City Council Packet - 08/13/2002
CITY OF TI D
G®N
N
tORE
TIGA D CITY COUNCIL
FETING
AUGUST 13, 2002
COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED
H: JEANNIETOCS\CUK77
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
Revised 8/7/02
p-WA ",M1 .1 Tflxf,
++r1 xYYY~1t 1y~~.Cb{~'f cry y R~~
y rLr,~,~;~a;~.+1' CITY OF l'IG/~RD
+ ~2r # OREGON
~r~'' t~~
y 2 rs9 t lS "+1ar'7 f'i};5.,, i, F
Jxe
g~,r1/ .r~ tT 4~~JaTf~~;G~~~1'(7p.~]Tt 'S'am. g c
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s).
If no sheet is available, ask t be
asked recognized
be two minutes or IessheLonger 'rnatters can be set
item. Visitor's Agenda items a
for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager.
Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present
by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard
in any order after 7:300 p.m.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be
scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please
call 503-639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications
Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;
and
Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow
as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the
Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, x309 (voice) or 503-684-
2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - August 13, 2002 page 1
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 13, 2002
6:30 PM
® STUDY SESSION
> UPDATE ON THE URBAN SERVICES AGREEMENT
> UPDATE ON VARIOUS HUMAN RESOURCES ISSUES
Human Resources Director
> DISCUSSION ON STREET MAINTENANCE PEE CALCULATION
ADJUSTMENTS
EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to
discuss labor relations under ORS 192.660(1) (d). 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.
7:30 PM
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council at Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications ez Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
7:35 FM
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
7:40 PM
3. PROCLAMATION
• National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month, September 2002
COUNCIL AGENDA - August 13, 2002 page 2
7:45 PM
4. 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:
4.1 Approve Council Minutes for June 25 and July 9, 16, 23, 2002
4.2 Receive and File:
a. Council Calendar
b. Tentative Agenda
4.3 Approve Budget Amendment #1 to the Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget to
Transfer $10,000 from Parks Capital Fund Capital Improvements to the
Public Works Program for Completion of a Street Inventory - Resolution No.
02 -
4.4 Appoint Sharon Rollins to the Tree Board and Tricia Bull as Alternate to the
Tree Board - Resolution No. 02 -
4.5 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Reject Bid Proposals for the Construction of Gaarde Street, Sanitary
Sewer Reimbursement District No. 24, and 1211 Avenue, Sanitary
Sewer Reimbursement District No. 26
b. Award Contract for Construction of Carmen Street, Sanitary Sewer
Reimbursement District No. 25, to Dunn Construction, Inc.
C. Award Contract for the Construction of the Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Pavement Major Maintenance Program to Pro-Teck Construction, Inc.
d. Approve Change Order #4 for Cook Park Master Plan Expansion Phase
11
e. Approve Contract Modification for Architectural/Engineering Design
Services with CES/NW for the Cook Park Master Plan Expansion
Project
f. Approve Two-Year Electrical Services Contract Utilizing the
Washington County Contract
• 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.
7:50 PM
5. UPDATE ON THE TIGARD FESTIVAL OF BALLOONS
a. Staff Report: Administration Staff
b. Council Discussion
COUNCIL AGENDA - August 13, 2002 page 3
8:00 PM
6. DISCUSSION WITH STATE SENATOR GINNY BURDICK AND STATE
REPRESENTATIVE MAX WILLIAMS
a. Staff Report: Administration Staff
b. Council Discussion
8:30 PM
7. UPDATE ON THE PROPOSED LOCAL OPTION LEVY FOR WASHINGTON
COUNTY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICES (WCCLS)
a. Staff Report: Library Staff
b. Council Discussion
8:50 PM
8. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE
OF SURPLUS PROPERTY PURCHASED FOR ACCESS TO THE MENLOR
RESERVOIR
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Summation by Public Works Staff
C. Public Testimony
d. Staff Recommendation
e. Council Discussion
f. Close Public Hearing
g. Consideration by Council: Resolution No. 02 -
9:05 PM
9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
9:15 PM
10. NON AGENDA ITEMS
9:20 PM
11. 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
11. ADJOURNMENT
COUNCIL AGENDA - August 13, 2002 page 4
w
A G EN DA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS FOR REVIEW
August ,13 2002
The Study. Session 1s held In the Red Rock Creek Conference Room. Enter at the bark of Torun Hag aye
Coundl encourages Interested ddzens to attend al( or part of the :Ming. (f the number of attendees exceeds
the capadty of the Conference Room, the Coundl may move the Study Session to the TWm Hall.
• Study Session
> UPDATE ON THE URBAN SERVICES AGREEMENT
> UPDATE ON VARIOUS HUMAN RESOURCES ISSUES
9 Human Resources Director
> DISCUSSION ON STREET MAINTENANCE FEE CALCULATION
ADJUSTMENTS
• Administrative Items
- Request by Ed Sullivan for Conflict of Interest Waiver
Rail-Voludon Conference Information
- Water: Council-member Liaison
New Library Architect Update
• Executive Session: The Tigard City Council will go Into Executive Session to discuss labor
relations under ORS 192.660(i)(d). 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 maybe held for the purpose.of..taking '
any final action or making any flnai decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
i
i
i
I: W DM%CATFMCOUNCI L%CCUSTW20723. DOC
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,.whkh 1s closed to certain persons for deiiberadon on certain
matters.,,
Peimissible Purposes for Executive Sessions:
192.660 (1) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents,
if the body has satisfied certain prerequisites.
192.660 (1) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees* (unless affected person requests
to have an open hearing).
192.660 (1) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a'public hospital.
192.660 (1) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded to this, instance.)
192.660 (1) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations.
192.660 (1) (f) - Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from
public Inspection." These records are specifically identified in the Oregon
Revised Statutes. .
192-660 (1) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the
governing body is competing with other governing bodies.
192.660 (1) (h) - Legal counsel - Executive session are appropriate for consultation with
counsel concerning legal rights and dudes regarding current litigation or
litigation likely to be flied.
192.660 (1) (1) - To review and evaluate, pur-suant 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) (1) - Public Investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter, 293 wtith_
:
private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or,
liquidation of public investments.
192.660 (1) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board.
I:WDhACAThMCOUNCIUCCUST\020723.DOC
VrY ~ fl + ~ 4
aw 1 t {J1~ y1~r5~ Mb•~°d
Agenda Item No. 5.
Meeting of g ~-I OA
COUNCIL MINUTES
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 13, 2002
STUD'S SESSION
Meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.
Mayor Grif 1th's mother passed away recently and he thanked the Council and staff
for the beautiful flowers and kind words extended to him and his family.
> UPDATE ON THE URBAN SERVICES AGREEMENT
Community Development Director Hendryx reviewed this item with the City
Council. The renewal of the Urban Services Agreement will be before the
Council for approval on August 27, 2002. A memo to the City Council from
Mr. Hendryx is on file in the City Recorder's office outlining the issues to be
considered and noting that the agreement has been a benefit to the City.
Also coming together for Council review are the results of the Bull Mountain
Survey on annexation and the policy decision to be made on non-island
annexations. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Hendryx
confirmed that the policy on whether the County will collect parks system
development charges in the urban services area is still outstanding. City
Manager Monahan noted that staff has made arrangements to meet with
County officials on August 20 to discuss the SDC collection policy as well as
other matters. Councilor Scheckla requested updated information on the
number of homes built last year and the dollars that were lost because this SDC
collection was not done.
The Urban Services Agreement is currently in place under an extension to the
agreement term that will expire on September 9, 2002. Mr. Hendryx advised
if there are still issues that are outstanding, the Agreement could be extended
for another 120 days.
City Manager Monahan noted the need (citing the recent information obtained
from the Bull Mountain annexation survey) for the County to inform residents
about their position on annexation of urban developed areas.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -August 13, 2002 page 1
Milli
Mr. Hendryx advised that if the City proceeds with the annexation plan and
the Bull Mountain annexation question is approved at the November 2003
election, then this area would be on the City's tax rolls July 1, 2004. In the
event the voters are asked to consider annexation and then approve
annexation, the County has agreed to collect SDC's between November 2003
and July 2004.
Mr. Hendryx noted that if the Council approves the Urban Services
Agreement, that the City is not locked in for five years; there can be reasons
to reevaluate and renegotiate the Agreement.
Mayor Griffith and Councilor Dirksen questioned Section II.A.17. of the draft
agreement regarding street maintenance citing the decision to discontinue the
street maintenance component of the agreement. Mr. Hendryx will make sure
the language Is reviewed to make sure the intent of this section Is clear.
> DISCUSSION ON STREET MAINTENANCE FEE CALCULATION
ADJUSTMENTS
City Engineer Duenas reviewed this item with the Council. The street
maintenance fee ordinance and resolution are scheduled to come before the
Council on August 27, 2002, for final consideration. A packet of
information, which is on file with the City Recorder, was distributed to the City
Council for review. Mr. Duenas reviewed this information which included
letters received regarding opposition and concerns about the fee as well as the
proposed adjustments to the fee rates.
After Council discussion, It was determined this item would be removed from
August 27, 2002, City Council meeting. Further discussion on this matter
will be held either on September 10, 2002 (Council Study Session), or
September 17, 2002 (Council Workshop Meeting) depending on the City
Attorney's availability. The issues to be discussed include the legal question
raised as to whether the "fee" should be considered a "tax." Also to be
discussed is clarification on whether the street maintenance funds collected
would be used for right-of-way and road maintenance or just road
maintenance.
City Manager Monahan noted the need to get the word out to the public
about the structure of the street maintenance fee rates for commercial and
residents.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -August 13, 2002 page 2
There was discussion about the possibility of Washington County adopting
enabling legislation (county-wide) that would set the framework for each City
to adopt a street maintenance fee. It was clarified that this would not mean
that two fees (County and City) would be collected.
> ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
• Request for waiver of potential conflict of interest. City Manager Monahan
received a request from attorney Edward 1. Sullivan for a waiver of
conflict in order to assist Leon LeFebvre with a land use matter regarding
an outbuilding at his home at 15130 SW 150' on Bull Mountain.
Consensus of Council was to grant the waiver with the usual condition
that the waiver does not extend to Mr. Sullivan's representation in any
action beyond the local level at LUBA, the Circuit Court, or with any
other appellate proceedings.
• Council discussed whether a representative from Tigard should attend the
upcoming Rail-Volution Conference in Washington D.C. Consensus was
that as long as someone from the "west side" was attending the conference,
there did not appear to be a need for a Tigard representative at this time.
• Councilor Patton distributed to the City Council her letter of resignation as
Tigard City Councilor effective September 1, 2002. After discussion, It
was the recommendation of Councilor Patton and the consensus of Council
that Councilor Moore would become the Council liaison for water issues
and Councilor Dirksen would serve as the Council liaison for library issues.
Council noted that the liaison appointments would be revisited after the
November 5, 2002, election.
> UPDATE ON VARIOUS HUMAN RESOURCES ISSUES
Human Resources Director Zodrow reported the status of the recruitment for
the Chief of police. This will be a national recruitment and it is anticipated that
a new chief could be appointed by January 2003. Chief Goodpaster will be
involved in the recruitment process. City Manager Monahan advised that
there is a vacant Captain's position that will not be filled until after the new
Chief is appointed.
Ms. Zodrow advised that staff is reviewing the responses to the request for
proposals for a labor attorney. This matter will be presented to Council for
labor attorney selection at a September Council meeting.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -August 13, 2002 page 3
Mr. Monahan outlined the potential of establishing a "vacation donation"
program in the City. This would allow employees to donate vacation hours to
individuals who were ill or had to be away from work and did not have any
paid leave accruals to draw from. Council discussed the Importance of
employees to use at least two week of vacation a year. Mr. Monahan said that
staff would prepare some options for a program and revisit the matter with
Council at a future date.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:26
p.m. to discuss labor relations under ORS 192.660(1)(d). 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.
Executive Session adjourned 7:36 p.m.
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Mayor Griffith called the City Council at Local Contract Review Board meeting
to order at 7:45 p.m.
1.2 Council Present: Mayor Griffith; Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Patton, and
Scheckla
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications 8t Liaison Reports: None
1.5 Cali to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (No visitors testified.)
3. PROCLAMATION
® Mayor Griffith proclaimed September 2002 as National Alcohol and Drug
Addiction Recovery Month.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilor Dirksen advised he would like to consider the minutes separately since he
did not attend the July Council meetings. He indicated he would abstain from voting.
Councilor Scheckla requested Consent Agenda 4.5e. be pulled from the Consent
Agenda for clarification.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -August 13, 2002 page 4
Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the
Consent Agenda except for items 4.1 and 4.5e., which would be considered
separately.
4.1 Approve Council Minutes for dune 25 and July 9, 16, 23, 2002 (Considered
separately, see below.)
4.2 Receive and File:
a. Council Calendar
b. Tentative Agenda
4.3 Approve Budget Amendment #1 to the Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget to
Transfer $10,000 from Parks Capital Fund Capital Improvements to the
Public Works Program for Completion of a Street Inventory - Resolution No.
02-48
4.4 Appoint Sharon Rollins to the Tree Board and Tricia Bull as Alternate to the
Tree Board - Resolution No. 02 - 49
4.5 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Reject Bid Proposals for the Construction of Gaarde Street, Sanitary
Sewer Reimbursement District No. 24, and 1211 Avenue, Sanitary
Sewer Reimbursement District No. 26
b. Award Contract for Construction of Carmen Street, Sanitary Sewer
Reimbursement District No. 25, to Dunn Construction, Inc.
C. Award Contract for the Construction of the Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Pavement Major Maintenance Program to Pro-Teck Construction, Inc.
d. Approve Change Order #4 for Cook Park Master Plan Expansion Phase
11
e. Approve Contract Modification for Architectural/Engineering Design
Services with CES/NW for the Cook Park Master Plan Expansion
Project (Considered separately, see below.)
f. Approve Two-Year Electrical Services Contract Utilizing the
Washington County Contract
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
Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt
Consent Agenda Item 4.1. The motion was approved by a 4-0-1 vote:
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -August 13, 2002 page 5
Mayor Griffith - Yes
Councilor Dirksen - Abstained
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Patton - Yes
Councilor Scheckla - Yes
In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla (relating to Agenda Item
4.5e.), Public Works Director Wegner reported on the status of the Cook Park
Master Plan Expansion. The project is about 65 percent complete and is
expected to be finished on schedule in September. In response to Councilor
Scheckla's request that dumpsters be moved, Mr. Wegner explained why they
were placed in their current location. Mayor Griffith commented that the Park
"looks great." City Manager Monahan said plans are underway for a
ceremony (next spring) dedicating the Nicoll Athletic Fields in recognition of
brothers Jim and Dave Nicoll for their efforts on behalf of the community's
youth.
Motion by Councilor Dirksen, seconded by Councilor Patton, to approved
Consent Agenda Item 4.5e. 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
5. UPDATE ON THE TIGARD FESTIVAL OF BALLOONS
Event organizer Bruce Ellis reported that the 2002 Tigard Festival of Balloons was
successful. While attendance was down this year from last year, it was a good turnout
and the non-profit organizations did well with fundraising activities. He commented
that parking also went smoothly despite a number of changes and that a parking
shuttle should be seriously considered for next year. This was the last year for
television KGW Channel B as a sponsor; however, two other television stations L eve
shown intErest.
Mr. Ellis said plans are underway for next year's event.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -August 13, 2002 page 6
6. DISCUSSION WITH STATE SENATOR GINNY BURDICK AND STATE
REPRESENTATIVE MAX WILLIAMS
Senator Ginny Burdick and Representative Williams discussed current legislative issues
with the City Council. The Legislature will convene Into a fourth special session on
Friday, August 16, 2002, to determine whether to override the veto by Governor
Kitzhaber placed on two elements of a bipartisan budget package. Representative
Williams advised he plans to vote to override the vetoes while Senator Burdick will
vote not to override.
Issues discussed included:
• school funding problems and the fact that a budget is not in place with the
school year starting in a few weeks
• state economy and the problems experienced in the high tech industry
• land use rules and impacts on development
• local control of school funding lost with Ballot Measure 5 ("equalization");
resulting in downgrades to districts that have historically supported school
funding (which has happened to the Tigard-Tualatin School District)
• strong economy of the 90's had shielded the full Impact of Ballot Measure
5; now the effects are more evident
• the mandate to fund education must be met
• requested legislators to keep in mind local self-determination (local
governments) along with no unfunded mandates by the legislators on local
government
7. UPDATE ON THE PROPOSED LOCAL OPTION LEVY FOR WASHINGTON
COUNTY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICES (WCCLS)
Library Director Barnes and WCCLS Manager Eva Calcagno reviewed this agenda item
with the City Council. Public libraries in Washington County are experiencing
significant increases in use. In May 2002 Eva Calcagno, Manager of WCCLS, outlined
to the Washington County Board of Commissioners the projected funding needs for
public library services in Washington County over the next five years. Based on that
analysis, the Commissioners authorized the placement of a five-year levy for library
operations on the November 5, 2002, ballot. The fixed-rate levy would provide
approximately 70 percent of operating funds for public libraries throughout
Washington County. Ms. Calcagno's presentation was summarized on PowerPoint
slides; a copy of the PowerPoint presentation is on file in the City Recorder's office.
w
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - August 13, 2002 page 7
8. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE
OF SURPLUS PROPERTY PURCHASED FOR ACCESS TO THE MENLOR
RESERVOIR
a. Mayor Griffith opened the public hearing.
b. Assistant Public Works Director Koeilermeler presented the agenda Item with
the staff report reviewed by Property Manager Roy.
C. Public testimony:
• Mr. Barry Cook, 15350 SW Fir Tree, Tigard, Oregon, testified as a
proponent. Mr. Cook noted his Interest In purchasing the property and
mentioned the possibility of developing the property as a park. Council
members advised Mr. Cook to talk to staff to determine the potential
uses of the property since Mr. Cook indicated he had some questions
about how the property could be developed.
d. Staff recommendation was to authorize the sale of the subject parcel of land
as proposed In the resolution before the City Council. It was noted that the
amount in Section 5 (a) of the resolution should be $285,000. Also,
Section 5 (b) contains a typographical error in that "amont" should be
changed to "amount."
e. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt
Resolution No. 02-50 as amended to include the minimum purchase price of
$285,000 and to correct a typographical error (as noted above).
RESOLUTION NO. 02-50 - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY PURCHASED FOR ACCESS TO THE
MENLOR RESERVOIR.
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
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -August 13, 2002 page 8
11,111111110111 1 ffmm~
> STUDY SESSION CONTINUED
Council reconvened into a Study Session in the Red Rock Creek Conference Room to
hear an update from staff about the search for a new library architect. Five firms were
interviewed. The interview panel has selected two firms as finalists. Staff will now
work to select a finalist and then make a recommendation for Council consideration at
the August 27, 2002, City Council meeting.
9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None
10. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Not held
12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:32 p.m.
-L e
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
Attest:
hak 6A
yor, City 44 1 r
ate:U~
\\TIC333\US R\DEPTS\ADM\CATHY\CCM\020813.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -August 13, 2002 page 9.
I 11111,111111MINE10mi
-c
Page 1 of 1
I have been approached by Leon LeFebvre, who works as a homicide detective
for the Portland Police Bureau, but who lives on Bull Mountain, to see if I
could help him with a land use matter. As you both know, Bull Mountain is
generally unincorporated, but is the subject of an intergovernmental
agreement under which the City of Tigard administers the Washington County
Community Development Code and there is a common plan. Det. LeFebvre has an
outbuilding at his home at 15130 SW 150th in Tigard that he would like to
refurbish, enlarge, or replace. That effort may require a variance or some
other adjustment. He would like me to look at it and to speak with various
city and county officials on the matter and, perhaps, to file applications
on his behalf.
As you both know, our firm does bond work for both of you. I request, on
behalf of Det. LeFebvre, a waiver of conflict so that I may undertake this
work on his behalf. If you need more detail, please let me know. I look
forward to hearing from you.
Edward J. Sullivan
Preston Gates & Ellis
222 SW Columbia St., Suite 1400
Portland, OR 97201-6632
Phone: 503.228.3200
Fax: 503.248.9085
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00043.HTM 8/13/02
-MM I Room
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Councilor Craig Dirkse
FROM: Bill Monahan
DATE: July 26, 2002
SUBJECT: Rail-Volution Conference
Washington County Commission Chair Tom Brian recently suggested to Councilor Joyce
Patton that a Tigard City Council member should consider attending the Rail-Volution
2002 Conference in Washington, DC. Councilor Patton called me and asked me to gather
information on the conference and provide it to you for your review. Since you have been
working on the commuter rail/downtown issue, it seemed appropriate that if the city was to
send a delegate to the conference, you may be the appropriate person.
Attached is a copy of the conference brochure. Please note the conference is to be held in
Washington, DC, from October 3 - 6. The cost of the registration is $325. In addition, of
course, air travel, hotel costs, meals, and other expenses would be associated with the
conference.
The fiscal year 2002-03 budget does not include funding for this conference, however,
funding is available for the National League of Cities conference in Salt Lake City in
December. If the City Council determined that it would be valuable for you or another
member of the City Council to attend this conference, it is possible that funds could be
shifted from the funding set aside for the National League of Cities to this conference.
If you need additional information on the conference, please let me know. To obtain the
$325 registration price, registration is required by September 12.
It is my understanding that Commission Chair Tom Brian, or someone from Washington
County, will be attending this conference, therefore, materials from the conference will
likely be available to us should the city choose to not send a delegate.
aft
c: Mayor & Members of the Tigard City Council
1;VV DILLWEMOSNUVOR & CC12W2VWL-V0LUTI0N.D0C
~t^ r} :Alai- 2 tj } `'71.J1 ~ 5 ~J y
(fcC f i3 AV,T E
r } rStt `3ryi~.:?gY a~`3 } 1r rY ~`r' ~T
• s :it t{rC°~fu
1
rl
`l .
TT~
- t
~i
n I
tail -all
PIA AN
IN 1 1u. ® ®Bs
4 .1
-!e 4
~
A , I
r a i L- v o L u t i o n z o o z
1nves men S
s h a p i n q
r e T u r n s
October 3-6, zooz a Washington, D.C.
here's no better setting for an invigorating, practical discussion about creating
livable communities than our nation:b capital. Like the conference itself, the
Washington, D.C. region haA a great deal to offer. opportunities to meet directly with federal
decision-makers, a world-class tranAitsystem with a ridership increase of 28 percent during
the past three years, innovative public-private partnerships that have fostered a surge in
economic development opportunities, a rich tapestry of
cultural and hiAtorical opportunities, and a series of diverse
rew r e?
small communities facing the same challenges as many
otherAmerican cities. ® Rail-Volution zooz - our 8th
national conference - will feature innovative mindA from a
variety of disciplines, including developers, elected officials,
urban planners, transportation professionals, financiers,
„X- H . citizen groups, architects and others. Conference attendees
are guaranteed to take home a senAe of renewed energy, fresh
. ideaA and a portfolio of newstrategies that will serve as a
® Apringboard for new solutions. m Together, we'll learn and
t refine workable strategies for building more livable
communities. Share your knowledge and diAcover what other
cities and regions are doing. Invest your time, your energy, your
knowledge - your community will reap the benefits.
washinq*on, D.C.
RaiL-voLution 2002 focuses on investments - with its myriad
of meaninqs - and howthose investments can reap tangibLe,
innovative resuLts. a Here are some of the ways this year's
' conference wiLL help you expLore the issue of "investinq,
in your community.
The Reaourcee The Laud The Option
Learn what funding structures Development and market trends Effective livable communities
already exist, how to use them come and go, but the land itself have learned that the worst strate-
more strategically, and what new remains as a constant reminder gy is to tell people they must get
mechanisms may become avail- that we are its stewards. How do out of their cars. The wiser and
able. Discussions will focus on we ensure that smart growth more responsible policy is to
the basics of available resources, stays with the land and doesdt create appealing, workable
existing finance policies, incen- disappear if the development travel choices such as: walking,
tives that can be developed, and changes? How do we convince bicycling, buses, light rail, com-
yes, even the regulations that we people to invest in the greater muter rail, inter-city rail, and car
can institute. Learn how to piece community good by using land sharing. What are some strategies
together several small pots of wisely? that communities can consider
money into one larger pot. when investing the time, money
Become a wise investor for and political capital to provide
your community. The Partnernhipa travel choices? How do we make
More and more cities are learning sure those travel options work
that community buy-in, both in effectively with land-use decisions
The People terms of finances and consensus, and vice versa?
How do we, as advocates of livable must involve a blend of perspec-
communities, work effectively tives, backgrounds and expertise.
with citizens to hear their con- What are strategies for bringing
cerns, convince them that density together diverse ideas, beliefs,
isn't a four-letter word, and cultures, businesses, organiza-
together reach a community tions, agencies, and people - and
consensus? Hear from speakers - then smoothing the way so there
and talk with colleagues - about is a positive result?
how they have been successful in
motivating people to invest their
time and energy toward reaching
a common goal.
f~Wee
workshop topics
RaiL-voLution 2002 features more than 60 workshops,
coverinq a wide ranqe of topics. Here are just a few of the Tgpes of
topics that wiLL be covered. M DetaiLed information about specific
workshops wiLL be posted on the website (www.raiLvoLution.com)
as it becomes avaiLabLe. ■ workshop descriptions aLso
wiLL be outLined in the conference program.
Creating a een.ee of place and learn some viable marketing cars and relying solely on
Developing livable communities strategies such as providing transit and other alternative
requires much more than just the financial incentives and project types of transportation. Who are
requisite sprinkling of stations, phasing. these auto-advocates-turned-tran-
sidewalks and storefronts. A sit-trendsetters, and how do
truly livable, vibrant community we entice others onto the band-
possesses a sense of place and its Convincing a wagon? Also hear about an old
own self-contained character. reluctant public idea that is beginning to re-
Learn about urban design tools Nothing will blow your carefully emerge: the streetcar. How is
that can help paint that all-impor- calculated timeline out of the streetcar-oriented development
tant sense of place. Also hear water faster than a public that different from transit-oriented
from communities that have suc- doesn't see eye-to-eye with your development, and what are some
ceeded in accomplishing that goal vision for a transit-oriented proj- of its successes? And hear how
- whether their projects involved ect. How do you successfully mesh some big-box retailers are adopt-
infill, greenfield sites, public opposing viewpoints without ing a new "urban attitude" by
plazas, safety issues and more. sacrificing community goodwill placing their stores in smaller,
or a commendable project? bi-level, mixed-use developments.
Experience the tales of those who
if you build it, will have waged some hard-fought
they come? battles. Hear what worked and Forging atrong coalition
What happens if you build the what didn't. Learn strategies for It's no secret that the community
perfect TOD, but the market anticipating- and adjusting for - that coalesces together gets fund-
doesn't yet support your specific potential criticism or reluctance. ed together. The timing now is
location? Hear from investment particularly important, as the
analysts and developers about debate for reauthorization for
national marketing trends for 7i-ende in emart growth
TODs, explore projects that have As more communities learn the
overcome a questionable market, value of using land wisely, inter-
esting trends emerge. Learn how
some communities find that
commuters are abandoning their
r rrY
71
informative sessions
TEA-2i funds is well under way. debt-equity sources, and innova-
Learn who the major funding tive state and regional programs.
players are, how your community Remember that there is life
can partner with other organiza- outside of TEA-2i: learn how a
tions, where to go for new variety of programs can be used
' authorization strategies, and to help fund neighborhood
how flexible funding between revitalization.
programs can be used to their full
advantage.
A TOD for whom?
Affordable housing and high
Overcoming ob etacl" capacity transit advocates are nat-
Let's say your community has ural allies. Yet, we seem to speak
a stellar livability project on the different languages, operate sepa- '
drawing board, but you have a rate programs, and draw public
sinking feeling everyone won't and private funds from entirely
share your enthusiasm, at least different sources. Hence, we need
not right away. How do you rein to understand better our respec-
in potential obstacles before they tive goals to be successful in
stampede out of control? Learn serving our local communities
from experts who have been in and regions - including the most The role of hou,eing
the trenches as they discuss their vulnerable people in our commu- and traneit
successful - and failed - strategies nities. Learn about local, regional It's only natural that transit and
to campaign for local funding and national perspectives on the housing go hand-in-hand.
sources. Hear from developers short- and long-term impacts of Attractive housing options can
about how they convinced neigh- new transit stations and their make or break a TOD, and people
bors and businesses that infill accompanying development. want to live in mixed-use areas
can bolster an area. Find out how with everyday amenities close at
communities such as hand. However, there still are
Washington, D.C. have leveraged Walking toward livability obstacles to overcome. How can
mitigation efforts. The notion of walking isn't a new we pool our resources, whether
one. It's an old idea that is experi- public, private or both, so that
encing new energy, a revived pub
transit and housing complement
The ABCA of funding lic conscience, and a nod toward each other? What are examples of
Take a comprehensive look at the innovative thinking. Learn how innovative partnerships that meet
variety of fund sources and part- pedestrian-oriented development both redevelopment and transit
nerships that are being formed to can be most effective - whether goals? How do we ensure that
finance transit-oriented develop- it's the one-quarter mile surround- there is a diversity of housing
ment, including private and non- ing a central core's transit station types and prices in a mixed-use
profit organizations, traditional or the mixed-use projects in the area? Finally, how can we
suburbs. convince neighbors and finan-
ciers that affordable housing is
positive for the community?
J
I/P
MEN= I
m o b i L e workshops
What better way to see 1. Bike Washington 3. A Tale of Two Neighbors:
Explore Washington, D.C. while The New Convention Center
Washington, D.C. and the biking down the paths, boulevards and the Old Neighborhood
and side streets. This tour will Come see economic development
surrounding region than up *in ghlight the city's bike in progress. The new Washington
close and personal? The trails and routes and Convention Center, scheduled to
demonstrate their role *t0apIi,ation en in the spring of 2003,
conference offers a series the Washington region's is an extension of the
commuter network Host for this ongoing downtown revi-
of mobile workshops that event is the Washington Area effort and has
Bicyclists Association. been designed to link closely with
allows particfpants to see Sunday, Oct 6, 8 am - noon public transportation. Workshop
and visit various transit-ori- Cost: $3o (includes bike rental) participants will learn about the
controversy surrounding the proj-
ented projects. To participate ects - namely, that community
2. Remembering a leaders and activists have
in a mobile workshop, you Forgotten River. Reviving expressed concerns about gentri-
the Anacostia Waterfront fication. Come see first hand the
must pre-regi.ater and pay an Few visitors to the nation's capital District's largest public works
additional fee. Register by realize that Washington is project since the city was first
actually a waterfront city. Many constructed, as well as the con-
using the form on page 15. *Aenacostia ople know of the famous vention center's integration into
Potomac River, but our the urban core.
The conference also includes other river - the Thursday, Oct. 3, io am -12:30 pm
- is often forgot- Cost: $25
several self-guided tours. ten. This past year, a landmark
Check in at the mobile work- partnership among federal agen-
cies, local and regional govern- 4. Urban Renewal Gets a
shop area for tour descrip- ment agencies, and community Second Chance: A New
residents and activists helped Neighborhood in the Old City
tions, maps and directions. revive this forgotten asset and Site of one of the nation's early
revitalize the neighborhoods urban renewal efforts, the near
along the river corridor. This tour southeast neighborhood of
i will give participants the opportu- *Washingon has been an
nity to see the city from the water odd collection of
as they paddle the Anacostia enclavs: thhstric
River in canoes and see the ashington Navy Yard, the
amazing wildlife that lives in largely vacant Southeast Federal
the heart of the District. Center, and the isolated Arthur
Saturday, Oct. 5, 8 am - noon Capper and Carrollsburg public
Cost: $3o (includes canoe rental) housing complexes. Today the
neighborhood is getting a chance
I
m o b i L e w or k s h o p s
to reinvent itself. Major federal hot housing market. New plans 7, Two Doore to Tenleytown
investments contribute to this to redevelop the corridor are In most cases, there's no middle
change, including: the consolida- under way. As a result, the neigh- ground when it comes to a TOD -
tion of more than 5,00o defense borhood still has many challenges neighbors either love it or hate it.
jobs to the Navy Yard; a $35 mil- to face, including: skyrocketing Even in urban communities
lion HUD grant to redevelop pub- property values, affordable such as the District of
lic housing into a mixed-income housing, historic preservation, Columbia, neighbors
community; the Department of economic revitalization and frequently oppose any
Transportation's decision to locate the relationship with regional TOD or redevelopment proposal
its new headquarters building in growth issues. regardless of its attributes for the
the neighborhood; and landmark Thursday, Oct. 3,1 pm - 4 pm community. The Tenleytown
legislation to permit private devel- Coet: $25 neighborhood of D.C. offers two
opment on the Southeast Federal ends of the spectrum - both liter-
Center site. All of this is occurring ally and figuratively. Located
just blocks from the U.S. Capitol 6. The New U: Arlie. Culture at either end of the Metrorail
Building. Participants will meet and Community station, these two TODs were com-
the many stakeholders and Once known as the "Black pletely different in their reaction
partners in this waterfront Broadway," U Street and lower from neighbors. One project
renaissance. i4th Street, NW have become a involved a bitterly fought proposal
Thursday, Oct. 3, 1 pm - 4 pm *hhub for cultural activities for two dozen townhouses, in
COAt: $25 in Washington. Music, which only six ultimately were
art, fine dining and approved. The other was a multi-
eater now thrive here. story, mixed-use project with
5. From Riot, to A walk along the heritage trail in offices, retail and more than 30
Revitalization: Columbia Duke Ellington's old neighbor- apartments - and the full support
lleigh to hood will show the effects of a of neighbors. The difference was
In April 1968, the Columbia strong real estate market, coupled all in the approach. Come tour the
Heights neighborhood of with a new Metrorail station and finished mixed-use project with
Washington literally was a racial government center, on a strug- the architect and neighbors
*hh, t bed - as evidenced by a gling commercial corridor. and learn how one team success-
major fire brought on Heritage tourism and special fully worked with the community
by riots. After the zoning also have helped this from day one.
moke cleared and the emerging cultural district, but Thursday, Oct. 3,1o am -12:30 pm
ashes cooled, many residents fled challenges relating to new growth COAt: $25
the community for the perceived and investment still persist.
safety and calm of the suburbs. In Saturday, Oct. 5, 9 am - noon
the years since, the neighborhood Coet: $25
traditionally has been an afford-
able haven for the District's black
working class and immigrants
from around the world. Today this
multi-cultural neighborhood is on
fire again - this time because of a
1_TJ
m o b i L e w o r k s h o p s
8. KentlandA, LakelandA, 9. Those Who Control the focus on how development can
and King Farm: New Water - Frederick, Maryland incorporate features that better
UrbaniAm in a New Context Caught between its historic, small leverage transit investment, as
Built on 35z acres in town character and the pressures well as techniques for a success-
Gaithersburg, Maryland, the of development, the city of ful TOD. Participants will view
Kentlands is a national model for Frederick is bringing new projects in various states of imple-
Aqk~ neighborhood ® life to its downtown mentation, illustrating "before
® design - with plenty of area with the help of a and after" and the role of different
opportunities for new commuter rail line to transit investments in shaping
neighbors to walk, gather Washington, D.C. Even better, the alternative futures. As part of the
and talk to one another. The city of Frederick and the U.S. tour, participants will ride the
homes at Kentlands come in a Army Corps of Engineers have ;vletrorail Yellow Line.
wide variety of sizes and styles - teamed up to tame the flood- 'T'hursday, Oct. 3,
designed to complement one prone Carroll Creek and make sev- 2:30 pm - 4:30 pm
another and to serve the different eral new parcels available for eco- Coet: $25
housing needs of a diverse popu- nomic development right around
lation. The community also has a the new Maryland Rail Commuter
unique blend of big box and main (MARC) station. Meet Frederick's 11. Desirable Den.eity in
street type retail. Lakelands is civic leaders and hear their story. the Suburbs: Clarendon
immediately adjacent to the Thursday, Oct. 3, :Lo am - 3 pm and Courthouse Transit
Kentlands and shares many of the Coat: $25 (include,& lunch) Neighborhoods
same design elements. Thirty years ago the Rosslyn/Ball-
Just down the road in Rockville ston corridor was the site of pawn-
is another model traditional io. Alexandria Old and New. shops, rail yards, oil storage facili-
neighborhood development - King the Good, the Bad, the TOD ties, gas stations, bars, a
Farm. Located on 43o acres, King and the TAD few apartment com-
Farm will have 3,2oo residential A thriving mixed-use commercial plexes, and an occa-
units, about 3 million square feet and residential center, Old Town sional supermarket and
of Class A office space, and a Alexandria still exhibits many of drug store. Since then it has expe-
izo,ooo square-foot shopping *this e traditional community rienced the most dramatic change
center. In addition, King Farm has characteristics sought in northern Virginia. Through
more than ioo acres of parks and by New Urbanism. As Arlington County's innovative
open space and offers a shuttle historic community zoning techniques that encourage
i+ service for its residents. continues to develop, new oppor- developers to build projects com-
Thursday, Oct. 3, 8 am - 5 pm tunities and challenges abound. patible with the county's site plan,
i
i Cost: $25 (lunch included) Participants will visit traditional the corridor has seen a flurry of
and new developments in and flourishing TODs and public-pri-
adjacent to Alexandria, including vate investments. Economic and
7 Old Town, King Street Station, residential development is occur-
Braddock Road Station and ring on a grand scale, including
Potomac Yards. The tour will new infill shopping areas within
provide an opportunity to com- neighborhoods, new styles and
pare and contrast transit-oriented
development versus transit-adja-
cent development. Discussion will
r~i ~r
4no1) i L e w o r k s h o p s
choices of housing that blend jobs, Its ever-expanding town cen- 14. 110141 TUUA (I"'
with older live-work buildings, ter rivals most medium-sized Mv/ocnnin y Growth in
and greater accessibility totran- cities. The Metrorail system is Doltinnorv
sit. This tour starts at the transit planned to extend through the The renaissance of downtown
corridor's Courthouse Station and area with three rail stations locat- Baltimore's West Side and a new
ends at the Clarendon Station. ed in Reston. As part of this mixed-use development and
Thursday, Oct. 3, io am - z pm mobile workshop, local experts *to anned arts district in
Cost: $25 (lunch included) will discuss the new town from its midtown Baltimore all
inception to contemporary land begin with connections
use and development decisions. rail transit. Join us on a
uz. Nov TouvnA: tlv f. vOl tutionn Thursday, Oct. 3,9:3o am - z pm tour of several TOD projects in
of M(Inton, Virginia Coat: $25 (hunch included) Baltimore, beginning with a ride
Located in one of the fastest grow- on the MARC commuter train that
ing corridors in the metropolitan links Baltimore and Washington.
area, Reston has been around only 13• frnnconnio 'Sprirngj'ield : Then take Baltimore's Metro sub-
since the i96os. The new kid on Nvw Stol ion = Neiv way and central light rail to see
the block has evolved from Connnumil ieA how new residential and office
a small hamlet located The Franconia/Springfield areas, as well as two university
in the northern Metrorail Station is part of the centers, are springing to life
Virginia countryside to a Joseph Alexander Transportation through public and private invest-
thriving community of more than Center - where Metrorail, ments. Learn more about the
6o,ooo residents and 40,000 *Greyhound etrobus, Fairfax importance of TOD marketing
Connector, Virginia efforts and take an up-close tour
Railway Express and of Oriole Park at Camden Yards.
bus services all Thursday, Oct. 3.8 am - 5 pm
meet. The station is located at the COAt: $25 (lunch included)
edge of the Springfield Mixing
Bowl, a Iz e,1i- construction Pro
t~-- Y ~ proj-
ect designed to remedy one of the
` t east coast's most dangerous inter-
changes(1.95 and the Washington
Beltway). This tour will give par-
)
V - ticipants an opportunity to see
how growth in the county, as well
as access to various transporta-
tion choices, has influenced the
surrounding area. This tour
shows both the good and bad
s sides of development.
Thursday, Oct. 3, no am - z pm
COAL: $25 (lurch included)
1
»i»r
s g m p o s i a
Herea your chance to roll up nity building, including those at Advocacy on the Hill -
the neighborhood level as well as Effective Skillb and
your.dleeve a and learn in- those with a more regional con- Strategies
text. In addition, there will be a TEA-2i federal funding, which
depth information that will transportation and livable streets provides billions of flexible dol-
session designed especially for lars, is up for renewal. It's critical
help your community reach Rail-Volution attendees. that supporters of public trans-
Pmaented by the Congress for portation and other livability
the New Urbanism programs know how to make their
its livability goaLa. Space is Thursday, Oct 3, 9 am - 4 pm voices heard in the re-authoriza-
Coat: $150 tion debate. This training session
limited in these symposia, so will include presentations and
hands-on exercises that will make
sign up now. Please indicate Bringing Rail Transit to your visit to Congress more effec-
Your Community: tive. You'll learn the basics about
which.aympoaium you would Avoiding PitfalLa and TEA-2i and then put this knowl-
Addressing the Critics edge to work by crafting overall
like to attend on the registra- Making rail transit a reality can messages for your visits
be a road filled with obstacles. to policy makers. You will plan
tion form on page 15. Discover how others have over- and role play a visit to a skeptical
come challenges to bring rail tran- policy maker, define your meeting
sit to their neighborhoods. Learn participants' roles, and present
how you can successfully follow your views.
in their tracks. Hear experts talk Presented by Odyssey, an organi-
about project finance, the federal zation dedicated to promoting
New Urbanism 1o1 project approval process, negotiat- equitable, efficient transportation
This session is designed for atten- ing with freight railroads and choices that build healthy commu-
dees who want to learn about the more. Learn how to respond nities and improve people;a lives.
principles behind New Urbanism. effectively to critics and make Thursday, Oct. 3, 9 am - noon
Founders and long-time members sure your transit-investment Cost: $15
of Congress for the New Urbanism arguments are accurate and
(CNU) will present a primer on the convincing.
principles of New Urbanism, Presented by New Starts Working
including a look at exemplary Group, Parsons Brinckerhoff, and
projects from around the country North American Bus Industries
and cutting-edge implementation Thursday, Oct. 3, 8 am - 4:30 pm
strategies. This all-day seminar Cost: $✓oo
will address all scales of commu-
lt.~s-
i
speciaL events
openinq Reception creating wonderful, vibrant urban this year's conference location
Thursday, October 4 communities. All proceeds will and meet with elected members
6:30 pm - 8:30 pm benefit the Coalition for Smarter of Congress and staff. Help
Host city and region Washington Growth, a regional non-profit inform elected officials about the
D.C. will hold a special opening organization dedicated to treat- importance of transit and livable
reception to welcome ing better communities in the communities. To help make the
Rail-Volution attendees. The Washington area by reducing message most effective, consider
event will be held in the Great traffic congestion. registering for the symposium,
Hall at the National Building Details: Starting and ending Advocacy on the Hill or attend
Museum, a remarkable building points are at the Omni Shoreham the workshop, Effective Advocacy.
that has served as the site of Hotel. Registration fee is $25 Please note that conference
many Presidential Inaugural before Septemberzy and $35 after. attendees are responsible for
Balls. The museum boasts an scheduling their own congres-
impressiveItalian Renaissance RaIL-VOLUtion sional meetings and that
design, with its central fountain on the H i LL arrangements should be made
and eight colossal Corinthian Thursday, October. 3 well in advance of the conference.
columns - among the tallest inte- 3 PM - 5 prn
rior columns in the world. The Attend this two-part session and Lunch-rime
museum's current exhibit is "On learn more about the national OpportUnitieS
Track, Transit and the American picture and how the federal gov- Take advantage of several infor-
City," which maps the unique rela- ernment is working with transit mal discussions that will occur
tionship between transportation - programs to create more livable during lunch breaks throughout
particularly public transportation communities. The first part of the the conference. Bounce ideas off
- and the American city. Whether program features prominent your colleagues in other cities,
you choose to roam through the speakers who will discuss key and learn in more detail the
exhibits, chat with local and themes for this year's conference. issues discussed in the confer-
national politicians, or simply It also will recognize key mem- ence's formal sessions.
enjoy the spectacular food, you bers of Congress for their support Learn, for example, about: the
will have a wonderful evening. of public transit programs. The Council of Government's
second portion of the program Blueprint for a Better Region, the
Ra i L-Vo LUti o n provides participants the opportu- Mayor's Task Force on Transit-
R u n /wa Lk nity to meet Congressional staff Oriented Development, Loudoun
Sunday, October 6 members on key committees County's new Smart Growth
1 7 am -gam involved with the reauthorization Comprehensive Plan,
Start your day right with the of TEA-21 and to discuss opportu- Montgomery County's inclusion-
first-ever Rail-Volution 5K Fun nities for enhancing livability and ary zoning, or Maryland's Smart
Run/Walk from the Omni transit through the reauthoriza- Growth & Neighborhood
Shoreham through two of tion process. Conservation Program.
Washington, D.C:s crown jewels -
Rock Creek Park and the conqressionaL
National Zoo. Congressman Earl meeti nqs - Throughout
Blumenauer and Mayor Anthony yourmay in the region
Williams will lead the run/walk Advocates, transit agency repre-
and will discuss how natural sentatives, planning agencies,
amenities are a key component in business leaders and others are
encouraged to take advantage of
cves~e.r-
c o n f e r e n c e s c h e d u l e
Thursdaij, october 3 1o:oo am MOBILE WORKSHOPS
8:oo am SYMPOSIUM n3 The New Convention Center
Bringing Rail Transit to your and Old Neighborhood
Community a7 TWO Doors to Tenleytown
MOBILE WORKSHOPS #9 Frederick, Maryland
N8 New Urbanism Tour #11 Ballston-Rosslyn Corridor
a13 Franconia Springfield
#14 Baltimore Tour
9:00 am SYMPOSIA 1:00 pm MOBILE WORKSHOPS
#4 Southeast Waterfront
Advocacy on the Hill
Urban
New Urbanism 1oi Redo
n5 Columbia Heights
9:3o am MOBILE WORKSHOP
rn2 Reston, Virginia 2:30 pm MOBILE WORKSHOP
a1o Alexandria Old and New
3:00 pm Rail-Volution on the Hill
6:30 pm Opening Reception
FridaLl, o ctob er 4 12:00 pm Box Lunch and Trade Show
8:oo am Continental Breakfast and, 12:30 pm Lunchtime Opportunities
Trade Show
z:oo pm WORKSHOPS
8:3o am Opening Plenary 3:30 Pm Coffee Break and Trade Show
.
1o:oo am Coffee Break and Trade Show 4:00 Pm WORKSHOPS
10:3o am WORKSHOPS 5:30 Pm Trade Show
s aturdaq, o ctob er 5 1o:oo am Coffee Break and Trade Show
8:oo am Continental Breakfast and 10:3o am WORKSHOPS
Trade Show 12:00 pm Box Lunch and Trade Show
MOBILE WORKSHOP 12:30 pm Lunch Opportunities
a2 Anacostia River Canoe Tour
8:3o am Morning Plenary 200 pm WORKSHOPS
9:oo am MOB11 1 W0 ~I'KSHOP 3:30 Pm Coffee Break and Trade Show !
a6 The New U Street 4:00 pm WORKSHOPS 1
sundaLl, oc 1 ober V 8:3o am WORKSHOPS
L8:ooam K Fun Run/Walk 1o:15 am WORKSHOPS
ontinental Breakfast 12:00 pm Joint National/Regional Plenary
L OBILE WORKSHOP Box Lunch
Bike Washington 1:30 pm Washington, D.C. Regional
Conference
about the conference
Registration
The registration fee is $325.
Please register now - space is
Sf
limited. After Sept. 12, the late
registration fee is $375. Register j ,
by fax, mail or web site
www.railvolution.com.i
F
TraveL and sF.
3
i
Lodging
The Omni Shoreham Hotel, site
of Rail-Volution 2002, is offering 1-
a special group rate of $209 per
night. For reservations, call F_
202.234-070o and identify your- ti
self as a Rail-Volution partici-
pant. To receive the special rate,
lam"
your room must be reserved by
Sept. 12. The Omni Shoreham is
located at 250o Calvert St. NW, y-~ r
Washington,D.C. schoLarsnlps conference
For information about
ground transportation from Rail Volution will make available re gi strati on
major transportation hubs - a limited number of scholarships
Dulles International Airport, that are based on need. Special information
Baltimore-Washington consideration will be given to For additional information - or
i International Airport, Ronald citizen activists and citizen questions - related to registering
Reagan Washington National advocates working on transporta- for the conference, contact:
Airport, and Union Station - tion and land-use issues. AHI Meeting Services, Inc.
visit our web site at Call 800.788.7077, or visit P.O. Box 519, Selbyville, DE 19975
www.railvolution.com. www.railvolution.com for a 800.788,7077 - US.
scholarship application. Please 302.436.4375 - International
return your application by July 8. Fax: 302..136.1911
You will be notified the week of Email: conveneCaaol.com
July 29 about the status of your Web: www.railvolution.com
application.
canceLLation
r There is a $10o non-refundable
fee for cancellations after Sept. 15.
r e g i on a L c on f e r e n c e
washington metropoLitan
conference on Transit
and Livablittj
Sunday, October 6, 2002 m Noon - 5:oo pm
Omni Shoreham Hotel
Local reception immediately afterward
ThiA years Rail-Volution OPENING PLENARY Reception
will include an additional How to think like a region Meet informally with developers
Learn how regional decisions of TOD projects from across the
half-day conference to and local conditions can be meld- region. They will bring models
di.ecu" potential tranbit ed to create a system of livability and demonstrations of their proj-
policies that works for everyone. ects. This will provide an impor-
and livability AtrategieA Hear about the potential effects tant opportunity for participants
Apecifically related to the of a regional transit-oriented to get involved in projects that are
development policy. currently on the ground.
Washington, D.C. region.
A focuA of discuAAion iA Small group discussions Registration
Immediately following the open- See page 15 to register, or visit
whether there Ahould be a ing plenary, there will be small www.railvolution.com.
tranAit-oriented development group discussions to address how CoAt. $25
a regional TOD strategy could
policy for the D.C. region, affect issues such as: housing, Sponsored by. the Government of
including Maryland and jobs, open space, accessibility, the District of Columbia, the State
environmental preservation and of Maryland, the State of Virginia,
Virginia. justice, traffic congestion, neigh- area jurisdiction and advocates.
The half-day conference borhood economics, neighbor-
(following the national hood town centers, and infrastruc-
ture costs.
Rail-Volution conference)
will include opportunitieA to CLOSING PLENARY
Working like a region
learn about and discuAA how Local and regional political lead-
tranAit can help make the ers will discuss their thoughts
about the role of TODs and about
entire D.C. region reach itA the need to improve the region's
livability goals. air quality.
J
regis~ra~ien
Fax 302.436.1911 Web www.railvolution.com Mk
m~f.
Mail Rail-Volution 2002 P.O. Box 519, Selbyville, DE 19975 . .`~t" t r
ih~„y{:iCY: y?r„y9 rr~
Please type or print clearly. }}wY4
Sy;' ~w~f3V `'~P x
y 1
h-~
LAST NAME FIRST NAME BADGE NAME
r
ORGANIZATION /COMPANY TITLE (not for badge use) ~a~:~s;-,,,
WORKTELEPHONE FAX EMAIL sic.
r c^4'VV S
WORKADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP f !1
seLecrions and Payment informa-rion
Mr e
MOBILE WORKSHOPS* See descriptions on pages 6.9 and indicate selection by workshop number. yc F
ans;r~
Mobile Workshop: ist choice _ 2nd choice _ 3rd choice
SYMPOSIA* See descriptions on page zo; noteseparate fees for each. ~xt,+
Please makesure that yoursymPosium choice does not conflict with Your Mobile Work-shop choice.
❑ New Urbanism loi ($150) ❑ Bringing Rail Transit to Your Community ($ioo)
4~iYx1;y a~'~•~'A
❑ Advocacy on the Hill ($25)
❑ WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN CONFERENCE ON TRANSIT AND LIVABILITY ($25) +
k1ryg
❑ Check enclosed ❑ Early registration ($325 before September 12) S 41
r. ~r
r ,;yf
❑ VISA ❑ Late registration ($375 after September 12) $
by ,
❑ MasterCard ❑ Mobile Workshop See pages 6-9 forfees. S `4
❑ American Express ❑ Symposium see above forfeee.
s f'
❑ Bill me ❑ Rail-Volution Run/Walk ($25) S r,, zap
❑ Conference on Transit and Livability ($25) $
~4r 1 r
~+1ly
Total due $
CARD NUMDER EXPIRATION DATE i.RNjy,J,.ltitc f ~3 t
f M lrZv3.lY .ft~l
CARDHOLDER NAME SIGNATURE
AffiLiation ❑ Transit Authority ❑ City/County ❑ Consultant ❑ Regional Government
❑ State Government ❑ Federal Government ❑ Citizen Activist ❑ University
❑ Media ❑ Business/Developer ❑ Non-profit ❑ Foundation ❑ Banking/Investment
aw.,s i`r'=e' ytt a"+.
*First come, first served, based on space available. Please call 800.788.7077 if you need special accommodations. at` _Z'
y
.;,ytcr,~'y .f'.
v,
key speakers
Congressman Earl Blumenauer Peter Harnik Shelley Poticha
Oregon Trust for Public Land CongreAA for the New Urbanism
Kurt Creager Marla Hollander Loretta Tate
National AAAociation of Housing Robert Wood )ohnAon Foundation Marshall HeightA Development
and Redevelopment Officiate Ken Hughes Corporation
Don Dillard Developer, Mockingbird Station Harriet Tregoning
Hunt Petroleum Betsy Jackson Special Secretary for Smart
Jennifer Dorn The Center for TranAportation Growth, State of Maryland
AdminiAtrator, Federal TMnAit Excellence Richard White
Administration Micki Kaplan General Manager, WMATA
Robert Dunphy City of Boulder, Colorado Mayor Anthony Williams
Urban Land Institute Bill Lennertz Washington, D.C.
Lee Epstein National Charrette Institute Mele Williams
Chesapeake Bay Foundation William W. Millar League of American BicycliAtA
Maribeth Feke American Public Transportation
Greater Cleveland RTA A,mociatiou
Marianne Fowler Mary Nelson
Rails to Trails Bethel New Life, Inc.
I'6
PRSRT•STD
! U. S. Postage
PAID
Permit nil
Building Livable Communities with Transit Portland, OR
AHI Meeting Services, Inc.
P.U. Box 5i9
Selbyville, DE 19975
************i*********xa***ECRLOT*#C-002
MR JAMES N HENDRYX
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SW HALL BLVD
PORTLAND OR 97223-8144
I
AD #
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360 Legal
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Notice TT 101.19
Legml OI..at~~a.i_
*City of Tigard
131.25 SU Hall Blvd,
sTigard,Oregon 97223 ®I3EG~9V.'
Accounts Payable
® The following, will ,lie. considered by. ,the-,TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL ON TU IESIDAY, Augtast 13, 2002,:44, 7:30 M.M. at the'
Tigard Civic. Ccnter = Town.Hall Room, ,13.125 SW'-Hall Boulevard;*.
Tigard, Oregon 97223 Both public oral and written testimony is
invited. The .public°hearing: on:this matter-w><ll"Be conducted ><n
AFFIDAVIT OF P : accordance with Section 13:09.060 ofthe Tigard Municipal Code any
STATE OF OREGON, ) rules and proceduresidopted-sy`tlie'TIgaid itq olmoit-; ,
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, j SS. Further information is available at City Hall and may be obtained
from the Public Works Director or Program Assistant at the same;
I, Kathy Snyder- location,,or by calling (503) 639-4171.
being first duly sworn, depose and sa , thi PUBLICMEARIING ITEM
Director, or his principal clerk, of theT19 AUTHORIZATION FOR•SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY
a newspaper of general circulation as de PARCEL I OF TAX LOT 600,T2S, R1W, SECTION 05ii1B,
and 193.020; published at Tiaard _ W.M. WASHINGTON COUNTY
aMris~id coY~ty anjd sta q,; that the Description, of property:
u n id c e a r i n g S a e of Sur Subject property consists of a 1.36 acre parcel of R-25 zoned land
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, with an existing 1,984 square feet, single family residence located.
entire issue of said newspaper for ONE at 13230 SW 154th Avenue in Tigard, Oregon. The-property ban
identified ve
-also be consecutive in the following issues: TT 1011.9 - Publish August 1, 2002.
August. 1,2002
al L
Subscribed and sworn to be a me this --st- clay of August, 2002
OFFICIAL SEAL
No Public for Oregon ROBIN A BURGESS
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
My Commission Expires: MY COMMISSION SIOONS NOMAY . t
AFFIDAVIT
e
Iv +
~f i'•tj3 r, , /
777
Ho' a a
'S® 7V1N30 ,
II'~ :te rY F 4~'
comet II "
P.O. BOX n i a
t r 4~..b.
II `f
BEIl
L - ,
Legal Notice Advertising
*City of Tigard ❑ Tearsheet Notice
133.25 SW Hall Blvd,
eTigard,Oregon 97223 ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
Accounts Payable
~ o
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON,
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON,
1, Kathy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and sAy, that 1 am the Advgrtisina
Director, or his principal clerk, of the lcgard-Tualatin T}mes
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the
aPun aco nearingf g;; that loaf Surplus Property_
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for 017E successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
August 1,2002
d.A
Subscribed and sworn to be a me this -st day of August, 2002
. OFFICIAL SEAL
No Public for Oregon ROSIN A BURGESS
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 344589
My Commission Expires: MY COMMISSION O RES MAY 16, 2003
AFFIDAVIT
Agenda Item No. ZbAdL4 r1
Meeting of '
AM&
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx ~ U& 4?el
DATE: July 26, 2002
SUBJECT: Urban Services IGA
Washington County and Tigard entered into an Urban Services Agreement in May of 1997. The
agreement initially authorized the City to provide development related planning, building,
engineering services, and street maintenance activities. The agreement was subsequently
amended, eliminating Tigard provision of street maintenance activities.
The terms of the agreement remain in effect for 5 years. The issue of whether Council desired to
terminate the agreement was discussed on February 12, 2002, at which time Council moved to
continue the agreement with the understanding that staff would return with necessary amendments
to bring the IGA up to date. At that time, Councilor Scheckla noted his concern about the
County's response to the City's request for collection of system development charges in the Urban
Services Area for parks.
The agreement was due to expire on May 12, 2002. The IGA (IV. OPERATING PROCEDURES
AND RELATIONSHIPS, Section IV D), specifically grants authority to the City Manager and the
County Administrator to make changes as needed. With this charge, the County Administrator and
City Manager extended the agreement for a period of up to 120 days (until September 9, 2002),
during which time the following would occur:
A. The City and County will initiate discussions on the provision of park services for the area
covered by the IGA.
B. All necessary amendments to the IGA will be finalized, deleting services no longer provided
by the City and reflecting all previous amendments.
As Council is aware, the agreement has been a benefit to the City. It is assumed that the area
within the Urban Services Boundary (USB) will ultimately be incorporated into the City. Our
involvement in the development of the USB allows for conformance to City standards, procedures,
etc. This would not be the case if the agreement were terminated.
It has been 5 years since enactment and the attached IGA has been revised to reflect current
procedures and standards. It also reflects Park SDC collection pending an annexation vote. The
IGA will formally come to City Council on August 27th for adoption. This will follow Council's review
of the Bull Mountain survey results and associated policy issues on August 20, 2002.
I
Ron
9 c
DRAFT August 2, 2002
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF TIGARD AND WASlIINGTON COUNTY
This agreement is entered into this day of , 2002, by WASHINGTON COUNTY,
hereinafter "COUNTY" and the CITY OF TIGARD, hereinafter "CITY", both political subdivisions of
the State of Oregon.
WHEREAS, ORS 190.007 provides for the furthering of economy and efficiency in local
government and that intergoveinmental cooperation is a matter of state wide concern; and
WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of government may enter into agreements for the
performance of any and all functions and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers or
agencies have authority to perform; and
WHEREAS, Article IV(B)(2) of the Urban Planning Area Agreement called for a study of the
transfer of responsibility for certain urban services from the COUN'T'Y to the CITY to determine
the cost effectiveness and feasibility of this transfer; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY believe it is in the best interest of efficiency and
economy to transfer responsibility of certain services to the local unit of government
consistent with the objectives of ORS 195;
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the City entered into an urban services IGA dated May 12, 1997 and now
wish to update that agreement;
WHEREAS, this agreement provides for a newly designed method to provide governmental
services, is unique to the parties, and is subject to amendment; it is not intended to be used as a
model agreement for other jurisdictions;
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTMGARD/WASI-IINGTON COUNTY
Page 1
-Mi
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. AREA AFFECTED BY AGREEMENT
A. The area affected by the intergovernmental agreement is defined by Exhibit "I" to
this agreement and is hereinafter referred to as the "area."
II. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
A. The COUNTY agrees to delegate to the CITY any and all additional authority that
it possesses and which is needed by the CITY to carry out planning, development, road
functions and other related activities within the area. The effective date and terms of the
delegation of authority are as provided for in this agreement. Among the actions to be
authorized pursuant to this provisions will be:
1. Provision of planning information to applicants for development review for
all land development proposed for the area.
2. Performance of pre-application conferences.
3. Preparation of staff reports and performance of site visits for pending
applications.
4. Coordination and provision of public notice of land use applications.
5. Collection of fees pertaining to development applications, building permits
right-of-way use fees, systems development charges and traffic impact fees.
6. Presentation of staff recommendations pertaining to land use proposals at
public hearings.
7. Preparation of administrative decisions for those applications that do not
require public hearings, in keeping with the Tigard Community Development
Code.
a 8. Conducting of public hearings before the land use approval authority as
provided by the Tigard Community Development Code.
a
i
9. Conducting of appeal hearings before the land use approval authority as
provided by the Tigard Community Development Code.
10. Preparation of final orders for all final decisions made pursuant to this
agreement.
11. Representing the CITY in any appeal of a decision made by the CITY
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 2
under this agreement to LUBA or any other court and representing the CITY in
mandamus actions or any other actions in state or federal court.
12. Review of construction activities related to development approvals granted
pursuant to this agreement for compliance with conditions of development
approval.
13. Coordination with engineering and other appropriate staff for review and
approval of public facilities related to development application and construction.
I
14. Interpretation of the applicable comprehensive plan and implementing
regulations for the area.
i
15. Exercise of subdivision authority within the area.
16. Processing and issuance of building permits for all construction activities
within the area. Performance of all building inspecting and enforcement relating to
permits issued.
17. Surface maintenance and improvements of roads within the area; all other
routine maintenance shall be provided by County.
18. Issuance of all access permits and right of way use and right-of-way
construction permits for the area.
19. Enforcement of code and permit violations including:
a. Development and zoning violations
b. Building code violations
c. Conditions of approval violations
d. Right of way permit violations
e. Road and street hazards
20. Reviewing OLCC and DMV land use compatibility statements.
21. Collection of Park System Development Charges pursuant to the provisions of
Exhibit 7.
III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
7
A. General Terms Regarding Responsibilities of the Parties.
It is the intention of the parties hereto that there be no cost to the CITY in the
undertaking of the responsibilities under this agreement. As to operational costs, the fee schedule
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 3
adopted for development review and building permit services is intended to fully cover all direct
and indirect costs to the CITY associated with development review and building permit functions.
As of the date of this Agreement, the parties contemplate that there are three broad areas
of cost of service in the Area which is.the subject of this agreement. Those areas of cost are:
1. operational expenses,
2. defense of litigation, administrative and LUBA appeals occasioned by
development review and engineering review of development; and
3. liability under tort, constitutional and related theories.
It is the intent of the parties that the CITY will be fully compensated for operational
expenses relating to this Agreement through application fees collected by the City or by funds
transferred from the County. The remaining two described cost areas to the CITY will be
analyzed as provided in Section (IV)(B) and (VI).
B. The County agrees to perform the following activities as part of this
intergovernmental agreement:
1. Transfers of all special fund allocations to the CITY for specific services
denoted in this agreement shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Exhibit 3.
Any interest accrued by the CITY shall be used in furtherance of delivering such specific
services. In the event of funding short falls for operational expenses arising out of the
CITY's assumption of obligations under this agreement, the provisions of paragraph
IV(A)(1) shall govern the transfer of additional funds to the CITY by the COUNTY.
2. Any service under this agreement provided by CITY that requires payment
by COUNTY to CITY for such service shall only be required of the CITY as long
as COUNTY makes the payments to CITY as required by this agreement. This
agreement shall terminate if COUNTY is unable to make payments to CITY
required under this agreement due to reductions in the COUNTY budget.
3. Provide as needed technical assistance to the CITY to assist in those
services requiring COUNTY expertise. Such technical assistance shall be
delivered to the CITY at no charge and in a timely manner. More specifically, the
COUNTY agrees to provide technical assistance in development review to assist
the CITY's Community Development Department render appropriate land use
decisions including "areas of special concern" and floodplain/drainage hazard
areas, as defined in the COUNTY's Bull Mountain Community Plan.
4. Provide coordination with the CITY in updating and development of the
COUNTY's transportation capital improvement program.
5. Adopt provisions of Tigard's Municipal Code, allow the use of certain City
engineering standards (e.g., street width, curb type, sidewalk location), and other City
rules that are necessary for the CITY to have authority to fulfill the delegation provisions
listed under section II of this
agreement.
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 4
6. If at a quarterly meeting, it is determined that the COUNTY fee schedule is
not adequate to compensate CITY for services performed, upon presentation of
adequate documentation to this effect, COUNTY shall adjust its fee schedule for
the area to attempt to cover the cost of the service. In addition, the cost recovery
provisions of paragraph IV(A) shall apply consistent with the intent that there be
no net loss to the CITY for operational expenditures under this agreement.
C. The CITY agrees to perform the following activities as part of this intergovernmental
agreement:
1. Perform land development services (development assistance development
review) on a daily basis consistent with the CITY Community Development Code as
adopted by the COUNTY.
2. Perform building inspection services (plan review, electrical, plumbing,
mechanical, structural) on a daily basis consistent with the state law and the CITY
code as adopted by the COUNTY.
3. Utilize the COUNTY'S street standards or those City standards agreed to by
COUNTY in evaluating public and private development and/or projects in the area. The
County Engineer shall approve the standards to be used during plan review.
4. Perform surface maintenance work for County and public roads and receive
payment for such work from County and Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD), as
described in Exhibit 2 and 3.
5. Perform road capital improvements and receive payment for such
improvements from Traffic Impact Fees, as described in Exhibit 4.
6. Perform code enforcement services on a daily basis consistent with the
CITY codes as adopted by the County and receive payment for such enforcement,
as described in Exhibit 5.
7. As of the date of this agreement, CITY shall impose a condition upon any
applications which requires street lighting, that the applicant will agree to the
formation of a Street Lighting District.
8. Take responsibility for and complete inspections and reviews for all
existing building permits and complete review of all development permit
applications (including requests for extensions on existing permits) that are filed
after the effective date of this agreement and receive payments, as described in
Exhibit 6.
9. Collect all pertinent fees and taxes relevant to building permits, traffic impact
tax, sign permits, right-of-way use permits, sign permits and development application
fees. CITY shall apply its own fee schedules for all engineering, development, and
building permits. CITY may adopt revised fee schedules as necessary to fully recover
costs for providing services. CITY shall retain all fees it collects for its services.
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGRF.EMENT/TIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 5
COUNTY shall continue to collect Maintenance Local Improvement District (MLID)
and URMD assessments for this area and transfer them as provided for in this agreement
under Exhibit 2.
10. All other actions reasonably necessary to cant' out the authority given to
CITY as provided for in the attached Exhibits.
IV. OPERATING PROCEDURES AND RELATIONSHIPS
The COUNTY and CITY agree:
A. Operational Expenses.
It is expected that the City will adjust its fees as necessary over time to cover its
operating costs. If those funds transferred or fees gathered are not sufficient to pay for the
services required by this agreement, the COUNTY shall reimburse CITY for any deficiency
remaining at the end of each year. Such reimbursement shall be in accordance with the
provisions of Exhibit 3. To be eligible to receive such payments for the deficiency, the CITY is
required to:
1. Meet annually with COUNTY and give accounting records of the CITY's fund
for these services that describe the cost of services and the revenues
generated during the year. CITY shall also make estimates about levels of
services, staffing requirements and revenue projections for the next year. The
annual meetings shall aid in determining the fund transfers that are set in the
annual meeting as described below.
2. Maintain a separate fiend and detailed accounting records for each functional
area and funding source covered by this agreement.
3. Be in compliance with all other provisions of this agreement.
B. Defense of Appeals/Liability
As described in paragraph II(A)(11) above, it is contemplated by the parries that LUBA
or other court actions may arise from the review of development in the area subject to this
agreement. The CITY will undertake responsibility for defense of such actions. The cost of such
defense will be borne by either the CITY or the COUNTY or a combination thereof as provided
for in this paragraph.
1. When the CITY receives notice from any party that a LUBA appeal, court
action or other legal review of the CITY's authority is contemplated by that party,
the CITY Community Development Director shall immediately notify the
COUNTY Land Use and Transportation Director in writing. The Directors or
their designee(s) shall confer to determine the source and nature of the requirement
resulting in the disputed and the CITY's decision on whether or not to defend the
action. The COUNTY shall have 10 days from the date of the CITY's notice in
which to decide whether it wants the CITY to proceed in the defense of such
action. If the COUNTY requests that the CITY proceed to defense where the
CITY would otherwise elect not to do so, the COUNTY will fully reimburse the
CITY for all costs of defense including direct and indirect costs. Similarly, if the
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 6
CITY believes it is important to proceed the defense where the COUNTY does
not concur, the CITY will absorb the cost. In cases where both parties believe it is
important to defend an action, the parties will share equally the cost of defense.
The same process shall apply in all subsequent appeals from the LUBA or court
decision. In all other cases, the parties will resolve the dispute over cost using the
dispute resolution methods contained in this agreement. The parties here
recognize that the intent is that the party creating the cost should bear
responsibility for that cost.
2. For constitutional takings claims and inverse condemnation claims,
including civil rights actions alleging a taking County shall indemnify City foi
City's acts or omissions to a maximum aggregate amount of $500,000 on a
"claims-made" basis. Claims must arise from acts or omissions occurring during
the term of this Agreement and be actually received no later than two years after
termination of this Agreement. This shall include defense costs, attorney fees and
any settlements or judgments. Indemnification shall be on a 50150 basis with the
City participating in the first dollar of defense costs and any judgment or
settlement, including attorney fees. In no event shall either party be responsible for
any punitive damages awarded against the other party, its officers, employees or
agents.
In the event any portion of the area covered by this Agreement annexes, County's
obligation under this paragraph shall cease as to any claims arising from the annexed
area after annexation is final. County shall bear full responsibility for claims resulting
from its approval of development prior to the effective date of this Agreement.
3. Consistent with the hold harmless provisions of paragraph VI, it is the
parties' intention that each be responsible for liability arising out of its own
employees' acts.
4. On July 1, 1997, County shall create a $500,000 insurance reserve fund or
account dedicated exclusively to satisfying its obligations under paragraph (2)
above. In no event shall County be responsible for any costs, damages, judgments,
settlements, or attorney fees arising from or relating to the acts or omissions of
City except to the extent of the remaining balance of this reserve. Notwithstanding
termination of this Agreement, this reserve shall continue until either of the
following occurs: The fund balance is expended in defense or on behalf of City as
described in paragraph (2) above or all claims against City filed within two years of
termination of this Agreement are finally resolved and paid.
Each fiscal year, County staff shall make a recommendation to the Board regarding
availability of funds to replenish the reserve and the Board shall seriously consider such
action. City may terminate this Agreement on 90 days' notice if County declines to
replenish the reserve in any future budget year.
5. City shall confer with County at the first opportunity if City has reason to
think that a land use application or decision of City is likely to be contested beyond
the City's internal review process or may give rise to a claim for damages.
C. Dispute Resolution.
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 7
To the extent possible, COUNTY and CITY staff will observe the rules, standards and
regulation reference by this agreement. In the case of a dispute about the terms of this agreement
or how to effectuate this agreement, the COUNTY and CITY staff will immediately refer the
dispute to the COUNTY Director of Land Use and Transportation and the CITY Community
Development Director to resolve the dispute. If the Directors have not resolved the dispute
within 30 days, the dispute shall be forwarded to the CITY and COUNTY Administrators. If the
matter cannot be resolved by the Administrators within 30 days, it shall be forwarded to the
Council and the Board for resolution. If the matter still cannot be resolved, the arbitration
provisions of ORS 190.710-190.800 shall apply.
D. Amendments.
Requested amendments to this intergovernmental agreement shall be submitted in
writing to both the COUNTY Land Use and Transportation Director and to the CITY
Community Development Director with adequate explanations as to the necessity of such
amendment. A decision by the Directors to either reject or accept the amendments must
be made in no more that 30 days from the receipt of the request. After review and
approval by the Directors, the amendments must be submitted to the CITY Manager and
COUNTY Administrator for signature or presentation to the Board and Council.
The CITY Council and the COUNTY Board of County Commissioners grant authority to
the CITY Manager and the COUNTY Administrator to make such changes as needed to this
intergovernmental agreement to effectuate the intent and purpose of this agreement. For
amendments that will result in a financial impact, the amount of the financial impact needs to be
within the Administrator's and Manager's delegated authority. Any amendments outside this
authority need to be made by the Council and the Board and must be submitted to the Board and
Council within 90 days of the Administrator's or Manager's receipt of the proposed amendments.
E. Annual Review.
COUNTY and CITY will jointly conduct an annual review of this intergovernmental
agreement beginning November 1 and ending no later than January 30 of each year to allow
adjustments to upcoming COUNTY and CITY budgets. Such joint review shall include an
evaluation of the effectiveness of the agreement, procedures, and the delivery of service in
meeting the requirements of the agreement. The annual review shall also evaluate the costs of
providing the services, reimburse the CITY for operating deficits described in section IV(A), and
adjust such moneys that are transferred to the CITY to render services under this agreement. The
CITY and COUNTY agree to take the results of this meeting, along with any amendments to the
agreement made pursuant to paragraph D above, to their respective Board and Council within 30
days of such meeting. The Board and Council agree to take action on such request consistent
with this agreement.
F. COUNTY will make changes in Article VIII of its Community Development Code
(CDC) necessary to adopt changes in the CITY's development code as it applies to the
area. COUNTY and CITY shall work together to ensure that all CITY code changes are
promptly adopted by COUNTY.
G. The parties agree to coordinate planning efforts under Metro's 2040 Growth
Concepts at a time mutually agreeable to the parties.
City shall maintain $3,000,000 aggregate general, professional and autc:notive
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTITIGARDAVASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 8
liability insurance for claims arising from its acts and omissions in the area subject to this
Agreement. County, its officers, employees and agents shall be named as an additional
insured (except that County need not be named on professional insurance if that is
unavailable). County shall pay to City the first year premium to a maximum of $5,000.00.
The premium for subsequent years shall be paid by City as an operating expense.
City shall periodically monitor the insurance market to determine if coverage for takings
and inverse condemnation claims is available. If so, County may elect to pay the premium
for said insurance in lieu of maintaining the insurance reserve provided for herein.
I. In the event City elects to terminate this Agreement prior to the end of the five (5)
year term as provided for in section V, City agrees to return to County any equipment
purchased with proceeds furnished by the County pursuant to this Agreement.
V. TERM OF AGREEMENT
A. This agreement shall be effective upon execution by both parties and shall remain
in effect for five (5) years, or until terminated by mutual agreement of both parties. By
mutual agreement, this agreement may be extended for another five (5) years. Either party
may terminate this agreement between the dates of March 1 and July I of any year with 90
days written notice to the other party.
B. The CITY shall be responsible for processing all permits or applications for this
area which have not been completed at the time of the termination of this agreement.
C. Except for County's obligation to indemnify City for City's acts or omissions, the
parties' obligations as regards LUBA cases and to indemnify and defend each other
pursuant to Section VI shall survive termination as to any claim arising from the actions of
either party during the term of this Agreement. County's obligations to indemnify City for
City's acts or omissions shall survive only to the extent of claims within two years of the
termination of this Agreement and to the extent of fiends remaining in the insurance
reserve.
VI. HOLD HARMLESS
A. Subject to the limitations of liability for public bodies set forth in the Oregon Tort
Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, CITY shall hold harmless and indemnify COUNTY,
its Commissioners, employees, and volunteers agents against any and all claims, damages,
losses and expenses (including all attorney(s) fees and costs), arising out of or resulting
from CITY's performance of this agreement where the loss or claim is attributable to the
acts or omissions of the CITY, except as provided in section (IV)(B).
B. Subject to the limitations of liability for public bodies set forth in the Oregon Tort
Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, County shall hold harmless and indemnify CITY, its
Councilors, employees, agents and volunteers against all claims, damages, losses and
expenses (including all attorney fees and costs) arising out of or resulting from
COUNTY's performance of this agreement where the loss or claim is attributable to the
acts or omissions of COUNTY, except as provided in section (M(B).
VII. GENERAL PROVISION
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTITIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 9
A. SEVERABILITY: COUNTY and CITY agree that if any term or provision of this
contract is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any
law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected, and the rights
and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the contract did not
contain the particular term or provision held to be invalid.
B. THIS AGREEMENT CONSTITUTES THE COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE
STATEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELEVANT TO
TIE PURPOSE DESCRIBED HEREIN AND SUPERSEDES ALL PRIOR
AGREEMENTS OR PROPOSALS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, AND ALL OTHER
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATING TO THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THIS CONTRACT. NO W,-.-JER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR
CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT WILL BE BINDING ON EITHER
PARTY EXCEPT AS A WRITTEN ADDENDUM SIGNED BY AUTHORIZED
AGENTS OF BOTH PARTIES.
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 10
In WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this Urban Services Intergovernmental
Agreement on the date set opposite their signatures.
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
By By
Tom Brian James Griffith
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Mayor, City of Tigard
Date
Approved as to form: Approved as to form:
County Counsel City Attorney
APPROVED WASHINGTON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MINUTE ORDER #
DATE
BY
CLERKOPTHEBOARD
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 11
- • R . :.00•x: ; • : •e ~ .
~r
0
Urban Services
Intergovernmental Agreement
• Curl . y
7
' :L y
FRloi X?ltY?- c oys LN R . • : : 4 aadL'NtIT.:: Sw : • Af1A¢M
E -NT
i
w rc :-CANOSGOWNE• 6,.;: V V
ALBERT' " ' :107T
7T
S1k : iJW
.o
I
CT
w.
- M~
:R
= F'
. c'
CT L'fi r• ?:•r:
to W '.FA1 :f VE• :;$7.•:
m
•L
N
A!(
NEST. E • : •;t ' N • S+ . • • ' ; y AIRt*4U
sVj
3 US
LN '.HIGH TOR OR. p':
CT < a uNTA N
i•
PL D ii •
ALP _
F:
a:1' •b:
`1 CT Fr1 F: y
O ~1
PIN:
VIE sY~ y . [ d ' ;Lt : .
< C. M NT DuCNIt« • p rQ W... -
w`~ c;. Sw:• :4r: .
sw.
~f 1
CT.
n ~
sw CT
~P s Elc+p s•
1 P wE O > SWVI
> > SwASPEN • ' •0~
:::w'•
C,
a
AEI.:K1
O S~
cN ~ < s ~ v y
Map Features 3 rt
Roads will be maintained ~g N ~r w Tigard U, an
v b the Ci of Tr and rs W Plannln Area .i~
Y b 9 sw
g .¢F: F. ..•f
Roads will continue QiK
q n4 q . ~';Nu,
to be maintained by - ePpOK.
v
Washington County m .c};:::~' t •:o~•'•
rri
city 9 C Z
O 2 CHESTS 8 Sr : .-t
B
LN
Tigard Urban Planning Aroa
n0 Area
TREVO
••i
AM
County
L
1
N j~
E•
E py '
0.
n
A
k
r>QUrM w
MAP
i
Dot t-
d Lyra Ur .Itl T
lT7~e
T7~er1t
• :bO
Q,u.IIaI iMeVrelrllas OlWlan ~ +~8^
y
amaw4Ib Wrritr/df
'r
Bpr~ :t
C'
is
~,y1rU•
500 D SW ,SOD F
OOD 1000 M y
May 7
2002 RA
O
VEN &
T
t
NUT
rctaWMx 100,.
•{taMtatatpq ~
. 1~:;
f
EXIHBIT B
Urban Road Maintenance District
CITY shall provide surface maintenance (asphalt overlays and seal coats) and improvements of URMD
roads (minor collector, local and public) in accordance with the work program to be negotiated each year
and the funding provided by the DISTRICT. DISTRICT shall provide all other routine maintenance.
CITY shall be responsible for responding to citizen complaints from the area concerning road conditions
and maintenance. CITY will forward to DISTRICT those complaints that are beyond the scope of this
agreement.
CITY shall keep a distinct accounting of all expenditures for repairs and maintenance under this fund.
Annually the CITY shall receive from COUNTY an amount that will be negotiated between the parties
for a work program for the following year. This amount shall be established during the annual meeting of
the parties as specified in the agreement and will include the estimated cost of the work plus 8% for
project design, administration and inspection. Payment shall be made by COUNTY within sixty days of
July 1 each year for the duration of the agreement.
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
n:.
)EXIBIT 3
Road Fund Maintenance
CITY shall provide surface maintenance (asphalt overlays and seal coats) and improvements of County
roads (arterial and major collector) in accordance with the work program to be negotiated each year and
funding provided by the COUNTY. COUNTY shall provide all other routine maintenance and traffic
operations. CITY shall be responsible for responding to citizen complaints from the area concerning road
conditions and maintenance. CITY will forward to COUNTY those complaints that are beyond the scope
of this agreement.
CITY shall keep a distinct accounting of all expenditures for repairs and maintenance under this fund.
Annually, the CITY shall receive an amount that will be negotiated between the parties for a work
program for the following year. This amount shall be established during the annual meeting of the parties
as specified in the agreement and will include the estimated cost of the work plus 8% for project design,
administration and inspection. Payment shall be made by COUNTY within sixty days of July 1 each year
for the duration of the agreement, or sixty days after the date of agreement on the negotiated amounts,
whichever is later.
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARD!WASHINGTON COUNTY
EXHIBIT 4
Traffic Impact Fees
CITY shall assume responsibility for collecting traffic impact fees for the area as of date of the
agreement. Funds shall be spent for projects in the area as determined by CITY working with the
COUNTY in conjunction with the Washington County Coordinating Committee. A work program shall
be established for the area by the parties for the area at the annual meeting of the parties. Funds allocated
from the TIF shall used to finance the agreed upon work program.
CITY shall keep a subaccount of all expenditures for improvement made under this fund. CITY shall
collect these fees and shall be responsible for all accounting and auditing for these fees.
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTMGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
EXHIBI'T' 5
Code Enforcement
CITY shall assume responsibility for code enforcement as of the date of this agreement. CITY shall
enforce codes and respond to citizens complaints and prosecute violators for violations of Washington
County Code Articles VIII and IX (Ordinances 487 and 488). CITY shall keep a log of all complaints
and the response time to these complaints, as well as the results of the complaints. CITY shall keep all
fines levied from violators.
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARDNVASHTNGTON COUNTY
EXHIBIT 6
Building Permits
City shall issue all building permits, for all activities requiring permits under the Building Codes and
other CITY codes as adopted by COUNTY and perform all inspections in a timely manner. CITY shall
assume responsibility for completing existing permits on the date of this agreement and all building
permits requested for the area thereafter.
CITY shall keep an accounting of all funds collected and expenses in maintaining the building inspection
program. Funds collected by CITY shall be used to operate the CITY building permit program for the
area.
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/T!GARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
0 III_ 11M
EXMBIT 7
Park System Development Charge
If the City undertakes the preparation of an Annexation Plan for the Bull Mtn. area, which the voters
approve, the County shall allow the City to collect a Park System Development Charge (SDC) for new
development for the period between the approval date of the Annexation Plan and the effective date of the
annexation. The initial SDC shall be the City's current rate at the time this provision is implemented, and
may be adjusted according to the City's procedures for changes to the SDC. To the extent practicable,
funds collected within the Bull Mtn. area shall be expended within the area.
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARD/WASIIINGTON COUNTY
Is lm~"W I =J
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: William A. Monahan, City Manager
ul
RE: Street Maintenance Fee
DATE: August 9, 2002
Council is scheduled to consider adoption of the proposed street maintenance fee on
August 27. In order that Council may fully understand the background of the need for a
new transportation funding source and to be aware of the issues being raised by
citizens and local business, staff prepared an informational packet for Council review.
City Engineer Gus Duenas will be present at the study session portion of the Council
meeting on August 13 to explain the materials and the process followed to date. If
Council wishes to receive additional information or wants to consider what its alternative
courses of action are, staff will be prepared to discuss these items in detail.
Attached for Council information is the following:
1. A memo from City Recorder Cathy Wheatley that provides a chronology
of Council discussion of transportation issues over the past few years.
In addition, information specific to the street maintenance flee proposal
is attached.
Within Cathy's memo, she points out the alternatives available to Council
(adopt the fee, seek further information, or refer it to an advisory vote).
In addition, Cathy's memo discusses the options should citizens wish to
bring the matter to a vote.
2. City Engineer Gus Duenas prepared a memo that explains the issues that
have been raised by businesses over the past few months. Attached to
his memo is a letter received this week by attorney Mark Whitlow, repre-
senting the Oregon Grocery Industry Association.
3. The final memo is from Gus Duenas discussing his proposal for adjust-
ment to the street maintenance fee rate. The adjustment was stimulated
by input received from local businesses as Gus previewed the content and
intent of the street maintenance fee. Gus will be ready to discuss the
proposed adjustments at the August 13 meeting. This information
represents the present proposal being put forth by the staff for a street
maintenance fee.
Attachments
1:1ADMIBILLVNEM0S120021STREET MAINTENANCE FEE.DOC
MEMORANDUM
TO: William A. Monahan, City Manager
FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
RE: Transportation: Council Review on Issues; Street Maintenance Fee
and Election Information
DATE: 9, 2002
Bill, as you requested here is information for the City Council's benefit as they review
the issues regarding how to proceed on the street maintenance fee proposal.
1. Background Information
Council has reviewed a number of transportation-related issues over the years.
Working with other agencies, the Council has reviewed options to meet
transportation needs. These other agencies include:
State (through legislators and ODOT)
County
Metro
Tri Met (meet the service needs of Tigard citizens)
Westside Transportation Alliance
In addition Council has continuously listed "transportation" as one its major goals.
This year's goal states:
GOAL 1: TRANSPORTATION
A. Explore funding sources for transportation needs. Funding for
maintenance and capital are needed for the following-
1. Roads
2. Trails/Bicycles
3. Pedestrian Safety (Sidewalks, streetlights, crosswalks)
4. Bridges
B. Work with Tri-Met to develop intra-city bus service and Park-and-Ride
locations.
C. Work with ODOT on state-funded facilities.
The Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Vision Program also identifies transportation as a
"target area" to address the issue as follows:
Tigard takes a proactive role in regional transportation planning.
Funding sources are diverse, include regional resources and are adequate
to build and maintain our transportation system. Each type of street safely
handles the traffic it is designed to serve. Local traffic is served by a well-
connected street network that minimizes traffic impacts on neighborhoods.
Tigard's arterials and major collector streets accommodate through-traffic
reducing the impact of regional traffic on local neighborhoods. Alternative
transportation methods are affordable and available. Use of alternative
transportation is encouraged.
Goal 1: Improve traffic safety
Goal 2: Alternative modes of transportation are available and use is
maximized
Goal 3: Identify and develop funding resources
examine current and possible new sources for funding to
implement recommendations
Attached is a chronology of most of the transportation-related discussion topics
the Council has had on its agenda since 1998. (Attachment 1)
City Engineer Duenas has prepared a document that provides information about
the financing issues of how to fund capital improvements and maintenance
needs). (Attachment 2)
A street maintenance fee chronology is attached, which gives Council an outline
of the progression of the review of this fee. (Attachment 3)
Council is now scheduled to conduct a public hearing and review a proposed
street maintenance fee on August 27. The City has received input from
individuals, organizations, and businesses on this fee. Input includes support for
the fee as well as opposition. (Attached are letters representative of citizen
concerns as well as a recent newspaper article and letters to the editor -
Attachment 4). Some of the opponents have suggested they would look into
either a referendum or an initiative to place the proposal on a ballot. Information
on the election process in described in Section III of this memo.
INN 11 MINIMMIN
II. Options: How Council Might Proceed with Consideration of a Street
Maintenance Fee
a. Hold public hearing on August 27 to consider fee; adopt fee.
b. Delay decision and direct staff to do additional surveying, fact gathering,
public discussions, and then bring back this issue to Council at a later
date.
C. Council to place a measure on ballot asking for voter advice regarding
implementation of a street maintenance fee.
d. Combination of Options b and c including further analysis and placing the
matter on a ballot.
III. (Election Process: Council Referral; Referendum; Initlative
You may recall that in the late 90's, the City had the opportunity to either place
an advisory ballot measure before the voters to ask whether the City should
pursue the Willamette River as a long-term water resource. At the time, the
Council decided to go forward with a public information campaign about the
Willamette River, which included a variety of public outreach efforts and the
formation of a Committee to advise the Council. As the City was going through
this process, a political committee formed, gathered enough signatures to place
the matter on a ballot and voters approved the initiative measure. The result was
for an amendment to the City of Tigard Charter that says the City shall not use
the Willamette River as a drinking water source unless approved by Tigard
voters.
Here is some information with regard to election process on the following:
a. Council referral
Council may refer the matter to Tigard citizens for an advisory vote on a
proposed street maintenance fee. Gary Firestone of the City Attorney's
office advises this would not require a double majority vote if placed on a
non-General Election ballot.
If the Council would like to place such a measure on the November 5,
i 2002, ballot, the filing deadline date is September 5, 2002. Steps would
include preparation of a ballot title by the City Attorney and approval by
the Council to forward the measure to the Washington County Elections
Division. An Explanatory Statement would also need to be prepared.
ISO
b. Referendum
A prospective referendum petition may be filed at any time after the
ordinance is adopted, but must be completed before the ordinance takes
effect. Signatures must be filed for verification with the elections official no
later than the 30"' day after adoption of the nonemergency ordinance.
The percentage of signatures required for a referendum petition is not less
than ten percent of active registered voters. As of August 9, 2002, the
Elections Division advises that the City of Tigard has 22,398 registered
votes, which means 2,240 signatures would be needed.
The soonest a referendum could appear on a ballot would be March 11,
2003.
C. Initiative
A prospective initiative petition consists of the text of the proposed city
charter or ordinance as well as the required forms that must be completed
before filing the prospective initiative petition with the city elections official.
The percentage of signatures required for an initiative petition is not less
than fifteen percent of active registered voters. As of August 9, 2002, the
Elections Division advises that the City of Tigard has 22,398 registered
votes, which means 3,360 signatures would be needed.
The soonest a referendum could appear on a ballot would be March 11,
2003.
Attached is information from the 2002 City Elections Manual outlining Initiative
and Referendum Timeline for Ballot Placement. (Attachment 5)
1:1ADM\CATHY\PROJECTS\TRANSPORTATION DISCUSSIONS - MEMO BY CW.DOC
Attachment 1
Chronology -
Transportation-Related Items Reviewed by City Council 1998-August 2002
Meeting Date A enda Topic
2/10/98 Discussion - Support of Tualatin Expressway
2/17/98 Dartmouth LID - Proposed assessments
2/24/98 Dartmouth LID - Update on assessments
2/24/98 Call for Public Input - Stop signs @ Burnham and Main
2/24/98 Discussion - Policy on private streets and responsibility for
maintenance
3/10/98 Discussion - Policy on private streets and responsibility for
maintenance
3/10/98 Update - Capital Improvement Program
3/17/98 Public Hearing - Dartmouth LID
4/4/98 Public Hearing - Dartmouth LID
4/21/98 Realignment of Walnut at Fonner & Tiedeman
5/12/98 Public Hearing - Dartmouth LID
5/19/98 Proposed LID - 69th Avenue
5/26/98 Dartmouth LID - Consideration of Final Order
5/26/98 Status - Comprehensive Facilities Plan (streets and bridges,
sanitary sewer, water, and storm drainage)
6/23/98 MSTIP Projects Update
7/21/98 Tualatin River Pedestrian Bridge
8/18/98 Discussion - connector between Hunziker Street & Hall
Boulevard - (discussion with Fred Fields)
Meeting Date Agenda Topic
9/15/98 Widening of 92nd Avenue - Benefits & Costs
9/22/98 Review of traffic calming - SW North Dakota
9/22/98 Review of request to dedicate 107th Avenue to the city
10/13/98 69th Avenue LID - Preliminary Evaluation Report
10/20/98 Review options - Dedication & improvement of SW 107Th
Avenue
10/20/98 Report - 4-way stop at Royalty Parkway and Naeve Street
10/27/98 69th Avenue LID - Direct staff to prepare preliminary
engineering report
10/27/98 Authorize issuance of bond -financing of Dartmouth LID
11/24/98 Endorsed Tualatin River Bridge Grant application
12/8/98 Update - 69th Avenue LID
12/15/98 Update - Key transportation decisions for the City of Tigard
1/19/99 Report on Tualatin River Pedestrian Bridge
2/9/99 Update on Transportation System Plan (TSP)
2/23/99 Public Hearing - 69th Avenue LID
3/2/99 Follow-up report - issues related to 69th Avenue LID
3/9/99 Transportation System Plan - Public involvement process
3/16/99 Potential road bond projects
3/23/99 Appoint road bond task force
4/20/99 Potential road bond project financing
4/20/99 Transportation bond task orce
Meeting Date Agenda Topic
5/18/99 Westside Transportation Alliance
5/28/99 Proposed Capital Improvement Projects for 99100
5/25/99 Award engineering design services contract for Gaarde Street
improvements
5/25/99 Award project contract for 69th Avenue LID
6/22/99 Public comment - Capital improvement program
7/13/99 Authorize agreement between ODOT and City - improvements
to SW Mall/Sattler Street intersection
7/13/99 Update - Washington County Commuter Rail study
7/13/99 79th Avenue project status report
8/17/99 Update - options for SW Gaarde/Walnut Intersection
10/12/99 Contract amendment - Gaarde Street improvements
12/14/99 Viewed video: "New wheels for westside: Washington County
Commuter Raid
2/22/00 IGA - Washington County - MSTIP 3 project for Walnut
Street and Gaarde Street improvements
3/14/00 Transportation bond update
4/11/00 Transfer of jurisdiction of certain county roads - Walnut Island
and ancillary islands to the City
4/18/00 Proposed transit needs survey and outreach program
4/25/00 Interim financing for Dartmouth LID
4/25/00 Declare need for property for purpose of construction Gaarde
Street improvement ro'ect
son 111101 =I
Meeting Date Agenda Topic
5/9/00 Transportation Bond Task Force recommendations
5/23/00 Consider endorsement of Wilsonville to Beaverton commuter
rail alternative
6/20/00 Update - regional transportation plan
6/27/00 Public comment - capital improvement program 00/01
6/27/00 Submit to voters - GO Bond - transportation system
improvement projects
6/27/00 Consider IGA - Washington County & City to construct certain
improvements as part of MSTIP
8/8/00 Revised resolution submitting GO bond to voters for
transportation system improvement projects
8/22/00 Ribbon cutting announcement - Walnut/Tiedeman intersection
realignment and embedded crosswalk at 12111 & Katherine Street
9/12/00 Acknowledge Transportation Bond Task Force
9/26/00 Update on the transportation bond and capital improvement
program project
10/10/00 Update on transportation bond and capital improvement
program projects
10/10/00 Consider working with Tri-Mt and Ride Connection - to
provide job access service to low-income Tigard residents
10/10/00 Review SW North Dakota and 1301h/Hawks Beard traffic
calming discussions
10/17/00 Preview of draft Transportation System Plan (TSP)
10/17/00 Discussion - policy for right-of-way and sidewalk maintenance
on major collectors
11/14/00 Brien on trans ortation bond election results
Meeting Date Agenda Topic
12/19/00 Update - Gaarde Street improvements, phase one construction
' 2/13/01 Discussion - Tri Met service changes
2/13/01 Established Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force
2/20/01 Joint meeting with Planning Commission - one of the topics on
the agenda was "transportation funding"
2/27/01 Discussion Hawks Beard1130th Task Force recommendations
3/13/01 Follow-up of sidewalk maintenance and responsibilities on major
collectors
3/13/01 Proclamation - support for the commuter rail
3/20/01 Discussion Transportation System Plan (TS)
5/15/01 Strategic planning - funding for library, transportation,
recreation and public facility needs/General Fund
6/12/01 Review - policy for sidewalks and right-of-way maintenance
responsibilities on major collectors
6/19/01 Discussion - right-of-way and sidewalk responsibility
7/10/01 Acquisition of property for Burnham Street improvements
7/10/01 Review - signal loop replacement (ODOT)
7/17/01 Review - right-of-way and sidewalk maintenance
8/28/01 Initial progress report - Transportation Financing Strategies
Task Force
11/20/01 Discussion - sidewalk maintenance on major collectors
11/20/01 Review -final draft of the Transportation System Plan (TSP)
12/11/01 U date - street maintenance fee stud
Meeting Date Agenda Topic
1/8/02 Public Hearing - adopting Transportation System Plan (TSP)
and amending the Comprehensive Plan
1/15/02 Update - Washington County long-range transportation plan
2/12/02 Public Hearing - 69th Avenue LID assessments
3/12/02 Discussion - options to pay additional City costs - 6961 Avenue
LID
3/19/02 Update - Tri Met action plan
3/19/02 Street maintenance fee study report
3/26/02 Ordinance spreading the assessments - 69th Avenue LID
6/18/02 Update - doumtown/commuter rail meeting
6/18/02 Update - development code amendments to implement the
Transportation System Plan (TSP) (Scheduled for a 9110102
hearing)
7/16/02 Update on the street maintenance fee
I:\ADM\CATHY\PROJECTS\TRANSPORTATION DISCUSSIONS BY CC - CHRONOLOGY.DOC
.as
Attachment 2
FYZPa.rC4 i3 y
Tigard's'T'ransportation Financing Issues
Background
The City of Tigard has approximately 140 miles of paved streets within the street system.
Much of the street infrastructure is old and was not designed for heavy trucks and buses.
There is a need to protect the investment in the existing street infrastructure. There is also
a corresponding need to expand collectors and arterials to meet the existing and future
transportation demands.
The state gas tax has been the sole funding source during the past decade for street
maintenance and minor reconstruction. The annual gas tax revenue is approximately $1.6
million. The routine maintenance performed by Public Works street crews, the overlays
and slurry seals, and the street light and traffic signal system energy costs and
maintenance are all funded from the gas tax revenues. The street lights and traffic signal
systems require approximately $500,000. The balance funds the routine maintenance
performed by the street crews. Whatever is left is set aside for overlays and slurry seals.
There are insufficient funds in the gas tax fund for road expansion projects.
A $10 million bond issue in 1989 provided funding for reconstruction and expansion
projects in Tigard. Improvement of McDonald Street, the intersection improvement at
Gaarde Street and Highway 99W, and other projects helped to improve traffic circulation
in the City at that time. There has not been a similar infusion of revenue for road
expansion projects since then. The Countywide Traffic Impact Fee does provide
approximately $1 million for road expansion each year. However, that revenue is
dependent upon the level of development and will diminish as development slows down.
Maintenance Needs
As operating costs rise each year, the amount available from the state gas tax (which has
not been increased in over a decade) for corrective and preventative maintenance has
drastically decreased. In FY 2001-02, the amount available for the Street System Program
from that tax is $207,000. This is a dramatic drop from the $500,000 to $600,000
available just a few years ago. Within a year or two, the gas tax would cease to be a
viable source of funding for pavement overlays and slurry seals. As a result, the ability of
the City of Tigard to adequately maintain the City's street infrastructure has been
compromised. In 1999, the City's Pavement Management System reported a maintenance
backlog of over $2 million dollars. Since then, the system has deteriorated even further
with the vast majority of the streets now requiring either pavement overlay or costly
reconstruction. There is an urgent need to reduce the maintenance backlog and perform
timely maintenance on the existing streets.
Why is there a need to perform timely maintenance on the City streets? Studies have
clearly demonstrated that pavement condition worsens at an increasing rate as the
pavement gets older. Restoration of pavement near the end of its service life typically
i
costs up to five times more than rejuvenation performed in a timely manner. Timely
maintenance extends pavement life significantly and thereby provides safer roads.
Street Expansion Needs
The need to expand the major streets in Tigard is likewise important to accommodate the
existing and future traffic volumes forecast in the City's Transportation System Plan
(TSP). The City's TSP identified a long list of street projects needed to meet the
transportation demands for the next 20 years. To address some of more critical street
expansion needs in Tigard, the City formed a Transportation Bond Task Force in 1999 to
select projects for a bond issue in the year 2000. The Task Force conducted an extensive
citizen involvement process to narrow the comprehensive list of potential projects to a
few highly needed street expansion and safety projects. A proposed $16 million bond
issue was presented to the voters in the November 2000 election. It was defeated by a 2 to
1 margin Citywide. The bond measure did not pass, but the City's needs remain.
City Council, through Resolution No. 01-06 effective February 13, 2001, formed the
Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force to evaluate and recommend to Council
feasible alternative funding sources for street maintenance and street expansion needs.
The Task Force examined a wide variety of funding sources for both corrective and
preventative maintenance of City streets, and expansion of collectors and arterials to
accommodate current and future traffic.
Addressing Maintenance Needs
To address the corrective and preventative maintenance needs, the Task Force
recommended initiation of a Street Maintenance Fee. The Street Maintenance Fee is an
alternative source of funds that can be implemented to help protect the City's investment
in the street infrastructure. This is a monthly fee based on use of the transportation system
and is typically based on trip generation rates. The fee is charged to each household and
business in the City. Other cities in Oregon have successfully implemented this fee and
are using the proceeds in their annual street maintenance programs. This fee can be
implemented by Council action. The fee is scheduled for Council consideration on
August 27, 2002 with implementation proposed for January 1, 2003.
Potential Use of Gas Tax Dollars That Become Available
Establishment of the Street Maintenance Fee would free up gas tax dollars that are
currently dedicated for street infrastructure maintenance. The dollars that become
available can be used to issue revenue bonds for street improvement projects. They also
can be used to obtain loans from the Oregon Economic and Community Development
Department with certain portions of the gas tax set aside to pay back the loans. The
funding from the loans can be used for urgently needed street expansion projects such as
Walnut Street from Tiedeman Avenue to 1215` Avenue and 1215` Avenue from Gaarde
Street to Walnut Street. In addition, these gas tax dollars can provide funding for on-
Mimi
oil
street bike paths and sidewalk construction to fill in gaps and connect residential
neighborhoods to schools.
Summary
The City needs a stable source of funds for timely street maintenance. The gas tax dollars
available for maintenance have steadily decreased each year as operating costs rise.
Establishment of the Street Maintenance Fee can provide that stable source of revenue
while freeing up gas tax dollars for limited expansion of the major streets. A bond issue
at some point in the future would be necessary to expand some of the collectors and
arterials and provide congestion relief. Until then, the City will have to both establish
new revenue sources and make effective use of existing revenue sources to maintain the
existing system and expand some of the more critical streets within that system.
I:1Eng\Gus\Street Maintenance FeeUransportation Financing Issues.doc
Elm
Cathy Wheatley " Chronology ' SMF.doc _...9._
I^ T
Attachment 3
Chronology - Street Maintenance Fee
February 13, 2001 City Council, through Resolution 01-06, formed the Transportation
Financing Strategies Task Force to evaluate and recommend to
Council feasible alternative funding sources for street maintenance
and street expansion needs.
April 19, 2001 Task Force held its first meeting. Looked at various sources of
funding, including a Street Utility Fee.
May 17, 2001 Task Force reviewed street utility fees adopted by other cities (i.e.
Tualatin, Portland, Wilsonville).
June 21, 2001 Dan Boss of Tualatin reviewed the City of Tualatin's Road Utility
Fee and the new Sidewalk Maintenance Program with the Task
Force.
August 16, 2001 Task Force approved a recommendation to Council for initiation of
a Street Maintenance Fee Study.
August 28, 2001 Council heard the Task Force recommendation and approved the
Street Maintenance Fee Study.
January 17, 2002 Draft stud data reviewed b the Task Force
February 21, 2002 Review of the Draft Street Maintenance Fee Study Report by Task
Force
March 19, 2002 Presentation of the Street Maintenance Fee Study Report to
Council. Council provided direction for the Task Force to meet with
businesses and report back in July.
July 16, 2002 Street Maintenance Fee update to Council. Results from meetings
with businesses discussed. Businesses raised issue of pass-by trips
and diverted linked trips.
August 7, 2002 Adjustments to the fees made to account for pass-by trips.
August 27, 2002 Street Maintenance Fee Ordinance and Resolution setting fees
scheduled for Council consideration. Proposed effective date for the
fees is January 1 2003.
L
Attachment 4
Correspondence & newspaper information on street maintenance fee
❖ August 2 letter from Mr. Gene McAdams
•o• August 2 email from Glen Comuntzis
❖ Oregonian article: "Road fee idea getting in gear"
❖ Letters to the Editor: "Road Fees"
RECEIVED C.O.T.
AUG 0 2 2002 13420 S.W. Brittany Drive
Tigard, Oregon 97223-1530
Administration August 2, 2002
Mayor Jim Griffith
City of Tigard Oregon
13125 S. W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Mayor Griffith:
Enclosed is a draft "Soapbox° I plan to forward to the Tigard Times
for publication. It addresses the proposed Street Maintenance Fee.
This copy is for your examination. It represents some.-of my
thoughts with a primary focus on the potential for unlimited, uncoritrolldd
expenditures for a multiplicity of unrelated purposes.
Due to the complexities involved, I ask that,.you review the draft to
ensure factual accuracy.
Any advice you can share or needed' corrections you can identify
to factual information will be very much appreciated.
Please respond at your earliest opportunity so the piece can be _
included in the August 15 edition. "
Sincerely,
i G.E. McAdams
V,6.Councilmembers
13420 S. W. Brittany drive
Tigard, Oregon 97223-1530
July 31, 2002
Mr. Mikel Kelly, Managing Editor
Tigard Times
Times Newspapers
P.O. Box 370
Beaverton, Oregon 97075
Subject: Soapbox--Tigard Times
On July 16 an item listed on the City Council agenda peaked my particular inter-
est and was entitled "update on-the Street Maintenance Fee". I vividly recalled city
voters rejecting a $16 million property tax levy for street improvements two years ago.
Was this some sort of gimmick to overcome the voters decision? Was this another way
to increase my tax bill without a vote of the people?
To find out I journeyed to City Hall. After ponying up $6.50 for copies of the
report, I discovered the committee which assisted City Council and staff in 2000 to pre-
pare the bond measure "was reconvened to review the potential for a road. main-
tenance fee". This assessment (according to the city) is to be defined as a "fee"
(instead of a tax). Said "fee" is destined to appear-on my water. bill.
Shades of my monthly Verison dun! I could immediately visualize funding city
government with an unending list of unrecognizable taxes in the form of "fees". Is-this
a new plan to avoid property tax limitations? Would this; mean if I am unable and delin-
quent in paying these street, sidewalk, street light and various (rental charges, the
city will literally shut off my water? Ouch!
My bill already contains listings including Customer Fee, Water Consumption,
Sewer Fee Base Charge, Sewer Usage, and Surface Water Management. The report
proposes a composite charge for Street Maintenance Street Right of Way Main- " -
tenance Sidewalk Maintenance, Street Light Maintenance and Street Intersection
Signal Light Maintenance (including electrical power consumption) plus a continuing
percentage "add on" for inflation. If adopted, we happy (single family) homeowners
will pay our share of this $2,000,000 annual tax based upon (an assumed) 9.57 vehic-
ular trips (to and from home) per day.
Immediately after the scheduled public hearing on August 27, the City Council
is geared to implement these charges by simply adopting a resolution. This means
i approval by a simple majority will authorize the charges forevermore. (This, after we
voters just approved a $13 million bond measure to acquire land and build a new -
library.) It also means these new "fees" can be increased at any time with only three
votes of the City Council. We all know our government is capable of spending any and
all dollars that can be extracted from defenseless taxpayers.
The city will undoubtedly claim these new "fees" have nothing to do with. the
(draft-pg. 1)
bond measure turn doiYn two years ago. The report blames the drastic decrease in
gas tax revenue as justification for these innovative new "fees". Nevertheless, the
report includes $1.8 million for street reconstruction.
When an existing rural street is removed and a new one is built to city standard
(with added sidewalks), the project is no longer maintenance. It becomes a capital
project. Therefore, this $1.8 million of capital outlay does not qualify as maintenance.
(Unless, of course, truly 1nnovatiW accounting practices [now in vogue nationally in
corporate America].are utilized.)
Secondly, there in no justification whatever for the city to assume sidewalk
maintenance *on any street where driveway access from said street is available to
adjacent properties.
I voted against the 2000 bond measure for several reasons. One of those rea-
sons concerned sidewalks: The cost of initial sidewalk installation on my property was
included in the price of my home. (My ownership Was also assessed for cost of street
and sidewalk construction for a collector street more than -a block away.) The city how-
ever, has been building rQw streets (including sidewalks) -as part of street construe-
Von. The residences bordering these new streets were not assessed for the new side-
walks... The cost was absorbed by taxpayers city-wide. .
The idea that this new "fee" will pay for maintenance of all sidewalks on arterial
and collector streets is discriminatory and patently unfair. Why should I have to pay for
my neighbors sidewalk after I personally paid for my own.?
The City Attorney attended many of the committew meetings. However, no writ-
ten opinion has appeared to verify the veracity of the "fee" and it's elements or the pro-
priety of only a resolution :for implementation. Such information would be a valuable
resource for Council deliberations. (it would also aid in future evaluations of legal
department',performanpe short of the U.S. Supreme Court).
}~_This catch-a11 proposal to extract-money is poorly conceived, totally
inappro-priate, ill-timed and inadequately defined. While the total impact of the initial "fee" may
not be particularly onerous, the methodology, definition and specificity is seriously
flawed. If approved in it's present form, it will allow °maintenance monies" to be col-
lected and spent on a plethora of activities unrelated to maintenance.
After adoption, the only recourse for those of us who will be forced to pay the bill
is the initiative process. It will require a voter initiative petition and a city wide election
to overturn a simple three vote majority.
Remember the public hearing August 27, 2002 in the City Council Chambers.
Sincerely,
G.E. McAdams
(draft pg. 2)
Cath Wheatle ,.IT, Road Maintenance Tax Page 1
From: <GGlenC@aol.com>
To: <mayor@ci.tigard.or.us> L : S
Date: 8/2/02 10:33PM
Subject: RE: Road Maintenance Tax
Dear Mayor,
So, the "task force" has decided that the taxpayers of Tigard are supposed to
SUBSIDIZE the road maintenance for the hundreds of thousands of NON-Tigard
citizens using our roads by TAXING US?
Clearly, if the City Council pulls that maneuver, there will be a RECALL
Campaign established for each City Council Person and a demand for
restitution to the taxpayers for all costs incurred due to those city
officials and employees' moronic decisions without our permission. As one who
has engaged those electoral processes for many years in Washington County,
and as a national political director in every state in the nation, please
note that I will be pleased to press a campaign in complete OPPOSITION to
such an inane proposal, and against any public official demanding such a
ridiculous and inequitable proposal.
If the "gas tax" that is distributed equally among all Oregon auto/truck
users, is not suitable for your use, I would suggest that you talk to the
local legislative delegation, rather than trying to "backdoor" a huge tax
increase via our water and sewer fees that will benefit NON-Tigard residents.
I will NOT stand for that, and I am certain that my fellow Tigard citizens
will NOT either.
If the City Council refuses to be representative of the citizens of Tigard,
then I suggest that they RESIGN their positions now, so that those more
representative of us can make cogent decisions.
Please do NOT force us to engage in such a campaign against you. Tigard'
residents deserve to be treated better than this.
Respectfully,
Glen Comuntzis
Quail Creek Lane
gear-
64p:~L °u ef 7- Umatilla counties, and in Woodburn. iNSM UNE the same for nearly a decade. That has
Ne ative public sentiment, combined left many cities scrambling to find new
With gas taxes regularly fueling, a Stronlobby the gasoline in- Would you accept a road tee, or is funding. chi
Tigard and Sherwood dustry, has deterred o er municipclities there a better way to fund repairs? °I this is a statewide problem;
opposition, '
considering the idea. We'd Ilke to said Gus D is ncityengineer.
are among the cities looking at a from seriously ~ h'o Unfo rtunatelytely, , t there ere is no statewide so-
The need for money to maintain roads publish yourtion."
street maintenance charge hasn't disappeared, however. response.Tigard, the City Council plans to
By EMILY TSAO Now a few local governments around Call Inside ld a public the hearing this month. In
me o~coN~t the state - Including Tigard, Sherwood, Llne at Sherwood, a consultant is expected to
TIGARD - For years, Oregonians Newberg, Lake Oswego and Clackamas 503.22:5- make a presentation this month to the
County -ere are considering a road mein- 55551 a touch-tone phone, City Council. Newberg officials are ex-
have expressed their distaste for local gas then fee. It's an option that's gaining then enter enter 4690. or e-mail l* at ploring the idea. In Eugene, the City
taxes as a way to fix crumbling roads. popularity. southwest (Praws ~ttwas oreponl Council is scheduled to vote on a road
In King City, a 1-cent-a-gallon tax ap- "Roads are getting older, and funds °n'00rn fee this month.
proved by the City Council early this year are not increasing," said Andrea Fogue, In Lake Oswego, the City Council this
is being challenged by residents and has who specializes in transportation policy spring ve a preliminary nod to a road
been referred to the November ballot for the League of Oregon Cities. "Those fee, an d the city staff Is working to final-
or 1997, voters defeated new gas taxes are the driving factors in why cities are In the past, most cities relied mainly ~ rates. h Sandy, the issue goes before
cases on existing ones in Wash- looking more closely at street utility on state gas tax revenues for road main-
or inre
ington, Clackamas, Yamhill, Marion and fees." tenance. But the state gas tax has stayed Please see ROAD FEE, Page 9
Road
e: Cities figure number V of trips Auto Mall 'SIHCE1921°
Continued from Page 1 THE # VOLUME
voters in a September election. COMPARING FEESV j
Clackamas County is working A sarnplp of cities anq thelrcurrent or propogd ;t[get ma~nt~ngnce progtams t
with six cities - Estacada, Glad-
stone, Happy Valley, Lake Oswego, City y Monthlyrate Annugf,> A
erf-I l'~. Uses r $tat}la ~~I1 e~e g ®`g~I'e
G®
Milwaukie and Oregon City - to for single folal hpn ~e$idehtlai 6t~ mri
study road fees. family [tor e ~r r' i } •splii " i IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
The communities haven't de- Tigard S2tz ? 51.6millo0, , ' 22peccentl F{aads stdeWalks Propg9ed... ` 1 1
[ermined whether the county and 6 peFcert fight of way
city would combine fees or ch a possible
ar8 , I stra~tlights tmp)Atttentation 0.~UZVS
a t i , y January
separate rates. b 4~0 ANIL
The fee goes by different names Sherwood I Si r 5542100 x ' i N/A=, Roads Rroposed
but has the same general concept. Tualatin 52 92 5650000 25pereent/ ' Roads; trees Roads since
The city generally collects the TSge'r6ent• streetllghls 1990 pp
monthly fee on a utility bill to use tree; and lights OApR TO go, ~Q$
for road maintenance. b
2001 In Llou of Factory Rebate
In some cases, fees for maintain- . Wilsonville S4.04 $500 000 50 percent/ Roads since
1997
ing sidewalks, rights of way and 50.pefcent Bank Ono - on approved credit
street lighting also appear on the Sandy , $5., 5170000' 7,4pe~~ent/ Roads Refenedto
=afma llea~
bill. a 26 percept $eptefobeis•galfot
Most titles rely on a formula Salem $Z4,6 S3 mlllon. 60 percenU Sidewalks Approved. ' 1 I I ' I
based on trip generation - the es- r
„ 40pgrcent, trees implementation '
timated number of vehicles visiting j ` a q '
a home or business - to set their ` ' t~ ' ' , 9treetll ht5 byJaquary: 2®02
Eu en
ge 5290 S5
rates. 7m11iop ~ 30perient/~ Roads Proposed
j 70perc¢ntr r , r ,
This means owners of single- Grants Pass S3; $540000 t 54 e'r_cent/ Roads Since1999.'
family homes pay a different rate { R ertAnt` ) %
" r
than apartment building owners. r Y~
Gas stations pay a different rate Apglle,onhtoueroadhumfelncete~ t ' w ii ,:r3 +r ti + k
than golf courses. Schools pay a '4rb3k DUi niaef ere or wilbe MbrGeO onthfy role lkalentMttlani use and aCUtrEtodugi." car~ruyftoma few EolbnltoSwjt
different rate than movie theaters. hundredd4mred*P1rVa,oonthetype of bw~n.~ e yx ~r, { ar
Even if someone doesn't own a
car, fee proponents say, that per- Tualatin was the fast city to base dents successfully to l y 1
son should still pay because the p y 81 22,991
resident probably rides the bus or the fee on trip generation, the put it on the September ballot. "We all benefit from the trans-
has friends who drive to visit. model most cities use now. Last Also on the Sandy ballot is a lo• Eli system, so we pay a little in ueu m a%APN Msa l s` to lissoss
All these trips have an effect on year, the city added a $1.5u flat fee gas tax which, if approved, bit (with the fee)," he said. "The
for all residents and businesses to wvould tnvalldate the roos
the roads. p p ed other is a local gas tax The more YEAR 5
The fees can cost homeowners a pay for sidewalk and tree mainte• road fee. you drive, the more you pay."
Hance in the city. Eu ene has assed the debate M I LOS
Few dollars every month; busi- g byp tones said the city is working `mod MOM
nesses can pay several hundred In Wilsonville, the fee has been over the benefits of a road mainte- with neighboring Springfield to vnWE.,_
dollars, depending on the formula. so successful that the city reduced nance fee versus a local gas tax It is create similar local gas taxes so
About 10 cities around the state, Its fee by 10 percent earlier this considering both. that no businesses in the area will...
Including Tualatin and Wilsonville, year and boasts of pothole-free The City Council is contemplat- be placed at a disadvantage.
tlready have fees for road mainte- roads. Ing a road maintenance fee of "We don't see the state solving BULET Bt OUNAd
lance. But not everyone is enamored of about $2.90 a single-family home our problems," he said. "it Is up to , ®
La Grande is thought to be one road maintenance fees, last year, and a local gas tax of 4 cents a gal- the focal communities to address ' S U Z Y
rf the first tides to implement a Portland tried to collect a street fee, lon. City officials hope the two and solve our own problems."
but strong opposition from busi- sources of revenue will generate 111 OT a aifY CANTOR RD.
be, back in 1985, nesses forced the city to reconsid- about $8.5 million annually. 0 brN p
Tualation fee based on trips er. Eric Jones, Eugene's public You can reach Emily Tsao at
The city, however, doesn't use a In Sandy this year, the City works spokesman, called the two- 503.294-5968 or by e-mail at
nged approach "philosophical- emllytsao~newxor egonlan lwm S EMtingb M EryM Sutlw w.
rip generation formula. It charges Council approved a street fee. Resi- pro
1 flat s4 fee per water meter for all u
'
tomes and bustnessm. -
ROAD 1199% Let me ~spk n what a mad main-
tenance, fee really is,. ; just. in cak
Whem dM 00 tax qoy some people don't know. When, you
the Permsylyania turnpike; and
enter
A road fee?'Absolutely not! ("Road
fee ideagettingin&ar,"Aug. I) you go.up to a. toll booth; and you
and everyone else who uses that
We already pay gas taxes We have road puts' money into the toll booth,
pT4P Y. E.: then that, Is a road malntenance,fee. .
I'di:llkaAWW,,pQRtttel in,tie.*re- Only those peopls• who use. drat
gonlajr.l}ovs~n ch is ~ MkW annu• :tumpikoai?e:paying diet fee-thuse ii,
gas that maintain it acid : keep it- operating the r6 That is afm
iuimber ofvefi~gfg dgwr~ ;die®Pt#taAOY
•amot}trtouoybeliigted. 'lei
cAY t.ANR I wtouid be n road fee ire-
E l Cau&e I dor!''t ttte iroad°depart-
~I~P t~ atat~d st~abt8e mauls at any level state, couutyor
. • II'=1pel that; the , c~rs and bucks ty~ ,sp~~ ~eiE;rirone¢,reepoera!-
goiral by on file higdrway are inaidng . Syr Tlrey;squander,it needlessl}iand
t6iO problems fpr the.cidea `I think drive up the eed forroad fees
the -only way k cari be handled As aul eiltnpie, Hne have
vtould be to have tHe."road;fee be a . a,, copstrucdon. pm act tin. Uregon
10
it goe6 now,
statewide foci. The Way,
in
utthrg
die cities tlt#►f' "i tl *FeelAr~lty ti 4~ anll' r oed.bed; •
to`the city ts :then d'* stop he' are Inbding a ry
-work so yoi've got bad roads pa9t : ' bridge, the money tliat:is;'sgpan-
shatpoint. ' dered'ont)rat project away
I ,think the mad fee should ba froth other repdirs that are needed
l statewide 'and* should. N based on ,elsewhere
tonnage of the vehicles bec tse big The s+ sling bf ptablj 'igx dollati'
trucks cause. much' ;more,. damage as far as rofid repair A wlciespread in'
than cats bAie do need the fee to f5c .this stata:,W6 need'revLdons and pli=
ihe,mads . ; oiff" st`aIl evels.. '
BEVERLY SCHATZ k116(E ~5! ~611~►RT.: i
WQs"n County ; Shenuodd.
Ta any e y y l®ok t! -
Lei's dispel some falsities .right
Sway. It is n6t:& (mid) fee. 1is a,
tax Regardless bf all the newspeak`
aud.gobbledyggok-tliis-is a tax.onl._:
cioizeiis. No matter what you ball it,
it's a tax. .
We have it in Wilsonville. Our gut-
Im -City Council imposed It. on us
becaW 1!' .couldn't impose it on.
L4S as a `tat. , if these Cities wd4k
stop. sole-source.; rontiacts and Put
mgd.work out tathe lowest bidder; it
would be much better use of this tax `
«s
11111 IN
Attachment 5
2M City Elections Manuel s 43
Initiative and Referendum Timeline for Ballot Placement
(ORS 221.230, 250.325 and 250.355)
FOR A CITY INITIATIVE MEASURE
After the city elections official has determined that the initiative has qualified for the ballot, the city
elections official files the completed initiative measure with the city governing body at the body's next
meeting.
FOR A CITY REFERENDUM MEASURE
After the city elections official has determined that the referendum has qualified for the ballot, the city
elections official notifies the county elections official of the election.
COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICIAL
After receiving notification from the city elections official of the impending election the county
elections official issues the measure a number and assigns it to the appropriate election.
The election for a city initiative measure shall be held on the next available election date in ORS
221.230 that is no sooner than the 90'hday after the measure was filed with the city governing body.
The election for a city referendum measure shall be held on the next available election date in ORS
221.230 that is no sooner than the 90'' (fay after the measure was filed with the city elections official.
TIMELINE FOR CITY INITIATIVES
2002 Election Dates Last Day to File Initiative Measure with
Governing Body, to Qualify for this Election
March 12, 2002 December 12, 2001
May 21, 2002 February 20, 2002
September 17, 2002 June 19, 2002
November 5, 2002 August 7, 2002
2003 Election Dates Last Day to File Initiative Measure with
Governing Body, to Qualify for this Election
March 11, 2003 December 11, 2002
May 20, 2003 February 19, 2003
September 16, 2003 June 18, 2003
November 4, 2003 August 6, 2003
44 * 8002 City Elections Manual
The Wowing timeline is to assist citizens' exercizing their initiative and referendum powers to
determine the time requirements in initiating or referring a measure to a specific measure.
TIMELINE FOR CITY MEASURE
3. Initiative only: The petition is
2. Signature verification filed with the city governing
1. Signatures are must be completed by body (at its next meeting).
filed for the 15" day after the - s Governing body must adopt
verification. signatures are filed for measure or refer to voters
verification. within 30 days of its receipt.
Election
Day
4. Initiative: The date of the election is the next
available election date not sooner than the 90'"
day after the measure was filed with the city
governing body after verification.
Referendum: The date of the election is the next
available election date not sooner than the 90"`
day after the referendum petition was filed with
the city elections official.
CITY ®F TIGARD
Engineering Department
Shaping A Better Connnunity
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SW Mall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Phone 503-639-4171
Fax: 503-624-0752
TO: Mayor and City Councilors
Bill Monahan, City Manager
FROM: Gus Duenas
City Engineer
DATE: August 8, 2002
SUBJECT: Street Maintenance Fee Issues
During the past few months, we have been discussing the proposed Street Maintenance Fee (SMF)
with various businesses. We received input from some of those businesses and individuals during that
process. Some of the more significant issues are listed as follows:
® Is it a tax instead of a fee? This is probably the most significant issue raised since it challenges the
basis for establishment of the fee. Most of the other issues can be addressed through modification
of the scope of the work or the methodology for calculating the trip generation rates. Mark D.
Whitlow, supposedly representing the Oregon Grocery Industry Association, (OGIA), labels the
Street Maintenance Fee as a tax. Whether his statement is true or not is open to question. This issue
needs to be addressed and ordinance structured such that the SMF cannot be construed as a tax.
Attached is a copy of the letter from Mr. Whitlow. Unfortunately, the opponents of the fee do not
offer any alternative ways to produce the revenue needed for maintenance of the street
infrastructure.
® Have pass-by trips and diverted linked trips been considered in the trip generation data? We
agree with the need to consider pass-by trips in computation of the rates. I have submitted a
separate memorandum describing the adjustments that we made to incorporate pass-by trip
modifiers for certain establishments. We do not agree that diverted linked trips should be included.
Those trips introduce more traffic into the side streets and impact the major streets at the point of
re-entry into the stream of traffic.
® Should the SMF be passed by Council action, or should it be referred to the citizens of Tigard
for a vote? Council can clearly establish fees. Whether the SMF should be referred to the voters is
questionable. The argument against it is that the businesses that generate the most traffic and would
pay the largest amounts are not proportionally represented in the voting.
• Why should the City limit the sidewalk and rights-of-way maintenance to the collectors and
arterials? Many of the residential subdivisions adjacent to collectors and arterials do not have
direct access from the homes to the sidewalk or the rights-of-way areas on those streets. The areas
between the sidewalk and the homes are typically not maintained, are unsightly, and are potential
fire hazards. The sidewalks that are adversely affected by roots or by uneven settlement become
potential trip hazards. The Street Maintenance Fee proposes to eliminate these problem areas by
allocating maintenance funds to address those issues.
• This is a statewide issue. It should be addressed on a statewide basis. It is a statewide issue, but
there are no statewide solutions being contemplated in the foreseeable future. The OGIA does not
offer any solutions. Yet, these stores have restocking needs that require heavy trucks to serve the
stores routinely. Those heavy trucks clearly do the most damage to the street infrastructure. The
stores need to be a contributor to the maintenance of the street system. The state gas tax has been
the primary source of revenue for street maintenance. However, as cars are made more efficient
(hybrid cars) requiring less gas, the overall revenue from the gas tax will shrink even further. That
is the primary reason why each city is feeling the need to take prompt action to establish a stable
source of revenue that can be used to protect the existing street infrastructure.
Attached for your information is an article from the August 1 issue (Tigard-Tualatin-Sherwood edition
of the Washington County Weekly section) of the Oregonian. This article summarizes the need for a
road fee of some kind and presents a good picture of what other cities are considering for
implementation.
Attachments: 1. Letter from Mark Whitlow
2. Oregon article dated August 1, 2002
c: Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force Members
I:\Eng\Gus\Street Maintenance Fee\Adjustments to the Fee\Street Maintenance Fee Issues.doc
Street Maintenance Fee Issues
Page 2 of 2
1 AUG 0? 2002 16:35 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 ?2? 2222 TO 9503W4 ?2V P.02/WS
....r .1 s
Muir a WhAlow tan S.W. Fifth Avenue. Suits ISOO
mom 503.727.2073 Portland, OR 97204.3715
®us I%rMdIbW@PCrki33X*t&00M PHONe 503,727.2000
FAX 503.727.2222
www.perkinscole.com
August 7, 2002
BY FACSI MULE
Mr. Bill Monahan
City Manager
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Proposed Street Maintenance Fee
Dear Bill:
Enclosed is a copy of the draft letter which we are prepared to send to the Mayor and
City Council as discussed in our telephone conversation last evening. As also then
discussed, we would like to have the opportunity to first review this matter with you
and the City's attorney.
Veryy yours,
Mar. D. Whitlow
MDW:djf
Enclosure
cc: Tim Ratnis
Gary Firestone
5
ANCHORAGE . BEIJING • HILLEVUE • 8015E CHICAGO • OfNV1IR „ONG KONG • LOS ANGELES
MENLO PARK • OLYMPIA • PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO • SEATTLi • SPOKANE • WASHINGTON. D.C.
[36986-OWNPA022190.103) Perkins Cole UP (Petklns Cole LLC in Illinois)
` AUG 07 2002 16:35 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 95036647297 P.03i06
D Ar"r
R..`
Mark D. Whitlow
motor 503.727.2073
naw mwhiflow®porkitpco ie"m
August 7, 2002
Hon. Jim Griffith, Mayor and
Tigard City Council
1.3125 SW Hall Blvd_
Tigard, OIL 97223
Re: Proposed Street Maintenance Fee
Dear Mayor Griffith and Council Members:
This letter is written on behalf of the Oregon Grocery Industry Association (OG14,),
whose representative members include Albertson's, Fred Meyer, Safeway and WinCo,
as well as grocery industry wholesalers, brokers, manufacturers and suppliers. The
OGIA has 6 members representing 12 business locations within the City of Tigard.
Please make this letter a part of the City's record in these proceedings.
We understand that the City is considering enacting a Street Maintenance Fee
("SMF") for purposes of funding maintenance and improvements to streets, sidewalks,
streetlights and traffic signals within the public right-of-way in Tigard. OGIA and its
members respect the City's exploration of alternative means to finance needed public
improvements. However, the adoption of this "fee" will create an unacceptable
precedent for the adoption of taxes disguised as fees throughout the region and the
state. We would urge the City to withhold the adoption of the proposed SMF in favor
of seeking an acceptable alternative solution to the transportation system funding
problem.
Even if the "fee" were not a disguised tax, there are numerous other problems with its
structure, including a disproportionate fee allocation methodology resulting in
payments disproportionate to system impacts. However, we believe that the proposed
"fee" would be subject to a successful challenge as a tax for the reasons set out below.
If the City is determined to go forward with the adoption of an ordinance enacting the
SMF, we are prepared to file a complaint for declaratory relief in Washington County
[369 86-00 Wl/PA032120.065I
RUG 07 2002 16:35 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 95036847297 P.04i06
August 7, 2002
Page 2
Circuit Court similar to the draft complaint attached to this letter. We would also
consider filing an appeal under Measure 5 in the Oregon Tax Court.
First, the SW is beyond the authority of the City of Tigard to impose, because it is
actually a tax, and the city's charter does not authorize the enactment of a tax for
purposes of raising revenue for city-wide street maintenance. Second, the SMF
violates the Uniformity Clause of the Oregon Constitution. Third, the SMF appears to
be a tax on property that is invalid because it is not levied on an ad valorem basis, and
because it exceeds the property tax limitations created by Article M. Section I lb of
the Oregon Constitution.
Despite the City's attempt to characterize the SMF as a fee, it is clearly a disguised
tax. The supporting documents leave no question that the CiV is attempting to find an
alternative source of general revenue to fund maintenance of public right-of-way that
will benefit the entire city. The Oregon Supreme Court has held that any
governmental charge, the primary purpose of which is to raise revenues for general
public benefits, is a tax.' This is true regardless of the structure of the charge and
regardless of the label applied. In the Sproul case, the court noted that the label
placed on a governmental exaction (i.e., "tax" or "fee") is not conclusive of the nature
of the levy." Sproul, 234 Or at 581. Thus, courts must look at the underlying purpose
of the levy, and determine whether it is assessed against the entire jurisdiction for
benefits accruing to everyone, in which case it is a tax, or whether it is responsive to
more specific regulatory needs that are occasioned only by those on whom the levy
falls, in which case it is a fee. Id. at 587-93. The City documents supporting the SMF
state that the SMF is needed to provide a supplemental revenue source to replace
declining gas tax revenues. The obvious city-wide public purposes giving rise to the
SMF make it a tax, notwithstanding the drafters' efforts to disclaim that
characterization. Because the purpose of the SMF is to generate revenue for city-wide
public benefits that will be paid by everyone in the city, it is by definition a tax under
the applicable case law. The Charter of the City of Tigard does not provide the
1 See, e.g., Hougen v. Gleason, 226 Or 99, 104 (1961), where the Oregon Supreme Court explained
that the appropriate test for whether a "fee" is really a tax is "whether the primary purpose of the
county is to -accomplish desired public benefits which cost money, or whether the primary purpose is to
regulate...." By the City of Tigard's own admission in the documents supporting the SMF, the primary
purpose of the SMF is to create a funding source to replace declining gas tax revenues for the
maintenance of public streets. The primary purpose of the SMF is not to "regulate" streets, rather, it is
to generate money to pay for general public benefits associated with city-wide street maintenance. See
also Sproul v. State Tax Com., 234 Or 579 (1963).
[36986- M4/PA022120.06S) W/02
AUG 07 2002 16:35 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 95036847297 P.05i06
August 7, 2002
Page 3
council with authority to enact a tax for purposes of maintenance of the public right-
of-way.
In the leading case in this area, a "street utility charge" imposed by the City of Seattle
(very similar to the proposed Sly was thrown out by the Washington Supreme Court
for being a tax, and not a regulatory "fee." In Covell v City of Seattle, 905 P2d 324
(Wash. 1995), the court relied in part on the Oregon Supreme Court's decision in
Haugen in creating a three-part test, the first portion of which is to determine
"whether the primary purpose of the [city] is to accomplish desired public benefits
which cost.money, or whether the primary purpose is to regulate." Covell at 327
(quoting Haugen). The Covell court found that the "fee" was really an impermissible- -
tax because the focus of the ordinance was on generating funding for the general
public beneAt ' of ' improving streets, not regulating the use of city streets by those being
assessed. The court held that the fee was really a tax because: "the revenue to be
collected bears no relationship to the regulation of street traffic, but is to generate
funds for the nonregulatory function of repairing streets." Covell at 331. The same
statement could be made about the City of Tigard's proposed SMF - its purpose is Yo
generate funding for public benefits associated with streetscape improvements
throughout &e City. It has nothing to do with regulating the use of streets. Under the
test applied by the Oregon Supreme Court in Haugen, and adopted by the Washington
Supreffic Court, in Covell, the SMF is plainly a tax, not a fee, and is therefore beyond
the city's authority to enaet.2
Not only is the SMF a tax, we believe it is a property tax. By its terms, the SMF is
imposers upon the use of property. This conolusion is not negated by the fact that the
SMF will be collected through water or sewer bills. This is proven, among other
ways, by the fact that if there is no water service to the property, the use of the
property is still subject to the SW. The SMF is an impermissible tax on property
because it is not, levied on an ad valorem basis it is levied based on estimated traffic
impacts, rather dsan on assessed value. Also, the tax would be in violation of the
property tax limitations imposed by Article Xi, Section 11b of the Oregon
Constitution.
2 See also Samis Land Co. v City of Soap Lake, 23 M477,484 (Wash. 2001) (holding that the
city's "standby charge," which was imposed on unimproved land abutting city water and sewer lines,
was really a tax and not a fee: "The city's primary legislative motivation here was to generate
additional revenues to finance broad-based public improvements, not to'regulate'those entities paying
the standby charge.")
P6986-0004MA022120.06sl 8/7/02
AM 07 2802 16035 FR PERKINS COIE LLP Sm 727 2222 TO 95036B47297 P.06/06
August 7, 2002
Page 4
Additionally, as a ux, it violates the Uniformity Clause of Article 1, Section 32 of the
Constitution of Oregon, which req,Aaes that "all taxation shall be uniform within the
territorial limits of the authority levying the tax." While classifications are permitted
within a Faxing juxisdiction, the City's proposed charges are not applied uniformly
based upon the value of the property or other actual, qualitative differences, but
instead are based upon estimated traffic impacts. As explained by Oregon Supreme
Court: "A classification, to survive the protections of the uniformity in taxation
clauses of the state constitution, must be based on real differences between the
subjects disparately treated by the classification." Mathias v Dept. ofRev, 312 Or 50,
59 (1991). The City's exclusive reliance on estimated average trips in creating the
SMF classifications does not satisfy this requirement, •and the SMF is in violation of
Article I, Section 32.
For all of the above reasons, OGIA requests that the City decline to adopt the
proposed SUR In the alternative, we request that adoption of the SMF be deferred
pending further deliberations and discussions with affected segments of the industry.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark D. Whitlow
MDW:djf
cc: Augustin P. Duenas, P.E.
Bill Monahan, Esq.
Gary Firestone, Esq.
OGIA
~ II
i
136986-0OW/PA022120.0671
fn/OZ
c TOTAL PAGE.06
. o~
-968" 1048
v+~ 4 OR 503
4 598
03 29
~s. ~"-w 1 1 1 1 1 BUREAU: 503-294_5984
SOUTHWEST
1
.
t decade. That h:+`
-gum
the tiilltte IUC
wee to 11110 nr~~
ASIDE LIME felt 1111111\' cities ,rralultling ,11,h1v'm:
Eunding• tt ,t:uct•i►Ic 1
+irn•~'~
"1 think this IS
1 and Ln~'~uudbum• or is 'f i! t►t1's ~ it`rum
Umatilla counueS+ c,omhilled ou accept a road 1,ne ,tatct~+~t`'
ublL- sentiment, asoL'ne in WouldY totundre airs? said G us t)uenas .
ative a better way -Ualc,nunateh'• Ow, i.
11 ttt~ c
Neg lob'oy by die g
rr t~ ttcil 1
jlte~ittg with a suong We iliketo tutikin- tlr1 uul
1 t, ftl(tlrl} dusuy. has deterred other ►iu is paliues here .I ih, ~ ttd. , this mull, Lt. In
t ,t1: ttlxe S Lot:sidefilig publish Your r j~r In tcari»L,
J 11 'th 1 - t public 1LLtu1 to
I'i,;nrci altd SherwOOd ito►nseriously response. hold l coast, I wm, is exl
~t )vltlt)tt, Shenvnod• a
'Cite need for IWA hovvever trutin rua s raU Inside ~lesenta e
tion d, l otltctal 111011 It
s
ltwki►tg at a
pt . at
the i tex'
~ haslitdisapp aur. L•,neat make a 1 Ne`vb~,• ,L
t11't' 11111011 i1L) uvr mrncnts kid Coot dte t;ia
c'hdN local 9 'eI trd, 5her<vcud• s03425- hone. City idea, t .ub tre. ow a few a ,ouch•tone P an a Toad
jti't't t iiltlltitciltlitit includiug garld Clackalna`. 5555trom mail us at plorinK the u, vote
TSAO the star: ' OswveL,u ' 469p. Or e
, lake road maia- .hen enter aregani- Council is schedulr
, are considennga airing west news' fee this ntottdt•
that's g soot t:uunril thi,
BY EMILY yevvbeto the (;ity a road
u ti ut~ C:uunt~' - troll Hurl to
L.uy t)reg t ' Le Eee. Lt s an op an.cam In t~+ke t)sweK
IIt;:Uit) - Iur is tenan' gave a pnliminan' to
di find
poptdarin• ,alder, and funds spring vvurking
trr„ed dteir staste W, local R Out l, ue• ize fee, and the city 11.19 is
5attdc, the issue
have b
" stud • \ndtca L:ogolicy rates. In FEE, P~qe c
at\L'b \v'ay 10 IL\ inlillhlnl Aloll uO, ap, unauon p•
In E;ut; t its' a' cent ►•g` r are nut int reastt ~b uansp - those in the Pmt must cities relied mainly Please see RoA~
ecializes on Citiesrevenue i has ma ed
1 .P f we of vreg • cities arc kin state ga s taxe state g
I,ruvcd h~ the Cit)' l;uuuciL early tins )'ca- for the factor"; In why utiliq ` -
being ch-aMve1 }y tesi beer ts baa1nd 01- ltas wee the driving closely at street tenance.13u
i, t th
T been rclrrretl to the Nuv'etn,s taxes Looking more
ters deteatettntes Was
,
fees"
ht 1
t;Cs kill existing
or d
incre: Yam1ti11, Lvlarion an
' tckarnas.
iugtun, t.l. _
•~~g~` ~
r.r s ; 1y!t3 tt.etf0 ei1CDt1faQ?:
it cattteritle
AZZarella
designed her
_.,*,n vard
Road fece Cities figure number of trips
i Continued from Page 1 .
COMPAOING FEES
voters in a September election. -
Clackamas County is working A sample of cities and their current or proposed street maintenance programs:
i with six cities - Estacada, Glad-
stone, Happy Valley, Lake Oswego, City Monthly rate Annual, . Resldential/. Uses status
Milwaukee and Oregon City - to for single- i f,tpjal ri69 residential
study road fees. family home split-" '
The communities haven't de- Tigard $2.12 $1.6 millon 22 percent/ Roads, sidewalks, Proposed;
termined whether the county and 78 percent right of way, possible
city would combine fees or charge
separate rates. streetlights implementation
The fee goes b different names by January
by Sherwood $1 $54,000 N/A Roads Proposed
but has the same general concept. Tualatin S2.92 $650,000 25 percent/ Roads, trees,. Roads since
The city generally collects the 75 percent' streetlights 1990;
monthly fee on a utility bill to use trees and lights
for road maintenance. since 2001
In some cases, fees for maintain- Wilsonville S4.04 $500,000. 50 percent/ Roads Since 1997
ing sidewalks, rights of way and 50 percent
street lighting also appear on the Sandy $5 $170,000` 14 percent/ Roads Referred to
b~' 26 percent September ballot
Most cities rely on a formula Salem $2.46. $3 miilon 60 percent/ Sidewalks, Approved;
based on trip generation - the es- 40 percent trees, implementation
timated number of vehicles visiting
streetlights by January
a home or business - to set their Eugene $2.90 $5.7 millon 30 percent/ Roads Proposed
rates. 70 percent
This means owners ul single Grants Pass $3 $540,000 54 percent/ Roads Since 1999
family homes pay a different rate 46 percent
than apartment buildin; owned.
Gas stations pay a different rate -Applies only to the road maintenance fee. - -
than golf CnuISeS. Sct100!S pav a --Mast businesses are or will be charged monthly rates based on their land use and square footage. Fees can vary'rom a few uollars to several I
different rate than movie theaters. hundred dollars depending on the type of business ;
Even if someone doesn't uvm a
car, fee proponents say, that per-
son should still pay because the Tualatin was the first city to base dents successfully petitioned to ly balanced."
resident probably ride:, d-e b::s or the fee on trip generation, the put it on the September ballot. "We all bene It rrum the trans-
has friends who drive to model most cities use now. Last Also on the Sandy ballot is a lo- potation :yster,t, sc we pay a little ,
All these trips have an cifect on year, the city added a $1.50 flat fee cal gas tax, which, if approved, bit (with the fee)." he said. "The
the roads. for all residents and businesses to would invalidate the proposed other is a local gas tax. The more
pay for sidewalk and tree mainte- road fee. drive, the more "
The fees can cost homeowners a nance in the city. you you pay'
fcw dollars every month, busi- Eugene has bypassed the debate Jones said the ciz; is i:c;rking .
nesses can pay several hundred in Wilsonville, the fee has been over the benefits of a road mainte- with neighboring Springfield to
dollars, depending on the formula. so ticcessful that the city reduced nance fee versus a local gas tax: It is create similar if em! gas taxes so
About 10 citics around the state, its fee by 10 percent earlier this considering both. that no busi ?esF^s in the area will
including T ualatin and bViisonvil!e. Year and boasts of pothole-free The City Council is contemplat- be placed at a disadvantage.
already • have fees for road mairlte- roads. ing a road maintenance fee of
."Ne don'; see the state solving
nance. But not everyone is enamored of about $2.90 a single-family home our problems," he said. "It is up to
La Grande is thought to be one road maintenance fees. Last year, and a local gas tax of 4 cents a gal- the local communities to address
of the first cities to imp!cmer)t a Portland tried to collect a street fee, Ion. City officials hope the two and solve our own problems."
fee, back in 1985. bill strong opposition from busi- sources of revenue will generate
rlesses forced the city to reconsid- about $8.5 million annually.
Tualation fee based on trips er. Eric Jones, Eugene's public You can reach Emily nao at
The city, however, doesn't List; a In Sandy this year, the City works spokesman, called the two- 503-294-59611 or by a-marl at
trip generation formula. It charges Council approved a street fee. Resi- pronged approach "philosophical- emilytsao@neius.orego»iari.coni.
a flat $4 fee per water meter for all
homes and businesses
WArIjC
Some Conservative and Or-
th O S t d u r
odox congregations wel- ~z > R
come mixed marriages Specializing In Chinese Szechuan &
among their members, as
well as people who have con- Watch New Featuring a wide v
vetted to Judaism. An article ourchofs ,~F„/y/,r-inrre o►
`F Lunch Specials
- I-Iar-ArA ~ f...
F'
CITY OF TIGA►RD
Engineering Department
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Phone 503-639-4171
Fax: 503-624-0752
TO: Mayor and City Councilors
Bill Monahan, City Manager
F'RON'T: Gus Duenas
City Engineer
DATE: August 8, 2002
SUBJECT: Adjustments to the Street Maintenance Fee Rates
The Street Maintenance Fee Study Report used trip generation rates that basically count the total
volume of vehicles entering and exiting a given site. During our meetings with the businesses in
Tigard, some asked the city to consider adjusting the trip generation information to account for "pass-
by trips," and "diverted-linked trips."
The Trip Generation Handbook divides trips into two major categories: pass-by trips and non-pass-by
trips. Non-pass-by trips are further broken down into primary trips and diverted linked trips. Pass-by
trips, as defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, are trips that "are made as intermediate
stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination without a route diversion. Pass-by trips
are attracted from traffic passing the site on an adjacent street or roadway that offers direct access to
the generator. Pass-by trips are not diverted from another roadway." (Source, Trip Generation
Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001). An example of this type of trip is a stop at a
gas station on the way to another destination.
Primary trips are trips made for the specific purpose of visiting the generator. The stop at the generator
is the primary reasons for the trip. The trip typically goes from origin to generator and then returns to
the origin.
Diverted linked trips are trips that are attracted from the traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity
of the generator but that require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway to gain access to the
site. Diverted linked trips add traffic to streets adjacent to a site, but may not add traffic to the area's
major travel routes. For instance, some of Costco's trips could be considered diverted linked trips
from Pacific Highway. However, these trips still affect the adjacent street, namely Dartmouth Street.
1111111111111111101 111111,0101
After review of the information in the Trip Generation Handbook, we decided to make changes in the
Street Maintenance Fee rates to account for pass-by trips. The diverted link trips still impact adjacent
City streets. Hence, we do not recommend making adjustments to the trip rates based on this factor.
To account for pass-by trips, we gave credit to those establishments that have clear evidence of pass-by
percentages in the Trip Generation Handbook. The attached report summarizes the land use categories
and the credits given to each. The trip rate after the credit is given is the net trip rate for each of those
establishments.
Factoring in the credits results in elimination of the group (non-residential group 4) that has 401+
trips/unit/day. The adjusted rates are as shown below:
Summary of Fees for All Maintenance Elements
Land Use Street Maint. ROW Sidewalk Street Light Total
Category Maint. Maint. and Signal Monthly
System Charge per
Maint. Unit
Single $1.2639 $0.4266 $0.1422 $0.7031 $2.5357
Famil
Multi- $0.8756 $0.2955 $0.0985 $0.4871 $1.7567
Family
Group 1 $1.0341 $0.3490 $0.1163 $0.5752 $2.0746
Group 2 $5.5315 $1.8669 $0.6223 $3.0769 $11.0976
Group 3 $26.7783 $9.0377 $3.0126 $14.8954 $53.7239
Group 4 $0.3570 $0.1205 $0.0402 $0.1986 $0.7162
The table above indicates that the single family and multi-family residents pay slightly more. In
addition, with the credit for pass-by trips given, the exceptionally high trip rates for the fast food
restaurants and convenience markets are rightfully modified placing them in a lower group.
We feel the adjustments for the pass-by trips more accurately reflect real life situations and allow those
that are the true trip generators to pay a greater share of the fee. The rates that are shown in the table
will be the rates submitted for Council consideration on August 27, 2002.
Attachment
c: Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force Members
I:\Eng\Gus\Street Maintenance Fee\Adjustments to the Fee\Adjustments to the Street Maintenance Fee.doc
Adjustments to the Street Maintenance Fee
Page 2 of 2
Street Maintenance Fee
Adjustments for Pass-By 'T'rips
August 7, 2002
Background
The Street Maintenance Fee Study Report used trip generation rates that basically count the total
volume of vehicles entering and exiting a given site. During our meetings with the businesses in
Tigard, some asked the city to consider adjusting the trip generation information to account for
"pass-by trips," and "diverted-linked trips."
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook dated March 2001
divides trips into two major categories: pass-by trips and non-pass-by trips. Non-pass-by trips
are further broken down into primary trips and diverted linked trips. The definitions for the trips
are as follows:
• Pass-by trips are trips that "are made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to
a primary trip destination without a route diversion. Pass-by trips are attracted from
traffic passing the site on an adjacent street or roadway that offers direct access to the
generator. Pass-by trips are not diverted from another roadway." (Source, Trip
Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001). An example of this
type of trip is a stop at a gas station on the way to another destination.
• Primary trips are trips made for the specific purpose of visiting the generator. The stop
at the generator is the primary reasons for the trip. The trip typically goes from origin to
generator and then returns to the origin.
• Diverted linked trips are trips that are attracted from the traffic volume on roadways
within the vicinity of the generator but that require a diversion from that roadway to
another roadway to gain access to the site. Diverted linked trips add traffic to streets
adjacent to a site, but may not add traffic to the area's major travel routes. For instance,
some of Costco's trips could be considered diverted linked trips from Pacific Highway.
However, these trips still affect the adjacent street, namely Dartmouth Street.
The Trip Generation Handbook contains data collected from various traffic engineers for various
retail uses in the United States. The data comes from traffic impact reports where actual pass-by
trips were studied and applied to specific uses. Hence, the data is scattered over a range of sizes
for a given use. Nonetheless, ITE has compiled the data and provides the results in graphical
form.
Pass-by 'rip Adjustments
The following pass-by trip adjustments are recommended based upon data provided by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended
Practice, dated March 2001.
Street Maintenance Fee Adjustments for Pass-By Trips
Pagel of 3
I
813 Free-Standing Discount Tue store 20
815 Free-Standin Discount 20
820 Shopping Center 35 Avera a for all sizes
832 Hi -Turnover Sit Down Restaurant 40
833,834 Fast Food Restaurant 50 Average includes those with
and without drive-up
844, 845, Gasoline/Service Stations 50 Average includes stations
846 with markets and/or car
washes
850 Supermarket 30
851 Convenience Market 24-Hour 60
880,881 Pharmacy/Drugstore 50 With or without drive-u
912 Bank 50
The uses listed in the table are those shown in the Trip Generation Handbook with more than
three different traffic study data. There were other uses listed by ITE, but are not contained in
the City table because of insufficient data. The uses that were not included in the City table are
as follows:
• Quality Restaurants Only 1 study
• Tire Store Only 3 studies
• Home Improvement Store Only 3 studies
• Electronic Superstore Only 1 study
• Furniture Store Only 3 studies.
Adjusted Fees
Adjustment of the fees results in the elimination of the group (previously non-residential group
4) that had 401+ trips/unit/day. The adjusted fee rates for the remaining groups are as shown
below:
Summary of Fees for All Maintenance Elements
Land Use Street ROW Sidewalk Street Light Total
Category Maint. Maint. Maint. and Signal Monthly
System Charge per
Maint. ' Unit
Single $1.2639 $0.4266 $0.1422 $0.7031 $2.5357
Family
Multi- $0.8756 $0.2955 $0.0985 $0.4871 $1.7567
Family
Group 1 $1.0341 $0.3490 $0.1163 $0.5752 $2.0746
Group 2 $5.5315 $1.8669 $0.6223 $3.0769 $11.0976
Group 3 $26.7783 $9.0377 $3.0126 $14.8954 $53.7239
Group 4 $0.3570 $0.1205 $0.0402 $0.1986 $0.7162
Street Maintenance Fee Adjustments for Pass-By Trips
Page 2 of 3
The preceding table indicates that the single family and multi-family residents pay slightly more.
In addition, with the credit for pass-by trips given, the exceptionally high trip rates for the fast
food restaurants and convenience markets are rightfully modified placing them in a lower group.
The attached spreadsheets show the adjustments made to the original appendices in the Street
Maintenance Fee Study Report. They show elimination of the previous non-residential Group 4
and consolidation of the various land use categories within the remaining groups.
Adjusted Appendices
Appendix B-1 - Street Maintenance Element
Appendix B-2 - ROW Maintenance Element
Appendix B-3 - Sidewalk Maintenance Element
Appendix B-4 - Street Light Maintenance Element
Appendix C - Summary of Adjusted Rates
I:\Eng\Gus\Street Maintenance Fee\Adjustments to the Fee\Adjustments to the SMF for Pass-by Trips.doc
Street Maintenance Fee Adjustments for Pass-By Trips
Page 3 of 3
CHU of Tigard
Street Maintenance Fee Study
2traet Maintenanc0
DU,SF,ACRE, %OF %OF
ITE ITE VFP, SC, TlbPSIYEAR TOTAL DIRECT TOTAL RATE MO
Code Land Use Category TM"* UNIT CITMOE , TRIPSMA 260 days TRIPS Comm COST Per Unit
210 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 9.57 /DU/DAY 10,422 99,739 25,932 020 19.8% $158,071 19.8% 1.2639
220 MULTI FAMILY 6.63 /DU/DAY 6,400 42,432 11,032,320 8.4% $67,248 8.4% 0.8756
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 1 0 - 20) 1 1,0341
120 General Heavy Industrial 1,50 /KSF/DAY 723,759 1,086 282.266 0.2% $8,981 1.1%
252 Congregate Care Facility 2.15 /DU/DAY 112 241 62,608 0.0% $1,390 0.2%
151 Mini-Warehouse 2.50 /KSF/OAY 328,090 820 213,259 0.2% $4,071 0.5%
140 Manufacturing 3.82 /KSF/DAY 0 0 0 0.0% $0 0.0%
311 AJI Suites Hotel 4.90 /DU/DAY 246 1,205 313,404 0.2% $3,053 0.4%
150 Warehousing 4.96 /KSF/DAY 31,898 158 41,135 0.0% $396 0.0%
864 To /Children's Superstore 4.99 /KSF/DAY 44,604 223 57,869 0.0% $553 0.1%
890 Furniture Store 5.06 /KSF/DAY 279,329 1,413 367,485 0.3% $3,466 0.4%
320 Motel 5.63 /DU/DAY 447 2,517 654,319 0.5% $5,547 0.7%
130 Industrial Park 6.96 /KSF/DAY 3,226,614 22,450 5,837,071 4.4% $40,026 5.0%
110 General Light Industrial 6.97 /KSF/DAY 3,219,359 22,439 5,834,122 4.4% $39,948 5.0%
310 Hotel 8.23 /DU/DAY 384 3,160 821,683 0.6% $4,765 0.6%
560 Church 9.11 /KSF/DAY 366,651 3,340 868,450 0.7% $4,550 0.6%
710 General Office 11.01 /KSF/DAY 3,313,850 36,485 9,486,227 7.2% $41,121 5.1%
522 Junior High School 11.92 /KSF/DAY 232,605 2,773 720,888 0.5% $2,886 0.4%
520 Elements School 12.03 /KSF/DAY 371,802 4,473 1,162,923 0.9% $4,614 0.6%
530 High School 13.27 /KSF/DAY 231,782 3,076 799,693 0.6% $2,876 0.4%
610 Hospital 16.78 /KSF/DAY 0 0 0 0.0% $0 0.0%
492 Racquet Club 17.14 /KSF/DAY 31,858 546 141,971 0.1% $395 0.0%
Subtotals for Group 1 106,405 27,665,373 21.1% $168,637 21.1%
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 2 21 - 100 5.5315
848 Tire Store 24.87 /KSF/DAY 67,269 1,673 434,976 0.3% $4,465 0.6%
820 Shopping Center /KSF/DAY 1,825,496 50,928 13,241,199 10.1% $121,173 15.1%
630 Clinic 31.45 /KSF/DAY 13,111 412 107,207 0.1% $870 0.1%
862 Home Improvement Superstore 35.05 /KSF/DAY 250,084 8,765 2,279,015 1.7% $16,600 2.1%
817 Nurse Garden Center 36.08 /KSF/DAY 13,897 501 130,364 0.1% $922 0.1%
720 Medical-Dental Office Building 36.13 /KSF/DAY 275,493 9,954 2,587,926 2.0% $18,287 2.3%
841 New Car Sales 37.50/KSF/DAY 218,162 8,181 2,127,081 1.6% $14,481 1.8%
813 Free-Standing Discount Superstore MS-F-/DAY 141,530 5,317 1,382,424 1.1% $9,395 1.2%
812 Building Materials and Lumber Store 39.71 /KSF/DAY 104,182 4,137 1,075,637 0.8% $6,915 0.9%
814 Specialty Retail Center 40.67 /KSF/DAY 685,461 27,878 7,248,202 5.5% $45,500 5.7%
861 Discount Club 41.80 /KSF/DAY 144,571 6,043 1,571,200 1.2% $9,596 1.2%
880 Pharmacy/Drugstore /KSF/DAY 17,202 775 201,395 0.2% $1,142 0.1%
863 Electronics Superstore 45.04 /KSF/DAY 64,954 2,926 760,638 0.6% $4,312 0.5%
815 Free-Standing Discount Store aga /KSF/DAY 484,169 21,935 5,703,046 4.3% $32,138 4.0%
816 Hardware/PaintStore 51.29 /KSF/DAY 0 0 0 0.0% $0 0.0%
590 Libra 54.00 /KSF/DAY 13,006 702 182,604 0.1% $863 0.1%
843 Automobile Parts Sales 61.91 /KSF/DAY 42,082 2,605 677,380 0.5% $2,793 0.3%
730 Government Office 68.93 /KSF/DAY 78,983 5,444 1,415,516 1.1% $5,243 0.7%
850 Supermarket /KSF/DAY 305,121 23,817 6,192,378 4.7% $20,253 2.5%
832 High-Turnover Sit Down Restaurant /KSF/DAY 129,997 10,166 2,643,233 2.0% $8,629 1.1%
565 Da Care Center 79.26 /KSF/DAY 51,624 4,092 1,063,847 0.8% $3,427 0.4%
844 Gasoline/Service Station (Avg. 844. 845.846 7 FPIDAY 130 10,490 2,727,491 2.1% $8,629 1.1%
831 Quality Restaurant 89.95 /KSF/DAY 104,767 9,424 2,450,190 1.9% $6,954 0.9%
Subtotals for Group 2 216,165 56,202,948 42.8% 342,590 42.8%
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 3 100 - <400 26.7783
732 Post Office 108.19 /KSF/DAY 21,487 2,325 604,416 0.5% $6,905 0.9%
912 Bank im /KSF/DAY 73,293 9,719 2,526,945 1.9% $23,552 2.9%
834 Fast-Food Restaurant /KSF/DAY 63,787 15,823 4,113,987 3.1% $20,497 2.6%
851 Convenience Market 24-Hour IKSF/DAY 23,863 7,044 1,831,474 1.4% $7,668 1.09
444 Movie Theater With Matinee (See Report) 375.92 /SC/DAY 12 4,511 1,172,870 0.9% $3,856 0.5%
Subtotals for Group 3 39,422 10,249,692 7.8% $62,478 7.8%
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 4 SPECIAL 0.3570
411 City Park 1.59 /AC/DAY 152 242 62,837 0.0% $651 0.1%
566 Cemetery 4.73 /AC/DAY 28 131 34,188 0.0% $119 0.0%
430 Golf Course 5.04 /AC/DAY 48 243 63,240 0.096 207 0.0%
Subtofa/sforGroup 5 616 160165 0.1% 977 0.1%
TOTALS 504,779 131,242,619 100.0% $800,000 100.0%
Shaded calls denote daily trips adjusted down for pass-by trips Enter Revenue Desired: 8®
Note' DU (DWELLING UNITS). SF (SQUARE FEET), ACRE (ACRES). VFP (VEHICLE FILL POINTS), SC (SCREENS) PAGE 1 OF 1
DENGIBRAMBUDGET STUFF%A4usted Street Maintenance Fee - Pass By- 8.7.02.xq Appendix B-1 Date: 8/7/02
Cttg of Tigard
Street Maintenance Fed Studg
ROW Maintenance (C"WAdo)
DU,SF,ACRE, %OF %OF
ITE FM VFP, SC, TRIPSIYEAR TOTAL DIRECT TOTAL RATE161O
coda Land Use Category TRIPS' UNIT CITYIMDE . TRIPSIDAY 280 days TRIPS COST11MAR . cost Psr UrA
210 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 9.57 /DU/DAY 10,422 99,739 25,932,020 197; 53.349 19.8% 0.4266
220 MULTIFAMILY 6.63 /DU/DAY 6.400 42,432 11,032,320 8.4% $22,696 8.4% 0.2955
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 1 0 - 20 0.3490
120 General Heavy Industrial 1.50 /KSF/DAY 723.759 1.086 282,266 0.2% $3.031 1.1%
252 Congregate Care Facility 2.15 /DU/DAY 112 241 62,608 0.0% $469 0.2%
151 Mini-Warehouse 2.50 /KSF/DAY 328,090 820 213,259 0.2% $1,374 0.5%
140 Manufacturing 3.82 /KSF/DAY 0 0 0 0.0% $0 0.0%
311 All Suites Hotel 4.90 /DU/DAY 246 1.205 313,404 0.2% $1,030 0.4%
150 Warehousing 4.96 /KSF/DAY 31,898 158 41,135 0.0% $134 0.0%
864 Toy/ Children's Superstore 4.99 /KSF/DAY 44.604 223 57,869 0.0% $187 0.1%
890 Furniture Store 5.06 /KSF/DAY 279,329 1,413 367.485 0.3% $1,170 0.4%
320 Motel 5.63 /DU/DAY 447 2,517 654.319 0.5% $1,872 0.7%
130 Industrial Park 6.96 /KSF/DAY 3,225,614 22,450 5,837,071 4.4% $13,509 5.0%
110 General Light Industrial 6.97 /KSF/DAY 3,219.359 22,439 5,834.122 4.4% $13,482 5.0%
310 Hotel 8.23 /DU/DAY 384 3,160 821,683 0.6% $1,608 0.6%
560 Church 9.11 /KSF/DAY 366,651 3.340 868,450 0.7% $1,536 0.6%
710 General Office 11.01 /KSF/DAY 3,313,850 36,485 9,486,227 7.2% $13.878 5.1%
522 Junior High School 11.92 /KSF/DAY 232,605 2.773 720,888 0.5% $974 0.4%
520 Elements School 12.03 /KSF/DAY 371.802 4,473 1,162,923 0.9% $1.557 0.6%
530 High School 13.27 /KSF/DAY 231,782 3,076 799.693 0.6% $971 0.4%
610 Hospital 16.78 /KSF/DAY 0 0 0 0.0% $0 0.0%
492 Racquet Club 17.14 /KSF/DAY 31,858 546 141,971 0.1% 133 0.0%
Subfota/s forGroup 1 106,405 27.665,373 21.1% 56,915 21.1%
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 2 21 - 100 1.8669
848 Tire Store 24.87 /KSF/DAY 67,269 1.673 434.976 0.3% $1,507 0.6%
820 Shop in Center /KSF/DAY 1,825.496 50.928 13,241,199 10.1% $40,896 15.1%
630 Clinic 31.45 /KSF/DAY 13,111 412 107,207 0.1% $294 0.1%
862 Home Improvement Superstore 35.05 /KSF/DAY 250,084 8.765 2,279,015 1.7% $5,603 2.1%
817 Nurse Garden Center 36.08 /KSF/DAY 13,897 501 130,364 0.1% $311 0.1%
720 Medical-Dental Office Building 36.13 /KSF/DAY 275,493 9,954 2,587,926 2.0% $6.172 2.3%
841 New Car Sales 37.50 /KSF/DAY 218,162 8,181 2.127.0811 1.6% $4.887 1.8%
813 Free-Standing Discount Superstore IgM /KSF/DAY 141,530 5,317 1.382,424 1.1% $3.171 1.2%
812 Building Materials and Lumber Store 39.71 /KSF/DAY 104,182 4,137 1,075,637 0.8% $2.334 0.9%
814 S ally Retail Center 40.67 /KSF/DAY 685,461 27,878 7,248,202 5.5% $15,356 5.7%
861 Discount Club 41.80 /KSF/DAY 144,571 6,043 1,571,200 1.2% $3,239 1.21/6
880 Phanna /Dru store /KSF/DAY 17,202 775 201,395 0.2% $385 0.1%
863 Electronics Superstore 45.04 /KSF/DAY 64,954 2,926 760,638 0.6% $1.455 0.5%
815 Free-Standing Discount Store /KSF/DAY 484,169 21,935 5,703,046 4.3% $10,847 4.0%
816 Hardware/Paint Store 51.29 /KSF/DAY 0 0 0 0.0% $0 0.0%
590 Libra 54.00 /KSF/DAY 13,006 702 182,604 0.1% $291 0.1%
843 Automobile Parts Sales 69.91 /KSF/DAY 42,082 2,605 877,380 0.5% $943 0.3%
730 Government Office 18.j3 9/KSF/DAY 78,983 5.444 1,415,516 1.1% $1,769 0.7%
850 Supermarket /KSF/DAY 305,121 23.817 6.192,378 4.7% $6,836 2.5%
832 Hi h-Tumover Sit Down Restaurant /KSF/DAY 129,997 10,166 2,643,233 2.0% $2,912 1.1%
565 Da Care Center 79.26 /KSF/DAY 51,624 4,092 1.063,847 0.8% $1.157 0.4%
844 Gasoline/ServiceStation Av .844.845,846 NFP/DAY 130 10,490 2,727,491 2.1% $2,912 1.1%
831 Quality Restaurant 89.95 /KSF/DAY 104,767 9,424 2.450,190 1.9% 2,347 0.9%
Subtotals for Group 2 216,165 56.202.948 42.8% 115,624 42.8%
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 3 100 - <400 9.0377
732 Post Office 108.19 /KSF/DAY 21.487 2.325 604,416 0.5% $2,330 0.9%
912 Bank /KSF/DAY 73,293 9.719 2,526,945 1.9% $7,949 2.9%
834 Fast-Food Restaurant ZW~Uff /KSF/DAY 63,787 15,823 4,113,887 3.1% $6,918 2.6%
851 Convenience Market 24-Hour /KSF/DAY 23,863 7,044 1,831,474 1.4% $2,588 1.0%
444 Movie Theater With Matinee (See Report) 375.92 /SC/DAY 12 4,511 1,172,870 0.9% 1,301 0.5%
39,422 10,249,692 7.8% 21,086 7.8%
s fw Group 3
Subtotal
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 4 SPECIAL 0.1205
411 City Park 1.59 /AC/DAY 152 242 62,837 0.0% $220 0.1%
566 Cemetery 4.73 /AC/DAY 28 131 34,188 0.0% S40 0.0%
430 Gob Course 5.04 /AC/DAY 48 243 83,240 0.0% 70 0.0%
Subto/a/sfor Group 5 616 180,265 0.1% 330 0.1%
TOTALS 504,779 131.242 619 100.0°/a $270,000 100.OYo
Shaded cells denote dally trips adjusted down for pass-by trips Enter Revenue Desired: 270,000
Note: DU (DWELLING UNITS). SF (SQUARE FEET). ACRE (ACRES), VFP (VEHICLE FILL POINTS), SC (SCREENS) PAGE 1 OF 1
I:tENGIBRIANRIBUDGET STUFFIAdjustod Street Maintenance Fee - Pats By. 8.7-02.ab Date: 817/02
C ft of Tigard
Strad Maintenance Fee Studg
Sidewalk Malntenanoe (Gtgwlde)
DU,SF,ACRE, %OF %OF
ITE iTE VFP, SC, TR1P3/YEAR TOTAL DIRECT TOTAL RATEiMO
Coda Land Use Category TRIPS' UNIT CITYMDE TRIPS/DAY 260 days TRIPS COST/Y°JIR COST Per unit
210 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 9.57 /DU/DAY 10,422 99,739 25,932,020 19.8% 17 783 19.8% 0.1422
220 MULTI FAMILY 6.63 /DU/DAY 6,400 42,432 11,032,320 8.4% $7,565 8.4% 0.0985
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 7 0 - 20 0.1163
120 General Heavy Industrial 1.50 /KSF/DAY 723,759 1,086 282,266 0.2% $1,010 1.1%
252 Con r ate Care Facility 2.15 /DU/DAY 112 241 62,608 0.0% $156 0.2%
151 Mini-Warehouse 2.50 /KSF/DAY 328,090 820 213,259 0.2% $458 0.5%
140 Manufacturing 3.82 /KSF/DAY 0 0 0 0.0% $0 0.0%
311 All Suites Hotel 4.90 /DU/DAY 246 1,205 313,404 0.2% $343 0.4%
150 Warehousing 4.96 /KSF/DAY 31,898 158 41,135 0.0% $45 0.0%
864 To /Children's Superstore 4.99 /KSF/DAY 44,604 223 57,E69 0.0% $62 0.1%
890 Furniture Store 5.06 /KSF/DAY 279,329 1,413 367,485 0.3% $390 0.4%
320 Motel 5.63 /DU/DAY 447 2,517 654,319 0.5% $624 0.7%
130 Industrial Park 6.96 /KSF/DAY 3,225,614 22,450 5,837,071 4.4% $4,503 5.0%
110 General Light Industrial 6.97 /KSF/DAY 3,219,359 22,439 5,834,122 4.4% $4,494 5.0%
310 Hotel 8.23 MIJIDAY 384 3,160 821,683 0.6% $536 0.6%
560 Church 9.11 /KSF/DAY 366,651 3,340 868,450 0.7% $512 0.6%
710 General Office 11.01 /KSF/DAY 3,313,850 36,485 9,486,227 7.2% $4,626 5.1%
522 Junior High School 11.92 /KSF/DAY 232,605 2,773 720,888 0.5% $325 0.4%
520 Elements School 12.03 /(SF/DAY 371,802 4,473 1,162,923 0.9% $519 0.6%
530 High School 13.27 /KSF/DAY 231,782 3,076 799,693 0.6% $324 0.4%
610 Hospital 16.78 /KSF/DAY 0 0 0 0.0% $0 0.0%
492 Racquet Club 17.14/KSF/DAY 31,858 546 141,971 0.1% $44 0.0%
Subtotals for Group 1 106,405 27,665,373 21.1% $18,972 21.1%
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 2 21 - 100 0.6223
848 Tire Store 24.87 /KSF/DAY 67,269 1,673 434,976 0.3% $502 0.6%
820 Shopping Center 52M /KSF/DAY 1,825,496 50,928 13,241,199 10.1% $13,632 15.1%
630 Clinic 31.45 /KSF/DAY 13,111 412 107,207 0.1% $98 0.1%
862 Home Improvement Superstore 35.05 /KSF/DAY 250,084 8,765 2,279,015 1.7% $1,868 2.1%
817 Nurse Garden Center 36.08 /KSF/DAY 13,897 501 130,364 0.1% $104 0.1%
720 Medical-Dental Office Building 36.13 /KSF/DAY 275,493 9,954 2,587,926 2.0% $2,057 2.3%
841 New Car Sales 37.50 /KSF/DAY 218,162 8,181 2,127,081 1.6% $1,629 1.8%
813 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 751W, /KSF/DAY 141,530 5,317 1,382,424 1.1% $1,057 1.2%
812 Building Materials and Lumber Store 39.71 /KSF/DAY 104,182 4,137 1,075,637 0.8% $778 0.9%
814 Specialty Retail Center 40.67/KSF/DAY 685,461 27,878 7,248,202 5.5% $5,119 5.7%
861 Discount Club 41.80 /KSF/DAY 144,571 6,043 1,571,200 1.2% $1,080 1.2%
880 Pharma /Dru store 2!EW /KSF/DAY 17,202 775 201,395 0.2% $128 0.1%
863 Electronics Superstore 45.04 /KSF/DAY 64,954 2,926 760,638 0.6% $485 0.5%
815 Free-Standing Discount Store /KSF/DAY 484,169 21,935 5,703,046 4.3% $3,616 4.0%
816 Hardware/Paint Store 51.29 /KSF/DAY 0 0 0 0.0% $0 0.0%
590 Libra 54.00 /KSF/DAY 13,006 702 182,604 0.1% $97 0.1%
843 Automobile Parts Sales 61.91 /KSF/DAY 42,082 2,605 677,380 0.5% $314 0.3%
730 Government Office 68.93 /KSF/DAY 78,983 5,444 1,415,516 1.1% $590 0.7%
850 Supermarket ' T$i /KSF/DAY 305,121 23,817 6,192,378 4.7% $2,279 2.5%
832 HI h-Tumover Sit Down Restaurant /KSF/DAY 129,997 10,166 2,643,233 2.0% $971 1.1%
565 Da Care Center 79.26 /KSF/DAY 51,624 4,092 1,063,847 0.8% $386 0.4%
844 Gasoline/Service Station (Avg. 844, 845,846 80: IVFP/DAY 130 10,490 2,727,491 2.1% $971 1.1%
831 Quality Restaurant 89.95 /KSF/DAY 104,767 9,424 2,450,190 1.9% 782 0.9%
Subtotals for Group 2 216,165 56,202,948 42.8% $38,541 42.8%
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 3 100 - <400 3.0126
732 Post Office 108.19 /KSF/DAY 21,487 2,325 604,416 0.5% $777 0.9%
912 Bank JY' /KSF/DAY 73,293 9,719 2,526,945 1.9% $2,650 2.9%
834 Fast-Food Restaurant /KSF/DAY 63,787 15,823 4,113,987 3.1% $2,306 2.6%
851 Convenience Market 24-Hour 20 /KSF/DAY 23,863 7,044 1,831,474 1.4% $863 1.0%
444 Movie Theater With Matinee (See Report) 375.92 /SC/DAY 12 4,511 1,172,870 0.9 % 34 0.5%
Subtotals for Group 3 39,422 10,249,692 7.8% $7,029 7.8%
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 4 SPECIAL 0.0402
411 CI Park 1.59 /AC/DAY 152 242 62,837 0.0% $73 0.1%
566 Cemetery 4.73 /AC/DAY 28 131 34,188 0.0% $13 0.0%
430 Golf Course 5.04 /AC/DAY 48 243 63,240 0.0% 23 0.0%
Subtotafsfor Group 5 616 160,265 0.1% 110 0.1%
TOTALS 504,779 131,242,619 100.0% $90,000 10t, D%
Shaded cells denote dally trips adjusted down for pass-by trips Enter Revenue Desired: 90,000
Note: OU (DWELLING UNITS). SF (SQUARE FEET), ACRE (ACRES), VFP (VEHICLE FILL POINTS). SC (SCREENS) PAGE 1 OF 1
IAENGTRIANRteUDGET STUFFWdiusted Street Maintenance Fee - Pass By. 8.7-02.x1, Date: 8f7102
CHU of Tigard
Street Maintenance Foe Study
Sheol Light Maintenance
DU,SF,ACRE, %OF %OF
ITE ME VFP, SC, TRIPS/YEAR TOTAL DIRECT TOTAL RATEWO
Cods Land Use Category TRIPS- UNIT CITYWIDE TRIPS/DAY 260 days TRIPS COSTNEAR COST Per Unit
210 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 9.57 /DU/DAY 10,422 99,739 25,932,020 19.8% 7,927 19.8% 0.7031
220 MULTIFAMILY 6.63 /DU/DAY 6,400 42,432 11,032,320 8.4% $37,407 8.4% 0.4871
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 1 0 - 20 0.5752
120 General Heavy Industrial 1.50 /KSF/DAY 723,759 1,086 282.266 0.2% $4,996 1.1%
252 Congregate Care Facility 2.15 /DU/DAY 112 241 62,608 0.0% $773 0.2%
151 Mini-Warehouse 2.50 /KSF/DAY 328,090 820 213,259 0.2% $2,265 0.5%
140 Manufacturing 3.82 /KSF/DAY 0 0 0 0.0% $0 0.0%
311 All Suites Hotel 4.90 /DU/DAY 246 1,205 313,404 0.2% $1,698 0.4%
150 Warehousing 4.96 /KSF/DAY 31,898 158 41,135 0.0% $220 0.0%
864 To /Children's Su erstor9 4.99 /KSF/DAY 44,604 223 57,869 0.0% $308 0.1%
890 Furniture Store 5.06 /KSF/DAY 279,329 1,413 367,485 0.3% $1,928 0.4%
320 Motel 5.63 /DU/DAY 447 2,517 654,319 0.5% $3,005 0.7%
130 Industrial Park 6.96 /KSF/DAY 3,225,614 22,450 5,837,071 4.4% $22,264 5.0%
110 General Light Industrial 6.97 /KSF/DAY 3,219,359 22,439 5,834,122 4.4% $22,221 5.0%
310 Hotel 8.23 /DU/DAY 384 3,160 821,683 0.6% $2,650 0.6%
560 Church 9.11 /KSF/DAY 366,651 3,340 868,450 0.7% $2,531 0.6%
710 General Office 11.01 /KSF/DAY 3,313,850 36,485 9,486,227 7.2% $22,873 5.11/6
522 Junior High School 11.92 /KSF/DAY 232,605 2,773 720,888 0.5% $1,606 0.4%
520 Elements School 12.03 /KSF/DAY 371,802 4,473 1,162,923 0.9% $2,566 0.6%
530 High School 13.27 /KSF/DAY 231,782 3,076 799,693 0.6% $1,600 0.4%
610 Hos "al 16.78 /KSF/DAY 0 0 0 0.0% $0 0.0%
492 Racquet Club 17.14 /KSF/DAY 31,858 546 141,971 0.11Yo 220 0.0%
Subtotals forGroup 1 106,405 27,665,373 21.1% 93,804 21.1%
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 2 21 - 100 3.0769
648 Tire Store 24.87 /KSF/DAY 67,269 1,673 434,976 0.3% $2,484 0.6%
820 Shopping Center 90 /KSF/DAY 1,825,496 50,928 13,241,199 10.1% $67,403 15.1%
630 Clinic 31.45 /KSF/DAY 13,111 412 107,207 0.1% $484 0.1%
862 Home Improvement Superstore 35.05 /KSF/DAY 250.084 8,765 2,279,015 1.7% $9,234 2.1%
817 Nurse Garden Center 36.08 /KSF/DAY 13,897 501 130,364 0.1% $513 0.1%
720 Medical-Dental Office Building 36.13 /KSF/DAY 275,493 9,954 2,587,926 2.0% $10,172 2.3%
841 New Car Sales 37.50 /KSF/DAY 218,162 8,181 2,127,081 1.6% $8,055 1.8%
813 Free-Standing Discount Superstore ? F /KSF/DAY 141,530 5.317 1,382,424 1.1% $5,226 1.2%
812 Building Materials and Lumber Store 39.71 /KSF/DAY 104,182 4,137 1,075,637 0.8% $3,847 0.9%
814 Specialty Retail Center 40.67 /KSF/DAY 685,461 27,878 7,248,202 5.5% $25,309 5.7%
861 Discount Club 41.80 /KSF/DAY 144,571 6,043 1,571,200 1.2% $5,338 1.2%-
880 Pharmacy/Drugstore X03 /KSF/DAY 17,202 775 201,395 0.2% $635 0.1%
863 Electronics Superstore 45.04 /KSF/DAY 64,954 2,926 760,638 0.6% $2,398 0.5%
815 Free-Standing Discount Store :80/KSF/DAY 484,169 21,935 5,703,046 4.3% $17,877 4.0%
816 Hardware/PaintStore 51.29/KSF/DAY 0 0 0 0.0% $0 0.0%
590 Libra 54.00 /KSF/DAY 13,006 702 182,604 0.1% $480 0.1%
843 Automobile Parts Sales 61.91 /KSF/DAY 42,082 2,605 677,380 0.5% $1,554 0.3%
730 Government Office 68.93 /KSF/DAY 78,983 5,444 1,415,516 1.1% $2,916 0.7%
850 Su rrnarket OS /KSF/DAY 305,121 23,817 6,192,378 4.7% $11,266 2.5%
832 HI h-Tumover Sit Down) Restaurant ~ /KSF/DAY 129,997 10,166 2,643,233 2.0% $4,800 1.1%-
565 Da Care Center 79.26 /KSF/DAY 51,624 4,092 1,063,847 0.8% $1,906 0.4%
844 Gasoline/Service Station (Avg. 844, 845,846 /VFP/DAY 130 10,490 2,727,491 2.1% $4,800 1.1%
831 Quality Restaurant 89.95 /KSF/DAY 104,767 9,424 2,450,190 1.9% 3,868 0.9%
Subtotals forGroup 2 216,165 56,202,948 42.8% 190,565 42.8%
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 3 100 - <400 14.8954
732 Post Office 108.19 /KSF/DAY 21,487 2,325 604,416 $3,841 0.9%
912 Bank A32t3 . /KSF/DAY 73,293 9,719 2,526,945 1.9% $13,101 2.9%
834 Fast-Food Restaurant 248:06 /KSF/DAY 63,787 15,823 4,113,987 3.1% $11,402 2.6%
851 Convenience Market 24-Hour 20&2D /KSF/DAY 23,863 7,044 1,831,474 1.4% $4,265 1.0%
444 Movie Theater With Matinee (See Report) 375.92 /SC/DAY 12 4,511 1,172,870 0.9% 2,145 0.5%
Subtotals for Group 3 39,422 10,249,692 7.8% 34,753 7.8%
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 4 SPECIAL 0.1986
411 City Park 1.59 /AC/DAY 152 242 62,837 0.0% $362 0.1%
566 Cemetery 4.73 /AC/DAY 28 131 34,188 0.0% $66 0.0%
430 Golf Course 5.04 /AC/DAY 48 243 63,240 0.0% 115 0.0%
Subtotals forGroup 5 616 160,265 0.1% 543 0.1%
TOTALS 504,779 131,242,619 100.0% $445000 100.0%
Shaded cells denote daily trips adjusted down for pasa-by trips Enter Revenue Desired: 5,000
Note: DU (DWELLING UNITS). SF (SQUARE FEET). ACRE (ACRES), VFP (VEHICLE FILL POINTS), SC (SCREENS)
@ndix B-4 PAGE 1 OF 1
I:\ENGIBRUWRtBUDGET STUFFVIdjuated Street Maintenance Fee - Pees By•e-7-02.ab App Date: 8l7ro2
City of Tigard
Street Maintenance Fee Study
Summary of Rates
treat e• ROW e0 Sidewalk es Bbvetllght
ITE Code Land Use Cat ego Rate Rate Rato Fee Robs Totals
210 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 1.2639 0.4266 0.1422 0.7031 2.5357
220 MULTIFAMILY 0.8756 0.2955 0.0985 0.4871 1.7567
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 1 0 - 20 1.0341 0.3490 0.1163 0.5752 2.0746
120 General Heavy Industrial
252 Congregate Care Facility
151 Mini-Warehouse
140 Manufacturing
311 All Suites Hotel
150 Warehousin
864 To /Children's Superstore
890 Furniture Store
320 Motel
130 Industrial Park
110 General Light Industrial
310 Hotel
560 Church
710 General Office
522 Junior Hi h School
520 Elements School
530 High School
610 Hospital
492 Racquet Club
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 2 21- 100 5.5315 1.8669 0.6223 3.0769 11.0976
848 Tire Store
820 Shopping Center
630 Clinic
862 Home Improvement Superstore
817 Nurse Garden Center
720 Medical-Dental Office Building
841 New Car Sales
813 Free-Standing Discount Superstore
812 Building Materials and Lumber Store
814 Specialty Retail Center
861 Discount Club
880 Pharmacy/Drugstore
863 Electronics Superstore
815 Free-Standing Discount Store
816 Hardware/Paint Store
590 Libra
843 Automobile Parts Sales
730 Government Office
850 Supermarket
832 High-Turnover Sit Down Restaurant
565 Da Care Center
844 Gasoline/Service Station (Avg. 844, 845,846
831 Quality Restaurant
NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUP 3 100 - <400 26.7783 9.0377 3.0126 14.8954 53.7239
732 Post Office
912 Bank
834 Fast-Food Restaurant
851 Convenience Market 24-Hour
444 Movie Theater With Matinee See Report)
GROUP 4 SPECIAL 0.3570 0.1205 0.0402 0.1986 0.7162
411 City Park
566 Cemetery
430 Golf Course
.er
Page 1 of 1
AGENDA ITEM NO.2 • VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : AUGUST 13, 2002
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other Issues
not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager
prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you.
NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED
VISITOR'S AGENDA Page I
Agenda Item No. 3
Meeting of August 13, 2002
Pis trop d i
National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month
WHEREAS, on behalf of the citizens of Tigard, I am pleased to recognize September 2002 as
National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery month in Tigard; and
WHEREAS, acknowledging September 2002 offers Individuals In the substance abuse
treatment community an opportunity to educate the public and policymakers about the
effectiveness of treatment, both societal and financial; and
WHEREAS, substance use and abuse Is a major pubCc health problem that affects millions of
Americans of all ages, races, and ethnic backgrounds and in all communities and which has a
huge medical, societal, and economic cost, and
WHEREAS, substance abuse is a treatable disease and treatment of addiction is as successful
as the treatment of other chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and asthma; and
WHEREAS, thousands of health care providers have dedicated their lives to the recovery
process and to the education of the public about alcoholism, drug dependence, and treatment
Issues.
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment and the
Office of National Drug Control Policy Invite all residents of Tigard to participate in National
Alcohol and Drug Addcction Recovery Month.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT 1, Mayor James Grifflth, of the City of
Tigard, Oregon, do hereby proclaim the month of September 2002 as
National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month
in Tigard, Oregon and encourage all cldzens to support this year's theme - "Join the Voices
of Recovery: A Call to Action." - by supporting men, women, and youth who are in drug
and alcohol addiction treatment and recovery and their families.
Dated this day of , 2002.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of
Tigard to be affixed.
James Griffith, Mayor
City of Tigard
Attest:
City Recorder
AGENDA ITEM # 4, 2 a.
FOR AGENDA OF August 13, 2002
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGEARD, OREGON
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Greer Gaston
DATE: July 29, 2002
SUBJECT: Three-Month Council Calendar
Regularly scheduled Council Meetings are marked with an asterisk •
August
13 * Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
Business Meeting with Study Session
20 * Tues Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
27 * Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
Business Meeting with Study Session
September
2 Mon Labor Day Holiday - City Offices Closed
10 * Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
Business Meeting with Study Session
17 * Tues Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
24 * Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
Business Meeting with Study Session
October
7 Mon Joint Meeting with Tualatin City Council and
Tigard-Tualatin School District
i Time and Location - To Be Announced
8 * Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
Business Meeting with Study Session
15 * Tues Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
22 * Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
Business Meeting with Study Session
Note: This meeting may be canceled
I mi
Tigard City Council
Tentative Agenda
9117102 - Workshop 9124102 - Business TV -Greeter 1017102 - Special Meeting
Due: 913102 @ 5 p.m. Due: 9110102 @ 5 p.m.
Workshop Topics Study Session
Overview: Urban Renewal 201 - Barbara/Jim - Joint Meeting with Tigard & Tualatin
40 min. City Councils & TTSD Board; Meeting
Update: Tigard Data Resource Report - to be held in Tualatin
Beth - 20 min.
0
z Update: Proposed Bull Run Regional Drinking
Water Agency - Ed/Dennis - 45 min Consent Agenda
c Annual Court Report - Nadine - 20 min Award Labor Attorney Contract - Sandy
.°u a Report on September 11 Remembrance Event-
Liz -10 min
a~
Business Meeting
956-pl o a e ousmg an -
Barbara/Duane - 20 min.
Fairground Update - Wash. Co. Rep - 20 min
Coe Manufacturing Recognition for Potso Dog
Park - RES - Dan -15 min
Wants Mayor to read RES and present framed
copy to Coe General Manager
Sl = standing item
k/adm/greer/tentaty ag/tentative.xls
7/29/2002 Page 2
Tigard City Council
Tentative Agenda
8120102 - Workshop 8127102 - Business TV -Greeter 9110102 - Business TV -Greeter
Due: 816102 @ 5 p.m. Due: 8113102 @ 5 p.m. Due: 8127102 @ 5 p.m.
Workshop Topics Study Session Study Session
* City Manager Monahan Not Present*
Social Service Agency Presentations w/ Budget Insurance Update - Loreen -10 min
Committee and Council - Craig -1 hour Water Update - Councilor Patton - Ed -15 min
Neighborshare
' Tualatin Valley Canters
' Sexual Assault Resource Center Consent Agenda Consent Agenda
° Domestic Violence Center Chamber of Commerce Parking Lease - Bill Library Project Manager Contract Award - Gus
Review: Urban Renewal 101 - Barbara/Jim -
45 min Business Meeting
Update on Bull Mt - Barbara - 60 min Cook Park Overview - Summer Construction
Reservoir Site Development (School Site) - Activities - John - 20 min
Dennis - 30 min Approve Urban Services Agreement - Jim -
10 min
Library Construction - Design Contract Award - Business Meeting
Gus -10 min VA - Student Envoy
Status Report on Purchase of Library Property Vision Report Mid-Year Update - Loreen/Liz -
- Liz -10 min 30 min
mp emen ee Maintenance Fee - PH- Public Works Department Overview - Ed - 30 min
ORD & RES - Gus 30 min Development Code Updates to Implement the
Authorize Loan -from OECDD for New Libra TSP - PH-Leg-ORD - Julia - 30 min
Project PH (ORD or RES - Craig checking) Preview on September 11 Remembrance Event -
Bull Mountain Annexation Policy Decision - Liz -10 min
RES? - Jim - 30 min. Summer Reading Update - Margaret -10 min
TMC 12.03 Update - Billing and Collection of Update on New Library- Margaret -10 min
Utility Charges - ORD - Tom -10 min
TMC 12.02 - Update Sanitary Sewer and
Surface Water Management - ORD -10 min
Tom
Continuation MUR (from 7/23) PH-QJ-ORD -
S1= standing item Julia-15 min
idadm/greer/tentaty ag/tentative.xis
7/29/2002 Page 1
I '
AGENDA ITEM # -3
FOR AGENDA OF August 1_3, 2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET AMEMMENT #110 THE FY 2002-
03 BUDGET TO TRANSFER $10000 FROM PARKS CAPITAL FUND CAP IAi IVIPROVE NUS TO
THE PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM FOR COMPLETION Off' A STREET TREE INVENTORY
PREPARED BY: _Tom Imdieke/Matt Stine DEPT HEAD OK d CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNC
A budget amendment is required to transfer appropriations from Parks Capital Fund Capital Improvements to the
Public Works program to complete a street tree inventory.
STAFF E .O ATION
Approve the resolution so that sufficient appropriations exist within the Public Works program to complete the
street inventory.
INFORMATION S IMMARY
Information gathered from a citywide street tree inventory will be valuable in several ways to various departments
throughout the City. Most of the information will be used as part of the street tree planing program to help identify
areas in the City that are in need of street trees. The Urban Forester will then work with the neighborhoods to
conduct the actual street tree plantings.
Information that would be gathered in the study would include:
• Condition and location of hazardous trees.
• Identification of over-planting of certain tree species.
• Damage caused by tree roots to sidewalks, road pavement and curbs.
• Need for pruning to address safety or clearance issues.
• identification of trees that conflict with overhead and/or underground utilities.
OTHER ALT. NATIVES CONSIDERED
Not complete the street tree inventory.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE ST-RATE
Does not apply.
Milli
ATTACHMENT LIST
Resolution approving the budget amendment.
Attachment A to resolution.
FISCAL NOTES
This amendment transfers $10,000 from Parks Capital Fund Capital Improvements to the Public Works
Program.
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF August 13, 2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Appointment of Sharon Rollins to the Tree Board and Tricia Bull as an alternate to
the Tree Board
PREPARED BY: Susan Koe in DEPT HEAD OK" ITY MGR OI~
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Appointment of Sharon Rollins as a member to the Tree Board and Tricia Bull as an alternate to the Tree Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution appointing Sharon Rollins to the Tree Board, and appointing Tricia Bull as an
alternate to the Tree Board.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Attached is a resolution which, if adopted, would approve the appointment of Sharon Rollins to the Tree Board to
complete the term of David Cory. This term ends April 30, 2005. Tricia Bull would be appointed as an alternate to
the Tree Board for a term ending June 30, 2004.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Visioning Goal Community Character and Quality of Life: The city will maximize the effectiveness of the
volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our community.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Information about the candidates.
FISCAL NOTES
There is no cost associated with this action.
I:WDM\SUSANMTREE 80ARDIROLLINS88ULLAPPT SUM 8'02.DOC
Information on the August, 2002, Tree Board appointees
Sharon Rollins
Sharon has lived in Tigard for 3 years not far from Fowler Middle School. A retired
teacher, Sharon contributes her time and knowledge as a volunteer for several
organizations including the City of Tigard. She has been very active in the restoration
of Derry Dell Creek near Genesis Loop and is a Community Connector.
T ricia Bull
Tricia has lived in Tigard for 8 years and currently resides in the NE corner of the city.
A graduate of Northwestern University in Journalism, Tricia is a freelance writer and an
active volunteer with the Tigard Library, and the Oregon Environmental Council
among others.
NMI
AGENDA ITEM
FOR AGENDA OF August 13, 2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Rejection of Bid Proposals for the Construction of Gaarde Street (Sanitary
Sewer Reimbursement District No. 24 ).and 121" Avenue Sani Sewer Reimbursement District No. 26
PREPARED BY: Vannie Ng_uy_en DEPT HEAD OK: A.P. Duenas CITY MGR OK: Bill Monahan
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Local Contract Review Board reject all bid proposals for the construction of the Gaarde Street
and 121st Avenue Sanitary Sewer project?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, reject all bid proposals for the
construction of the Gaarde Street and 1215` Avenue Sanitary Sewer project due to high bids submitted at the
bid opening.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The proposed project would provide sewer service to three lots along Gaarde Street east of I I Wh Avenue
(Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 24) and sewer service to three lots along 12 I't Avenue
between Gaarde Street and Rose Vista Drive (Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 26). Council
authorized formation of District No. 24 and District No. 26 by approving Resolution No. 02-42 and No.
02-43 respectively on June 25, 2002. Construction of the project would provide for the installation of
sewer before construction of the Gaarde Street Improvement project.
The project was advertised for bids on July 1, 2002. The bid opening was conducted on July 15, 2002.
The bid results are:
Kerr Contractors Canby, OR $167,922.50
Dunn Construction Portland, OR $237,206.00
Wystan Brown Excavating Boring, OR $278,105.00
Engineer's Estimate $99,100
Since Kerr Contractors did not acknowledge the project addenda, their bid was considered non-
responsive as stated in the bid document.
The lowest responsive bid from Dunn Construction is higher than the Engineer's estimate by
approximately $138,000. Bid item "Trench Excavation & Backfill" at various depths was bid double the
estimated cost. Dunn Construction indicated that installation of pipes and manholes that weredeeper
than 25 feet required shoring that needed to be designed by a registered civil engineer. They also said
that their bid was especially high because Collector Street such as Gaarde Street and 121°t Avenue
required more traffic control than Local Street.
Because there are only two responsive bids that are both extremely high, staff recommends rejection of
the bids. Upon approval of rejection of these bid proposals, staff intends to re-bid the project as part of
the Gaarde Streit Improvement project in December 2002. Inclusion of this project as part of the much
larger Gaarde Street Improvement project should provide much lower bids.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COIVIlVIT!"TEE STRATEGY
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
The. amount of $2,000,000 is available in the FY 2002-03 Neighborhood and Commercial Sewer
Extension Program for this and other sewer extension projects.
1Adt)rMde\sumlagenda summary for 121st & gaarde sanitary scrNer project•bld rejection.doc
GAARDE S-fREEV) AVE)
18TH AVE PROGRAM
121ST AVE (14' EE of
V- 5
GAARDE SIRE SANIT RY p~jCTENO N26 8 24
~y 20 REIM~~RSE►~ENT
r
PROjECT
LOCATION
DIS7-RIC7 X26
PROJECT
DIS'( n ON
X24
\ COLE LANE
AGENDA ITEM # 4 57 ,
FOR AGENDA OF August 13, 2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Award of Contract for the Construction of Carmen Street - Sanitary Sewer
Reimbursement District No. 25
v11/
PREPARED BY: Vannie Nguyen DEPT HEAD OK: A.P. Duenas CITY MGR OK: Bill Monahan
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for the construction of Carmen Street -
Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 25?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to Dunn
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $115,636.00.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The proposed project would provide sewer service to 17 lots along Carmen Street between 1215` and 116`h
Avenue through Sewer Reimbursement District No. 25 of the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program.
Through this program, the City would install public sewer to each lot within the Reimbursement District and the
owners would reimburse the City for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer at the time of connection to the
sewer. In addition, each owner would be required to pay a connection fee of $2,335 before connecting to the
line. Each owner would also be responsible for disconnecting the septic system according to County rules and
any other plumbing modifications necessary to connect to the public line. Council authorized formation of
Sewer Reimbursement District No. 25 by approving Resolution No. 02-45 on July 9, 2002.
The project was advertised for bids on July 15, 2002. The bid opening was conducted on July 29, 2002. The bid
results are:
Dunn Construction Tualatin, Oregon $115,636.00
Kerr Contractors Tuaiati 1, Oregon $129,478.00
Engineer's Estimate $89,300
The lowest responsive bid from Dunn Construction is higher than the Engineer's estimate by approximately
$26,300. Dunn Construction indicated that in accordance with the existing soil condition of other nearby
sanitary sewer projects that were constructed for the City, pipe trench for this project, if not shored properly
could be easily collapsed. Staff agrees with the explanation and determines that their high bid is justified. Staff
recommends approval of the contract award to Dunn Construction.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COM1=EE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
Project location map
FISCAL NOTES
The amount of $2,000,000 is available in the FY 2002-03 Neighborhood and Commercial Sewer Extension
Program for this and other sewer extension projects. This funding is adequate to award a contract of $115,636.00
to Dunn Construction.
t:kttywide\sumlagenda summary for carmen street - sewer district 25.doc
y y yJi
t
ty
J
J 3tJ
STREET ~Sr®1A PRp~RA"
TEt®
CARS EX 25
2_03 SA~1TA~~sEDpIER STR1CT 140
~ 2p° RErI~®~RSE
a, SA
i ~1 WP~N~~
N
N r
r
Sl
n z
4 2 1 ,
C~! 1
u1
' ERROL ST. ~ 1
, $t
PJ
z 1
~ a 1
l ~
. r 1
J '
TtPP1TT Pl S'iREET %f .
~9,RMEN ` .
1 r
1
,JEOT LOCATION
pRO
U~'105 OOZE ~
AGENDA ITEM # 1.
FOR AGENDA OF August 13, 2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUEiAGENDA TITLE: Award of Contract for the Construction of the FY 2002-03 Pavement Major
Maintenance Program TMMP)
PREPARED BY: Vannie Nguyen DEPT HEAD OK: A. . Duenas CITY MGR OK: Bill Mo'nahan
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for the construction of the FY 2002-03
Pavement Major Maintenance Program (PMMP)?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to Pro-Teck
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $121,199.45.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City of Tigard's Pavement Overlay Backlog list identifies streets that need corrective overlays and slurry
seals. The backlog has been reduced progressively. However, due to limited funding, only a few streets from the
list can be addressed this fiscal year. The proposed project for FY 2002-03 includes the following streets:
- North Dakota Street (from 106 feet west of North Dakota Street bridge to Tiedeman Avenue and
from 121 st Avenue to 115th Avenue)
- School Street (from Grant Avenue to approximately 220 feet west of Hwy 99W)
- Johnson Street (from Grant Avenue to Hwy 99W)
- Rose Vista Drive (from 121St Avenue to Gaarde Street)
- Bonita Road (from 70 feet west of Bonita Road bridge to Milton Court)
The scope of work includes pavement removal, pavement dig-out and repair, placement of geotextile fabric and
AC pavement, removal and installation of traffic stripes and pavement markings. There would be approximately
13,200 square yards of AC overlay placed on these streets.
Washington County streets are not proposed at this time for pavement overlays or slurry seals. A PMMP project
for County roads will be prepared separately if these streets demonstrate the need for repair of existing AC
pavement.
The bid opening was conducted on July 15, 2002. The bid results are:
Pro-Teck Construction Clackamas, OR $121,199.45
Eagle Elsner Tigard, OR $177,291.90
Baker Rock Beaverton, OR $196,660.40
S-2 Contractors Oregon City, OR $254,086.00
Engineer's Estimate $136,200
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION CONEV=. E STRATEGY
None
ATTACHMENT LIST
Project location map
FISCAL NOTES
The amount of $135,000 has been budgeted in FY 2002-03 from the State Gas Tax revenue for the PMMP project.
This funding is sufficient to award a contract of $121,199.45 to Pro-Teck Construction, Inc.
i Ar.ityWde%sum\agenda summary for 2002-03 pmmp.doc
N TIMOTHY PL L
NORTH DAKOTA AVE
NORTH DAKOTA ST
PROJECT LOCH 77ON l
lei NORTH DAKOTA A%VSA - OVERLAY
PROJECT LOCA77'ON
NORTH DAKOTA-OVERLAY
JOHNSON ST
~ji L
U SCHOOL ST
a a 3
PROJECT LOCATION
JOHNSON ST-O%EfUY
PROJECT LOCA AON
SCHOOL ST - RMWACHO
N
a ROSE VISTA
BONITA ROAD N
N
e
n ~
GA
PROJECT LOCATION
BOUTA RD PROJECT LOCAI10Al
ROSE VSTA OR.
AGENDA ITEM # 4 5
FOR AGENDA OF 8-13-2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Local Contract Review Board Approval of Change Order #4 for Cook Park
Master Plan Expansion Phase II
PREPARED BY: John Rov DEPT HEAD OK V,/- CITY MGR OK-1
ISSUE, BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Local Contract Review Board Approve Change Order #4, in the amount of $29,408 for the Cook
Park Master Plan Expansion Phase II Construction.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board approve Change Order #4, in the amount of
$29,408 for the Cook Park Master Plan Expansion Phase II Construction.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On March 26, 2002, staff appeared before the Local Contract Review Board recommending that the Board
award the bid for Cook Park Master Plan Expansion Phase H Construction to Robert Gray Partners, in the
amount of $1,069,843.78. At that time, staff informed the Board that there were some final details of the
design of the buildings within the flood plain to be resolved in order to obtain builing permits which would
be brought back to the Board for approval.
The design changes are all related to moving the electrical components of the buildings to a level that would
put them above the flood plain clearance. The buildings that are impacted by the design changes are the
picnic shelter, maintenance building, restroom facility, and the restroom/concession facility. Change order
numbers 1-3 have already been approved by staff and were for the following items:
® C/O #1 Change of roof decking material used for roofing of the picnic shelter, $1,400 credit.
e C/O #2 - Recirculating hot water systems for the two restroom buildings which will reduce water usage
and offer greater convenience to users at a cost of $1,052.25 per building or $2,104.50 total.
• C/O #3 - Low pressure suction alarm to the recycled water irrigation line booster pump, $345
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Not applicable at this time.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
City Council Goal #4 and Visioning Goal (5) - Continue to implement the City Park Master Plan
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. CES/NW letter from Tony Weller dated July 17, 2002 (Change Order #4)
FISCAL NOTES
The funding for Change Order # 4 will be funded by the Oregon Economic and Community Development
Department loan.
Attachment #1
CESINW
July 18, 2002
Mr. John Roy, Public Works Manager
CITY OF TIGARD
12800 SW Ash Street.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: COOK PARK EXPANSION PHASE 2 - CHANGE ORDER No. 4
Dear John:
The following change order reflects the changes to the project that were required by the City of
Tigard's Building Department to address 100-year flood plain issues. The changes impacted
Schedule 2 - Maintenance Building, Schedule 3 - Restroom Storage Building, Schedule 5 -
Picnic Shelter and Alternate 1 B - Restroom Concession Building. The change order has been
reviewed by both the Project Architect and Project Engineer. The total cost for the flood plain related
modifications is $29,408.00.
The revised contract items and quantities are as follows:
Unit Total
Description Quantity Unit Price Amount
ADD: `
Change Order #4:
1. Schedule 2.1 Maintenance Bldg 1 LS $ 2,952.00 $ 2,952.00
2. Schedule 2.6 Maint. Bldg Elec. 1 LS $ 891.00 891.00
Subtotal Schedule 2 $ 3,843.00
3. Schedule 3.1 Restroom/Stor. Bldg 1 LS $ 2,254.00 $ 2.254.00
4. Schedule 3.3 Relocate Irr. Contr. 1 LS $ 370.00 $ 370.00
5. Schedule 3.4 Relocate Wet. Contr. 1 LS $ 370.00 $ 370.00
6. Schedule 3.5 Restroom/Stor. Bldg Elec. 1 LS $ 4,751.00 $4,751.00
Subtotal Schedule 3 $ 7,745.00
7. Schedule 5.7 Picnic Shelter Elec. 1 LS $ 3,695.00 $ 3,695.00
8. Aft. 1B Restroom/Concess. Bldg. 1 LS $14,125.00 $14,125.00
Total Value Change Order Number 4 $29,408.00
This change order results in an increase in the project contract of $29,408.00 for a total revised
contract amount of $1,100,301.28, which is 103% of the original contract amount ($1,069,843.78).
This change order does not impact the project completion date.
CESNW,INC.
15573 SW BANGY RD., STE. 300 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
503.968.6655 TEL 503.968.2595 FAX www.ccsnw.com
Cook Park Expansion Phase 2 - Change Order Number 4 Page 2
If you have any questions in this regard please call.
Sincerely,
CESNW, INC.
Anthony R. W I r, P.E., P.L.S.
Vice President
APPROVED:
Robert Gr Fart r , c.
By:
Dat .
`7 - 25- o2
City of Tigard
By:
Date:
1516\Ph2-co4.doc
File: Path Estimator Date
EstimateC F:\Estimate Forms\Cook Park HKT 07/25102
Title Cook Park Expansion Phase H - CO 1 Revision:
Iteration:
Client City Of Tigard Const. Duration:
Site !Area:
Location Tigard, Oregon Foot nt: Gen Cond %
Rooea: Sp Cond %
Option Electrical Design Changes Bldg Size:
Total Subtotal
Bid Labor Materials Equipment Subcontract Project
Item Description Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs
21 Maintenance Building 96 2,426 2,523
26 Electrical Service - Maintenance Building 774 775
31 Restroom/Storage Building 285 (404) 1,947 1,828
33 Relocate Irrigation Controller 320 321
34 Relocate Wetland Controller 320 321
35 Electrical Service - Storage Building 4,130 4,131
57 Electrical Service - Picnic Shelter 3,213 3,213
98 Restroom/Concession Building 765 2,056 9,110 11,931
Project Subtotal 1,146 4,079 19,814 25,043
46.00% Labor Burden 528
5.00% General Conditions 1,279
10.00% Overhead & Fee 2,558
Total Project 29,408
AGENDA ITEM # 4.5 e
FOR AGENDA OF 8-13-02
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Local Contract Review Board approval of Contract Modification #1 for
Consulting Engineering Services/NW for the Cook Park Master Plan E sion Project.
PREPARED BY: John Roy DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Local Contract Review Board modify the existing contract with CES+NW in the amount of $68,657
for the Cook Park Master Plan Expansion project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends modification of the original contract with CES/NW in the amount of $68,657.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Since the execution of the CES/NW contract in June of 2000 for the Cook Park Master Plan Expansion
project, there have been a number of changes to the scope of work. These changes have resulted from
changes in the City's funding availability and opportunity through grants/loans or additons/improvements to
the project not originally envisioned. At the time most of these changes occurred, there was still a significant
balance left on the contract and it was unclear on how much of an adjustment would be necessary. Now that
CES/NW nears the end of the project, the amount needed for the adjustment is much clearer.
The attachment from Tony Weller, CESINW, provides a summary of Consultant/Project scope changes.
There is also a spreadsheet attached displaying the allocations of each of the changes.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDEP7.D
No alternatives at this time.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
City Council Goal #4 and Visioning Goal (5) - Continue to implement the City Park Master Plan
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Letter from John Roy, PW Manager dated April 24, 2002
2. CESINW letter dated July 27, 2002
3. Spreadsheet - Cook Park Expansion - Phase 2
FISCAL NOTES
Funding for Contract Modification #1 for CESJNW will be funded through the loan from the Oregon
Economic and Community Development Department. This will be paid from the 2001/02 budget.
A --ii bm=t fill
April 24, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
ANY
210~~
Mr. Tony Weller
CESNW, INC
15573 SW Bangy Rd., Suite 300
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
Dear Mr. Weller:
This letter is to be considered official notice that the budgeted contract amount
that your firm has with the City of Tigard is nearly expended. I have attempted to
convey this message to you verbally on previous occasions in an effort for you to
present the necessary documentation for a change order. You have indicated in
the past that you thought that a change order would be necessary for work
i performed outside the scope of services of the contract.
Please be aware that the remaining amount of the contract is approximately
$4,000 and any invoices exceeding this amount will not be processed.
From my perspective, we have had a good working relationship on the Cook
Park project. To ensure clear communication between both parties, I am
encouraging you to submit the necessary documentation to ensure there will be
funding with which to pay your billing invoices in the near and distant future.
Any assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
hn Roy
ublic Works Manager
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
Jill
Attachment #2
CESINW
July 27, 2002
Mr. John Roy, Public Works Manager
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
RE: COOK PARK EXPANSION - CONTRACT MODIFICATION No.1
Dear John:
As we have previously discussed there have been a number of changes to the professional
services scope of work since the contract was executed in June 2000. Many of these changes
resulted from changes to the City's funding availability and new funding opportunities through
grants/loans or additions/improvements to the project not originally envisioned. At the time most
of these changes occurred, there was still a significant balance left on the contract and it was
unclear on how much of an adjustment would be necessary. Now that we are near the end of
the project, amount needed for the adjustment is clearer.
The original scope of work was based on three phases. Ninety percent submittals were made in
late 2000 per the contract and the original phasing schedule. It was after this submittal when
the lack of available funds was made known to the project team. Phase 1 was then modified to
move the sports group work (sports fields and restroom/concession building) into a forth phase
and remove the restroom/storage building from the first phase. Later the City's emergency
access road and an alternate bid for the Wetland Gazebo were added to phase 1. The content
all three phases were adjusted.
The bids received for Phase 1 were very good and provided the City with an opportunity to
reduce future construction costs by adding the grading, infrastructure and eventually the
irrigation and seeding for the Sports Fields. This significantly reduced future construction costs
and brought the fields online much sooner.
There were several other changes during the course of the project which we have listed herein.
These changes resulted in increased consultant fees but they also took advantage of some
opportunities to improve the project, reduced the construction costs of the project (the total
construction costs with all changes and enhancements is less than the estimated costs), and
brought the project to completion earlier than anticipated.
CESNW,INC.
15573 SW BANGY RD., STE. 300 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
503.968.6655 TEL 503.968.2595 FAX www.ccsnw.com
NEW IM I
I Fill
Mr. John Roy
COOK PARK EXPANSION - CONTRACT MODIFICATION No. 9
Page 2 of 2
Summary of Consultant/Project Scope Changes:
1. Provided additional construction observation for completion of the wetland project. (The
wetland contractor failed to complete his work before CWS stopped providing reclaimed
irrigation water which extended contract time for the project).
2. Revised bid packages from three phases to four phases and changed the content of
each phase.
3. Assisted with grant application
4. Assisted with loan application
5. Revised the maintenance building location and parking lot configuration to preserve the
use of the existing softball fields.
6. Incorporate City of Tigard construction documents for Emergency Access Road
construction into Phase 1 construction documents.
7. Prepared sports field only grading, seeding and irrigation plans to take advantage of
good bid numbers and construction of the sports fields in phase 1 instead of phase 4.
8. Revised phase 2, phase 3 and phase 4 documents into Phase 2 bid set.
9. Revised working drawings to enlarge the concession stand from 14 feet deep to 16 feet
deep.
10. Revised working drawings to include build-out of concession area.
11. Revised maintenance building to include masonry on the lower portion of the exterior
walls.
12. Expanded the reclaimed water irrigation system to include a second booster pump for
the area west of 92"d Avenue. Added a weather station to irrigation system.
13. Incorporated the replacement/relocation of the existing irrigation system and controller
near the maintenance building into the project.
14. Revised construction plans to address building dept requirements on flood plain issues.
15. Additional printing/bidding expenses.
We have attached spread sheet allocating costs for these items. We are requesting a contract
modification to cover our additional costs for these items.
Please review this information and let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
CESNW, INC.
. t~A~
Anthony R. eller, P.E., P.L.S.
C
Vice President
Enclosures
\1516\pro\scope-rev.doc
COOK PARK EXPANSION - PHASE 2 Attachment #3
Landscape
Item CESNW Architect Architect Electrical Total Cost
Additional Construction
Observation & Admin for
Wetland Project 4032 4032
Revised drawings and
specifications from three
phases to four phases. 8000 400 1200 3230 12830
Assist with grant application 200 200
Assist with loan application 400 400
Revised the maintenance
building location and parking
lot to preserve the use of the
existing ball fields. 1500 1500
Incorporate City of Tigard
construction documents for
Emergency Access Road
construction into Phase 1
construction documents. 800 800
Prepared sports field only
grading, seeding and
irrigation plans to take
advantage of good bid
number and building the
sports fields in phase 1. 1200 1400 2600
Revised the phase 2, phase
3 and phase 4 documents
into Phase 2 bid set. 10000 1600 11600
Revise working drawings to
enlarge the concession
stand from 14 feet deep to
16 feet deep 600 1200 1800
Revise working drawings to
include build-out of
concession area. 400 8700 9100
Page 1 of 2
COOK PARK EXPANSION - PHASE 2
Landscape
Item CESNW Architect Architect Electrical Total Cost
Revise maintenance building
to include masonry on the
lower portion of the exterior
walls. 300 6600 6900
Added benches and BBQ's
to Tot lot and picnic shelter. 0 0 0 0
Expand the reclaimed water
irrigation system to include a
second booster pump for the
area west of 92nd Avenue. 5200 2110 7310
Incorporate the
replacement/relocation of the
existing irrigation system
near the maintenance
building. 800 2000 2800
Revise construction plans to
address building dept
requirements on flood plain
issues. 2000 4785 6785
Additional printing/bidding
Expenses 1300
ITOTALS 36732 21685 6200 5340 68657
Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEM # • T.
FOR AGENDA OF 8-13-02
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Annrove a two-year Electrical Services Contract Utilizing the Washington
County Contract.
PREPARED BY: John Roy DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve a two year contract for electrical service by utilizing a
Washington County Contract for providing electrical service.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board approve a two-year electrical contract by utilizing
the Washington County Contract for providing electrical service.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City had an electrical service provider contract with Oregon Electric, which expired on February 15,
2002, which was extended until June 30, 2002.
Earlier this year staff began discussions with Tigard/Tualatin School District regarding their ability to provide
electrical service for the City as the school district has licensed electricians on staff. The school district
informed staff that they are not prepared to provide this type of service to the City at this time, although it
may be considered in the future. Staff reviewed available contracts with other agencies that could be utilized
and found Washington County had an electrical service provider contract with three vendors with the
following guidelines:
• Work orders less than $5,000 are assigned to the lowest bidder - Friberg Electric. If they are not available
then assignment is made to the second or third lowest bidder, in that order. (Ampere Electric and New
Tech Electric).
• Work orders between $5,000 and $25,000 will have a written scope of work and conduct a walk through
with all 3 vendors. The 3 vendors will submit an estimate for that work and the contractor submitting the
lowest estimate and the ability to meet the project timelines will be assigned the work order. The
estimate will include a list of materials with pricing and estimated number of hours to complete the work
order.
Upon review of the Washington County contract it has been determined by staff that utilizing this contract
would provide for low cost service, more flexibility in having work performed, and more effective and
efficient use of staff time.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Reject staffs recommendation.
Direct staff to prepare and advertise for request for proposals.
2. I'm
L
4
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL, AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
Bid Farms from 3 accepted bidders: Friberg of Oregon Electric, New Tech Electric and Ampere Electric
FISCAL NOTES
The cost for the contract is $16,000 per year for a total of $32,000 for the two year contract. Building
maintenance has budgeted for the FY 2002/2003 $16,000 for electrical service.
• Attachment #I
45.1 BID FORM
BID TITLE: ELEClI RICAL SERVICES (#21013B)
BID OPENING: 11:00 A.M.. MONDAY.: MAY 21.2001
Firm Submitting Bid: - a?,ePJ_, OP
e®
1. Journ Electrician $ S gS 60%
2. Data/Voice wire technician $ . `IS 140%
Note: The hourly rates shall include all costs outlined in Spedfkations Sedion 37 0.
THE FOLLOWING IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED
IN THE AWARD OF THIS BID:
LABOR RATES - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE
1. Journeyman Electrician S S
2. Data/Voice Wire Technician s4
rfs
3. Minimum Charge per Call
4. Materials - Cost Plus 0/co
0
5. Equipment Rental -Cost Plus
6. Sub-Contractor Work Cost Plus
.7. Response: The County desires that all work (other than Days following
emergency work), when required, be scheduled and started no notification
later than 5 calendir days from the date of notification to Days
proceed with the work. Please indicate in space provided if
different than 5 days.
mf
CERTIFICATION AND CONTRACT OFFER
BID TTI'LE: ELECTRICAL SERVICES (#21013B)
BID OPENING: 11:00 A.M., MONDAY, MAY 21, 2001
I the undersigned, having carefully examined the Special Instructions, Specifications, General Instructions, and all other
related material and information agree to furnish services and materials as specified to Washington County at the prices
bid.
I further agree that this offer to f "sh specified material will remain in effect at the prices bid for a period of not less
than sixty (60) calendar days from the date that bids sine due, and that this offer may not be withdrawn or modified
during that time.
If this offer, or portion thereof, is accepted by the Board of Commissioners and award is made thereon, I agree W enter
info a contract with Washington County to famish and install materials as specified for the prices bid.
I hereby certify that this bid is genuine and that I have not enter into collusion with any other vendor(s) or any other
l~n(s)•
The undersigned Bidder has carefully examined all bidding documents and addenda (if any) numbered. thmugh
inchuive.
"Resident Bidder" YE (Yes or No) ORS 701.055,1/1/9
L Registered with Oregor Construction Contractors Board (yes or no)
Ifyes, Reg. # ~Q~ Expiration Date
I to comply with the provisions as required by ORS 279.350 or 40 U.S.C. 276 for the payment of prevailing wages
\ es or No).
w6rkere Cotnpensatioa Company. ad POAATJD It1 Poliry/Binder B /off / /3 (o
ed y Date
Printz4 Name
TZ iA!ro-~ off' /'G9ow ~ rim.
Firer
4o 3o& /11 wizzj, R"S ourr~
A
h (Area Code) € [ '
TAX ]DENIUICAMON/SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
oil
45.1 BID FORM
BID TITLE: ELECTRICAL SERVICES (#21013B1
BID OPENING: 11:00 A.M.. MONDAY. MAY 21.2001
.8
Firm Submitting Bid:
60
1. 70u111 Electrician $ ~ 60%
2. Data/Voice wire technician $ $ 40%
Note: 77se hourly rates shall include all costs oudlined in Specifications Section 37.1
THE FOLLOWING I,5 FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED
IN THE AWARD OF THIS BID:
LABOR RATES - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE
1. Journeyman Electrician $
2. Data/Voice Wire Technician $ c.~$ at
3. Minimum Charge per Call $
4. Materials - Cost Plus % D
5. Equipment Rental - Cost Plus %
6. Sub-Contractor Work - Cost Plus %
7. Response:. The County desim that all work (other than Days following
emergency work), when required, be scheduled and started no notification
later than 5 calendar days from the date of notification to Days
proceed with the yvork. Please indicate in space provided if
different than 5 days.
a
r
CERIMCATION AND CONTRACT OFFM
BID TrrLE: ELECTRICAL SERVICES (#21013B)
BID OPENING: 11:00 A.M.. MONDAY, MAY 21, 2001
I the undersigned, having carefully examined the Special Iastruetions, Specifications, General Instructions, and all other
related material and information agree to furnish swnces and materials as specified to Washington County at the prices
bid.
I further agree that this offer to famish specified material will remain in effect at the prices bid for a period of not less
than sixty (60) calendar days from the date that bids are due, and that this offer may not be withdrawn or modified
during that time.
If this offer, or portion thereof is accepted by the Board of Commissioners and awar3 isinade thereon, I agree to enter
into n contract with Washington Carty to furnish and install materials as specified for the prices bid.
I hereby certify that this bid is genuine and that I have not entered into collu3ion with any od& vendor(s) or any other
person(s).
The undersigned Bidder has carefully examined all bidding documents and addenda (if any) numbered through
or inclusive.
-'Resident Bidder" -t ,~i_(Yes or No) ORS 701.055,1/1/9
1. Registered wi Oregon Construction Contra rs Dogd. s.- (yes or no)
If yes, Reg. /Oo1 Expiration Date
I agree to comply with the provisions as required by OPS 27 350 or 40 U.S.C. 276 for the payment of prevailing wages
c,#( (Ycs or No).
OWere Compauation Company-, Poliey/ 3hxkr 3?.? /8 a
Signed By Da
Printed N
Title
Firm ti / ♦ A)
Address ~/yl~i Ctl/[/ 9'70 D ~e
Phone (Area ) .
TAX M ICATION/SOCIAI. SECURITY NUUBER
r '
45.1 Bli) FORM
BID 'T'ITLE: ELECTRICAL. SERVICES (#21013B)
BED OPENING: 11.00 A.M. MONDAY, MAY 21.2001
A. G
Firm Submitting Bid: Almod -r
1. 7ourn Electrician . $ p 60'J®
2. DataJVoice wire technician $ 5 , 40%
Note: The hourly rates shall include all costs outUned in Specilcations Seddon 39.0.
THE FOLLOWING IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED
IN THE AWAYtD OF THIS BID:
LABOR RATES - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE
1. Journeyman Electrician $
2. Data/Voice Wire Technician $ 63.- 79
3. Minimum Charge per Call eAn- er. O . $ q
4. Materials - Cost Plus OV40 1:2
5. Equipment Rental - Cost Plus %
6. Sub-Contractor Work- Cost Plus % /
7. Response: The County desires that all work (other than Days following
emergency work), when required, be scheduled and started no notification
later than 5 calendar days from the date of notification to Days
proceed with the work. Please indicate in snare provided if
different than 5 days.
.R
CERTIFICATION AM CON17AC r OFFER
BID Tg'i E: ELEcmCAL SERVICES U21013B)
BED OPENING: 11.00 A.M. MONDAY, MAY 21.2001 _
I the undersigned, ?caving carefully examined the special Instnu eons, specif cations, General Instruedom, and all ottcer
related material and infom?ation agree to furnish sere and materials as specified to Washington County at the prices
bid.
I further agree that this offer to famish specified material will remain in effect at the prices bid for a period of not less
than sixty (60) calendar days from the date that bids are due, and that tnis offer may not be withdrawn or modified
during that time.
3
If this offer, or portion thereof; is accepted by the Board of Commissioners and award is made thereon, I agree to eater
into a contract with Washington County to furnish and install material as specified.for the prices bid.
I hereby certify that this bid is genuine and that I have not entered into collusion with any other vendor(s) or any other
person(s).
The undersigned Bidder has carefully examined all bidding documents and addenda (if any) numbered l through
~ inchuive.
*MmidentBiddd° (Yes or No) ORS 701.055,1/1/9
1. Registered with Oregon Construction Contractors Board VG,; (yes or no)
If yes, Reg. # LtS Expiration Date ®o - / 4 - ~~o ei/
Y gme to comply with the provisions as rem by ORS 279350 or 40 U.S.G 276 for the payment of prevailing wages
(Yes or No).
work,e Compensation company: Co rj dr a+so hl PoUcy/BMa W 9 0eT
23 D/
Signed By Da .
Printed Name>~~VGw W. 4OG~ P C'~f
Title _j _j
ear ~i c.~ Q,r
Firm
Address /N
Its bor4O ( 97 / 2 y
5-03 - CLJrj I ~
Phone (.Area Code)
ed l- _T~y / I A
TAX MEMMCATION/SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
.R .
AGENDA ITEM # 5
FOR AGENDA OF August 13.2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE Update on the 2002 Festival of Balloons Event
PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Hear an update from Bruce Ellis about the Tigard Festival of Balloons.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
N/A
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Tigard Festival of Balloons was held June 14-15, 2002. Mr. Ellis will be present to meet with the City Council
to review the highlights of this year's event.
Tigard staff and representatives from the Chamber of Commerce met with Mr. Ellis on August 1, 2002. These
individuals reviewed the logistics, communications, volunteer efforts, public safety, parking, insurance and other
planning efforts that went relatively smoothly for this year's event.
Next year's event is scheduled for June 13 -15, 2003.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Community Character and Quality of Life - Community Events Goal: Develop an 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
None
FISCAL NOTES
The City contributes $10,000 in cash and in-kind services. The in-kind services for this and last year's event
will be forwarded to City Council prior to the August 13, 2002, Council meeting.
IM MPACKET'02\20020813\04 BALLOON FEST AISMOC
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Monahan
FROM: Cathy Wheatley
RE: Balloon Festival 2002 Expenses
DATE: August 9, 2002
Bill, listed below are the Balloon Festival 2002 expenses relating to the Public Works
and Police Department:
Public Works
Supplies & Equipment $ 1,007
Labor 29.597 (940 hours, including overtime)
Total $30,604
(Note: Total for last year's festival for public works was $32,983)
Police Department
Supplies & Equipment $ 1,031
*Labor 13.103 (444 hours, including overtime)
Total $ 14,134
(Note: Total for last year's festival for the Police Department was $10,582)
Volunteer Hours
*Tigard Police Reserves and Other Police Agencies: 317 hours
City Booth and information line on the field during the event: 118 hours
(Please note that last year, the Police had the benefit of 542 hours from the Tigard
Police Reserves and other police agencies compared to the 317 hours available this
year.)
Attached is a chart showing total expenditures for 2001 and 2002.
:VADMICATHYIEVENTS\BALLOON2\EXPENSE REPORTMOC
Nil Rim I
w
TOTAL BALLOON FESTIVAL COSTS
200'1 2002
Cash Contributions $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Public Works 32,983 30,604
Police Department 10,582 14,134
Total Costs $ 53,565 $ 54,738
(Costs increased about 2%
in 2002 compared to 2001
costs)
For the 2003 evert, staff will track all expenses that occur during the year including
those in administration (volunteers, communications, responses to e-mail and telephone
inquiries) and finance.
I:VADM\CATHYIEVENTSIBALLOONZEXPENSE REPORTAOC
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF August 13. 2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discussion with State Senator Ginny Burdick and State Representative Max
Williams
PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK 1,4/0&----CITY MGR OK,
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
A discussion with State Senator tinny Burdick and State Representative Max Williams Qn issues of interest to
Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Identify issues of interest or concern for Senator Burdick and Representative Williams.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Senator Burdick and Representative Williams will discuss issues and concerns with the Tigard City Council.
Attached is a brochure entitled, "Strong Cities, A Strong State" that was published by the League of Oregon
Cities, which contains potential discussion topics for the Council and our legislators.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
ATTACHMENT LIST
League of Oregon Cities Brochure: 2003 Cities' Legislative Agenda - Strong Cities, A Strong State
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Community Character and Quality of Life, Goal 1, Communication and Strategy 3, Encourage public
participation through accessibility and education.
FISCAL NOTES
None
I:W,DM\PACKET'02%20020813\DISCUSSION WITH BURDICK & WILLIAMS AIS.DOC
5. natural Resources
ices,
ortation To maintain essential services,
support a transp on cities must have d
Oreg sustainable land an
package that establishes in providing to Oregon's
not
system maintenance operation as oak,
ation, and water resources a WSW ~
preserv for funding and citizens. TO achieve this g VITIts a top priority cities:
reemptions of term certainty for
Oppose state P Options Support ciplong- hts;
local rev enue-TaAsi eg tand aI water rig
m muni
for road Improve Promotion of innovative
street maintenance• Supp°1A P techniques;
water treatment
-Way Authority support local determinatto
f etain Right-of ' Supp cal es . relation
are a valuable livability p and zon ing of 0
his-of-way tanning
public rig Oregon cities must land use p w
public asset. they have had services; and
authority the U ni z
retain the years to. manage l authority in ,t
for over ent in rights-°f-way advocate for 1othe rights of
public investor ,payers ; the balancing and the rights
on behalf of their tcomP nation for property owners es dents on
receive adequate of-way, unity
of the public tights of comm
T° `takings" issues.
the use seNice.
and provide utoa ,cities:
goal,
achieve this
Oppose legislation restricting C111 s,
authority to
e of- a
° c'tY fights-
ex~st~ng ubllc State
w the P S Ong
manag
ay;
islation restricting
oppose leg of cities to on Cities
the authority collect adequate League of Greg
negotiate and from utility PO Box 928
ensati0n Salem, OV 97308
comp
providers; and stin9 (503) 588 -1551
Fax: (503_')• 399-486g'
Oppose ellml~cieS to own web: ~
authority for ► regate,
operate, construct, -
and provide utility serv'jces-
Mel Costs
Controlling Pas' public
2, rovide excellent be
Oregon clues need to
moo n order to
®03 services, GomPetitive and
able to o{{er ensation Packages
,{fordable COMP retain quality
I.E~IS~.A~1~IE which will attract and cities:
J eS, workers. Therefore,
~trOng enda for the to good city employee
slative is designed at
The 2003 legi Cities supp Stable sustainable
A Strong I_eague of Oregon mission of benefits
our core livable communities, C=
advance strong, such as
Oregon is close supp°rting Oregon cities, and Pt" reform
ent in helping reach their full support tat~on odated
City governor e W IS as well as serve,
le we Se" the citizens we tables; and
accessible to the PeQP responsive. It mortality
today essentials potential. t of a new
of day- fire,
takes care er police, support deveWmen
as water, sew Cities financial Stability SupP ent plan.
such arks and streets. financial retirement
libraries, P Cities must have the
rking to foster th sople in. our rovide the basic
are wo °f young P resources top public safety, Funding
n
involvemen to local decison- ices - library, Parks ortatio eds
cOrnmunities and million public se+~ ater, 3, 1 ansC~ funding ne
More than 2.2 roads, sewer,' tton None
evel.
making- Over 64% of the _ that Our residents an and that Local transport,
Oregonians in our 240 on a critical l 0
live depend desirable reached in the 20'1
O ulat4on businesses unities million
state's P P make our coma work. Oregon of the $500 ohation Investment
cities. to live and Oregon TransP be used for t road
level o
places OTIR) can
cities cities: pct ( - fhe presen to
be able to meet the
In order to Oregon maintenance, not,tlOw cities
of our citizens, to ensure Support maintenance evenue funding does
needs Legislature fficient state shared Lip with their investment
work with the support the e existing even keep transportation aired
that state laws ent and programs in the eXist►ng req
of city govemm ture• Cities are
W s-
Operation work to protect w Orastruc alf of their tran
,lso oppose enactment °f ne over h Without
e raise
services. to services i property tax exemptions or poaatiorn to raise funds locally
maintenance
our home rule authority , for e to
supPOlt those in the coons that reduce
cities; additional fuSds eM will continu
revenue to other action
and to make local decisions revenue to the existing y
citizens. mandates r,pidly deteriorate. In
interest of our oppose unfunded Lion, cities:
° Oregon co transports
mmunities
two imposed on cities; and (continued)
While no there are of
are exactly alike, at the heart of emPtons
principles a Oppose state Pre authority.
essential iocaocal revenue-r,ssing
cit 's structure. local revers
each nation
deterrn
partnershiP•
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF August 13, 2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE _ Update on the proposed local option levy for Washington County Cooperative
Library Services (WCCLS)
PREPARED BY: Margaret Barnes DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK~
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
The purpose of this presentation is to provide City Council information on the proposed countywide local option
library levy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational item.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In December 2001, February and March 2002, staff presented preliminary information to the Council about the
proposed, five-year WCCLS local option levy. Public libraries in Washington County are experiencing significant
increases in use. In May 2002 Eva Calcagno, Manager of WCCLS, outlined to the Washington County Board of
Commissioners the projected funding needs for public library services in Washington County over the next five
years. Based on that analysis, the Commissioners authorized the placement of a five-year levy for library operations
on the November 5, 2002, ballot. The fixed-rate levy would provide approximately 70 percent of operating funds
for public libraries throughout Washington County.
At this meeting Eva Calcagno, Manager of WCCLS, is prepared to present additional information to the Council
about the levy and to answer any questions the Council may have.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
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
1. Set of PowerPoint Slides
2. Ballot Title-Measure 34-54
3. Explanatory Statement-Measure 34-54
FISCAL NOTES
The five-year levy has a fixed-rate of $.26 per $1,000 of assessed value. If approved, owners of a typical home
($158,000 assessed value) would pay $41 in additional property taxes in 2003.
ATTACHMENT 1
Cooperofive Library Services
04 A Library Levy for Washington County
Measure 34-54
\L
/Prestnted by:
Eva Caleagno. WCCLS Manager
:
Levy Overview:
■ Local Option Levy totaling $49.9 million
over five years (2004 - 2008)
o Fixed rate of 260 per 51000 of assessed valuation
■ Equals about S41 in additional taxes tJ~;1UUtJ
on an average home in 2003
' ■ Measure 34-54 on the November 2002 ballot
■ Would supplement County general fund support for
library services.
fem.
~rJl :F•. - Coopcranvc UbmrV Sc cs
lVhl' is the levy proposed?
■ To maintain library services currently
funded by one-time reserves.
ti•rr_
t....i eve
77%
:;:r.• Cocpiroevc Lbr~r~ 5cn¢n
1
1
Status of WCCLS Reserve Funds
t J
„ y .lox
`.~...cw u» 7000 7001 7003 7007
Foop fi% Lbrcrv Smiiccs
Why is the levy proposed?
■ To respond to the growing use of library services.
!rely
r
V
:tol
"I '1: y .JI I ,{li:in Ll lnwl, nnl\ % J
I
II„pn
Foop•'~ivcUbrory Scrnccs
What would the levy pay for?
e Library operations currently paid for by reserves:
S17.3 million. average of 53.5 million per year 'ro
■ The growing use of local public libraries incluc a
book purchases, expanded operating hours,
additional staff, programs and services:
S27.8 million, average of S5.6 million per year (55%)
%,tyy. w'I'~,~ f. Cmpcron~c ubror~ Scrvlres
~t-
7
Continued...
r Additional central services to support member library
operations (Wlllnet, deliveries, youth programs,
outreach, reference support, online databases, etc.):
$3.9 million, average of $780,000 per year (8%),
a and
a Support for countywide arts and cultural activities at
' libraries and in the community:
$1 million, average of $200.000 per year (2%).
. ~ • ,~µy ~ . Cooptrctivc LSbroN $irvic~s
Measure 34-54
a How would the money be spent?
Cminl eervlrn 1s rvPparl membva
Ceun~~wlde ens
J& culture 2%
A,4 ti
' wWon for ?~yF~'„y~..
` Ilbrnin ~s~;
- frbr„ «LS ,er.e
1 ~~YY, ~ ~ Cpppcrah.c L,brnN Smiccs
What happens f the levy passes?
P Increased purchase of library materials and
investments in library collections.
a Additional weekly open hours at many member
libraries (not including hours at additional library
1 branches),
L' a Additional library service provider (North Plai- '
a Increased support for children's and youth
..t services programs,
.;r
u
Continued...
a Enhanced outreach to special populations
(Latino community & Homebound),
o Increased computer and Internet support &
access to electronic resources,
uj
a Expanded telephone, digital reference and
s interlibrary loan support,
a Enhanced cultural programming (such as
performances, displays, art and instruction) in
libraries and in the community.
What happens if the levy doesn't pass?
m If the levy is not approved, public libraries and
central support services would:
m reduce purchase of books and other materials,
m reduce hours of operations.
?i'"•, ■ reduce staffing levels, and/or
r A reduce programs and services.
- '.,t.y,~r''„ - f, CoopcrcM1vc UDruN Sm~c~s
Questions?
i
Thank you.
r
Coopcronvi UbrorvSm~ns
4
ATTACHMENT 2
Washington County Measure 34-54
Ballot Title
Caption: Local Option Levy to Maintain and Enhance Countywide Library
Services
Question: Shall Washington County levy $.26 per $1000 assessed value for
five years, beginning in 2003-04, for countywide library operations?
This measure may cause property taxes to increase more than three percent.
Summary: Approximately 73% of library operating funds come from
Washington County Cooperative Library Services.
This levy funds libraries in Banks, Beaverton, Cedar Mill, Cornelius, Forest Grove,
Garden Home, Hillsboro, Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin, West Slope and a
developing library in North Plains.
The levy would pay for:
• Library services currently paid for by reserves. Since 1998, library reserves
have been used to avoid service reductions. Approximately 90% of reserves
will be spent by June 2003.
• Enhancements that address growing library use, including book purchases,
expanded operating hours, and staff. Circulation of library materials has
increased 100% since 1990; a 78% increase is expected for 2003-2008.
• Additional services, including computer catalogue system, children's
programs, library deliveries, outreach, Internet access, reference support,
arts and cultural activities.
Levy is a fixed-rate of $.26 per $1000 assessed value. A home with average
assessed value (not market value) of $158,000 pays an additional $41 in
2003-04.
If levy is not approved, likely results include: reductions in hours of operation,
reduced staffing, fewer book purchases, and elimination of some services.
This levy is estimated to raise $8,945,297 in 2003-04, $9,437,288 in 2004-05,
$9,956,339 in 2005-06, $10,503,938 in 2006-07, and $11,081,654 in 2007-08.
ATTACHMENT 3
Washington County Measure 34-54:
Explanatory Statement
Approximately 73% of operating funds for public libraries in Washington County
come from Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS). Library
managers, users and elected officials worked with WCCLS and County
Commissioners to develop a five-year local option levy to maintain and enhance
public library services. The levy would supplement continued support from the
County.
fi 1 ch public libraries would be funded by this leery?
Banks, Beaverton, Cedar Mill, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Garden Home, Hillsboro
(Shute Park, Tanasbourne and Books By Rail), Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin, West
Slope, and a developing library in North Plains.
Why is this levy proposed?
Maintains current library services:
• Following property tax reductions in 1997 required by Measure 50, city,
community and county library officials planned a five-year spend down of
library reserve funds rather than cut library services.
• These one-time funds have paid for an increasing portion of library operations
since 1998.
• Approximately 90% of this reserve will be spent by June 2003.
Responds to the growing use of library services:
• An estimated 6 million books and other materials will be checked-out from
local libraries in 2002.
• Circulation of library materials has increased 100% since 1990.
• 24% of this growth occurred in the past two years.
• Libraries have been constructed, expanded or are planned in Beaverton,
Cedar Mill, Forest Grove, Tigard, North Plains, Hillsboro, Sherwood, and
Garden Home. (This levy is limited to library operations; construction costs
are paid for by local jurisdictions.)
• Over the levy's five-year term (2004-2008), circulation is projected to
increase by 78% to 10.7 million books and other items.
What would the levy pay for?
• Library operations currently paid for by the library reserve fund ($3.5 million
per year, 35% of levy)
• Service enhancements that respond to increasing library use ($5.6 million per
year, 55% of levy)
• Increased central support services linking the 12 local libraries together
($780,000 per year, 8% of levy)
• Support for countywide arts and cultural activities ($200,000 per year, 2% of
levy).
Wnat specific library services would be maintained or enhanced?
• Purchase of books and other materials, investments in "opening day"
collections for new libraries
• Staffing and hours of operation for libraries
• Support for children's and youth services.
• Outreach to special populations (chiefly, the Latino community and
Homebound)
• Computer and Internet support, access to electronic resources
• Telephone, digital reference and interlibrary loan support
• Cultural programming in libraries and the community
How would this levy impacta homeowners taxes?
The five-year levy has a fixed-rate of $.26 per $1,000 of assessed value. If
approved, owners of a typical home ($158,000 assessed value) would pay $41 in
additional property taxes in 2003.
What happens if the levy does not pass?
Likely results in local libraries include:
• Reduced hours of operation
• Reduced staffing levels
• Reduced purchase of books and other materials
• Elimination of some programs and services
i
AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 13, 2002
PUBLIC HEARING
(LEGISLATIVE)
TESTIMONY
SIGN-UP SHEETS
Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on:
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF
SURPLUS PROPERTY PURCHASED
FOR ACCESS TO THE MENLOR
RESERVOIR
Due to Time Constraints
City Council May Impose
A Time Limit on Te3timony
IAADM\GREER\CCSIGNUP\PH TESTIMONY LEG.DOC
AGENDA ITEM No. g Date: August 13, 2002
PLEASE PRINT
Pro onent - S eakin In Favor Opponent - S eakin A ainst Neutral
r Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Name, Address & Phone No.
~ZCr Co~~
~53sA-~,-
Tt 6M~- 1)
zz~
FOXE=
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
t
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF AugUst 13, 2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Authorization of the sale of surplus propea purchased for access to Menlor
Reservoir site.
PREPARED BY: John Roy DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the City Council approve the sale of developed property acquired for access to the Menlor Reservoir site
located at 13230 SW 154th Avenue (tax lot 600)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the sale of Parcel 1 of Tax Lot 600, T2S, R1 W, Section 051313, W.M., Washington County, according to
Tigard Municipal Code.
INFORMATION SAY
Council first approved Resolution No 01-20 on April 24, 2001; however, advance notice of the public hearing was
not properly advertised as required by Tigard Municipal Code. Due to this procedural error, we would like Council
to re-adopt this resolution (01-20) which will be superceded by the new resolution.
In May of 1997 the City of Tigard purchased the Clute property, a 1.76-acre parcel to construct the 3.5-mg Menlor
reservoir. The parcel was originally purchased for $350,000 or $198,865 per acre. The reservoir was built on a
portion of the parcel and after construction was completed, a Minor Land Partition was approved on the remaining
1.36-acre portion of the property, no longer needed.
TMC 3.44.015 (A) requires a hearing before Council to proceed with the disposal of property classified as
developed. According to TMC 3.44.015 (B) notice of hearing was published which included a description of the
proposed property for sale. An appraisal was completed on the above referenced property.
After review of the appraisal and discussion by the Intergovernmental Water Board, a motion was passed to
recommend as a condition of sale, the maximum units allowable to be fifteen or less per acre.
Due to the amount of time that has passed since the first appraisal ($265,000), we solicited a second appraisal with
the same firm of Moscato, Ofner and Henningsen, Inc. which stated the market value of the property as $285,000.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Intergovernmental Water Board and the City of Tigard could keep the property and utilize as an open
space, however, the parcel would need to be purchased from the Water fund to do so.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
Summary appraisal report - May 2002
Resolution NO. 02-
FISCAL NOTES
The summary appraisal report indicates the market value of the property is considered to be $285,000.00
SUMMARY APPRAISAL REPORT
PARCEL 1 OF THE CLUTE PROPERTY
13230 S.W. WTI' AVENUE
TIGARD, OREGON
PO No: W20S32
PREPARED FOR
MR. DENNIS COLEMEIR
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
CITY OF TIGARD
17125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
PREPARED BY
MOSCATO, OFNER & HENNINGSEN, INC.
13765 N.W. CORNELL ROAD, SUITE 200
PORTLAND, OREGON 97229
i
~ I
EFFECTIVE DATE
MAY 6, 2002
OUR FILE NO: C02-073
Emilio 1101010
Moscato
®fner &
Henningsen, Inc.
Real Estate Appraiser and Consultants
Principals:
May 10, 2002 Louis J. Moscato. MAI
Lawrence E. O(ner. MAI
Scott A. Henningsen. MAI
Mr. Dennis Colemeir
Department of Public Works
City of Tigard
17125 S.W. Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 9722s
Dear Mr. Colemeir:
Pursuant to your request, we have performed a complete appraisal in a summary report format of the
City's Parcel 1 of the Clute Property located at 13230 S. W. 154°i Avenue in Tigard, Oregon.
In accomplishing this assignment, we have completed an inspection of the subject property, together
with .observing both economic and land use trends in the subject's general area. In addition,
comparable market data was investigated, analyzed and applied as appropriate.
It is important to note that this is a complete appraisal in a summary report format which is intended
to comply with the reporting requirements as set forth under Standards Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. As such, it presents only summary discussions of the
data, reasoning and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraiser's
opinion of value. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning and analyses is retained
in the appraiser's file. The depth of the discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs
of the client and for the intended uses as stated in this report. The appraiser is not responsible for
unauthorized use of this report.
In this appraisal, the property has been valued as though it would be sold on an all-cash or equivalent
new mortgage financing basis and has been prepared to comply with the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice (as promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal
Foundation).
Based on our investigation and analysis of the available information, the market value of the subject
property in fee simple, as described herein and as of May 6, 2002, is considered to be:
TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
2>35 000
Suite 200 - 13765 NW Cornell Road - Portland, Oregon 97229
Telephone (503) 646-8111 - FAX (503) 646-8425 - E-Mail office ct mohportland.com
lip
Mr. Dennis Colemeir
May , 2002
Page Two
The valuation stated herein is subject to the important condltiens and ass-sumPtions which fellow or.
the subsequent and attached pages including, but not limited to, the extraordinary assumption that
there are no toxic or hazardous waste materials or conditions which exist within any building
improvements, site improvements or the land itself and it must be noted that the appraisers are not
experis in this field; thus, if any questions or concerns exist, it is recommended that appropriate
experts u-: consulted. In this case, a Phase I Environmental Assessment Report was provided for our
review (see Site Description section).
Respectfully submitted,
MOSCATO, OFNER & HENNINGSEN, INC.
Lawrence E. Ofn , MAI
Principal
Oregon State Certification No. 0000016
f
s
SUMMARY OF PERTINENT DATA
Effective Date: May 6, 2002
Date of Inspection: May 6, 2002
Date of Appraisal: May 10, 2002
Property Rights Appraised: Fee Simple
Location: 13230 S.W. 154s Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
Improvements: A one-story, wood frame single-family residence built in 1960
and containing 1,984 sq.ft. of gross area plus a detached utility
shed. Due to the subject's zoning for high density residential
development and the overall age, site layout, condition, quality
and design ofthe improvements, the subject improvements are
considered to contribute no appreciable value and would likely
be removed if the property were to be developed.
Site Size: Acres So.Ft.
Total Site Area: 1.360 59,242
Estimated Usable Area: 0.957 41,696
Zoning: R-25 (Medium/High-Density Residential District)
2000-01 Real Market Value: $297,070
Owner of Record: City of Tigard
Highest & Best Use: As vacant - high density attached housing development
Flood Hazard Area: No portion of the subject site appears to be located within a
100-year flood harard area.
Exposure Time: Six months (assuming property had competent and aggressive
marketing)
Indicated Stabilized Values:
Cost Approach: N/A
Sales Comparison Approach: $285,000
Income Approach: N/A
Market Value Conclusion: $285,000*
* Subject to the extraordinary assumption that the property is free of any environmental
contamination.
Moscato, Ofner & Henningsen, Inc. I