 Unn 65441 ballast 4' T12 3 192 6F44R (Reduced Wattage) ballast Relmh
4 foot 4 lamp, F40T12, std 4',4 lamp. F32T81E RW 4' T8 3 100 276 3000 828 $220.00 515.00
12 Server 6E441 ballast 4' T12 3 192 6F44R (Reduced Wattage) ballast Relrofd
TB 3 50 138 3000 414 5195.00 530.00
4'
4 foot 2 Tamp, F40T12, std , 21amD. F32TBIE RW 4'
13 Comb star 6Ed21 4' T12 3 95 6F42R (Raducad Wattage) ballast Retrofd
ballast
8 toot, 21amp, F96T12, std 2lamp, F32T81E RW 4' TB 2 50 248 3000 738 5487.00 520.00
14 Gan slor SE821 ballast B' T72 2 173 6F42R (Reduced W:ttape)ba9ast Retrofit
q',21amp,F32T8fE Rw 4' TB 50 qg 3000 138 $64.00 570.00
66421 41001' 21amp, F40712. std 4' T12 1 96 6F42R (Reduced Wattage) ballast Retrofit 1
15 ballast
a foot 2lamp. F40T12. std 2lamp, F32T81E RW 4' TO 1 50 46 3000 738 $84.00 510.00
16 Hall 612421 ballast 4' Tit 1 96 6F42R (Reduced Wattage) ballast Retrofit
Incandescent 100 wall CFL Conversion, Modular
RfR 6E100 IDOwatt 1 500 GSI23 with dedicated bass 1.23w, 0 1 23 77 3000 231 $37.00 $5.00
17 HPF, low THD
4foot 4 lamp, F40T12, std , 41amp, F32T8fE RW 4' TB 3 100 276 3000 828 5221.00 515.00
18 upslair slur 6E4d1 4' T12 3 192 6F44R (Reduced Wattage) ballast Retrofit
eettest
2 foot 2lamp. F20T12, std 2', 2lamp, F17T81E, RW 2' T8 1 29 21 3000 63 5143.00 510.00
19 GE221 ballast T T12 1 50 6F22R (Reduced Wattage) ballast Retrofit -11
a foot a lamp. F40T12. Sid 8', 41amp F32T&'E RW lT 4' TO 2 100 184 3000 552 $143.00 Sd0.00
20 6E810 ballast g'4'T12 1 384 6FR84 (Reduced Wattage) ballast Retrofit
4 foot 2 tamp, F40T12. Sid 4-.2 lamp, F32TSIE RW 4' 18 2 50 92 3000 276 $128.00 520.00
21 Cal room 6E421 ballast 4' T12 2 96 6F42R (Reduced Wattage) ballast Retrofit
4 loot 3lamp, F40T52, std 4'. 3aamp. F32TBlE, RW 4' TO 4 75 304 3000 912 $276.00 $40.00
22 Upstares 6E431 ballast 4' T12 4 151 6F43R (Reduced Wattage) ballast Retrort
• c, 3lamp, 4 1llaL 3 lamp. F401 12, std F32TM, RW 4' TO 2 75 152 3000 456 $210.00 $20.00
23 Gary's on 65431 ballast A' 772 2 151 6F43R (Reduced Wattage) ballast Retrofit
11 41oo1, 3lamp. F40T12, std 4', 3aamp, F32TB1E. RW 4' T8 3 75 228 3000 664 $315.00 $30.00
24 Curtis Off 6E431 eanaat 4' T12 3 151 6F43R (Reduced Wattage) ballast Retrofit
664 830.00
220 3000 8315.00
\J~~", J„ 75 664 0
0
3000
to 1
4 3tamP'F321 07E. „at RO'-*6t 75 220 0 0 0
vvaaao i At Is 3 p 0 0 0
151 6F43R t4 3lamP' S pa a% RatrotR O 0 U 0 s R<bsu Co~a1
1 Watta4 tank
c F40 S12. $td A T12 151 6F13R tRaducad 0 Cop Corsi
~„y „ymu 4tea•31a~• sank D 4
3 blsnk 0 ¢550.00
6E431 aauaat 0S12. Std C S1a 0 Wank Wank
4 toot y IamP•µ 0 sh Wank i1 .,ou1 an'p,oP~sOd' 85535.04
25 Val 6E431 aansat a a
ids blank blank 0 sank ~y.nY f ca
26 blank Manx 0
rink wqw ~aat mbwtsh FltB
S 13,+
V Wank 61 lfY° C1,V ?GS 55cpas
is Wank w wpty to,"" C H Saving
e. Annuals 0405
1 0,10, ow S ated
29 ia~4t Estm rpi ed
30 Allected Area A 31000 Tout Ei,sunstit'n' Attar 855 for this p 0067
Cost Steetwen sta tai
„y,. 5,000 Square Footage Rabgaloreats Rabat. sEleculct1 8906
Totalguiiding EST1M~+IEp Cunant Aversfi vingS
S4uateFootage umber wsWsatt 6 5.5 nualDollar Sa
CodsRatarancoll LP01 147 PA.(gACK
WetWsan Years Estimated
po ~,ar
U9t'nn0 panslty t 0.00 Years
LPO cods a 9.9%
Oregon 5p7~h gavins costa savings nUves•
as, %of insta usd date. ent, Cr energy rebates or lnce
s Check Rabato fitted to
15'i. Savtng on the Proposal subm roducn of vity mimprove `o i Ible for any
P be ei 0~
based 'It In any easures
The stated rebates are will res or Installation
r .1toria: lES Guidelines. PR0 V CT• art of this, ti's Project, the purchase „
ua4ittcatIon istent"to code. pGEfORTtAl rovalPriort0
trust be cons Oregon Energy measures Included as E 10r app
ightLevglsconsistentvtthcurrent PREAPPROVALFROth proposed wttun9to
L
installation of the fined In .
to be subm
-„A.-...-..
LPO should be REPRESENT A piled , thatthe as need
THIS g}IEET pOE5 NOT or tm express above
PGE , these Chang
makes no vratr~ wow change trom the » „
scope o
Should the Listed gelowt „
?to~ectNotes
3
s>~
L,Iry•IIgarowater tsureau vvuKrlohrtIJu 1WLJILVVi LJJrlvl
Portland General Electric PGE Lighting Rebate Spreadsheet Version 6.1 ALL PROJECTS MUST BE PRE-APPROV
2001 City of Tigard Water Bureau PGE Project Number
arge Building Lighting Program EXHIBIT 1085439
prepared L I I
(SMALL- 20,000 sq. M or less; LARGE = over 20,000 sq. ft.) by. George Roth 3600
IIPartial,enter Y -p. If Short Term Incentive, enterSTi
Location Existing Existing Equip. Watts! EEM Proposed Equip. Watts/ Saved Annual Total kWH Installed Rebate
Description Code Equipment Type Quantity Fix Code Equipment Type Quantity Fix Watts Hours Saved Costs Amount
1 Tupe A GE431 4 toot' ballast 31emp,1`40712, std 4' T12 56 1$1 SF430 4', 3 tamp, F32TBIE 4' TO
Retrofit 56 90 3416 3600 12298 $1,185.00 $560.00
2 Type At GE431 4 fool 3 lamp. 1`40772. Sid 4' T12 28 151 6F430 4', 31amp, F32T8/E 4' T8 28 go 1708 3600 6149 $719.00 $280.00
ballast Retrofit
3 Type B GE421 4100E 21amp, Fd0T12, std 4' T12 21 96 GF420 4, 2 lamp, F32T8lE 4' T8 Retrofit 21 60 756 3600 2722 $444.00 $210.00
ballasl
4 blank blank 0 blank Wank 0 0 3600 0 0 0
5 Type Bt 6E421 4 fool 2lamp. F40T12, std 4' T12 4 96 61`420 4, 2lamp. F32T&E 4' TO 4 60 144 3600 518 $103.00 $40.00
ballast Retrofit
6 T" C 6EMH6 Metal halide, 175 watts MH 15 210 6155E New CFL Fixture. 1-55 watts New CFL 15 55 2325 3600 0370 $1,660.00 $375.00
Electronic Electronic
I loot allasl! lamp, 1`40712, std 4' T12 22 54 61`417 Wirelamp. F32TlLE Tandem 4' T8 Retrofit 22 30 528 3600 1901 $260.00 $110.00
7 Type D 6E411 b
8 6E311 3 tool i lamp, F30T12. Sid 772 2 46 61`317 3', 1 lamp, F25TBIE Tandem T TO
2 25 12 3600 151 $100.00 $10.00
ballast 3' Wired Retrofit
9 Type E 6EXC5 Compact Fluorescent Exit CFL Exit 12 20 6XNEW New Exit Sign, LED NEW 12 3 204 3600 734 $1,020.00 $180.00
Sign Fixture, (2) 5 Wan LED EXIT
10 Type F 6E411 4 trot Vamp, 1`40772, std GF41N 4, t lamp, F32T8/E NOT 4' TO
3600 432 $111.00 $25.00
ballast 4' T12 5 54 Tandem Wired Retrofit 5 30 120
19 Type G 6E421 d fool 2lamp. 1`40712. std 4' T12 7 96 SF420 4', 2 tamp, F32T81E 4' T8 7 60 252 3600 907 $132.00 $70.00
ballast Retrofit
12 Type H GE421 4 fool ballast 2lamp. 1`40712, std 4' T12 1 96 61`420 4', 21amp. F32T6lE 4' TO
Retro 1 80 30 3600 130 $17.00 $70.00
Retrofit
13 Type J4 6E421 4look 2lamp. F40T12, std 4' T12 19 95 61`420 4, 2 lamp, F32Ta1E 4' T8 19 8o 684 3600 2462 $402.00 $190.00
ballast Retrofit
14 Type A 6E441 4look 4lamp. F40T12, std 4' T12 1 192 SF440 4, 4lamp. F32TBrE 4' T8
ballast Retrofit 1 110 82 3600 29$ $17.00 Retrofit Incandescent 150 watt CFL Conversion, Modular
15 Type K 6E150 150 watt 7 150 6SI26 with dedicated base 1.26w, Modular 7 26 868 3600 3125 $52.00 $35.00
HPF, low THD
incandescent 75 watt Hard-wired Compact
16 TypeL SE075 75 wan 1 75 6CHE5 Fluorescent 1-15wall • HWCFL 1 15 60 3600 216 $10.00 $10.00
Electronic Electronic
Incandescent 100wan Hard-wired Compact
17 TypeM 6E100 100waft 13 100 6CHE5 Fluorescent 1-15wan, • HWCFL 13 1 15 1105 3600 3978 $57.00 $130.00
Electronic Electronic
Incandescent 60 watt Hard-wired Compact
18 Type IN 6E060 60 wan 8 5o 6CHE5 Fluorescent 1.15watk • HWCFL 8 15
Electronic Electronic 360 3600 1256 $52.00 $80.00
Incandescent 150wan CFL Conversion, Modular
19 Type 0 6E15o 150 wen 2 150 6SI26 with dedicated bass 1-26w, Modular 2 26 248 3600 893 $72.00 $10,00
HPF, low THD
Metal halide,100 watts CFL Conversion, Modular
20 Type R 6EMH4 MH 62 142 6S126 with dedicated base 1.26w, Modular 62 26 7192 3600 25891 $2,232.00 $310.00
HPF, low THD
21 Dank blank 0 blank blank 0 0 0 0 0
22 blank blank 0 blank blank 0 0
0 0 0
23 blank blank 0 blank blank 0 0
0 0 0
24 blank blank 0 blank blank 0 0 0 0 0
25 sank blank 0 blank blank 0 0
0 0 0
26 blank blank D blank blank 0 0
0 0 0
OWN= w1z31zuut 7.33 rM
WORKSHEE130 0 0
City-Tigard Water Bureau 0 0 0
sank blank 0 0 0
blank blank 0 plank blank 0 0 0 0 0
27 blank blank 0 blank blank 0 0 0 0 0
26 blank blank 0 blank 0 0 Cost ToW • RebrteToW
29 blank
plank blank 0 TK gtY.'Pr"o"'r
30 Tab -tow gty.'FxirpnQ
$8,645.00 $2,635.00
Ityou we eligible for and wish
Affected Area -to 20,000 to Wply for the PGE BETC Pau
Total Building 20 000 Through, enterer BETC any n c
Square Footage Square Footage
Tow Eaietina kWh ITS,S~I
Code Reference Number
Ughdng Power Denelty(LPD) 0.73 Watulsgn Before After Estimated Pnnual KWH Savings 72,468
Oregon LPD toes 0.00 Waltslsgll ESTIMATED Rebate Rebate Cost Effectiveness for this prajeCl 0.1193
3W/.Savings Check 57.8% Savinge PAYBACK 1•e '1.2 Current AverageF160riCRate (Sf1CHiH1 0.067
years years
Qualification Criteria: Estimated Annual Dollar Savings $4,855
Rebate as a % of installed cosu 30.5%
Light Levels must be consistefttwith IES Guidelines.
LPO should be consistent with current Oregon Energy Code. to date.
Improvement, or energy savings.
. result iult In any productivity
PGE THIS makes SHEET no DOES NOT warranty, express or REPRESENT A Impliod, that the PREAPPROVAL FROM Installation of PGE the FOR proposed measures THIS PROJECT. The stated rebates are based on the proposal
approval the prior Projtoect, the will res purchase or Installation of measures to be eligible for any rebates or Incentives.
submitted to e above, these changes need to be seed meas Inures writing to included as PGE for part of this,
Should the scope of work change from th
Project Notes Listed Below:
- -
3
PGE
October 29, 2001
Mr. Arnie Manzano
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. Manzano:
Thank you for your interest in our Commercial industrial Energy Efficiency program. Your Small Building
lighting rebate request has been reviewed and preapproved. Preapproval is contingent upon our receipt of
the enclosed PGE Small Building Lighting Program Terms and Conditions form. Please complete both
sides and return it in the enclosed envelope by November 15, 2001. After this date, our incentive offer
will no longer be valid and your project will need to be resubmitted and reviewed under the current
program guidelines in effect at that time- This form is needed before any rebate can be paid.
MEMO M
1085545 City of Tigard CAO/CPAH, Tigard $275.00
A week before your estimated completion date of December 1,2001, a Business Representative will call
you requesting invoices (for material and labor costs). Once invoices are received we will arrange to
verify installation of the proposed measures. After verification is complete your check will be processed.
Should the scope of the project change at any time after PGE has preapproved a project, these changes
must be submitted to our office in writing. All changes must be reviewed and preapproved by PGE before
any qualified rebateslncentives will be considered
According to IRS rules, we are required to report on Form 1099-MISC any incentive payment by us for non-
dwelling unit energy conservation measures paid to you. Because PGE cannot offer tax advice to our
customers, if you have any further questions please contact your personal tax advisor.
If you have any questions, please call your PGE Business Representative, Verlea Briggs, at 503- 603-1657.
Sincerely,
~4~~~/) /~:I,
Cherie Merwin
Commercial/industrial Operations Lead
c: vcdca Briggs
Project No. 1065545
enclosure
bw
Connecting People, Power and Possibilities
Commercial & Industrial Portland General Electric
= • Energy-Efficiency Programs
Project Name: ~ t I i Dr I I4nq o*01am
SMALL BUILDING LIGHTING PROGRAM Project Number: t'Uf/ 5 ' ` 7
TERMS AND CONDITIONS - Buildings 20,000 Square Feet and Less
~ 7 s
I 1 A m u A L n o , IV lAVJ Z&-UC2, warrant that 1 am the authorized representative of the Customer, 11 l~
Cq(bn= N4= u dawn oa Fcdenr tocoan Tae Rct=
that will be receiving the PGE incentive and under penalties of pedury I certify that the Customer's Taxpayer Identi icatio Number (TIN) is
*5 -r c 3 of and that the Customer is not subject to backup withholding.
Nan Digit Fcdval Tu ID social so-ky No.
Customer must strike out language certifying it is not subject to backup withholding if the Customer has been notified that he is subject to Backup withholding, and
has not received notice from the Internal Revenue Service advising them that Backup withholding is not required.
1. The Customer wan-ants it is a nonresidential POE Customer who is planning to purchase energy-efficient equipment that will be installed for permanent
service in POE service territory.
2. THECUSTOMER UNDERSTANDS, AGREES AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT POE, ITS EMPLOYEES AND ITS CONSULTANTS MAKE NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
THAT THE INSTALLATION OF MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT OR WORKMANSHIP IN ANY FEATURES OR MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECTS, COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE
LAWS, REGULATIONS, CODES, OR INDUSTRY STANDARDS, OR WILL RESULT IN ANY PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT, ENERGY SAVINGS, OR MEASURABLE ENERGY-
RELATED BENEFITS.
3. After submission of project to POE and upon reasonable notice, the Customer shall give POE access to the facility and records, both prior to and after the
installation of proposed EEMs, as defined in the enclosed Exhibit B. Computerized Lighting Worksheet, for the purpose of observing and monitoring the
operation of the existing equipment. Access to the facility will be given to POE for a period of two years following the installation of EEMs for the
purpose observing and monitoring the operation of the installed equipment. Any monitoring will be at PGE's expense. POE may use the information
described in the Application (the "Project") in its own promotional and informational publications. POE shall inform the Customer prior to the publication
of such information and agrees to honor any request from the Customer to keep the Customer's name confidential for a period of up to two years.
4. The Customer shall install, service and maintain the EEMs in accordance with all manufacturer recommendations and specifications.
5. POE has no obligation to provide any payment to Customer except according to and under the terms of this Agreement.
6. PGE's liability under the Agreement is expressly limited to Payment of the rebates as specified by this Agreement. In no event shall POE be liable for any
lost or prospective profits or any other special, punitive, exemplary, consequential, incidental or indirect losses or damages (in tort, contract or otherwise)
under or in respect of this Agreement or for any failure or performance related hereto howsoever caused, whether or not arising from POE's sole, joint or
concurrent negligence.
7. Customer agrees to defend, protect, release, indemnify and hold POE, its officers, directors, agents and employees and its affiliates, their respective
officers, directors, agents, and employees, harmless from and against any and all losses, damages to persons or property, injuries or deaths of persons,
liability, claims, liens, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character, including environmental liability, and including the amounts of
judgements, penalties, interest, court costs, and legal fees incurred by POE, its affiliates or their respective officers, agents and employees in defense of
same ("Claims") arising in favor of any person, corlywation or other entity, including the parties hereto and their employees, contractors and agents.
arising from or occurring by reason of the actual or planned construction, maintenance or operation of the Projects. The parties hereto agree, and
Customer affirmatively states and warrants to POE, that its indemnity obligation will be supported by liability insurance to be furnished by it; provided
that recovery under or in respect of this indemnity shall not be limited to the proceeds of any such insurance. Customer shall have the right to self-insure
the indemnity obligation with the consent of POE.
8. The Customer agrees to hold harmless, indemnify and defend PGE from any claims, cost, damage or expense arising from misrepresentations to third
parties of energy savings by the Customer.
9. This Agreement shall extend to and he binding upon POE and the Customer and their respective successors and assignees except that the Customer shall
not be entitled to assign its entire interest in this Agreement or any portion thereof without the prior consent of POE. Such consent by PGE will not be
unreasonably withheld.
0. This Agreement may only be modified in writing and the modification must be signed by both parties.
- c,vgf -
1 1. The Waiver of any portion of this Agreement by PGE shall not affect POE's right to insist upon strict performance of this Agreement or of any of POE's
rights or remedies hereunder.
12. This Agreement is the entire agreement between panics and supersedes all other communication and representations whether oral or written.
13. In the event of any legal action to enforce any of the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable, including attorneys'
fees, at trial and on appeal.
14. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon without regard to conflict of law principles.
15. The Customer understands that:
• Preapproval for a project does not necessarily guarantee payment of a rebate or incentive. Actual payment is contingent on verification of
equipment installation at the facility.
• Custom retrofit/replacement measure rebates will not exceed 30% of the installed incremental costs of the measure (excluding fluorescent lamp
or ballast disposal costs, or in-house labor) as supported by invoices.
• Approved Short Term Incentives will not exceed 25% of approved incentives for a project.
• All custom measures must be cost effective according to the measure life and have a simple payback greater than 2.0 years. Exceptions to this
requirement may be granted by POE on a case by case basis.
• The combined lighting measures must have estimated savings of at least 35% electrical savings over existing conditions. Exceptions to this 35%
requirement may be granted by POE on a case by case basis.
• The Customer shall provide POE with evidence of proper implementation of the Project (the "Evidence"). The Evidence shall be in the form of
accounting records, contractor and/or vendor invoices and visual inspection by POE or its representatives. POE may reasonably accept or reject
all or part of the Evidence.
• At no time will the total incentive paid for a project exceed 60% of the installed incremental cost as supported by invoices.
16. The Customer understands that POE does not pay rebates or incentives for the cost of disposal for PCB-containing ballasts or the disposal of fluorescent
or HID (high intensity discharge) lamps. The Customer and/or the lighting contractor arc responsible for the proper disposal of waste materials. POE shall
not be liable for any cost, penalty, damage or expense arising out of the storage, disposal or transfer of PCB-containing ballasts or of any fluorescent
lamps waste ro2terial, including but not limited to Hazardous Substances. The term "Hazardous Substances" shall mean any hazardous, toxic, infectious
or radioactive substance, waste and materials as defined or listed by any Environmental Law. The terms "Environmental Law" shall mean any federal
state or local statute, regulation or ordinance or any judicial or other governmental order pertaining to the protection of health, safety or the environment.
For information concerning fluorescent lamp and HID disposal, call The Resource and Conservation Recovery Act Hot Line at 1-800-424-9346. For PCB
ballast disposal information, contact The Toxic Substances Control Act Hot Line at 1-202.554-1404. For state regulations, contact the DEQ Hazardous
and Solid Waste Management Office at 1-503-229-5913.
17. Any unused ballast(s) must be removed. Any unused lamp holders must either be removed or rendered inoperable.
18. Rebate payments are NOT available for: Delamping and/or the use of reflectors without upgrading the lamp or ballast system; new fixtures or conversions
using T12 or TI0 lamps; T8 or T5 fixtures or conversions that use magnetic ballasts; new mercury vapor fixtures; new T8 U-bent fixtures; compact
fluorescent conversions that have medium or low power factor and/or non-dedicated bases; one-piece screw-in compact fluorescent lamps; four-foot, four-
lamp conversions without reduced wattage ballasts; new or converted exit signs using compact fluorescent or incandescent lamps.
19. The Customer shall complete the project by kw?'M I. M1
20. Total rebate amount must exceed $100. All potentially qualifying projects must be pre-approved and maybe pre-inspected by POE prior to the
installation of the equipment. Incentives in excess of $600 will be reported to the IRS as taxable income on Form 1099-MISC. POE shall not be
responsible for any tax liability imposed on the Customer as a result of any Incentive given pursuant to this Agreement. Customer agrees to consult their
own tax advisor for information concerning its tax liabilities.
21. The Customer understands that POE recommends a lighting quality analysis be performed that includes a review of the task illumination requirements as
recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). The Customer also understands and accepts the light levels as
proposed by the Customer's selected lighting professional. In situations where the number of lamps is being reduced in a lighting fixture or where reduced
wattage electronic ballast(s) arc used, the Customer understands that the light levels may be lower.
22. The Customer understands that to be eligible for consideration of a short term incentive (STI) the project must he submitted to POE after January 1, 2001
and no later than September 28, 2001 and the project completed, equipment installed and operational, invoices received and project verified by POE no
later than December 15, 2001.
I understand and agree to the terms and conditions of this agreement and certify that the information provided to I'GE for the purpose of executing this
agreement are true and accurate and that I am duly authorized by Customer to enter into this Agreement on its behalf.
Customer: ~'T✓ V
/ J I - Company
Customer: N4.O L LA A M i 61q ~T- ►r- ~l C 4
Printed Name Signature bate
City Tigard CAO-CPAM WORKSHEET 30 10!26!-001 10 49 AM
Portland General EiePGE Lighting Rebate Spreadsheet Version CTS MUST BE PRE-APPROVED!
2001 City Tigard CAO/CPAH PGE Project NUnber
small Building Lighting Program
prepared L~ 5
(SMALL= 20,000 sq. ft. or less; LARGE = Over 20,000 sq. ft.) by: George Roth 3000
If Short Term Incentive, enter STI _0' Existln
Location Existing ERu1P• Warlsl EEM Proposed Equip. welter Saved Annual Total kale) Installed Rebate %
9
Description Code Equipment Type Quantity Fla Code Equipment Type Quantity Fr. Welts Hours Saved Costs Amount Saved
1 office SE421 4 foot, 2lamp, F10T12, ad 4• T12 7 96 6F42R 4.2 lamp. F]2T6/E RW 4 TO
7 50 322 3000 966 $52200 $7000 479%
ba4st (Rsdc.dw.hage)be4s1 Reli
2 Office room SE421 4asfoolasl (Re, 2lamp, F40T12, std 4. T12 3 96 6F42R (RokOu urip, F32T6IE RW P TO
3 50 135 3000 414 $197 00 $30 00 47 9%
bced Wattaga)ba6a R.Uofit
Incandescent 60wetl 1CFL Conversion, Modular
3 RrRoorn GE060 60 Witt 2 60 GS113 win deficatedbaset-13w, MCWar 2 14 92 3000 276 $7535 $10.00 767%
HPF, lo. THD
4 blank blank 0 blank blank 0 0 3000 0 0 0 00%
5 Conr room SE441 4 roe. / lamp. F40T12, std 2 192 SF44R (Reduced 14~' at'sil) RW c Te 2 100 te4 3GJ0 552 5187.00 $10.00 47 9%
ballast 4. Tit W balsa Retrofit
6 Coder 6E421 4 Mfoot. 2 ast amp, F/0712, std 4• T12 2 96 6F42R 4.2 lamp. F32TA/E RW 4' T6 2 50 92 3000 276 $18700 $2000 479%
D.USt (Reduced Wattage) basest R.IroM
IncandescriN 60 wash CFL Conversion, Modular
7 Has GE060 60 watt 3 60 SS113 with dedubdbass t-taw. Modular 3 14 136 3000 414 $112.00 $15.00 767%
HPF• low THD CFIL
8 comm.Pan SE421 4 fool, 2lamp. F40T12, std 4• T12 3 96 GF42R 4',2 lamp. F32T13/E RW 4' 76 3 50 136 3000 414 $268.00 $3000 479%
basest (Reduced Wattage) basal R.UO15.1
9 Orfic. GE421 4 foot, 2lamp, F40T12. std a• T12 2 96 6F42R 4',2 It". F32T61E RW 4' T6 2 50 92 3000 276 $12800 $2000 47.9%
ballast (Reduced wattage) basest R.uofit
10 Jog GE421 4 foot, 2lamp, F40T12, std 4' T12 2 96 6F42R 1, 2lamp. F32T11/E RW 4' T6 2 50 92 3000 276 $12800 $20.00 47.9%
D.Iest (Reduced Wattags)balast Rwofi
11 Teresa SE421 4 foot. 2lamp. F40TI2, std 4• T12 2 96 GF:2R 4' 2lamp. F32TM RW 4' T6 2 50 92 3000 276 $12800 $20.00 479%
ballast (Reduced Wataga)basast Retrofit
12 Leoom GE421 4 foot, 21smp. F40T12, std 4' T12 2 96 6F42R f, 2lamp, F32T61E RW 4' T6 2 50 92 3000 276 $12800 $2000 47 9%
ballast (Refixed Wattage) basest R.Irort
Incandescent 60 "ll CFL Convarslan, Modica
13 Reoom empt GE060 60 watt 2 60 GS113 withdedcaad bass 1.13.. Modular 2 14 92 3000 276 S7535 $1000 767%
HPF, low THD CIFL
14 blank bank 0 blank blank 0 0 0 0 0 00%
15 blank blank 0 blank blank 0 0 0 0 0 00%
33 Kda¢y.'Fxiaikg' 33 •ottlgiy.'Propoud' Cost Total • RebateToW
Total Buliding -i Affected Area -i uyou ac aiyLla teas dvrisn $100
S uare Foote a 5,000 1,500 o apply for the POE BETC $2,135.70 $276.00 mIrL
S
9 9 quare Footage Pus Themes ass EETC rebel.
Code Reference Number Total Existing kWh 9.036 ins, any d,,p ..I was uid'or'm4wsc' label
Lighting Power Density (LLD) 0.97 whs/sgf
Oregon LPD Coda 0.00 I wa"shgn ESTIMATED Before After Estimated Annual KWH Savings 4,692
Rebate Rebate
35 % Savings Check 61.3% Savings PAYBACK 6.8 5.9 Cost Effectiveness for this project 04552 A5791
Qualification Criteria: years years Current Average Electric Rate (S!KWH) 0.067 Light Levels must be consistent with IES Guidelines. Rebate as a % of installed costs 12.9% Estimated Annual Dollar Savings $314
LPD should be consistent with current Oregon Energy Code.
THIS SHEET DOES NOT REPRESENT A PREAPPROVAL FROM PGE FOR THIS PROJECT. The stated rebates are based on the proposal submitted to date.
PGE makes no warranty, express or Implied, that the Installation of the proposed measures Included as part of this, the Project, will result In any productivity Improvement, or energy savings.
Should the scope of work change from the above, these changes need to be submitted In writing to POE for approval prior to the purchase or Installation of measures to be eligible for any rebates or Incentives.
Project Notes Listed Below:
1
2
3
r T T Y T T TPTTrTT a'~ ITI-'a'
PG Portland General Electric Company
16280 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road • Portlald, Oregon 97124
November 12, 2001
Mr. Arnie Manzano
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. Manzano:
Thank you for your interest in our CommerciallIndustrial Energy Efficiency program. Your Small Building
lighting rebate request has been reviewed and preapproved. Preapprovai is contingent upon our receipt of
the enclosed PGE Small Building Lighting Program Terms and Conditions form. Please complete both
sides and return it in the enclosed envelope by November 20, 2001. After this date, our incentive offer
will no longer be valid and your project will need to be resubmitted and reviewed under the current
program guidelines in effect at that time. This form is needed before any rebate can be paid.
WCOMM=M-1101IM11111
1086773 City of Tigard - Police (Sally Port $480.00
A week before your estimated completion date of December 1, 2001, a Business Representative will call
you requesting invoices (for material and labor costs). Once invoices are received we will arrange to
verify installation of the proposed measures. After verification is complete your check will be processed.
Should the scope of the project change at any time after PGE has preapproved a project, these changes
must be submitted to our office in writing. All changes must be reviewed and preapproved by PGE before
any qualified rebatesrncentives will be considered
According to IRS rules, we are required to report on Form 1099-MISC any incentive payment by us for non-
dwelling unit energy conservation measures paid to you. Because PGE cannot offer tax advice to our
customers, if you have any further questions please contact your personal tax advisor.
If you have any questions, please call your PGE Business Representative, Verlea Briggs, at 503- 603-1657.
Sincerely,
Cherie Merwin
Commercial/Industrial Operations Lead
c: Vales Briggs
Project No. 1086773
enclosure
ee
Connecting People, Power and Possibilities
Commercial & Industrial
Energy-Efficiency Programs POIa~~ General ~leeflrl+z
Project Name:
tlt°C c~
SMALL BUILDING LIGHTING PROGRAM Project Number: 106& ~7 / 73
'T'ERMS AND CONDITIONS
Buildings 20,000 Square Feet and Less
l • , \ Lr
I , ~ i2NAl-~ ~ ~~I"ZN`~ arrant that I am the authorized representative of the Customer, t 1 6i-, 0
Cust9 er N e ss fawn on Federal income Tax Rmum
that will be receiving the PGE incentive and under penalties of perjury 1 certify that the Customer's Taxpayer Identification Numb r (TIN) is
`7 ' Qd 1 and that the Customer is not subject to backup withholding.
Wine Digit Federal Tax M or Social Security No.
Customer must strike out language certifying it is not subject to backup withholding if the Customer has been notified that he is subject to Backup withholding, and
has not received notice from the Internal Revenue Service advising them that Backup withholding is not required.
I. The Customer warrants it is a nonresidential POE Customer who is planning to purchase energy-efficient equipment that will be installed for
permanent service in POE service territory.
2. THE CUSTOMER UNDERSTANDS, AGREES AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT POE, ITS EMPLOYEES AND ITS CONSULTANTS MAKE NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, THAT THE INSTALLATION OF MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT OR WORKMANSHIP IN ANY FEATURES OR MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECTS,
COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, CODES, OR INDUSTRY STANDARDS, OR WILL RESULT IN ANY PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT, ENERGY
SAVINGS, OR MEASURABLE ENERGY-RELATED BENEFITS.
3. After submission of project to POE and upon reasonable notice, the Customer shall give POE access to the facility and records, both prior to and
after the installation of proposed EEMs, as defined in the enclosed Exhibit B, Computerized Lighting Worksheet, for the purpose of observing
and monitoring the operation of the existing equipment. Access to the facility will be given to POE for a period of two years following the
installation of EEMs for the purpose observing and monitoring the operation of the installed equipment. Any monitoring will be at POE's
expense. POE may use the information described in the Application (the "Project") in its own promotional and informational publications. POE
shall inform the Customer prior to the publication of such information and agrees to honor any request from the Customer to keep the
Customer's name confidential for a period of up to two years.
4. The Customer shall install, service and maintain the EEMs in accordance with all manufacturer recommendations and specifications.
5. POE has no obligation to provide any payment to Customer except according to and under the terms of this Agreement.
6. POE's liability under the Agreement is expressly limited to Payment of the rebates as specified by this Agreement. In no event shall POE be
liable for any lost or prospective profits or any other special, punitive, exemplary, consequential, incidental or indirect losses or damages (in tort,
contract or otherwise) under or in respect of this Agreement or for any failure or performance related hereto howsoever caused, whether or not
arising from POE's sole, joint or concurrent negligence.
7. Customer agrees to defend, protect, release, indemnify and hold POE, its officers, directors, agents and employees and its affiliates, their
respective officers, directors, agents, and employees, harmless from and against any and all losses, damages to persons or property, injuries or
deaths of persons, liability, claims, liens, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character, including environmental liability, and
including the amounts of judgements, penalties, interest, court costs, and legal fees incurred by POE, its affiliates or their respective officers,
agents and employees in defense of same ("Claims") arising in favor of any person, corporation or other entity, including the parties hereto and
their employees, contractors and agents, arising from or occurring by reason of the actual or planned construction, maintenance or operation of
the Projects. The parties hereto agree, and Customer affirmatively states and warrants to POE, that its indemnity obligation will be supported by
liability insurance to be furnished by it; provided that recovery under or in respect of this indemnity shall not be limited to the proceeds of any
such insurance. Customer shall have the right to self-insure the indemnity obligation with the consent of POE.
3. The Customer agrees to hold harmless, indemnify and defend PGE from any claims, cost, damage or expense arising from misrepresentations to
third parties of energy savings by the Customer.
9. This Agreement shall extend to and be binding upon POE and the Customer and their respective successors and assignees except that the
Customer shall not be entitled to assign its entire interest in this Agreement or any portion thereof without the prior consent of POE. Such
consent by POE will not be unreasonably withheld.
10. This Agreement may only be modified in writing and the modification must be signed by both parties.
11. The Waiver of any portion of this Agreement by PGE shall not affect PGE's right to insist upon strict performance of this Agreement or of any
of PGE's rights or remedies hereunder.
12. This Agreement is the entire agreement between parties and supersedes all other communication and representations whether oral or written.
13. In the event of any legal action to enforce any of the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable, including
attomeys' fees, at trial and on appeal.
14. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon without regard to conflict of law principles.
15. The Customer understands that:
• Preapproval for a project does not necessarily guarantee payment of a rebate or incentive. Actual payment is contingent on
verification of equipment installation at the facility.
• Custom retroftt/replacement measure rebates will not exceed 25% of the installed incremental costs of the measure (excluding
fluorescent lamp or ballast disposal costs, or in-house labor) as supported by invoices.
• All custom measures must be cost effective according to the measure life and have a simple payback greater than 2.0 years.
• The combined lighting measures must have estimated savings of at least 35% electrical savings over existing conditions. Exceptions
to this 35% requirement may be granted by PGE on a case by case basis.
• The Customer shall provide PGE with evidence of proper implementation of the Project (the "Evidence"). The Evidence shall be in
the form of accounting records, contractor and/or vendor invoices and visual inspection by PGE or its representatives. PGE may
reasonably accept or reject all or part of the Evidence.
16. The Customer understands that PGE does not pay rebates or incentives for the cost of disposal for PCB-containing ballasts or the disposal of
fluorescent or HID (high intensity discharge) lamps. The Customer and/or the lighting contractor are responsible for the proper disposal of
waste materials. PGE shall not be liable for any cost, penalty, damage or expense arising out of the storage, disposal or transfer of PCB-
containing ballasts or of any fluorescent lamps waste material, including but not limited to Hazardous Substances. The term "Hazardous
Substances" shall mean any hazardous, toxic, infectious or radioactive substance, waste and materials as defined or listed by any Environmental
Law. The terms "Environmental Law" shall mean any federal state or local statute, regulation or ordinance or any judicial or other
governmental order pertaining to the protection of health, safety or the environment. For information concerning fluorescent lamp and HID
disposal, call The Resource and Conservation Recovery Act Hot Line at 1-800424-9346. For PCB ballast disposal information, contact The
Toxic Substances Control Act Hot Line at 1-202-554-1404. For state regulations, contact the DEQ Hazardous and Solid Waste Management
Office at 1-503-229-5913.
17. Any unused ballast(s) must be removed. Any unused lamp holders must either be removed or rendered inoperable.
18. Rebate payments are NOT available for: Delamping and/or the use of reflectors without upgrading the lamp or ballast system; new fixtures or
conversions using T12 or T10 lamps; T8 or T5 fixtures or conversions that use magnetic ballasts; new mercury vapor fixtures; new T8 U-bent
fixtures; compact fluorescent conversions that have medium or low power factor and/or non-dedicated bases; one-piece screw-in compact
fluorescent lamps; Four-foot, four-lamp conversions without reduced wattage ballasts; new or converted exit signs using compact fluorescent or
incandescent lamps.
19. The Customer shall complete the project by CIHc(JQ~{~ 0?00/
20. Total rebate amount must exceed 5100. All potentially qualifying projects must be pre-approved and may be pre-inspected by PGE prior to the
installation of the equipment. Incentives in excess of 5600 will be reported to the IRS as taxable income on Form 1099-MISC. PGE shall not be
responsible for any tax liability imposed on the Customer as a result of any Incentive given pursuant to this Agreement. Customer agrees to
consult their own tax advisor for information concerning its tax liabilities.
21. The Customer understands that PGE recommends a lighting quality analysis be performed that includes a review of the task illumination
requirements as recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). The Customer also understands and accepts
the light levels as proposed by the Customer's selected lighting professional. In situations where the number of lamps is being reduced in a
lighting fixture or where reduced wattage electronic ballast(s) are used, the Customer understands that the light levels may be lower.
I understand and agree to the terms and conditions of this agreement and certify that the information provided to PGE for the purpose of executing
this agreement are true and accurate and that I am duly authorized by Customer to enter into this Agreement on its behalf.
Customer:
Company
L_
Customer: 'Agt4AL- oq-,r.,F a
Printed Name Signature ate
pPPROVEQt
JECTS MUST BE PRE
Att PRO
WORKSHEET 52 pGE p'o~
eel Version Oct 2005 (j-•'
PGE tl9hgng Rebate SPtOadsh ~r\i\~L~.~oo'/_ a
1000 %
combinnd.xls Rebate
pity of Si93rd 1 e City of Ttgand ToutkWH Installed
Amount sav.d
r d • t3 Roth 11)0 Annual costs •
Ge
PQ prepared ~BDtg .2001 s►wd
program wau" µours Saved $osx 00 verslon righting r20.000 by ¢u►;~ St60
Octob wan•
13U0109 aq•tti proposed fit 55,19000
V
~pRGE BEM Tye OuantitY of less" ■O Wtus1 Equipment 3000 3648 $2000 50.3%
ISMAtl-a 20.000 Sq. It is 1218
RW 39300
41 t4°'p' fie Code 56
~Xlsttng ump,FalTaiE• nut ie 456
Ouantlty vv.n.9alba R.Voat ao9x
Existing T11K tR.o+c'd 152 3000 $225.00
t°t;atton Equipment is
151 6f43R 2 5980.00
Code boot 2umP.f+°T 12 std 56 RW i' is 6158
n + T12 .'Juc.tod Nant9 2t06 ~pantst R.vofit 3000 to 9v
OetcsiPCtO pant" tRd is $7500
6E435 151 6F 43R
2 p325yE NLO q It 56 538500
"'r, pAO O,1ca p+Dt 52, std T12 4.2 Lot O,ttputl p►Mst, p.VOrd 2106 001E
1 t foot. tsmD' lH+9t 3000 0
p"u" 6F42Z OEtI~pEO 7S 702 0 90><
6E415 "e 58 592 fj2twE ytto Te 6 0 0
f+OTt2.
PJR +foot.+ump• v Tt2 +-•218 ook 80811 $L ROOM 0 00%
2 au M'gt` 0 0 0
0
qaD
69445 192 6F42Z osm?sO D 0 0^
6 WNK 0 0
St
En9'aod t lamP.f+p712. Tit 0
too .4 ' 0 00%
1 at
pttt►►t D dank Wank D 0 0 0
6SW 0 00%
"'W, psi link 0 d►'~ dtnk 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 pti
y,nk duck 0 pt►^k y►nk 0 D 0 0
5 ytnk Wank 0 dank ytnk o 0 0 DOy+
0 0
ysnK yank ytny' prink 0 0 0 Rsbttc Tot"
6 e o
Cm, Toul • R,in.
7 t100
yank deny, 0 dirk ya D 0 $480.00 nbata
6 yank W►n0. yard, dint` .1°ul a')'pf0~°•cd 52,646.00
0 At •in•kwu µ0a
9 toot link D ytnx •kn Ml ditCm"ciw►„elot
10 Wank yank
.uut atY'E°~0
12 52,528
51 yanK WNgavings oa111
2t 97t sled Annual K 0211+
sz Esam tojact cEt;.,t
Tytl E*'t`u,akVtk 10r 1hISP 0067
pHacted Ar9a Sq~rO Ahar Cost EBediveness
9e{on R►p". a Etectnc oRUAar a ly Savings 5835
ESTIMAT R►b"• 2.6 Current Avar59 ED
Total 8u11d1n9 Squ~ e Footage
ncsNu
footage eoeaR.ar. kcrot 0.00 WOWSCn 3-2 Estimated Annual
t0tn"HI~D PAYBACK Y.srs
yaM
"OtIo9 powa Q.DD wriWsqn
ora9ont•pOCode Saying* t savin9s• ."'wes•
57.01 16 t. or sner9Y
s ChecX oststtad rAsts u bmined to date. ovnmef Ible for any rebates or nc
F
35'!. gsvlnD as a • n the p{OPosat a toductivitY Imp' to be at19
Rebate are based o afY P mea satutea
estated pbsus e0t Wlil tasuiti or taltauon of
of this, ins Ptoi urchase
Guldellnes' OJECT. Th as Plf
L140 code with IES OVAL FR PGE FOR THIS pR oyal pd°r to be F
fslsteft on Ener9Y OM esurss Includ`odpGE {or sPF r
evels mustbn co currantOre4 toPossd me ,Writing
Jppls outd be Consist rT RE RESENT A PRCAP tthe insulladons neadpo b0 submitted In
S Does atrotn the OspOYa. th°S° Chang
THIS
E ma e e 01 WOrtt r" `TrT
Should the s~ L s.nd selovr. T
pi*ct N°tas
- - -
.t t
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF December 18, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Approve Engineering Services Contract with Century West Engineering
Corporation to Complete the Project Design for Gaarde Street Improvements -
Phase 2.
PREPARED BY: Vannie Nuyen DEPT HEAD OK : A.P. Duenas CITY MGR OK: B2 on an
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award to Century West Engineering
Corporation in the amount of $39,750.00 for engineering design services to complete the project design
for the Gaarde Street Improvements - Phase 2 project?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to
Century West Engineering Corporation in the amount of $39,750.00.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The improvement of Gaarde Street between 12151 Avenue and Highway 99W is the 2"d phase of a two-
phase capital improvement project approved in FY 2001-02. The 151 phase of the project is identified as
Gaarde Street Improvements - Phase 1 which was completed in August 2001. The 2"d phase widens
Gaarde Street between 12151 Avenue and Highway 99W to a 3-lane facility with bike lanes and
sidewalks on both sides. This project also includes installation of a new traffic signal at the Gaarde
Street/12151 Avenue intersection and improvement to the 12151 Avenue approach north of the
intersection.
In April 1999, staff conducted an RFP (Request for Proposals) process to select consultants to perform
design services for the Gaarde Street project. From the selection process, Century West Engineering and
Triland Design Group were recommended to the City Council for approval of the contract awards. In the
Council meeting of May 25, 1999, the Local Contract Review Board approved contract awards to
Century West Engineering Corporation to perform design services for Gaarde Street Improvements -
Phase 1 and Triland Design Group for the design of Gaarde Street Improvements - Phase 2.
Construction of the first phase was completed in August 2001.
During the course of the work on Phase 2, Triland Design Group changed project managers twice and
ultimately failed to prepare a design that was acceptable to the Engineering staff. The project was poorly
managed, drawings were not submitted on time, and the design work required extensive corrections by
the City. The construction schedule was delayed at least three times because Triland Design Group did
not comply with the committed schedule. The consultant was given final notice to complete the work by
December 15, 2001 so that the project could be ready for bids immediately after the New Year. On
October 22, 2001, Triland Design Group submitted drawings to the City that represented only 70%
completion of the work, which was supposed to be at least 90% at that time. After an extensive review
of these drawings, staff expressed its concern in a meeting with Triland on November 14, 2001 and
again in a letter on November 16, 2001.
Given the fact that Triland Design Group does not have the ability to fully complete the bid documents
(which includes 100% plans, specifications and estimate) by the December 15, 2001 deadline, staff
terminated the contract with Triland on November 27, 2001 after consultation with the City Attorney's
office.
So far, Triland Design Group has cooperated with staff in submitting all documents related to the
project. On December 4, 2001, staff received a letter from Triland indicating their understanding of the
City's decision. Please refer to the letter attached to this summary.
Century West Engineering did an excellent job in designing the Gaarde Street Improvements - Phase 1
project. This project was delivered on schedule and within budget. The company's project management
team has extensive experience in roadway design and is very knowledgeable of the condition of Gaarde
Street. In addition, they already went through the selection process at the time the City was undecided
whether or not to award both projects to one consultant. As one of the two consultants selected for the
Gaarde Street project, the procurement requirements are met by contracting with them to complete the
work on Phase 2.
Staff did evaluate the option of going through a request for proposal process to select a consultant to take
over the project unfinished by Triland. However, the selection process is time-consuming and would
delay commencement of construction on the project. Staff is also concerned that there are only a few
consultants that would want to take the risk of stamping and signing the design that was originally
prepared by somebody else.
After several interviews with Century West Engineering, staff feels confident that the consultant is the
best candidate to complete the work with capabilities, qualifications and resources sufficient to perform
the required services. Century West Engineering's fee proposal and scope of service submitted to the
City on December 10, 2001 proposed an amount of $39,750 to complete the work. Staff has worked with
Century West to minimize the cost of the service. An Engineering Technician from the City will assist
Century West to perform the drafting work for the project. Century West will perform the design, the
calculations, the revision of the current design, and the preparation of specifications and estimate to have
the project documents ready for reproduction by February 22, 2001.
Staff therefore recommends that the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award to
Century West Engineering so that they could begin the design work immediately and complete the
project by the end of February 2002. It is cost effective for the City to advertise the project for bids
during the winter because contractors are less busy and should submit more competitive bids.
Following approval by the Local Contract Review Board, staff plans to finish the design by February
2002, advertise the project on March 5 `h, open bids on March 19`h, and award the construction contract
on April 10th. Construction of the project is anticipated to begin on or after May 1, 2002. The current
plans call for the street to be closed to through traffic 'from July 1 through September 30, 2002 and again
from April 1 through June 30, 2003. The first period of closure is required for roadway embankment,
construction of retaining walls, storm drain pipes and sanitary sewer pipes, extension of existing
culverts, and placement of existing utilities underground. The second period is for roadway excavation,
installation of curbs and sidewalks, streetlights, traffic signal and asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement.
Traffic will be detoured to Walnut Street and Highway 99W.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Select a different consultant through an RFP process. However, this process would delay the project
schedule approximately 2 months. Due to the delay, construction could not start until July instead of May
2002. Delaying the project would probably result in less competitive bids and would seriously reduce the
time period available to the successful contractor for meaningful construction work prior to the onset of
inclement weather.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
This project meets the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Transportation and Traffic Goals of "Improve Traffic
Safety" and "Improve Traffic Flow".
ATTACHMENT LIST
- Project location map
- Contract terminating letter to Triland Design Group
- Letter of response from Triland Design Group
FISCAL NOTES
This project is funded in the FY 2001-02 Capital Improvement Program using Traffic Impact Fee
funding in the amount of $1,840,000 for the design, construction and right-of-way acquisition for the
project. There is a balance of $29,294.25 remaining in the contract with Triland. Using the balance
remaining in that contract, an additional amount of $10,455.75 from the project funds is required to
complete the design of the project.
1:\Citywide\SumWgenda Summary for Completion of Gaarde Phase 2 Design Work.doc
12.1+;UIBIliff Y 5't•tur
m z
P
- 1 ~ Ate..
1
So:
i
N
t
I?
e• ~ natli ArE
.
. : • ~ 11NA
_ nstu Ave,
SW. 1141H
~ ; 112TH ~ Ave _
i f17tH A
:
-
•
MIMI
11111111,1111M , 1115- 11, 111 WINE
November 27, 2001
Hand Delivered Monday, November 27, 2001, 9:00 AM
Larry B. Lewis, A.I.C.P.
Raymond F. Buckel, P.L.S. CIIT F TIGARD
Triland Design Group, Inc.
10260 SW Nimbus Ave. M4 OREGON
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Termination of Engineering Services Contract
Gaarde Street Improvements - Phase 2, File No. 3238
This is to inform you that the City of Tigard is terminating the Contract for Engineering Services,
originally entered into on May 27, 1999, between the City and Triland Design Group for
engineering work relating to Gaarde Street improvements. The contract is terminated effective
immediately pursuant to Sections 7 and 8 of the contract. Triland Design Group is to perform no
further work under the contract. Under Section 3 of the contr act, the City is the owner of all work
performed under the contract. Therefore, please submit all documents related to the project to the
City no later than 5:00 PM November 27, 2001. These documents include, but are not limited to,
the following:
Revised drawings, specifications and estimate.
All City redlined comments.
Existing as-builts and right-of-way maps.
Photos and photographic negatives.
D Hydrology and hydraulic calculations and reports.
Pavement design report and traffic study report.
Retaining wall calculations.
Y Utility redlined drawings from utility companies.
Proposed and existing street cross sections at 25` intervals.
Driveway transition profiles.
Earthwork calculations generated from Softdesk software.
➢ Topographic survey field notes and maps.
Meeting minutes, correspondences, and transmittals.
D Electronic copies of all project data that contain horizontal and vertical alignments, cogo
points, DTM, and survey files including raw and field book data. These electronic copies
shall be in a format consistent with AutoCAD R14 and Softdesk S8.
Please tali me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Vannie T. Nguyen, E.
Engineering Manager
c: William A. Monahan, City Manager
Agustin Duenas, P.E., City Engineer
Gary Firestone, Attorney at Law
Greg Berry, P.E., COT
Mike Mills, COT
13125(503) 639-41 71 TDD (503) 684-2772
December 3, 2001 DEC o 4 zoos
f ITRILAND DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Ms. Vannie T. Nguyen, P.E., Engineering Manager
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Gaarde Street Improvements Phase 2 - File No. 323B .
Dear Vannie:
TriLand Design Group, Inc. would like you to know that we understand the City's decision to terminate the
Gaarde Street - Phase 2 contract. We have been disappointed with the performance of our last two engineering
directors dating back to the Fall of 1999. This, unfortunately, had an adverse impact on the Gaarde Street project
and we sincerely apologize for that.
If there is anything that we can do to assist the City in making a smooth transition to complete the project please
do not hesitate to contact us. We had a conversation with Century West and encouraged them to contact us if
they have questions or request additional information.
TriLand Design Group has established a good reputation for providing land surveying and planning services. We
continue to market these two services and would appreciate the City's consideration for TriLand providing these
services for you. We are very interested in providing the construction staking services for the Gaarde Street -
Phase 2 project. We believe that our land surveying department's knowledge of the project would provide
efficiencies to the project that are beneficial to the City.
Vannie, wp enjoyed working with you and hope we are able to maintain our working relationship with you.
Respectfully,
ZPartn nd ]Design Group, Inc.
d F. Buckel, P.L.S__71111__~~/~ Larry B. Lewis, A.I.C.P.
Partn er
cc: Agustin Duenas, P.E., City Engineer
Tril-and Design Group, Inc. • 10260 S. W. Nimbus Avenue, M4 • Tigard, OR 97223 • Phone (503) 968-6589 • FAX (503) 968-7439
9901 1 N ANN I E. M.12-3 -01. DOC
DEC 14 '01 03:05PIl RAMIS CREW CORRICnN PZ1
RAMIE
CREEP
CORRIGAie1 &
BA.CHRACH I,T P
Practicing as
Hibbard Caldwell Schultz
M M
ill Oregon City MEORANDU
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1727 N.W. Hoyt Street
Pnrtland, Oregon 97209
(503)222.4402
Fax: (503) 243-2944
THIS MEMORANDUM CONSTITUTES AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND
AS SUCH IS A. RECORD EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC INSPECTION PURSUANT TO ORS
192.502(9). TO THE EXTENT IT IS DISCUSSED DURING A PUBLIC M]EETIl`'G, THAT
DISCUSSION SHOULD OCCUR IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION HELD PURSUANT TO ORS
192.660(1)(f).
TO: V'annie Nguyen, City of Tigard
PROM: Gary Firestone, City Attorney's Office
DATE- December 14, 2001
RE: Proposed Contract with Century West Engineering
My suggested changes from the standard contract document you sent over are stated below.
However, this contract can only be approved if the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review
Board, makes a specific exemption pursuant to AR 80.015.
o ifications to Contract Languagg
I . Modify the third "whereas" clause to read:
The City previously awarded a contract for professional engineering services to TriLand
Design Group, Inc. to perform engineering services for the project. The contract between
the City and TriLand was terminated before all engineering work required under the
contract was completed. This contract is for the work left uncompleted by TriLand. The
work to be performed under this contract is based on a good faith review by Engineer of
the plans and materials prepared by TriLand.
2. Modify section 5 to read:
DEC 14 '01 03•0~--PM RAMIS CREW CORRICAN P
Memorandum re: Proposed Contract with Century West Engineering
December 14, 2001
Page 2
The City has relied upon the professional ability and training of the Engineer as a material
inducement to enter into this Agreement. Engineer warrants that all its work will be
performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and standards as
well as the requirements of applicable federal, state and local laws, it being understood
that acceptance of Engineer's work by the City shall not operate as a waiver or release.
Acceptance of construction documents by City does not relieve Engineer of any
responsibility for design deficiencies, errors or omissions of Engineer.
Engineer agrees to indemnify and defend the City, its officers, agents and employees and
hold them harmless from any and all liability, causes of action, claims, losses, damages,
judgments, or other costs and expenses including attorney fees and witness costs, at both
trial and appeal level, whether or not a trial ever takes place, that may arise from the
Engineer's negligence in performance of the work described in this contract, except
liability arising out of the negligence of the City and its employees. Such indemnification
shall also cover claims brought against the City under State or Federal worker's
compensation laws. Engineer is not responsible for errors, omissions, negligence or other
fault of TriLand, except to the extent that Engineer had reason to know of an error or
omission of TriLand, had an opportunity to correct it or advise City of the error or
omission, and failed to do so. If any aspect of this indemnity shall be found to be illegal
or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the
validity of the remainder of this indemnification.
3. Modify section 15 to read-
Engineer shall perform such additional work as may be necessary to correct errors in the work
performed by Engineer under this Agreement without undue delays and without additional cost.
An error or omission by TriLand that had not been discovered by Engineer or the City as of the
date of this Agreement shall not be considered to be an error under this Agreement. Any
additional work resulting from error or omission by TriLand that is not contemplated at the time
this Agreement is entered into shall be subject to the provisions of Section 16 of this Agreement.
Ado tion of Contract
~ The proposed agreement is a separate agreement of more than $25,000. Personal services
contracts in excess of $25,000 must follow the formal selection procedure of AR 70.020.1. The contract
does not qualify for the informal process of AR 70.020.2 or the direct appointment process of AR
70.020.3 because the amount of the contract exceeds 525,000. The emergency provisions of Alt.
70.020.3 do not seem applicable
DEC 14 '01 03:06P11 RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN P.4
Memorandum re: Proposed Contract with Century West Engineering
December 14, 2001
Page 3
The only possible way to avoid the selection procedure is to have the City Council, acting as the
Local Contract Review Board, exempt this contract from all procedural requirements as a specific
exemption under AR 80.015. Although AR 80.015 does not expressly allow exceptions to or exemptions
from the procedural requirements to personal services contracts, it does allow exemptions from the
competitive bidding requirements applicable to public contracts. Treating this as a public contract and
not as a personal services contract, the City can create a specific exemption to competitive bidding
requirements for this contract.
However, any exemption under AR 80.015 requires an application by the City and also requires
notice of intention to adopt the exemption to be posted and published at least 7 days before the hearing.
AR 80.020.
Therefore, if the City is going to proceed with an individual exemption, it needs to pull the matter
from next Tuesday's agenda, submit an application, and post and publish notice at least 7 days before the
next council hearing.'
The application must contain the following information:
a. The nature of the project;
b. Estimated cost of the project;
C A narrative description of the cost savings anticipated by the exemption from competitive
bidding (or the formal selection process) and the reasons competitive bidding (or the
formal selection process) would be inappropriate;
d. Proposed alternative contract practices to be employed; and
C. The estimated date by which it would be necessary to let the contract.
AR 80.015.1
The following findings would have to be adopted as part of the decision exempting the contract:
a. It is unlikely that such exemption will encourage favoritism in the awarding of
public contracts or substantially diminish competition for public contracts; and
b. The awarding of public contracts pursuant to the exemption will result in substantial cost
savings to the City. In making the finding, the Board may consider the type, cost, amount
'The City could probably comply with the formal selection procedures by the time of the next
Council meeting following the December 18 meeting. 1.
OEM=
DEC 14 '01 03:06FP1 RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN P•4
Memorandum re: Proposed Contract with Century West Engineering
December 14, 2001
Page 4
of the contract, number of persons available to bid, and such other factors as may be
deemed appropriate.
AR 80.015.3.
The City can include the following in its justification for the specific exemption, to the extent that
they are true. City staff will have to determine whether items 3, 5 and 6 are true.
I . The original contract for the full scope of the work was awarded by a competitive
proposal process two years ago.
2. Century West was the second choice under the original process and is willing to provide
its services on the same terms as it originally proposed.
3. It is unlikely that the other proposers would improve their proposals.
4. It would be unfair to allow a second proposal process after the original proposals had
become public.
5. The cost of an additional proposal process would exceed any likely costs savings.
6. It is unlikely that substantial numbers of qualified engineers would be interested in taking
over a partially completed project.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
G .m AnilTip.rdlvn-nrnl214o1 %vpd
ONFRIONNUAVEAR
CITY OF TIGARD
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Phone 503-639-4171
Fax: 503-684-7297
TO: Bill Monahan, City Manager
FROM: Vannie Nguyen
DATE: December 14, 2001
SUBJECT: Approval of Engineering Services Contract with Century West Engineering
Hi Bill,
Gary Firestone has some comments regarding contract approval with Century West and
would like you to review his comments. Please refer to page 2, section "Adoption of
Contract" of the attached memo.
Please note that Century West is recommended by staff to be awarded of the contract
for the Gaarde project in the Council meeting of December 18, 2001. Please let me
know if you have any comments regarding Gary's letter. Thanks.
~I~bZ
AGENDA ITEM # ~rJ f
FOR AGENDA OF Dec. 18, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Tigard and the City of
Beaverton for the construction of a Water System Intertie
PREPARED BY: Dennis Koellemzeier PDEPT HEAD OK A) CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the City Council agree to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Beaverton for the
construction of a water system intertie, and authorize the City Manager to sign such agreement?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Intergovernmental Agreement and authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement, approve
payments, and approve contract change orders up to 20% of the contract price.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This project was approved in the Water CIP portion of this fiscal year's budget, and was identified in our
"Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study" adopted in May of 2000. Our project, when coupled with a
similar project being built by the City of Beaverton, will intertie the water transmission systems of the two
Cities and allow approximately 4 million gallons per day of water produced by the Joint Water Commission,
to be delivered to Tigard via Beaverton's system.
The attached draft of the Intergovernmental Agreement has been reviewed and approved by both City staff
and the City Attorney's office. It is in draft form because we are awaiting final edits from the Joint Water
Commission staff, who may propose minor changes to the current language or including the Joint Water
Commission as a partner in the agreement. These issues should be resolved by the December 11, 2001 City
Council meeting and a final version of the agreement will be presented at that time.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The traditional approach to construct this project would be to design, bid, and contract independently of
the City of Beaverton. Our consulting engineers advise us that this traditional approach would cost Tigard
an additional $20,000 in fees to the consultant and the contractor.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
"Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" states a goal of "actively participating in regional development of drinking
water sources." This project supports that goal by providing piping capacity to allow regionally developed
water (Trask / Tualatin) to be delivered to Tigard. In addition , by signing this Intergovernmental Agreement
Tigard is forwarding our commitment to a cooperative relationship with Beaverton and the Joint Water
Commission.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attached are copies of the draft Intergovernmental Agreement, which has attachments consisting of:
• Exhibit A- existing Memorandum of Understanding between Tigard and the Joint Water Commission
• Exhibit B- existing 1983 Intergovernmental Agreement between Tigard and Beaverton
• Exhibit C- Project Map
• Exhibit D- Proposal from MSA for Engineering services relating to the Tigard/Beaverton Intertie
Project
• Exhibit E- Project Cost Allocation Chart
FISCAL NOTES
Project cost to Tigard is currently estimated at $221,548. Final cost will be subject to construction
contract bidding, changes orders, etc. Current Budget approved for this project is $275,000.
{
{
{
I)RAI'T 121/7/01
BEAVERTON/TIGARD INTERCONNECTION PIPELINE AND MASTER METER
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN TIME CITY OF BEAVERTON AND THE CITY OF TIGARD
This Agreement, dated , 2001, is between the CITY OF
BEAVERTON (Beaverton) and the CITY OF TIGARD (Tigard).
A. RECITALS
WHEREAS, ORS 190.003 - 190.110 encourages intergovernmental cooperation and
authorizes local government entities to delegate to each other authority to perform their
respective functions as necessary; and
WHEREAS, The parties wish to design and construct an intertie pipeline, master
meter and telemetry between Beaverton's water system and Tigard to provide up to 4 million
gallons per day of potable water to the other party in either direction as indicated on the
attached map Exhibit "C"; and
WHEREAS, Tigard and Beaverton previously entered into an intergovernmental
agreement on July 1, 1982, attached as Exhibit "B", for the purposes of supplying water
between both parties. Beaverton previously built and currently maintains two water meter
stations and intertie piping to supply water in either direction between the parties; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard entered into a Memorandum Of Understanding
(MOU) with the Joint Water Commission (JWC) on May 18, 2001, attached as Exhibit "A",
which includes a provision for Tigard to purchase water originating from the JWC if same
has surplus water available in excess of JWC's needs and those of its members. Under the
MOU, JWC will sell water to Tigard upon consent of its members and that prior to that sale
of water, the amount, term and rates shall be mutually agreed upon; now, therefore
IT IS AGREED:
1. Beaverton with Tigard's approval has awarded a professional services contract to
Murray Smith and Associates (MSA) for design and construction engineering. The
scope of MSA's work is described on Exhibit "D" to this Agreement. The referenced
consultant contract to MSA is considered part of the Project and is to provide
engineering services needed to design and construct intertie piping between the
proposed master meter and pressure reducing valve station and Tigard's existing
water distribution system (hereafter Tigard's system). Beaverton shall administer that
contract, but Tigard shall have the right to review and accept MSA's design work
product including design drawings and construction specifications as to Tigard's
Page 1 of 4 - Beaverton/Tigard Water Intertie and Master Meter IGA
DRAff 12/7/01
portion of the Project. Tigard's appointed Project staff representative will have sole
authority to make decisions for Tigard through the life of the Project. Tigard's
Project representative shall have equivalent meaning and application in this
Agreement where "Tigard" is used. Beaverton will provide Tigard copies of
documents and invoices from MSA upon request. In separate contracts with MSA,
Beaverton has contracted with MSA to design the master meter and pressure reducing
valve station, intertie piping between Beaverton's system and said metering station,
and piping needed to provide an increase in the capacity of Beaverton's local
distribution system to achieve an approximate supply capacity of 4 million gallons of
water per day to Tigard through this facility. A portion of the costs of the latter
contracts Beaverton has with MSA is identified in Exhibit "E" as a contributed cost
obligation of Beaverton to the Project.
2. The subject Project is located as shown in map Exhibit "C" of this Agreement.
Beaverton shall administer the bidding, contract award and construction of the
Project, including review, approval and payment of progress payments to the
construction contractor. To the extent practical, Beaverton shall itemize and describe
Beaverton's and Tigard's portion of the Project on separate bid schedules. Tigard
may review and approve the bid documents before Beaverton publishes those
documents and calls for bids. Beaverton shall be named as the "Owner" of the Project
on the construction contract documents including the surety bonds.
3. At its discretion, Tigard may participate in the pre-bid meeting, bid review and
selection of the construction contractor and may review and approve all pay requests
and progress payments administered by Beaverton as they apply to Tigard portion of
the Project. Tigard shall defend Beaverton against and hold Beaverton harmless from
any and all claims that the contractor may assert against Beaverton that are based on
disapproval by Tigard of payment of any of the contract price. Beaverton will
provide for all field inspection and Beaverton alone shall communicate with the
construction contractor on the Project. Tigard may review and provide oversight
inspection of its own to monitor progress of the construction work. Beaverton shall
consider comments and recommendations from Tigard during construction and as
they apply to Tigard and Beaverton will endeavor to satisfy Tigard's requests
wherever possible. Each party shall finally inspect and accept its own portions of the
Project. At Tigard's request and at Tigard's expense Beaverton shall cause changes
to the construction work desired by Tigard, including change orders and directives for
extra work to add to or modify the design for Tigard's portion of the work. Beaverton
and Tigard each shall be responsible to operate its own water system, including
actions necessary to coordinate with the construction contractor's work, for the
duration of the Project.
4. The parties estimate the total cost of the Project covered by this Agreement to be
$479,048.00 of which Tigard's portion is estimated to be $221,548.00 shown in
attached Exhibit "E". Tigard reserves the right to reject any bid that exceeds that
Page 2 of 4 - Beaverton/Tigard Water Intertie and Master Meter IGA
DRA1~!' 12/7/01
estimate as to Tigard's portion of the work and further reserves the right to reject any
and all bids if Tigard's contract review board deems that the public interest so
requires. Following Tigard's consent, and Beaverton's award of Tigard's portion of
the Project, Tigard will reimburse Beaverton for both (design and construction)
engineering costs and for construction costs associated with the intertie connection
piping from Tigard's system to the Tigard side of the proposed master meter and
pressure reducing valve station (as described on Page 2 of 4 in Exhibit "E"); and one-
half of the equivalent cost of interconnection piping from the master meter and
pressure reducing valve station to the intersection of SW Barrows Road and Scholls
Ferry Road. The cost allocation of the latter section of interconnection piping is to
more evenly distribute cost of the joint Project and since the master meter and
pressure reducing valve station was moved south of the initial location for design
constraint reasons. Beaverton shall provide Tigard with as-built drawings acceptable
to the City within four months of completion of the Project.
5. Any contingency funds not expended in the consultant and construction contracts
shall be split proportionally between Beaverton and Tigard.
6. Upon final completion and acceptance of the Project, permanent ownership and
maintenance responsibilities for improvements that are constructed shall be allocated
as follows:
• Tigard shall own and maintain the intertie connection piping (as described on
Page 2 of 4 of the engineering services Scope of Work in Exhibit "D"), from the
16-inch diameter piping on the Tigard side of the master meter and pressure
reducing valve station vault to Tigard's system; and
• Beaverton shall own and maintain the master meter and pressure reducing valve
station, and vault and all piping on the Beaverton side of that meter vault.
General Terms
The paragraph headings contained in this Agreement are for ease of reference only and
shall not be used in constructing or interpreting this Agreement.
1. Waiver and Amendment.
No waiver of any Portion of this Agreement and no amendment, modification or
alteration of this Agreement shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by
the authorized representative of each party.
2. Interpretation of Agreement.
This Agreement shall not be construed for or against any party by reason of the
authorship or alleged authorship of any provision.
3. Term of Agreement.
Page 3 of 4 - Beaverton/Tigard Water Intertie and Master Meter IGA
DRAFT 12/7/01
This Agreement takes effect on the date it is signed by the authorized representatives
of the each city and shall remain in effect until completion by both parties of all their
respective obligations under this Agreement unless the Agreement is earlier
terminated by mutual agreement of the parties and in accordance with the terms of
this Agreement.
4. Termination and Amendment.
This Agreement may be terminated or amended by mutual written agreement of both
parties. The Agreement shall run for a term of ten (10) years ending on December 31,
2011, and may continue thereafter indefinitely until cancelled by either party upon six
(6) months prior written notice of intention to cancel.
5. Dispute Resolution.
If any dispute arising out of this Agreement cannot be resolved by the Beaverton and
Tigard staff representatives, the matter will be referred to the staff representatives'
respective supervisors for resolution. If the supervisors are unable to resolve the
dispute within 30 days of referral, the matter will be referred to Beaverton's Mayor
and Tigard's City Manager, who will attempt to resolve the issue. If these executive
staff are not able to resolve the dispute, the parties will submit the matter to
arbitration under ORS Chapter 34. Federal rules of discovery and evidence shall
apply in any such arbitration. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final, binding and
conclusive upon the parties and subject to appeal only as otherwise provided in
Oregon law. The parties shall continue in the performance of their respective
obligations notwithstanding the dispute.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed the
day and year first written above.
CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF BEAVERTON
By: By:
City Manager Rob Drake, Mayor
City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: By:
Tigard Attorney Beaverton Attorney
Page 4 of 4 - Beaverton/Tigard Water Intertie and Master Meter IGA
111111111111 11 villa
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding is made between the City of Tigard, an Oregon
municipal corporation ("Tigard"), and the Joint Water Commission ("JWC"), an
intergovernmental entity created pursuant to ORS Chapter 190.
RECITALS
A. JWC owns and operates a water storage facility, water treatment plant and water
supply system ("System") that provides treated water to the distribution systems of its members
to-wit: the City of Beaverton, an Oregon municipal corporation ("Beaverton)"; the City of
Hillsboro, an Oregon municipal corporation ("Hillsboro"); the City of Forest Grove, an Oregon
municipal corporation ("Forest Grove"); and the Tualatin Valley Water District, a domestic
water supply district
B. Each Member of the JWC has made various and sundry capital contributions to
the JWC System and has an acquired ownership interests in the various components. Each
Member has acquired and retained ownership of water rights, which are made available to the
JWC for usage in the System.
C. Tigard owns and operates a municipal water supply system within its City limits
and also provides water service to the Cities of. King City and Durham, and certain
unincorporated areas within Washington County within the boundaries of the Tigard Water
District.
D. The Parties agree that mutual cooperation relating to planning for the
development or expansion of water sources in the Tualatin River Basin and treatment and supply
facilities for such water should result in greater efficiency and security of the water supply
system to the benefit of all.
AGREEMENT
1. Tigard and the JWC agree to cooperate in the planning, research, analysis, and
development for expansion of water sources in the Tualatin River Basin and water supply
facilities therefore that will provide mutual benefits to the parties. Cooperation may include
interties between distribution systems, joint development of facilities that could provide service
to the parties, the provision of surplus water by one party to the other, and the provision of
emergency water supplies by one party to the other.
2. Tigard will support efforts to expand the Scoggins Reservoir or other Tualatin
River Basin sources as part of the Regional Water Supply Plan and cooperation in the studies to
determine the feasibility of such expansion, such as the current Integrated Water Resource
Management Study Memorandum of Understanding dated May 18, 2001
3. Tigard may become a member of JWC if Tigard applies for and obtains water
rights for additional source water in the Tualatin River Basin and JWC, its Members, and Tigard
are able to agree upon the terms ofTigard's membership in JWC.
PAGE I - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING c:KE&OVAMAX
4. Any capital projects that Tigard, JWC, and some or all of the Members may
participate in prior to Tigard's membership in JWC, shall be constructed only after a
Construction Agreement between Tigard, JWC, and the affected Members is executed. If Tigard
withdraws from any capital project after completion, Tigard shall be paid according to the terms
of the Construction Agreement or the JWC Membership Agreement, as applicable.
5. JWC agrees that if the System has surplus water available in excess of JWC's
needs and those of its Members, it will sell water to Tigard upon consent of the Members. The
Parties agree that prior to said sales, the amount, term and rate methodology shall be mutually
agreed upon.
6. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual agreement of the
Parties. This Agreement may be terminated by any Party giving 12 months notice of
termination. Notices required under this Agreement shall be sent to:
City of Tigard Joint Water Commission
c% Public Works Director clo General Manager
13125 SW Hall Blvd. City of Hillsboro
Tigard, OR 97223 123 West Main, Room 250
Hillsboro, OR 97123
With a copy to each of the following entities:
City of Beaverton
c/o City Mayor City of Hillsboro
4755 SW Griffith Drive c/o City Manager
P.O. Box 4755 123 West Main, Room 250
Beaverton, OR 97076 Hillsboro, OR 97123
City of Forest Grove
c/o City Manager Tualatin Valley Water District
P.O. Box 326 do General Manager
Forest Grove, OR 97116 1850 SW 170th Avenue
P.O. Box 745
Beaverton, OR 97075
7. The Parties agree that this Agreement may be expanded to include additional
parties with the joint agreement of all parties to the agreement. Any amendment to this
Agreement must be improved by the governing body of each body.
8. This Agreement shall be effective when signed by duly authorized representatives
of the Parties.
PAGE 2 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGx%wa~.c..*bww
rg"&c
IN WI'T'NESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Memorandum of
Understanding to be executed by their respectively authorized officers or representatives as of
the day and year first above written.
CITE' OF TIGARID JOINT WATER COMMISSION
B B
ayor General Manager
PAGE 3 - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CATEM AMAoe
• EXHIBIT 11
A G R E E M E N T
This AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1st day of July,
1982, by and between the TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, a municipal
corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called "TIGARD",
and the CITY OF BEAVERTON, also a municipal corporation of the
State of Oregon, hereinafter called "BEAVERTON".
W I T N E S S E T H
Tigard and Beaverton are each municipal corporations and are
engaged in the supply of water for domestic purposes to the
residents in their respective areas. Tigard is organized under the
provisions of ORS 264; Beaverton is organized in accordance with
State law and its city charter.
Tigard and Beaverton have a 12-inch inter-tie at the common
boundary, S.W. Scholls Ferry Road, near Springwood Drive. In the
near future, another inter-tie will be made at the intersection of
S.W. 135th and Scholls Ferry Road.
Both Tigard and Beaverton are desirous of purchasing surplus
water from the other for emergency purposes. For such purposes,
both entities are willing to sell surplus water to the other at
either point of connection at the common boundaries noted above.
Therefore, in consideration of the covenants and conditions
contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Tigard agrees to furnish and sell water to Beaverton under
the terms and provisions of this Agreement delivered at either
point of connection noted previously. The obligation on the part
of Tigard to sell and furnish water is subject to the following
limitations.
A. Under the provisions of ORS 264, Tigard can sell and
furnish only surplus water and, should the demand of Tigard's
customers at any time exceed Tigard's capacity to deliver water to
them, it shall at that time have no obligation to furnish water to
i~...~.•~~t~ AGREEMENT
Beaverton.
B. Tigard's sources of water are the City of Lake Oswego,
Oregon; the City of Portland, Oregon; and deep wells located within
the district. The Cities of Lake Oswego and Portland have
promulgated rules and regulations concerning the supply and use of
water, and it is mutually understood and agreed between the parties
hereto that, insofar as said rules and regulations are applicable
hereto, Beaverton shall be bound by same. Such rules and
regulations are by this reference made a part of this Agreement.
2. Beaverton agrees to furnish and sell water to Tigard under
the terms and provisions of this Agreement delivered at either
point of connection noted previously. The obligation on the part
of Beaverton to sell and furnish water is subject to the following
limitations:
A. Beaverton is offering only surplus water to Tigard for
emergency purposes and, should the demand of Beaverton's customers
at any time exceed Beaverton's capacity to deliver water to them,
it shall at that time have no obligation to furnish water to
Tigard.
B. Beaverton's major source of water is the upper
Tualatin-Trask River system controlled and operated under the
jurisdiction of the Joint Utilities Commission of Millsboro, Forest
Grove and Beaverton. The Joint Utilities Commission has
promulgated rules and regulations concerning the supply, sale and
use of water, and it is mutually understood and agreed between the
parties hereto that, insofar as said rules and regulations are
applicable hereto, Tigard shall be bound by same. Such rules and
regulations are by this reference made a part of this Agreement.
3. Both Tigard and Beaverton shall pay to the other party for
i
water purchased a sum of money equal to the basic unit cost per 100
cubic feet of Bull Run water delivered as determined by Portland
a Water Bureau in its fiscal year Rate Ordinance for Service Area III
(pumped transmission). For example: the current charge for water
service furnished by the City of Portland for Service Area III is
63 cents per 100 cubic feet. Water furnished by either party
pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement would cost 63 cents
AGREEMENT - page 2
per 100 cubic feet. It is understood that any change in the rate
made by the City of Portland for Service Area III, whether
increased or decreased, shall work an appropriate increase or
decrease in the rate and charges made hereunder. The parties agree
that there shall be no stand--by charges or minimum charges.
Shall the water meter(s) fail to register accurately the
quantity of water passing through it, the charges for water
delivered during the period of inaccuracy shall be estimated and
agreed to by both parties from data showing the average daily
volume of water passing through the meter(s) when operating
accurately.
This Agreement shall be for a term of ten (10) years ending on
June 30, 1992, and may continue thereafter indefinitely until
cancelled by either party upon giving to the other six (6) months
prior written notice of this intention to cancel. This Agreement
shall supersede all other agreements currently in effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused these
presents to be executed as of the day and year first above written.
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT
r
Date: By:
hairman
Board of Commissioners
ATTEST:
ecretary
Board of Commissioners
CITY O BEAVERTON, OREGON
Date: B
r r
ATTEST:
_W21 _,e
C t e rder~
City of Beaverton
AGREE 4ENT - page 3
d 7 2S 1 050C
~J~ 2S 1 059G
K M 1 1
a~ ~ ~ o.~ •ira `Oj~ awt •Jy yt w,p a d , t'.r
~ ~ Y."' t` ,r~~ j • ~'a `.l''~L•~, ~f"i 4'~ `we ,~~'~~iSati .•.a.. f~ .`at.. ~l ~ s! 1--yt~
'i,R -f .4 qq a OHCOUHn *ft Wyk
O
V
~1 Y yV i t .ne` 4 4.•„ t.~ iSl WASNiHQµsxctancloow
4 ~y s~r' " ~ ?~Y..t •''a ~ °'~a,yi~~'. ~2° 'At tfY, 1'MtNMN au~~ • t..
31 t a 1~
I +r ♦ mot. GP . r+ . v .F a 1„ ;
.•Gr: ° uoo `';J.°' L r+ , n r ,f .t . a I of u
I F t we a w j' rrC
34
/V ' i "¢~it 'p vi~0~t1 i' ay H: tf 1 a7 n~....
I aq ~I Q '?sip I~w~ j p~~, ~ n ~ al ..:...al.....'~• ff
1 m 1>< ~ ~ ~ ~.,r id',d"f4'w ~ r*t~+l~ V of -ff ~7° , - 'f~ ;
I f ,r~ ro' r , .ar . ~ • j i „ 1, • 1f 731 f' fa ~ M s
V.S
j f ut y
Y
Y V M u • •1
Oil
c~ r q {t.~ !.1 p AC p
. 1
lea SEC* a05'
u
1 •,c.. to
58 a
a , ~t.al.far taloarti
.+:y ~ _ -Yt • gpRROWS j " i ►~~t~y~j a
1 !Now
a! f jfi -;ate V w J ``t 'i .7$ m T "wr G1R10Gt2/~M
'l 7 N q i w_w t„y'Yrw t'r a Ifl 9 t N rr1 11 w7 1. a uR
a o=o 'r '4° A ? 1"'` r< «r' ° 1 I ~y~+.tMt~_~~lam ITI f t d I % ` FO~N PLOS DI.TE MANO Tpp~4py SES
N
f • V i j t+a.C✓ j'a , ~a+mw ~la,~wa r q M°ti~ul w' ` t~ sx r. .."r ISyE~$pSc~~ T~EHUSE~ 200
ti, r 1 911 j° + ~ " i 1, , _j..9.. uI a W. tCR, 291~1Ir fOi~
COURT r tCR wn{ t r,,..• naa TEAROSE WA >
Proposed
isle
lit, osBc
' • " a ~N• as ~I '0 „ V
BE~•'''~'w, Ui 1tlry ♦~y I 'a 2S 1 0596
1 l j. { ww ..l ar.9q r.. ¢ P"
4gCKY «ANGE ~.I +l..l ~'t•~ 1
woos V LANE X + , r. rr j CT r n ;y rr
>t
rre~a
Fdl ~00t 1p~lf1~[S !2 (SK[ Shrkn,.%k 900 ■ Pathnd: OreP 972D4-2M ■ MA 503.235.9010 ° FAX 50,1225,90.2
October 15, 2001
Mr. David Winship, PE, PLS, WRE
City of Beaverton
Engineering Department
P.O. Box 4755
Beaverton, Oregon 97076-4755
Re: Proposal for Engineering Services for Beaverton and Tigard Intertie -
SW Barrows Road Piping Improvements
Dear David:
Please find attached our proposal for the above referenced project. As discussed, our Fiscal
Year 2000/2001 - Water Works Improvements - Unit 1 service agreement includes the City
of Beaverton's portion of efforts for the design of a meter and pressure reducing valve (PRV)
vault to facilitate an additional water system intertic with the City of Tigard. This proposal
addresses the engineering services necessary for the completion of the City of Tigard's
portion of the joint project. These proposed intertie piping improvements would connect the
vault to the City of Tigard's distribution system. This proposal will allow both the vault and
piping improvements to be incorporated into a single contract document. It is understood
that the City of Beaverton will prepare an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for execution
with the City of Tigard regarding the costs of design, construction and ownership of the
proposed intertie piping improvements.
Attached to the scope of work are our Labor Hour and Fee Summary and proposed schedule.
We will accomplish this work on a time and expenses basis according to the Schedule of
Charges as included in our current Retainer Agreement with the City that is also attached.
This authorized work will be completed for the not to exceed total amount of $44,704 for all
tasks identified in the attached revised scope of work, which includes a $3,500 contingency.
It is our understanding that the City will prepare a contract for personal services once City
Council approval is obtained.
Mr. David Winship, PE, PLS, WRE
October 15, 2001
Page 2
Again, we look forward to completing this importnat work on behalf of the City. We also
look forward to continued work with you, Beaverton staff and the City of Tigard. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you.
Sincerely,
MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Troy ers, P.E.
Vice res nt
Enclosures
Cc: Dennis Koellermeier, City of Tigard
JSJ:kgs
P.+i W~.aa1LO~Cb~ WsYtYwr MirW I&19QI.dic
SCOPE OF WORD
CITY OF BEAVERTON
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
BEAVERTON AND TIGARD INTERTIE SW BARROWS ROAD PIPING
EMPROVEMENTS
October 15, 2001
This scope of work is for services related to the design and construction of the intertie piping
between a proposed City of Beaverton's meter and pressure reducing valve (PRV) vault and
the City of Tigard's water distribution system. Combined with the City's proposed inter and
PRV vault project, the proposed intertie piping improvements will complete a proposed new
water system connection between the Cities of Beaverton and Tigard. The background of the
proposed intertie and project description is presented below followed by the proposed scope
of services.
Project Background and Description
During the winter of 1999, the City of Tigard had an emergency water supply condition in
which the Tigard's primary sources of water supply, the City of Portland and the City of Lake
Oswego, were both unavailable to supply water to the City. The City of Portland was unable
to provide supply due to high turbidity in Bull Run watershed. The City of Lake Oswego
was unable to provide supply because the connection to the City of Tigard was out of service
due to construction of improvements to that connection. The City of Beaverton was able to
supply Tigard in this emergency situation through two existing metered interties at SW 135`h
Avenue and SW Scholls Ferry Road and at SW Springwood Drive and SW Scholls Ferry
Road.
Subsequent to the 1999 emergency water supply condition, hydraulic analyses were
conducted to evaluate the existing interties and to develop a potential new intertie site. From
these analyses, it was recommended that a new intertie connection be constructed near the
intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Barrows Road that will connect Beaverton's
550-foot pressure zone to Tigard's 410-foot pressure zone. The hydraulic analysis also
recommended that the pipeline size be 16-inches in diameter. The proposed intertie will be
capable of providing higher flows than the existing connections and will facilitate potential
long-term supply scenarios.
The City will design and construct the intertie connection piping between Beaverton and
Tigard's distribution system on behalf of the City of Tigard and as authorized by an
Intergovernmental Agreement between the two cities. The City of Tigard will reimburse the
City of Beaverton for the design and construction of piping improvements as described
below. The City of Beaverton is currently designing the combined meter and pressure
reducing valve (PRV) vault along with the piping on the Beaverton side of the connection.
The intertie piping improvements and the meter and PRV vault work will be separate bid
10/1sro1 MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
F'ArA8eavaWWC08-eor InL-W Scope o(SerwSmAoe Engineers/Planners Page t of 4
schedules within a single, combined bid package with the project being administered by the
City of Beaverton.
The intertie connection piping will consist of approximately 1,350 feet of 16-inch diameter
ductile iron pipe.. The pipe alignment will run along SW Barrows between SW Roshak Road
and SW 160" Avenue for approximately 1,150 feet, turning south on 160'h Avenue for
approximately 200 feet to SW Bulrush Lane where it will connect to the City of Tigard's
system.
Scope of Services
The scope of services for the contemplated work is presented below.
Task I - Assess Existing Conditions
A. Collect and analyze construction records, system mapping and system
schematics of City water system and other utilities along SW Barrows Road
and SW 160`" Avenue.
B. Receive topographic design survey of site as completed in Task 2 as needed to
verify existing bounds, topography, features and location of improvements.
C. Perform potholing utilizing vacuum excavation techniques to verify
underground utilities in order to avoid conflicts. It is anticipated that up to six
holes will be excavated.
D. Develop complete site map of existing right-of-way pavement, landscaping
features and utilities for use in designing the i.ntertie piping improvements.
Task 2 - Design Survey
Work under this task includes the completion of a design survey to be used for
developing base mapping needed for project design efforts. Services under this task
include integrating the survey with base mapping previously developed for the
meter/PRV vault design by the City.
Task 3 - Plans, Specifications and Estimates
A. Prepare plans and specifications for the intertie piping improvements and
incorporate with the previously identified meter and PRV contract documents.
It is anticipated that the plans, separate of the meter and PRV vault portion of
the project, will consist of a title page, general reference page, 3 plan and
profile sheets, and 2 detail sheets, for 7 sheets total. Plan and profile sheets
will be drawn at a horizontal scale of I" = 20'.
10/15rot 16 URRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
F.-aD%BumxW-C0a-C0r tmaoescope ats .a« Engineers/Planners Page 2 of 4
B. Obtain City and County street opening permits. It is noted that SW Barrows
Road is a Washington County Road and, as such, a County permit will be
required within SW Barrows Road right-of-way. Any fees or bonds to be
provided by the City.
C. Complete land use pre-application process including meeting with Beaverton
City staff to determine permitting requirements for completing piping
placement.
D. Prepare a construction cost estimate for the work designed under this task.
E. Incorporate the work designed under this task into the meter and PRV vault
draft contract document package suitable for bidding and submit 5 additional
sets to the Cities of Tigard and Beaverton for review. Revise as requested.
F. Print and bind up to 35 total copies of the final contract documents and deliver
to Cities. It is understood that this task will be shared with the corresponding
printing task for the meter and PRV vault portion of the project.
G. Print 5 additional copies of full size plans and deliver to the Cities of Tigard
and Beaverton for their use.
Task 4 - Bidding and Award
Assist the City as requested. Respond to bidder inquiries during the bid period. Attend
mandatory pre-bid meeting. Review Contractor qualifications. Prepare addenda as needed.
Review bid results and make a contract award recommendation.
Task S - Services During Construction
Under this task, limited scope services will be performed during construction. It is assumed
that the City will perform the contract administration work and MSA will provide the support
to City staff as requested. The scope of these services as they apply to the Tigard work is
proposed to be as follows:
A. Coordinate preconstruction conference and prepare Notice to Proceed.
B. Review and approve submittals required of the Contractor.
C. Review construction surveying completed by the City of Beaverton.
10/1sroI MURRAY, SMITFI & ASSOCIATES, INC.
rmMkavalm=13a or b«*mope ofsavk=.eoc Engineers/Planners Page 3 of 4
D. Perform periodic site visits to review the work. It is anticipated that up to 18
labor hours will be provided for this construction observation work. Prepare
inspection reports documenting visits and observations. Submit to City.
B. Review Contractor's monthly progress payment request as they apply to
Tigard work with City staff. Prepare and submit Tigard's portion of the
monthly progress payment report to the City of Beaverton.
F. Conduct final inspection of the work and make recommendation to the City for
final payment.
G. Complete drawings of record. Provide one full size set of reproducible mylar
drawings and one electronic copy.
10/1901 MURRAY, SHITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
F-.%DMk%vW*WCOBCO?UaaaWSe"ee[Savlm.doe Engineers/Planners Page 4of4
FEE SYJMMARY (Revised 10115101)
LABOR 11C CITY OF I ,kVERTON
ERVICES FOR PROVEMEN`fs
ENGMERISG w SFARROW
BEXVERTON S ROAD pIPING nVi ~snx~
TIGARD E~RTIE -
sector real
AND Total ysyor
S
r
(KO Clerleal 55 3,140 S 3062
inter 1 Tecl+. T 32 2 692 3 3
ate = S 369:
~,ABOR C[.A ON Sentor EnBII I
senior Engineer 2 10 S S 19ASI
S l~s g l tw
TASK PcindPal 3 S i4 2 236 S 18105 78
' 2 112 i2 g 1 g
2 50 4 22 2520 g 9
40 j l01 S 7.110 S
Condidon+ 8 29 4 8 330b g 3+
3• A:x~~tsd 2 s 12 g S ,m
3 5 30 S
TZ •deros and Estimates 37 S 31.194 S t3510
s 2 12 444
3
4•E1d and Axard
CmIstructiork
AL-TASK•'
. _ , Smi9+k Assodci<s. in"
2000 SCHEDULE OF CHARGES
Personnel:
Senior Principal $123.00
Principal 113.00
Associate 103.00
Senior Engineer 98.00
Engineer V 89.00
Engineer IV 84.00
Engineer III 78.00
Engineer II 74.00
Engineer I 66.00
Senior Technician 75.00
Technician 62.00
Junior Technician 48.00
Administrator 55.00
Clerical 44.00
Project Expenses:
Expenses incurred in-house which are directly attributable to the project will be invoiced at
actual cost. These expenses include the following:
Computer Aided Design and Drafting System $10.00/hr
Mileage 0.35/mile
Long Distance Telephone At Cost
Lodging and Subsistence At Cost
Postage At Cost
Printing and Reproduction At Cost
Outside Services:
Outside technical, professional and other services will be invoiced at actual cost plus 10
percent to cover administration and overhead.
1/00
RETAINER AGREEMENT
This is an agreement between the City of Beaverton, an Oregon municipal corporation, PO Box
4755, Beaverton OR 97076-4755 and MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. by which
Consultant for a certain duration to be available to City on City's request to perform UTILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT SERVICES work with the personnel and for the fees
described in Consultant's proposal attached as Exhibit A to this Retainer Agreement.
1. Term. Consultant agrees to make the personnel described in Exhibit A (or replacement
personnel with equivalent qualifications satisfactory to City) available to perform the services
described at the fees listed in that Exhibit upon notice by City if notice is delivered to
Consultant at any time on or before JUNE 30, 2002.
2. Scope of Work; Compensation. The scope of the work to be performed by Consultant, the
schedule for performing such work and the total compensation to be paid by City for the work
shall be mutually agreed between City and Consultant following City's notice; provided, that if
the parties have not mutually agreed to those terms and reduced them to writing within 30
days of City's notice, both parties' rights and obligations under this Retainer Agreement shall
terminate. No compensation is due either party in consideration of this Retainer Agreement.
3. Insurance. Consultant agrees that no work for City shall commence until Consultant has
provided proof satisfactory to the City of Commercial General Liability and Automobile
Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence; workers' compensation
and employer's liability insurance as required by state law; professional liability insurance
appropriate for the consultant's profession and the type and size of job. The City, its officers,
officials, agents, volunteers, and employees shall be covered as additional insured on the
general liability and automobile liability policies. Consultants shall furnish the City with
certificates and original endorsements effecting this coverage when signing the City's Personal
Services Contract. Each policy required by the contract shall be endorsed to state that
coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in
limits except after thirty days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested,
has been given to the City.
4. Indemnity and Hold Harmless. Consultant shall agree to indemnify, defend and hold the
City, its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, volunteers, and agents harmless
from and against all claims, damages, suits, costs, judgments, losses, and expenses including
legal fees, attributable to a negligent act, error or omission of Consultant in its performance of
the professional services for the City.
5. Modifications. Modifications of this Retainer Agreement shall not be effective unless
reduced to wr' 'ng and signed by both parties.
CITY OF T ORE N MURRAX, MJTH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
BY: BY: l
TITLE: TITLE:
DATE:. g/off 1 1~~~ E
: 1 Q
APPROVED AS TO FORM 1~7
City Attorney
EXHIBIT 1.7,
Water Intertie Pipeline and Master Meter Intergovernmental Agreement Between the
City of Beaverton and the City of Tigard
Y I'M 'U
~ e red
r:
Engineering 505-75-3620-683 (1) $44,074 $44,074
Tigard
Construction 505-75-3620-682 (1) $177,474 $174,500
Engineering 505-75-3620-683 (1) $21,500 $21,500
Beaverton
Construction 505-75-3620-682 (1) $236,000 $136,000
Total $479,048 $376,074
(1) Source of funding is the Water Construction Fund, Program: Water Extra-Capacity Supply System, New Interconnection
/Meter to City of Tigard. Total budgeted for FY 01-02 in 505-75-3620 for this project is $100,000.
Engineering $44,074
Tigard
Construction $177,474
Subtotal $221,548
Engineering $21,500
Beaverton,
Construction $236,000
Subtotal $257,500
9/1 *A Fw4notOW Shm Plan
.nacsr,:ootMmwaq.c+~weorotmoot
cords 1 /1% /oz
BEAVERTON/TIGARD INTERCONNECTION PIPELINE AND
MASTER METER INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CI'T'Y OF BEAVERTON AND THE CITY OF
TIGARD
This Agreement, dated rC)QC~VY1 JQ~_ I (S , 2001, is between the CITY OF
BEAVERTON (Beaverton) and the CITY OF TIGARD (Tigard).
A. RECITALS
WHEREAS, ORS 190.003 - 190.110 encourages intergovernmental cooperation and
authorizes local government entities to delegate to each other authority to perform their
respective functions as necessary; and
WHEREAS, The parties wish to design and construct an intertie pipeline, master
meter and telemetry between Beaverton's water system and Tigard to provide up to 4 million
gallons per day of potable water to the other party in either direction as indicated on the
attached map Exhibit "C"; and
WHEREAS, Tigard and Beaverton previously entered into an intergovernmental
agreement on July 1, 1982, attached as Exhibit IIB", for the purposes of supplying water
between both parties. Beaverton previously built and currently maintains two water meter
stations and intertie piping to supply water in either direction between the parties; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard entered into a Memorandum Of Understanding
(MOU) with the Joint Water Commission (JWC) on May 18, 2001, attached as Exhibit "A",
which includes a provision for Tigard to purchase water originating from the JWC if same
has surplus water available in excess of JWC's needs and those of its members. Under the
MOU, JWC will sell water to Tigard upon consent of its members and that prior to that sale
of water, the amount, term and rates shall be mutually agreed upon; now, therefore
IT IS AGREED:
1. Beaverton with Tigard's approval awarded a professional services contract to Murray
Smith and Associates (MSA) for design and construction engineering. The scope of
MSA's work is described on Exhibit "D" to this Agreement. The referenced
consultant contract to MSA is considered part of the Project and is to provide
engineering services needed to design and construct intertie piping between the
proposed master meter and pressure reducing valve station and Tigard's existing
water distribution system (hereafter Tigard's system). Beaverton shall administer that
Page 1 of 5 - Beaverton/Tigard Water Intertie and Master Meter IGA
daw / aptlln'•wa~aVipmpwuaugmianaal711o1 of
contract, but Tigard shall have the right to review and accept MSA's design work
product including design drawings and construction specifications as to Tigard's
portion of the Project. Tigard agrees that it will act only through its appointed Project
staff representative as to all aspects of work to be completed for and owned by Tigard
under this agreement. Beaverton will provide Tigard copies of documents and
invoices from MSA upon request. Beaverton has contracted separately with MSA to
design the master meter and pressure reducing valve station, intertie piping between
Beaverton's system and said metering station, and piping needed to provide an
increase in the capacity of Beaverton's local distribution system to achieve an
approximate supply capacity of 4 million gallons of water per day to Tigard through
this facility. Work to be done by MSA for Beaverton under separate contract from
this agreement is identified in Exhibit "B" as a contributed cost obligation of
Beaverton to the Project.
2. The subject Project is located as shown in map Exhibit "C" to this Agreement.
Beaverton shall administer the bidding, contract award and construction of the
Project, including review, approval and payment of progress payments to the
construction contractor. To the extent practical, Beaverton shall itemize and describe
Beaverton's and Tigard's portion of the Project on separate bid schedulcs. Tigard
may review and approve the bid documents before Beaverton publishes those
documents and calls for bids. Beaverton shall be named as the "Owner" of the Project
on the construction contract documents including the surety bonds.
3. At its discretion, Tigard may participate in the pre-bid meeting, bid review and
selection of the construction contractor and may review and approve all pay requests
and progress payments administered by Beaverton as they apply to Tigard portion of
the Project. Tigard shall defend Beaverton against and hold Beaverton harmless from
any and all claims that the contractor may assert against Beaverton that are based on
disapproval by Tigard of payment of any of the contract price. Beaverton will
provide for all field inspection and Beaverton alone shall communicate with the
construction contractor on the Project. Tigard may review and provide oversight
inspection of its own to monitor progress of the construction work. Beaverton shall
consider comments and recommendations from Tigard during construction and as
they apply to Tigard, and Beaverton will endeavor to satisfy Tigard's requests
wherever possible. Each party shall finally inspect and accept its own portions of the
Project. At Tigard's request and at Tigard's expense Beaverton shall cause changes
to the construction work desired by Tigard, including change orders and directives for
extra work to add to or modify the design for Tigard's portion of the work. Beaverton
and Tigard each shall be responsible to operate its own water system, including
actions necessary to coordinate with the construction contractor's work, for the
duration of the Project.
4. The parties estimate the total cost of the Project covered by this Agreement to be
$479,048.00 of which Tigard's portion is estimated to be $221,548.00 shown in
Page 2 of 5 - Beaverton/Tigard Water Intertie and Master Meter IGA
daw.g.\ m~la\waaVigrdigawalainlalianaa121801 of
attached Exhibit "E". Tigard reserves the right to reject any bid that exceeds that
estimate as to Tigard's portion-of the work and further reserves the right to reject any
and all bids if Tigard's contract review board deems that the public interest so
requires. Following Tigard's consent, and Beaverton's award of Tigard's portion of
the Project, Tigard will reimburse Beaverton for both (design and construction)
engineering costs and for construction costs associated with the intertie connection
piping from Tigard's system to the Tigard side of the proposed master meter and
pressure reducing valve station (as described on Page 2 of 4 in Exhibit "E"); and one-
half of the equivalent cost of interconnection piping from the master meter and
pressure reducing valve station to the intersection of SW Barrows Road and Scholls
Ferry Road. The cost allocation of the latter section of interconnection piping is to
more evenly distribute costs of the joint Project, as the master meter and pressure
reducing valve station was moved south of the initial location for design constraint
reasons. Beaverton shall provide Tigard with as-built drawings acceptable to the City
within four months of completion of the Project.
5. Beaverton will submit progress invoices each month for work performed under this
agreement, annotated to identify costs to be paid by Tigard following review of
invoices by Beaverton. Tigard will remit payment of described invoices submitted to
Tigard within 30 days of receipt of invoice from Beaverton.
6. Any contingency funds not expended in the consultant and construction contracts
shall be split proportionally between Beaverton and Tigard:
7. Upon final completion and acceptance of the Project, permanent ownership and
maintenance responsibilities for improvements that are constructed shall be allocated
as follows:
• Tigard shall own and maintain the intertie connection piping (as described on
Page 2 of 4 of the engineering services Scope of Work in Exhibit "D"), from the
16-inch diameter piping on the Tigard side of the master meter and pressure
reducing valve station vault to Tigard's system; and
• Beaverton shall own and maintain the master meter and pressure reducing valve
station and vault and all piping on the Beaverton side of that meter vault.
General Terms
The paragraph headings contained in this Agreement are for ease of reference only and
shall not be used in constructing or interpreting this Agreement.
7
Page 3 of 5 - Beaverton/Tigard Water Intertie and Master Meter IGA
daw:6:\ myc~a~.aw+;yir66a.ra+afma;maa2 1801Af
1. Waiver and Amendment.
No waiver of any portion of this Agreement and no amendment, modification or
alteration of this Agreement shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by
the authorized representative of each party.
2. Interpretation of Agreement.
This Agreement shall not be construed for or against any party by reason of the
authorship or alleged authorship of any provision.
3. Term of Agreement.
This Agreement takes effect on the date it is signed by the authorized representatives
of the each city and shall remain in effect until completion by both parties of all their
respective obligations under this Agreement unless the Agreement is earlier
terminated by mutual agreement of the parties and in accordance with the terms of
this Agreement.
4. Termination and Amendment.
This Agreement may be terminated or amended by mutual written agreement of both
parties. The Agreement shall run for a term of ten (10) years ending on December 31,
2011, and may continue thereafter indefinitely until cancelled by either party upon six
(6) months prior written notice of intention to cancel.
5. Dispute Resolution.
If any dispute arising out of this Agreement cannot be resolved by the Beaverton and
Tigard staff representatives, the matter will be referred to the staff representatives'
respective supervisors for resolution. If the supervisors are unable to resolve the
dispute within 30 days of referral, the matter will be referred to Beaverton's Mayor
and Tigard's City Manager, who will attempt to resolve the issue. If these executive
staff are not able to resolve the dispute, the parties will submit the matter to
arbitration under ORS Chapter 34. Federal rules of discovery and evidence shall
apply in any such arbitration. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final, binding and
conclusive upon the parties and subject to appeal only as otherwise provided in
Oregon law. The parties shall continue in the performance of their respective
obligations notwithstanding the dispute.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed the
day and year first written above.
CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF BEAVERTON
City Manager Rob Drake, Mayor
Page 4 of 5 - Beaverton/Tigard Water Intertie and Master Meter IGA
e.r~.~ roylfloraavlSrSp.vatQiomi®aa111wLnr
City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
r'
By:
Tigard Att orney Beaverton Attorney
{
{
{
{
{
3
Page 5 of 5 - Beaverton/Tigard Water Intertie and Master Meter IGA
mw'.~~ my5~u~r.rtw;~rb'p.n~emtad®ac~itaotnt
EM BIT A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding is made between the City of Tigard, an Oregon
municipal corporation ("Tigard"), and the Joint Water Commission ("JWC"), an
intergovernmental entity created pursuant to ORS Chapter 190.
RECITALS
A. JWC owns and operates a water storage facility, water treatment plant and water
supply system ("System") that provides treated water to the distribution systems of its members
to-wit: the City of Beaverton, an Oregon municipal corporation ("Beaverton)"; the City of
Hillsboro, an Oregon municipal corporation ("Hillsboro"); the City of Forest Grove, an Oregon
municipal corporation ("Forest Grove"); and the Tualatin Valley Water District, a domestic
water supply district ("TV WD").
B. Each Member of the JWC has made various and sundry capital contributions to
the JWC System and has an acquired ownership interests in the various components. Each
Member has acquired and retained ownership of water rights, which are made available to the
JWC for usage in the System.
C. Tigard owns and operates a municipal water supply system within its City limits
and also provides water service to the Cities of King City and Durham, and certain
unincorporated areas within Washington County within the boundaries of the Tigard Water
District.
D. The Parties agree that mutual cooperation relating to planning for the
development or expansion of water sources in the Tualatin River Basin and treatment and supply
facilities for such water should result in greater efficiency and security of the water supply
system to the benefit of all.
AGREEMENT
1. Tigard and the JWC agree to cooperate in the planning, research, analysis, and
development for expansion of water sources in the Tualatin River Basin and water supply
facilities therefore that will provide mutual benefits to the parties. Cooperation may include
interties between distribution systems, joint development of facilities that could provide service
to the parties, the provision of surplus water by one party to the other, and the provision of
emergency water supplies by one party to the other.
2. Tigard will support efforts to expand the Scoggins Reservoir or other Tualatin
River Basin sources as part of the Regional Water Supply Plan and cooperation in the studies to
determine the feasibility of such expansion, such as the current Integrated Water Resource
Management Study Memorandum of Understanding dated May 18, 2001
3. Tigard may become a member of JWC if Tigard applies for and obtains water
rights for additional source water in the Tualatin River Basin and JWC, its Members, and Tigard
are able to agree upon the terms of Tigard's membership in JWC.
PAGE 1 - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING c:%T0"% M-&C
1
4. Any capital projects that Tigard, JWC, and some or all of the Members may
participate in prior to Tigard's membership in JWC, shall be constructed only after a
Construction Agreement between Tigard, JWC, and the affected Members is executed. If Tigard
withdraws from any capital project after completion, Tigard shall be paid according to the terms
of the Construction Agreement or the JWC Membership Agreement, as applicable.
5. JWC agrees that if the System has surplus water available in excess of JWC's
needs and those of its Members, it will sell water to Tigard upon consent of the Members. The
Parties agree that prior to said sales, the amount, term and rate methodology shall be mutually
agreed upon.
6. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual agreement of the
Parties. This Agreement may be terminated by any Party giving 12 months notice of
termination. Notices required under this Agreement shall be sent to:
City of Tigard Joint Water Commission
clo Public Works Director clo General Manager
13125 SW Hall Blvd. City of Hillsboro
Tigard, OR 97223 123 West Main, Room 250
Hillsboro, OR 97123
With a copy to each of the following entities:
City of Beaverton
c/o City Mayor City of Hillsboro
4755 SW Griffith Drive c/o City Manager
P.O. Box 4755 123 West Main, Room 250
Beaverton, OR 97076 Hillsboro, OR 97123
City of Forest Grove
c/o City Manager Tualatin Valley Water District
P.O. Box 326 c/o General Manager
Forest Grove, OR 97116 1850 SW 170th Avenue
P.O. Box 745
Beaverton, OR 97075
7. The Parties agree that this Agreement may be expanded to include additional
patties with the joint agreement of all parties to the agreement. Any amendment to this
Agreement must be improved by the governing body of each body.
8. This Agreement shall be effective when signed by duly authorized representatives
of the Parties.
PAGE 2 - MEMORANDUM OF UND]ERSTANDINGx%woc ":mw..,c...i-mmoiv*..(v.&. a-m
IN VVITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Memorandum of
Understanding to be executed by their respectively authorized officers or representatives as of
the day and year first above written.
CITY OF °TIGARD JOINT WATER COMMISSION
B B
ayor General anager
PAGE 3 - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING a~r.a~
r, E,Xil~~lllffiP~~
A G R E E M E N T
This AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1st day of July,
1982, by and between the TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, a municipal
corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called "TIGARD",
and the CITY OF BEAVERTON, also a municipal corporation of the
State of Oregon, hereinafter called "BEAVERTON".
W I T N E S S E T H
Tigard and Beaverton are each municipal corporations and are
engaged in the supply of water for domestic purposes to the
residents in their respective areas. Tigard is organized under the
provisions of ORS 264; Beaverton is organized in accordance with
State law and its city charter.
Tigard and Beaverton have a 12-inch inter-tie at the common
boundary, S.W. Scholls Ferry Road, near Springwood Drive. In the
near future, another inter-tie will be made at the intersection of
S.W. 135th and Scholls Ferry Road.
Both Tigard and Beaverton are desirous of purchasing surplus
water from the other for emergency purposes. For such purposes,
both entities are willing to sell surplus water to the other at
either point of connection at the common boundaries noted above.
Therefore, in consideration of the covenants and conditions
contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Tigard agrees to furnish and sell water to Beaverton under
the terms and provisions of this Agreement delivered at either
point of connection noted previously. The obligation on the part
of Tigard to sell and furnish water is subject to the following
limitations.
A. Under the provisions of ORS 264, Tigard can sell and
furnish only surplus water and, should the demand of Tigard's
customers at any time exceed Tigard's capacity to deliver water to
them, it shall at that time have no obligation to furnish water to
AGREEMENT
Beaverton.
B. Tigard's sources of water are the City of Lake Oswego,
Oregon; the City of Portland, Oregon; and deep wells located within
the district. The Cities of Lake Oswego and Portland have
promulgated rules and regulations concerning the supply and use of
water, and it is mutually understood and agreed between the parties
hereto that, insofar as said rules and regulations are applicable
hereto, Beaverton shall be bound by same. Such rules and
regulations are by this reference made a part of this Agreement.
2. Beaverton agrees to furnish and sell water to Tigard under
the terms and provisions of this Agreement delivered at either
point of connection noted previously. The obligation on the.part
of Beaverton to sell and furnish water is subject to the following
limitations:
A. Beaverton is offering only surplus water to Tigard for
emergency purposes and, should the demand of Beaverton's customers
at any time exceed Beaverton's capacity to deliver water to them,
it shall at that time have no obligation to furnish water to
Tigard.
B. Beaverton's major source of water is the Upper
Tualatin-Trask River system controlled and operated under the
jurisdiction of the Joint Utilities Commission of Hillsboro, Forest
Grove and Beaverton. The Joint Utilities Commission has
promulgated rules and regulations concerning the supply, sale and
use of water, and it is mutually understood and agreed between the
parties hereto that, insofar as said rules and regulations are
applicable hereto, Tigard shall be bound by same. Such rules and
regulations are by this reference made a part of this Agreement.
3. Both Tigard and Beaverton shall pay to the other party for
water purchased a sum of money equal to the basic unit cost per 100
cubic feet of Bull Run water delivered as determined by Portland
Water Bureau in its fiscal year Rate Ordinance for Service Area III
(pumped transmission). For example: the current charge for water
service furnished by the City of Portland for Service Area III is
63 cents per 100 cubic feet. Water furnished by either party
pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement would cost 63 cents
AGREEMENT - page 2
per 100 cubic feet. It is understood that any change in the rate
made by the City of Portland for Service Area III, whether
increased or decreased, shall work an appropriate increase or
decrease in the rate and charges made hereunder. The parties agree
that there shall be no stand-by charges or minimum charges.
Shall the water meter(s) fail to register accurately the
quantity of water passing through it, the charges for water
delivered during the period of inaccuracy shall be estimated and
agreed to by both parties from data showing the average daily
volume of water passing through the meter(s) when operating
accurately.
This Agreement shall be for a term of ten (10) years ending on
June 30, 1992, and may continue thereafter indefinitely until
cancelled by either party upon giving to the other six (6) months
prior written notice of this intention to cancel. This Agreement
shall supercede all other agreements currently in effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused these
presents to be executed as of the day and year first above written.
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT
Date: By: .4aL
hairman
Board of Commissioners
ATTEST:
ecretary
Board of Commissioners
CITY O BEAVERTON, OREGON
Date: B 1 &4&
ATTEST:
Cit a rder~
City of Beaver ton
AGREEMENT - page 3
EXHIBIT C
2S 1 058C 2S 1 05BC
8
f =tr ni e[ r y j• uoo r - t OP -;47
rut , a♦t`' not , N 11 ~ w~ r 4w
31
10
5 1.
j ypy- ~r- K•G„ s'O + y `F'~i• f y~ 1HASHINCiTWtCOIIMTYOREQON
wJ, ty .tP > ~w+wonv>K~ OCr Mawr.,
°r O
A tr~st.•ss sa w'it ss~er
dar >rd ~m ♦'~4y •v. ".lae.':~°r~1Q6t
3 rri i • ~ 7~!iL•-• ' a. CP`a' ~ rr" 0 i .s. i 'i. 'i' .i + l
~5! a ae .f3-• r,
i ' v •y~~ 3¢ I~~POA ra
~i ~r K} ffm t N o? 1 N s. IV x4f: n it is
36.
fe ♦ a, 5 ISW CUSiRD t . A. iv,2f 37' m 30
t y _r
v, 6
r r Construction
Area W AM
-58 a~ 9. AC1 AD I
AEC7 ON &-'l
Ir' a a os 11 i
o0
co ac
~ + arms
fr
Sw t t BARROWS ROA ;
N + t .r b > aeo``* 0 51 -78 m'r J - I . U y ! a
Proposed !..,.~i`-'~.. Ei~-• w~..t::,~ ._-..:..:.;t;r s
,tta eam ewe Y °
COURT (CR.91), 3m ,roe 1 Tm I w w a I 51_7Q
a `m , , ,eC r+m
Nl ~ 7CAR
T t,~a u~Yr I rT w w I r
uoo r r.m a}~ t ✓ ~rlrlww_j.w.i_w..*..~ as+ ~DTDATE:AuptutY3,2000
eter/Intertie ' t
d E t Zr "Z. FOgASSE M AppgES
~I Q 7 „ 3, E easy ti SW TEAR
OAIGEHON
! I It +tt t. J rWA > W. 2917
i`', Vault y~ : 4 : i y am.; ~.-.t.ta...-....je..t.~._.
wt r~OO,Ir wr ~I W ~(I
I 1I . w. Yw r~.rirr
WM 1 1~' ~I 1 { ♦ ` I !1 ll le CM. M.L M.~.fJl ~.7i. M.F 4M .dSr r + 1 wJ w~' r '-..w.~.•~."iwr w~-..r
.r. t LANE t~ qy SW BECKY L NGE V_
Sw 1 LU y! I 'f p` JV CT;, a tt.y ~....-•-;1,,.~ . i 1 1 w I~ e. u 1 UDD~
2S 1058C
,r.
MEN
i-AMMIT 1)
l 4%
Iohnt~SmI( M tes k
-121 Sgt Sahmn, Saite 990 i ttut an Orep 9n9a-2929 s PHONE 503.n5.90)0 o al %m5.9022
October 15, 2001
Mr. David Winship, PE, PLS, WRE
City of Beaverton
Engineering Department
P.O. Box 4755
Beaverton, Oregon 97076-4755
Re: Proposal for Engineering Services for Beaverton and Tigard Intertie -
SW Barrows Road Piping Improvements
Dear David:
Please find attached our proposal for the above referenced project. As discussed, our Fiscal
Year 2000/2001 - Water Works Improvements - Unit 1 service agreement includes the City
of Beaverton's portion of efforts for the design of a meter and pressure reducing valve (PRV)
vault to facilitate an additional water system intertie with the City of Tigard. This proposal,
addresses the engineering services necessary for the completion of the City of Tigard's
portion of the joint project. These proposed intertie piping improvements would connect the
vault to the City of Tigard's distribution system. This proposal will allow both the vault and
piping improvements to be incorporated into a single contract document. It is understood
that the City of Beaverton will prepare an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for execution
with the City of Tigard regarding the costs of design, construction and ownership of the
proposed intertie piping improvements.
Attached to the scope of work are our Labor Hour and Fee Summary and proposed schedule.
We will accomplish this work on a time and expenses basis according to the Schedule of
Charges as included in our current Retainer Agreement with the City that is also attached.
This authorized work will be completed for the not to exceed total amount of $44,704 for all
tasks identified in the attached revised scope of work, which includes a $3,500 contingency.
i It is our understanding that the City will prepare a contract for personal services once City
Council approval is obtained.
FABD\BeavemuACOB•=lmcn lR am Vrc%A* 10.13.OIAoe
Mr. David Winship, PE, PI..S, WRE
October 15, 2001
Page 2
Again, we look forward to completing this importnat worts on behalf of the City. We also
look forward to continued work with you, Beaverton staff and the City of Tigard. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you.
Sincerely,
MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Troy . ers, P.E.
Vice s nt
Enclosures
Cc: Dennis Koellermeier, City of Tigard
JSJ:kgs
i
{
{
1
I
F:1oLlilea.erweMODOOT 6mtfaCa.e IVYS4p IO.tldl.rec
Ell I
SCOPE OF WORD
CITY OF BEAVERTON
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
BEAVERTON AND TIGARD INTERTIE SW BARROWS ROAD PIPING
A. MPROVEMENTS
October 15, 2001
This scope of work is for services related to the design and construction of the intertie piping
between a proposed City of Beaverton's meter and pressure reducing valve (PRV) vault and
the City of Tigard's water distribution system. Combined with the City's proposed meter and
PRV vault project, the proposed intertie piping improvements will complete a proposed new
water system connection between the Cities of Beaverton and Tigard. The background of the
proposed intertie and project description is presented below followed by the proposed scope
of services.
Project Background and Description
During the winter of 1999, the City of Tigard had an emergency water supply condition in
which the Tigard's primary sources of water supply, the City of Portland and the City of Lake
Oswego, were both unavailable to supply water to the City. The City of Portland was unable
to provide supply due to high turbidity in Bull Run watershed. The City of Lake Oswego
was unable to provide supply because the connection to the City of Tigard was out of service
due to construction of improvements to that connection. The City of Beaverton was able to
supply Tigard in this emergency situation through two existing metered interties at SW 135'h
Avenue and SW Scholls Ferry Road and at SW Springwood Drive and SW Scholls Ferry
Road.
Subsequent to the 1999 emergency water supply condition, hydraulic analyses were
conducted to evaluate the existing interties and to develop a potential new intertie site. From
these analyses, it was recommended that a new intertie connection be constructed near the
intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Barrows Road that will connect Beaverton's
550-foot pressure zone to Tigard's 410-foot pressure zone. The hydraulic analysis also
recommended that the pipeline size be 16-inches in diameter. The proposed intertie will be
capable of providing higher flows than the existing connections and will facilitate potential
long-term supply scenarios.
The City will design and construct the intertie connection piping between Beaverton and
Tigard's distribution system on behalf of the City of Tigard and as authorized by an
Intergovernmental Agreement between the two cities. The City of Tigard will reimburse the
City of Beaverton for the design and construction of piping improvements as described
below. The City of Beaverton is currently designing the combined meter and pressure
reducing valve (PRV) vault along with the piping on the Beaverton side of the connection.
The intertie piping improvements and the meter and PRV vault work will be separate bid
io✓~sroi MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
F-.%Z=eavaton%COB-coo laew mope asavkes.&C Engineens/Planners Page 1 of 4
schedules within a single, combined bid package with the project being administered by the
City of Beaverton.
The intertie connection piping will consist of approximately 1,350 feet of 16-inch diameter
ductile iron pipe. The pipe alignment will run along SW Barrows between SW Roshak Road
and SW 160`h Avenue for approximately 1,150 feet, turning south on 1601h Avenue for
approximately 200 feet to SW Bulrush Lane where it will connect to the City of Tigard's
system
Scope of Services
The scope of services for the contemplated work is presented below.
Trask I - Assess Existing Conditions
A. Collect and analyze construction records, system mapping and system.
schematics of City water system and other utilities along SW Barrows Road
and SW 160h Avenue.
B. Receive topographic design survey of site as completed in Task 2 as needed to
verify existing bounds, topography, features and location of improvements.
C. Perform potholing utilizing vacuum excavation techniques to verify
underground utilities in order to avoid conflicts. It is anticipated that up to six
holes will be excavated.
D. Develop complete site map of existing right-of-way pavement, landscaping
features and utilities for use in designing the intertie piping improvements.
Task 2 - Design Survey
Work under this task includes the completion of a design survey to be used for
developing base mapping needed for project design efforts. Services under this task
include integrating the survey with base mapping previously developed for the
meter/PRV vault design by the City.
Task 3 - Plans, Specifications and Estimates
A. Prepare plans and specifications for the intertie piping improvements and
incorporate with the previously identified meter and PRV contract documents.
It is anticipated that the plans, separate of the meter and PRV vault portion of
the project, will consist of a title page, general reference page, 3 plan and
profile sheets, and 2 detail sheets, for 7 sheets total. Plan and profile sheets
will be drawn at a horizontal scale of 1" = 20'.
10/15/01 MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIA'T'ES, INC.
F.%Weavertoa) COB-C0T ImofmNSeope of Servkn.doe Engineers/Planners Page 2 of 4
B. Obtain City and County street opening permits. It is noted that SW Barrows
Road is a Washington County Road and, as such, a County permit will be
required within SW Barrows Road right-of-way. Any fees or bonds to be
provided by the City.
C. Complete land use pre-application process including meeting with Beaverton
City staff to determine permitting requirements for completing piping
placement.
D. Prepare a construction cost estimate for the work designed under this task.
E. Incorporate the work designed under this task into the meter and PRV vault
draft contract document package suitable for bidding and submit 5 additional
sets to the Cities of Tigard and Beaverton for review. Revise as requested.
F. Print and bind up to 35 total copies of the final contract documents and deliver
to Cities. It is understood that this task will be shared with the corresponding
printing task for the meter and PRV vault portion of the project.
G. Print 5 additional copies of full size plans and deliver to the Cities of Tigard
and Beaverton for their use.
Task 4 - Bidding and Award
Assist the City as requested. Respond to bidder inquiries during the bid period. Attend
mandatory pre-bid meeting. Review Contractor qualifications. Prepare addenda as needed.
Review bid results and make a contract award recommendation.
Task S - Services During Construction
Under this task, limited scope services will be performed during construction. It is.assumed
that the City will perform the contract administration work and MSA will provide the support
to City staff as requested. The scope of these services as they apply to the Tigard work is
proposed to be as follows:
A. Coordinate preconstruction conference and prepare Notice to Proceed.
B. Review and approve submittals required of the Contractor.
C. Review construction surveying completed by the City of Beaverton.
iaisrot MURRAY, SMITIII & ASSOCIATES, INC.
FABMc&vc soovcos-car uradeScoaofS=Am.ao< Engineers/Planners Page 3 of 4'
r
D. Perform periodic site visits to review the work. It is anticipated that up to 18
labor hours will be provided for this construction observation work. Prepare
inspection reports documenting visits and observations. Submit to City.
E. Review Contractor's monthly progress payment request as they apply to
Tigard work with City staff. Prepare and submit Tigard's portion of the
monthly progress payment report to the City of Beaverton.
F. Conduct final inspection of the work and make recommendation to the City for
final payment.
G. Complete drawings of record. Provide one full size set of reproducible mylar
drawings and one electronic copy.
10115ro] MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
F.%8DVkavwoa%C09-C0T Ww &W. of sent "Am Engineers/Planners page 4 of 4
I, V li i
. L7~~11 l O 1
AMY cR~~~ ~.flf15ro1~ 'fs
Tot>~
IABOIL CITY XD TV
ENG of BA GwSTGA t 3 bsa2
Rev . sw r ~1 Tots► S 3 tao 3 ob2
S 3
BA~,~TGIy p►1~1p TtGA~ TION ~p°~ ~~i Ste. T`~2 s b9~ ~ 31~ s 194gs 32 B c[+ Smt°r II 2 2 o S is t~ yg S 1
OR T ate t0 256 1 S 9 b34
da! 3 2 a a 112 ►5 12 S 3110 S 25~ s
M,96+
40 so $ 1~J1 S S ; j10 t2 S
TAB 1 2
2s a 311ga S
s a 30 S
Condi~0~' 2 5 39
Tit. Ash t2
$usr ~~tes 2
Taak2- 6 ~doNt~
Tssk3 •p1A
u+a pvrss~
Ctska-bid d1on
Dom'
Task5-~ ~
d,
Pa6~ t
~sues.lo~•
2000 SCHEDULE OF CHARGES
Personnel:
Senior Principal $123.00
Principal 113.00
Associate 103.00
Senior Engineer 98.00
Engineer V 89.00
Engineer IV 84.00
Engineer III 78.00
Engineer II 74.00
Engineer I 66.00
Senior Technician 75.00
Technician 62.00
Junior Technician 48.00
Administrator 55.00
Clerical 44.00
Project Expenses:
Expenses incurred in-house which are directly attributable to the project will be invoiced at
actual cost. These expenses include the following:
Computer Aided Design and Drafting System $10.00/hr
Mileage 0.35/mile
Long Distance Telephone At Cost
Lodging and Subsistence At Cost
Postage At Cost
Printing and Reproduction At Cost
Outside Services:
Outside technical, professional and other services will be invoiced at actual cost plus 10
percent to cover administration and overhead.
1100
RETAINER AGREEMENT
This is an agreement between the City of Beaverton, an Oregon municipal corporation, PO Box
4755, Beaverton OR 97076-4755 and MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. by which
Consultant . for a certain duration to be available to City on City's request to ,perform UTILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT SERVICES work with the personnel and for the fees
described in Consultant's proposal attached as Exhibit A to this Retainer Agreement.
1. Term. Consultant agrees to make the personnel described in Exhibit A (or replacement
personnel with.equivalent qualifications satisfactory to City) available to perform the services
described at the fees listed in that Exhibit upon notice by City if notice is delivered to
Consultant at any time on or before JUNE 30, 2002.
2. Scope of Work; Compensation. The scope of the work to be performed by Consultant, the
schedule for performing such work and the total compensation to be paid by City for the work
shall be mutually agreed between City and Consultant following City's notice; provided, that if
the parties have not mutually agreed to those terms and reduced them to writing within 30
days of City's notice, both parties' rights and obligations under this Retainer Agreement shall
terminate. No compensation is due either party in consideration of this Retainer Agreement.
3. Insurance. Consultant agrees that no work for City shall commence until Consultant has
provided proof satisfactory to the City of Commercial General Liability and Automobile
Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence; workers' compensation
and employer's liability insurance as required by state law; professional liability insurance
appropriate for the consultant's profession and the type and size of job. The City, its officers, • .
officials, agents, volunteers, and employees shall be covered as additional insured on the
general liability and automobile liability policies. Consultants shall furnish the City with
certificates and original endorsements effecting this coverage when signing the City's Personal
Services Contract. Each policy required by the contract shall be endorsed to state that
coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in
limits except after thirty days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested,
has been given to the City.
4. Indemnity and. Hold Harmless. Consultant shall agree to indemnify, defend and hold the
City, its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, volunteers, and agents harmless
from and against all claims, damages, suits, costs, judgments, losses, and expenses including
legal fees, attributable to a negligent act, error or omission of Consultant in its performance of
the professional services for the City.
5. Modifications. Modifications of this Retainer Agreement shall not be effective unless
reduced to wr' 'ng and signed by both parties.
CITY OF T ORE N MURRAY, TH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
BY: BY:
TITLE: .4 J I 0-7,P TITLE:
DATE: 91,21 /177 D TE: _
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney
EXHIBIT 1.1
Water Interne Pipeline and Master Dieter Intergovernmental Agreement Between the
City of Beaverton and the City of Tigard
e e '
Engineering 505-75-3620-683 (1) $44,074 $44,074
Tigard
Construction 505-75-3620-682 (1) $177,474 $174,500
Engineering 505-75-3620-683 (1) $21,500 $21,500
Beaverton
Construction 505-75-3620-682 (1) $236,000 $136,000
Total $479,048 $376,074
(1) Source of funding Is the Water Construction Fund, Program: Water Extra-Capacity Supply System, New Interconnection
/Meter to City of Tigard. Total budgeted for FY 01-02 In 505-75-3620 for this project is $100,000.
tts
Engineering $44,074
Tigard
Construction $177,474
Subtotal $221,548
i
i
Engineering $21,500
Beaverton
Construction $236,000
Subtotal $257,500
tGA FMOV&CAmt ShM Plan
t +uAASA2001 rw W prcrx4ar~d f 02001
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF December 18.2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Introduction of new Planning Commission members and alternate
PREPARED BY: Susan Kogpping iDEPT HEAD OK n Y 1 _~44ITY MGR OK 00
j G
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Appointments to the Planning Commission were made as part of the Consent Agenda of this meeting. The new
Planning Commission members and the alternate will be acknowledged by the Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Introduce the new Planning Commission members Jodie Bienerth, Gretchen Buehner, Eileen Webb, and Tom
Wolch, the alternate.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Bienerth, Buehner and Webb will serve initial 4-year terms. Wolch will serve as alternate for 2 years or until he is
appointed as member of the Planning Commission upon the resignation of a commissioner.
Planning Commission members and alternates serve as volunteers using their experience and knowledge for the
benefit of the Tigard community.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
If action is delayed on the appointments, delay action on the introductions.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Goal: City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our
community.
FISCAL NOTES
None
\\TI G333\USR\DEPTS\ADM\SUSANK\TASKFORC\BCSUM2'01.DOC
Agenda Item No. 4 December 18, 2001
Planning Commission Member/Alternate
Sign-In
Name Board/Commiftee/Task Force
I:WDM\GREER\CCSIGNUP\BRD & COMM SIGN IN.DOC
7
a
i
i '
3
Agenda Item No.:
Meeting of: December 18, 2002
Packet Materials for
CONSIDER AN OPTION TO PURCHASE
PROPERTY FOR THE PROPOSED NEW
LIBRARY SITE PENDING THE
APPROVAL OF THE PASSAGE OF THE
BOND MEASURE BY TIGARD VOTERS
will be available on Friday, December 14, 2001
Contact the City Recorder's Office at 503-639-4171
for more information
111 111111,11111 JIM 111111111 1111 1 !'111!! 1111111
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF December 18, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Consider an option to purchase property for the proposed new library site pending
the approval of the 2assage of the bond measure by Tigard voters.
PREPARED BY: Margaret Barnes DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK WA6,- -
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the City Council approve the option to purchase property for the proposed new library site pending the
approval of the passage of the bond measure by Tigard voters?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation is for the City Council to approve the option to purchase property for the proposed new
library site pending the approval of the passage of the bond measure by Tigard voters.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Since the Spring of 2001, the New Tigard Library Construction Committee has been analyzing possible sites for the
proposed new library. During this time the Committee has provided regular updates to Council on this process. In
August, the Committee met with the City Council to present information on the recommended site for the proposed
new library. At that presentation the Committee reviewed with Council the criteria used to evaluate potential sites.
The criteria was developed by the Committee and BML Architects.
In August, using these criteria, the Committee recommended a 14.7-acre property located along Hall Boulevard
near O'Mara Street to be the site of the proposed new 47,000 square foot library. This site will accommodate a
two-story structure, future expansion and the necessary parking required for such a facility. The Council accepted
the recommendation of the Committee and directed staff to work with the property owner to pursue an option for
the property.
The City entered into negotiations with the property owner, and Council has been briefed on the overall terms of
the option in Executive Session. Tonight the City Council is requested to take action on this item. Staff is prepared
to answer questions at this time. The City Attorney will present the major terms of the option to the Council in
executive session prior to the meeting.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Goal #3: Adequate facilities are available for efficient delivery of life-long leaning programs and services for all
ages.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Site Location Map
Property Ownership Information
FISCAL NOTES
None.
~ftf\,• OEOGIQ INF ORU At 10N SYSTE4
sx a ~ frr~ ~ • a~tj~,Y\'{•~'''~^`~- ' 1>F\ 1,y,_~ - e ` P; y
\ \it.` • "~Q M„y ,jl "'a RecommendedT9a~wary
l^'.y, _ ! ~ •i "~,'_~lr , Il` ProPosedNew
u 'y`" r ~ `I F~ v ~ ~ ! J./~ W ataBwnduY•
" 9 fpH 4 I r b a r 1 t l:t.•, '
~ •it~ 1.. s~ , ~r• f~ ~1 /
~1 U."~ ^Y.~ " e =.N4 gp qN, s ~,~68~. P' 1 f ` ~ 7~~ r R~_~ ,i~. /J f, J ~ .
17
:ejt a' r.Xf ~titr" F.~n rl'~i.' _,v.'>I\~, ` 1~ ► ly~lt( i ,I
IL.
r Ct1Y Hall
it;
wA~ *~M " pq+FwM~rl • ``4 4F t,, w - 5 A-4
6Pnyn9y.R'Y U..'~
~ ) ~ : ~ ' • ~ ~I tr~'' ~ 1II Ali I y:,. _
1 t 1 tom'.
Feet
F, , a:.~ tr Xp'9i u s { f_ no
300
t J -
•r: ~ ~ t ~1'~•Or vZ g ~r yy~ }r..F -:.a'S r" ^ ~i~it,~. ~ ~ ~Fy _ . _
• ih' s _ ~w ''f? k •c ~+~t> d''r.y~, 1r4 s r
` yam. ► nY 1 ~ • ♦ ny.,< F~; ~.{Y( 4i ~ia+r.
;c LI~ ~ ~ ~Sv+.rr~' j ~;X r ~p>r-•ryt i k~ 'I'j 3fd
.w--~ •t F l~ r t 1 vs ~rX` A z .r yi 1 ,rt. CtLY tlocaUon-41 swn_
,e?,~l at t. - .r ~4 .-4 xnY urv.sis ix9:es Di
r{ *a ` s..rhyf 1 ~^4r.r~.74. ShoWy~~dW13125SW 91223
ud
T1j50316- 4171 us r
hh9 (IYM^N o u4~d.or
r,.t.. - a 8
>m a •1 . _.~n - ~ iT
r. .T"-f T T T~QT
I
t
L-A
C/
\ \ ~t I l I
; 2SI®2DS 0600
'e\
251029
1 /
I I ! ~ I I i
25102DA-00600
i I ` i + I { i FIELDS FRED W
I I I ! 1149 5W DAVENPORT
4 I i I + I I I + ~ PORTLAND, OR 97201
~ ~ -sw,wl cr
wom plow=
I 1 ! + i i I _
GEOGRAPHIC INFORra ATION s111E.
•~1 46 fie. • \
14
"t-. yam{" ;L• .
" fr
Fft
a„~ F~•• f C;ae -r.F_..a_ - •,V f ja Recom enden! .1d the
Proposed Nev, New
99!14 • a.~ \ ` ~ ~ T.gartl Library
- 71 'iv a 9 ~ 1 Y 't.•~•'9 •nl'yl. • g / Wetlands
( /i/,~ k~ A •P 5. • ~t g 1 d _ Flood Insurance Update Boundary
'
City Hall I UWYY • t t - 4 le.S •6 i
w, ' v 4
r
-rte -
E
r ' • v 4_ ~ ' '4~ D / , Ta.Ma Bw^Ca•in Rgtl J wa, N+,wa
Rtl,._ f • l • • - FNww,Er.nme-Ial Savcws
• Y~i y ~ . tti ~f / ~ ~ ~ w.I nus ra.nn.a on~q t93r
E. r 1'~' ~1\°- ~,•R i'eulc Nalnr Resua<»
~-s1e ; ( _ I E F ~3 S~ ^ = ; : • F...I Me~.R. slw, uw.. rmY• rx.,y
I
s >fi
~t ,a~~F _ ~MAu,a~Ma.ognynYls.en JJY O'10g1
E -'F a 'f r A
_Q _ x N
~ ~
'~~j j rF~i 'r 1 - g - 0 100 200 300 400 Feet
_ ' - 4W~ ~ti' I I City of Tigard
-1 _ In(wmalim on this map is for general location only and
e ® B • 0 0 0 . a t should be ventied th the e,elD mmt services Divisi-
SW
~`a t i F Tigard. 3
(5031639i171
~rzy-es ~ _ yn a-~ hhp:It_. mtigard.cr us
OCi
Q~Q
~u~ce~r,clS
`D X/ ~soY-1
OPTION AGREEMENT 1 I c 10Z-
W)
THIS OPTION AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 18th day of December, 2001, by
and between Fred W. Fields ("Fields") and the City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation
("City"), with reference to the following facts:
A. Fields is the owner in fee of that certain real property located in the County of
Washington, State of Oregon, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the
"Property").
B. The City has determined that the Property is needed for public purposes, and has
communicated to Fields that necessity and the intention of the City to exercise its power of
eminent domain with regard to the property unless the parties can agree on terms for (i)
acquisition by the City of an option to purchase the Property, and (ii) the actual purchase of the
Property by the City after exercise of such option.
C. After discussions and negotiations between the parties, Fields desires to grant to
City an option to purchase the Property upon the terms and conditions set forth herein, and City
desires to acquire such option.
NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual agreements herein set forth,
and other valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby
agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
GRANT OF OPTION
Fields hereby grants to City the exclusive option to purchase the Property upon all of the
terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein (the "Option").
ARTICLE 2
TERM AND MANNER OF EXERCISE
2.1 The Option shall be exercisable by City at any time during the period
commencing on the effective date of this Agreement and terminating March 31, 2003 (the
"Option Period") only by delivering to Fields written notice of exercise of the Option in the
manner set forth in Section 12.9 hereof prior to the expiration of the Option Period.
Page 1 - OPTION AGREEMENT
0:\Real Estete\Tigard\LibrarySite\Documents\Fields Option Ag 7(121701).doc
2.2 If City fails to exercise the option on or before the last date for such
exercise specified above, the Option and this Agreement shall be null and void and of no further
force or effect. If City timely exercises the Option, this Agreement shall become a contract for
the purchase of the Property on the terms and conditions herein set forth.
ARTICLE 3
OPTION CONSIDERATION
The consideration for the Option consists of the mutual promises contained herein, and
the following covenants of the City:
3.1 From and after the date of this Option Agreement and as a condition precedent to
the right of the City to exercise of the Option, the City will consult and reasonably cooperate
with Fields regarding establishment of a road (the "Extension Road") from Hall Boulevard
providing access to other real property owned by Fields (the "Adjacent Property") which lies
generally eastward of the Property.
3.2 From and after the date of this Option Agreement and as a condition precedent to
the right of the City to exercise the Option, the City will consult and reasonably cooperate with
Fields and will establish discussions among the City, Fields (or his representative), the
owner/operator of that certain railway track(s) and right-of-way (the "Railway") bordering the
Adjacent Property, and property owner(s) having property(ies) abutting the Railway and having
rights that may be affected by the Extension Road, with the purpose of negotiating a crossing of
said track and right-of-way for the Extension Road. In the event the Railway refuses to permit a
crossing of said track and right-of-way, the City will consult and reasonably cooperate with
Fields with regard to the establishment of alternative roadway access from Hall Boulevard and
from Hunziker Road to the Adjacent Property.
3.3 From and after the date of this Option Agreement and as a condition precedent to
the right of the City to exercise the Option, the City will consult and reasonably cooperate with
Fields in the formation of a local improvement district to finance construction of the Extension
Road, with such consultations to include: (i) the appropriate siting of the Extension Road, (ii)
construction of the Extension Road across the Adjacent Property (and possibly across the
Property), and (iii) the appropriate location of a Railway crossing for connection of the
Extension Road to SW Hunziker Avenue. As part of such cooperation, the City agrees to
assume, and promptly pay as required, the costs of engineering work and construction
management for the formation of the local improvement district and construction of the
Extension Road, will discuss and reasonably cooperate with Fields regarding an equitable
distribution of Extension Road costs through local improvement district assessment liabilities,
and will discuss and reasonably cooperate with Fields regarding allocation of local improvement
district assessment liabilities in the event of passage, or failure to pass, of a City bond measure to
Page 2 - OPTION AGREEMENT
a:Uteal_Estate\Tigard\LibrarySite\Documents\Fields Option Ag 8(121801).doc
obtain funds for construction of a library facility on the Property. The obligation of the City to
pay costs of engineering work and construction management for the Extension Road is a
continuing obligation that shall survive the termination of this Option Agreement and continue in
force even in the event the City does not exercise the Option.
3.4 From and after the date of this Option Agreement and as a condition precedent to
the right of the City to exercise the Option, the City will consult and reasonably cooperate with
Fields regarding possible amendments to the provisions of this Option Agreement setting forth
the terms for the purchase of the Property after exercise of the Option in order to provide
lawfully available tax benefits to Fields.
ARTICLE 4
TERMS OF PURCHASE
In the event City exercises the option, City shall purchase and Fields shall sell the
Property on the terms set forth in the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow
Instructions (the "Sale Agreement") attached as Exhibit B.
ARTICLE 5
TITLE
5.1 Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a preliminary title report (the "Title Report")
showing the current state of title of the Property. City hereby approves such state of title, as it
may be amended by the City's comments set forth as a part of Exhibit C.
5.2 City's fee title to the Property shall be insured by an ALTA owner's extended
coverage policy of title insurance to be issued by First American Title Insurance Company of
Oregon at the Close of Escrow (as that term is defined in the Sale Agreement) with liability in
the amount of the Purchase Price, containing such endorsements as are acceptable to City, and
showing title vested in City subject only to:
(a) Non-delinquent real property taxes and special assessments, if any; and
(b) Such other matters accepted and approved by the City as set forth in
Exhibit C hereto.
5.3 Non-delinquent real estate taxes and assessments are subject to proration as
provided in the Sale Agreement. Fields agrees that he will not create or permit any encumbrance,
lien or other matter to affect or encumber title to the Property during the term of this Option
Agreement without first securing the written consent of City, except that Fields may create
Page 3 - OPTION AGREEMENT
G:\Real_Estate\Tigard\LibrarySiteUbcuments\Fields Option Ag 7(121701).doc
leases, licenses or other minor possessory interests in the Property so long as such interests are
extinguished as of the Close of Escrow. In the event that any matter not shown on the Title
Report affects marketable title to the Property prior to the Close of Escrow and City objects
thereto, Fields shall at his option discharge such matter, or obtain title insurance coverage for the
benefit of, and acceptable to, the City with respect to such matter. If City elects to take title to
the Property subject to a monetary lien or encumbrance which can be discharged by the payment
of less than $10,000.00, City may take title to the Property subject thereto, and reduce the
Purchase Price accordingly. If any matter affecting marketable title has been created through no
fault of Fields, as the sole remedy of City (but only if such matter materially affects marketable
title and City elects not to purchase the Property as a sole result thereof), City may terminate this
Option Agreement and the Sale Agreement prior. to the Close of Escrow.
ARTICLE 6
INSPECTIONS/ZONING MATTERS/PERMITS/SIGN
6.1 From and after the date of this Agreement, City shall have the right at City's ; ole
cost and expense to enter onto the Property (through its employees, designated agents and
representatives) at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner after giving reasonable notice to
Fields for the purpose of making such inspections as City deems necessary in connection with
this Agreement; provided that City shall, if requested by Fields, be accompanied by Fields'
employees in connection with any inspection of the Property, and shall not make any physical
alteration to the Property without first securing the written consent of Fields. Fields shall not
unreasonably withhold or delay its consent to such right to enter by City. In addition, the City
may enter onto the Property and erect a sign mutually acceptable to the parties hereto identifying
the Property as the future site of a library facility.
6.2 Fields agrees to join with City in any applications to governmental authorities for
permits, modifications to land use regulations affecting the Property, and any other
authorizations the City deems necessary or appropriate so long as City pays all expenses incurred
in connection therewith.
6.3 City shall indemnify and hold Fields harmless from any loss, liability, expense or
damage (including reasonable attorneys' fees) in connection with any such inspections and
applications, and in the event City shall not exercise the Option and purchase the Property, City
will remove any physical alterations to the Property made by City without Fields's written
consent, and shall restore the Property as nearly as possible to the condition in which it existed at
the date of this Agreement.
Page 4 - OPTION AGREEMENT
0:\Real_Estete\Tigard\UbrsrySite\Documenta\Fields Option AS 7(121701).doc
011111111 M
ARTICLE 7
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
7.1 As an inducement to Fields to enter into this Agreement, City represents, warrants
and covenants that it is a municipal corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good
standing under the laws of the State of Oregon; that it has the power and authority to enter into
this Agreement, and to consummate the transaction herein contemplated; and that the execution
and delivery hereof and the performance by City of its obligations hereunder will not violate or
constitute an event of default under the terms or provisions of any agreement, document or
instrument to which City is a party or by which City is bound.
7.2 As an inducement to City to enter into this Agreement, Fields represents, warrants
and covenants as of the date hereof as follows:
(a) Fields has the requisite power and authority to (i) enter into this Option
Agreement, and (ii) sell the Property. The execution and delivery hereof and the performance by
Fields of its obligations hereunder will not violate or constitute an event of default under the
terms and provisions of any agreement, document or instrument to which Fields is a party or by
which Fields is bound;
(b) This Agreement is a valid and binding obligation of Fields;
(c) There are no leases, subleases, licenses, tenancy or occupancy agreements,
service contractors, union contracts or other agreements to which Fields or the Property is bound,
whether written or unwritten, covering or affecting the Property which will affect the Property on
the Close of Escrow other than the matters shown on the Title Report and approved herein or
otherwise approved in writing by City;
(d) Fields has not received actual notice from any governmental authority that
existing uses of the Property are not in full compliance with all applicable zoning laws (and
applicable variances) and any other local, municipal, regional, state or federal requirements or
that the improvements on the Property do not comply with all applicable building, safety, health,
zoning, environmental, subdivision and other laws, ordinances and regulations;
(e) To the knowledge of Fields as of the date hereof, there is no action,
proceeding or investigation whether in the nature of eminent domain or otherwise, pending or
threatened, with respect to the ownership, maintenance or operation of the Property, and Fields
has no knowledge of any litigation or threatened litigation affecting title to the Property or its use
or operation;
Page 5 - OPTION AGREEMENT
a:\Real_Eatete\Tigard\LibnrySite\Documenta\Fielda Option Ag 7(121701).doc
(f) Fields has not granted any options or any other rights to acquire fee title or
other interests in the Property, other than as set forth in this Option Agreement; and
(g) If (i) any of the representations, warranties or covenants contained in this
Section 7.2 are materially inaccurate on the Close of Escrow, and (ii) such inaccuracy materially
and adversely affects the Property or City's intended use thereof and (iii) City elects in writing
not to purchase the Property as a sole result of such inaccuracy, then City may terminate this
Option Agreement.
7.3 The truth, accuracy, and completeness of each of the representations warranties
and covenants of City and of Fields herein set forth, shall constitute a condition precedent to the
obligations of Fields and City, respectively, hereunder. All representations, warranties and
covenants herein set forth shall survive the Close of Escrow, and City and Fields each agree to
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other from any claim, demand, liability, loss or cost
(including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) which the other may sustain because of any
material breach of or inaccuracy in the respective representations, warranties and covenants of
Fields and City set forth in this Agreement.
7.4 City acknowledges that, except as provided in Section 7.2, Fields makes no
representations or warranties, either express or implied, with respect to the Property, its present
condition or its fitness or suitability for any particular purpose and that the Property is to be sold
in an "as is" condition. In this respect, City confirms that it is relying solely upon its own
investigation of the present condition of the Property and all governmental laws and ordinances
which might affect City's use and development of the Property.
ARTICLE 8
COMMISSIONS
Fields and City each hereby represent and warrant to the other that it has not dealt with
any broker or finder or any other person who might be entitled to a fee in connection with the
purchase and sale of the Property and that no fee or commission is due to any broker, finder or
other person in connection with this Agreement or the sale contemplated thereby. Fields agrees
to indemnify and hold harmless City, and City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Fields,
from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, losses, judgments, costs and expenses
(including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees) arising directly or indirectly out of any
claim for a fee or commission due to any broker or finder or other person arising from the actions
or failure to act of Fields and City, respectively. These representations, warranties and
agreements shall survive the Close of Escrow.
Page 6 - OPTION AGRF RENT
O:1Real_Estate\Tigard\LibrarySite\Documents\Fielde Option Ag 7(121701).doc
ARTICLE 9
ASSIGNMENT
Neither City nor Fields may assign this Agreement or any of their rights hereunder for
any purpose whatsoever without the written consent of the other party (which consent shall not
be unreasonably withheld by either party) and any purported assignment shall be absolutely void
and of no force or effect.
ARTICLE 10
RISK OF LOSS
In the event that, prior to the Close of Escrow, the Property, or any part thereof, is
destroyed or materially damaged, City shall have the right, exercisable by giving notice to option
or within thirty (30) days after receiving written notice of such destruction or damage, to
terminate this Agreement, in which case Fields shall refund the Option Price to City and, upon
City's receipt thereof, neither party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder.
ARTICLE 11
CONDEMNATION
If prior to the Close of Escrow all or any material portion of the Property is taken or
threatened to be taken by eminent domain, Fields shall so notify City. In such event, City may
elect (i) to purchase the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, in which case
Fields shall assign to City on the Close of Escrow all of Fields's interest in any proceeds of
eminent domain, or (ii) to terminate this Agreement without further liability to either party
hereto, in which case City shall have no further interest whatever in the Property.
ARTICLE 12
MISCELLANEOUS
12.1 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the
parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and no prior or contemporaneous written
or oral agreement or understanding pertaining to any such matter shall be effective for any
purpose. No provision of this Agreement may be amended or added to except by an agreement
in writing signed by the parties hereto.
12.2 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
Page 7 - OPTION AGREEMENT
G:\Real-F_state\Tigard\LibrarySite\Documents\Fields Option Ag 7(121701).doc
12.3 Attorneys' Fees. Should any action be brought arising out of this Agreement,
including without limitation any action for declaratory or injunctive relief, the prevailing party
shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses of investigation incurred in
appellate proceedings or in any action or participation in, or in connection with, any case or
proceeding under Chapter 7, 11 or 13 or the Bankruptcy Code or any successor statutes, and any
judgment or decree rendered in any such actions or proceeding shall include an award thereof.
12.4 Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and
be binding upon Fields and City and their respective successors and permitted assigns.
12.5 No Waiver. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be
deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any
waiver Constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by
the party making the waiver.
12.6 Further Acts. Each party shall, at the request of the other, execute, acknowledge
(if appropriate) and deliver whatever additional documents, and do such other acts, as may be
reasonably required in order to accomplish the intent and purposes of this Agreement.
12.7 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which so
executed shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall together constitute but
one and the same agreement.
12.8 Amendments. This Agreement may not be changed or modified except by an
instrument in writing executed by the party asserted to be bound thereby.
12.9 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind which either
party may be required or may desire to give to or serve upon the other, shall be made in writing
and delivered by personal service to any officer of the other party or sent by certified or
registered mail, postage paid, return receipt requested, to the following addresses:
To Fields: Fred W. Fields
1149 SW Davenport
Portland, Oregon 97201
To City: City of Tigard
Attn: William A. Monahan, City Manager
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
j Tigard, Oregon 97223
s
Page 8 -OPTION AGIt~1T
o:\Real_Estate\Tigerd\IabtarySite\Uocumeata\Felda Option AS 7(121701).doc
With Copy to: Dominic G. Colletta
Ramis Crew Corrigan &c Bachrach, LLP
1727 NW Hoyt Street
Portland, Oregon 97209
Any such notice sent by mail shall be presumed to have been received by the addressee forty-
eight (48) hours after deposit in the United States mail. Either party may change its address by
giving the other party written notice of its new address as herein provided.
12.10 Headings. Any headings in this Agreement are solely for the convenience of the
parties and are not part of this Agreement.
12.11 Governing Law. This Agreement and the transaction herein contemplated shall
be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Oregon.
12.12 Recording. A Memorandum of Option Agreement referring to this Agreement
has been executed and delivered on the date hereof and will be recorded in the Office of the
County Recorder of Washington County, Oregon. In the event that City does not exercise the
Option herein granted prior to the expiration date, it shall immediately deliver to Fields a duly
acknowledged quitclaim deed of all of its interests in the Property under this Option Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Fields and City have executed this Agreement on the day and
year first above written.
The City of Tigard, an Oregon
municipal corporation
c B 14 -
By: '119 A4 ~A
Fred W. Fields Its: Mayor
Page 9 - OPTION AGRET
0:\Real Estate\Tigard\Libtary8ite\Documents\Fields Option Ag 7(121701).doc
' a
Order No. 935232
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCEL I:
The North one-half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD ACRE TRACTS, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington
and State of Oregon.
PARCEL II:
--The South one-half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, in the City of Tigard-; County of Washington and State of
Oregon.
PARCEL III:
All that certain tract of land in the William Graham Donation Land Claim No. 39 in Township 2 South,
Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of
Oregon, conveyed to Beecher B. Robinson by Deed recorded at page 193 of Volume 126, Washington
County, Oregon Deed Records, and being more particularly described as follows, to-wit:
Beginning at the, Southwest corner of the aforesaid Robinson Tract in the center of the County Road at
the Northwest corner of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, a duly recorded subdivision of Washington County, Oregon,
which beginning point is said to bear 5.60 chains West and 21.02 chains North of the Northwest corner
of Section 12, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian; thence from said point of
beginning North 0022' East in the center of the said county road 969.4 feet to the Northwest corner of
the said Robinson Tract; thence South 47043' East 26.9 feet to an iron pipe; thence continuing South
47143' East 431.1 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 99.0 feet to an alder tree marked "C.S."; thence
continuing South 16.0 feet to a point in the center of Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears
North 19.9 feet; thence down stream following the center of Fanno Creek the following courses and
distance: South 37°01' East 110.0 feet; South 26158' West 126.0 feet; South 6044' West 86.8 feet;
South 30°08' East 40.5 feet; South 73051' East 44.8 feet; North 53056' East 71.7 feet;-South 74006'
East 33.1 feet; South 4044' West 72.6 feet; South 24124' East 64.3 feet; South 51 02' East 137.0 feet
and South 11035' West 42.7 feet to a point on the North line of said EDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION; thence
North 89000' West along the North line of aforesaid subdivision 35.1 feet to a point in the center of
Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears South 89000' East 17.1 feet; thence running
downstream in the center of Fanno Creek North 39018' West 32.8 feet North 58029' West 104.5 feet,
South 86°48' West 41.6 feet and South 12102' West 76.4 feet to a point on the North line of aforesaid
subdivision, from which point an iron pipe bears North 89100' West 28.0 feet; thence leaving Fanno
Creek and running along the North line of said subdivision 52&.0 feet to the place of beginning.
SAVE AND EXCEPT THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the State of Oregon, by bnd through the State
Highway Commission recorded August 20, 1965 in Book 656, page 306, Records of Washington County.
Avah
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of this _ day of December, 2001, by and
between FRED W. FIELDS ("Seller") and THE CITY OF TIGARD, an Oregon municipal
corporation ("Purchaser").
RECITALS
A. Seller is the owner of certain real property which is legally described in Exhibit 1
hereto (the "Property").
B. The City has determined that the Property is needed for public purposes, and has
communicated to Seller that necessity and the intention of the City to exercise its power of
eminent domain in regard to the Property unless the parties can agree on terms for acquisition of
the Property by the City.
C. Purchaser wishes to acquire the Property owned by Seller, and, under threat of
condemnation, Seller is willing to sell the Property to Purchaser under the terms and conditions
of this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
For valuable consideration, the parties covenant and agree as follows:
1. Purchase. Seller agrees to sell to Purchaser at Closing, and Purchaser agrees to
purchase at Closing, the Property in accordance with the terms hereof.
2. Purchase Price. Upon Closing, Purchaser will pay Seller an aggregate purchase price
of Two Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,100,000.00) for the Property. The purchase
price shall be payable all in cash or other immediately available funds at the Closing.
3. Title. Title to the Property at Closing will be free of encumbrances or defects other
than the Permitted Exceptions (as defined in this paragraph 3) and will be so insurable at and as a
condition of Closing, for Purchaser's benefit, as evidenced by a binding commitment from
Escrow Agent to issue an owner's extended coverage policy of title insurance (the "Title
Policy"). For the purposes of this Agreement, "Permitted Exceptions" will include (a) matters
shown as exceptions 1 through 5 and on the Preliminary Title Report,
effective as of , issued by Escrow Agent; (b) matters of record approved or
deemed to have been approved by Purchaser, and (c) exceptions attributable to the acts or
omissions of Purchaser or its agents, employees or contractors. Encumbrances to be discharged,
if any, may be discharged through escrow out of purchase money at Closing.
Page- 1 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
G:\Real_Estate\Tigard\LibrarySite\Documents\PAS3(121001).doc
EXHIBIT
4. Deed. Title to the Real Property shall be conveyed by special warranty deed (the
"Deed") in the form attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 2, free of encumbrances or defects,
except the Permitted Exceptions.
5. Seller's Representations and Warranties. Seller makes the following representations
and warranties to Purchaser:
(a) Seller's Authority. Seller has the requisite power and authority to own and
operate the Property. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by Seller have
been, or will prior to Closing be, duly authorized by all necessary action and proceedings, and no
further corporate action or authorization will be necessary on the part of Seller in order to
consummate the transactions contemplated herein.
(b) Foreign Person. Seller is not a "foreign person" within the meaning of Section
1445(f) of the Internal Revenue Code.
(c) Creditors. No attachments, execution proceedings, assignments for the benefit
of creditors, insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization or other proceedings are pending or
threatened against Seller, nor are any of such proceedings contemplated by Seller.
Seller's representations and warranties shall survive Closing for a period of twelve (12)
months and shall terminate as of the end of such period except to the extent that Purchaser
advises Seller in writing of an alleged breach thereof prior to such termination date, stating with
specificity the nature of the alleged breach and providing Seller concurrently therewith with
documentation thereof.
6. Purchaser's Representations and Warranties. Purchaser makes the following
representations and warranties to Seller:
(a) Purchaser's Authority. Purchaser has the requisite power and authority to
acquire the Property. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by Purchaser
have been duly and validly authorized by all necessary action and proceedings, and no further
action or authorization is necessary on the part of Purchaser in order to consummate the
transactions contemplated herein.
(b) No Conflict. Neither the execution nor delivery of this Agreement by Purchaser,
nor performance of any of its obligations hereunder, nor consummation of the transactions
contemplated hereby, will conflict with, result in a breach of, or constitute a default under, the
terms and conditions of the organizational documents pursuant to which Purchaser was
organized, or any agreement to which Purchaser is a party or by which it is bound, or any order
of any court, regulatory body, administrative agency or governmental body having jurisdiction
over Purchaser.
Page- 2 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
G:\Real_Estate\Tigard\LibrarySi►e\Documents\PAS3(121001).doc
(c) Source of Funds. Purchaser has available to it adequate financial resources to
enable it to purchase the Property at Closing without seeking recourse to any contingent funding
source.
7. Closing.
(a) Closing will occur in the offices of the Escrow Agent on a date mutually
agreed to by Seller and Purchaser, but no later than . The parties shall
cooperate to permit the Closing to occur by means of an escrow and the faxing and couriering of
documents so that Closing does not require the physical presence of the parties in the office of
Escrow Agent.
(b) At Closing Seller will deposit in escrow the Deed, a FIRPTA affidavit and
Seller's share of escrow fees, closing costs and prorations. At Closing Purchaser shall deposit
the Purchase Price to be paid in cash or other immediately available funds, along with
Purchaser's share of prorated items, fees and charges for all title upgrades and special
endorsements in excess of that for an owner's extended policy of title insurance, if any, requested
by it; one-half (1/2) of the escrow fee; and all other Closing costs, except those designated to be
paid by Seller under terms of this paragraph. Seller shall pay the title insurance premium for an
owner's standard coverage policy of title insurance; the recording fee on the Deed, and one-half
(1/2) of the escrow fee. Each party shall pay its own attorneys' fees.
8. Prorations.
(a) Real and personal property taxes, assessments, rents, and operating expenses
of the Property (other than Seller's insurance premiums) shall be prorated as of midnight of the
day preceding Closing. Real and personal property taxes and assessments shall be prorated on
the basis of the best information available as of Closing, including taxes based on the latest
assessed valuation for the Property. If after Closing, real and personal property taxes or
assessments are determined to be different from those apportioned at Closing, then the parties
shall promptly adjust the prorated amount to actuals by payment from the party who paid too
little or received too much of a credit at Closing.
(b) For purposes of calculating prorations, Seller shall be deemed to be in title to
the Property, and therefore entitled to the income therefrom and responsible for the expenses
thereof, through midnight of the day before the Closing Date. All prorations shall be made on
the basis of the actual number of days of the year and month which have elapsed as of the
Closing Date. The amount of prorations shall be adjusted in cash after the Closing, as and when
complete and accurate information becomes available. Seller and Purchaser shall cooperate in
making post Closing adjustments to prorations within thirty (30) days following Closing, if and
to the extent possible.
9. "As-is" Sale, Limitation, Disclaimer Notice. Purchaser acknowledges that
notwithstanding any prior or contemporaneous oral or written representations, statements,
documents or understandings, this agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the parties
with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any such prior or contemporaneous oral
or written representations, statements, documents or understandings. Purchaser further
Page- 3 -PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
0:\Real_Estate\Tigard\LibmrySite\Documents\PAS3(121001).doc
acknowledges that, except as set forth in paragraph 6 or the deed (i) neither seller, nor any
principal, agent, attorney, employee, broker or other representative of seller has made any
representations or warranties of any kind whatsoever regarding the property, either express or
implied, and (ii) that purchaser is not relying on any, warranty, representation or covenant,
express or implied, with respect to the property, except as set forth in paragraph 6 or the deed,
and agrees that purchaser is acquiring the property in wholly an "as-is" condition with all faults
and waives all contrary rights and remedies available to it under state and federal law. In
particular, but without limitation, except as set forth in paragraph 6 and in the deed, seller makes
no representations or warranties with respect to the use and condition of the property, including
without limitation the condition of the soils or groundwaters of the property and the presence or
absence of hazardous materials on or under the property or its compliance with applicable
statutes, laws, codes, ordinances, regulations or requirements relating to leasing, zoning,
subdivision, planning, building, fire, safety, health or environmental matters or its compliance
with covenants, conditions and restrictions (whether or not of record) or other local, municipal,
regional, state or federal requirements, or other statutes, laws, codes, ordinances, regulations or
requirements. Except for the representations and warranties contained in paragraph 6 and in the
deed, purchaser waives, relinquishes and releases any and all rights, claims and causes of action,
including, but not limited to, all rights of contribution and indemnity, which purchaser may have
or may be entitled to assert against seller under or with respect to the property or the condition
thereof. Purchaser expressly understands and acknowledges that it is possible that unknown
problems, conditions or claims may exist with respect to the property and that purchaser
explicitly took such into account in determining the purchase price for the property, and that a
portion of such consideration, having been bargained for between the parties with the knowledge
of the possibility of such unknown problems, conditions or claims, was given in exchange for a
full accord, satisfaction and discharge of all such problems, conditions, losses and claims.
Purchaser acknowledges that following closing seller shall have no liability or duty of any kind
with respect to property, regardless of the basis for the claim, except for fraud or a breach of its
paragraph 6 or deed representations and warranties.
Purchaser's Initials
10. Disclosure. If prior to Closing either party discovers a fact or circumstance which
might render a representation or warranty by the other party inaccurate in any material respect, it
shall advise the other party thereof in writing promptly upon such discovery. If Purchaser
discovers or is so advised in writing of such a fact or circumstance involving a Seller
representation or warranty, it shall have, as its sole and exclusive remedy, the option, exercisable
within five (5) business days thereafter to either (a) elect to terminate this Agreement and receive
a return of the Deposit, or (b) to waive such inaccuracy in writing, in which event it shall be
deemed to have waived all claims and causes of action against Seller related thereto.
11. Remedies.
(a) If seller is not in default, and purchaser fails or refuses to consummate its
purchase of the property, purchaser and seller agree that it would be impractical and extremely
difficult to estimate the damages that seller may suffer. Therefore, purchaser and seller agree that
a reasonable estimate of the total net detriment that seller would suffer in the event that purchaser
defaults and fails to complete the purchase of the property is and shall be, and seller's sole and
Page- 4 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
G:\Real_Estate\Tigard\LibrarySite\Documen&s PAS3(121001).doc
exclusive remedy (whether at law or in equity), an amount equal to the deposit. This amount
shall be the full, agreed and liquidated damages for any breach of this agreement by purchaser.
The payment of this amount as liquidated damages is not intended as a forfeiture or penalty, but
is intended to constitute liquidated damages to seller. Upon any default by purchaser, this
agreement shall be terminated and neither party shall have any further rights or obligations under
it, except for the right of seller to collect such liquidated damages from purchaser.
(b) If purchaser is not in default and seller fails or refuses to consummate the sale
of the property without legal excuse, purchaser shall have the right to the return of its deposit
together with accrued interest thereon as liquidated damages, or be entitled to available legal or
equitable remedies including but not limited to specific performance; provided, however, in no
event shall seller be liable to purchaser for special, punitive, consequential or incidental
damages, including, but not limited to, lost profits.
By their initials below, purchaser and seller specifically acknowledge that they have read and
specifically negotiated and agreed to forfeiture of the deposit and limitation of remedies as
provided for in preceding paragraphs 12(a) and 12(b).
Purchaser's Initials Seller's Initials
12. Condemnation. If any portion of the Property becomes the subject of a condemnation
proceeding prior to Closing, Purchaser shall have the right to terminate this Agreement if it so
notifies Seller in writing not later than the first to occur of (a) ten (10) days after it is advised of
the condemnation proceeding or (b) Closing. Seller shall notify Purchaser in writing of a
condemnation affecting the Property within the earlier of (i) Closing or (ii) five (5) days of
Seller's receipt of notice thereof. If Purchaser elects not to terminate this Agreement, then Seller
will assign to Purchaser at Closing Seller's rights with respect to all condemnation proceeds
related thereto.
13. Notices. All notices provided for herein may be telecopied (with machine verification
of receipt), sent by Federal Express or other overnight courier service or delivered or mailed
registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. If a notice is mailed, it shall be considered
delivered upon receipt or refusal thereof. If a notice is sent via telecopy on a business day it shall
be deemed received upon receipt of verification of transmission. If a notice sent via overnight
courier, it shall be deemed received upon receipt or refusal thereof. The addresses to be used in
connection with such correspondence and notices are the following, or such other address as a
party shall from time to time direct:
To Seller: Fred W. Fields
1149 SW Davenport
Portland, Oregon 97201
To Purchaser: City of Tigard
Attn: William A. Monahan, City Manager
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Page- 5 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
0:\Real_Estate\Tigard\LibrarySite\Documenu\PAS3 (121001).doe
With Copy to: Dominic G. Colletta
Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach, LLP
1727 NW Hoyt Street
Portland, Oregon 97209
14. Transfer. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the
parties hereto and their heirs, successors and assigns; provided, however, Purchaser may not
assign its rights hereunder without Seller's prior written consent, which consent may be withheld
in Seller's sole discretion. No such assignment shall release Purchaser from primary liability
under this Agreement. In the event of an assignment the term "Purchaser" as used herein shall
include Purchaser's assignee. Any assignment in violation of this paragraph 15 will be void.
15. Confidentiality. Purchaser covenants that it will maintain the confidentiality of all
information which it receives from Seller or its agents and all reports, studies and other
documentation which it develops based thereon until Closing, except as otherwise required by
applicable law or court rule or order if this transaction closes, and further covenants that, if this
transaction does not close, it will destroy all such documents and all copies which Purchaser
made thereof. Purchaser's provision of such information to employees and consultants during
the term hereof shall not be deemed to violate the foregoing covenant so long as the recipients
agree to honor the confidentiality requirement.
16. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Oregon.
17. Brokers Fees. Each party shall pay any real estate brokers or agents fees arising out
of agreements such party may have entered into in connection with the purchase and sale of the
Property and shall indemnify, defend and hold the other party harmless with respect thereto.
This indemnification obligation shall survive Closing.
18. Costs and Expenses. Except as otherwise provided herein, each party hereto will
bear its own costs and expenses in connection with the negotiation, preparation and execution of
this Agreement and other documentation related hereto and in the performance of its duties
hereunder.
19. Miscellaneous.
(a) Headings. The headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and do
not in any way limit or affect the terms and provisions hereof.
(b) Calculation of Time Periods. Unless otherwise specified, in computing any
period of time described in this Agreement, the day of the act or event after which the designated
period of time begins to run is not to be included and the last day of the period so computed is to
be included, unless such last day is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. The final day of any
such period shall be deemed to end at 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time.
Page- 6 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
G:\Real_Estate\Tigard\LibmrySite\Documents\PAS3(121001).doc
(c) Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
(d) Gender. Wherever appropriate in this Agreement, the singular shall be
deemed to refer to the plural and the plural to the singular, and pronouns of certain genders shall
be deemed to include either or both of the other genders.
(e) Counterpart s. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original, but which when taken together shall constitute one and same
instrument.
(f) Exhibits. The Exhibits referred to herein and attached to this Agreement are
incorporated herein as if set forth in 6111.
20. Attorneys' Fees. If any lawsuit or arbitration arises in connection with this.
Agreement, including without limitation, an action to rescind this Agreement, the substantially
prevailing party therein shall be entitled to recover from the losing party the substantially
prevailing party's costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in connection
therewith, in preparation therefore and on appeal therefrom, including those in any bankruptcy
proceeding, which amounts shall be included in any judgment entered therein.
21. Unenforceability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal or
unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect the
remainder of such provision or any other provisions hereof.
22. Amendment/Modifications. This Agreement may not be altered, amended, changed,
waived, terminated or modified in any respect or particular unless the same shall be in writing
and signed by or on behalf of the party to be charged therewith.
23. Waiver. A party may, at any time or times, at its election, waive any of the conditions
to its obligations hereunder, but any such waiver shall be effective only if contained in a writing
signed by such party. No waiver shall reduce the rights and remedies of such party by reason of
any breach of any other party. No waiver by any party of any breach hereunder shall be deemed
a waiver of any other or subsequent breach.
24. Facsimile Signature . Each party (i) has agreed to permit the use, from time to time
and where appropriate, of telecopied signatures in order to expedite the transaction contemplated
by this Agreement, (ii) intends to be bound by its respective telecopied signature, (iii) is aware
that the other will rely on the telecopied signature, and (iv) acknowledges such reliance and
waives any defenses to the enforcement of the documents effecting the transaction contemplated
by this Agreement based on the fact that a signature was sent by telecopy.
Page 7 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
\\FSIWOLI\ORCCB\Real Fsute\rigard\LibrarySite\Documenu\PAS3(121001):doc
25. Delivery of Possession. Possession of the Property shall be delivered to Purchaser on
the Closing Date subject to the Permitted Exceptions.
26. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the parties
with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, oral or written,
express or implied, and all negotiations or discussions of the parties, whether oral or written, and
there are no warranties, representations or agreements among the parties in connection with the
subject matter hereof except as set forth herein.
THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT MAY NOT BE WITHIN A FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT PROTECTING STRUCTURES. THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT
TO LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS WHICH, IN FARM OR FOREST ZONES,
MAY NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OR SITING OF A RESIDENCE AND WHICH
LIMIT LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS
30.930 IN ALL ZONES. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT THE
PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED
USES AND EXISTENCE OF FIRE PROTECTION FOR STRUCTURES.
The City of Tigard, an Oregon
municipal corporation
By:
By:
Fred W. Fields Its:
a
i
Page 8 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
%%FS11VOLI%ORCCBUtuI EatAte\TigardU.ibnrySitelDocumepts%PAS3(121001).doe
Order No. 935232
EXHIBIT
PARCEL 1:
The North one-half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD ACRE TRACTS, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington
and State of Oregon.
PARCEL II:
-The South. one-half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, in the City of Tigard,- County of Washington and State of
Oregon.
PARCEL III:
All that certain tract of land in the William Graham Donation 'Land Claim No. 39 in Township 2 South,
Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of
Oregon, conveyed to Beecher B. Robinson by Deed recorded at page 193 of Volume 126, Washington
County, Oregon Deed Records, and being more particularly described as follows, to-wit:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of the aforesaid Robinson Tract in the center of the County Road at
the Northwest corner of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, a duly recorded subdivision of Washington County, Oregon,
which beginning point is said to bear 5.60 chains West and 21.02 chains North of the Northwest corner
of Section 12, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian; thence from said point of
beginning North 0022' East in the center of the said county road 969.4 feet to the Northwest corner of
the said Robinson Tract; thence South 47043' East 26.9 feet to an iron pipe; thence continuing South
47043' East 431.1 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 99.0 feet to an alder tree marked "C.S."; thence
continuing South 16.0 feet to a point in the center of Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears
North 19.9 feet; thence down stream following the center of Fanno Creek the following courses and
distance: South 37°01' East 110.0 feet; South 26058' West 126.0 feet; South 6044' West 86.8 feet;
South 30008' East 40.5 feet; South 73051' East 44.8 feet; North 53056' East 71.7 feet; South 74006'
East 33.1 feet; South 4°44' West 72.6 feet; South 24024' East 64.3 feet; South 51 02' East 137.0 feet
and South 11 135' West 42.7 feet to a point on the North line of said EDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION; thence
North 89000' West along the North !ine of aforesaid subdivision 35.1 feet to a point in the center of
Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears South 89000' East 17.1 feet; thence running
downstream in the center of Fanno Creek North 39018' West 32.8 feet North 58029' West 104.5 feet,
South 86048' West 41.6 feet and South 12002' West 76.4 feet to a point on the North line of aforesaid
subdivision, from which point an iron pipe bears North 89000o West 28.0 feet; thence leaving Fanno
Creek and running along the North line of said subdivision 528.0 feet to the place of beginning.
SAVE AND EXCEPT THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the State of Oregon, by and through the State
Highway Commission recorded August 20, 1965 in Book 656, page 306, Records of Washington County.
Exhibit 2 to Purchase and Sale Agreement
7AF7TERRECORDING, RETURN TO:
AttRamis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach, LLP
1727 NW Hoyt Street
Portland, OR 97209
SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
Fred W. Fields ("Grantor") conveys and specially warrants to City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal
corporation ("Grantee"), the following described real property free of encumbrances created or
suffered by Grantor except as specifically set forth herein:
See Exhibit A
Subject to exceptions set forth on attached Exhibit B.
The true consideration for this conveyance is Two 1Vlillion One Hundred Thousand Dollars and
no/100 ($2,100,000.00).
THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND
REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE
PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH
THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY
APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LMTS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST
FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930.
Dated this day of December, 2001.
GRANTOR: GRANTEE:
City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal
corporation
By:
Fred W. Fields Name:
Title:
Notary acknowledgements appear on the following page.
Page 1- WARRANTY DEED
G:L*2EAL ESTATE\7IGARD BRARYSrMDOCUMENMPECIAL WARRANTY DEED.DOC(M9)
Exhibit 2 to Purchase and Sale Agreement
STATE OF OREGON )
) ss
COUNTY OF )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on by
Notary Public
My Commission expires:
STATE OF OREGON )
ss
COUNTY OF )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on by
Notary Public
My Commission expires:
Page 2- WARRANTY DEED
G.\REAL ESTATE\TIGARD\LIBRARYSITE\DOCUMENTS\SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED.DOC(M)
• Order No. 935232
• EXHIBIT "A"
PARCEL I:
The North one-half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD ACRE TRACTS, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington
and State of Oregon.
PARCEL II:
The South one-half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, in the City of Tigard,- County of Washington and State of
Oregon.
PARCEL 111:
All that certain tract of land in the William Graham Donation Land Claim No. 39 in Township 2 South,
Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of
Oregon, conveyed to Beecher B. Robinson by Deed recorded at page 193 of Volume 126, Washington
County, Oregon Deed Records, and being more particularly described as follows, to-wit:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of the aforesaid Robinson Tract in the center of the County Road at
the Northwest corner of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, a duly recorded subdivision of Washington County, Oregon,
which beginning point is said to bear 5.60 chains West and 21.02 chains North of the Northwest corner
of Section 12, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian; thence from said point of
beginning North 0022' East in the center of the said county road 969.4 feet to the Northwest corner of
the said Robinson Tract; thence South 47043' East 26.9 feet to an iron pipe; thence continuing South
47043' East 431.1 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 99.0 feet to an alder tree marked "C.S."; thence
continuing South 16.0 feet to a point in the center of Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears
North 19.9 feet; thence down stream following the center of Fanno Creek the following courses and
distance: South 37101' East 110.0 feet; South 26°58' West 126.0 feet; South 6044' West 86.8 feet;
South 30008' East 40.5 feet; South 73051' East 44.8 feet; North 53°56' East 71.7 feet; South 74006'
East 33.1 feet; South 41144' West 72.6 feet; South 24024' East 64.3 feet; South 51 02' East 137.0 feet
and South 11 °35' West 42.7 feet to a point on the North line of said EDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION; thence
North 89100' West along the North line of aforesaid subdivision 35.1 feet to a point in the center of
Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears South 89000' East 17.1 feet; thence running
downstream in the center of Fanno Creek North 39018' West 32.8 feet North 58029' West 104.5 feet,
South 86048' West 41.6 feet and South 12002' West 76.4 feet to a point on the North line of aforesaid
subdivision, from which point an iron pipe bears North 89000' West 28.0 feet; thence leaving Fanno
Creek and running along the North line of said subdivision 528.0 feet to the place of beginning.
SAVE AND EXCEPT THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the State of Oregon, by and through the State
Highway Commission recorded August 20, 1965 in Book 656, page 306, Records of Washington County.
Exhibit B - Exceptions to Title
7. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof;
Recorded December 15, 1971 in Book 847, page 55
Favor of Tigard Water District, a municipal corporation of Washington County, Oregon
For Underground pipeline and/or mains
Affects Parcel III _
8. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof;
Recorded : July 20, 1972 in Book 878, page 295
Favor of : Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, a municipal corporation and county
service district of the State of Oregon
For . Sewer
Affects : Parcel
9. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof;
Recorded July 20, 1972 in Book 878, page 298
Favor of Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, a municipal corporation and county
service district of the State of Oregon
For Sewer
Affects Parcel 11
' ML
a ~ • 1 t
t
Recording Alert
A M E-
- .tom .e,
Washington d__a Kama ties eeazid:.~w' recordin
standards effective October - 99~Effective on said date the
counties will be refusing to record any documents that they do not feel
have statutory authority. In order to best facilitate your transaction and
to determine whether or not your documentation will be accepted by the
county, we ask that you forward drafts of the documents to us as far as
possible before recording/closing. We will verify with the county
recorder the recordability of your document. If the county states the
document is not recordable, then it will allow you time to modify the
document to meet their requirements or to prove proper authority does
exist for the recording of said document.
3
EXHIBIT
o,~4t , r k ~r•, First ican Title Insurance .pany of oreg'on
b _
An umned buslrcu or TrrLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON
h 1700 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 97201-5512
(503) 222-3651 FAX (503) 790-7656
Preliminary Title Report
August 31, 2001 ALTA Owners Stand. Cov. $OPEN Premium $
ALTA Owners Ext. Cov. $ Premium $
ALTA Lenders Stand. Cov. $ Premium $
ALTA Lenders Ext. Cov. $ Premium $
Order No. 935232 Indorsement Premium $
Re Fields/City of Tigard Other Cost $
Govt. Serv. Charge Cost $ 50.00
A consolidated statement of all charges and advances in con-
nection with this order will be provided at closing.
RAMIS, CREW, CORRIGAN & BACHRACH, LLP
1727 NW Hoyt Street
Portland, OR 97209
Attention: Dominic Colletta
Telephone No.: (503)222-4402
Fax No.: (503)243-2944
We are prepared to issue Title Insurance Policy or Policies in the form and amount shown above, insuring
title to the following described land:
For legal description see Exhibit "A" attached hereto;
and as of August 24, 2001 at 8:00 a.m., title vested in:
FRED W. FIELDS;
Subiect to the exceptions, exclusions and stipulations which are ordinarily part of such Policy form and
the following:
1. Taxes for the fiscal year 2001-2002 a lien not yet payable.
2. City Liens, if any, or the City of Tigard.
Note: There are no liens as of July 31, 2001.
3. Statutory Powers and Assessments of Unified Sewerage Agency.
4, Rights of the public and of governmental bodies in and to that portion of the premises herein described
lying below the high water mark of Fanno Creek.
(Affects Parcel III)
5. Any adverse claim based upon the assertion that some portion of said land has been removed from
or brought within the boundaries thereof by an avulsive movement of the Fanno Creek or has been formed
by the process of accretion or reliction or has been created by artificial means or has accreted to such
portion so created.
(Affects Parcel 111)
6. The rights of the public in and to that portion of the premises herein described lying within the limits
of roads, streets or highways.
This report is for the exclusive use of the parties herein shown and is preliminary to the issuance of a title insurance policy
and shall become void unless a policy is issued, and the full premium paid.
E
Page 2
Order No. 935232
7. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof;
Recorded December 15, 1971 in Book 847, page 55
Favor of : Tigard Water District, a municipal corporation of Washington County, Oregon
For Underground pipeline and/or mains
Affects Parcel ill
8. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof;
Recorded : July 20, 1972 in Book 878, page 295
Favor of : Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, a municipal corporation and county
service district of the State of Oregon
For . Sewer
Affects : Parcell
9. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof;
Recorded : July 20, 1972 in Book 878, page 298
Favor of : Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, a municipal corporation and county
service district of the State of Oregon
For . Sewer
Affects : Parcel 11
10. Unrecorded leases or periodic tenancies, if any.
11. The following matters pertain to Lenders Extended coverage only:
(a) Parties in possession, or claiming to be in possession, other than the vestees shown herein.
(b) Statutory liens for labor and/or materials, including liens for contributions due to the State of Oregon
for employment compensation and for workman's compensation, or any rights thereto, where no notice
of such liens or rights appears of record.
NOTE: This report does not include a search for Financing Statements filed in the office of the Secretary
of State, or in a county other than the county wherein the premises are situated, and no liability is
assumed if a Financing Statement is filed in the office of the County Clerk (Recorder) covering fixtures
on the premises wherein the lands are described other than by metes and bounds or under the rectangular
survey system or by recorded lot and block.
NOTE: Washington County Ordinance No. 267, filed August 5, 1982 in Washington County, Oregon,
imposes a tax of $1.00 per $1,000.00 or fraction thereof on the transfer of real property located within
Washington County.
rE--i-~ Certain conveyances may be exempt from said ordinance, in which case, Washington County will require
a a correct and timely filing of an affidavit of exemption. For all deeds/conveyance documents which are
recorded (including situations to meet lender requirements) either the transfer tax must be paid or affidavit
acceptable to the county must be filed.
NOTE: Taxes for the year 2000-2001 paid in full.
Tax Amount $1,510.49
Code No. . 023.74
Map & Tax Lot No. 2S12DD-00100
Account No. R468951
(Affects Parcel 1)
a v ~ d
Page 3
Order No. 935232
NOTE: Taxes for the year 2000-2001 paid in full.
Tax Amount $2,422.97
Code No. 023.74
Map & Tax Lot No. 2S12DD-00200
Account No. R468960
(Affects Parcel 11)
NOTE: Taxes for the year 2000-2001 paid in full.
Tax Amount $2,414.25
Code No. 023.74
Map & Tax Lot No. 2S12DA-00600
Account No. R468050
(Affects Parcel III)
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON
JENNIFER L. WATSON
Commercial Title Officer
Voice (503) 790-7866
Fax (503) 790-7856
E-Mail jewatson@firstam.com
JLW:jlw
Recording Information:
Filing Address: Washington County
155 North 1st Avenue
Hillsboro, OR 97124-3087
Recording Fees: $5.00 per page
$6.00 per document (Public Land Corner Preservation Fund)
$11.00 per document (OLIS Assessment & Taxation Fee)
35.00 for each additional document title
$20.00 non-standard fee
THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
We look forward to assisting you In all of your dit/e and escrow needs
A• ' Order No. 935232
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCEL 1:
The North one-half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD ACRE TRACTS, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington
and State of Oregon.
PARCEL 11:
The South one-half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of
Oregon.
PARCEL III:
All that certain tract of land in the William Graham Donation Land Claim No. 39 in Township 2 South,
Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of
Oregon, conveyed to Beecher B. Robinson by Deed recorded at page 193 of Volume 126, Washington
County, Oregon Deed Records, and being more particularly described as follows, to-wit:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of the aforesaid Robinson Tract in the center of the County Road at
the Northwest corner of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, a duly recorded subdivision of Washington County, Oregon,
which beginning point is said to bear 5.60 chains West and 21.02 chains North of the Northwest corner
of Section 12, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian; thence from said point of
beginning North 0022' East in the center of the said county road 969.4 feet to the Northwest corner of
the said Robinson Tract; thence South 47043' East 26.9 feet to an iron pipe; thence continuing South
47043' East 431.1 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 99.0 feet to an alder tree marked "C.S."; thence
continuing South 16.0 feet to a point in the center of Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears
North 19.9 feet; thence down stream following the center of Fanno Creek the following courses and
distance: South 37°01' East 110.0 feet; South 26158' West 126.0 feet; South 6044' West 86.8 feet;
South 30108' East 40.5 feet; South 73051' East 44.8 feet; North 53056' East 71.7 feet; South 74006'
East 33.1 feet; South 4044' West 72.6 feet; South 24124' East 64.3 feet; South 5102' East 137.0 feet
and South 11 135' West 42.7 feet to a point on the North line of said EDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION; thence
North 89°00' West along the North line of aforesaid subdivision 35.1 feet to a point in the center of
Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears South 89000' East 17.1 feet; thence running
downstream in the center of Fanno Creek North 39°18' West 32.8 feet North 58029' West 104.5 feet,
South 86048' West 41.6 feet and South 12002' West 76.4 feet to a point on the North line of aforesaid
subdivision, from which point an iron pipe bears North 89000' West 28.0 feet; thence leaving Fanno
Creek and running along the North line of said subdivision 528.0 feet to the place of beginning.
SAVE AND EXCEPT THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the State of Oregon, by and through the State
Highway Commission recorded August 20, 1965 in Book 656, page 306, Records of Washington County.
Ill 18.1 1
hf■. A M E, R y ~ r
1-S
First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon
SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
ALTA LOAN POLICY (10/17/92)
The follo■fng manors are expressly excluded from the coverage of this polity and the Company will not pay loss or damage. costs. arwrnoys' loer or expenses which arise by reason of:
1. (a) Arty law, oru)inanee or govemvrentxl regulation (in 9uding bu! rot SmAed b building and zoning laws, ordtrharhees, or regulation) restrhctirhg, regulating, prohbilirtg or relzting b (i)1he oaxupanry,
use, or snjoymenl d the land: (ii) the dharacer, rdtmensicns or location ti arty improvement now or hereafter erected on the land, (ii) a separaton in ownershtip or a dtangs in lfie drriensicrs or
area ti the land or parcel of wthich the land ts ar was a part; or (iv) emirormerhtal prtiection, or to gifted d any vitiation ti rhosa laws, ordnarrss or goverrurlsrstad rogulalicrn, except b Ins
extent that a notice d the enforcement Nered or a notice d a detec6 lien ar encumbrarwe resulting from a violation a alleged vitiation affecting the land has been recorded in the prGic records
aI Data of Policy.
(b) Any gwemmental Polito paver not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof a a notice of a defect, ion or encumbrance resulting from a violation
or aleeged v tiation affecting the land Ws been recordeJ in the public records at Data of Policy.
2. Rights of eminerd domain unless notice of the exerci-- eereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not exckding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to
Date of Policy which would be binding on the of a purchaser for value without knowledge.
3. Defects, Sens, encumbrances. adverse claims or other matters:
(a) created, suffered. assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant:
(b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Dais of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior t the
date the insured Gaimanl became an insured under this policy;
(c) restating in no loss or damage to to insured clamant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Data of Policy (except to to extent that this policy insures the priority of the lien of the insured mortgage over any statutory lien for services, labor or material
or the extant insurance is afforded herein as to assessments for sheet improvements under construction or completed at Date of Policy); or
(s) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained 4 the Insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage.
t. lhhedorceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of tha inability or failure of to imurod at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of arty subsequent owner of the indeotedness, to comply
with applicable doing business laws of to state in which the land is sitwted.
5. Imaltdiiy or uhenfaceabiliry of the ken d the insured mortgage, or claim thereof. which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any, consumer
aodit protection or truth in landing law.
8. Any statutory lien for services, labor or materials (or to daim of priority of any statutory lien for services, labor or materials over the lien of the insured mortgage) arising from an improvement or work
related to the land which is contracted lot and commenced subsequent to Data of Policy and is not financed in whole or in part by proceeds of the indebtedness seared by the insured mortgage
which at Date of Policy the insured has advanced or is obligated to advance.
7. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction creating ft interest of the mortgagee insured by this policy. by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar aedrw3 rights
laws. that is based on:
(i) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or haudulerhl transfer; or
(i) the subordination of the interest of the insured mortgagee as a resut of the application of the doctrine of equitable subordination; ur
(ill) tin transacton creating the interest of ate insured mortgagee being deemed a preler nlial transfer excepl where the preferential transfer results from the failure:
(a) b timely record the instrument of transfer: on
(b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgement or lien cradlor.
ALTA OWNER'S POLICY (10/17/92)
The itibwing matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, anorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of.
d. (a) Any law. ordnance or governmental regulation (including but not "led to building and zoning taws, ordinances. or regulations) restricting,regulating,ptohibitirgor relatingto (i)this occuparry
use. or enjoyment of the land: (ii) the character. dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land: (ii) a separation in ownership or a dange in the dimensions or
area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) envirorunental protaction, or the effect of any violation of these taws, ordinances or govenvnental regudatons, except to the
extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, ken or encumbrance resum ng from a violation on alleged violation allecti V the land has been recorded in the pubic records
at Date of Policy.
(b) Any govenmenlal police power not excluded by (a) above. except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or
aieged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. .
2. Rights of emineM domain unless notice of the exercise hereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Pal". but not exckidirhg from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to
Data of Policy which would be binding on the right. Of a purchaser for value without knowledge
3. Defects. Sens. encurnbrances. adverse claims or other mutters: .
(a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant;
(b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the muted claimant and not disclosed in wn" to the Company by the insured claimant prior to
the date the insured claimant became an insured under txs policy:
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to Me insured claimant;
(d) 'attaching or created subsequent to Data of Policy; or
(e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained g the insured claimant had pad value tot the estate or interest insured by this policy.
4. Any claim, which arses out of the transaction vesting in te:rnured the estate or interest muted by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar aeditori
rights laws. that is based on-
(i) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or
(H) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the fa l rs:
(a) to timely record the instrument of transfer: or
(b) of such recordaton to inhpart notice to a purchaser la value or a pudgement or Han creditor
SCHEDULE OF STANDARD EXCEPTIONS
The ALTA standard policy lorm will contain in Schedule a the following standard exceptions to coverage:
I. Taxes or assessments which are net snown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real properly or by the public records: proceediings by a
pudic agency which may result in taxes or assessments. or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the pudic retad2.
2. Any facts, rights, nterests• or claims whim are not shown by the puck: records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by malting inquiry Of persons in possession thereof.
3. Easements, encumbrances. or claims thereof, not shown by the pudic records, unpatenled mwxng claims, nsservadonS or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof,
water rights. dams or title to water.
a Any men, or right to a lion, for services, tabor, or material hersltione or hereafter turrvshed, imposed by law and not shown by me pudic records.
S. Disaepancies, conflicts in boundary tines, shorrage in area. encroachments, or any ocher fats which a correct survey would disclose.
NOTE: A SPECIMEN COPY OF THE POLICY FORM (OR FORMS) WILL BE FURNISHED UPON REQUEST. Tt 149
Rev S99
THIS MAP IS FURNISHED AS A CONVENIENCE IN LOCATING FRO '.AND THE COMPANY
ASSUMES NO L4 FOR ANY VARIATIONS AS MAY BE DISCS BY ACTUAL SURVEY
5t AMC ptC,,
First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon
An essumoo ousmess name of TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON ,
1700 S.W. FOURTH* AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 97201-5512
(503) 222-3651
- r
1300 HO'J' ~IJOO•" 'r loo u.t•t.
i .I.r ~ .
i
r
B 200
;
r
Ixoo
.rrJ.. J
M r
h • nun- •y
300 ^
r.lo. •
1100
rla• r
F T- 2 q
I r = w
S.W. 'MEDINA. N. ~
STOD - ~
too 39 23_?a
ao
2 ~iTa~-
f00' v.• - J ADO t u• SLL MAP
_I tl.r d • •..ru. ~ •tll x! 1 1
i ~ ~ r. tr/•
61 y:I/ Zv .
na a0a Dot _ 1 +
• J' - n• S•W-'+ y,. n tur FOR ASSESSMENT
S^ j ; .JJ•a a 1•,~ r ~.Jw wf r•... •M1 - PURPOSES ONLY
Rx 5100 a000 ASOOS ' aAaO 00 NOT RELY ON
, J i J ,~,rNl .b0 /200
. 1 ' 2 11 - to ./I/.'. frOR ANY OTNER use
cA.o m. 40x 3 t'ioo woo f, 3300 SW Cr. u.4800 1
` • . a0a •J./a (n 4300 4 i. •.JOO lam' MTM1w .T.- TRACT
'C I~ 1
1,,.. ! _ a y c.' c J ' R +.ioo l aiooD G • P A
r~,I] S 1 7 L 5200. + , a.. I . •rn.rt
/y f { L fK . yL'OO CIS 2•~ x300 ' 2 2T00 jrf-O -d-0 J Y JIt, T jXf
3 9ti.. L CR
2000 •noc y
701 Iwo
_ F~ }.00 ]JOCI 3:00 I .
LOO 1 3 .zr.c : Iroo •s •f- P
..n.a s ty 21 • ~ w ~ z x ~ to K n n u t
Su SEE .A,P TIGARD
23 I ILU 22 I naa
2S 1 Z DD
1
. I
o THIS MAP IS FURNI 3 A CONVENIENCE IN LOCATING PROPER (r. THE COMPANY
ASSUMES NO LIABILI I Y rOR ANY VARIATIONS AS MAY BE DISCLOSED d`r ACTUAL SURVEY !
~.t A M C k /
First Arner1can Title Insurance Company of Oregon - -
F44, An »aums0 Ou3lnest name of TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Of OREGON
1700 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE. PORTLAND. OR 87201-5512
(503) 222-3651
rulvosu o1A.x
w . L n w A 00 No Aw Oot
~ 9~, foot WT (1n4" ust.
T
401 4 3 13.+w .c • 91, 100
SEE M3!
X~c f '7 k1ft. as 1 1
a
i
1W AM
1 \ /
I CA 207311
T 1 \ ~~QO
\ SO
1 I `a \
I
10
-I +
I L
s 23=74
3• 3 s
•j 1 •LLWw j
701 IG.3 .3)ZI 4
A30-
T04 2
t
e.
i ~ •
G
t•
a so tee: TIGARD
?S I 20A
tS.W. 0 MARASTREET. A -
scc 3u► m~C.IL~~.STL91~.,i:....
• xs 1 zoo ,
AGENDA ITEM No. 6 Date: December 16, 2001
PUBLK;
TESTIMOONY
S I ®U S ET
Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on:
CONSIDER A BALLOT
ASM
MEA UOR6E R THE
MAY 21, 2002, ELECTION FOR
GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS F A E LIBRARY
Due to Time Constraints
City Council May Impose
A Time Limit on Testimony
I:\ADM\GREER\CCSIGNUP\PH TESTMNY UPDATED 6-13.DCC
AGENDA ITEM No. 6
PLEASE PRINT w
Pro onent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - S eakin A ainst Neutral
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
C'-')zT►s J2 D
l 7g
cY >
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
I776izv1n P ~+Mo~D
~V
~C""'~ D R. ~ 1 tiL3
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
P/gvi y Ch cc~cP,~
q$y a Sc✓L C
i 0A V7 z 3
Z - 3//&'
-jb Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
0
`rty . . K- Tj
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
~P-rNY
14ao SW Iovr"
Ir&R-R-P/ OF, 97),24
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
sot~z~oo~r
017 U,
act 1 f:V
AGENDA ITEM # CS/
FOR AGENDA OF December 18, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Public Heariny, on Ballot Measure for the May 21, 2002, election for General
Obligation Bonds for a new library.
PREPARED BY: Margaret Barnes DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the City Council approve the Ballot Measure for the May 21, 2002, election for General Obligation Bonds for
a new library?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation is for the City Council to approve the Ballot Measure for the May 21, 2002, election for
General Obligation Bonds for a new library. The Bond Measure includes: property acquisition, building design,
construction and fiu-nishings, street improvements, parking, landscaping and bond issuance costs.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In early 2000, the City Council and Budget Committee met and concluded that rather than expand the existing
facility, a new library was needed in the city in a location other than at the present civic center property. In March
of 2000, BML Architects were contracted by the City to provide a three- part architectural study to determine the
need for a new library for the community of Tigard. In August of 2000, the Council renamed the citizens
committee for this process as the New Tigard Library Construction Committee. The Committee was given the
charge to meet on a regular basis; evaluate alternatives for a new library site and building, and forward
recommendations to the Tigard City Council. The Committee was charged with undertaking its task within a time
frame so the Council may consider placing a bond measure on the ballot in 2002.
The Committee has presented regular updates to Council throughout the process. The Committee has also made
recommendations to Council about this project based on the "Needs Analysis Report for a New Tigard Library,"
the "Building Program for the new Tigard Library" and the criteria developed for site selection. Fourteen potential
sites were evaluated. The recommendations forwarded to Council have included the following: the City build a
proposed two-story, 47,000-square-foot library, and the City pursue an option on a 14.7-acre property located along
Hall Boulevard near O'Mara Street.
Based on these recommendations, the Committee, working with BML Architects, developed an architectural model
of the proposed new library. The model is a way to represent the recommended two-story structure and proposed
site to the community.
Since late Summer, the Committee has been seeking community input on the proposed new library through
community presentations and surveys.
The Committee, working with BML Architects and City staff, has developed a total financial package for this
project. The total funding necessary for this project is estimated to be $14.2 million. This amount would pay for
land acquisition, the building design, construction and furnishing of a new library of approximately 47,000 square
feet, parking, landscaping, and related street improvements and bond issuance costs.
As you may recall, the City received two generous bequests from the Neva Root and Grace T. Houghton estates for
the new library. These combined bequests plus interest earned equal approximately $1,000,000. The bequests,
combined with City reserve funds in the amount of $200,000, would. be used to defray the overall costs of the
project by $1.2 million.
On November 28 the Committee voted to request that the City Council consider placing on the May 21, 2002,
ballot a $12.5 to $13 million measure for General Obligation Bonds for a new library for the community of Tigard.
To provide sufficient funding to cover all costs, staff recommends that the City Council choose the upper limit of
the Committee recommendation, $13 million, utilizing the Ballot Title prepared with the assistance of the City
Attorney's Office.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Goal #3: Adequate facilities are available for efficient delivery of life-long learning programs and services for all
ages.
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Memo with Exhibits outlining bond options
2. New Tigard Library Construction Committee Draft Minutes of November 28, 2001 Meeting
3. Resolution
4. Ballot Title
5. Draft Explanatory Statement
6. Set of PowerPoint Slides
FISCAL NOTES
i
None.
i
Him
discussion of the City Facility Fund and the possibility of using a portion of that fund for
the new library.
At the end of the discussion a motion was made by Lonn Hokiin to forward the following
recommendation to the City Council: The New Tigard Library Construction Committee
recommends to the City Council that a bond measure for $12.5 to $13 million dollars for
construction of a new library be placed on the May 2002 ballot. The Committee further
recommends that the Council apply all TIF credits, waive all the development fees that
may be waived, waive the reimbursables and utilize 25% ($200,000) of the existing
balance of the City General Fund- Facility Fund for this project. The motion was
unanimous.
The Committee will present this recommendation and other information to the City
Council at the December 18 meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Attachment Z
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
C: Bill Monahan, City Manager
FROM: Margaret Barnes, Library Directo.11W
RE: Proposed New Library
DATE: December 14, 2001
For the past year, the New Library Construction Committee has investigated the
need for a new library for the community. The City contracted with BML
Architects in early 2000 to conduct a needs analysis, develop a building program
and assist with site recommendations. During the past year, the Committee has
presented frequent updates and made recommendations to Council on this
project. Based on the analysis of current and future needs for library service for
Tigard, the Committee has recommended a new two-story library of 47,000 sq. ft.
on the recommended site at Hall and O'Mara.
The Committee, working with BML Architects and City staff, has developed a
total financial package for this project. The total funding necessary for this
project is estimated to be $14.2 million. This amount would pay for land
acquisition, the construction design, building and furnishing of a new library of
approximately 47,000 square feet, parking, landscaping, and related street
improvements and bond issuance costs.
As you may recall, the City received two generous bequests from the Neva Root
and the Grace T. Houghton estates for the new library. These combined
bequests plus interest earned equal approximately $1,000,000. The bequests,
combined with City reserve funds, in the amount of $200,000 would be used to
defray the overall costs of the project by $1.2 million.
Questions for the Council which require action:
1. Determine the amount of the bond measure.
The New Tigard Library Construction Committee recommendation for the
bond measure is $12.5 to $13 million.
The staff recommends that the Council approve the upper amount of $13
million as recommended by the New Tigard Library Construction Committee.
mom
This amount allows greater flexibility as well as the option to identify credits
and fees to waive during the process. After passage of the bond measure
credits may be awarded that may also lower the overall debt service.
2. Determine the terms of the band.
Staff recommends that the terms of the bond be up to 20 years.
The following exhibits provide supporting information for Council:
Exhibits A & B: Bond options and general obligation bond analysis
Exhibit C: Background material for possible deductions that could
significantly lower the proposed bond if approved.
Y Memo from Sherman Casper, Permits Coordinator, on Fee
Waivers
• Memo from Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer, on
Traffic Impact Fee Credits.
Members of the New Library Construction Committee will be present to make a
formal recommendation to Council at the December 18 meeting.
Attachments
,
,
i
New Library Construction
Bond Size Options
Site/Design/
Options Construction Bond Total Bond
Q iCostsi(Credits) Issuance Costs Rounding Amount
41 Total Project $13,875,474 $277,509 $47,017 $14,200,000
W Less Bequests and Interest ($1,000,000)
Amount to be Financed $12,875,474 $257,509 ($132,983) $13,000,000
2 Less Traffic Impact Fee Credits ($73,552)
Amount to be Financed $12,801,922 $256,038 ($157,960) $12,900,000
3 Less Fee Waiver Credits ($57,326)
Amount to be Financed $12,744,596 $254,892 ($199,488) $12,800,000
4 Less City Reimbursable Expense Credits ($78,000)
Amount to be Financed $12,666,596 $253,332 ($169,928) $12,750,000
5 Less City Reserve Contribution ($200,000)
Amount to be Financed $12,466,596 $249,332 ($165,928) $12,550,000
Less City Additional Contribution ($300,000)
Amount to be Financed $12,166,596 $243,332 ($159,928) $12,250,000
IN I TTITTn T TTIITTPhITP
Exhibit B
City of Tigard
Proposed Library General Obligation Bond Analysis
Tax Impact Analysis
Summary
Assumed Assessed Value of Average Home = $200,000
120 Year Term 15 Year Term 10 Year Term
Estimated Annual Debt Service $1,070,000 $1,255,000 $1,625,000
CL Estimated Interest Rate on Bonds 5.25% 5.00% 4.25%
0
CD
0 Estimated Maximum Tax Rate per $1,000 $0.3083 $0.3616 $0.4682
`a' Estimated Tax Impact on Average Home $62 $72 $94
VP
Estimated Total Taxes Paid Over Life of Bonds $861 $834 $795
Estimated Annual Debt Service $1,050,000 $1,235,000 $1,600,000
CD Estimated Interest Rate on Bonds 5.25% 5.00% 4.25%
act Estimated Maximum Tax Rate per $1,000 $0.3025 $0.3558 $0.4610
N Estimated Tax Impact on Average Home $61 $71 $92
Estimated Total Taxes Paid Over Life of Bonds $845 $821 $783
Estimated Annual Debt Service $1,030,000 $1,210,000 $1,570,000
gCL Estimated Interest Rate on Bonds 5.25% 5.00% 4.25%
0
a Estimated Maximum Tax Rate per $1,000 $0.2968 $0.3486 $0.4524
N Estimated Tax Impact on Average Home $59 $70 $90
M
Estimated Total Taxes Paid Over Life of Bonds $829 $804 $768
Estimated Annual Debt Service $1,005,000 $1,185,000 $1,530,000
0o Estimated Interest Rate on Bonds 5.25% 5.00% 4.25%
0
ca Estimated Maximum Tax Rate per $1,000 $0.2896 $0.3414 $0.4408
N
W.- Estimated Tax Impact on Average Home $58 $68 $88
Estimated Total Taxes Paid Over Life of Bonds $809 $787 $748
I~
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF SIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A &tw Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Margaret Barnes
FROM: Sherman Casper "
DATE: December 6, 2001
SUBJECT: Library Fees
A review of potential fee waivers resulted in some revisions to the amounts as listed in
"CONCEPT COMPARISON PROJECT BUDGET ESTIMATE". The attached spread sheet
Includes up-dated amounts for the following items and information relative to waiver of these fees.
Site Fire & Life Safety Review
Site Permit Review Fee
Site Permits
Building Permit"
Building Permit Review Fee
Building Fire & Life Safety Review Fee
Plumbing Permit (Included in Building permit)
Mechanical Permit (Included in Building permit)
Electrical Permit (Included in Building permit)
State Surcharge - 8% combined permit fees
If I can be of future assistance please don't hesitate to
call.
The following is a breakdown of fee types for the library and whether they can be waived.
Type of Fee Agency Amount Waive Waive Amount Not
Amount Waive
Pre-application Conference City of Tigard $240 Yes $240
Planning & Development Fees' City of Tigard $6,500 Yes - note' $6,500
Traffic Impact Fee WACO $173,332 No 0 $173,332
ODOT Inspection Fee ODOT $1,000 No 0 $1,000
Water Resources Review - Tvpe 2 - add to P&D Fee ' City of Tigard $30 Yes - note' $30
Sensitive Lands Review - T,/pt 2 - for storm outfall' City of Tigard $149 Yes - note' $149
Sewer Connection Fee Clean Water Services $32,200 No 0 $32,200
Parks SDC 2 City of Tigard $4,292 No - note 2 0 $4,292
Erosion Control Review Fee Clean Water Services $1,640 No 0 $1,640
Erosion Control Inspection Clean Water Services $2,520 No 0 $2,520
Site Fire & Life Safety Review City of Tigard $1,336 Yes $1,336
Site Permit Review Fee City of Tigard $2,171 Yes $2,171
Site Permits City of Tigard $3,340 Yes $3,340
Building Permit' City of Tigard $15,354 Yes $15,354
Building Permit Review Fee City of Tigard $8,380 Yes $8,380
Building Fire & Life Safety Review Fee City of Tigard $4,542 Yes $4,542
Demolition Permit City of Tigard - Yes - -
Plumbing Permit City of Tigard - Yes - -
Mechanical Permit City of Tigard - Yes - -
Electrical Permit City of Tigard - Yes - -
State Surcharge - 8% combined permit fees 3 State of Oregon $1,495 Note 3 $1,495
$258,521 $43,537 $214,984
' does not exempt hourly hearings officer charge
2 text amendment required to waive public facilities SDC charges
3 can only be waived if permit fees are waived
"Building permit includes BLDG, Plumbing, Electrical & Mechanical permit estimates
sSite permit fees based on stated "On Site Improvements" valuation. $788,772
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
DATE: November 99, 2009
TO: Gus Duenas, City Engineer
FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer
RE: Library Project: Traffic Impact Fee Credits
You asked me to estimate the potential value of Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)-credits the library project
might achieve after they complete improvements to both SW Hall Boulevard and SW Wall Street.
In order to do this, I reviewed previous projects where a half-street improvement had been
constructed on SW Hall Boulevard, in order to make a reasonable comparison to what the library
project may experience. The project I chose for comparison was the Applewood Park subdivision
To compare to SW Wall Street, I had to.find a project that constructed a collector street from
scratch; the project I chose was Quail Hollow - West, where the developer constructed SW
Gaarde Street.
For SW Hall Boulevard, the Applewood project achieved a TIF credit of approximately 46% of the
construction cost of the roadway. Bear in mind, that the construction cost includes such things as
underground utilities, sidewalk, streetlights, street trees and retaining walls, none of which are
creditable.
For SW Gaarde Street, the Quail Hollow-West project achieved a TIF credit of approximately
39% of the construction cost. This makes sense because a large portion of the construction cost
of a new street is underground utilities.
If we apply the above percentages to the library project, potential TIF credits would be as follows:
• SW Hall Boulevard, at 46% of $78,680.00 (estimated costs) = $36,192.00 credit.
SW Wall Street, at 39% of $95,794.00 (estimated costs) = $37,359.00 credit.
If you have any other questions, please let me know.
i-%NV%briarMcwesponaercevibraryN 11901-Gwary4if-aus.doc
RA
New Tigard Library Construction Committee
Meeting Notes
Wednesday November 28, 2001 Attachment 2
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. The Committee members present were: Kathy
Sleeger, Lonn Hoklin, Brian Douglas, Curtis Tigard, Joyce Patton, and Elaine Heras.
Staff present were Bill Monahan, Gus Duenas and Margaret Barnes.
Chairperson David Chapman asked the Committee to review the meeting notes from
the November 5 meeting. A motion was made by Kathy Sleeger and a second by Joyce
Patton to approve the notes. The Committee approved the notes.
City Manager Bill Monahan updated the Committee on the negotiations with the
property owner. Gus Duenas and the City Attorney are scheduled to meet with the
property owner on Friday, November 30 to continue the negotiations.
There was discussion about the access road being placed at the south end of the
property. This road would provide access to the library, and in the future, allow for
access to Hunziker Street from Hall Blvd. Bill Monahan spoke about the formation of a
Local Improvement District (LID) to extend the access road to connect with Hunziker
Street. Bill clarified for the Committee the bond measure would include the purchase of
the land, pay for a signal light and a 3/At" street improvement of the proposed new road.
The LID to extend the access road to connect with Hunziker Street is a separate project
from the construction of the library and would not be included in the bond measure.
There was discussion concerning when the bond measure recommendation would be
presented to the City Council. It was suggested that at the December 18 meeting of the
City Council both the option and the bond measure would be ready to be presented. Bill
talked about the public information campaign and with the School District going in May
that there is an opportunity to work together. Councilor Patton expressed concern
about the ability to have a positive turnout in May given the shorten time frame that the
PAC will have to advocate for the bond measure. She also stated that with the
information campaign so far that awareness in the community is starting to develop
about the proposed new library.
Curtis Tigard had a question about when the next transportation bond would be on the
ballot. Bill responded that it is likely that it would be on the ballot in two years. Bill also
spoke about the opportunity the Committee has to tell the story of the library. There
was discussion about other possible bond measures that will be on the ballot both in
May and November.
City Engineer, Gus Duenas reviewed the project cost estimates with the Committee. He
explained the possible Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) credits that may be available and that
some of the development fees for this project may also be waived. Bill suggested that
at the study session of the City Council on December 11 there would be a preliminary
discussion of the total project cost and the recommended bond measure. There was
Ila
Attachment 4
Ballot 'T'itle
New Library Construction - May 21, 2002
CAPTION
Tigard Public Library General Obligation Bond Authorization
OUESTYON
Shall City issue $13,000,000 of general obligation bonds to finance
property acquisition, design, construction and furnishing of new library?
If the bonds are approved, they will be payable from taxes on property
ownership that are not subject to the limits of sections 11 and 11 b,
Article XI of the Oregon Constitution.
SUMM,4RY
This measure may be passed only at an election with at least a 50
percent voter turnout, This measure would authorize the City to issue
general obligation bonds not to exceed $13,000,000. If this measure is
approved, proceeds would be used to pay for the acquisition of
property, designing, building and furnishing a new library of
approximately 47,000 square feet, and provide parking and related
street improvements. Bond proceeds would also pay incidental costs.
Located near SW Hall and O'Mara, the new library would include more
space for books, seating and study areas, a community meeting room
and better handicapped access than the existing library on Hall
Boulevard that it would replace. The bonds would mature in not more
than 20 years. The estimated initial annual property tax rate is
estimated to be approximately $0.31 per thousand and is expected to
decrease over the life of the bonds as assessed values rise and new
properties are added to the City. The City and the Library Foundation
plan to seek additional funds from foundation grants and donations to
augment the funds raised through this bond measure.
1
Attachment b
UPDATE ON
PROPOSED NEw
TIGARD LIBRARY
TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY-
A LOOK AT THE PAST,
PRESENT...
AND FUTURE.
FIFTEEN YEARS IN CURRENT LOCATION
1' 1963: Library established.
1986: Library open at current location with
i 11,000 square feet
i
1986
2001
1
GROWTH
As the population of Tigard has grown, the
library has Increased services to meet citizen's
needs.
120000
100000
eo00o
60000
e 0000
70000
0
PoPUleOOn Gene ROW* Pnotems Spuere Feel
Meleble 0-b- ORered
01986 ®2000
MANNING FOR
TOMORROW'S LIBRARY
► Grace T. Houghton and Neva Root
bequests to the library. (1999)
► New facility recommended. BML Architects
contracted for a 424 studyr needs analysis,
building program and site selection. (2000)
► Construction Committee Recommendations (1001):
- 47,000 sq. ft two-story library
Site for new library
. sn:.
11 it
T E. 1I- . AR ~
APPROVED SITE
2
ARCHITECTURAL MODEL
OPPORTUNITIES FOR
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Community Presentations
Question of the Week
Site Master Plan
Surveys
PART OF THE COMMUNITY
The Library: "Stepping stones and foundation for an
educated society."
-Curds Tigard
3
oil
FOR CHILDREN
r
*IS•J w.,..r air rr.
W CrYM11r..~J
hw~~Awk.OAli~i 1..1
TfY~~'-frrri Ml
FOR TEENS
nr..r.r l.. C..rw
o~WrMl
C_.. W\E-a-INN
1N1
FOR ADULTS
!Pa-rrr 1
The number of programs provided for
citizens has increased 27S% since 1986.
4
1, jillj~jp INS
~~ii 11111 pi Im p:1
COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT
Volunteer opportunities at
the library
A LOOK AT THE FUTURE:
I
FRONT ENTRANCE VIEW
5
POSSIBLE INTERIOR
FURNISHINGS AND
FINISHES FOR PROPOSED
NEW TIGARD LIBRARY
xsr
Main Aisleway. Views of ceiling, carpet,
natural and ambient lighting, tables and chain.
j
Detail of Lobby Artwork
d
ROOM-
a
r
F
o~ turnishtngsDetail of carpe
t tite and W
r
Q.
ttotin4.
y Detatt 01 shelving and na
s } .
,portcs stations,
tnte
p1aM Aisleway showing and nassyral views
quiet study
Yp
e'
Information Desk with artwork In background.
s~.i; l I
w
l•v
a
Detail of Quiet Study Area.
NEW TIGARD LIBRARY
CONSTRUCTION
COMMITTEE
RE -"OMMENDATION
► Bond Measure for $12.5 to $13 Million
► May 21, 2002 Ballot
► Construction of New Tigard Library
f ,
1
INFORMATION
To schedule a presentation for your
neighborhood or organization with our Library
Construction Committee, please contact
Library Director Margaret Barnes.
Phone: 503.639-4171, ext 263 _
Email: margaret@ci.tigardor.us
PROJECT UPDATES
f.
1 3
wwwxi.tigard.orms
TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY-
HAS SOMETHING FOR
EVERYONE!
~d
9
Cathy Wheatley - No on proposals for library and annexation Do not increase taxes at this time Page 1
From: <StuByron@aol.com> J `0
To: <mayor@ci.tigard.or.us>, <brianm@ci.tigard.or.us>, <kens@ci.tigard.or.us>,
<craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, <joyce@ci.tigard.or.us>
Date: 12/18/01 3:02PM
Subject: No on proposals for library and annexation. Do not increase taxes at this time.
I am not in favor of the Tigard Library Expansion nor the possible annexation
of Bull Mountain at this time. With the unemployment rate in Oregon as the
highest in the nation, with the proposed revenue cuts to schools from the
state of Oregon, Tigard should be doing what it can to not increase the taxes
for the residents of Tigard at this time, but should be looking at places to
decrease the taxes. Proposing the Tigard Library Expansion and the possible
future annexation of Bull Mountain would increase my taxes.
I would urge the council to maintain the status quo and look at ways to help
out the people of Tigard, not hinder them with more taxes.
Thank you
Stu Byron
FTRANSMITTAL
Date December 17, 2001
Number of pages including cover sheet 3
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: Cathy Wheatley
Co: Co: City of Tigard
Fax Fax 503-684-7297
Ph (503) 639-4171, Ext. 309
SUBJECT: Correction to Proposed Resolution - Library Ballot Title
MESSAGE:
You received in your Council mail packet several items for the December 18, 2001 City
Council meeting. One of the items you will be reviewing is the new libary proposed ballot
title resolution for Agenda Item No. 6. 1 am sending you a replacement resolution
(Attachment No. 3 for the packet materials for Agenda Item No. 6) with this fax. The
primary change was to show the dollar amount is now $13,000,000 - it should have been
changed from $12,550,000 throughout the resolution. I also made some other changes
for consistency to reflect the latest wording proposed by staff and the City Attorney's
office.
i
1AENOVAX.DOT
Attachment 5
DRAFT
Explanatory Statement
Voter approval of this measure would allow the City of Tigard to issue up
to $13,000,000 in general obligation bonds to build a new library. The bonds
would finance the costs of acquiring property and designing, building and
furnishing a library near S.W. Hall Blvd. and O'Mara St. to replace the existing
City library.
In 2000, the Tigard City Council created the New Tigard Library
Construction Committee composed of citizens and city officials to assess the
need for a new library. The City Council also authorized a Needs Analysis
Report. Based on the findings of that report, the Committee recommended the
construction of a 47,000-square-foot facility to accommodate the present and
future needs of the community.
The current library was built in 1986. During that year, the Library staff
circulated 147,000 items and answered 5,000 reference questions. In 2000,
library users checked out 607,000 items---a 313 percent increase in 14 years.
The number of reference questions answered rose to 43,000-a 760 percent
increase. During 15-year period since the present facility opened, the Internet
has changed the way people seek information and the way libraries provide it.
Today, computers utilize floor space that the Library once used to house
materials. The number of people attending library programs grew from 4,000 in
1986 to 15,000 in 2000-a 275 percent increase.
In addition to more space for books, seating and parking, the proposed
new library would include a community meeting room with 170 seats, a separate,
enlarged children's area, quiet study spaces, additional space for computers, a
drive-up book drop, a quiet reading room and distinct areas for technology
training. The new library would be located in a natural setting.
If this measure is approved, the bonds would be repaid over 20 years or
less. The estimated initial annual property tax rate would be approximately $0.31
per thousand. For example, it is estimated that the owner of a $200,000 home
would pay approximately $62 a year or $5.16 per month during the first year.
That amount is expected to decrease over the life of the bonds as assessed
values rise and new properties are added to the city. This measure's funds
would not be used to increase the library staff or fund the operation of the library.
The City has received two bequests that will be used to defray some
costs of the new library. The City and the Library Foundation, an independent
non-profit organization, also plan to seek additional funds through grants and
donations to augment the funds raised through this bond measure if the measure
is passed.
A model of the library project is available for viewing in the Library.
Agenda Item No.:
Meeting of: December 18, 2001
Packet Materials for
PUBLIC HEARING ON A BALLOT
MEASURE FOR THE MAY 21, 2002,
ELECTION FOR GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS FOR A NEW LIBRARY.
will be available on Friday, December 14, 2001
Contact the City Recorder's Office at 503-639-4171
for more information
AGENDA ITEM
FOR AGENDA OF 12/18/01
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Ti and Central Business District Associat n Tr e i htin U date
PREPARED BY: J. HendM DEPT HEAD OK W. MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE OUNCIL
Quarterly update to Council on Tigard Central Business District Association (TCBDA) activities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
N/A
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The President of the TCBDA will provide an update of recent community events sponsored by the TCBDA -
Halloween and the tree lighting ceremony at Liberty Park.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Community Character & Quality of Life - Community Events, #1 - Develop overall approach for sponsoring
community events that establishes balance among popular or traditional standing events, requests for support of
new events and limited City resources.
ATTACHMENT LIST
i N/A
+ FISCAL NOTES
+
N/A
i
K IN milli 1111111§1
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF December 18, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Annexation Policy Discussion for Bull Mountain Area.
PREPARED BY: Julia Haj_duk p 1~ F' DEPT HEAD OK /A"011TY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Discuss policy issues of individual annexations on Bull Mountain and provide staff guidance
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Review attached memo and provide Staff with direction for future annexations on Bull Mountain.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Staff previously raised the issue that Council needs to consider how they want to deal with individual
annexation requests prior to a final decision on whether to pursue annexation of all or a portion of Bull
Mountain. The City Council received a memo from staff in their last newsletter which provided a summary of
several upcoming annexations and the City's current policy regarding several identified issues. The memo is
attached for Council's review. It is anticipated that a general discussion can be started, which will help provide
staff with direction on the following key policy questions:
• Should Staff continue processing annexations under the current policies or take a more aggressive approach
such as annexing adjacent properties?
• Do we allow annexation of land that is fully built out, thus providing no way to capture lost Park SDC?
• Do we allow annexation of land that does not make a more uniform boundary (thus making provision of
services more confusing)?
• Do we allow the annexation to create an island? Under any circumstances or on a case by case basis?
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Not applicable.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Growth and Growth Management Goal #2, Urban services are provided to all citizens within Tigard's urban growth
boundary and recipients of services pay their share.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: 12-07-01 Memo to Council
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
1A1rpln\julia\annexation/policy disucssion ais 12-18-01.doc
Attachment 1
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner
DATE: December 7, 2001
SUBJECT: Upcoming Annexations
At the November 20, 2001 City Council work session discussing the possible annexation of the
Bull Mountain Area, staff mentioned that there are several annexations that are currently in
process and will be brought to Council for a decision in the near future. Following is a brief
summary of the annexations that are in process:
Council # of Total area # of dwelling Total approved or
hearing date Parcels annexed units currently proposed # of
dwelling units
Pacific Crest January 8 7 28.8 acres 4 65 lots
Daffodil Hill January 8 1 3 acres 1 18 lots
Thornwood January 22 2 8.6 acres 2 59 lots
As we consider our interim annexation policy for annexation applications in this area prior to a final
decision on whether to pursue annexation of all of Bull Mountain, Council must consider several
issues: Is the property vacant? Is the property going to make a more uniform boundary or one
that make provision of services more confusing? Is the annexation going to create an island? Are
there properties adjacent which should be brought in at the same time, even if the property owner
is opposed? Following i~ a summary of the current policy on those issues:
Is the property vacant?
The City does not allow or disallow annexations based on whether the property is vacant or not.
Generally, annexation occurs because a property owner wishes to connect to sewer or to develop
a vacant or under-developed piece of property. The 3 annexations that will be coming to Council
in the near future are vacant/redevelopable parcels. There are a total of 7 dwelling units on all
three annexation proposals and a total of 40.4 acres. All 3 are recently approved subdivisions
conditioned to annex,. The total number of lots approved between the 3 subdivisions is 142. Once
annexed, the City will capture $232,880 in Parks SDC charges (based on rates in effect 12-7-01)
assuming all lots are developed. Because these subdivisions were approved, the projections for
Scenario One of the Bull Mountain Annexation Study included these lots.
Is the property going to make a more uniform boundary or one that make provision of
services more confusing?
Currently the City asks neighboring properties if they wish to join the annexation if their property
would create a more uniform boundary. It is rare that neighboring property owners have chosen to
join the annexations.
Is the annexation going to create an island?
The Council has indicated that they do not wish to make islands which could force annexation at a
later date if Council wished to initiate it. Council could, however, choose to change this policy in
order to force annexations or to create a more uniform boundary. It should be noted that one of
the proposed annexations coming to Council on January 8, 2002 (Pacific Crest Annexation) will
either create an island or Council will have to include a property that has not indicated they wish to
join the annexation. Staff has sent a letter to the property owner asking if they wish to join the
annexation. If they indicate they do, prior to the hearing, staff is prepared to make necessary
changes to the Ordinance and legal description. In addition, part of the same annexation includes
annexation of the BPA right of way. Council could decide to annex more of the BPA right of way
which would create an island.
Are there properties adjacent which should be brought in at the same time, even if the
property owner is opposed?
Currently the City does not annex any property that does not wish to annex. The City could,
however, take advantage of the double majority annexation method and include properties as long
they had a majority of the registered voters and a majority of the property owners in support of the
annexation. The Council will have to decide on the Pacific Crest annexation if they wish to do this
in order to avoid creating an island.
I: Irpln/julia/annexation/12-7-01 policy memo.doc
I
I
I
I
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF December 18, 2001
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Preliminary discussion and update on proposed local option levy for Washington
County Cooperative Library Services I '
PREPARED BY: Margaret Barnes DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK u -
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Preliminary discussion of proposed local option levy for Washington County Cooperative Library Services.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation is for the City Council to direct staff to continue to update Council on this matter.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In 1998, a new County tax rate was established for Washington County as a result of the passage of Measure 50.
As a result of this tax rate change a five-year plan was established to fund the operation of Washington County
Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS). By using the County's general fund and the Cooperative's reserve fund
this plan provided funding for the operation of WCCLS for FY 1999 through FY 2003. When the plan was
implemented it was understood that at the end of FY 2003 some other funding revenue such as a local option levy
might need to be evaluated.
The public libraries in Washington County are currently experiencing a significant increase in use of services and
resources by residents. Washington County Cooperative Library Services is analyzing the current and future
funding needs of the public libraries in the County to meet this growing demand for local library service.
Information on the financing of WCCLS was presented to the Board of Commissioners this summer to seek their
authorization for the staff of WCCLS to coordinate a needs assessment to provide additional information for
discussion of a possible local option levy. This information is being provided for the Council now because the levy
i proposal will be presented to the County Commissioners next month, January of 2002.
a
At this time, staff is prepared to answer questions on this process.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
3 N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
7i
Goal #2: A wide array of opportunities for life-long learning are available in a variety of formats and used by the
community.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Memo on the Proposed Local Option Levy for WCCLS
Public Library Revenue/Expenditures Detail
White Paper: Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) Financing
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Margaret Barnes, Director of Library Services
RE: Proposed Local Option Levy for WCCLS
DATE: December 14, 2001
C: Bill Monahan, City Manager
Summary
In 1998, a new County tax rate was established for Washington County as a result of
the passage of Measure 50. As part of the County's implementation requirement for
Ballot Measure 50, the Library Cooperative's serial levy was rolled into the County's
permanent tax rate of $2.25 per thousand, resulting in funding for the operation of
Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) being incorporated in the
County's General fund. A plan was established to fund the operation of WCCLS by the
County's general fund and the Cooperative's reserve fund for FY 1999 through FY
2003. At the time of the implementation of this plan it was understood that at the end of
fiscal year 2003 a new local option levy would need to be proposed or some other
funding revenue developed. General fund support for WCCLS under this plan has
increased an average of about 4% per year.
This means that in FY2003-2004, the WCCLS reserve fund will be expended down to
the planned 10% of operating budget level (As explained on page 2 of the White Paper).
It is clear that a different funding source needs to be developed to accommodate the
shortfall from the depleted reserve account. The WCCLS operating budget for FY 00-
01 was approximately $15 million.
The County general fund cannot absorb the necessary increase. An alternative funding
source to maintain library service needs to be identified or this service will be drastically
reduced. Throughout the County, individual libraries are experiencing an increased
demand for services and resources provided.
Information on the financing of WCCLS was presented to the Board of Commissioners
this summer to seek their authorization to coordinate a needs assessment to provide
additional information for discussion of a possible local option levy. This information is
being provided for the Council now because the levy proposal will be presented to the
Board of Commissioners next month, January 2002.
Highlights
• In July of 2001, a White Paper on WCCLS Financing is presented to the Board of
Commissioners.
• The Board of Commissioners directed staff of WCCLS to conduct a thorough needs
analysis in order to determine the level of funding needed to address current unmet
library service needs and projected needs through FY 2008.
• Summer and Fall of 2001, WCCLS staff working with the Cooperative Library
Advisory Board, the Library Directors' Board, member Cities and non-profit
associations of the Cooperative worked together to:
• develop the Needs Analysis;
• develop recommended projected funding levels needed for library service
through FY 2007-2008;
• develop proposal to forward to the Board of Commissioners in January 2002.
What WCCLS provides
• Principal Areas of Central Service Support provided to libraries
• Shared Automated Catalog
• Daily Courier Services
• Enhanced Reference Services
• Enhanced Youth Services
• Approximately 73% of the funding to operate public libraries is distributed through
the WCCLS budget making the WCCLS the primary funding source for public
libraries throughout the County.
• For the past three years, the City of Tigard has received over $1,000,000 annually to
assist with funding the operation of the library. This payment from WCCLS is based
on a three-year reimbursement formula and the agreement between WCCLS and
the City to share materials and services freely to any County resident.
With the increase in circulation and other services provided by the Tigard Library as well
as other public libraries in WCCLS, the capacity of central support services must be
evaluated and may need to be enhanced to provide adequate support to the individual
libraries.
Preliminary outline of the proposed local option library levy
The Purpose of the Levy is to:
• replace current revenue that comes from the WCCLS Reserve fund;
• fund current and projected unmet needs for library service.
• The Estimated Local Option Levy Total = $50,000,000 and is projected to average
$10,000,000 a year for the five-year period
• The proposed distribution of the levy for the five-year period of FY04-08:
• Distribution to Public Libraries $39,900,000 78%
• Central Services Support $11,000,000 22%
• Total Levy $50,000,000 100%
• Estimated tax rate per $1000 Assessed Valuation: $0.26
• Proposed date for this question to be placed on the ballot is 11/5/02
Directions from the City Council:
• Provide City Council position for staff presentation at the January 2002 meeting of
the Cooperative Library Advisory Board.
• Provide additional comment after direction is provided to WCCLS by the Board of
Commissioners.
• Develop a position for tfie City when more information is available.
Staff Assessment of the WCCLS Levy Proposal:
Clearly, for any member library of WCCLS the proposed levy is needed to recover the
funds, which have up until now, been supplied by the reserve fund. Tigard Library's
participation in the Cooperative has provided services for our citizens that we could not
have provided alone through shared collections, professional expertise and standards
and patron convenience. The Tigard Library has been a strong partner from the very
beginning of the Cooperative and Tigard citizens will be adversely impacted if a levy
does not pass.
Our concern is not the need for a levy, which is clearly evident, but the wisdom of such
an ambitious proposal at this crucial time for our economy. Our planning for a proposed
new library for Tigard takes into account the impact a bond measure will have on our
taxpayers. The guiding principle for the preparation of our Tigard City budget is
economy. We are trimming and adjusting where appropriate in an effort to be fiscally
responsible and to meet our obligations to the citizens to use tax dollars wisely. The
current WCCLS proposal may be overly ambitious in terms of distribution back for
individual libraries and the funding required for central WCCLS services. While the
Tigard Library strongly supports the need for a levy, we are looking to the Council to
provide a recommendation that will guide our discussions with the WCCLS staff, CLAB
board members and other Public Library Directors.
Public Library Revenue/Expenditures in Washington County - FYOO-01
FY00-01 State & Local Cooperative % of Revenue
Expenditures Revenue Revenue from Cooperative
Public Libraries:
Banks $62,355 $9,469 $61,216 86.60%
Beaverton $3,926,524 $1,018,569 $2,621,630 72.02%
Cedar Mill* $1,607,238 $99,413 $1,548,285 93.97%
Cornelius $172,347 $73,445 $106,489 59.18%
Forest Grove $613,112 $161,922 $451,190 73.59%
Garden Home $118,685 $10,059 $140,458 93.32%
Hillsboro Libraries* $3,479,398 $1,033,709 $2,522,177 70.93%
Sherwood $401,160 $194,975 $238,250 54.99%
Tigard $1,648,568 $424,576 $1,223,992 74.25%
Tualatin $751,498 $474,927 $424,679 47.21%
West Slope $351,111 $12,011 $346,180 96.65%
Wilsonville (for taxes collected in that city) $44,263
Total - all libraries $13,131,996 $3,513,075 $9,728,807 73.47%
Revenue from WCCLS includes PL payments, Ready to Read disbursments to community libraries,
Telephone Reference contract payment to BCL, Jail Library Service contract payment to HPL
*Some libraries have expenditures that are significant to their budgets and yet not common to all:
Cedar Mill rent; Tanasbourne rent; Hillsboro revenue and expenditures
do not include rent paid by WCCLS programs for space at TBL because it is expense in program below.
**Local funds for Tualatin include $72,961 from Clackamas County library levy.
Expenditures are actually 1% less than the total of funds from Coop. and State & Local Sources.
Other Cooperative funded Services & Activities:
Administration $382,450
Automation (actual minus passthrough revenue) $715,640
Courier (includes $44,087 for new large delivery van) $204,745
Metropolitan Interlibrary Exchange (MIX) $208,137
(MCL Reference $60,000 + MIX payments to MCL and LINCC)
Outreach (minus Jail Contract payment to HPL $12,500) $176,791
Reference (minus $59,064 Telephone Reference Contract) $270,001
with BCL and $60,000 MIX costs); includes $111,054 for shared databases
Youth Services (minus RTR to CML & GHL, and includes $101,530
Read Right Now grant expenses)
Total - Other Cooperative funded Services & Activities $2,059,294
Summary:
Total Cooperative Funds Expended/distributed: $11,788,101
Percentage of total expenditures from the Cooperative: 77.60%
TOTAL SPENT ON PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICE FY00-01: $15,191,290
FACoop Statistics\00-01 PL Expend
11/14/2001
White Paper
Washington County
Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) Financing
Eva CaIcagno, Manager
July 10, 2001
Mission Statement:
Washington County Cooperative Library Services exists as an agency of County government
to coordinate, contract for and/or provide a full range of library and information services to
all residents of the County. Libraries in Washington County work together to share
resources in a spirit of cooperation which goes beyond local boundaries in order to provide
excellent Countywide library sen~ice.
Contents
Executive Summary 2
The Roles of WCCLS and the Public Library Service Agreement Contractors in the
Provision of Countywide Public Library Service 4
What Does the WCCLS Do? 4
Who Are Public Library Service Agreement Contractors and What Do They Do? 5
What Is the Current Status of Public Libraries in the County? 5
WCCLS Funding as it relates to the County General Fund 6
WCCLS Funding History 6
Current Challenges 7
Recommendation 8
ATTACHMENT A: WCCLS Total Expenditures and Funding Sources 10
ATTACHMENT B: WCCLS Funding Distribution to Cities/Other Providers 11
ATTACHMENT C: WCCLS Five Year Funding Plan (FY99 - FY03) 12
ATTACHMENT D: WCCLS Funding Distribution History 13
r
Executive Summary
Overview
As the Board will recall, the Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS)
Manager recently initiated formal discussions with the Commissioners regarding long term
funding issues for the WCCLS. To summarize, the focus of this discussion is threefold:
1) Beginning in FY2003-04 WCCLS will need additional funding to support existin
service levels mainly because of the depletion of the WCCLS reserve.
2) Additional funding requirements to address expanding service demands have been
recently identified by our cities and other library service providers.
3) This report concludes that a five-year local option levy (FY2004 - FY2008) is probably
the only realistic option available to address these critical funding issues but that there is
still more work to be done to identify the additional funding needs identified by our
cities and other library service providers.
Background
As planned in the County's Ballot Measure 50 Implementation strategy in 1998', the
WCCLS "share" of the newly established County tax rate under Measure 50 was established
as follows: a) estimates were calculated of what it would take to continue funding for
existing WCCLS service levels for 5 years (FY1999 - FY2003); b) WCCLS reserve funds
available at that time were then applied to projected spending requirements with the
assumption that reserve funds would be spent down to 10% of the WCCLS operating budget
by the end of FY2003; and c), once spending requirements were estimated and reserve funds
applied, a general fund amount that was "needed to balance" the WCCLS budget was
determined. This became the basis for how annual general fund support was determined for
FYI 999 through FY2003. It was also assumed that at the end of this time period anew local
option levy might need to be evaluated. General fund support for WCCLS under this plan has
increased an average of about 4% per year with dollar amounts growing from $9.5 million
dollars in FYI 999 to approximately $11.1 million dollars by the end of FY2003.
Accordingly, the goal of reducing the WCCLS reserve down to 10% of its operating budget
will likely be realized by the end of the FY2003 fiscal year and replacement of these reserve
funds is estimated to be in the range of an additional $3.1 million (for a new total
requirement of about $14.2 million dollars) per year starting in FY2003-04 and gradually
increasing over the ensuing five years through FY2007-08. To date, the proposals for the
additional funding desired by our cities and other library providers for new service demands
have not yet been fully identified or specifically quantified pending Board direction or
validation of the use of a levy mechanism to fund these needs. Therefore, specific estimates
for these funding requirements are not included in this white paper.
Washington County Administrative Office, Implementing Measure 50 in Washington Court, March 15,
1998, p.16.
Page 2
White Paper Contents
Following the last discussion of this issue in a recent worksession, the Board requested
additional information before further direction is provided to staff. The purpose of this white
paper is to provide that information which includes: a) background information on the
Cooperative Library Services with a description of the current status of library service in
Washington County; b) an overview of how the WCCLS has been financed since its
inception and leading to the funding issues we have today; c), a recommendation that your
Board direct staff to proceed with the development of a draft local option levy proposal (for
the FY2004-FY2008 time period) for further Board consideration. This will addresses both
the reserve fund depletion issue and the increased service-demand issue from our library
service providers.
Once the Board has had sufficient time to review this report, an informal worksession item
will be scheduled to discuss these issues, address questions/concerns and receive your
Board's further direction.
Page 3
login MEN=
The Roles of WCCLS and the Public Library Service Agreement Contractors in the
Provision of Countywide Public Library Service
What Does the WCCLS Do?
Consistent with County 2000, the Cooperative Library Services provides funding,
coordination, and support for library services, but does not strive to be the primary provider
of public library service. Accordingly, the Cooperative has three major service responsibility
areas:
1. County taxpayer funds distributed through the WCCLS are the primary
funding source for Countywide public library service. Approximately 77% of the
funding for public library services in this County come from the Cooperative's
budget. In FY2001-02 that will be about $13 million. The remainder of the funding
comes from cities, the state, grants, interest income, fines and fees, and miscellaneous
fundraising by local libraries. Whether and how much additional funding a local
jurisdiction or non-profit association contributes to library operations is a matter of
local choice. The percentage of a local library's budget that comes from the
Cooperative varies from 52% in Sherwood to 97% at West Slope. (See Attachment
A.)
2. The Cooperative provides support services for member libraries. This includes:
• Daily Courier deliveries between libraries (currently over 115,000 items delivered
per month),
"Second level" Reference support,
• Interlibrary Loan (borrowing materials from outside the County),
• WILInet (7-day per week website support, library circulation system, Wide Area
Network, Internet access),
• Coordination and quality control of WILInet cataloging,
• Subscriptions to electronic databases,
• Metropolitan Interlibrary Exchange (MIX) Agreements with Multnomah and
Clackamas libraries to allow free use of neighboring libraries,
• Youth Services programs and support,
• Public information and Countywide promotions.
3. The Cooperative provides direct service to special populations. This includes:
• Outreach service to individuals who cannot get to a public library (about 700
people served),
• Administration of the West Slope Community Library (in unincorporated area,
will be transferred to Beaverton upon annexation),
• Outreach service to non-English speaking residents, especially the Spanish-
speaking community,
• Outreach to children in care,
• Jail library service (contract with Hillsboro),
• Encouraging the establishment of library service in under-served areas.
Page 4
off"
By way of perspective, approximately 80% of the Cooperative's budget is paid to public
library contractors and West Slope Community Library; the remaining 20% covers support,
outreach and administrative services.
Cooperative staff are located in four offices: Administration and Automation are in the
Juvenile Services Building; Outreach, Courier and Youth Services lease space from Hillsboro
in the Tanasbourne Library; Reference and ILL Services lease space at Multnomah County's
Central Library; and the West Slope Community Library is located on the grounds of Raleigh
Park Elementary School.
Who Are Public Library Service Agreement Contractors and What Do They Do?
Current contractors are:
City of Banks
City of Beaverton
City of Cornelius
City of Forest Grove
City of Hillsboro (operates two libraries plus Books By Rail Station)
City of Sherwood
City of Tigard
City of Tualatin _
Cedar Mill Community Library Association
Garden Home Community Library Association
In return for funding from the County, contractors agree to provide service to all County
residents no matter where they live, and to cooperate by sharing materials and services freely
between libraries. The current Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) expires June 30, 2002
and discussions are underway regarding updating and renewal. The IGA includes a formula
for distribution of funds to public libraries and is based mainly on circulation/library use.
Although the gross amount of money allocated to the pool of available funds (from the
County) has increased 6% annually for the last six years, funds have not kept pace with
significant increases in library use (circulation). This formula is constructed by WCCLS
members and is currently under review by the Cooperative Library Advisory Board. A
discussion of the formula criteria and the equitable distribution of funds are separate from the
overall funding discussion and are not included here. Samples of the current funding
distribution are included for your information. (See Attachment B.)
What Is the Current Status of Public Libraries in the County?
Washington County residents enjoy use of a very good network of libraries and services.
Approximately three out of four County residents have library cards. The annual circulation
per capita exceeds state and national averages. Circulation has increased 15% this year,
bucking national trends for stagnant public library use.
With the exception of the West Slope Community Library building, the Cooperative Library
Services does not fiend capital expansions or building programs. Contractors are responsible
for paying for new construction, remodeling or building expansions through local bond
measures or other fund-raising.
Page 5
s
Currently, member libraries are financing a wave of building projects to address population
growth. Only the cities of Banks and Cornelius are not actively planning building programs
at this time.
Current or recently completed building projects:
• City of Beaverton - New Library completed September 2000
• Cedar Mill Community Library Association - Expansion completed June 2001
• City of Forest Grove - Expansion projected for completion in October 2001
• City of Tualatin - Remodel completed July 2000
• West Slope Community Library - Expansion completed November 2000
Libraries in the building planning stages:
• Garden Home Community Library Association
• City of Hillsboro
• City of Sherwood
• City of Tigard
Past experience tells us that building new libraries or expanding current facilities will
dramatically increase library use. For example, the Beaverton City Library has experienced a
33% increase in gate counts and a 23% increase in circulation since opening the new library
last September. Knowing that nine out of eleven libraries will increase in size over the next
decade, it is inevitable that the Cooperative will be faced with a need to adjust the level of
funding to support library operations.
In addition to addressing the need for increased square footage, local libraries are also
investing in technology and staffing. Providing free, public Internet access is a major push
for public libraries, requiring investments in workstations and local area networks (not
covered by WCCLS Automation support), and staff training and expertise to manage the
technology and instruct patrons in use. Libraries are also trying to address the need for
bilingual staff, and services and collections in languages other than English.
The 6% annual increase in operational funding that the Cooperative has provided is not
enough to maintain status quo level of service, or address additional service needs.
WCCLS Funding as it relates to the County General )Fund
WCCLS Funding History
The Cooperative began as a demonstration project in 1974 with federal grant funding from
the Oregon State Library and was administered by the City of Beaverton. In 1976 the first
Countywide serial levy for library service passed and the Cooperative became an office of
County government as a special fund budget (did not receive general fund support). WCCLS
operated on serial levy funding mostly three-year levies through the passage of Ballot
Measure 50. The amount levied was based on needs identified in the Cooperative's Long
Page 6
Range Plan and covered estimated increases in library use, generally measured by
circulation.
In 1990, the Cooperative began levying rate-based levies. Due to large increases in the
County's assessed value in the early `90's, WCCLS accumulated a substantial reserve fund,
totaling about $8 million by FY1998-1999. The last serial levy passed in 1996 at a rate of
36¢ per $1000. As an aside, the Cooperative has historically experienced a high level of
success at the polls. The 1996 levy passed with 65% approval in an election with over 50%
voter turnout.
As part of the County's implementation requirement for Ballot Measure 50, the
Cooperative's serial levy was rolled into the County's permanent tax rate of $2.25, (the
WCCLS permanent tax rate at the time, 36¢, equaled 16% of the permanent rate). As part of
the implementation process, the County worked with the Cooperative Library Advisory
Board to develop a five-year financial plan for FY1999-FY2003. This implementation plan
included spending down the Cooperative's reserve fund to approximately 10% of operating
expenses over the five-year period and balancing the needed resources with general fund
support. While still considered a special fund, WCCLS now receives the majority of its
funding from the general fund. At the time, the Board of Commissioners agreed to an annual
increase in transfers of 3.75%, but WCCLS actually received an average of 4%. (See
Attachment C.)
Currently, the amount of general fund support has risen to the point where it roughly equals
the amount of money that would have been collected under the WCCLS levy if still operating
under a separate serial levy.
Current Challenges
Beginning in FY2003-2004, the Cooperative's reserve fund will be expended (down to
slightly more than 10% of its operating budget). Because of the planned depletion of these
reserve funds, the general fund amount that is "needed to balance" the WCCLS budget will
increase substantially to offset the unavailability of further allocations from the reserve.
More specifically the general fund allocation would need to increase 28%, or $3.1million
more, to a total of $14.2 million, unless another funding source is identified and developed.
(See Attachment Q.
Obviously, the County general fund cannot absorb this increase, and therefore, an alternative
funding source for this new requirement needs to be identified or this popular service will
need to be drastically curtailed.
Finally, as described earlier in this report, the WCCLS providers are experiencing increasing
demands for library services across the board. They have recently initiated discussions with
member libraries and with Washington County officials about these funding challenges. With
the advent of the reserve depletion issue now at the forefront, WCCLS members want to also
include service expansion issues into the overall funding discussion.
Page 7
In sum, the County faces two key challenges at this juncture: 1) the need to replace the
depleted library reserve funds, and 2) the need to address funding levels for increased
service demands being faced by our service providers.
Recommendation
In light of the above issues, staff recommends th~4 the Board consider authorizing staff to
take the next critical steps. These steps would include the development of a local option levy
proposal for further Board consideration. This levy proposal would be targeted at addressing
the funding needed to replace the WCCLS reserve's depletion, and systematically evaluate
and propose options for addressing WCCLS service needs that cannot be addressed within
the current funding levels.
During previous discussions, logical questions have been raised by the Board about levy
alternatives such as obtaining private funding (grants, foundations, etc.) to supplement
general fund support. These alternatives although attractive, are not likely to be very feasible
mainly because of the size of the funding issues ($3 million a year to replace the reserve, plus
additional funding the Board may consider). Also, because the Cooperative is not the
primary library service provider per County 2000, patrons are encouraged to identify with
their local library service providers. Several Washington County public libraries have
established foundations to raise money for operations and building-programs. If the County
were to begin aggressive private fund-raising, we would be competing directly with our
service providers for patronage.
To further illustrate the need to adjust current funding levels, it's important to note that the
Cooperative has not asked the voters for money for five years. By skipping a levy cycle
(without BM50 the WCCLS would have sought renewal of its levy in 1999) the opportunity
was missed to adjust the base level of funding paid to contractors to address service
improvements and increases in the cost of doing business. For example, in 1990, the Public
Library Service Agreement payments increased 41% from the previous year; in 1993 they
increased 47%; and in 1996 they increased 19%. (See Attachment D.)
If the Cooperative and the County were to pursue development of a local option levy
proposal, two immediate issues would need to be addressed in order to determine a proposed
levy amount:
1. Clarify the amount needed to replace the depleted WCCLS reserve for the five-year
period FY2004-FY2008 and determine the amount of general fund support to be provided
during this time period.
2. Perform a .needs analysis to determine the level of funding needed to fund increasing
service demands beyond current base funding levels.
Page 8
Identify level of General Fund Support
While there was no legal mandate to continue support for library service after BM50 rolled
the Cooperative's serial levy into the general fund, the County has honored that commitment
and sentiments have been expressed by Commissioners and the Budget Committee that the
County continue to do so. Staff recommends that the Board agree on an annual level of
commitment for the five-year period FY2004-FY2008. This could continue the Board
adopted 3.75% annual increase, set another annual percentage increase, or allow the amount
to "float" with the annual increase the County experiences (3% statutory increase, plus new
construction and exception growth).
Perform Needs Analysis
The Cooperative Library Services has not yet conducted a systematic needs analysis to
determine what level of funding is desired to address the needs of library contractors and of
central support and outreach programs. Informal discussions have been held with the
Cooperative Library Advisory Board, the Library Directors' Board and the City/County
Managers' group. All see the need to increase the base level of funding, due to the tightening
funding levels libraries will be experiencing in the next fiscal year, and current and
anticipated levels of growth. It has also been suggested that the levy would contain some
level of funding for the Regional Arts and Culture Council (RACC), and the needs analysis
would include discussions with these partners.
If the Board of Commissioners were to authorize a local option levy, staff would conduct a
needs analysis with participation from member libraries to determine an appropriate funding
level. This would be based on population growth estimates, analysis of current and desired
services, and statistical projections of library use over the five-year period.
After the needs analysis is completed, the difference between the desired funding level and
the general fund commitment would identify the levy amount needed. From discussion with
library and city constituents there is a desire to adjust the level of funding, but to keep the
levy amount rather modest, for example 10-20¢ per $1000 of assessed valuation. (A levy of
10¢ would raise approximately $23 million over five years, and 20¢ would raise
approximately $46 million.) There is a desire to maintain the majority of funding from the
general fund, perhaps 60 - 75%, and to balance additional needs with levy monies.
If authorized to proceed, WCCLS staff would coordinate the needs' assessment, develop a
draft levy proposal, and return to the Board during the fall of this year with a draft levy
proposal, levy approval process, and timeline.
Page 9
ATTACEMNT A: WCCCLS Total Expenditures and Funding Sourtres
(Sample from FY1999-00)
Use of Funds Source of Funds
City and Total Non-County % of Rev
Community Expenditures Revenues WCCLS Funds Total Revenues From
Libraries WCCLS
w x eaW °
ra=n ; 1' 85.9
Banks {~~fQj>1y$9 9,212 $56,309
Beaverton $1,171,267 $2,492,167 3yy 68.0%
Cedar Mill y 4$a $69,747 $1,425,813 r ~ sy 95.3%
361 . x 69.4%
Cornelius A ~$49,173 $111,
90 TY 76.0%
BR 57 53,7
Forest Grove $143 ,1 $4
Garden Home x1 $10,000 $102,795 ~ 91.1%
Hillsboro $1,068,941 $2,428,258u„ 69.4%
Sherwood ''3;63f '7 $202,043 $217,220SC3 { 51.8%
Tigard $328,077 $1,254203279.3%
Tualatin $327,630 $4542305 58.1°l°
.;.t~~';~ y k : x, y.,, •
West Slope $10,983 $351.857 97.0%
73.4%
"7,907
$122Z41,010 $3,390,230
Other
Cooperative 0~~ue Revenue WCCLS Funds
Services
Central Admin $552,986 $0 0.0%
Information Svs $89,203 $629,181 87.6%
ery 1 $2,568 $144,323 98.3%
Delive Svs
1-4
v
Inter-Lib Exc4g $0 $103,761 100.0%
Outreach s, '#r $521 $137937 1z~s 99.6°/
t.. $22,083 $227
Reference ,710 91.2%
$38,07 $46,565 oath Sys z 54.7%
$1 455 $705,978 _$1,2892477 ' "a 64.60
Includes WCCLS Departmental Revenues
i
i
'Source of Non-County data: Oregon State Library Statistical Reports, 1999-00.
FY00-01 data is the most current full year available from the State Library at this time.
i
Page 10
ATrACHMIENI' B: WCCLS Funding Distribution to Cities/Other Providers
2001-02 2001-02 2001-02 2001-02
Circulation Coll. Expend. Open Hours Vols. Added
Payment Payment Payment Payment Total
Banks $50,412 $1,098 $15,760 $5,019 rr7 , _c. 9`
Beaverton $2,602,331 $84,514 $23,290 $65,631 `'£'lih
Cedar Mill $1,505,148 $34117 $23,290 $34 567 ,1 2;
Cornelius $77,535 $1,014 $15,760 $3,713;-r
Forest Grove $386,432 $16,489 $15,760 $22,402x'..
Garden Home $149,267 $2,329 $15,760 $4,514 x
Hillsboro $2,538,137 $99,026 $23,290 $99,474 V
Sherwood $237,146 $8,304 $15,760 $9,899
Tigard $1,109,817 $32,446 $23,290 $33,706 , f,~l959'
Tualatin $389,898 $18,813 $15,760 $16,655
8~~,1[Z6'
West Slope $313,967 $'x,070 $15,760 $9,640 «~i437'
TOTAL
FY01-0J PL All $10,174,010
Wdsomdlle Pays $46,919
Circulation % 92%
Coll. Expend.% 3%
Vols. Added% 3%
Open Hours% 2% +
Page 11
ATrACffi6MNT Q WCCLS Fide Year Funding Plan (FY99 - FY03)
1 2 3 4 5
FY98-99 FY99-00 FY00-01 FY02 FY03 FY04
Actual Actual Est. Final Projected Projected Projected
RESOURCES
$eginning Balance $8,030,340 $7,975,474 $6,962,095 $5,589,616 $3,801,832 N._
Depmtamental Rv $529,687 $637,894 $574,154 $583,888 $440,000
GF Transfer $9,486,750 S9,705,764 510,118,259 $10,588,758 511,118,196
Delinquent Taxes $225,607 $78,979 $30,400 $15,200 $7,600
TOTAL R19S $18,272,384 $18,398,111 $17,684,908 $16,777,462 $15,367,628
1f~~b wf 7 3*, Y;
EXPENDITURES
s s,ye: X.
Personal Services $1,136,492 $1,226,688 $1,398,282 $1,565,811 $1,659,760
Materials and Svs $467,420 $1,074,139 $1,104,990 $1,282,307 $1,281,099
Transfer to Libraries $8,538,161 $8,752,650 $9,298,649 $9,874,492 $10,466,962
Capital Outlay $67,150 $218,728 $193,800 $104,582 $75,104
Other Expenses $0 $0 S4 $0
Transfers $0 573,943 $0 $0 $0 a F`}d~n ~ ,y
Interfund Expenses $87,686 $89,868 $99,571 $148,438 $154,376 j h
Total Oper Exp $10,296,909 S11,4~6,016 $12,095,292 $12,975,630 $13,637,309
Contingency $5,589,616 $3,801,832 $1,730,328
TOTAL EXP $10,296,909 $11,436,016 $17,684,908 S16,777,462 $15,367,628
*Includes Wilsonville Vl > w'"' w
Ending Balance 57,975,475 56,962,095 55,589,616 $3,801,832 S1,730,328
~ c aa9 S~t°ev:
Aiirioal Intr~asp is G~' c f 5219 U1~! X412,495 S47Q~~ x,,5329 438: ' ; 53,~►57
s/o ~yL fir`~Z'3%
;.~..i+.ti l,s w^k. «..~t. A~:v_d~,..- _e, +,t4«kts :J ° pit }
4
Page 12
ep
ATif'ACffiaNT D: WCCLS Funding Distribution History
Public Ubrrary Services Agreernent Funding Distribution History FY1985 to Present
Amount
Year Distributed % Change Cots
1984-85 $1,407,123
1985-86 $1,669,378 18.64%
1986-87 $1,630,633 2.32% "Share the shortfall"
1987-88 $1,852,773 13.62% New levy
1988-89 $2,034,571 9.81%
1989-90 $1,992,886 2.05% "Share the shortfall"
1990-91 $2,802,720 40.64% Rate based levies began; incl. Make Whole.
1991-92 $3,167,893 13.03% incl. Make Whop.
1992-93 $3,611,308 14.00% incl. Make Whole.
1993-94 $5,304,542 46.89% New levy; incl. Make Whole & Reef. grant.
1994-95 $5,749,051 8.38% incl. Make Whole.
1995-96 $6,306,540 9.70% incl. Make Whole.
1996.97 $7,514,545 19.15% New levy; end Make Whale.; reef grant & equipt, open hrs -
1997-98 $8,084,307 7.58%
1998-99 $8,618,033 6.60% BM50 implenmtation began.
1999-00 $9,096,591 5.55% New PLEA; 92,3,3,2% formula.
2000-01 $9,642,386 6.00%
2001-02 $10,220,929 6.00%
17.15% Average annual dollar increase, 1990-2000.
5.87% Average annual circulation increase, 1990-2000.
Amount also includes any funds distributed to Wilsonville.
Until Ballot measure 50, a new PLSA began with a new levy cycle.
Until 1993, the PISA was called the Non-Fee Access Ate.
Page 13