Loading...
City Council Packet - 08/26/2003 City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter of the Proposed Notice of Change in Meeting Time STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, &Y~ ALL .U. hllba- U , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted in Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, a copy of Notice of Change in Meeting Time for the City Council meeting of with a copy of said Notice being hereto attac ed and by reference made a part hereof, on the /J lb day of 201J-. Signature of Person who Perform Posting Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this 1,9-X6 day of s11d~, 20~~. SE& ai GREER soN Signature of Notary Public for Oregon NOTARY PLOUC-01REGON J COMMISSION NO. 32=1 MY r IMMISSION EXPIRES WE 10, 2= m Lh W J I:\ADM\GREER\FORMS\AFFIDAVITS\AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING - CHANGE MTG TIME.DOC CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF CHANGE IN CITY COUNCIL MEETING TIME Please forward to: V/eaBarbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) ✓Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) ✓Paige Parker, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) AUGUST 26, 2003 - 6:00 p.m. Notice is hereby given that the Tigard City Council is changing its meeting time from 6:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Tuesday, August 26, 2003. At 6 p.m. the Council will tour the "white house" on City property adjacent to the new Library property on Hall Blvd. (closest intersection is O'Mara Street). After the tour, the Council will meet for the remainder of the meeting starting at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171 or at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. i Recorde L Post: City Hall Lobby r Date of Notice: August 25, 2003 - 8:30 a.m. J ` 1AAOMICATHYICCAINOTICE MTG TIME CHANGE SS 9-24,DOC U J 1 , City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Notification CITY OF TIGARD In the Matter of the Proposed Notification of Change in Meeting Time OREGON STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I notified the following people/organizations by fax of the change in meeting time of the City Council meeting on ILL /u S7.__ 2~~_ZG~3 with a copy of the Notice of Change in City Council Meeting Time being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the /,5~ day of ~ ~e11 206 B/Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) Q"Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) R "Paige Parker, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) ca~Lhu-t~" - Lov- - xU - A-" - Signature of Person who Perfo d Notification a N Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this _ day of 20 W oFF1msEU GREER VQASTON Signature of Notary Public for Oregon NornRV Pusuc~REOON COMMISMON N0.327906 MY COMV4881ON EXPIRES OCT. 10, IXI I:VADM\GREER\FORMSVAFFIDAVITS\AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION - CHANGE MTG TIME.DOC 08/25/2003 08:33 FAX 5038847297 CitY of Tigard Q001 MULTI TX/RX REPORT TX/RX NO 1980 PGS. 1 TX/RX INCOMPLETE [ 0815035480724 TT Newsroom 1 0915039888081 Oregonian TRANSACTION OK 1 1115039887397 ERROR INFORMATION Regal Courier CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF CHANGE IN CITY COUNCIL MEETING TIME Please forward to: V /Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) ✓Palge Parker, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968.6061) AUGUST 26, 2003 6:00 p.m. Notice is hereby given that the Tigard City Council is changing its meeting time from 6:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Tuesday, August 26, 2003. At 6 p.m. the Council will tour the "white house" on City property adjacent to the new Library property on Hall Blvd. (closest intersection Is O'Mara Street). After the tour, the Council will meet for the remainder of the meeting starting at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639.4171 or at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. i Recorde Post: City Hall Lobby Date of Notice: August 25, 2003 - 8:30 a.m. - • - - nr,rb a.Tq ri*~t ruANRF R.4 0.74 DOC CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF CHANGE IN CITY COUNCIL MEETING TIME Please forward to: t/eaBarbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) V /-,"Paige Parker, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) AUGUST 26, 2003 - 6:00 p.m. Notice is hereby given that the Tigard City Council is changing its meeting time from 6:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Tuesday, August 26, 2003. At 6 p.m. the Council will tour the "white house" on City property adjacent to the new Library property on Hall Blvd. (closest intersection is O'Mara Street). After the tour, the Council will meet for the remainder of the meeting starting at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171 or at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. i Recorde Post: City Hall Lobby Date of Notice: August 25, 2003 - 8:30 a.m. 1AAD%CATHYiCCA1N0TICE MTG TIME CHANGE SS 9-24.00C a~ CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 26, 2003 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED C\0fsM)onnWs1Ccpkt3 13125 SW Hail Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Mayor's Agenda I~,§ y WIR a I t~~ { 1 rr z ~a` A[lY LIi'f •t. ..2;,1~ tt ..~:j. k CITY OF TIGARD 0 OREGON P 1 C A y PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (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 L r 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, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA AUGUST 26, 2003 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 26, 2003 6:00 PM • Tour of the "White House" on City Property (Adjacent to the New Library Property) (Council will meet at the property for this portion of the meeting. After the Tour, the Council will meet for the remainder of the meeting at City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon) 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > Quarterly Meeting - Budget Committee > Bull Mountain Annexation Discussion > Sewer Reimbursement Program Discussion > Tualatin River Bridge Information > City Manager's Review Completion • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss current and pending litigation under ORS 192.660(1)(h). 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. L r 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8z Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 8z Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 26, 2003 page 2 7:35 PM 2. PROCLAMATIONS 2.1 Proclaim September 2003 as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month Mayor: The toll substance abuse takes on family, friends, and community is immeasurable. National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month celebrates the strides taken by individuals who have undergone successful treatment, families in recovery, and those in the treatment field who have dedicated their lives to helping people recover. With the concurrence of this City Council, the City of Tigard declares September 2003 as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month. 2.2 Proclaim Week of September 17 - 23 as Constitution Week Mayor Griffith Mayor September-1 7 marks the 216' anniversary of the drafting of the United States'Constitution. This proclamation reaffirms the ideals upon which our Constitution is based and recognizes the importance of this magnificent document in protecting. our freedoms; and guarding our. liberties. -With the concurrence of this City Council, the City, of Tigard proclaims the week of September 17 to 23, 2003, as Constitution Week. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:40 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 July 15 and 22, 2003 L 4.2 Declare Real Property Located at 13050 SW Walnut as Surplus and Authorize 2 the Sale of Said Property - Resolution No. 03-31 • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:45 PM S. DISCUSSION WITH STATE SENATOR GINNY BURDICK AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE MAX WILLIAMS COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 26, 2003 page 3 a. Comments by Senator Burdick and Representative Williams b. Council Discussion 6:15 PM 6. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 28 - PORTIONS OF SW O'MARA STREET, SW FREWING STREET, SW EDGEWOOD STREET, SW HILL VIEW COURT, AND SW MCDONALD STREET a. Open Public Hearing b. Summation by Engineering Department C. Public Testimony d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion f. Close Public Hearing g. Consideration by Council: Resolution No. 03 - 32 Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed resolution. Councilor: I second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution No. please say "aye " Councilors: Mayor. All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No.. please say ff F, nay. L Councilors: Mayor: Resolution No. _(is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however a votes were split) vote. COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 26, 2003 page 4 8:25 PM 7. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 29 - SW PARK STREET, SW DERRY DELL COURT, SW COOK LANE AND SW WATKINS AVENUE a. Open Public Hearing b. Summation by Engineering Department C. Public Testimony d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion f. Close Public Hearing g. Consideration by Council: Resolution No. 03 -33 Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed resolution. Councilor: I second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution No. . please say "aye " Councilors: Mayor: All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No.. please say nay. Councilors: Mayor: Resolution No. _(is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote. i i i COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 26, 2003 page 5 8:35 PM 8. CONSIDER ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 27 - SW PARK 100' AVENUE, SW MURDOCK STREET a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Motion to deny the formation of the district and direct staff to resubmit a request to establish Reimbursement District No. 27 for construction of sewer improvements during the 2004-2005 fiscal year. 8:45 PM 9. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD CONSIDERATION OF: 9.1 Award Contract for the Construction of SW O'Mara Street and SW McDonald Street Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 28 to Kerr Contractors, Inc. a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Motion to Award Contract for the Construction of SW O'Mara Street and SW McDonald Street Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 28 to Kerr Contractors, Inc. 9.2 Award Contract for the Construction of Park Street, Derry Dell Court, Watkins Avenue and Cook Lane Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 to Dunn Construction, Inc. a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Motion to Award Contract for the Construction of Park Street, Derry Dell Court, Watkins Avenue and Cook Lane Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 to Dunn Construction, Inc. 9.3 Reject Bid Proposals for the Construction of SW 100' Avenue U Murdock Street Sanitary Reimbursement District No. 27 a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff L ' b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Motion to Reject Bid Proposals for the Construction of SW 100' Avenue az Murdock Street 1 9.4 Award Bid for Five-Year Street Sweeping Contract to Great Western Sweeping, Inc. W ~ a. Staff Report: Public Works Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Motion to Award Bid for Five-Year Street Sweeping Contract to Great Western Sweeping, Inc. COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 26, 2003 page 6 9:00 PM 10. CONSIDER AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) TO REPLACE THE WORDS "CITY ADMINISTRATOR" TO "CITY MANAGER" THROUGHOUT TMC TITLES 1-18 a. Staff Report: Administration Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 03-08 Councilor: 1 move for adoption of the proposed ordinance. Councilor: I second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Ordinance. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council. City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote. Mayor: Ordinance No. (is approved or fails) by a (unanimous or however votes were split) vote. 9:05 PM 11. CONSIDER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION a. Staff Report: Administration Staff b. Council Discussion and Direction to Staff 9:25 PM 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9:35 PM 13. NON AGENDA ITEMS 9:45 PM 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If i 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), COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 26, 2003 page 7 but must riot 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. MOM 15. ADJOURNMENT 1:1ADNACATH'ACCA120031030826). D OC L 2 J COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 26, 2003 page 8 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING August 26, 2003 - 6 p.m. - Tour of the white house located adjacent to new library property. 6:30 p.m. - Study Session in Red Rock Creek Conference Room, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 6:00 PM • Tour of the "White House" on City Property (Adjacent to the New Library Property) (Council will meet at the property for this portion of the meeting. After the Tour, the Council will meet for the remainder of the meeting at City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon) The Study Session is held in the Red Rock Creek Conference Room. Enter at the back of Town Hall. The Council encourages interested citizens to attend all or part of the meeting. If the number of attendees exceeds the capacity of the Conference Room, the Council may move the Study Session to the Town Hail. 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > Quarterly Meeting - Budget Committee > Bull Mountain Annexation Discussion (Council Meeting Schedule Memo) > Sewer Reimbursement Program Discussion > Tualatin River Bridge Information > City Manager's Review Completion • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss current and pending litigation under ORS 192.660(1)(h). 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. • ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 1 o Visit with Legislators - review of process for questions from the public >c o 2004 - Tigard Festival of Balloons - Chamber Meeting on August 27, 11 a.m. o Tigard Blast Parade - September 13, 2003 - Check with Council members on J attendance. If riding in the parade, meet at St. Anthony's School parking lot at 9:30 a a.m. Parade starts at 10 a.m. 5 o Distribute package of correspondence: Reimbursement District No. 29 - Agenda Item 7 Executive Session - The Public Meetings Law authorizes governing bodies to meet in executive session in certain limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as "any meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body, which is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions: 192.660 (1) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents, If the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660(l) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192.660(l) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. 192.660(l) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.) 192.660(l) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660(l) (0- 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 duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. 192.660 (1) (1) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives to be used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment.. 192.660 (1) Public investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public Investments. 192.660 (1) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. tL I:WDMICATWCOUNCILiCCLISTD3W24.DOC I- ( J_ n JJ J J MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Co i FROM: Bill Monahan, City Mana RE: Proposed City Council Meeting ates DATE: August 21, 2003 The Community Development staff has reviewed the steps necessary to complete an annexation plan for Bull Mountain. As a result of this analysis, a number of agenda topics are required for the City Council. In addition, three holidays exist in the months of November and December. Finally, there is a need to schedule meetings with outside agencies - Tigard/Tualatin School District, City of Tualatin, and Washington County. In order to address the City Council scheduling needs (refer to above) I am proposing the City Council alter its meeting schedule from October through December. The net result is an increase of Council meetings from nine to eleven. Also, I am proposing two Council meeting dates be cancelled. Finally, if the City Council agrees with my proposal, certain meetings would be changed from workshops to business meetings and the cable television schedule would be affected. Following is the proposed revision of Council meeting dates and a brief explanation of the reason for change. I will be prepared to discuss the proposal with the City Council on Tuesday, August 26. If the City Council can give direction on the change soon, staff will make adjustments to tentative agendas, places where we advertise upcoming meetings, and work with the TVTV staff to obtain the best playback dates for cable broadcast. Attached is the normal meeting schedule for October through December followed by the proposed revisions. IL oe a~ _J m W J Normal Schedule Date Type of Meeting Note October 7 NO meeting 14 Business meeting 21 Workshop 28 Business meeting November 4 NO meeting 11 Business meeting Veteran's Day 18 Workshop 25 Business meeting Nov. 27 is Thanksgiving December 2 NO meeting 9 Business meeting Two members of Council are at NLC this week 16 Workshop 23 Business meeting Christmas week 30 NO meeting Proposed Schedule Date Change Reason October 7 ADD Meet w/ WA Cty Board 14 No change 20 ADD Joint meeting w/ TTSD, Tualatin 21 No change 28 No change November 4 ADD Business mtg & work session a 11 CANCEL Holiday 18 SWITCH to Business meeting 25 SWITCH to Workshop Balance meetings J December 2 ADD Business mtg - ® annexation action W 9 SWITCH to Workshop Maximum 3 councilors J present 16 SWITCH to Business Fall back decision date for annexation action 23 CANCEL Christmas week 30 No change j.L.K n11 rmemos12o03%co ncil 821-03 proposed meeting dales.doc Agenda Item No. l Council Meeting of f 0- I H , o3 _ COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 26, 2003 • 6 p.m. - Tour of the "White House" on City Property (Adjacent to the New Library Property) Council met at the property for this portion of the meeting. After the Tour, the Council met at City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Mayor Griffith called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. Council Present: Mayor Griffith; Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Sherwood, and Wilson • STUDY SESSION > Quarterly Meeting - Budget Committee Citizen Budget Committee Members Present: Mike Benner, George Burgess, Irene Moszer, Tom Woodruff Finance Director Prosser reviewed and distributed information on the following topics: 1) Latest numbers on the FY 2003-04 Beginning Fund Balance; Budget to Estimated Actual. Some of the revenues came in stronger than anticipated, primarily relating to land use and franchise fees collection. The legislature adopted a hotel/motel tax measure that essentially precludes the City from being able to assess its own hotel/motel tax. 2) List of potential budget amendments for FY 2003-04 3) Reviewed that if Council adopts a Street Maintenance Fee, the City may L need to adopt a supplemental budget. If the current draft street 2 maintenance fee is adopted, the City would collect about $800,000 per 0 year. One change to the proposal by the Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force's recommendation requested by staff is that some overhead costs could be covered by the street maintenance fee. i i 4) Bull Mountain Annexation financial ramifications were reviewed. An annexation plan is being assembled for Council consideration. Revenues and costs of annexation are being updated. The City is working with the County to identify fiscal impacts. Fiscal agreements between the City and County are scheduled for completion in October. The plan is to submit Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 26, 2003 Page 1 the question of annexation of this area to Bull Mountain and City of Tigard residents In March 2004. > Bull Mountain Annexation Discussion Community Development Director Hendryx reviewed information on the phases of growth management. He reviewed preliminary information on the annexation plan, including timing and sequencing, standards of urban services availability, effects on service providers and long term benefits. He reviewed the Comprehensive Plan elements to be addressed including residential densities, affordable housing, open space, transportation, schools, natural resources, and commercial/industrial development. In the review of the annexation plan timeline, Mr. Hendryx mentioned that all key dates must be hit or the annexation would slide to another fiscal year. The elements for a communication plan were reviewed. Council agreed to the proposed City Council meeting dates for the rest of the calendar year as presented in City Manager Monahan's memorandum of August 21, 2003. > Sewer Reimbursement Program Discussion Staff reviewed that two reimbursement districts were on the business meeting agenda (Nos. 28 and 29) for formation consideration. County has indicated that it would not issue permits for repairs. In addition, Clean Water Services has not fully implemented the authority they have to require households to hook up to sewer when sewer is available. In addition, more stringent rules relating to septic systems are slated to become effective in 2004. If, after the public hearing, the Council determines that it would not form n. these two districts, a hearing could be conducted on September 9 to consider the formation of Sewer Reimbursement District No. 27. Council meeting recessed. The remaining Study Session items and an Executive Session were n conducted after the Business meeting. U 1 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Mayor Griffith called the City Council 81 Local Contract Review Board meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call: Mayor Griffith, Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Sherwood, 81 Wilson 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 26, 2003 Page 2 1.4 Council Communications 8T Liaison Reports: None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: Study Session items and an Executive Session item to be discussed after the Business Meeting. 2. PROCLAMATIONS - Mayor Griffith proclaimed the following: 2.1 Proclaim September 2003 as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month 2.2 Proclaim Week of September 17 - 23 as Constitution Week 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA: No visitors. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes for July 15 and 22, 2003 4.2 Declare Real Property Located at 13050 SW Walnut as Surplus and Authorize the Sale of Said Property - Resolution No. 03-31 The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes 5. DISCUSSION WITH STATE SENATOR GINNY BURDICK AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE MAX WILLIAMS This item was canceled. The legislature is wrapping up and Senator Burdick and Representative William were scheduled for hearings that required mandatory g attendance. i 6. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 28 - PORTIONS OF SW O'MARA STREET, SW FREWiNG STREET, SW EDGEWOOD STREET, SW HILL VIEW COURT, AND SW MCDONALD STREET a. Mayor Griffith opened the public hearing. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 26, 2003 Page 3 b. Project Engineer Greg Berry presented the staff report, which is on flie with the City Recorder. The staff recommendation was to approve the proposed resolution forming the reimbursement district. There was some discussion about future consideration of adjustments to the program with regard to large lots and future development. The proposed adjustments will be submitted to the Council in the next few weeks. Mr. Berry responded to a question affirming that there have been some failures of septic systems in this district. It is possible that Clean Water Services could decline issuance of a permit for repairs if sewer is available within 300 feet. C. Public Testimony Proponent: ■ Steve Shehom, 9765 SW O'Mara, Tigard, Oregon said he was in favor of the formation of the district. His house was built in 1953 and his septic tank is metal and he is concerned about its condition. Opponents ■ Elizabeth McCord, 9965 SW McDonald, Tigard, Oregon noted concerns about the formation of the district. Her issues included: • whether everyone within the district had received notification, • there were no Council members in attendance at the community meeting on this matter, • questions were raised during the community meeting that did not get answered with regard to financing options that could be made available to the property owners, • once the sewer line is in place, the homeowner ceases to have options about whether to repair the septic system or connect to the sewer • doubted the credibility of the results of the questions posed to iL homeowners in the district about whether or not they favored 2 formation of the district • questioned the formula to assess property owners for their share of the costs 3: p • questioned why workers have been marking the road before formation of the district • requested information about the formal city sewer reimbursement district program • concerned about her costs, which are estimated to be about $20,000 Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 26, 2003 Page 4 • indicated she was not opposed to the sewer line, but was concerned it was being "pushed" onto homeowners. Ms. McCord said she was opposed to the formation and asked that the concerns she expressed be looked into. Discussion followed among the City Engineer, City Attorney and City Manager about the issue financing: • The reimbursement program was established by the Council to assist with the financing of the sewers to those areas not serviced. • Bancrofting or establishing a local improvement district would mean the cost of the sewer installation would become due and payable by the property owner when the project was complete. • The five-year program for sewer reimbursement districts was established to bring sewers to large, developed areas of the city. The engineering work has to be done first (hence the markings on the street) to determine who can participate in the district. • The method of notification was reviewed. • How the bids are selected for the work and how the costs are allocated were reviewed. • Minor repairs to septic systems are not a problem; however, drainage field issues present more of a problem to property owners when trying to repair failed septic systems. Discussion followed with Ms. McCord and Councilors Sherwood and Moore with regard to the program and the financial impacts. Council members expressed concerned about those who have failing systems and need sewer connections. Ms. McCord noted her issue with the financial impacts to the residents and the need for time to plan for such a large expense. ■ Andrew Spiak, 9825 SW O'Mara, Tigard, Oregon commented about L misinformation. His issues related to the no options left to residents if the r district is approved; questioned whether there were any failures of septic 0 systems in the area; questioned the policies of Clean Water Services and the state with regard to on-site sewer disposal. Proponent r Stanley Durfee, 9580 SW O'Mara testified that he would like to have the sewer installed. While his system is not failing, in the wet season, he notices that it is slow to drain. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 26, 2003 Page 5 City Manager noted that District 28 and 29 could be funded; however, District 27 could not also be funded this year. Council discussed delaying consideration of the formation of District 28 until after the hearing on District No. 28. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to table the decision on whether or not to form Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 28 until after the hearing has been conducted for Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes 7. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 29 - SW PARK STREET, SW DERRY DELL COURT, SW COOK LANE AND SW WATKINS AVENUE a. Mayor Griffith opened the public hearing. b. Project Engineer Greg Berry presented the staff report, which is on file with the City Recorder. The staff recommendation was to approve the proposed resolution forming the reimbursement district. C. Public testimony: g Proponents: ■ David Noles, 10630 SW Park Street, Tigard, Oregon, testified that he was in favor of the formation of the district noting that his septic system J was 45 years old and the drain field was not in good shape. He also m noted concerns about the proximity of the creek and how old septic systems could be affecting the environment. He advised he had contact Clean Water Services. He said it was time that the residents recognize their responsibility for the environment and noted his concerns about the health risks. He said it was time to build and connect to sewer and referred to the time and money already spent by the City that should Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 26, 2003 Page 6 not be wasted. (A copy of a letter written by Mr. Noles dated August 20, 2003, is on file with the City Recorder.) • Douglas 81 Carolyn Sawkins, 10815 SW Derry Dell Court, and Hubert Brown, 10820 SW Derry Dell Court presented a letter, which was read to the City Council (a copy is on file with the City Recorder). These property owners support formation of Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 and advised that it has been determined that their septic system is failing. They advised they need the sewers immediately. ■ Duane Meyer, 13210 SW Watkins, Tigard, Oregon testified in favor of the sewer reimbursement district's formation. An outline of Mr. Meyer's presentation is on file with the City Recorder. Mr. Meyer referred to past action by the City, which he had disagreed with. However, he stated in his written testimony, "get the pipes in the ground before the price doubles and find a way for us to pay them without gutting whatever resources we have." He noted his concerns about financing and stated that the "city owes us assistance in obtaining a non-oppressive method of repayment." ■ Gerry Winters, 10625 SW Park, testified in support of the formation of the district which would increase property values. He noted the longer it was delayed, the more the costs will increase. He referred to concerns about septic systems polluting the groundwater and urged the Council to approve the district's formation. Opponents: Albert McCutchan, 10880 SW Derry Dell, Tigard, Oregon, advised that in 1999 he made application to the City to remodel his home which involved repositioning his septic tank. He referred to a communication from the City dated March 16, 1999, which advised there were no plans to install sewer in the Derry Dell area in the n. foreseeable future. Mr. McCutchan said he proceeded to do the remodel and now he Is not in a financial position to afford a new sewer system. ;-ie reviewed some of the cost information he had gathered. d He expressed concerns about not being able to repair his septic system n should it break. Mr. McCutchan also pointed out that larger lots could u be subdivided if sewer was available and that this would negatively affect the character of his neighborhood. Councilor Dirksen commented on the "bad timing" with regard to Mr. McCutchan's situation and his remodel and the subsequent decision by the Council to establish sewer reimbursement districts after Mr. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 26, 2003 Page 7 McCutchan had checked with City staff about future plans to Install sewer. • Jessica Cousineau, 10755 SW Derry Dell Court, Tigard, Oregon submitted a petition signed by those In the area who were opposed to the formation of the reimbursement district. Letters from Ms. Cousineau and responses from staff are included in the council packet material on file with the City Recorder. Ms. Cousineau's concerns included: ■ Two-thirds of the homeowners do not feel comfortable with the reimbursement district proposed. ■ Process issues were pointed out, including the incomplete information available at the June 10 hearing and then a continuation of a lack of information and prompt responses to letters. Concern that the Tigard Times had erroneously reported the district was approved. ■ Concerns with the cost and City's response to requests for assistance to property owners to finance the costs of connecting to the sewer. If the environment is a concern, then all the properties in the area should have been included in the district. Noted it was difficult to believe the recommendation to form the district had been adequately researched. Concerned that if sewer is within 300 feet, then a property owner may not be permitted to repair a septic system. Referred to financing options noted by DEQ including the state revolving fund. City Manager Monahan noted the City's proposal to assist residents to finance the costs of constructing the sewer was through the sewer reimbursement district program. He reviewed how the program was set up, with the homeowner paying the first $6,000 and then the City E would pay up to $9,000 per connection if the costs exceeded $6,000. 3 n Steven Cousineau, 10755 SW Derry Dell Court, Tigard, Oregon U requested that the program be reviewed so that it could be made attractive to everyone. He noted the number of residents in the area who were not In favor of forming the district. His concerns included: • The cost with no financing options available, and referred to the current difficult economy. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 26, 2003 Page 8 • When the sewer line is built, it almost becomes mandatory for people in the district to hook up. • Concerned that there has been no accurate accounting of what costs property owners would be responsible for. ■ Tammy Gustin, 10670 SW Derry Dell Court, Tigard, Oregon, testified and relayed her concerns with the escalating cost of the project since the first estimates were released and said she suspected duplicity. To those whose systems were failing, she wondered why they had waited so long to fix them. She referred to the statements of concern about groundwater contamination, but pointed out that some properties along the creek were not included in the district. She noted that If sewers are built, people will be able to subdivide and this will lessen her property value. She said the expense for this project was unjustifiable and noted other needs, such as walking paths for children that should be provided in the area. She asked the Council to take a look at all of the issues and questioned why the City could not find funding to assist the property owners. City Engineer Duenas responded to some of Ms. Gustin's concerns noting the lack of funding for projects such as walking paths. He explained the bid process and how the total numbers for the cost of the construction were determined. Mayor Griffith closed the public hearings for Reimbursement District Nos. 28 and 29. Council meeting recessed at 10:10 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 10:20 p.m. Council discussion: Councilor Moore noted his responsibility to consider the needs for everyone In c the City; that is, what would be of benefit to all. He advised that if one person was in need of sewer, he would support the formation of a sanitary sewer reimbursement district. He advised that property owners were not being i required to hook up to sewers. Councilor Moore referred to the 26 previous districts formed by the City, which had been successful. ■ Councilor Wilson advised he agreed with Councilor Moore's comments. He noted the number of hours of testimony submitted and that the testimony was split between those for and against district(s) formation. He called attention to the fact that the arguments against the sewer reimbursement district were Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 26, 2003 Page 9 primarily about the process of formation rather than whether or not It would be beneficial to have sewers built. He acknowledged the high cost to property owners and noted it is never a good time for such an expense. ■ Councilor Sherwood agreed with Councilor Wilson that most of the opponent testimony concerned the process. She said she would support formation of the districts for those who need the sewer connections. She empathized with the concerns about the costs during this bad economy. ■ Councilor Dirksen referred to the great amount of testimony offered both for and against the formation of these districts. He said that he believes the reimbursement district program was beneficial to all. Councilor Dirksen was concerned about the allegations from opponents about "duplicity" and "foot dragging." He also noted that the City is offering up to $9,000 of "free" assistance to property owners. ■ Mayor Griffith referred to new guidelines that have been reported to be instituted by the State beginning in January 2004, calling for the accelerated phasing out of septic systems. He also referred to previous successful districts formed in the City. Mayor Griffith noted his agreement with the comments by the other Council members. Motion by Councilor Wilson, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No. 03-32. RESOLUTION NO. 03-32 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 28 (SW O'MARA, MCDONALD STREETS) The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes L Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes J >o Motion by Councilor Wilson, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to adopt Resolution No. 03-33. J RESOLUTION NO. 03-33 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 29 (SW PARK, DERRY DELL STREETS) Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 26, 2003 Page 10 The motion ;passed by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes 8. CONSIDER ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 27 - SW PARK 100`h AVENUE, SW MURDOCK STREET City Engineer Duenas presented the staff report, which is on file in the City Recorder's office. Staff recommended that District No. 27 be delayed until next fiscal year so that District Nos. 28 and 29 could be constructed during the current fiscal year. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to deny the formation of the district and direct staff to resubmit a request to establish Reimbursement District No. 27 for construction of sewer improvements during the 2004-2005 fiscal year. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes 9. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD CONSIDERATION OF: 9.1 Award Contract for the Construction of SW O'Mara Street and SW L McDonald Street Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 28 to Kerr R Contractors, Inc. City Engineer Duenas presented the staff report, which is on file with the City 4 Recorder. Staff recommended that the Local Contract Review Board, by g motion, reject the bid proposal submitted by JW Undergound, Inc. and 1 approve the contract award to Kerr Contractors, Inc. City Engineer Duenas explained that the bid from JW Underground was non-responsive and not responsible because of some errors in the bid submitted. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 26, 2003 Page 11 Motion by Board Member Moore, seconded by Board Member Dirksen, to award the contract for the construction of SW O'Mara Street and SW McDonald Street Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 28 to Kerr Contractors, Inc. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of the Local Contract Review Board present: LCRB Chairman Griffith - Yes Board Member Dirksen - Yes Board Member Moore - Yes Board Member Sherwood - Yes Board Member Wilson - Yes 9.2 Award Contract for the Construction of Park Street, Derry Dell Court, Watkins Avenue and Cook Lane Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 to Dunn Construction, Inc. City Engineer Duenas presented the staff report, which is on file with the City Recorder. Staff recommended that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, reject the bid proposal submitted by JW Undergound, Inc. and approve the contract award to Dunn Construction, inc. City Engineer Duenas explained that the bid from JW Underground was non-responsive and not responsible because of some errors in the bid submitted. Motion by Board Member Moore, seconded by Board Member Sherwood to award the contract for the construction of Park Street, Derry Dell Court, Watkins Avenue and Cook Lane Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 to Dunn Construction, Inc. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of the Local Contract Review Board present: L K LCRB Chairman Griffith - Yes Board Member Dirksen - Yes Board Member Moore - Yes Board Member Sherwood - Yes Board Member Wilson - Yes 9.3 Reject Bid Proposals for the Construction of SW 1001 Avenue a Murdock Street Sanitary Reimbursement District No. 27 Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 26, 2003 Page 12 City Engineer Duenas presented the staff report, which is on file with the City Recorder. Staff recommended that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, reject all bid proposals for the construction of 1000" Avenue and Murdock Street Sanitary Sewer District No. 27. Motion by Board Member Dirksen, seconded by Board Member Sherwood to reject all bid proposals for the construction of 1001 Avenue and Murdock Street Sanitary Sewer District No. 27. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of the Local Contract Review Board present: LCRB Chairman Griffith - Yes Board Member Dirksen - Yes Board Member Moore - Yes Board Member Sherwood - Yes Board Member Wilson - Yes 9.4 Award Bid for Five-Year Street Sweeping Contract to Great Western Sweeping, Inc. Assistant Public Works Director Koellermeir presented the staff report, which is on file with the City Recorder. Staff recommended that the Local Contract Review Board award the contract for street sweeping to Great Western Sweeping, Inc. There was discussion about notifying residents of the street sweeping schedule. It was suggested that the schedule be posted on the City's web site. Motion by Board Member Moore, seconded by Board Member Dirksen to award the bid for a five-year street sweeping contract to Great Western Sweeping, Inc. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of the Local Contract Review Board present: J ® LCRB Chairman Griffith - Yes Board Member Dirksen Yes Board Member Moore - Yes Board Member Sherwood - Yes Board Member Wilson - Yes Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 26, 2003 Page 13 10. CONSIDER AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) TO REPLACE THE WORDS "CITY ADMINISTRATOR" TO "CITY MANAGER" THROUGHOUT TMC TITLES 1-18 City Recorder Wheatley presented the staff report, which is on file with the City Recorder. Staff recommended the Council approve the proposed ordinance to update the Tigard Municipal Code so that the words "city administrator" would be replaced with the words "city manager." Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to adopt Ordinance No. 03-08. ORDINANCE NO. 03-08 - AN ORDINANCE UPDATING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) TO REPLACE THE WORDS "CITY ADMINISTRATOR" WITH "CITY MANAGER" THROUGHOUT TMC TITLES 1- 18 The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - `.(es Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes 11. CONSIDER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION City Manager Monahan reviewed this agenda item with Council. Staff has met with representatives of the Regional Economic Development Partners to gain an understanding of the purpose and activities of the Regional Partners. After brief discussion, Council concurred with the staff recommendation for the City of Tigard to accept an invitation to join the Regional Economic Development Partners as a o. member. In order to join, Tigard needs to respond to the invitation and agree to pay annual dues, presently structured at $5,000 per year for municipalities with a population over 40,000. Council agreed to authorize this expenditure, which will be allocated from the Long-Range Planning Community Development Department J budget. m 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS - None 1 13. NON AGENDA ITEMS - None The Business Meeting concluded at 10: 50 p.m. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 26, 2003 Page 14 > CONTINUATION OF STUDY SESSION: • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:53 p.m. to discuss current and pending litigation under ORS 192.660(1) (h). The Executive Session concluded at 11:03 p.m. > Tualatin River Bridge Information City Manager Monahan reviewed with the City Council his August 20, 2003, memo regarding the Pedestrian Bridge Cost allocation. Council discussed the fact that matching shares among Tigard, Tualatin and Durham must be allocated to accept Federal funding (grant). Council members indicated the City Manager could negotiate with the other cities to determine Tigard's allocation, favoring the third option outlined in the Manager's memo. > City Manager's Review Completion - postponed ➢ Administrative Items • Council discussed the small white house located on property near the new library site. There could be potential, with renovation, for class rooms and some outdoor uses compatible with the adjacent wetland areas. Council agreed that the Manager could spend up to $5000 for a professional opinion of the viability of renovation. (City Recorder's note: A fire on August 28, 2003, at this house resulted in the structure being classified as a "total loss.") • Council members were asked if they would be available to participate in the Tigard Blast Parade on September 13, 2003. • Council briefly discussed the management of correspondence at the L meeting for hearing items or other items that are scheduled for Council review. Council concurred that it would be acceptable to establish a cut- off date prior to the applicable Council meeting for forwarding of the 'correspondence and responses to the Council. After the cut-off date, Council would receive the correspondence and staff would report any updated Information or give a verbal response to issues raised. Tigard City Councii Meeting Minutes - August 26, 2003 Page 15 IS. ADJOURNMENT: 11: 21 p.m. Attest: at erihe Wheatley, City Recorder ~J- ' uty- et -4-45-am - Craig E. Dirksen, Council President Date: ~ ~ - (~-C7?j MadmVmthftomV0031030826.dw b Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 26, 2003 Page 16 i ~•ae•D3 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City CouncijFROM: Bill Monahan, City Manager 7;J) RE: Pedestrian Bridge Cost Allocation DATE: August 20, 2003 On April 12, 2003, 1 mentioned to Council that our joint effort with Tualatin and Durham to build a pedestrian bridge across the Tualatin River is getting closer to final funding. Federal funds, if programs are not cut, have been authorized in the amount of $990,000. A matching share of $400,000 is necessary in order to accept the grant. The breakdown of funding is now in question. Following are a few options for discussion: 1. 50/50 minus Durham - distribution could be as follows: Tigard $195,000 Tualatin $195,000 Durham $ 10,000 This option would allocate a smaller share to Durham with Tigard and Tualatin equally splitting the remainder. Justification for this method - Durham has a relatively fixed, small population. Tigard and Tualatin could benefit equally from the bridge. 2. Population Based - distribution could be as follows: Tigard $253,400 (63.35%) Tualatin $138,600 (34.65%) Durham $ 8,000 (2%) Again, Durham, with a population of 1,390, would have a small share. Tigard would 0 have a larger share than Tualatin as our 2002 population was 44,070; Tualatin's was 24,100. One could argue that a different allocation could result from population projections. However, the Metro 2017 population projections for the cities have already i been exceeded. No valid projections are available for our use. i 3. Contribution of resources method - Tigard $230,000 (57.5°10) Tualatin $160,000 (40%) Durham $ 10,000 (2.5%) This method allocates a larger share to Tigard than Tualatin. The percentages selected are arbitrary. Durham's contribution remains low. The justification for Tigard taking a greater share includes: A. Tualatin initiated the effort and has devoted most of the staff work to analyze the need, design the bridge, and obtain funding. B. Tualatin will act as project manager during construction. Tigard will merely coordinate funds to cover costs. 4. Another option - Council could suggest distribution and justification for a formula. Tualatin is open to consider a reasonable proposal from us. I suggest that $10,000 for Durham is appropriate; we then could consider dividing the remaining $390,000 in a variety of ways. Direction needed - I've offered to Tualatin that I would discuss the distribution of matching funds with Council on August 26 so that I can meet with Tualatin's manager, Steve Wheeler, on August 27. It is important that we determine the responsibilities of the three partners so that the federal funding can be locked in. It should be noted that completion of the bridge will not be our only cost. While Tualatin and Durham have existing trails leading to the bridge, Tigard does not. Trail construction and right of way acquisition for Clean Water Services may be reasonably priced to reach $100,000 if a paved trail is selected. isWdm1bi111memosMM1counc118.2"3a.doc L h.. J u' J TIGARD AREA of Commerce ~~J ED to AUG CQ f 0 X003 ~aminstrato n August 18, 2003 Bill Monahan City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 As you all know, the 2003 Festival of Balloons was regrettably cancelled due to a variety of reasons. The Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce is determined that the event will happen next year and is in full swing planning the 2004 Tigard Festival of Balloons. This invitation is extended to you to attend a preliminary meeting on August 27 at 11:00 a.m. at the Chamber office. 12345 SW Main Street. Hopefully, with a broad base of support, the event will be the biggest and best to date. Look forward to seeing you there. Sincerely, IL S. Carolyn Long Executive Director M M 12345 S.W. Main Street, Tigard, Oregon 97223 503-639-1656 FAX: 503-639.6302 www.tigardchamber.com • info@tigardchamber.com Cathy Wheatley - Tigard Blast Parade Page ' I Admin. veffis From: Cathy Wheatley -,44 d y !5Cft(M To: Council 6.2b. 0 3 Subject: Tigard Blast Parade 7 Dave Owen (503-866-1658), parade chair, has contacted me to inquire if the Mayor and Council members would be interested in riding in the Tigard Blast Parade. If you are, you would meet at the St. Anthony's parking lot at 9:30 a.m. The parade starts at 10 a.m. (on September 13). Let me know as soon as you can whether you and your spouse, family member, or a friend will ride with you in the parade. They'll need to arrange for beautiful cars for you! Here is the address for our web site information on the Blast: http://www.ci.tioard.or.us/community/tioard blast/default.asa Thanks, Cathy d a _J m CCL) pyA_ August 22, 2003 Mayor 6 City Council Attached is information for the August 26, 2003, Council meeting on the following items: STUDY SESSION 4- Memo from Bill Monahan about proposed City Council Meeting Dates 4 Memo from Bill Monahan about Pedestrian Bridge Cost Allocation BUSINESS MEETING 4-- Agenda Item No. 5 - Discussion with State Senator Ginny Burdick and State Representative Max Williams Memo from Cathy Wheatley regarding individuals who want to present questions to the legislators during the meeting IF Memo from Liz Newton updating Council on the status of legislative issues Agenda Item No.1- Public Nearing - Informational Nearing - Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement No. 29 Communications received and sent since the Council packet was delivered J ai W. J x 7 1, ~ Je Budget Committee 1 ORIGINAL APPT. DATE/ CURRENT TERM EXPIRES MIKE BENNER 01-26-99 / 06-30-05 13748 SW Tanoak Court Tigard, OR 97223 Res: 503-524-3628 Bus: 503-286-8686, Ext. 208 mbenner4@aol.com GEORGE BURGESS, Chair 10-26-87 / 06-30-04 13475 SW Village Glen Tigard, OR 97223 Res: 503-639-0903 IRENE MOSZER 02-02-01 / 06-30-03 14169 SW 134"' Drive Tigard, OR 97224 (Completing Craig Dirksen's Term Res: 503-579-8286 11-29-94 / 06-30-03) Bus: 503-359-2235 moszer@pacificu.edu TOM WOODRUFF 1-01-03 / 6/30/04 12098 SW 113°i Place (As Alternate Tigard, OR 97223 06-25-02 / 12-31-02) Res: 503-620-2500 Bus: 503-533-6360 twoodr@aol.com GREG ZUFFREA 08-08-00 / 06-30-03 rL 12125 SW Summer Street r Tigard, OR 97223 7 Res: 579-3412 Bus: 235-6979 i i i PURPOSE: Committee reviews the proposed budget from the City Manager ro with citizen Committee members. i COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Five (5) citizens required. I.ADWSoard & Committee Roster.doc 5 Revised: 08/26103 COMMITTEE MEETS: During Budget Approval, every Monday evening, 6:30 p.m., during May in the Tigard Water Auditorium. Other meetings throughout the year as needed during Council meetings. IL 8 F J_ W~ J I ADMIBoard & Committee Roster.doc 6 Revised: 08/26!03 FY 2003-04 Beginning Fund Balance Budget to E=stimated Actual 21-Aug-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2003-04 Budgeted Estimated Beginning Beginning Fund Balance Fund Balance Difference % Difference Operating Funds General $7,065,185 $7,935,944 $870,759 12.32% Electdcal Inspection $159,180 $181,109 $21,929 13.78% Building $942,281 $1,062,440 $120,159 12.75% Sanitary Sewer $8,388,092 $8,559,076 $170,984 2.04% Storm Sewer $782,000 $799,600 $17,600 2.25% Water $6,21)2,622 $5,709,133 ($493,489) (7.96°/x) Central Services $523,050 $557,549 $34,499 6.60% Fleet/Property Management $60,000 $19,626 ($40,374) (67.29°/x) Total Operating $24,122,410 $24,824,477 $702,067 2.91% Capital Funds Gas Tax $627,593 $1,065,843 $438,250 69.83% Traffic Impact Fee $2,750,000 $2,564,987 ($185,013) (6.73%) Parks Capital $1,504,435 $1,923,344 $418,909 27.84% Underground Utility $387,954 $342,027 ($45,927) (11.84%) TIF Urban Services $1,274,575 $1,111,115 ($163,460) (12.82%) Facility $11,703,778 $12,054,728 $350,950 3.00% Dartmouth LID $9,136 $9,050 ($86) (0.94%) Wall St. LID $0 $0 $0 NA Water Quality/Quantity $1,905,983 $1,890,799 ($15,184) (0.80%) Water SDC $1,433,393 $1,529,040 $95,647 6.67% Water CIP $4,514,523 $4,258,954 ($255,569) (5.66%) Total Capital $26,111,370 $26,749,887 $638,517 2.45% Revenue Funds Criminal Forfeiture $61,000 $67,586 $6,586 10.80% Insurance Fund $528,184 $538,913 $10,729 2.03% Urban Services $633,433 $763,448 $130,015 20.53% Total Revenue $1,222,617 $1,369,947 $147,330 12.05% Debt Service Funds Bancroft Improvement $1,012,697 $1,213,935 $201,238 19.87% a.. GO Bond $1,145,382 $1,053,523 ($91,859) (8.02%) Total Debt Service $2,158,079 $2,267,458 $109,379 5.07% _ Closed Funds ® County Gas Tax $0 $0 $0 W Tree Replacement $30,000 $22,663 ($7,337) (24.46%) .I Metro Greenspaces $0 $0 $0 Park Levy Improvement $0 $0 $0 69th Ave. LID $0 $0 $0 Total Closed $30,000 $22,663 ($7,337) (24.46%) Grand Total $53,644,476 $55,234,432 $1,589,956 2.96% '~"Yt ~~~a(.olv3 Potential Budget Amendments FY 2003-04 Item Description Fund Amount Grants 1 Domestic Preparedness grant General $21,945 2 Oregon State Marine Board Grant General $3,900 3 LLEBG FY 2003 Grant General $17,893 4 LLEBG FY 2003 Grant-Matching funds General $1,988 5 PW - FEMA Grant for CERT Training General $33,000+ Total Grants $78,726 Corrections/Carry Over 6 Bonita Park Parks Capital $69,236 7 COPS More Matching Funds General Fund $9,219 8 CPAH Set Aside extension General $2,108 Total Corrections/Carry Over $80,563 New 9 Donations to PD for bike safety and J. Wolf training General $2,532 10 CD - Econ Dev. Org. membership General $5,000 11 Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District Sanitary Sewer $214,000 12 Technology - PPDS T1 line Central Services $20,000 13 Street Maintenance Fee Implementation To Be Determined TBD 14 Buildings - Hybrid Vehicles Building $5,000 15 Buildings - Contract inspectors Building $70,000 16 ROW Manager - new position General TBD Total New $316,532 Grand Total $475,821 Total General Fund $97,585 Total Other Funds $378,236 9 I f i /U AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF August 12, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Street Maintenance Fee - Task Force Recommendation PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK _ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force will recommend an approach to implementation of the proposed Street Maintenance Fee based on the alternative proposal by the Oregon Grocery Association with modifications made by City staff. Council direction will be requested to implement the fee in accordance with the Task Force recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council provide direction to implement the fee using the approach recommended by the Task Force. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Transportation Strategies Task Force met on June 19, 2003 to discuss the proposed Street Maintenance Fee with business representatives and interested residents. The meeting was attended by representatives from the Oregon Grocery Association, Jack Reardon (General Manager of Washington Square), Dan Murphy (President of the Chamber of Commerce), the Task Force members (including Councilor Dirksen), Councilor Sydney Sherwood, and a few representatives from the business community. The proposed fee, as originally proposed by the Task Force, is based on trip generation rates for various land use categories. The Oregon Grocery Association (OGA) proposed an alternative approach that linked the rates to the long-term work program that is planned by the City for maintaining the City streets. It assigns responsibility for the arterials and collectors that serve the businesses to the businesses, splits the costs for those that do not directly serve the businesses, and assigns responsibility for the local streets to the residents. This is 1 strictly for maintenance of the streets. The street light and traffic signal maintenance and energy costs were r excluded. However, they proposed that it could be added back as an overall benefit to the City residents with a flat rate charged to all within the City. 4 City staff reviewed the proposal and suggested some modifications at the Task Force meeting on July 21, 2003. 0 The Task Force approved the modified proposal for presentation to City Council at the August 12, 2003 Council meeting. Only the Street Maintenance element was recommended for implementation by the Task Force-The three other elements (Street Light and Traffic Signal System Energy Costs and Maintenance, Rights-of-Way Maintenance, and Sidewalk Maintenance) are not proposed for implementation at this time. If Council provides direction to proceed with the fee, an ordinance and resolution will be submitted for Council consideration in October or November 2003. Actual implementation of the new fee is not expected until early 2004. The key concepts in the Task Force recommendation are as follows: • Ties the street maintenance element of the fee to a 5-year maintenance and reconstruction plan prepared by the City of Tigard • Uses actual road repair projects • Tailors the fee to the local data • Sets a target revenue goal of $800,000 annually • Allocates the costs of the arterial projects to the non-residential uses • Splits the costs for the collectors on a 50-50 basis with residential and non-residential uses sharing the costs equally • Allocates the costs for neighborhood routes and local streets to residential uses • Uses the minimum parking space requirements based on the Tigard Development Code for non- residential uses with a 5-space minimum and 200-space maximum. Allocates the costs for residential uses on a per unit basis for both single family and multifamily units. This approach takes into account businesses that draw from a larger area than just Tigard. • Sets the rate for the first three years based on a 5-year average of the projects to be implemented. Includes a review of the program after three years and re-establishes the rate at that time based on a 5- year plan that adds three more years to the program. • Dedicates the amounts collected strictly to projects with no City overhead, administrative, or engineering costs factored in. Those essential activities and corresponding costs can be covered by gas tax revenues so that the fee amounts can be devoted strictly to the preventative and corrective maintenance work. Based on the current 5-year maintenance plan, the estimated cost to the residents is approximately $2.21 per single family or multifamily dwelling unit. The non-residential uses will be computed based on the parking spaces for the types of land use as defined in the Development Code. The ratio based on the current 5-year plan has the residential uses paying for approximately 58% of the costs and the non-residential uses paying for 42% of the costs. However, the current 5-year maintenance plan is based on information that is several years old. The City will need to update that information to remove those projects that are already completed and bring in additional projects based on updated data and observation. The original 5-year plan attached to the original Street Maintenance Fee Study Report was not altered during the past two years so that the list could be kept constant. The proposed rates will change after the 5-year maintenance plan is updated. L Some of the other considerations that were recommended by OGA and approved by the Task Force include the 2 following: n • Any overruns and underruns would be recorded during the first three years and then factored in as part of the adjustment in the evaluation of the fee at the end of the three-year period. 0 • Any funding dedicated for maintenance received as a result of HB 2041, which was passed by both the House and Senate and has been signed into law by the Governor, would be credited to the program. However, it remains to be seen what amount of funding would be made available to cities and just how the funding is described in the legislation. The League of Oregon Cities has been tracking that legislation and has been providing frequent updates. The current estimate provided by the League is approximately $7 or $8 per capita in additional funding for maintenance and preservation projects. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None, VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Timely maintenance of the street infrastructure meets the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goal of Improve Traffic Safety. The implementation of the Street Maintenance Fee meets the goal of Identify and Develop Funding Resources. ATTACHMENT LIST Proposal by the Oregon Grocery Association Report to the Task Force on the OGA Proposal FISCAL NOTES None at this point. The implementation of the Street Maintenance Fee as originally proposed would provide funding for street maintenance, limited ROW maintenance, limited sidewalk maintenance, and street light and traffic signal system energy costs and maintenance. The total new revenue needed projected for all four elements is $1.6 million. The modified alternative proposal would raise approximately $800,000 for the Street Maintenance element only. I:\Eng\Gus\Council Agenda Summaries\Street Maintenance Fee - Task Force Recommendation for 8-12.03.doc L 2 D b J D 9 J Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force Report on Oregon Grocery Association Proposal The Oregon Grocery Association Proposal At the Task force meeting on June 19, 2003, the Oregon Grocery Association submitted an alternative proposal for a Street Maintenance Fee. The main concepts in the proposal are as follows: • Ties the street maintenance element of the fee to a 5-year maintenance and reconstruction plan prepared by the City of Tigard ■ Uses actual road repair projects Tailors the fee to the local data Arterial projects would be allocated to the non-residential uses ■ Collectors would be split on a 50-50 basis with residential and non- residential uses sharing the costs ■ Neighborhood routes and local streets would be allocated to residential uses ■ Allocates the non-residential costs based on parking spaces using 5 spaces as 4 minimum and 200 spaces as a maximum • Expands and contracts with the need on a yearly basis • Takes into account businesses that draw from a larger area than just Tigard • Addresses the lighting issue in a separate formula that results in a flat rate for each billing unit in the City City Review and Adjustments City staff and the City Attorney's office have reviewed the proposal and find it reasonable and workable, but suggest the following adjustments: • Set a target revenue goal of $800,000. The original breakdown for the long-term plan set aside a reserve of approximately $100,000 to cover reconstruction. costs a as certain streets need that level of maintenance. If reconstruction is to be done as part of the 5-year plan, the amount of $800,000 should provide sufficient revenue v~ to address those streets as they become due in the plan. • Set the rate for the first three years based on a 5-year average of the projects to be ® implemented. Review after three years and set the rate at that time based on a 5- year plan that adds three more years to the program. • Dedicate the amounts collected strictly to projects with no City overhead, administrative, or engineering costs factored in. Those essential activities and corresponding costs can be covered by gas tax revenues so that the fee amounts can be devoted strictly to the preventative and corrective maintenance work. Report to Task Force on OGA Proposal Page 1 of 3 • Use the parking space recommendation by OGA, use the minimum spaces based on the Tigard Development Code for non-residential uses, and keep the 5-space minimum and 200-space maximum. Allocate the costs for residential uses on a per unit basis for both single family and multifamily units. • City staff concurs with the other recommendations by OGA Other Considerations The 5-year maintenance plan is based on information that is several years old. The City will need to update that information to remove those projects that are already completed and bring in additional projects based on updated data and observation. The original 5- year plan was not altered during the past two years so that the list could be kept constant. OGA suggested the following in a subsequent meeting with City staff • That any underruns in the projects be carried forth as credit for the next fiscal year. Staff s adjustment to that is that the underruns could be carried for the first three years and then credited as part of the adjustment in the evaluation of the fee at the end of the three-year period. The fee for the next three-year period would include an adjustment for any carryover funds resulting from surplus funds once the projects are completed. • That maintenance funding received as a result of HB 2041 (the huge transportation funding package which has passed the Senate, but has been referred back to the House because of amendments made) be credited to the program. To the extent that the funding is allocated strictly for maintenance, City staff does not have any problems with it. However, it remains to be seen just how the funding is described in the legislation that is actually passed into law, and whether or not that aspect of the legislation actually makes it through the legislative process. City staff has met with OGA since the meeting on June 19, 2003 and believes OGA does not have any objections to the adjustments proposed. This meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of the proposal and proposed adjustments, and to answer any questions that the Task Force members or other interested parties may have regarding the o. proposal. o F- N Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Task Force approve the proposal with adjustments for L9 Presentation to City Council at the August 12, 2003 meeting. The drafting of the ~ W ordinance, the updating of the 5-year plan, and the calculations will all have to follow 1 action by City Council. We anticipate that work will take several months. The ordinance and resolution to set the fees could be brought back to Council within two to three months after positive direction is given. However, actual implementation would probably not take place until January 2004 at the earliest. The incorporation into the budget and Report to Task Force on OGA Proposal Page 2 of 3 implementation of the projects would most likely not commence until July 1, 2004, the beginning of FY 2004-05. Attachment • Calculations of payments to be made by residential and non-residential uses based on the OGA proposal with adjustments recommended by City staff. The non- residential uses do not include most of the schools and some other land uses which need to be obtained later. The addition of those uses missing at this time should reduce the costs to non-residential uses slightly. The current ratio (residential to non-residential) using the projects that are on the 5-year plan but adjusted to produce $800,000 worth of projects each year is approximately 58% residential, 42% non-residential. 1:\Eng\Gus\Street Maintenance Fee\OGA Proposal\Rcport to the Task Force on the OGA Proposal 7 J 0 ' 9 u Report to Task Force on OGA Proposal Page 3 of 3 30300 SW Porkwoy A.e • Wilsonville, OR 970711,7 39 503.685.6293 . 600.1124.1602 • Fox 503 685-6295 i . Assoc' Egmoil infotwrgia.org or Visit HAb 0a www, jic.crg City of Tigard Street Fee Task Force Meeting with Business Members of the Community June 19th, 2003 Oregon Grocery Association Proposal v. rn _J n lV J Wednesday, July 30, 2003 (2).max ISSUES TO ADDRESS Through the hearings process four significant issues have been identified and must be addressed for a street fee to work In the City of Tigard: #1 Commercial delivery trucks cause more damage than cars to Tigard city streets and should be charged more than cars to cover their wear and tear on the roads. #2 Businesses need to pay their fair share of the cost to repair the roads. #3 The current proposal Is a Tax (general benefit) not a fee (specific benefit) #4 If the business community opposes the current plan, then they must offer an alternative. OGA's Response and Recommendation #1 OGA has analyzed the routes of all grocery deliveries and most other business deliveries use to supply Tigard businesses. The routes are almost exclusively state highways and city arterials. Large trucks do not have an Impact on Tigard reskientlai and local streets. #2 Business and Residences should pay for streets they directly impact and should not pay for streets they do not directly Impact. #3 The money must be used for street repair only. The City Council has taken a step to narrow the use of the fee to mitigate the use of funds for general purpose (ROW, sidewalks, streetscape). However, the lighting Issue remains and should be addressed separately. Finally, a 1u% cumulative reserve is not needed and should not be collected and used for other city expenses. #4 On the following pages, OGA offers an alternative plan that: ✓ Is affordable for businesses Aresklents. ✓ Allocates the cost of specific repairs to the actual beneficiaries of the projects in a fair and understandable manner that is based on local data. ✓ grows the fee to be used only for actual road repair projects ✓ Takes Into account businesses that draw from a larger area than just Tigard. ✓ Expands and contracts with the need on a yearly basis IL ✓ Addresses the lighting issue in a separate, but fair and understandable formula. IC J m J Wednesday, July 30, 2003 (2).max Tigard Street Fees- OGA Proposal Road Projects 2003 thru 2007 Type Of Project Cost of Projects Percentage of Total Arterial $1,044,270.25 31% Collector $776,246.90 23% ResidentiaMocai $1,569,017.12 46% Total $3,388.533.36 100% Business/Residents Share of Costs Type of Pro Oct Coat Business Artedal_(100%) $1,044,270.25 Collector 50%0 .$387,623 Business Total 1,431,893.25 Residents Collector 50% $387,623 ResidentiaMocai 100% $1,569,017.12 Residents Total $1,956,640-12 Combined Total $3,388,533.36 a oc r` a~ _J m 5 W J Wednesday, July 30, 2003 (2).max y ' Tigard Street Fees. OGA Proposal Based on 16,822 residential units with 18,822 parking spaces, and 727 businesses with 32,437 parking spaces. Businesses are assesed a tee on no fewer than 5 parking spaces and no greater than 200 parking spaces. M Dolar Amount Percents Sharp Business Cost Residential Cost Cost of Arterial Pmjects $94,479.00 1 OD% Business $94,479.00 $0.00 CAM or Collector Projects $129,023,13 50% BUS450% Res. $64,511.b/ $64,511.57 Cost of Residential Local P acts $412,153.00 100% Residential $0.00 $412,153.00 Sub Total of Pro s $635,655.13 $158,990.57 $476,864.57 2003 Dollar Amount ParcAntall Share Total Business Share $1581M.57 25% Pon ar space parking (32,437) $4.80 Per month per parking spwa_ $0.41 Range of tee asseSrneM $2.05-582.00 2+003 Dollar Amount Perce eShare Total Residential Share $476,667.43 75% PLx ar r pa2Lng s 16,822 $28.34 Per month per parkng to $2.36 If M Oil Z Y 0) J 0 u Wednesday, July 30, 2003 (2).max 2005 Dollar Amount Percent Share Business Cost Residential Cost Cost of Arterial Projects $141,019.09 100% Bu*ess $141,019.09 $0.00 Cost of Collector Pros $149,957.07 50% Bus/50% Res. $74,978.54 $74,978.54 Cost of ResidentlatfLocal Pro is $423.491.93 100% Residential $0.00 $423,491.93 Sub Total of Projects $714,468.09 $215,997.63 5498,470.47 2005 DollarAmount Percents Total Business Share $215.997.63 3n9: Per year 32,437 $6.66 Per month per pafkft q"- $0.55 Rwvo of fee assesment $1.12144.oo 2005 DaparAmount Percen otal Residential Share $498,470.37 70% Per year 16,822 .63 Per month per paftv we $2.47 n Rri~iilantio(,!t;ost~= 50;t}t%~~~ 523$ 9 i 2007 Dollar Amount Perce o Sham Business Cost Residential Cost Cost of Arterial Projects $208,588.30 100% Business $208,588.30 $0.00 CnM of Ccandor Pro' s $139,583.49 50% BU6JSO94 Rel. $00,701.76 $69,701.75 Cost of Roaldential/t.ocal ONjects $348,580.66 100% Residential $0.00 $348,580.66 Sub Total of Projects $696,752.45 $278,380.05 $418,372.41 tL 2007 DaUarAmount Percentage Total Business Share $278,380.05 40% Per par per p!LWng acs 32,43 $8.68 n Per month per pw" space $0.72 Range of fee assesment $3.603144.00 J 2007 Mar Amount Porcantago U Total Residential Share $418,371.95 60% J Pw year per parld" ace 18,822 $24.87 Per month per ride specs $2.07 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 (2).max B Tigard Street Lighting- OGA Proposal Based on a need $400,000 per year and 17,549 billing addresses. The fee equals $1.90 per month per billing address. 2003 Month) Street Fee Month! U htin Fee Total Months Fee Business $2.05 to $82.00 $1.90 $3.95 to $83.90 Residents $2.36 $1.90 $4.28 2005 Months Street Fee Monthly Lighting Fee Total Months l=ee Business 1.12 to $44.00 1.90 $3.02 to $45.90 Residents $2.47 $1.90 $4.37 L 2007 L Months Street Fee Monthly Lighting Fee Total Monthly Fee ~ Business 3.60 to $144.00 $1.90 $5.50 to $145.90 'a Residents $2.07 $1.90 $3.97 Wednesday, July 30, 2003 (2).max Cathy Wheatley - Fwd: Sewer District #29 Pagel From: Gus Duenas To: Bill Monahan; Cathy Wheatley Date: 8/21/03 1:06AM Subject: Fwd: Sewer District #29 1 am forwarding this message from Mr. Noles regarding District No. 29. Agustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: (503) 639-4171 x2470 Fax: (503) 624-0752 gus@ci.tigard.or.us Z G 9 u Agenda Item No. Meeting of 7~ t> a X FOAM Proclamation yaJ. t National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month r. September, 2003 T WHEREAS, substance use and addiction result in huge societal and economic costs. It was recently vp; estimated that the cost of untreated addiction In the United States is $294 billion a year. Despite r - this staggering statistic, 76 percent of people In need of treatment for a problem with Illicit drugs t did not seek or receive treatment; and lµ#kr WHEREAS, the toll substance abuse takes on family, friends, and community is immeasurable; and f "~I Jf WHEREAS, every day in every part of the United States, men, women, and youth are entering I treatment and beginning the road to recovery and families are seeking hope and recovery in r' support programs and counseling; and WHEREAS, National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month celebrates the tremendous strides taken by Individuals who have undergone successful treatment, families in recovery, and €cW JP " those in the treatment field who have dedicated their lives to helping people recover, and s WHEREAS, this year's theme, "Join the Voices for Recovery: Celebrating Health," Invites all segments of society to loin the recovery community in improving the quality of treatment programs r and coordinated services in an effort to eradicate the disease of addiction; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental N I 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 Addiction Recovery Month. ' NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT 1, Mayor James Griffith of the City of Tigard, fI iii 'nqT »4, - Oregon, do hereby proclaim the month of September 2003 as NATIONAL ALCOHOL AND DRUG fib, • ADDICTION RECOVERY MONTH ' i•"" s Dated this day of 2003. ~II{i ~zlllih,~ y- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Tigard a 8 r~ to be affixed. James Griffith, Mayor k;;nli City of Tigard J Attest: City Recorder J e ! I sT y r Agenda Item No. Meeting of c ~~•*~~~~.a,M1N Ei ~'~~ty°(~.~a~diaL"i '''~U ss -~j~i~~i(~' :~'i~pW~ '~1Nf~~ klc y[sw13~ ~~y`~, PR®CLAM"ATION X ,if Constitution Week WHEREAS, September 17, 2003, marks the two-hundred-sixteenth anniversary of the 3,A11!!!¢q, llliry ~.i;drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional Convention; and tv WHEREAS, it is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to this magnificent t document and Its memorable anniversary; and to the patriotic celebration which will commemorate the occasion; and (I(n} ;PP WHEREAS, Public Law 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the President of the United States of America designating September 17 through 23 as Constitution Week._ sl,i ' Jyt y~„ ILA NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, Mayor James Griffith, of the City of k":Nlj Tigard, Oregon, do hereby proclaim the week of September 17 through 23, 2003 as ConstItudon Week t_i ` S ~ ,eC1•!•>gjjijg, in Tigard, Oregon and encourage all citizens to reaffirm the ideals of the Constitution by ~a~j~~: ; vigilantly protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us through this guardian of our liberties. d Dated this day of , 2003. n" IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City liiigrFrs of Tigard to be affixed. i James Griffith, Mayor 'i!Iim'?f City of Tigard Attest: IL fljlk,,M?Illlt; r ~ }~1•..•. City Recorder J 5~~~~'_ =;llilit s iT~N .fix~5 - mA by * ~i * ~+„-t------ AGENDA ITEM # ' FOR AGENDA OF August 26, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE DECLARING REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13050 SW WALNUT AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE THE SALE OF SAID PROPERTY. PREPARED BY: Tenn Muralt, Buyer DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK wyb^-'- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council declare property classified "substandard undeveloped" located at 13050 SW Walnut Street as surplus and authorize the City Manager or designee to offer the property for sale, including negotiating final price and terms? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Declare property as surplus and authorize the City Manager or designee to offer the property for sale notifying all property owners within 250 feet of said property and to any party who has inquired about the purchase as required by Tigard Municipal Code 3.44.010, and authorize the City Manager or designee to negotiate final price and terms. After negotiation of final price and terms, the City Manager is directed to return the sale to City Council for final approval per TMC 3.44.010.C. INFORMATION SUMMARY Two parcels of property were purchased by the City for the Gaarde Street Phase 1 Project that extended Gaarde Street from the Quail Hollow-West Subdivision north to intersect Walnut Street. The portion necessary for the street development has been retained. The remaining remnant has a non-access easement to prohibit direct access from Gaarde Street to the property due to the proximity to the Walnut Street/Gaarde Street intersection. Therefore, because of the non-access easement and in the best interest of the City, a lot consolidation was completed to create one parcel of 24, 379 square feet. The City hired an appraiser to determine the value of the property. The value was determined to be $18,290. The City will attempt to obtain this price plus the cost of the appraisal. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Hold the property for future sale or other public use. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Resolution 2. Legal Description of parcel. 3. Geographic map indicating the location of the lot. FISCAL NOTES Proceeds from the sale will be deposited in the Traffic Impact Fee Fund, which provided funding for the original purchase. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PROPERTY REMAINING IN TAX LOT 1700 A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NE ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NUMBER 94062914 OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS, ALSO BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 125 QUAIL HOLLOW WEST AS RECORDED IN BOOK 130 PAGE 42-48 OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SUBDIVISION RECORDS; THENCE S 880 43'41" E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF QUAIL HOLLOW WEST A DISTANCE OF 95.10 FEET TO A POINT WHICH IS 65.00 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE IN SURVEY NUMBER 28529 OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEY RECORDS AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N 010 57'20" E, 65 FEET FROM SAID CENTER LINE, WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT-ANGLES, A DISTANCE OF164.88 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 4735.00 FEET, A DELTA OF 2° 55'37" (A CHORD WHICH BEARS N 030 25'09" E 241.86) AND A LENGTH OF 241.89 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 93025221OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS; THENCE S 870 00'44" E, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 38.47 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FEE NUMBER; THENCE S 020 21'17" W, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER 94062914 OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS, A DISTANCE OF 405.48 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID DOCUMENT NO. AND THE NORTH LINE OF QUAIL HOLLOW WEST; THENCE N 88143'41"W, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID DOCUMENT NO., A DISTANCE OF 41.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 17057 SQUARE FEET. ALSO INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING r COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NUMBER 94062914 OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS, ALSO BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 125 QUAIL HOLLOW WEST AS RECORDED IN BOOK 130 PAGE 4248 OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SUBDIVISION RECORDS; THENCE S 880 43'41" E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF QUAIL HOLLOW WEST A DISTANCE OF 95.10 FEET TO A POINT WHICH IS 65.00 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE IN SURVEY NUMBER 28529 OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEY RECORDS; THENCE N 010 57'20" E, 65 FEET FROM SAID CENTER LINE, WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT-ANGLES, A DISTANCE OF164.88 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 4735.00 FEET, A DELTA OF 2° 55'37" (A CHORD WHICH BEARS N 03° 25'09" E 241.86 FEET) AND A LENGTH OF 241.89 FEETTO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 930252210F THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG A CURVE TO, THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 4735.00 FEET, A DELTA OF 2° 37' 11 (A CHORD WHICH BEARS N 06° 11'33' E 216.49 FEET) AND A LENGTH OF 216.51 FEET; THENCE N 380 41'53"E A DISTANCE OF 40.48 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF DOCUMENT NO. 93025221 OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS; THENCE S 020 21'17" W, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 249.01 FEET; THENCE N 870 00'44" W A DISTANCE OF 38.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 7322 SQUARE FEET. ALSO INCLUDING A 1 FOOT WIDE NON-ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF TIGARD DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NUMBER 94062914 OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS, ALSO BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 125 QUAIL HOLLOW WEST AS RECORDED IN BOOK 130 PAGE 42-48 OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SUBDIVISION RECORDS; THENCE S 881 43'41" E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF QUAIL HOLLOW WEST A DISTANCE OF 95.10 FEET TO A POINT WHICH IS 65.00 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE IN SURVEY NUMBER 28529 OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEY RECORDS AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N 01° 57'20" E, 65 FEET FROM SAID CENTER LINE WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT-ANGLES, A DISTANCE OF164.88 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 4735.00 FEET, A DELTA OF 5° 32'48" (A CHORD WHICH BEARS N 04° 43' 44" E 458.21') AND A LENGTH OF 458.39 FEET; THENCE N 380 41'53" E 40.48 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT N0.93025221 OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS; THENCE S 02021'l 7" W, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 1.69 FEET; THENCE S 380 41'53" W 38.82 FEET TO A POINT 66.00 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE AS MONUMENTED IN SURVEY NO, 28529 AND A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 4734.00 FEET A i DELTA OF 5°32'36" (A CHORD WHICH BEARS S 040 43'38" W, 457.84 FEET) AND A LENGTH OF 458.02 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE S 01° 57'20" W A DISTANCE OF 164.87 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF QUAIL HOLLOW WEST; THENCE N 880 43'41" W A DISTANCE OF 1.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder DATE: August 22, 2003 SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 5 on the August 26, 2003, Council Meeting Agenda Discussion with Senator Ginny Burdick and Representative Max Williams Senator Burdick and Representative Williams have both indicated they will plan to attend the Council meeting on August 26. Attached are communications and additional information from three individuals, Charlene Cowling and Nathan & Ann Murdock regarding issues they want to bring to the attention of Senator Burdick and Representative Williams. Ms. Cowling is a daycare provider and her concerns am with child abuse prevention and welfare abuse. Mr. and Mrs. Murdock have issues with the school district concerning problems relating to their son. We have forwarded the information we've received from these individuals to the legislators. Also, the message from the Murdocks was forwarded to School Superintendent Steve Lowder. You may recall that the Council decided that questions from the public, when our legislators visit, would be submitted in writing and then presented to the legislators as time permits. We haven't used this process for a number of months, since we have not had members of the public contact us with questions they wanted to communicate. Attached is a a copy of the card that we'll have available for Ms. Cowling and Mr. and Mrs. Murdock to fill out if they come to the Council meeting. Our meeting greeter for that night will be alerted so that these individuals can be assisted. I have advised Ms. Cowling and Mr. & Mrs. Murdock of this process. _J Attachments ~ c: Bill Monahan (Staff Greeter for the 8/26/03 Council Meeting) [AAWAPACKET'031200308261GINNY & MAX MEMO TO COUNCIL.DOC Pagel of 3 Cathy Wheatley - School children issues From: Nathan and Ann Murdock <ro5ebu5b0bevanet.com> To: Irep.maxwilliaM505tate.or,us" 4rep.rnaxwilli4M50state.or.u5>, "Sen. GinnyBurdick" <Sen.GinnyBurdick0state.or.us>, <mayorOci.tiyard.or.us> Date: 8/21/03 6:11 PM Subject: School children issues CC: <webmasterOmywebpal.com>, <newsroomOnews.oregonian.com>, AAA <rosebushCDbevanet.com> This is a letter, to bring to light, problems that need to be addressed. My husband and I will be at the meeting on Tuesday the 26th at Tigard City Hall. We hope to talk with you more if you have questions. There is more to this story but this is the meat ON. I am still extremely angry over my son's suspension from Metzger Elementary School in Tigard, which happened the end of the last school year. There are 3 things that happened that surround the issue at hand. One, the school principal had a problem with my husband and I because we stood up to her and did not allow the school or principal to treat my children in a wrongful manner. Second, some children told versions of the situation that supported my son's story, yet the principal at that time, said that my son lied due to one child's story. Third, the school district and board turned their backs to my son believing the principal. The school principal is a person that many parents have complained about, but if you talk to the school district personnel that she has to answer to, you'd be told that you are the only one with a complaint about her. They must think that parents don't talk to each other and find out what the others feel about problems our children have in school. The school district leaders and most school board members want to sweep it into the back room where others can't hear that there is a problem with the district keeping a watchful eye on its staff that are dealing with our children. Now I do want to say that most teachers and principals in our district are great and we must remember to give them the praise they deserve. My son and 2 of his Friends were taking materials to school to build balloon cars for art class. One oFmy son's friends had an x-acto knife that his mother had put into his backpack for the project with other L supplies. This family is from Romania. My son asked to see it, showed it 1C to the other friend behind him on the school bus, asking ifthe item was n allowed at school? The other Friend said he wasn't sure and pulled out a Leatherman type pocket tool that he brought to work on his project. When 3 my son got to school he went straight to the principal's office and told 0 her what he saw. 2 hours later my son was being suspended for touching the x-acto knife for about 30 seconds. 1 feel part of the problem was that the principal at that school did not like my husband or I, and suspending my son was her way ofgetting back at us. When the principal called and spoke to me the morning of the incident, I flat told her I did not agree with the methods of punishment. She told me many untruths about my son and his behavior that morning. She also made a statement that my son was being evaluated by a psychologist to find out if he is a threat and if he is found to be a threat then the school can press charges against me. in order to find file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW)00014,HTM 8/22/03 Page 2 of 3 out the truth, my husband spoke to all parents and students involved. We found out that many remarks made to me by the principal were untrue. She actually believed one of the child's story that was so far from the truth and even the child's parents were having a hard time with the story because it kept growing. This child's parents actually apologized to my husband and 1 because of all the problems their child's painted story has caused. My son learned that in addition to his 2 days suspension he would also be having his field day taken away the next week. This is completely wrong. This is double jeopardy, punishing a child twice for the same thing. Then when my son returns to school after the suspension I really got confused because my child was given by his school teacher an ice pick to use as a hammer on the same art project!! Later we found out that the ice pick was actually a mountain cliff pick ax. The school district and school board indicated that when a child brings a sharp object to school, sent by his parents, it is considered a weapon but when the school provides something like an ice pick-ax, it is considered an art tool. Something is wrong with this picture!!!! My husband spoke to the superintendent on the phone, left phone messages, another parent of another child involved called and e-mailed, and still the administration office and superintendent never got back to us. As upset as 1 was, 1 decided to go to the school board meeting with my husband and request that my son receive his field day back and to request the removal of his suspension from his school records. When we arrived the board refused to listen, they would not allow me to speak. Thankfully I wrote a letter that I was going to read to the board, but since they would not hear me, I left the letter and requested an answer that night, considering field day was the next day. The school board called back that night and to my surprise they ruled that my son would lose field day and the suspension would remain in his school records for 3 years. They explained that this is the rule of the State of Oregon and that they will stand by the ruling. I stated that my son has been punished twice for one incident and that the suspension should be removed and to submit my letter as request for removal. Now, it is the middle of August, I have come to the conclusion that the district has turned their back on my son. I find this really sad. So what am I supposed to do? give up? NO. My son did nothing wrong and was punished for doing what he has been taught at home and at school was the right thing to do, which was to report what he saw. The jaws or rules as outlined in the student handbook do not protect him. These laws or rules need to be rewritten to protect the innocent. Talking with some members of the school board, teachers in and out of district, parents, police L officers and other Officials, none of them can believe what has Y happened. The members of the Tigard-Tualatin school board have stood by and allowed an innocent student to be punished. This is not just a one 0- time problem, this has happened many times over to other students and J their parents that we have heard, talking with other families. We tried G to get some of them to join us at the school board meeting but because 9 of prior obligations and short notice they could not make it to the meeting. One mother was so depressed that she told us later that she could not handle the fight. She and her husband have fought with the principal and district many times. Because these other parents did not show up the board decided that it was an isolated situation. In the end, I am still wanting for the issue to be taken out of his record and would like the State of Oregon to restudy the guidelines. f realize that with the violent acts throughout our country something needed to be done but now it needs to be fixed to protect the innocent. What about "intent" or what was being done? All this does is make file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW)00014.HTM 8/22/03 Page 3 of 3 children and parents not trust teachers, principals and school authorities!!! My son refused to sign a paper saying he did something wrong to get field day back and 1 support him with that. We were told that all the witnesses told the same story and my son was the only story that was different. There needs to be a parent or a third party not connected to the school to make a Full investigation if a child is to be kicked out of school. Another thought is that the witnesses that did not report the items being on the bus should have also been suspended the way the rules are written and it should have been put in their files also that they did not report the situation. The rules are written so loosely that a child could be suspended really easy. Do you realize, that someone could put a no-no item in your child's backpack, and if noticed or found, the child would be suspended. Even if the child did not know that it was there? If your child had someone, that did not like them, put something in their backpack and reported it, even though your child knew nothing of it, they would be suspended. That is why we have laws to protect us, as adults, and those rights are not being given to the children of Oregon to protect them!! If we put too many blankets on our children to protect them, we can smother them ourselves. Families need to be able to speak out, so that all families can hear, unless they choose to go behind close doors. What injustice we feel has happened, should not be policed by the ones that have allowed the injustice. There is only a very small number that fall through the cracks. But where our children count, and for those that will someday be our leaders of our schools and our government, we need to keep our children trusting and respecting our schools and government officials. If we turn our backs, From elementary school and up, on our children, how do you think they will treat us in our old age. Will they want to vote for a system that refused them their rights. We are their teachers and protectors, we are to get them to school not to kick them out. What's a tool and what's a weapon?? Most everything can be a weapon!! When do pointy scissors, that the school wants us to purchase and send to school with our children, become a weapon of destruction or harm, when there is intent. Ann Bt Nathan Murdock PO Box 231265 Tigard, OR 97281 503-245-3711 C I I 1 I I file.//C.\WMOWS\TEMP\(,iW)00014.HTM 8/22/03 i_ Page 1 of 5 Cathy Wheatley - RE: Communication from Charlene Cowling From: "Sen Burdick" <Burdick.SenOstate.or.us> To: "Cathy Wheatley" (CATHY0ci,tiqarci.ot.us> Date: 8/22/0311:21 AM Subject: RE: Communication from Charlene Cowling Dear Cathy, Thank you for writing and your previous letters with Ms. Cowlings attachments. I've included below some of the communications I have had with Ms. Cowling. Senator Burdick will be briefed on the issue before the next city council meeting. Sincerely, Jennifer Dorning Legislative Assistant State Senator Ginny Burdick District 18 Phone: 503-986-1718 Fax: 503-986-1080 email: 5en.GinnyBurdick0state.or.us Jennifer: You are so sweet. Thanks so much for helping me. Yes, please ask them to contact me anytime. And please tell Senator Burdick that the rest of the E-Mails I have been sending her are for her consideration only and to help Oregon if I can, and for "brain-storming,"to help save money for Oregon Schools, and help the Oregon Budget. She does not necessarily have to respond to any ofthem. Because I am involved in the lives of IL many AF5 parents, I can see clearly as to what is going on on a daily basis with these people. ON I am interested in helping day care providers, and seeing that J appropriate W revenue gets put into the right departments to help children and to help J stop real child abuse. Because of what happened to me something is not right, and this needs a fix. Thanks again, Charlene Cowling >From: "Sen Burdick" <Burdick.Sen®state.or.us> >To: "Charlene Cowling"<c6ar09870hotmail.com> file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW)00014.HTM 8/22/03 Page 2 of 5 >Subject: RE: A twenty minute interview, >Date: Fri, 13 Jun 200310:05:34 -0700 :Dear Ms. Cowling, :I'm asking the Department of Human Services look into your concerns. >Is it okay if they contact you? Please let me know. Y >Thank you. >Sinceeely, >)ennifer Doming >Legislative Assistant )State Senator Ginny Burdick >District 18 >Phone: 503-986-1718 :Fax: 503-986-1080 :email: 5en.GinnyBur4ick@5tate.or.us Y >-----Original Message----- )From: Charlene Cowling Imailto:char09870hotmail.coml 55ent: Tuesday, )une 10, 2003 4:06 PM :To: SEN Burdick :Subject: RE: A twenty minute interview. Y Y >Pear Jennifer: The following is what I would like you to help me :accomplish: >#1 Child Abuse Issues: >When I make a request into the Child Abuse Hot Line I want a case >worker to come directly to my home and look at the abused child. i >want the case worker to sign my guest registry acknowledging she was >indeed at my home. >This is all for my own protection and liability. I have many child :abuse )recordings but no case worker has ever been in to look at these abused >children coming from their own homes! Rating these calls is not a good )idea. Especially ifthe State has money to waste on sending a case )worker ,into my home over a report which was unsubstantiated (without facts L )prior). C )This happened to me on September 10th, 2002. i! > 42 Parental Child Care Complaints: )When a parent makes a call into this phone line and talks with a case )worker, I would like the case worker to get more (acts on the complaint >such as one off he following; another parent witnessing the same )155Ue, doctor's >report, pictures, diary of events, or a police report. Slander, >hear-say :and gossip is not professional and is wasting the time of a child care )provider and the State case workers time, and money. > 43 Child Care Division: >When a Case worker makes an unexpected visit into a day care home, she file://C:\VVMOWS\TEMP\GW } 00014.HTM 8/22/03 Page 2 of 5 )Subject: RE: A twenty minute interview. >Date: Fri, 13 Jun 200310:05:34 -0700 )Dear Ms. Cowling, >I'm asking the Department of Human Services look into your concerns. )Is it okay if they contact you? Please let me know. >Thank you. )Sincerely, ) >)ennifer Dorning >Legislafive Assistant )State Senator Ginny Burdick )District 18 )Phone: 503-986-1718 )Fax: 503-986-1080 >email: sen.GinnyBurdick(-@state.or.us >-----Original Message----- >From: Charlene Cowling Imailto:char0987C@hotmail.comI )Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 4:06 PM >To: SEN Burdick )Subject: RE: Atwenty minute interview. >Dear Jennifer: The following is what I would like you to help me >accomplish: 41 Child Abuse Issues: >When I make a request into the Child Abuse Hot Line I want a case )worker to come directly to my home and look at the abused child. I )want the case worker to sign my guest registry acknowledging she was )indeed at my home. >This is all for my own protection and liability. I have many child )abuse >recordings but no case worker has ever been in to look at these abused >Children coming from their own homes! Rating these calls is not a good >idea. Especially if the State has money to waste on sending a case >worker >into my home over a report which was unsubstantiated (without facts L )prior). C >This happened to me on September 10th, 2002. 9 > 42 Parental Child Care Complaints: >When a parent makes a call into this phone line and talks with a case > >worker, I would like the case worker to get more facts on the complaint >sucb as one of the following; another parent witnessing the same >issue, doctor's >report, pictures, diary of events, or a police report. Slander, >hear-say >and gossip is not professional and is wasting the time of a child care >provider and the State case workers time, and money. 43 Child Care Division: >When a case worker makes an unexpected visit into a day care home, she file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW )00014.HTM 8/22/03 Page 3 of 5 >should not discourage or take the registration away from a good )provider. I want an investigation into the activities of this >department. Employment >Department Child Care Division 12801 SW Jenkins Road Suite, L, #13 >Beaverton >Oregon 97005 Connie Canaros. I had only three children enrolled in my >small >day care home. I had a Ms. Connie Canaros who came on an unexptected >visit >and found one flea issue, The case worker called my home two weeks )later to >remove my two adult children from our home. The case worker harrassed land >inferrogafed me over "nothing." Her verbal attempt was against the law >according to our daughters boyfriend Mark Louka who presently holds the >title of Policeman of the Year for the city of Tualatin. 44 Childrens Services Divison: >TheAshley Pond Murders are still on the minds of many Oregonians. The >Childrens Services Division should not be split up! They should all be >trained together to "fight" real child abuse. I have recorded proof of >real record tampering with Ms. Connie Canaros. My files need PUBLIC ,ATTENTION if >the Oregon Legislature does not agree that Oregon State Childrens >Services >Division does not have a problem with child abuse and how it is being )handled. including I "begged" Connie Canaros to listen to me about an >abused little boy and she would not give me the "time of day!" I want >answers as to WHAT 15 GOING ON WITH THESE CASE WORKERS who are supposed >to >be helping Oregon's Children! 45 Too Many Complaints: >I have done nothing wrong. I have a right as a day care provider to )refuse services to any family I do not feel comfortable keeping in my >home. However, The Child Care Division is presently "holding me up" to >keep bad >characters in my home! Nothing has ever happened to any child. The >child L >care divison has nothing but hear-say gossip and slander and nothing r >else. >I want to know why they continune reporting bad things against me when ■ )they )have nothing substantial to report? D > 9 >#b Employment Department: >I want to know why the Child Care Divison claims they are an employment >department when they refuse to call any of my references of families >who )love me? 45 Credible Reporters: >The teacher ofAshley Pond was a credible reporter. I am also a file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GNV)00014.HTM 8/22/03 Page 4 of 5 >credible reporter. My files will give the general public an easy "in" >to the Childrens Services Division and to how they operate when dealing ,with real >abuse. ,Can you help me? >Charlene S. Cowling K503) 244-3567 >char09870kotmai I.com ,,From: "Sen Burdick" <Burdlick.Sen05tate.0r-U5> -To: "Charlene Cowling" cchar09870hotmail.com) ,,Subject: RE: Atwenty minute interview. > >Date: Tue,10 )un 200313:55:35 -0700 > >Dear Ms. Cowling, > >Thank you again for writing. Why don't you tell me what you would > dike > >me to do or how I can help you. > ,Sincerely, > >Jennifer Dorning -Legislative Assistant > >State Senator Ginny Burdick > >District 18 > >Phone: 503-986-1718 > >Fax: 503-986-1080 >>email: sen.GinnyBurdickO5tate.or.u5 >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Charlene Cowling Imailto:char0987C)hotmail.coml > >Sent: Tuesday, )une 10, 20031:49 PM > >To: SEN Burdick > >Subject: RE: A twenty minute interview. IL °a. > > > ,Dear Jennifer: O.K. I request to have help. Do you want to call me > >and set up an interview that I may share with you my files, or would > >you like me to send them directly to you? _J ® UJ > >Charlene S. Cowling J > >503-244-3567 Home Phone or E-mail cbar09870hotmail.com > > >From: "San Burdick" (Burdick.Sen0state.or.us> > > >To: "Charlene Cowling" <char09870hotmail.com> > > >Subject: RE: A twenty minute interview. > > )Date: Tue,10 Jun 200312:35:30 -0700 file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00014.HTM 8/22/03 Page 5 of 5 > > )Dear Ms. Cowling, > > )Thank you again for writing. I believe that I talked to you in > > )February and I told you that Senator Burdick was not supportive of )your )idea to change the reporting process for AFS--putting the burden of > > )proof on the victim. But I never said that she did not want to > > )deal with day care issues. I apologize if you misinterpreted what > > >I said. > >As I said in my previous email, if you have a specific problem with > > >an agency or you are having trouble communicating with an agency I > > >WOUId like to help you with that. > > :Sincerely, > > >)ennifer Dorning > > >Legislative Assistant > > >State Senator Ginny Burdick > > >District 18 > > >Phone: 503-986-1718 > > >Fax: 503-986-1080 > > >email: sen.Ginrny&urdickCd)state.or.us -----Original Message----- From: Cathy Wheatley Imailto:CATHYOci.tiyard.or.usl Sent: Thursday, August 21, 200312:51 PM To: REP Williams; SEN Burdick Cc: Bill Monahan; Bill Dickinson Subject: Communication from Charlene Cowling Senator Burdick & Representative Williams, You have received two previous communications from us sent by Ms. Cowling regarding concerning child abuse (as she has witnessed as a day care provider) and also about welfare issues. Ms. Cowling is distributing these flyers to the public. This flyer is attached for your information. I understand that Ms. Cowling plans to attend the City Council meeting on August 26, which is when you are scheduled to visit with the Council. j I have advised Ms. Cowling that if she wants to direct a question to you 1 when you visit the Council, she may fill out her question on a card that 1 will be provided by our "greeter" for this meeting. The Mayor will j receive the card to read the question to you. file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW)00014.HTM 8/22/03 `M, N ±N TIGARD PUBLIC NOTICE DO NOT VOTE FOR SENATOR GINNY BURDICK OR REP MAX WILLIAMS It is time for Tigard to have better leadership! I have files showing Ginny Burdick and Max Williams would "NOT" HELP A DAY CARE PROVIDER ON CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION! Tigard could become another "OREGON CITY" AS IN THE DEATH OF ASHLEY POND! I have "files" showing child abused children with seventeen years of DAY CARE EXPERIENCE with "NO" Oregon State Case Worker participation! Senator Ginny Burdick believes "Breast Feeding Issues in the Workplace" is more important than case worker participation on CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION! Max Williams has voted "YES" to raise our taxes! I have records showing Max Williams is aware that I had a lady in my day care home using our AFS welfare system for child care reimbursement, and used her available cash for "DOGGY DAY CARE!" A day care provider is involved in the lives of families on a daily basis! Oregon State is NOT! The sign-up for AFS welfare is "hushed-up" around day care providers! This is all at the expense of the Oregon tax payer, our school system and our real sick and poor! Did you know one of these AFS welfare cases just may slip through into 10,000 day care homes in Oregon, multiplied means MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF MISUSED FUNDS! AFS welfare needs tightening, rather, Max Williams has voted "YES" to raise ourtaxes! Senator Ginny Burdick and Rep Max Williams have ignored all of my attempts of getting this information into the Oregon Legislature since last February. All statements are True and God is my witness: Charlene S. Cowling If you have concerns or would like to help on CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION, I would like to hear from YOU, please E-mail at: CHAR0987@HOTMAIL.COM n J OUR CITY NEEDS BETTER OREGON GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATION! 9 u J CITY OF TIGARD OREGON August 8, 2003 Honorable Ginny Burdick Senator 900 Court Street, NE, Suite S317 Salem, OR 97301 Honorable Max Williams State Representative 900 Court Street, NE, Suite H-276 Salem, OR 97301 Dear Ginny and Max: Enclosed is a letter from Ms. Charlene Cowling sent to the Tigard City Council regarding some concerns she has about child abuse. I am providing this to you for your information and to give you an opportunity to respond and to be prepared should Ms. Cowling or her representative be present at the August 26, 2003, Council meeting. The August 26 Council meeting is the next time you are scheduled to visit with our Council. Sincerely, C~ • Catherine Wheatley City Recorder i Attachment e: Tigard Mayor & Council I:WDMiCITIZEN CONCERNMOWLING.DOC 131225 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (603) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 August 8, 2003 Attention City Council: This letter is to be given to the Mayor of Tigard and read at the next City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 26 , 2003. Though the Mayor and City Council may not be able to directly help me, I believe that they must be informed of these serious issues facing Tigard. I am hopeful, Senator Ginny Burdick, and Representative Max Williams will be in attendance, as I am anxious for these serious questions on Child Abuse be answered by them. I plan on attending the scheduled City Council Meeting on the 261°. Thanks, Charlene S. Cowling a J = z:=, J City of Tigard August 7, 2003 City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mayor Griffith: I have been a resident of the city of Tigard for eighteen years. I live at 7040 SW Shady Lane, in Tigard Washington Square area. I have been a day care provider of children, in my home for seventeen years now. I am writing this letter as a concerned citizen because I am seeing too much child abuse coming to my home. I cannot get help from the State of Oregon. No case workers have ever been sent to my home to take a quick look in to my home when I make a call into the child abuse hot-line in Salem. I am very concerned Tigard could become another Oregon City, as little Ashley Pond and her girlfrier_d Amanda were murdered by the mad man Ward Weaver. These abuse records include: Large doses of Benedril in an infants formula not recommended by doctor and child was not sick, a parent very drunk when picking up children from my home, concerns of sexual misconduct of a father, a child who was scratched in a strange location, verbal abuse from a boyfriend's mother towards her children, then the next day, the child coming to my home with a nasty adult finger nail scratch in his face. All of these children were too young to defend themselves, however, though none of these children were seriously injured, as a day care provider, I am concerned any of these could turn violent over time and a child dies. This should be a concern to all area day care providers and teachers within Tigard. We are credible reporters and even witnesses to child abuse, and we could be sued if we do not report child abuse. Child Abuse may be reported, yet not recorded properly as in the case of the teacher of Ashley Pond in Oregon City. I do not want what happened in Oregon City to repeat itself anywhere in the State of Oregon again. When a call is placed, the abuse is rated! This could be ambiguous. A family may need intervention. Oregon State has a system malfunction with child abuse. I have a file full of child abuse recordings with no case worker participation! I have L notified Representative Max Williams last February. I sent Mr. Max Williams my files r over a period of four months. Mr. Max Williams did not respond with even a twenty minute interview on child abuse issues! I called his legislative aid, who informed me that Mr. Max Williams does not take day care issues. Mayor Griffith, these are not just day care issues, but real child abuse! His aid also informed me that it was very hard to change Oregon Law on any issues relating to children, or day care homes. Mr. Max William's aid told me he told her he wants lots and lots of day care providers to call him with the same concerns then he will consider listening to me. The following is a problem. The average day care lady stays in business about two years. 0 ften, a day care provider may be too busy with her own family and small business to get involved with government. She may report one or two abuse issues, then go out of business. I have seventeen years of experience. I am concerned! I also called Senator Ginny Burdick first, and her aid also told me that she did not take day care issues of any kind. Later on, I received an e-mail address from Oregon Human Rights, and they told me to E-mail Senator Ginny Burdick and she might help me. I sent Senator Ginny Burdick E-mails over a period of several months! I received a news letter from her stating that she is working on breast feeding issues in the work place. Mayor Griffith, breast feeding issues in the work place is not child abuse! Which would you consider a top priority for Tigard Oregon, child abuse, or breast feeding issues in the work place? I seen the system malfunction one year ago coming to my home. I know what these case workers do with their time. Case workers within the state of Oregon refuse to visit real abused children because these calls are rated, rather, case workers do not rate day care rules violations in a day care home. A case worker is sent to a home of a day care provider, easily at the call from an abusive parent, and a case worker may come to a provider's home on a bogus report without back-up information to intimidate and interrogate a provider on flea issues! Which do you believe is more important, a child who needs a case workers attention who has been obviously abused, or a case worker who may visit a day care home on flea issues? Which would you like for Tigard's children Mr. Mayor? Keep in mind that when a child is not seriously injured or hurt yet has been abused, a provider may not feel comfortable calling the police department. The police may not be discreet, and this could cause further problems for a day care provider and her children she is watching right in our local Tigard area! Do you want Oregon State participation on child abuse for our Tigard citizens, or do you want all of the day care providers bothering the Tigard Police department, especially when we are facing an economic crisis in Oregon? What should I do Mr. Mayor when as a day care provider I cannot get help? I have records showing extreme indolence on child abuse issues coming to day care providers from the State of Oregon Day Care Division. While a child care provider may be trying to get help for a child, the State of Oregon Day Care Division ignores her ` recommendations, of writing sensible day care rules and regulations. An example of another extreme abuse coming from this department was ten years ago in the town of Salem. This captured national media attention as in the case of Ashley Pond. i Ten years ago, I had a parent, Donna Minor, from 10946 SW 58th Ave. another Tigard resident who was angry with me that I did not keep my doors "unlocked" during normal day care hours. I told her I would not do this, because I was afraid, I could be robbed in my home, or a child could be kidnapped. After a time, the mother and I had a "cat-fight" over it, and I asked her to leave. Sure enough, I received a rules violation complaint in the mail from the State of Oregon Child Care Division. I sent them a letter explaining the reason why I would not keep my doors unlocked. This division told me that they would report my violations to any potential parent seeking day care, and I was clearly breaking the law. One year later, an armed gunman easily opened the front door and walked into a Salem Day Care Home, because the provider was following the rules and regulations set up by the State at that time and he shot the child care provider in the face, while following her to her bedroom. He then took a little girl on a high speed car chase, as he was trying to get away from Oregon State Police. The car eventually rolled, and it took a sharp shooter to kill the crazed man, so while the blood ran, the little girl ran for her life! Now keep in mind, all of this happened because the day care provider was OBEYING THE RULES AND REGULATIONS SET UP BY SALEM AT THAT TIME, TO KEEP HER HOME UNLOCKED DURING NORMAL DAY CARE HOURS. The very next year, of course, all day care providers within the State of Oregon were notified that we were to keep our homes "LOCKED" for safety! I sent them a letter prior, they would not LISTEN AND THEY DID NOT CARE! Salem allowed this kidnapping and day care provider shooting to happen! To bring you up to date, another bad accident will happen, all because of the wonderful rules and regulations set up again to hurt and harm day care providers and their children. Keep in mind these are our children living in Tigard. Don't you want your Tigard Day Care Homes protected and SAFE? I have records showing of a Tigard Police officer coming to my day care home on November 13, 2000. Office Julie Graham came to help me remove a bad couple who were unreasonable and could have harmed me and my children. It was very serious. The couple was sharing a common law marriage relationship, Cortni Madron and her boyfriend Mike Chanty. The mother was in the process of signing up for AFS welfare for her baby that they had together. Officer Julie Graham removed this crazed couple from my property then came back to my home after the removal of this couple to inform me that I was in a very dangerous situation with them. She explained that in cases such as this, anger can escalate, then eventually someone may be injured and killed. This couple was insisting that I continue day care services with them and I refused. L Because I did not loose my cool they were both not going to leave my home, and were following me around the house accusing and cursing me. Keep in mind there own baby was very cared for and SAFE. The Child Care Division has no recordings of any child ` hurt or harmed in my home. They have many recordings of unsubstantiated "hot-air," by 4 parents however who are either, criminal minded, paranoid, or just in a "cat-fight," with me. I have a right to ask a family to leave my home however the State of Oregon will not allow me to ask a bad family to leave my day care home! All providers in Tigard and within Oregon are held hostage to keep bad and questionable characters in our homes and centers! The Child Care Division has set up a system that will eventually lead to a rape or a killing on day care children or to a provider, even a day care center! It is just a matter of time. Their system is set up that a Ward Weaver type parent may call them at any time and place a bogus report against a provider. These statements are recorded and believed, without backup information to the State such as: another parent witness, a police report, a doctor's report, a picture, or any information helpful for the State to understand the complaint. A day care lady may be afraid, after she receives a "rules violations," from the State of Oregon, because the State reports anything a parent may say, true or not to the general public against her! This will hurt and harm her day care business. She may be foreign and not understand and KEEP A BAD CHARACTER AROUND HER HOME TO EVENTUALLY BE HARMED, RAPED, AND KILLED, ALONG WITH HER CHILDREN! Is this what you want for your Tigard Day Care homes and centers Mr. Mayor? It is time for someone to stand up and defend helpless little children on child abuse issues. It is time for someone to stand up and defend helpless day care provider's who are victimized by the State of Oregon, as we are being ignored by our State, and slandered everyday, and not believed when we see REAL child abuse coming with no case worker participation from the State of Oregon. It is time for someone to take a stand when day care providers are being held "hostage" by a system which has turned reprobate against women and children! Sincerely, Charlene S. Cowling 7040 SW Shady Lane Tigard, Oregon 97223 503-244-3567 Mark Louka, City of Tualatin's Policeman of the Year 2002 has heard about all of these issues, and is concerned especially over the child abuse issues not being handled. Mark Louka is also my neighbor and my daughter Brenda Cowling's boyfriend. Brenda a Cowling has taken the 2002 Property Management Award for the City of Portland. I AM f VERY PROUD OF BOTH OF THESE YOUNG PEOPLE. H N Added Note: Brenda Cowling and Brian Cowling my two adult children were asked by Connie Canarios from the State of Oregon to be removed from our home because of a oD day care paperwork technicality. NO OTHER REASON? The Oregon Child Care W Division made a verbal attempt to break the United States Constitutional amendments of "unusual and cruel punishment" in a Tigard Day Care home! Ginny Burdick has turned this attempt in to the Oregon Human Rights, and this is being reviewed presently. This is another issue pending investigation with the Child Care Division and their strange procedures and practices. r ✓r r V r • be area r rti regard 3 Bush I Rect mama United betwef dered if the neglect had occurred in the pri- Iraq, but he's saying we must work hard to were ft vate sector? nm the show in Iraq before the Iraqis turn t t t Let's just say that a lot of us are all fired rip against the U.S. occupation ("Senators char- Pres ' about the crock-of-baloney meted out for tise White House about lack of estimates for posit d Lager teeelved16 past week 592 the 'uncivil" service that stilt attends the Iraq,"July30). betWet ~s} 81 family, friends and memory of Ashley. Don't the 110 U.S. soldiers who've died in I Homo: criteria Ho tip f[~q Cvith911etters;c Is ex.., . In my opinion, Darlene Walsh and Colin Iraq since the war "ended" indicate that Ira- illegal. S tcomme id' kit )rient,.s Fitzpatrick should be out pounding the qis have "turned against" us already? atn- e ma 1 ' ptfed another b2k -31The pavement for jobs, like a few thousand other LINDA GOERTZ Cert ¢j , £N Iscuks irr roc StYjem lastSundad`;ComtiitryseEr th unemployed Oregonians! Southeast Portland positie a forces en BILL BAGBY triadeC jetreWs Willi Prestden s re Milwaukie Give up liberties fbr-safety legality marksagat~sjgaxmat(jageo~edtte~day The American Civil Liberties Union is argurn I knd011-1c nsl doetmie)tfc4rr BeG x Day -care providers hassled planning on thwarting the scope of invesd- tmf os'~~ette edleWhy isn't the state of Oregon honest with gation that law-enforcement officers can use separa the general,Publie on child abuse? As a'dayto prevent acts of violence. positic rra~p `r u dFt n ;car fgsst f etpse <ir - right is a fSirt t r tell- care provider of 17 years, I have a file filled They don't need'to worry about my civil advoct tmtlIgsisrot aPsfiatt with (information about) abused children. I liberties. I don't have anything to hide. The lawma n, , # 5ale1lp~#Tchr, cfdo that have called the Oregon Child Abuse Hotline cops can look at anything in my.house; col- t o ~toopg6r1y i~etfiat every time with no help or response. lect any DNA samples, listen to my phone Amt a _ 4~iereaetf to this Does the public understand all of these calls, read my mail'and ask any questions. mama b3 Bm~''Sf'p ofa latrn calls are rated? The caseworker who was de- They will get bored quickly because I don't spiritu o t>il~alt gay ma[ moted in the Ashley Pond case was (protia- plan on blowing anything up or helping any consdr rta r : Moral a~dd~eelyeslve to bly) only doing the job his supervisor told one else create havoc. Ins me and g,,,cougtl~ otheYsz eygo him to do. A few people will go to great lengths to homot aga'tnstheattrJrt~ sof`al)tJie'churc es Every day-care provider in the state also cause innocent people great loss in our same tthat tend the Bibb f s God,s word and as knows that if a Ward Weaver-type parent world. I will gladly contribute my "liberties" stralgt lQtal trufz A slit plinggf fetters appeals calls the Oregon State Child Care Hotline to help prevent more violence to any more otxthpage: •'i and places a bogus complaint without back- citizens of this great nation. t up information against a day-care provider, DON HEBARD Bush a caseworker is immediately sent to the pro- lake Oswego vider's home and she is interrogated and Sin( 7,777-7, 7 intimidated on flea issues! Congress scuttles fuel economy Mama 1 etteCS may be inar!ed to Letters to" CHARLENE S. COWLING Congress failed us Tuesday when it reject- recogt lhcCditor e0regpnian,1320S.W. Southwest Portland ed a reasonable proposal to increase auto evider Bf(radhay trortfand 6k91201 e-mailed fuel economy. The bill would have given au- seeton tglettefs@news ore~onran.com, or Iraq costs squandering wealth tomakers 13 years to make improvements, with a 6xrxdg5g3 24gt93 limit letters to President Bush's budget d rector just told using available technology. Yet 150 Ovoids and mdtfe your (ore the Senate that he doesn't "have any reason But the bill failed. mesa ~c e5s ?nd daybfie phone mrmber to expect a dramatic change" in the nearly The National Academy of Sciences show- econo K I mail addresses .will be published with billion needed every week to sustain the ed that the proposed improvements in fuel 2 milli T1etEt C vnite~ s permission occupation of Iraq ("Senators chastise White economy are achievable without sacrificing in Irac ~rk subtnissrons become the pit pe ty of the - = ' House about lack of estimates for Iraq," July size, horsepower or safety, using current otegopi, tna6dviM not be retumed-, submissioius 30) technology. • map tie ed led andmay pe puHshed of ottrerriscined ina iy medlum_ . Let's put this spending of taxpayer dollars Two years ago, the White House declared prove all a into local perspective. For example, this oc- energy a top priority. Supposedly, the goal mate chi x cupation costs in 21/2 days what it takes to was to reduce our dependence on foreign Furthr j nin Portland Public Schools for an entire oil. We have made little progress, voted for Turn out 'uncivil' servants year. Experts conclude that there is no way to ers, Sen! Headline: "2 demoted in Ashley Pond As we argue locally about squeezing pen- significantly reduce U.S. dependence on for- pher Bo case" Uuly 31). Subheadline: "One worker nies from beer and gasoline purchases to eign oil without increasing federal fuel econ- the govt who mishandled abuse allegations gets a sustain Oregon services, a gigantic federal omy standards. standart f new job and back pay, and another is shifted squandering of tax monies is occurring with ALAN MEYER As a from child welfare duties " little evidence to justify its value. Newberg am well Fact and comment: A child is dead (mur- TIM GILLESPIE about I Northeast Portland Smith votes to study fuel issue thanes dered) and a couple of answerable public- On Wednesday, I called Sen. Gordon the fash sector "professionals" get wrist slaps for their Iraq has turned against us Smith's office in Washington, D,C., to put in moment malfeasance that arguably played into the Good heavens! Not only is Deputy De- my two cents on the current spate of fossil- humar4 crime. fense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz clueless fuel-friendly energy legislation there. So, how might the judgment been ren- about how much,we're going to spend in I was told that Smith had just voted to im ,I. t s c CITY OF TIGARD OREGON August 15, 2003 Honorable Ginny Burdick Senator 900 Court Street, NE, Suite S317 Salem, OR 97301 Honorable Max Williams State Representative 900 Court Street, NE, Suite H-276 Salem, OR 97301 Dear Ginny and Max: Enclosed is a letter from Ms. Charlene Cowling sent to the Tigard City Council regarding some concerns she has about welfare abuse. I am providing this to you for your information and to give you an opportunity to respond and to be prepared should Ms. Cowling or her representative be present at the August 26, 2003, Council meeting. The August 26 Council meeting is the next time you are scheduled to visit with our Council. Sincerely, / ~ Liz Newton n Assistant to the City Manager h a Attachment c: Tigard Mayor & Council G Chief Bill Dickinson City Manager Bill Monahan City Recorder Cathy Wheatley 0ADM MIZEN CONCERNS\COWLING2.DOC 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 August 11, 2003 RACE VIED CO. 1 T, City of Tigard AUK Ad 1 ?Q(J3 City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon. 97223 Dear Mayor Griffith: This is my second letter to you. The first was on child abuse issues to be read at the August 26`x' meeting with Senator Ginny Burdick, and Representative Max Williams. I have another issue which has been given to the Senator and Representative with no response. The issue is AFS welfare. Though I know that you have no jurisdiction on welfare money and how it is allocated, I believe that you should be aware of my files, and concerns on this matter. Especially when our city of Tigard has needs such as; school funding, especially when our teachers do not receive their full salaries, full police force, especially "war on drugs," and Good Neighbor Center on Greenburg Road finding for our homeless families. Please keep all of these listed above in your mind when reading the following story: The following current event is true and God is my witness. I also have files to prove names, addresses, place of employment including State paperwork. Last year, I had a mother who came to my door who sighed up for AFS welfare reimbursement for her two boys. The mother's name is Lisa Fitzgerald, she lives at 9815 SW Pimlico Terrace, Beaverton in the Summerfield area off of Hall Blvd. Lisa works at Every Woman's Health for a doctor. She was a clerical worker and made a good salary. She had two boys ages 2 and 4. Their father lived in Idaho, and was a manager of a store, Sportsman Wearhouse, 1964 Wayne Drive, Payette, Idaho. Lisa had a boyfriend who will be a medical doctor next year, Jason Hashima. Lisa signed up for AFS welfare for her two boys in January 2002. Both Jason and Lisa lived together in a common law marriage relationship and both drove lovely cars. The boys real father also had joint custody of their two children, and was paying Lisa $400 per month for the care of these two boys. These boys also went to live with their Dad, in Idaho every two weeks. Z I charged Lisa only $400 per month for both boys for part-time care in my child care home. I was very disturbed when Lisa who did not share with me that she would sign up for evelfare, the paper work arrived by mail from Salem's direct pay unit. I did not discuss this matter with Lisa. It was a done deal, and that was that. However, my upset came the day Ms. Fitzgerald came to my home with a new dog and placed her new puppy into "Doggy Day Care," the very, month I was to receive AFS reimbursement for Child Care for her two boys! I can prove all of the paperwork, however, the "Doggy Day Care," came from Lisa herself, as she told me her dog was in her car, and she would be dropping the dog off after dropping off her boys at my place. My question for Mr. Max Williams and Senator Ginny Burdick is this, "Are they aware that when one of these AFS cases slips through you can multiply this by 10,000 day care homes in Oregon? Do you believe my day care client should have received AFS welfare reimbursement, when seeing these facts? Do you believe hidden money could be a problem when a couple lives together, yet a mother can easily qualify for her two children, by not telling AFS her real status? Is she single, or is she married? If she qualified, why did she qualify? If she did not qualify, why did she show she qualified to receive benefits? Can we really afford to let one slip through? And if one slips through in my home, in the city of Tigard, you can be sure more of these slip through every year therefore let us do some simple math and for a moment see just how much this will cost if one slips through in every day care home in Oregon once a year. This is not impossible, but very probable. Let's do some math: At $400 per month for child care reimbursement from the State X 1 AFS mother X 10,000 day care homes in Oregon = $400 X 12 months = 4,800 X 10,000 Day Care Homes = $48 Million dollars misused money! Remember that this example was for part time. What if this was full time for two children? The State pays $700 per month for a qualifying full time mother of two. Therefore let us rethink this fact and do. another math problem at 1 year 1 mother, repeated at 10,000 day care homes in Oregon: $700 per month for two children child care reimbursement from the State X 1 AFS = $8,400 per year X 10,000 day care homes in Oregon = $84 Million dollars of misused money! The above is a guess that each day care home would have 1 AFS welfare mother in a day care home every year, who misuses the AFS welfare system. I am showing this as an example as to the incredible amount of money wasted! This above information is not complete, it is just to help you understand that when one slips through such as Ms. Doggy Day Care, it can add up to a large bill for the State of Oregon to needlessly pay! L Now remember, Mark Louka my soon to be son in law! He has taken the policeman of the year award for being the #1 drug buster in the State of Oregon. Therefore, while my soon to be son in law is fighting the war on drugs in the Tualatin area, more revenue could be used in this area. Our city of Tigard now has a larger population of 44,000, possibly in time Tigard Tualatin will need a city jail? But remember, while the city has 7 these types of needs, revenue is going to help a lady who places her puppy into Doggy Day Care multiplied and causing $84 Million dollars worth of misused funds! Keep in mind my next door neighbor who is a school teacher in our local Tigard area. This summer took a salary cut in pay because a lady has placed her puppy into Doggy Day Care multiplied and causing $84 Million dollars worth of misused funds! A little boy named D'Andre was featured in the Sunday Oregonian this week for being homeless. The paper mentioned the mother desperately looking for a shelter and he was placed in our Good Neighbor Center on Greenburg Road. When funding is needed for the homeless, remember a lady who has placed her puppy into Doggy Day Care multiplied and causing $84 Million dollars worth of misused funds! These figures may be exaggerated a bit, however, this is to show some revenue wasting in AFS and I am concerned, not only as a child care provider, but a tax paying citizen! The only E-mail response I received from Senator Ginny Burdick on these critical issues was from her aid as follows: "Senator Ginny Burdick is satisfied with the AFS process? Sadly, I am not satisfied, as I have files of other questionable AFS clients, however, not as extreme as Ms. Doggy Day Care! I received absolutely no word of any kind from Representative Max Williams? My next suggestion and question to both of them was, "why is the AFS process hushed up, especially around Day Care Providers?" We are left completely out in the dark on the qualifications of AFS? Again, I have received no information of any kind from either the Senator, or our Representative of Tigard? The reason why an education to providers on AFS qualifications would be helpful for a day care provider is because a day care provider is involved in the lives of a family everyday on a personal basis. A day care provider may probably know more about a family than an aunt or an uncle because of the everyday relationship. Therefore, why couldn't an AFS case worker give a call to a child care provider first, and after a brief 10 minute phone call, just might learn much more critical information about a client before the AFS client signs up to begin with. This could save money for Oregon. Again, this question has been ignored? As a day care provider of seventeen years, I have seen an incredible breakdown of the family unit. Seventeen years ago, it was easy to find many married couples seeking child care. Today, it is hard to find even one married family seeking day care. Thousands in Oregon are living together with children, in a cohabitation relationship, or common law L marriage. This can be hidden money away from AFS! This is hidden money because the mother with children may tell AFS she is alone when SHE IS NOT! This is not fair, and is most certainly against the Oregon Tax payer, our school system, public works, and very sick and real poor and homeless! 1 a I believe AFS should be split into two groups! Those who could pay their money back, and call AFS a pay back plan. And the other group would be for those who can never pay their money back. My next suggestion was: Would it be possible the State revise the W4/W2 Forms at the place of employment that everyone in the State is held accountable to their real Status such as: Married, Single, or Roommate? Again, this question has been ignored? The following is another issue regarding State revenue: Over a three year period of time, I had 9 AFS clients in my home. The following States were represented: Idaho, California, Texas, Alabama, and Oregon. I only had 2 residents who paid into our Income tax system 5 years or longer, the rest were new in the area and right off the bus. My suggestion for the Senator and Representative is as follows: Why not place a statutory residency of 5 years and tighten up AFS benefits. This would be fair to Oregonians who have paid into our income tax base. It just might be possible that a 75% cut in AFS welfare could be placed in the Portland Metro Area because my home also means many homes in the Portland area. There is another valuable reason why a statutory time income tax residency of 5 years should be put into place. If many people are coming to Oregon off of the bus, without money, and we have no jobs for all of these people, crime will increase! Is this what Oregonians and your Tigard area residence really want, high crime, without a city jail for Tigard, no jobs, and stiff competition with people from other States competing for our few Oregon jobs? The bottom line is, I BELLIEVE THE BENEFITS ARE TOO LOOSE. This is very much a Washington DC issue and should be addressed. Sadly, until they are addressed, these issues trickle down to the city! I honestly believe the AFS benefits are too loose, and needs tightening by our lawmakers! The next issues I have written them was on why can't the prices of Child Care be driven down with government incentives already in place such as offering the Oregon Health Plan, and a better USDA program to really help a day care provider. This would be an excellent return on investment. Why not offer incentives to those who would return millions back into our economy. Instead, lawmakers seem to believe the guy off the bus with no money, not ever paying a cent into our income tax base, should be considered first. Where is there a return on investment with them? I believe the day care prices could be driven down, and families in general would benefit. This would stimulate the economy. More people would have money to spend, such as buying a new van for their family, or even some new furniture. The price of one child for full time child care ranges from $400 per month to as high as $1,200 per month. Also, tax incentives to land owners who rent property, to drive rents down, could also L help families, and help our failing economy. The fact is the prices of rents and day care 2 has become so high, that families are having a hard time putting food on their table. Our lawmakers would rather raise taxes! I do not believe this is right, when so many people are already out of work. As a day care provider, I can see first hand every day the real Oregon family and what their needs really are. They need quality day care at an affordable price, and they need either a tax break on their property taxes, or they need there rents reduced. Again, I have only received a letter from the Senator on Income Tax Kickers, and nothing from Representative Max Williams, however, he has taken a plan of a Sales Tax which has been voted down many times. Most Oregonians are not afraid of income tax hikes, but property taxes which will remain too high, with an added Sales Tax will not be popular with most Oregonians. My next revenue issue is within the department of Child Care in Salem. The following is real facts and where more revenue wasting is apparent. Several years ago, the Oregon Child Care Division use to service 10,000 day care homes in Oregon, according to the Oregonian printed a few months ago. Today, they only have less than 4,000 homes which are registered with them. I do not believe that this is due to the economy, however, this is not important. The important fact here is that 6,000 homes no longer use the Child Care Division. Therefore, with these figures and facts a 75% cut in revenue would be appropriate with this division, leaving them with a fair 25% to work from. Please understand Mayor Griffith, I have mailed all of the above, including more issues for Mr. Max Williams since last February and received no help from him. I also E- mailed Senator Ginny Burdick and she has not responded at all. These are real issues I believe are important for the City of Tigard and all of Oregon. I am looking forward to meeting you on August 26, 2003 with my files and questions for Senator Ginny Burdick and Mr. Max Williams. I am very sad as a real Oregonian with a family Oregon heritage of 100 years or more and as a Tigard City resident of eighteen years, I have not had good government representation I believe I deserve better as a voter and constituent in Senator Ginny Burdick and Max Williams legislative district? I am turning to you my Tigard Mayor for help! With Regards, Charlene S. Cowling 7040 SW Shady Lane Portland, Oregon 97223 503-244-3567 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager y DATE: August 22, 2003 SUBJECT: Status of Legislative Issues In preparation for your discussion with Senator Burdick and Representative Williams at the August 26 Council Meeting, department directors have prepared updates on legislation they have been tracking. Many of the bills were discussed in the July 18, 2003 status memo distributed to Council. Copies of the summaries are attached. This memo briefly summarizes the legislation that is still under consideration and the city's position and impact on the city if the legislation is adopted. LABOR ISSUES In summary, the legislative changes to PERS have been beneficial to the City of Tigard, and most have been signed into law by the Governor. Those bills were supported by both of our representatives, Ginny Burdick and Max Williams. One matter that still remains partially unresolved has to do with the current statutory limitation on retired PERS employees who may not work for any public employer in excess of 1040 hours per year. HB 3020 seems to lift this restriction for PERS members who retire at age 58 (non-police) or 30 years of service. However, PERS members (non-police) can retire per the statutes as early as age 55 with reduced benefits, and HR 3020 does not provide them with the same option. The City is still interested in eliminating this restriction in its entirety, and has requested such from LOC and our legislative L representatives. Tigard does not want this limitation to restrict our ability to recruit and r hire talented, experienced former public sector employees who retire after the full retirement age or at an earlier allowed age. ' The collective bargaining bills are still under intense lobbying and represent expensive and harmful legislation for the City. As noted in the attached detailed information, SB 9 445 and SB 446 are currently included in HB 2237, and represent damaging and costly impacts to public employers. The danger of HB 2237 is that LOC has indicated that there are mounting efforts to include it in the final budget package deal. HB 2237 was defeated by the Senate but was reconsidered and sent back to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Senator Burdick is a member. Senator Burdick has voted yes on •r SB 444, SB 445, SB 446 and HB 2237. SB 444 is apparently still sitting in the House Rules Committee. ENGINEERING ISSUES HB 2041-A-2003 Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA III) This new bill provides for local maintenance and preservation of streets. It addresses critical roads and bridges, provides funding for projects of state-wide significance, and includes funding for municipalities to use in addressing street maintenance backlogs. This bill was passed by both the Senate and the House and signed into law by Governor. PLANNING AND BUILDING ISSUES SB 378 (Cap on Land Use Appeals) No action on this bill since 6/11/03. Judiciary work session was cancelled. HB 2689 (Urban Growth Boundary Elimination Act of 2003) No action on this bill since 6/11/03. Water and Land Use Committee work session was cancelled. HB 2595 (Affordable Housing) No action since June 17, 2003 when the bill was referred to the Revenue Committee. HB 2906 (SDC Methodology) No action since May 8 when the bill was referred to the Labor and Consumer Affairs Committee. There are a number of pending bills and new legislation that affect building departments in Oregon. They are summarized in the attached memo from Jim Hendryx. Only two of the bills (summarized below) could have direct impact on the operation of the city's building division. Senate Bill 711 This bill waives plan review requirements by jurisdictions for single-family homes if L designed by an architect or engineered licensed by the State of Oregon and possessing n the appropriate level of certification from Building Codes Division. These structures are a limited to single-family dwellings of conventional light frame construction. The bill also 3 exempts the municipality from any liability for any damages arising from the waiver of a 'p plan review under these circumstances. The only problem with this bill is that "conventional light frame construction" will be defined by Building Codes Division during the rule writing process. This could be a problem if the definition is too broad. This bill has passed and will become effective on January 1, 2004. ,a Senate Bill 906 SB 906 is a special priority bill sponsored by Senator Jason Atkinson (R-Jacksonville) late in the legislative session. Because House Bills 2447, 2627 and 3460 were stalled in a committee, the bill proponents integrated them into SB 906 with several other construction contracting bills. The major points in this bill are the reconfiguration of the Building Codes Structures Board and the creation of a Residential and Mechanical Board. This is part of the result of SB 710. In order to create the new boards, BCD had to reduce the number of members of the Building Codes Structures Board and eliminate the Tri-County Board. The other major part of this bill is the amending of the "1&2 Family Dwelling Code" to the "Low-Rise Residential Code." This incorporates the requirements of apartment buildings 3 stories and less with their own independent exit systems and row houses into this code. OBOA has been working with the proponents of this bill to determine what level of inspection certification will be necessary to inspect and plan review these structures. Our hope is to allow 1 &2 family certified staff to perform these duties. This bill has been declared an emergency and will be effective upon passage. Operative date for the Residential Structures Board is January 1, 2004 and the Mechanical Board July 1, 2004. The anticipated Low-Rise Residential Code adoption is April 1, 2005. FINANCE ISSUES HB 2906-A Introduced by Representative Williams at the request of Oregonians in Action. Amendments to the bill would allow anyone charged a Systems Development Charge or Traffic Impact Fee to challenge the basic methodology setting the fee at any time the fee is levied, rather than at the initial adoption of the fee or fee increase. This bill died in committee. HB 2267 Creates statewide 1% Hotel/Motel Tax and pre-empts any additional local Hotel/Motel Taxes unless dedicated to tourism promotion. A compromise bill passed the House that ` requires if any local Hotel/Motel Taxes are assessed, 70% be dedicated to tourism r promotion. The bill is awaiting action in the Senate. City of Tigard position: Support 1% statewide tax but oppose the limit on how local taxes can be spent. D STATE BUDGET DISCUSSION There has been no more discussion on reducing state shared revenue. L.IADMILIZVegislative issue memo 82203 August 21, 2003 TO: William A. Monahan, City Manager FROM: Sandy Zodrow, Human Resources Director RE: Legislative Update Human Resources has been tracking House and Senate Bills in two primary employment areas: 1) the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) , and 2) collective bargaining. The attached information provides a detailed review of those bills that we have been monitoring. In summary, the legislative changes to PERS have been beneficial to the City of Tigard, and most have been signed into law by the Governor, Those bills were supported by both of our representatives, Ginny Burdick and Max Williams. One matter that still remains partially unresolved has to do with the current statutory limitation on retired PERS employees who may not work for any public employer in excess of 1040 hours per year. HB 3020 seems to lift this restriction for PERS members who retire at age 58 (non-police) or 30 years of service. However, PERS, members (non-police) can retire per the statutes as early as age 55 with reduced benefits, and HR 3020 does not provide them with the same option. The City is still interested in eliminating this restriction in its entirety, and has requested such from LOC and our legislative representatives. Tigard does not want this limitation to restrict our ability to recruit and hire talented, experienced former public sector employees who retire after the full retirement age or at an earlier allowed age. The collective bargaining bills are still under intense lobbying and represent expensive and harmful legislation for the City. As noted in the attached detailed information, SB 445 and SB 446 are currently included in HB 2237, and L represent damaging and costly impacts to public employers. The danger of HB r 2237 is that LOC has indicated that there are mounting efforts to include it in the n final budget package deal. HB 2237 was defeated by the Senate but was reconsidered and sent back to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Senator 1 Burdick is a member. Senator Burdick has voted yes on SB 444, SB 445, SB 446 and HB 2237. SB 444 is apparently still sitting in the House Rules Committee. 7 u Please let me know if you need any further information. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BILLS SB 444 - Changes factors considered in interest arbitration by eliminating requirement that comparisons be made only to cities of similar size; also elevates public safety services above other local service considerations; weights arbitration toward public safety unions. Status: Passed Senate 4/16/03; (H) Without recommendation as to passage and referred to Rules and Public Affairs by order of Speaker on 5/27/03 VOTE: Burdick - yes SB 445 - Expands the composition of police and fire bargaining units to include supervisory employees that do not have the authority to exercise economic discipline (i.e. suspension, demotion, termination). Status: Passed Senate 4/16/03; (H) Without recommendation as to passage and referred to Rules and Public Affairs by order of Speaker on 5/27/03 VOTE: Burdick - yes SB 446 - Allows bargaining over staffing and workload issues with strike -barred public employees (police) Status: Passed Senate 4/16/03; (H) Without recommendation as to passage and referred to Rules and Public Affiars by order of Speaker 5/27/03. VOTE: Burdick - yes HB 2237 - SB 445 and SB 446 were "stuffed" into HB 2237 by the General Government Committee. HB 2237 was defeated on the Senate floor 6/26/03 but reconsidered and sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Burdick is a Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Concern is that this may be included in a package of bills as part of the final budget deal. VOTE: Burdick - yes 4 D 1 1 1 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM BILLS (PERS) HB 2001 - Prohibits Public Employees Retirement Board (PERB) from crediting accounts of Tier One members with earnings in excess of assumed interest rate until certain conditions are met. Revises reserve account funding. Status: Passed on 2/18/03 Effective: 1 /1 /04 Vote: Burdick - Yes; Williams - Yes HB 2003 - Revises laws relating to PERS. Status: Passed on 5/9/03 Effective: 7/1/03 Vote: Burdick - Excused; Williams - Yes HB 2004 - Requires that Public Employee Retirement Board adopt new mortality tables, based on best available actuarial information, every two years for purpose of computing benefits of members and beneficiaries. Status: Passed on 5/9/03 Effective: 1/1/05 Vote: Burdick - Yes; Williams - Yes HB 2005 - Reduces member of PERB; directs governor to designate chairperson; establishes Board membership composition Status: Passed on 5/9/03 Effective: 9/1/03 Vote: Burdick - Yes; Williams - Yes HB 2020B - Establishes a Public Employee Successor Retirement Plan for persons hired on or after 1/1/04, who have not established members in PERS before 1/1/04; provides that the successor plan be a defined contribution plan. Status: In House PERS Committee as of 1/31/03; Passed House on 5/2/03; Passed Senate on 7/7/03 with amendments; in House for concurrence Vote: Burdick - Yes; Williams - Yes (initial vote) L HB 2328 - Removes the limit on number of hours that retired member of PERS may be employed while receiving service allowance; allows retired member to elect to become active member upon re-employment. i Status: In House PERS Committee as of 1/15/03; public hearing held on 4/10/03 to preserve bill; bill will probably not be acted upon; some elements may be contained in HB 3020 i HB 2330 - Removes the limit on the number of hours a retired public employee may work for road assessment district and still receive retirement benefits under PERS. Status: In House PERS Committee as of 1/15/03; bill will probably not be action upon; some elements may be contained in HB 3020 HB 2402 - Allows public employers other than State to withdraw from PERS. Status: In House PERS Committee; referred to Senate General Government on 3/27/03; public hearing held on 4/10/03 to preserve bill HB 2403 - Creates PERS Review Task Force to study benefits, funding, and other issues relating to PERS; sunsets 1/1/05 Status: in House PERS Committee as of 1116/03; bill is probably dead and possibly incorporated in HB 3020 HB 2408 - Prohibits active membership in PERS on and after 1/1/04; provides that person who is active on 1/31/03 be treated in manner provided by law for inactive members; directs PERB to continue to administer system for benefit of inactive and retired members. Status: In House PERS Committee as of 1/16/03; unlikely to see any action this legislative session NOTE: Bill proposed appears to coincide with a successor retirement plan and may have been included in bill for successor retirement plan. HB 2421 - Allows public employer participating in PERS to employ retired member of system for period not to exceed 5 years without limitation on number of hours worked by retired member in a calendar year. Status: In House PERS Committee as of 1/29/03; bill will probably not be acted upon; some elements may be incorporated in HB 3020 HB 2633 - Prohibits PERB from crediting accounts of new members with earnings in excess of 4 percent. Status: In House PERS Committee as of 2/17/03; bill will probably not be acted upon HB 2949 - Removes limit on number of hours retired member may work and still qualify for retirement under PERS if retired member is employed by school district or education service district as other than teacher or management employee, or by community college as other than management employee or faculty member. Status: In House PERS Committee as of 3/11/03; bill probably will not be acted upon; some elements may be incorporated in HB 3020 L HB 3020 - Miscellaneous changes to PERS law: C ➢ Distribution of death benefits; ➢ Employer lump sum payments Non-pooled employer rates i ➢ Elimination of employee contributions ➢ Crediting of Tier One accounts i ➢ Crediting of lump sum installment payments ➢ Suspension of COLA ➢ Transition account A Actuarial Equivalency Factors ➢ Judicial review ➢ Judge members participation in variable account program ➢ Definition of creditable service A Military service credit ➢ Retirement calculation ➢ 150% Refund ➢ Oregon Investment Council ➢ Judge's retirements ➢ Equal4o-or-better than test ➢ Re-employed Retired Members ➢ Variable transfer Status: Passed on 7/30/03 Effective: 7/30/03 Vote: Burdick - Yes; Williams - Yes HB 3093B - Allows individuals to ask public body not to disclose their e-mail address; exempts from disclosure e-mail address of public volunteers and certain public employees and e-mail addresses in PERS records. Status: Passed by House on 5/6/03 and forwarded to Senate; Passed by Senate on 6/16/03 with amendments; in House for concurrence but House refused to concur with Senate amendments on 6/18/03 Vote: Burdick - Yes; Williams - Yes (initial vote) HB 3169 - Establishes Public Employee Successor Retirement Plan for persons hired on or after 1/1/04, who have not established membership in PERS before 1/1/04; provides that the successor plan be a defined contribution plan. Status: In House PERS Committee as of 3/17/03 with subsequent referral to Ways and Means Committee; bill probably will not be acted upon HB 3212A - Establishes certain rights and responsibilities of person called into active duty. Status: Passed on 6/11/03 Effective: 90 days after conclusion of legislative session Vote: Burdick - Yes; Williams - Yes SB 258A - Allows certain vested, inactive PERS members to receive 150 percent of member account balance if member withdraws account on or after 7/1/04 and before 6/30/06. Status: Passed on 6/10/03 Effective: 90 days after conclusion of legislative session Vote: Burdick - Yes; Williams - Yes i SB 325A - Removes limit on number of hours retired member may work and still qualify for retirement under PERS if employed by sheriff or county with certain established criteria. Status: Passed Senate on 4/24/03; in House PERS Committee as of 4/30/03; unlikely to see ! any additional action this legislative session Vote: Burdick - Yes; Williams - N/A i SIB 750 - Allows public employer participating in PERS to employ retired member without limitation if member is employed to temporarily replace employee who serves in National Guard or reserve component of Armed Forces and who is called to federal active duty. Status: In Senate General Committee as of 3/5/03; unlikely to see any action i a CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Bill Monahan FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE: August 14, 2003 SUBJECT: Update on Current Legislation Following are summaries of current legislative bills and CD comments: SB 378 - sets cap on land use appeals This bill sets a statewide cap of $250 for land use appeals and requires local governments to refund or reimburse appeal fees and transcript costs incurred by person who successfully appeals local land use decision. Comments: The state statue also limits the appeal fee to $250 for an appeal if there hasn't been a local hearing. The problem with doing it with all appeals is that it could encourage frivolous appeals on many cases, unduly delaying and slowing the development process for legitimate approvals by NIMBYS. The problem for local government in times of financial problems is that the cost of processing these appeals runs into the $1,000's of dollars in costs that cannot be recovered. It puts a bigger burden on the taxpayer to pay the bill in the long run. The City should oppose this bill through LOC affiliated groups, such as the Oregon City Planning Directors L Association (OCPDA). OCPDA will decide whether to take an official position on this bill at its 4125103 meeting and then proceed with testimony, etc. As of 519103: Oregon City Planning Directors Association did not take a position on this specific bill. We continue to oppose this bill. Staff will follow this bill and decide how to proceed. 0 7 As of 6117103: Judiciary hearing held, 6111103 work session cancelled. As of 7117103: No change. As of 8114103: No further progress since last update. i HB 2689 - Urban Growth Boundary Elimination Act of 2003 Authorizes counties to designate rural development zones without adopting exceptions to statewide planning goals relating to urbanization or to public facilities and services. Establishes criteria for rural economic planning in rural development zones. Comments: This bill would allow urban development outside the UGB. It would allow urban levels of development on over 50,000 acres of rural "exception"lands. This could cost taxpayers money to service that development with new infrastructure and could hurt farmers and foresters. The Governor's office does not support this bill and will most likely veto it. The City should oppose this bill through LOC affiliated groups, such as the Oregon City Planning Directors Association (OCPDA). OCPDA will decide whether to take an official position on this bill at its 4125103 meeting and then proceed with testimony, etc. As of 519103: Oregon City Planning Directors Association did not take a position on this specific bill. Staff will follow this bill and decide how to proceed. The bill appears to have extensive opposition. The City has not taken an official position on this bill. As of 6117103: Water and Land Use Committee public hearing held, 6111103 work session cancelled. As of 7117103: No change As of 8114103: No further progress since last update. HB 2595 - Affordable Housing Repeals prohibition on real estate transfer taxes. Would allow local governments to implement a real estate transfer tax to fund affordable housing. Comments: The City should oppose this bill through LOC affiliated groups, such as the Oregon City Planning Directors Association (OCPDA). OCPDA will decide whether to take an official position on this bill at its 4125103 meeting and then proceed with testimony, etc. Referred to Revenue. As of 519103: Oregon City Planning Directors Association did not take a position on this specific bill. Staff will follow this bill and decide how to proceed. L As of 6117103: Referred to Revenue Committee; no action taken to date. r As of 7117103: No change As of 8114103: No further progress since last update. 'o 9 J HB 2906 Requires that methodology for establishing improvement fees promote objective of future system users contributing no more than equitable share to cost of existing facilities. Extends time to file legal action challenging methodology for calculating system development charge from 60 days to (yet to be determined) days. 2 Comments: This bill is being sponsored by Max Williams at the request of Oregonians in Action. On April 25th, the City sent a letter to Max Williams and Ginny Burdick expressing opposition to this bill (attached). On May 9`h, Max Williams sent a letter in response (also attached). The bill was referred back to Committee and Rep. Williams does not expect it to come to the floor again this session. As of 6117103: Third reading on 518103, referred to Labor and Consumer Affairs Committee. As of 7/17/03: No change As of 8114103: No further progress since last update. Building Related Legislature The OBOA Annual Business Meeting and Legislative Update took place on July 171h and 18th in Bend, Oregon. The highlights of this conference were the updates of current legislation that will affect building departments in Oregon. The major legislation was focused on streamlining inspection programs throughout Oregon consistent with Governor Kulongoski's goals. The bills affecting Tigard are: Senate Bill 710 This bill abolishes the Tri-County Building Industry Service Board and expands the Tri-County concept by developing regional based systems throughout the state. This does not abolish the Tri- County Service Center, only the board and is a trade-off for the restructuring of the boards in SB 906. It has been referred to the Ways and Means with a recommendation to pass. It has been declared an emergency and will be effective on passage. This should have little of no impact on Tigard. Senate Bill 711 This bill waives plan review requirements by jurisdictions for single-family homes if designed by an architect or engineered licensed by the State of Oregon and possessing the appropriate level of certification from Building Codes Division. These structures are limited to single-family dwellings of conventional light frame construction. The bill also exempts the municipality from any liability for any damages arising from the waiver of a plan review under these circumstances. The only problem with this bill is that "conventional light frame construction" will be defined by Building Codes Division during the rule writing process. This could be a problem if the definition is too broad. This bill has passed and will become effective on January 1, 2004. Senate Bill 713 This bill reinforces the Governor's goal of streamlining permits. It directs Building Codes Division to study the establishment of a statewide electronic permit system or network for all jurisdictions throughout the state. This bill has passed and becomes effective on January 1, 2004 and requires the Department of Consumer and Business Services to report back to the legislative assembly on or before January 31, 2005 regarding the implementation of a pilot program in the Tri-County area. 3 Senate Bill 714 This bill expands the existing minor label program by Building Codes Division. Most likely will be managed by the Tri-County Service Center. Effective date of this bill is January 1, 2004. Senate Bill 715 This bill creates a Rapid Approval Assessment Team assembled by the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services to expedite certain construction projects proposed to be built in any jurisdiction in the state. This allows Building Codes Division to provide services when the local jurisdiction does not have adequate resources to ensure that projects can proceed in a timely, consistent and flexible manner. These projects are defined as "essential projects" which are: • State owned or operated development; • Development of industries in the traded sector as defined in ORS 285A.010 for structures more than 100,000 square feet in size; • Projects in an industrial site listed by the Economic and Community Development Department as ready for development and for which the project construction totals more than 100,000 square feet in size; or • Development designated by the Director of the Economic and Community Development Department as essential to the economic well-being of the state. This bill has passed and becomes effective on January 1, 2004 and requires the Department of Consumer and Business Services to report back to the legislative assembly on or before January 31, 2005 regarding the implementation and administration of this bill. Senate Bill 906 SB 906 is a special priority bill sponsored by Senator Jason Atkinson (R-Jacksonville) late in the legislative session. Because House Bills 2447, 2627 and 3460 were stalled in a committee, the bill proponents integrated them into SB 906 with several other construction contracting bills. The major points in this bill are the reconfiguration of the Building Codes Structures Board and the creation of a Residential and Mechanical Board. This is part of the result of SB 710. In order to create the new boards, BCD had to reduce the number of members of the Building Codes Structures Board and eliminate the Tri-County Board. The other major part of this bill is the amending of the "1 &2 Family Dwelling Code" to the "Low- Rise Residential Code." This incorporates the requirements of apartment buildings 3 stories and L less with their own independent exit systems and row houses into this code. OBOA has been working with the proponents of this bill to determine what level of inspection certification will be necessary to inspect and plan review these structures. Our hope is to allow 1 &2 family certified staff to perform these duties. o This bill has been declared an emergency and will be effective upon passage. Operative date for the Residential Structures Board is January 1, 2004 and the Mechanical Board July 1, 2004. The anticipated Low-Rise Residential Code adoption is April 1, 2005. 4 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF A ugust 26, 2003 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 W,&~ CITY MGR OK 4=0-~. ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL A discussion with State Senator Ginny Burdick and State Representative Max Williams on issues of interest to Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Identify issues of interest or concern for Senator Burdick and Representative Williams. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Legislative Assembly convened on January 13, 2003. As long as the Assembly is in session, Senator Burdick and Representative Williams will meet with Council on the 4'h Tuesday of each month during the Council business meeting to update Council on legislative activities. A memo from staff summarizing legislative issues of interest will be distributed with the Council mail on Friday, August 22, 2003. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY L Communication Goal #1, Action Committee Strategy: "Encourage public participation through accessibility and education." FISCAL NOTES D 9 None. [AADM\PACKET'031200308261MAX & GINNY AIS.DOC . AGENDA ITEM No. 6 Date: August 26, 2003 TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 28 (SW O'MARA, FREWING, EDGEWOOD, HILL COURT AND MCDONALD) Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose a A Time Limit on Testimony [ ADOGREERICITY COUNCILICCSIGNUPIPH TESTMNY ESTABLISH SAN SEWER DIST 28.DOC " . AGENDA ITEM No, 6 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - S echkin In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. qq~5 SUS W WOW Name, Address & Phone No./ Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. T6W~ 1, ji Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 11 1 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. J i Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF August 26, 2003 _ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE _ Formation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 28 (SW O'Mara, McDonald Streets) PREPARED BY: G. Bens DEPT HEAD OK C v CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a sewer reimbursement district to construct a sanitary sewer project as part of the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached Resolution forming the Reimbursement District. INFORMATION SUMMARY On June 10, 2003, City Council conducted informational hearings and considered establishing Reimbursement District No. 28 (SW O'Mara, McDonald Streets) and No. 29 (SW Park Street, Deny Dell Court). Council continued the hearings and directed that a neighborhood meeting be conducted. On June 24, 2003, City Council closed the hearings for Districts Nos. 28 and 29 and declined to form the districts pending the results of a neighborhood meeting. The neighborhood meeting was conducted on July 9, 2003. On August 12, 2003, City Council considered the results of the neighborhood meeting and directed staff to submit a request for establishment of Reimbursement Districts Nos. 28 and 29 and award the contracts to construct the projects. Reimbursement District 28 would provide sewer service to thirty-six lots along SW O'Mara Street and adjacent portions of SW Frewing Street, Edgewood Street, Hill View Court, and McDonald Street. Through the City's Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program, the City would install public sewers 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 $2,435 C before connecting to the line and would be responsible for disconnecting the existing septic system according to i County rules and any other plumbing modifications necessary to connect to the public line. Each owner has been notified of the hearing by mail. The notice, mailing list and additional details are included in the City 'r Engineer's Report attached as Exhibit A to the proposed resolution. i If Council approves this request to form the Reimbursement District, Council will be requested to award the contract for the construction of the project. Another resolution to finalize the formation of the Reimbursement District, with cost adjustments, will be submitted for Council action after construction is completed and actual construction costs are determined. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable. ATTACHMENT LIST Proposed Resolution Exhibit A- City Engineer's Report Exhibit B- Map Vicinity Map Notice to Owners Letter Estimated Cost to Owners Mailing List Resolution 01-46 FISCAL NOTES Funding is by unrestricted sanitary sewer funds. I.Wg0007-20%y clpI4*kt 28 (dmm, mcdonaW)%nenda Rem summary est au0 26400 a _J m_ 0 W J LEGIBILITY STRIP O' MARA, MCDONALD W.M28 REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT OF SECTION 2 T2S R1 W SANITARY SEWER THE SW / THE A PORTION OF t qVE ( ' -lk O'Mp,RA / r }I C~ ICiNITY MAP V NTS August 13, 2003 NOTICE Informational Hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, August 26, 2003 AT 7:30 PM IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD OR 97223 TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: Proposed Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 28. (SW O'Mara and McDonald Streets) The Tigard City Council will conduct an informational public hearing to hear testimony on the proposed Reimbursement District formed to install sewers in SW O'Mara and McDonald Streets. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. L r The public hearing on this matter will be conducted as required by Section 13.09.060 of the Tigard Municipal Code. 0 Further information and the scheduled time for this item during the Council meeting may be obtained from the Engineering Department, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223, by calling 503 718-2468 or at www.ci.tigard.or.us. 1:leiyt2003.2004 fy d0dstdct 28 (o'mw, mcdonaldnmdw t-fmmerton headng.doc Proposed Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 28 (SW O'Mara and McDonald Streets) This meeting has been set over from June 10, 2003. City Council will again be requested to form a sewer reimbursement district to provide your neighborhood with sewer service. There is no requirement to connect to the sewer or pay any fee until connection is made. Each property owner's estimated fair share of the public sewer line is based on the area of the lot served and is summarized in the attached table. This amount will be revised once construction is completed and final costs are determined. An annual increase of 6.05% simple interest will also be applied to this amount. The amount each property owner will be required to pay will be limited to $6,000 for connections completed within three years of City Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report following construction, in accordance with Resolution 01-46. Please note that this resolution also requires the owner to pay any fair share amounts that exceed $15,000. Consequently, if the final fair share for an owner exceeds $15,000, the owner would be required to pay $6,000 plus the amount the fair share exceeds $15,000. The owner would also be required to pay a connection fee of $2,435 at the time of connection to the sewer. In addition, property owners are responsible for disconnecting their existing septic system according to Washington County rules and for any other modifications necessary to connect to the public sewer. O'MARA, MCDONALD y SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT #28 A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 2 T2S R1W W.M. P~ ~Cgge. C!' IL M 0 lulu m 4~ VICINITY MAP NTS 1:M v=01-2M N dpwWd 28 Wmm, m NroNro i ww w vidroy mpAce Reimbursement District No. 28 Estimated Cost to Property Owners Based on Bid Results ESTIMATED OWNER TAX LOT SITE ADDRESS AREA (AC) AREA (S.F.) COST TO PROPERTY OWNER 1 BAYARD LAUREN & 2SI020000300 9620 SW FREWING ST 0.474 20637.64 $12,734 2 DOWD LARRY & LAURA 2S102CD00400 9600 SW FREWING ST 0.490 21361.74 $13,181 3 BOYDSTUN DENNIS GREGORY 2SI020000500 9585 SW O'MARA ST 0.701 30515.00 $18,829 4 FUCHS ARNOLD C & SHIRLEY K 2S102CD00600 9530 SW O'MARA ST 0,888 38692.36 $23,875 5 DURFEE STANLEY D & CYNTHIA A 2SI020001101 9580 SW O'MARA ST 0.420 18304.62 $11,295 6 BATES VIRGINIA A 2S1020002000 9680 SW O'MARA ST 0.814 35470.82 $21,887 7 MCDILL STEVEN J & KIMBERLY C 2S102CDO2001 9630 SW O'MARA ST 0.593 25842.80 $15,946 8 WHITEMAN TEX R LEWAHNA 2S102CD02100 9530 SW EDGEWOOD 0.822 35818.39 $22,102 9 GITHENS WANDAMA TRUSTEE 2S102CDO2601 9675 SW HILLVIEW CT 0.360 15689.58 $9,681 10 NEVILLE THOMAS A & 2SI02CDO2602 9635 SW HILLVIEW CT 0.350 15244.34 $9,407 11 BROWN ROGER A & JENNIFER A 2S102CDO2603 9605 SW HILLVIEW CT 0.343 14935.36 $9,216 12 SHIRLEY JULIA A 251020002604 9610 SW HILLVIEW CT 0.373 16247.55 $10,026 13 BHATTACHARYYA KEYA 2S102CDO2605 9608 SW HILLVIEW CT 0.372 16188.05 $9,989 14 WILSON LELAND J & TAMMIE L 2S102CD02606 9670 SW HILLVIEW CT 0.357 15550.98 $9,596 15 NIRANJAN RAMAKRISHNAN & 2S102CDO2607 9760 SW OMARA ST 0.413 18010.91 $11,114 16 JOHNSON EDITH L TRUSTEE 2S102CDO2608 9800 SW O'MARA ST 0.341 14850.93 $9,164 17 WILSON WILLIAM D JR AND 2S102CD02609 9840 SW O'MARA ST 0.469 20431.40 $12,607 18 PARKER WALTER J & LOLA B 2S102CDO2700 9615 SW O'MARA ST 0.317 13803.70 $8,518 19 SHEHORN STEPHEN LEE 2S102CDO2701 9765 SW O'MARA ST 0.353 15382.78 $9,492 20 ANDERSON CLARENCE N TR 2S102CD02702 9735 SW O'MARA ST 0.555 24166.33 $14,912 21 PARKER WALTER J & LOLA B 2S102CDO2703 9615 SW O'MARA ST 0.664 28910.26 $17,839 22 GARNANT DAVID G & JOYCE 2S102CDO2705 9625 SW O'MARA ST 0.380 16551.32 $10,213 23 WORLEY MARTHA W 2S102CD02706 9695 SW O'MAR4 ST 0.381 16608.92 $10,249 24 MONNIE HELEN C & MICHAEL D & 2S102CD02709 9715 SW OMARA ST 0.350 15266.46 $9,420 25 KOLB DAVID & JANE F TRS 2S102CD02712 9645 SW O'MARA ST 0.396 17259.97 $10,650 26 STRAND DAVID E 2S102CDO2715 9675 SW OMARA ST 0.373 16235.91 $10,018 27 MCDONALD TERRY UDIANE L 2S102CDO2802 9865 SW OMARA ST 0.357 15547.83 $9,594 28 RAY STEVEN A & DEBORAH M 2S102CD02803 9845 SW O'MARA ST 0.391 17039.10 $10,514 29 SPIAK ANDREW JOEL 2S102CD02805 9825 SW O'MARA ST 0.515 22452.38 $13,854 30 MCPHAIL JOHN R & LEANN 2S102CDO3000 9935 SW MCDONALD ST 0.331 14429.69 $8,904 31 OTTOMAN NORMAN R TRUSTEE 2S102CDO3002 9905 SW MCDONALD ST 0.357 15548.13 $9,594 32 MCCORD GLEN A & ELIZABETH A 2S102CD03005 9965 SW MCDONALD ST 0.472 20566.85 $12,691 33 CLAYTON MARLIN L 2S102CDO4900 9777 SW OMMARA ST 0.375 16340.51 $10,083 34 COOK DOREEN M 2S102CDO5000 9815 SW O'MARA ST 0.417 18182.66 $11,220 35 HAMPTON CLAUDE H 2S111BA00803 9960 SW MCDONALD ST 0.345 15038.60 $9,280 36 MILLER PHILLIP R 2S111BA00804 9940 SW MCDONALD ST 0.345 15038.33 $9,279 Totals 16.26 708,162.22 $436,972.30 L r i7 a J U J 23102CDA2702 2SI02CO100600 ANDERSON CLARENCE N TR FUCHS ARNOLD C & SHIRLEY K ANDERSON ANN K TR 9530 SW O'MARA 9735 SW O'MARA ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD.OR 97223 2SI02CD 02000 2S102CD•02705 BATES VIRGINU% A GARNANT DAVID G It JOYCE 9880 SW OMARA ST 9625 SW O'MARA ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD. OR 97223 2Sr02CD4)M00 2SI02CD-0260t 13AYARD LAUREN A GITHENS WANDAMA TRUSTEE BKLICK KEVIN 9675 SW HILLVIEW CT 9620 SW FREWING ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 28102C0-02005 251 t 1 BA-008M SHATTACHARYYA KEYA HAMPTON CLAUDE H 9806 SW HILLVIEW CT MARGARET T TIGARD. OR 97223 9960 SW MCDONALD ST TIGARD.OR 97224 25102CD40W 2S102CD-02WO BOYOSTUN DENNIS GREGORY JOHNSON EDITH L TRUSTEE 9SIM SW O'MARA ST 9800 SW O'MARA TIGARD. OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S1o2C0.03603 25702CD•02712 BROWN ROGER A & JENNIFER A KOLB DAVID 6 JANE F TRS 9505 SW HILLVIEW CT 9645 SW O'MARA ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S102CD*4M 2SI02CD-03005 CLAYTON MARLIN L MCCORD GLEN A & ELIZABETH A 9777 SW O'MARA ST 9985 SW MCDONALD ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIOARD, OR 97224 2S I02CD-05NO 2St02C0.0=1 COOK DOREEN M MCOILL STEVEN J & KIMBERLY C 9815 SW O MARA 9630 SW O'MARA ST TIGARD. OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 i 251a2CD-0i100 25102C0-02802 DOWD LARRY & LAURA MCDONALD TERRY UDIANE L 9600 SW FREWING %65 SW OMARA TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 91223 231020041101 2S 102CD-030D0 DURFEE STANLEY 0 & CYNTHIA A MCPHAIL JOHN R & LEANN 9MSW OMARA ST 9935 SW MCDONALD ST TIGARD. OR 97-223 TIGARD, OR 97224 Tuesday, May 27, 2003 (2).max 2S1118A-0OBOa 2S102C0-02805 MILLER PHILLIP R SPIAK ANDREW JOEL 9940 SW MCOONALD ST 9825 SW O'MARA ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD. OR 97223 231021x0-02709 4102CD-02715 MONNIE HELEN C 6 MICHAEL D d STRAND DAVID E MONNIE DEBRA L 9675 SW OMARA ST 9715 SW OMARA ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S102C0-02802 2SI02CO-02100 NEVILLE THOMAS A d WHITEMAN TEX R LEWAHNA SUSANAA 9530 SW EDGEWOOD 9635 SW HILLVIEW CT TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD. OR 97223 28102C0-0ffi07 2SI02C0.02808 NIRANJAN RAMAKRISHNAN d WILSON LELAND J d TAMMIE L RAM SHAILAJA 9670 SW HILLVIEW CT 9780 SW OMARA ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 25102C04M M02CO42609 OTTOMAN NORMAN R TRUSTEE WILSON WILLIAM D JR AND do GORDY BRIAN V 3 MARIE E ELIZABETH A 9905 SW MCDONALD ST 9840 SW aMARA ST TIGARD, OR 97724 TIGARD. OR 97223 2S102CO-02700 2S1o2CDA2708 PARKER WALTER J a LOLA B WORLEY MARTHA W 9615 SW aMARA 9695 SW O'MARA TIGARD, OR 07223 TIGARD, OR 97223 2SI02CO-02T03 PARKER WALTER J d LOLA 8 855 ST0NECREEK DR LA CENTER, WA 98629 2S102CA-07603 RAY STEVEN A d DEBORAH M 9845 SW O'MARA ST f TIGARD. OR 97223 2$102CO.02701 SHEHORN STEPHEN LEE 9765 SW O'MARA TIGARD, OR 97223 2S102W41=4 SHIRLEY JULIA A 9610 SW HILLVIEW COURT TtGARO.OR 97223 Tuesday, May 27, 2003 (2).max CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO.01- A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 98-51 AND ESTABLISHING A REVISED AND ENHANCED NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REIMURSEMENT DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council has initiated the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program to extend public sewers through Reimbursement Districts in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.09; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 1998, the City Council established Th6Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program through Resolution No. 98-51 to encourage owners to connect to public sewer. The program was offered for a two-year period after which the program would be evaluated for continuation; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2000, the City Council extended The Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program an additional two years through Resolution No. 00.60; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that residential areas that rcmain without sewer service should be provided with service within five years; and WHEREAS, Council has directed that additional incentives should be made available to encourage owners to promptly connect to sewers once service is available and that owners who have paid for service provided by previously established districts of the Neighbc:hood Sewer Extension Program should receive the benefits of the additional incentives. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Resolution No. 98-51 establishing the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program ie hereby repealed. SECTION 2: A revised incentive program is hereby established for the Neighborhood Sewer Extcrrsion Program. This incentivc program shall apply to scwcr conncctions providcd through the sewer reimbursement districts shown on the attached Table 1 or established C thereafter. All connections qualifying under this program must be completed within 12 three years after Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report following a public hearing conducted in accordance with TMC Section 13.09.105 or by two years from the date this resolution is passed, which ever is later, as shown on the attached J Table 1. 0 SECTION 3: To the extent that the reimbursement fee determined in accordance with Section J 13.09.040 does not exceed $15,000, the amount to be reimbursed by an owner of a lot zoned single family residential shall not excoA $6,000 per connection, provided that the lot owner complies with the provisions of Section 2. Any amount over $15.000 shall be reimbursed by the owner. This applies only to the reimbursement fee for the sewer installation and not to the connection fee, which is still payable upon application for RESOLUTION NO.01-~ Page I sewer connection. SECTION 4: The City Engineer's Report required by TMC Chapter 13.09 shall apply the provisions of this incentive program. Residential lot owners who do not connect to sewer in accordance with Section 2 shall pay the full reimbursement amount as determined by the final City Engineer's Report. SECTION 5: Any person who has paid a reimbursement fee in excess of the fee required herein is entitled to reimbursement from the City. The amounts to be reimbursed and the persons to be paid shall be determined by the Finance Director and approved by the City Manager. There shall be a full explanation of any circumstances that require payment to any person who is not an original payer. The Finance Director shall make payment to all persons entitled to the refund no later than August 31, 2001. SECTION 6: The Sanitary Sewer Fund, which is the funding source for the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Program, shall provide the funding for the installation costs over $6,000 up to a maximum of $15,000 per connection. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2001 PASSED: This Q_ day of 2001, ayor Ci of 'and ATTEST: i Recorder - City of ' and i i 1.1Citywi&MtesVUWution Revising the Neighbortmod Sewer bxentive Program RESOLUTION NO.01--4& Page 2 L-r-WIDI ,t t T 01 KIP TABLE Reimbursement Districts with Refunds Available DISTRICT FEE PER LOT REIMBURSEMENT AVAILABLE INCENTIVE PERIOD ENDS 'TIGARD ST.No.8 5,193 No reimbursement available FAIRHAVEN STAIVYNo.9 4,506 No reimbursement available HILLVIEW ST No.11 8,000 -----,2003 106TH & JOHNSON No.12 5,598 No reimbursement available 100T" & INEZ No.13 8,000 -----,2003 WALNUT & TIEDEMAN No.14 8,000 ----,2003 BEVELAND&HERMOSA No. 15 5,036 No reimbursement available DELMONTE No.16 8,000 -----,2003 OWARA No. 17 8,000 -----,2003 "WALNUT & 121ST No.18 - Amount to be reimbursed will be Three years from service availability 2*ROSE VISTA No.20 - determined once final costs are determined. * Currently being constructed FY r. August 13, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Re: Residents in Proposed District Nos. 28 & 29 City Council has decided to consider formation of Reimbursement District Nos. 28 (O'Mara and McDonald Street area) and 29 (Park Street and Derry Dell area) at the August 26, 2003 Council meeting. During the meeting on August 12, 2003, certain residents of District No. 29 voiced concerns that contracts have already been awarded for the projects. The reimbursement district formation process requires formation of a district before any contract can be awarded for construction of the improvements. The districts have not yet been formed. Attached is a notice of the informational hearing scheduled for August 26, 2003, together with estimated costs to each of the residents in the proposed district. If Council approves formation of either or both of the districts, they will consider award of the construction contracts at the same meeting. The City's website incorrectly showed award of the contracts as occurring on August 12, 2003. That was the date originally scheduled for formation of the districts and award of the contracts. Because of limited funding available this fiscal year, Council delayed the process for approximately two weeks by asking for a review of three districts (District No. 27 in the 100th and Murdock Street area is the third one) proposed for FY 2003-04. Council reviewed all three districts at the meeting on August 12`h and directed staff to schedule District Nos. 28 and 29 for Council consideration on August 26, 2003. The information on the City's website has now been corrected. Again, no contracts have been awarded on either of these two projects. Bids have been received, an apparent responsive low bidder has been identified for each project, and contract award is pending Council action to form the districts and approve award of the contracts. The septic systems in these proposed districts are generally close to 50 years old or older. City Council has heard from residents opposing the formation of the districts. From the comment cards and phone calls, we know there are lot owners who are experiencing problems with their septic L systems and wish to connect to City sewer. City Council is interested in hearing from those residents r as well. The informational hearing is your opportunity to provide that input for consideration. a Sincerely, J STIN P. DUENAS, P.E. Engineer c: Mayor and City Councilors William A. Monahan, City Manager vENo*USUETTERSUta to Raidcnts of District Not. 29 ad 29.doc 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 AGENDA ITEM No. 7 Date: August 26, 2003 TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 29 (SW PARK, DERRY DELL COURT, COOK LANE, WATKINS AVENUE) Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony MADRAGREERICITY COUNCILICCSIGNUPIPH TESTMNY ESTABLISH SAN SEWER DIST 29.00C AGENDA ITEM No. 7 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - S eakin In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No, I01,1 5a Q~ io£~S~sw«~Y11 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. ~ o Ug )a s G ~ N h s5 ~ L • &U51 "-,U, S ~,w k l v► s s~3- ~.~~-~~4~ r Name, Addres & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. f 3Zia S-kvW47/<rc~1 ~v~tiS`5W Dt1(Ca- 39 - I k ~'63-,jg3-3&gT r Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address =Phone No. 10b2~ ~.k1 • ~a~`~ St' 5b~ ~Q~O 7zz3 x"03 3~ Zoz Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. CAAD REIM ouRSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 29 AGENDA ITEM NO. I CORRESPONDENCE a a _J m W J • ~l(S (~~a~ The Sawkins 10815 SW Derry Dell Court Tigard, Oregon 97223 K; .,p~qi rtT.y~'c"f,~F'~.s> .a..~.L1~+ se d , ~r *..~3n. i`.`'.,s.•Aii August 18, 2003 400 ~o 0 ~0 Mayor and City Council 03 A(yn)11114d ot'Q1l 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Septic to Sewer Conversion Project Dear Mayor and City Council: We are sending a second letter to demonstrate our support for the conversion gf septic systems to city sewers in the Derry Dell District - Number 29. z wee our first letter, dated June 17, 2003, it has been determined that our j S vM S 'm is failing. This determination was made by comments from Affordable F ! F:H~ ~ ~7~ x {1 ermittent odors coming from the backyard, an unscheduled, emergency $3~ums g n July 12, 2003 and changes in the backyard landscaping. Our septic Ott F,F zL~ uzg schedule was consistently every 4 years and has now declined to 2 years 99idl$months. We are asking the City Council this question: what is the next ;,interval? We do not know how long the failure process will continue and consider this situation a serious emergency. This situation is creating not only health hazards for ourselves and other residents but also environmental hazards. Approximately 65% of our back property line is adjacent to wetlands that support Derry Dell Creek. Our back fence is about 30 feet from Derry Dell Creek and the creek is a tributary to Fanno Creek. We are requesting that the City of Tigard bring the sewers down Derry Dell Court immediately. We need the ability to connect as soon as possible. We have received an estimate for a `repair' for our failing system from Affordable Septic and the recommendation was a sand filtration system with a minimum cost of $16,000. The sand filtration system is also preferred by Washington County because of the process and small amount of space that it occupies. In speaking with Bill Ross, Head Sanitarian, Washington County - Environmental Health Office, he stated an average cost of $20,000 for sand filtration. He said that the cost can be much higher based U~ 1 t!s Ott galland any modifications made by the owner to the replacement plot. He also stated that the new DEQ regulations for septic systems that become effective on January 1, 2004 are much more restrictive and constraining. Residents in the process of making a `repair' may want to preview the new regulations. We may not have many options. The City has estimated our total cost to connect this year to the sewer would be $12,674. The City's estimate would fall in line with our connect estimate from Affordable Septic. We WANT to connect to the sewer and do NOT want to invest another cent in a 47 year old septic system or a new sand filtration system. It does not take a `rocket scientist' to see that the most cost effective option for the average resident (when the time comes) will be connection to the city sewers. We, Douglas and Carolyn, and we include the support of our neighbor, Hubert Brown, are asking the City of Tigard to bring the sewers to the Derry Dell District - Number 29 ASAP. We do not want and cannot afford any more delays. PLEASE VOTE TO REFORM THE DISTRICT AND AWARD THE CONTRACT AT THE AUGUST 26" CITY COUNCIL MEETING!! We need this done this year and it is already the end of August!! Sincerely, Douglas and Carolyn Sawkins Hubert Brown 10815 SW Derry Dell Court 10820 SW Derry Dell Court a (ACA 1 03 r CITY OF TIGARD August 21, 2003 OREGON Jessica L. Cousineau 10755 SW Derry Dell Ct. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 Dear Jessica, I am in receipt of your letter of August 20, 2003 regarding the work being performed by City surveyors. You are correct that the decision on whether Sewer Reimbursement District 29 will be formed or not will be made by the City Council on Tuesday, August 26. I expect that the survey crew may have been completing some work which will be necessary if the district is formed this year or completed at another time. However, I will ask City Engineer Gus Duenas to look into the matter and be prepared to give a full presentation at the meeting on August 26. Thank you for your letter. Sincerely, William A. Monahan C: Gus Duenas Mayor and City Council istadmlbiWetters12003kousineaudor I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Jessica L. Cousineau io755 S.W. Derry Dell Ct., Tigard, OR 97223 email: jessica@scrye.com 20 August 2003 RECEIVED C.C.T; William Monahan AUG 2 0 2003 City Manager 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Administratiar) Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 1 am an affected homeowner in the recently proposed Sewer Reimbursement District #29. 1 understand that the issue of whether or not the district will be approved is on the City Council agenda for the 26P of August. However, despite the lack of approval from the City Council there have been several surveyors from the City of Tigard on our street last week and this week. Out of curiosity I introduced myself and talked with one of the surveyors. She indicated that she did not know whether the district had been approved or not, but that they were surveying in order to start construction on the sewer. I understand that the employees in this city are busy and that they are interested in prioritizing their work. However, beginning work on a project that has not yet been approved would seem to be hasty, especially in light of the dissent over whether or not this project should continue. Sincerely, JI'ca ou sineau cc: Mayor and City Councilors Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder o. o~ rN C J_ m W J Jessica L. Cousineau 1x755 S.W. Derry Dell Q., Tigard, OR 97223 email: jessica@scrye.com 20 August 2003 Augustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 In the past few days I have discovered a few more questions that I have about the current proposal for the sewer reimbursement district. My first question has to deal with the structure of the current proposed district. When your department made the plans for this district they included some houses on Derry Dell Ct. and excluded others. In the meeting at the water building on the V of July you told those of us in attendance that the reason some houses were excluded was that they were too low to be included. However, you also indicated that night that the city Is interested in installing the sewer system in order to forestall any unfortunate environmental issues that might occur in the case of a septic system failure. In the interest of making sure that no property was left in a position that could create an environmental problem, did your office consider having one side of Derry Dell Ct. connect to the sewer that is already in place on the north side of the street and the other side of Derry Dell Ct. connect to the new sewer that you are attempting to build? What would that do to the cost model that you have constructed? My second question deals with the function of septic systems. In both your written and verbal correspondence with this district you have noted that the septic systems in place are over 50 years old. Do you know what the average life of a properly maintained septic system is? Thank you again for your time. I eagerly await the your prompt response in light of the upcoming City Council Meeting on the 261" of August. Sincerely, Jessi a . Cousineau a cc: William A Monahan, City Manager ~ Mayor and City Councilors Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder L va J August 21, 2003 Jessica L. Cousineau CITY OF 1 IGARD 10755 SW Derry Dell Ct. ®~E~O~ Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 Dear Ms. Cousineau: This is in response to your various letters asking a wide variety of questions regarding proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29. I delayed in responding to your letters because I felt it was important that all the residents of the two proposed districts receive relevant information at the same time. Enclosed for your information is a letter dated August 21, 2003 sent to all residents in the two proposed districts explaining why the City is pursuing the extension of sewer to all developed but unserved areas Citywide. The letter answers some of the questions posed in your letters. Nevertheless, I have prepared responses to your questions in the various letters in the order that you have posed them and listed under the dates of the letters I have received. The following are my responses: Letter of August 13, 2003 • Question on Survey Cards: Response: The survey cards showed 15 residents in favor of forming the district and constructing the project this year. There were 11 residents that wanted to delay the district until 2006. There were no cards submitted in favor of delaying it till next year. • Question on septic system failures noted on the survey cards: Response: The comments on the survey cards ranged from drain field saturation to the septic system is not working well and is in the process of failing. Rather than provide the names without each resident's permission, you are welcome to come and view the comment cards. Give Diane Jelderks a call at 503-718-2465 to set up the time and date. • Question on repairs and sewer connections: Response: My enclosed letter explains the reasons for the City's Citywide program. As a n resident in District No. 29, you should also be receiving a copy in the mail. In general, on-site u sewage disposal systems are considered as short-term methods until public sewer can be 1 made available. It is the City's responsibility to extend public sewer to those areas with septic systems that have already exceeded their life expectancies. The City does not wish to perpetuate on-site disposal methods and through the Citywide Sewer Extension Program is prepared to provide public sewer to those areas with septic systems that have already exceeded their life expectancies. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 1 ,1 • Question on City financing: Response: Cities in are not in the financing business. Cities are able to offer low cost financing for local improvement districts because of a specific provision of State law known as the Bancroft Bond Statutes. These bonds, known as Bancroft bonds, are secured primarily by assessments and liens against the properties within the districts and the unlimited power of cities to levy a citywide property tax to pay debt service on the bonds if property owners fail to make their payments. Because of this double security, bond buyers offer the lowest possible interest rates for these bonds. This same authority does not exist for reimbursement districts. Any bonds sold to finance property owner obligations would be backed solely by the property-owner's promise to pay, and would therefore carry higher interest rates. These interest rates would not be significantly better than those the property owner could arrange on their own through a bank or other financing company. We also looked into the possibility of providing financing for this program, but have concluded that the administrative costs in establishing a financing and tracking mechanism would be excessively high. Those costs would have to be incorporated into the program thereby increasing the costs to the residents, whether or not they choose to participate. We are trying to reduce the overall program costs, not increase them. In addition, we see collection as a potential problem in cases of non-payment. Without a lien on the property or some other method to enforce collection, non-payment would be a significant issue. Finally, there are a number of financial institutions that provide financing as part of their services. Because of these reasons, the City has opted not to pursue the establishment of a financing mechanism for this program. Letter of August 18, 2003 • Question regarding why costs changed from previous cost estimates: Response: The first estimated cost for the Cousineau lot of $12,035 was based on the initial estimate for the project prepared prior to receiving bids for the construction. It included the estimated construction cost, a 15% construction contingency and the 13.5% engineering and administrative fee required as part of the reimbursement district ordinance. The $11,618 estimate is the current estimate and is based on the contractor's bid. It includes a 5% construction contingency and the 13.5% engineering and administrative fee. • Question on removal of one lot from the district and addition of another lot: Response; Removal of the Phillips lot, 10676 Cook Lane, from the district- This lot is too 'p low to be served by the proposed line. Service to this lot can be better accomplished by 9 extending an existing line in SW 108th Avenue as part of a future reimbursement district. J The Cole lot, 13075 SW Watkins Avenue, was originally believed to be served from the back of the lot by a line from the Watkins Place cul-de-sac. We have since discovered that the lot does not have access to this line so it was added to the district. Letter Responding to Questions by Jessica Cousineau Page 2 of 3 Letter of August 20, 2003 • Question regarding having only one side of Derry Dell Court connect to the new sewer: Response: The most cost-effective way to extend sewer lines is to include as many properties as possible without driving costs tip beyond reason. This spreads the total costs among the properties included. Eliminating lots from the proposed district increases the cost per remaining lot. In order to connect the north side of Derry Dell Court to the existing sewer, we would have to nun a new line along the rear of the properties on the north side requiring easements that are not already available. Not only is that an additional expense, it requires that the line be in a location that would be difficult to access for maintenance. Our policy is to place sewer lines within streets whenever possible for maintenance purposes. Connection to one sewer line as designed would be the most cost-effective method to deliver service. We did leave out two lots from the district because they were too low to be served by the line. Those two can be connected through a small reimbursement district that ties those two to the line to the north. The line would nun through the rear of the properties to connect to the line that runs along the creek. Maintenance access could be an issue later, but it would be limited to just those two properties. e Question on the average life of a properly maintained septic system: Response: On-site septic systems are considered a short-term disposal method, which would eventually be replaced by public sewer. The life expectancy of septic systems is between 20 and 30 years, depending upon use and maintenance. The septic systems in proposed District Nos. 28 (O'Mara, McDonald Street area) and 29 (Park Street and Derry Dell areas) are generally close to 50 years old or older, well beyond the typical life expectancy for such systems. See enclosed letter to all residents of District Nos. 28 and 29 for a more complete explanation. Letter of August 20, 2003 (apparently to residents in the proposed district) There were no specific questions in this letter. This is to acknowledge that we did receive a copy. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. ~L-, Sincerely, s~ ENAS, P.E. . DU d eEng-linee r J Enclosure: Letter dated August 21, 2003 to residents in proposed District Nos. 28 and 29 c: Mayor and City Councilors William A. Monahan, City Manager I:\PYG\GUS\Citywide Sewer Extension ProgrWitesponses to Questions by Jessica Cousineau 8.21-03.doc Letter Responding to Questions by Jessica Cousineau Page 3 of 3 08,13,2003 14:48 FAT 5034433687 COUSINEAU LAW OFFICE 1 002 Jessica L. Cousineau 10755 S.W. Derry Dell Q., Tigard, OR 97223 email: jessica@scrye.com 13 August ,2003 Augustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Via Fax: (503) 624-0752 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 Thank you for your response to our petition and your offer to help us resolve this issue in a manner that is helpful to all involved. I do have a few questions that have not been answered yet. The first set have to do with the opinion survey cards that you sent out to our district. In the letter and at the City Council Meeting on the 120i of August you stated that there were 15 responses that wanted to implement the district this year and 11 that wanted to wait until 2006. Were there any responses that indicated an interest in waiting until next summer'? Were there any cards that indicated interest in options other than those presented on the card? Also, you mentioned that you had been told of 4 failures. Can you tell me who they were and what type of failure they indicated that they were having? My second set of questions have to do with the implementation of the proposed district. If the district were to be implemented as currently proposed, what would be the definition of a failed septic system? What repairs are currently allowed once a residence is within 300ft of a sewer line? In the sewer districts that have already been implemented, what is the average time between installation of the lines and residential connection? What city fees (i.e. permitting fees, etc.) are associated with connecting to a sewer line and what city fees are associated with repairing a septic tank? Additionally, my understanding from talking with Clean Water Services is that they expect residences within 300ft to connect to the sewer within 3 years, unless the resident has a deferral. What deferral programs does the city have in place to address this issue? My third set of requests and questions have to do with the financial aspects of the proposed district. I would like a copy of the request for bids and all of the bids that were submitted in response to it. I would also like to see a list of all of the relevant options for payment of the installation. Additionally, what mechanisms have you investigated for the city to pay for this initial investment and what financing mechanisms have you investigated for the members of the proposed district. d OG Because of the timely nature of this issue I trust that you will respond by close of business on N Friday the 150i of August. If it is easier, response by email at jessica@scrye.com would be sufficient as long as hard copies were to follow. Thank you again for your continued help in this J matter. m SincereI W 1-141 Je L. Cousineau cc: William A Monahan, City Manager Mayor and City Councilors Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder U8 1& 2003 10:25 FAT 5034433887 COUSINEAU LAW OFFICE 0002 Jessica L. Cousineau 10755 S.W. Derry Dell Ct., Tigard, OR 97223 email: jessica@scrye.com 17 August 2003 Augustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Via Fax: (503) 624-0752 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 Last week I received a letter from you letting us know about the City Council meeting on the 26"' of August. I appreciate your timely notice about this meeting. While I was looking over the information included in this letter I noticed that you had sent us different information about who is in the proposed district and how much each affected property owner will have to pay. For example, my house at 10755 SW Derry Dell Ct. was listed as having an estimated cost to property owner of $12,035 and in the current list that you included it is now listed as being $11,618. While I am certainly glad to see that the amount has decreased, I am a little curious about the reason for this change. Has a new bid been submitted since you last told us about the bids submitted? Also, I noticed that you removed Richard Phillips, at 10676 Cook Ln., and added Terri Cole, at 13075 SW Watkins Ave., from the list of affected property owners. What is the reason for those changes? Your continued timely attention to my concerns is appreciated in light of the upcoming City Council meeting. Sincerely, Jessica L. Cousineau cc: William A Monahan, City Manager Mayor and City Councilors a. Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder OC f` _J m W J Jessica L. Cousineau 10755 S.W. Derry Dell Ct.,,rigard, OR 97223 email: jessica@scrye.com 20 August 2003 Augustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 In the past few days I have discovered a few more questions that 1 have about the current proposal for the sewer reimbursement district. My first question has to deal with the structure of the current proposed district. When your department made the plans for this district they included some houses on Derry Dell Ct. and excluded others. In the meeting at the water building on the 0 of July you told those of us in attendance that the reason some houses were excluded was that they were too low to be included. However, you also indicated that night that the city is interested in installing the sewer system in order to forestall any unfortunate environmental issues that might occur in the case of a septic system failure. In the interest of making sure that no property was left in a position that could create an environmental problem, did your office consider having one side of Derry Dell Ct. connect to the sewer that is already in place on the north side of the street and the other side of Derry Dell Ct. connect to the new sewer that you are attempting to build? What would that do to the cost model that you have constructed? My second question deals with the function of septic systems. In both your written and verbal correspondence with this district you have noted that the septic systems in place are over 50 years old. Do you know what the average life of a properly maintained septic system is? Thank you again for your time. I eagerly await the your prompt response in light of the upcoming City Council Meeting on the 26' of August. Sincerely, • r Jessi a . Cousineau IL F cc: William A Monahan, City Manager co Mayor and City Councilors L Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder t? 20 August 2003 Thanks for all the support at the August 12"' City Council Meeting. Although we weren't scheduled time to speak it was good to see people there and showing the council members that we care. The meeting was a little disappointing. Although our project was listed on the agenda as being scheduled for that meeting, when we arrived they had not allowed any time for open public comment. Rather, they were planning on just listening to the City Engineer's report. None-ttxHess we were able to present the council members with our petition and some of the people in our district were able to create time to voice their concerns about the current district plan to the council members. The city council members did not answer any of our questions. However, they did let us know that the city website was in error when it listed the bid on our district having been approved that night. Since that time they have changed the website to reflect that the bid has not yet been awarded. They also told us that there will be a chance for public comment at the meeting on the 26°i of August. In the meantime, several of the members of our district have sent letters to Augustine Duenas, the city engineer, asking him questions that we have about the proposed district. As of yet none of us has gotten a response. We have made sure that the city council was given a copy of the questions, and if we still have not gotten a response by the time the next meeting comes we will ask them at that time. If you have any questions about the proposed district please make sure to either write, fax, or email Mr. Duenas and the city council those questions. If you have any questions about how to contact them feel free to call me and I will help you get that information. I am sure that you have all noticed the new pink markings on our street. They are the surveyor markings. I spoke with one of the city employees who was out working on them this naming and she said that she was not sure whether the sewer had been approved yet, but they were starting on the surveying anyway. As I mentioned above, the next City Council Meeting is scheduled forAugust 2e. It would be great to have as many members of our community as possible at the meeting. A few a of us are arranging to car-pool to the meeting. If anyone would like to join, please give me a call and we will arrange it. F3 Sincerely, w Jessica L. Cousineau 10755 S.W. Derry Dell Ct (503)443-3687 August 21, 2003 Re: Residents in Proposed District Nos. 28 & 29 The following information is provided to you prior to the informational public hearings (scheduled for August 26, 2003) on the proposed districts so that you may be fully aware of the various details regarding City of Tigard's Sewer Extension Program. The following explains the reasons why the City is seeking to provide sewer service to all developed but unserved areas in the City. It describes the current incentive program developed to encourage early connections to public sewer, and the Washington County Division of Environmental Health's position on repairs to on-site sewage disposal systems (typically septic tank and drain field) once City sewer becomes available. On-site septic systems are considered a short-term disposal method, which would eventually be replaced by public sewer. The life expectancy of septic systems is between 20 and 30 years, depending upon use and maintenance. The septic systems in proposed District Nos. 28 (O'Mara, McDonald Street area) and 29 (Park Street and Derry Dell areas) are generally close to 50 years old or older, well beyond the typical life expectancy for such systems. There are at least two areas of concern regarding these on-site disposal systems. One is the potential for the health hazards to develop as the aging systems begin to fail. The second is the potential for contamination of the groundwater and the adjacent streams. In urban areas such as Tigard where the houses are close together, septic system failures could create significant health hazards in the various neighborhoods. In addition, groundwater, once polluted, is difficult and sometimes impossible to clean up. The state policy is therefore to strictly control waste discharges to groundwater such that the highest possible water quality is maintained. The State Department of Environmental Quality has the responsibility for ensuring that groundwaters in the state are protected from pollution. Washington County's Division of Environmental Health (Department of L Health and Human Services) is responsible at the County level for issuing permits and for y monitoring those on-site disposal systems. s- Because of these concerns, individual on-site sewage disposal systems that have the potential to create significant health hazards and pollute the groundwater are far from being the preferred means for sewage disposal. They are allowed only until public sewer J can be made available. The standard system of septic tank and drain field may have been the only alternative many years ago. That is not the case today. The City of Tigard has the responsibility to provide public sewer to those areas in the City that need it. The ' sewage flows in this public system are transmitted to a Clean Water Services treatment plan, which treats the wastewater and properly disposes of the effluent. The City of Tigard and Clean Water Services are both actively seeking to encourage connection to public sewer. The Citywide Sewer Extension Program is a Council-directed program to systematically extend sewer service throughout the City. The annexation of the Walnut Island area, which had septic systems 30 years old and older with some exhibiting signs of failure, created the need to establish a Citywide program. Our evaluation of other unserved areas in the City at that time indicated that these areas also had old on-site disposal systems and needed to be incorporated into the program. It is extremely difficult to react to failed septic systems that occur at random throughout the City. The ideal solution would be to extend sewers to all unsewered residential areas such that City sewer would be available as these systems fail. The mechanism to extend the sewer lines and provide service is through the formation of reimbursement districts. Reimbursement districts are formed to install public sewers to the lots within the districts and the owners would reimburse the City for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer at the time of connection. The program is now entering its third year and is intended to provide public sewers to all developed but unserved areas in the City. At the beginning of this program approximately two years ago there were approximately 660 residential lots throughout the City, plus about 80 commercial lots in the Tigard Triangle Area, without sewer service. These lots were typically on septic systems 30 years old or more. To date, 268 out of 660 sewer services have been installed. To encourage early connections, the City developed an incentive program to subsidize the cost of putting in the sewer lines to these unserved areas. The City's current incentive program limits the reimbursement fee to $6,000, if the actual costs fall in the range between $6,000 and $15,000, for those connecting within three years after the sewer becomes available. Any actual costs that exceed $15,000 would have to be assumed by the homeowner. Homeowners with large lots that have development potential are generally assessed proportionately higher costs. However, we are planning to submit to City Council an amendment to the incentive program to defer payments of those amounts exceeding $15,000 for those homeowners that merely wish to connect an existing house to the sewer. The balance deferred would become due only if the property is partitioned or begins the process for subdivision and development. L C We have consulted with the Washington County Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Environmental Health (DEH), on repairs to on-site disposal systems once sewers have been made available to neighborhoods. That division enforces the provisions of OAR (Oregon Administrative Rules) Division 71, Section 160 which deals with on-site disposal systems. Because of the health-related and groundwater quality concerns, DEH strictly interprets the provisions of the current OAR. They would deny i permits for repairs of systems if sewer is physically or legally available in an area. Physically available means sewer is available 300 feet from a single family residence. Legally available could mean an entity that provides sewer services (such as the City of Tigard or Clean Water Services) is willing and able to provide sewer service to that neighborhood. There are even more stringent DEQ (State Department of Environmental Letter to Residents of Proposed District Nos. 28 and 29 Page 2 of 3 Quality) rules that are scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2004. The staff of the County DEH feel that on-site disposal systems would face even more restrictive requirements that could result in use of much more expensive alternative on-site disposal systems (such as sand filters) as opposed to the standard septic tank and drain fields. The City does not wish to see relatively old septic systems perpetuated where there is an opportunity to provide public sewer that minimizes the potential for significant health hazards and pollution of the groundwater. We know there are some residents who are already experiencing septic system failures in these two proposed districts. The formation of Sewer Reimbursement District Nos. 28 and 29 would allow the City to construct the sewer services needed for these two areas. Sincerely, AGUSTIN P. DUENAS, P.E. City Engineer c: Mayor and City Councilors William A. Monahan, City Manager JAENGMS1Citywide Sewer Extension Proo arnUtter to Residents of Districts 28 and 29 - 8-20-03.doc H N M 0 Letter to Residents of Proposed District Nos. 28 and 29 Page 3 of 3 [Cathy Whe3tley -Questions Regarding Proposed District No 29 Page 1 J - - - - - From: Gus Duenas To: cm.abigail@verizon.net Date: 8/26/03 9:26AM Subject: Questions Regarding Proposed District No. 29 1 have received numerous letters regarding Proposed District No. 29.1 don't recall having seen yours, otherwise I would have responded earlier. Nevertheless, I will attempt to answer as many of your questions as I can. The latest notice that you received regarding the informational hearing on August 26th has the latest information. The amounts shown are based on the lowest responsive and responsible bid plus 5% contingency, plus 13.5% administrative and engineering costs. The previous information provided to you was based on our Engineering estimate plus 15% contingency plus the 13.5% administrative and engineering charges. Since we already know what the bid amounts are, we are able to reduce that contingency to 5%. These are estimated costs. If the district is formed and the project is constructed, the final construction cost will be computed. The final construction cost will be used in computing the assessment per lot. The delay in the formation of the district has allowed us time to refine the information we had. As a result, we have reduced the lots from 47 to 46 in the proposed district. However, the project has not changed and the work to be performed has not varied from the project that was advertised for bids. The latest notice you received provides the estimated costs as of this point. Your share of the cost is $11,618. The amount you would pay is $6,000, if you connect within three years after sewer is available. After that, you would pay the full amount plus 6.05% in simple interest each year. I sent out a letter last week to each resident of the proposed district explaining why the City is pursuing sewer extensions to areas not currently served by the City. That letter should answer most of the general questions being asked by the residents. The apparent low bid as shown in the bid tabulations was not considered responsive, or responsible. The bidder left out a major item in his bid and could not perform the work with the amount bid. In addition, that bidder did not disclose a major subcontractor as required by the bid documents. We then went to the next lower bidder, who was both responsive and responsible. As Council stated at the meeting on August 12, 2003, the district has not been formed and the project has not been awarded. What Council decided was to go ahead and conduct the informational hearing for District Nos. 28 and 29. If the districts are formed, the projects would be awarded and construction would be authorized. What is reported in the paper is not in our control. L The survey work that was done was performed because our surveyor has numerous projects to complete and will be on vacation during the time the project would need surveying work. Our surveyor was laying out the locations for the proposed sewer manholes. If the project is awarded, survey work would be needed in a timely manner to ensure that the work is performed while the j weather is still mild. We would not want to delay the work at this late date. i Agustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: (503) 6394171 x2470 Fax: (503) 624-0752 Cathy Wheatley - Questions Regarding Proposed District No. 29 Page 2 gus@ci.tigard.or.us CC: Bill Monahan; Cathy Wheatley D. a J D u Cathy- Wheatley -Fwd. Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 Page 7 From; Cathy Wheatley To: Council Subject: Fwd: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 Mayor & Council, I am forwarding an e-mail regarding Reimb. 29 to you, which is one of the agenda topics for tonight. Gus has also received a copy for review and response. Cathy CC: Duenas, Gus; Monahan, Bill IL R H D !U J Page 1 of 1 Cathy Wheatley - Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 From: "Abigail Frainey" <cm.abigail@verizon.net> To: <mayor@ci.tigard.or.us>, <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, <brianm@ci.tigard.or.us>, <sydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, <nickw@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/26/03 7:22 AM Subject: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 CC: "Jessica Cousineau" <jessica@scrye.com>, "Abigail Frainey" <abigail.frainey@verizon.net> Dear Mayor Griffith, Council President Dirksen, and Councilors Moore, Sherwood, and Wilson: I am writing this email to get a response from you concerning Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29. I have written a letter to Agustin P. Duenas dated August 14th with several questions that have yet to be answered. I am trying to get accurate answers before the city council meeting on August 26th in which this matter is to be voted on. I am feeling frustrated that my questions are getting brushed away. In addition, I am very concerned that a survey crew was measuring and marking last week for a sewer district that has not even been approved. What funds were paying the salaries of the two city employees that were working for several days in the neighborhood of Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29? According to the Tigard Times the district has been formed. What are they talking about? At the last meeting it was stated that it was to be voted on at the August 26th meeting. This along with the city web site stated that the bid had been awarded leads me to believe that a decision has already been made therefore what is the point of public discussion at the August 26th meeting? Please address these questions and issues and the issues of my earlier letter before the meeting on August 26th. I am very concerned that a vote is going to be taken without accurate information (both to you and me). A concerned, voting citizen Abigail Frainey, 10725 SW Derry Dell Ct., Tigard, OR 503-598-9351 attached: Letter date August 14th, 2003 a a _J m file://C:\WMOWS\TEMP\GW) 00014.HTM 8/26/03 Brian & Abigail Frainey 10725 SW Derry Dell Ct. Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 598-9351 Agustin P. Duenas, P.E. City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 August 14, 2003 RE: Proposed Sewer District #29 Mr. Duenas: Upon receipt of your letter dated August 13"', 2003 we feel it is important to communicate with you some of our concerns and questions. First, with the time frame left and the information given to date it is very confusing trying to figure out what our actual costs will be to complete this project. Second, will you please address the inconsistencies of the information that we have received from your office. We have received 4 lists of effected properties and each list involves different homes, area square feet and total estimated costs to owners. The lists are not dated and there is no information where these figures came from. The lack of dates on the reports makes it impossible for us to determine which are the most recent figures. Third, none of the figures that we have received match any of the bids that have been disclosed. It also appears that the lowest bid has been ignored. We would like to know why? Last, given that we are being asked to pay thousands of dollars to finance this project we feel that we need to know what our actual complete costs are going to be and what we can expect in terms of additional costs to us. Before any further advancement of this project, including public hearings, the inconsistencies we have noticed throughout the process need to be addressed and conveyed to all homeowners affected. d O H Regards, J Brian & Abigail Frainey L7 J cc: Mayor and City Councilors William A. Monahan, City Manager Steven & Jessie Cousinseau Tammy Gustin 08/25/2003 17:35 FAX 5036847297 City of Tigard IM 001 MULTI TX/RX REPORT TX/RX NO 1988 PGS. 7 TX/RX INCOMPLETE TRANSACTION OK [ 0115034433745 S SHERWOOD [ 0215032245239 N WILSON [ 0415035981191 C Dirksen [ 0515037181300 Mayor ERROR INFORMATION [ 0315036030461 B Moore Post-Ir Fax Note 7671 Date B. D5.03144-0. To From CoMept. Co. August 26, 2003 Phone * co • to3q u i-I [ FaxN Faxlls~ .CO~~•^Ia~7 CITY OF TIG ARD Jessica L. Cousineau OREGON 10755 SW Deny Dell Ct. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 Dear MS. Cousineau: This is in response to your most recent letter dated August 22, 2003. We have generally been aware of the rules and regulations regarding on-site disposal systems but have typically referred questions regarding permitting to the County's Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Environmental Health (DER), which issues permits for such systems. The issue of repairs and required permits has not arisen in Tigard so far because the problems with the septic systems have been typically severe requiring connection to the City sewer as the remedy. The strict interpretation by DEH of the provisions of the current OAR underscores the statewide o. emphasis on connection to public sewer as the preferred means of wastewater disposal. On-site disposal in urban areas has great potential.for development of significant health hazards and groundwater contamination because of the difficulty of controlling, or even monitoring, such individual systems. The City is. discharging its responsibility as the service provider within City J limits through establishment of the. Citywide Sewer Extension Program to address the potential n problems posed by septic systems that have already exceeded their life expectancies. U Clean Water Services (CW5) is likewise aggressively promoting their Local Improvement District program in the unincorporated but urban areas outside the cities. The CWS program requires connection and payment as part of the LID process. The City's program is less restrictive by subsidizing the costs to the residents and requiring payment of the reimbursement fee only upon connection. The long-term objective of both programs is phasing out of aging on-site disposal systems and connection to public sewer. CWS does have an ordinance on the books that requires connection to sewer within three years. They also have another ordinance dealing with their local improvement districts which grants August 26, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD Jessica L. Cousineau OREGON 10755 SW Derry Dell Ct. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 Dear Ms. Cousineau: This is in response to your most recent letter dated August 22, 2003. We have generally been aware of the rules and regulations regarding on-site disposal systems but have typically referred questions regarding permitting to the County's Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Environmental Health (DEH), which issues permits for such systems. The issue of repairs and required permits has not arisen in Tigard so far because the problems with the septic systems have been typically severe requiring connection to the City sewer as the remedy. The strict interpretation by DEH of the provisions of the current OAR underscores the statewide emphasis on connection to public sewer as the preferred means of wastewater disposal. On-site disposal in urban areas has great potential for development of significant health hazards and groundwater contamination because of the difficulty of controlling, or even monitoring, such individual systems. The City is discharging its responsibility as the service provider within City limits through establishment of the Citywide Sewer Extension Program to address the potential problems posed by septic systems that have already exceeded their life expectancies. Clean Water Services (CWS) is likewise aggressively promoting their Local Improvement District program in the unincorporated but urban areas outside the cities. The CWS program requires connection and payment as part of the LID process. The City's program is less restrictive by subsidizing the costs to the residents and requiring payment of the reimbursement fee only upon connection. The long-term objective of both programs is phasing out of aging on-site disposal systems and connection to public sewer. Y CWS does have an ordinance on the books that requires connection to sewer within three years. » They also have another ordinance dealing with their local improvement districts which grants exceptions of up to 10 years for properly functioning septic systems. As far as I know, they have not enforced the 3-year requirement, and there is no mechanism in place to enforce it. The City's program is quite different and does not impose that requirement. The reimbursement district U concept has been used in Tigard during at least the past decade. The current program now being implemented was adopted in 1996. CWS is well aware of the City's Reimbursement District program. This program was one of the major selling points for annexation in the joint presentations by CWS and the City to the Walnut Island residents prior to annexation into the City. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 r The City has no intention of forcing anyone to connect to sewer. We will be having discussions with CWS on the differences between the programs. However, the denial of a permit to repair or replace, which is under the purview of Washington County, is the only mechanism we see that would force a failing septic system to connect to public sewer. Regarding financing, cities have several tools available to them to assist property owners with the costs of public improvements that benefit their property. The traditional method is creation of a Local Improvement District (LID). In an LID, the city designs and installs local improvements (which may include such things as streets, sidewalk, street lighting, sewer lines, etc.) Upon completion of the project, property owners are presented with a bill for their allocated share of these improvements. They may pay that bill in total, or they may sign an agreement to pay for a period of years (usually 10 years). As I explained in my previous letter, state statutes authorize a special kind of General Obligation Bond, known as Bancroft Bonds, to finance these assessments. In exchange for participating in this program, property owners must agree to place a lien on their property to secure the loan. Because this is a special program, that lien is a first place lien, meaning that under state law, in the event of default, it is repaid before any other lien on the property (including mortgage) is paid. In an LID, property owners immediately become responsible for their share of all improvements upon completion of the project. A more recent type of assistance is a Reimbursement District. This type of district is most commonly used for sewer extensions. In this type of assistance, the city installs the improvements, but defers property owner payments until connection to the sewer. The city covers all carrying costs of the " loan" from funds on hand. The City of Tigard chose to use the Reimbursement District concept as the preferred method of assisting property owners with the costs of providing sewers to their neighborhoods. It has the advantage of deferring costs until the property owner is actually ready to connect to the sewer, but provides the funding "up front" to design and construct the sewer extensions. The downside is that when the property owner does connect, the full amount is due (subject to the City's incentive program). The incentive program is designed to encourage early connection. L There is an annual fee adjustment (currently 6.05% of the reimbursement fee) charged as simple interest and added each year after the initial year. Because the City has established an incentive program to encourage early connection, this annual adjustment is not charged when the fee exceeds $6,000 and the home owner connects to sewer within three years (formerly one year) after sewer becomes available. We feel that the structure of the Reimbursement District and the D three-year period in the current incentive program allow property owners sufficient time to plan for connection within the incentive period. Financing is not normally offered in this type of district because the property owner is already offered assistance through deferral of the reimbursement payment and waiver of carrying costs. In addition, the establishment of an installment plan for repayment of the fee and tracking of the Letter to Jessica Cousineau - 8/25/03 Page 2 of 4 payments over a period of years is something the City does not typically do and would have to develop specifically for this program. The administrative costs involved would have to be added to the cost of the program. Finally, without the leverage for collection offered by the LID process, we are concerned that collection in cases of non-payment would become a major issue. In your letter, you referenced a state program, the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF), available through DEQ. Our Finance Director, Craig Prosser, spoke with Mr. Richard Santner as you suggested. The SRF does not provide direct assistance to property owners for their share of sewer extension projects. Rather, it is a loan program intended to help cities with water pollution control projects. For cities that do not have sufficient funds on hand to construct sewer projects, this appears to be a good alternative. However, Tigard is able to use funds on hand. A loan from the SRF would only serve to increase project costs. In addition, the SRF requires cities to pledge sewer revenues to the repayment of the loan. Since property owners in Reimbursement Districts are not required to connect to the sewer upon completion, they make no sewer service payments until they are connected. They would therefore contribute no revenues to the repayment of the state loan until they are connected. Through the Citywide Sewer Extension Program, the City has made sewer service available to 268 properties over the past two years. This has been a successful program. It provides much- needed assistanceto property owners that are in urgent need of public sewer within funds available, without jeopardizing the City's ability to continue the sewer extension program. We feel that the assistance and incentives built into the City's Reimbursement District program already offer a good option for property owners who wish to, or need to, obtain sewer service for their neighborhoods. As I mentioned in my previous letter, connecting the houses on the north side of Derry Dell Court to the existing sewer would not only require new easements, it would mean installation of a new line running along those easements. We would still have to install the line in the street. Running two separate sewer lines does not make sense to us. It would be less costly to each lot owner to have both sides connect to one line located in the street for easy maintenance. The two houses at the corner that cannot be served by this district can be connected to the sewer adjacent to the creek with relatively little difficulty. In general, we are attempting to address the vast majority of property owners through the formation of District No. 29. For those few exceptions that cannot be served by the lines we are r constructing, we would devise connection (if possible) through the rear of the properties. Alternative systems (such as sand filter) are options for those lots that cannot connect, that still have some soil permeability, and can accommodate those systems. As a final alternative, pumping to get to a line in the street is always possible, but is not desirable because of the need to keep the pump maintained. We will be exploring solutions for those few lots that cannot be accommodated by the proposed system. However, our immediate objective is to make sewer service available to as many lots as possible through our proposed project. There is a great deal of information available on the life expectancies of septic systems. The University of Maine states that properly maintained septic systems have an average life expectancy of 15 to 25 years and that drain fields typically last 10 to 20 years. Closer to this area Letter to Jessica Cousineau - 8/25/03 Page 3 of 4 is the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health, which is the source for the information that I provided to you. That Department considers on-site septic systems as a short-term disposal method, to be eventually be replaced by public sewer, and lists 20 to 30 years as a typical life expectancy depending upon use and maintenance. That information is relatively consistent with other sources throughout the country regarding life expectancies for septic systems. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, USTIN P. DUENAS, P.E. y Engineer c: Mayor and City Councilors William A. Monahan, City Manager Craig Prosser, Finance Director I:IENGVGUSICitywide Sewer Extension ProgramUzesponse to August 22 Letter from Jessica Cousineau.doc L i i 'r Letter to Jessica Cousineau - 8/25/03 Page 4 of 4 08/24/ 2`03 23:00 FAX 5034433667 COUSINEAU LAW OFFICE 121002 Jessica L. Cousirleau 107,55 S.W. Derry Dell Ct., Tigard, OR 9723 email: jessica@scrye.com 22 August 2003 Augustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, FOR 97223 Via Fax: (503) 624-0752 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 Dear Mr. Deunas: Thank you for the reply to my previous letters. I appreciate the invitation to contact Diane Jelderks in your office and will do so first thing Monday morning. Hopefully, that will afford me enough time to be able to meet with Ms. Jelderks, however any analysis of the responses will be difficult to complete before the City Council Meeting on Tuesday. The responses to the questions you answered were most informative. However, they have brought to light a few more questions. In my first letter, dated 13 August 2003, 1 asked what the definition of a failed septic system will be once the sewer system is constructed. I asked this because in the previous Neighborhood Meeting that I had attended at the City Water Building on 9 July 2003, you had stated to the members of the proposed districts that we would not be required to connect to the sewer, once installed, unless our septic systems failed. In your letter on 21 August 2003 to the entire district you stated that the Washington County DEH "strictly interprets the provisions of the current OAR. They would deny permits for repairs of systems if sewer is physically or legally available in an area." That position would concur with the statement I was given by an employee at the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) who stated that they are not allowed to approve a permit once sewer is available to a property. She quoted Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) §454.655 as the basis for this decision. Should I take your statement in the letter to the community to indicate that your position is that any repair necessary for our septic systems would constitute a "failure" of the system? If so, it would appear that your position on this matter has changed as we have learned more about the proposed project, is this true? In my same original letter to you, dated 13 August 2003, 1 also asked "What city fees (i.e. permitting fees, etc) are associated with connecting to a sewer line and what city fees are associated with repairing a septic tank? Additionally, my understanding from talking with Clean a Water Services is that they expect residences within 300ft to connect to the sewer within 3 years, unless the resident has a deferral. What deferral programs does the city have in place to address N this issue?" To date I have not received a reply, from you, to these questions. My question about the deferral programs is especially important in light of the Clean Water Services requirement. It J would be very unfortunate if 3 years after the sewer system was completed property owners were m forced to connect despite your verbal assurances that they could wait until they wished to connect. 5 1 was also not provided a copy of the request for bids or a copy of all the bids that were submitted J in response to it as I requested in this letter. In the original letter to you I also asked you what financing options you had looked at for this project, I asked this question, because at the 9 July 2003 neighborhood meeting you told those of us in attendance that the initial construction funds were coming from the profit that the city makes providing sewer services to the areas currently under its sewer jurisdiction- Additionally, as 22 August 2003 Letter to Augustin Duenas, P.E. 1 of 3 a 08.2$%2003 23:01 FAY 5034433687 COUSINEAU LAW OFFICE X00,3 the current proposal for the reimbursement district is constructed if the property owners within it did not connect within the first 15 years after the project was completed the city will forgive all fees other than the connection fee. From that, it appeared to me that the city was attempting to finance the project to some degree. You replied to my question on financing options that "[c]ities are not in the financing business." I understand that the City of Tigard is not a substitute for the other financial institutions in our community. However, from my research, I gather that there are some financing options that are only available through the city. Your apparent access to the profits from current sewer services is one of these. The Bancroft Bonds that you mentioned are another of these. I am not sure why you would be unable to secure a lien against the effected properties in this situation. If you were able to place a lien against the effected properties would that change your ability to utilize these bonds? There also appears to be a fund administered through the DEQ called the State Revolving Fund (SRF). I spoke with a Mr. Richard Santner at DEQ on 18 August 2003. He is in the Northwest Region - Water Quality Department at DEQ. He is also the individual in charge of the SRF for the Washington County area. In my conversation with him he indicated that the SRF is a loan program administered by his department and that he felt it would be appropriate in this situation. He also informed me that the "only qualified borrower for the SRF is the city." He said that, currently, the interest rate associated with the SRF is about 2.9% for 20 years. This is a significantly lower interest rate than I was quoted from Wells Fargo Bank, NA for a home equity loan interest rate of 7.89%. Additionally, the use of a financing mechanism such as the SRF would make financing available to all members of the proposed district, regardless of their current income. I believe that such an option would be very helpful to the many retired home owners that are included in this district as you have currently proposed it. Lower interest rates make a greater number of projects available to more people. At the end of my conversation with Mr. Santner he requested that I have someone from the City of Tigard contact him about their ability to utilize the fund from the state at (503) 229-5219. He also stated that if he is not in the office that person could also talk with either Larry McAllister at (503) 2296412 or Rick Wafters at(503)229-6814. Mr. Santner appeared very eager to assist us in designing a workable project. Thank you for your clarification to my question in the 17 August 2003 letter, on why the amount to be assessed to each property owner has changed. Although I am still confused as to why it has changed so frequently, I will assume that the undated copy that you provided, on 13 August 2003, on lavender paper is the correct amount. I also appreciate your explanation as to why the members of the district had changed. I was surprised to note that Mr. Phillips' lot had been excluded due to its low elevation. Although it is difficult to tell minute differences in elevation while walking around the neighborhood, I had not ever noticed that his property was significantly lower than mine. In answer to my questions about restructuring the proposed reimbursement district, dated 20 August 2003, you stated that to have the north side of Derry Dell Ct connect to the existing sewer a you would have to gain new easements creating additional expense and making it difficult to maintain the lines in the future. Have you talked with any of the residents in the proposed district vs to see if they would be receptive to granting such easements? Do you think that they might be receptive to it if you were to place a paved trail that connected them to the existing greenway along those easements? If such a trail were in place, would that make the future maintenance more ® easily accomplished? Additionally, would such a plan allow the 3 houses on Deny Dell Ct. that are M presently excluded from the proposed district to be included without incurring significant additional J expense to that plan? Mention of the houses, excluded from the proposed district, that are on Derry Dell Ct. reminds me of another question that I had. In your letter to me, dated 21 August 2003, you stated that "we did leave out two lots from the district...." My understanding from the map and current list of the proposed district that you provided to members of the district on 13 August 2003 is that there are 22 August 2003 Letter to Augustin Duenas, P. E. 2 of 3 08/24/20.03 23:01 FAX 5034433687 COUSINEAU LAW OFFICE 16004 four properties which could be included but are not. These are 10635 S. W. Derry Dell Ct., 10825 S.W. Derry Dell Ct., 10845 S.W. Derry Dell Ct., and 10676 S.W. Cook Ln. Which of these properties were you referring to in your previous statement? Additionally, what options are you intending for the other two properties? In your letter to the community, dated 21 August 2003, you pointed out that, "[t]here are at least two areas of concern regarding these on-site disposal systems. One is the potential for the health hazards to develop as the aging systems begin to fail. The second is the potential for contamination of the groundwater and the adjacent streams. In urban areas such as Tigard where the houses are close together, septic system failures could create significant health hazards in the various neighborhoods. In addition, groundwater, once polluted, is difficult and sometimes impossible to clean up." I can understand the city's interest in avoiding health and environmental problems before they arise. However, it seems that by leaving out several properties that could be served by the proposed district you are not taking into account the potential that these properties have to create the same or similar health and environmental issues. This seems especially relevant as the properties at 10825 S.W. Derry Dell Ct. and 10845 S.W. Derry Dell Ct. appear to be next to the Derry Dell Creek and Greenway. It is my understanding that the environmental considerations would be increased with this proximity. This impression of mine was confirmed in conversation with the Sawkins family who reside at 10815 S.W. Derry Dell Ct. They reported to me that their drain field is failing and in order to replace the septic system to current code standards they would have to install a sand filtration system. They indicated that this was necessitated by their close proximity to Derry Dell Creek and Greenway. Do you have information on the omitted properties that would indicate that they pose significantly less potential for creating the above referenced environmental and health hazards? If so, what is that information. If not, what provisions are you intending to ensure that they do not create these hazards? It would be a shame to go through these exercises for one group of properties only to create a bigger problem for neighbors and other participants who all feed into the same watershed. From your letter to me, dated 21 August 2003, 1 understand that you consider septic systems to be "a short-term disposal system." You also told me that "[t]he life expectancy of septic systems is between 20 and 30 years, depending upon use and maintenance." How did you arrive at that figure? Additionally, do you know the condition of the septic systems in this district that have not been reported as having failures? Thank you again for your time. In light of the imminent City Council Meeting on the 261 of August L I would request that you respond to me by email at jessica@scrye.com. C rj Sincerely, 1 as ' L. Cousineau cc: William A Monahan, City Manager Mayor and City Councilors Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder 22 August 2003 Letter to Augustin Duenas, P. E. 3of3 08/24/2003 23:02 FAX 5034433687 COUSINEAU LAW OFFICE Q001 Copies to, ✓ Jessica L. C®usineau RECEIVED C.O.T. Mayor/Council Other: 10755 S.W. Derry Dell Ct City Manager - Tigard, OR 972223 AUG 2 5 2003 Council File (503) 4433687 Administration FAX COVER SHEET FAX NUMBER TRANSMITTED TO: (503) 684-7297 To: Jim Griffith, Mayor City Council William A. Monahan, City Manager Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder Of: City of Tigard From: Jessica L Cousineau Matter: Proposed Reimbursement District #29 Date: 24 August 2003 .MBE --.-.NU - v: A._ . Letter 3 COMMENTS: Please see attached letter. L 3 v i • NOT COUNTING COVER SKEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE TELEPHONE US IMMEDIATELY AT (503) 317-6694. i - - 08/24/2003 23:03 FAX 5034433887 COUSINEAU LAW OFFICE 11002 Jessica L. Cousineau io755 S.W. Derry Dell Ct., Tigard, OR 97223 email: jessica@scrye.com 22 August 2003 Augustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Via Fax: (503) 624-0752 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 Dear Mr. Deunas: Thank you for the reply to my previous letters. 1 appreciate the invitation to contact Diane Jelderks in your office and will do so first thing Monday morning. Hopefully, that will afford me enough time to be able to meet with Ms. Jelderks, however any analysis of the responses will be difficult to complete before the City Council Meeting on Tuesday. The responses to the questions you answered were most infbrmative. However, they have brought to light a few more questions. In my first letter, dated 13 August 2003,1 asked what the definition of a failed septic system will be once the sewer system is constructed. I asked this because in the previous Neighborhood Meeting that I had attended at the City Water Building on 9 July 2003, you had stated to the members of the proposed districts that we would not be required to connect to the sewer, once installed, unless our septic systems failed. In your letter on 21 August 2003 to the entire district you stated that the Washington County DEH "strictly interprets the provisions of the current OAR. They would deny permits for repairs of systems if sewer is physically or legally available in an area." That position would concur with the statement I was given by an employee at the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) who stated that they are not allowed to approve a permit once sewer is available to a property. She quoted Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) §454.655 as the basis for this decision. Should I take your statement in the letter to the community to indicate that your position is that any repair necessary for our septic systems would constitute a "failure" of the system? If so, it would appear that your position on this matter has changed as we have learned more about the proposed project, is this true? In my same original letter to you, dated 13 August 2003, 1 also asked "What city fees (i.e. permitting fees, etc) are associated with connecting to a sewer line and what city fees are associated with repairing a septic tank? Additionally, my understanding from talking with Clean Water Services is that they expect residences within 300ft to connect to the sewer within 3 years, unless the resident has a deferral. What deferral programs does the city have in place to address this issue?" To date I have not received a reply, from you, to these questions. My question about the deferral programs is especially important in light of the Clean Water Services requirement It would be very unfortunate if 3 years after the sewer system was completed property owners were forced to connect despite your verbal assurances that they could wait until they wished to connect. 3 I was also not provided a copy of the request for bids or a copy of all the bids that were submitted t in response to it as I requested In this letter. i In the original letter to you I also asked you what financing options you had looked at for this project. I asked this question, because at the 9 July 2003 neighborhood meeting you told those of us in attendance that the initial construction funds were coming from the profit that the city makes providing sewer services to the areas currently under its sewer jurisdiction. Additionally, as 22 August 2003 Letter to Augustin Duenas, P.E. 1 of 3 08/24/2003 23:03 FAX 5034433687 COUSINEAU LAW OFFICE Q 003' the current proposal for the reimbursement district is constructed if the property owners within it did not connect within the first 15 years after the project was completed the city will forgive all fees other than the connection fee. From that, it appeared to me that the city was attempting to finance the project to some degree. You replied to my question on financing options that "(c)ities are not in the financing business." I understand that the City of Tigard is not a substitute for the other financial institutions In our community. However, from my research, I gather that there are some financing options that are only available through the city. Your apparent access to the profits from current sewer services is one of these. The Bancroft Bonds that you mentioned are another of these. I am not sure why you would be unable to secure a lien against the effected properties in this situation. If you were able to place a lien against the effected properties would that change your ability to utilize these bonds? There also appears to be a fund administered through the DEQ called the State Revolving Fund (SRF). I spoke with a Mr. Richard Santner at DEQ on 18 August 2003. He is in the Northwest Region - Water Quality Department at DEQ. He is also the individual in charge of the SRF for the Washington County area. In my conversation with him he indicated that the SRF is a loan program administered by his department and that he felt it would be appropriate in this situation. He also informed me that the "only qualified borrower for the SRF is the city." He said that, currently, the interest rate associated with the SRF is about 2.9% for 20 years. This is a significantly lower interest rate than I was quoted from Wells Fargo Bank, NA for a home equity loan interest rate of 7.89%. Additionally, the use of a financing mechanism such as the SRF would make financing available to all members of the proposed district, regardless of their current income. I believe that such an option would be very helpful to the many retired home owners that are included in this district as you have currently proposed it. Lower interest rates make a greater number of projects available to more people. At the end of my conversation with Mr. Santner he requested that I have someone from the City of Tigard contact him about their ability to utilize the fund from the state at (503) 229-5219. He also stated that if he is not in the office that person could also talk with either Larry McAllister at (503) 229-8412 or Rick Watters at(503)229-6814. Mr. Santner appeared very eager to assist us in designing a workable project- Thank you for your clarification to my question in the 17 August 2003 letter, on why the amount to be assessed to each property owner has changed. Although I am still confused as to why it has changed so frequently, I will assume that the undated copy that you provided, on 13 August 2003, on lavender paper is the correct amount. I also appreciate your explanation as to why the members of the district had changed. I was surprised to note that Mr. Phillips' lot had been excluded due to its low elevation- Although it is difficult to tell minute differences in elevation while walking around the neighborhood, i had not ever noticed that his property was significantly lower than mine. In answer to my questions about restructuring the proposed reimbursement district, dated 20 August 2003, you stated that to have the north side of Deny Dell Ct connect to the existing sewer you would have to gain new easements creating additional expense and making it difficult to maintain the lines in the future. Have you talked with any of the residents in the proposed district to see if they would be receptive to granting such easements? Do you think that they might be receptive to it if you were to place a paved trail that connected them to the existing greenway along those easements? If such a trail were in place, would that make the future maintenance more i easily accomplished? Additionally, would such a plan allow the 3 houses on Derry Dell Ct. that are f presently excluded from the proposed district to be included without incurring significant additional expense to that plan? s Mention of the houses, excluded from the, proposed district, that are on Derry Dell Ct. reminds me of another question that I had. In your letter to me, dated 21 August 2003, you stated that "we did leave out two lots from the district...." My understanding from the map and current list of the proposed district that you provided to members of the district on 13 August 2003 is that there are 22 August 2003 Letter to Augustin Duenas, P.E. 2of3 08/24/2003 23:03 FAX 5034433887 COUSINEAU LAW OFFICE Q004 four properties which could be included but are not. These are 10635 S.W. Deny Dell Ct.,108215 S.W. Derry Dell Ct., 10845 S.W. Derry Dell Ct., and 10676 S.W. Cook Ln. Which of these properties were you referring to In your previous statement? Additionally, what options are you intending for the other two properties? In your letter to the community, dated 21 August 2003, you pointed out that, "[t]here are at least two areas of concern regarding these on-site disposal systems. One Is the potential for the health hazards to develop as the aging systems begin to fail. The second is the potential for contamination of the groundwater and the adjacent streams. In urban areas such as Tigard where the houses are close together, septic system failures could create significant health hazards in the various neighborhoods. In addition, groundwater, once polluted, is difficult and sometimes impossible to clean up." I can understand the city's interest in avoiding health and environmental problems before they arise. However, it seems that by leaving out several properties that could be served by the proposed district you are not taking into account the potential that these properties have to create the same or similar health and environmental issues. This seems especially relevant as the properties at 10825 S.W. Derry Dell Ct. and 10845 S.W. Derry Dell Ct. appear to be next to the Derry Dell Creek and Greenway. It is my understanding that the environmental considerations would be increased with this proximity. This impression of mine was confirmed in conversation with the Sawkins family who reside at 10815 S.W. Deny Dell Ct. They reported to me that their drain field is failing and in order to replace the septic system to current code standards they would have to install a sand filtration system. They indicated that this was necessitated by their close proximity to Derry Dell Creek and Greenway. Do you have information on the omitted properties that would indicate that they pose significantly less potential for creating the above referenced environmental and health hazards? If so, what is that information. If not, what provisions are you intending to ensure that they do not create these hazards? It would be a shame to go through these exercises for one group of properties only to create a bigger problem for neighbors and other participants who all feed into the same watershed. From your letter to me, dated 21 August 2003, 1 understand that you consider septic systems to be "a short-term disposal system" You also told me that "[t]he life expectancy of septic systems is between 20 and 30 years, depending upon use and maintenance." How did you arrive at that figure? Additionally, do you know the condition of the septic systems in this district that have not been reported as having failures? Thank you again for your time. in light of the imminent City Council Meeting on the 2e of August I would request that you respond to me by email at jessicaescrye.com. Sincerely, es L. Cousineau cc: William A Monahan, City Manager Mayor and City Councilors Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder 22 August 2003 Letter to Augustin Duenas, P.E. 3of3 N August 26, 2003 OF TIGARD (OREGON Jessica L. Cousineau 10755 SW Derry Dell Ct. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 Dear Ms. Cousineau: This is in response to your most recent letter dated August 22, 2003. We have generally been aware of the rules and regulations regarding on-site disposal systems but have typically referred questions regarding permitting to the County's Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Environmental Health (DEH), which issues permits for such systems. The issue of repairs and required permits has not arisen in Tigard so far because the problems with the septic systems have been typically severe requiring connection to the City sewer as the remedy. The strict interpretation by DEH of the provisions of the current OAR underscores the statewide emphasis on connection to public sewer as the preferred means of wastewater disposal. On-site disposal in urban areas has great potential for development of significant health hazards and groundwater contamination because of the difficulty of controlling, or even monitoring, such individual systems. The City is discharging its responsibility as the service provider within City limits through establishment of the Citywide Sewer Extension Program to address the potential problems posed by septic systems that have already exceeded their life expectancies. Clean Water Services (CWS) is likewise aggressively promoting their Local Improvement District program in the unincorporated but urban areas outside the cities. The CWS program requires connection and payment as part of the LID process. The City's program is less restrictive by subsidizing the costs to the residents and requiring payment of the reimbursement fee only upon connection. The long-term objective of both programs is phasing out of aging on-site disposal systems and connection to public sewer. CWS does have an ordinance on the books that requires connection to sewer within three years. They also have another ordinance dealing with their local improvement districts which grants exceptions of up to 10 years for properly functioning septic systems. As far as I know, they have not enforced the 3-year requirement, and there is no mechanism in place to enforce it. The City's program is quite different and does not impose that requirement. The reimbursement district concept has been used in Tigard during at least the past decade. The current program now being implemented was adopted in 1996. CWS is well aware of the City's Reimbursement District program. This program was one of the major selling points for annexation in the joint presentations by CWS and the City to the Walnut Island residents prior to annexation into the City. 13125 SW Hail Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 The City has no intention of forcing anyone to connect to sewer. We will be having discussions with CWS on the differences between the programs. However, the denial of a permit to repair or replace, which is under the purview of Washington County, is the only mechanism we see that would force a failing septic system to connect to public sewer. Regarding financing, cities have several tools available to them to assist property owners with the costs of public improvements that benefit their property. The traditional method is creation of a Local Improvement District (LID). In an LID, the city designs and installs local improvements (which may include such things as streets, sidewalk, street lighting, sewer lines, etc.) Upon completion of the project, property owners are presented with a bill for their allocated share of these improvements. They may pay that bill in total, or they may sign an agreement to pay for a period of years (usually 10 years). As I explained in my previous letter, state statutes authorize a special kind of General Obligation Bond, known as Bancroft Bonds, to finance these assessments. In exchange for participating in this program, property owners must agree to place a lien on their property to secure the loan. Because this is a special program, that lien is a first place lien, meaning that under state law, in the event of default, it is repaid before any other lien on the property (including mortgage) is paid. In an LID, property owners immediately become responsible for their share of all improvements upon completion of the project. A more recent type of assistance is a Reimbursement District. This type of district is most commonly used for sewer extensions. In this type of assistance, the city installs the improvements, but defers property owner payments until connection to the sewer. The city covers all carrying costs of the " loan" from funds on hand. The City of Tigard chose to use the Reimbursement District concept as the preferred method of assisting property owners with the costs of providing sewers to their neighborhoods. It has the advantage of deferring costs until the property owner is actually ready to connect to the sewer, but provides the funding "up front" to design and construct the sewer extensions. The downside is that when the property owner does connect, the full amount is due (subject to the City's incentive program). The incentive program is designed to encourage early connection. r There is an annual fee adjustment (currently 6.05% of the reimbursement fee) charged as simple h interest and added each year after the initial year. Because the City has established an incentive program to encourage early connection, this annual adjustment is not charged when the fee r exceeds $6,000 and the home owner connects to sewer within three years (formerly one year) y after sewer becomes available. We feel that the structure of the Reimbursement District and the 1J three-year period in the current incentive program allow property owners sufficient time to plan for connection within the incentive period. Financing is not normally offered in this type of district because the property owner is already offered assistance through deferral of the reimbursement payment and waiver of carrying costs. In addition, the establishment of an installment plan for repayment of the fee and tracking of the Letter to Jessica Cousineau - 8/25/03 Page 2 of 4 payments over a period of years is something the City does not typically do and would have to develop specifically for this program. The administrative costs involved would have to be added to the cost of the program. Finally, without the leverage for collection offered by the LID process, we are concerned that collection in cases of non-payment would become a major issue. In your letter, you referenced a state program, the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF), available through DEQ. Our Finance Director, Craig Prosser, spoke with Mr. Richard Santner as you suggested. The SRF does not provide direct assistance to property owners for their share of sewer extension projects. Rather, it is a loan program intended to help cities with water pollution control projects. For cities that do not have sufficient funds on hand to construct sewer projects, this appears to be a good alternative. However, Tigard is able to use funds on hand. A loan from the SRF would only serve to increase project costs. In addition, the SRF requires cities to pledge sewer revenues to the repayment of the loan. Since property owners in Reimbursement Districts are not required to connect to the sewer upon completion, they make no sewer service payments until they are connected. They would therefore contribute no revenues to the repayment of the state loan until they are connected. Through the Citywide Sewer Extension Program, the City has made sewer service available to 268 properties over the past two years. This has been a successful program. It provides much- needed assistancoto property owners that are in urgent need of public sewer within funds available, without jeopardizing the City's ability to continue the sewer extension program. We feel that the assistance and incentives built into the City's Reimbursement District program already offer a good option for property owners who wish to, or need to, obtain sewer service for their neighborhoods. As I mentioned in my previous letter, connecting the houses on the north side of Derry Dell Court to the existing sewer would not only require new easements, it would mean installation of a new line running along those easements. We would still have to install the line in the street. Running two separate sewer lines does not make sense to us. It would be less costly to each lot owner to have both sides connect to one line located in the street for easy maintenance. The two houses at the corner that cannot be served by this district can be connected to the sewer adjacent to the creek with relatively little difficulty. In general, we are attempting to address the vast majority of property owners through the 1 formation of District No. 29. For those few exceptions that cannot be served by the lines we are constructing, we would devise connection (if possible) through the rear of the properties. n Alternative systems (:such as sand filter) are options for those lots that cannot connect, that still ~ have some soil permeability, and can accommodate those systems. As a final alternative, o pumping to get to a line in the street is always possible, but is not desirable because of the need g" to keep the pump maintained. We will be exploring solutions for those few lots that cannot be accommodated by the proposed system. However, our immediate objective is to make sewer service available to as many lots as possible through our proposed project. There is a great deal of information available on the life expectancies of septic systems. The University of Maine states that properly maintained septic systems have an average life expectancy of 15 to 25 years and that drain fields typically last 10 to 20 years. Closer to this area Letter to Jessica Cousineau - 8/25/03 Page 3 of 4 is the Seattle-Icing County Department of Public Health, which is the source for the information that-I provided to you. That Department considers on-site septic systems as a short-term disposal method, to be eventually be replaced by public sewer, and lists 20 to 30 years as a typical life expectancy depending upon use and maintenance. That information is relatively consistent with other sources throughout the country regarding life expectancies for septic systems. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, USTIN P. DUENAS, P.E. y Engineer c: Mayor and City Councilors William A. Monahan, City Manager Craig Prosser, Finance Director J:\P.NGVGUSVCitywide Sewer Extension ProgramMesponse to August 22 Letter from Jessica Cousineau.doc L J Letter to Jessica Cousineau - 8/25/03 Page 4 of 4 UOi L'Y/ LVUO co: uc rAA ou.1444O001 LUUblAbAU LAM' Urrl4A, t((~UU1 Copies to: Jessica L. Cousineau Ma or/Council V/ Other: RECEIVED C.O.T. Y 10785 S.W. Derry Dell Ck laity Manager (a'r' D,- Tigard, OR 972223 , 1 Council File iz- AU G (503) 443-3687 2 003 Administration FAX COVER SHEET FAX NUMBER TRANSMITTED TO: (503) 684-7'297 To: Jim Griffith, Mayor City Council William A- Monahan, City Manager Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder Of: City of Tigard From: Jessica L Cousineau Matter: Proposed Reimbursement District #29 Date: 24 August 2003 ;D4CUMl~I~TS ; N[1MBER'OFPAGES*• Letter -3 - - COMMENTS: Please see attached letter. + NOT COUNTING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE TELEPHONE US IMMEDIATELY AT (503) 317-6694. ua~ca cvuo cf:uf rna ausaat~su~r (;uVb11NrAU LAO urrKh ~¢JUUz Jessica L. Cousineau 10755 S.W. Derry Dell Ct., Tigard, OR 9722,3 email: jessica@scrye.com 22 August 2003 Augustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Via Fax: (503) 624-0752 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 Dear Mr. Deunas: Thank you for the reply to my previous letters. I appreciate the invitation to contact Diane Jelderks in your office and will do so first thing Monday morning. Hopefully, that will afford me enough time to be able to meet with Ms. Jelderks, however any analysis of the responses will be difficult to complete before the City Council Meeting on Tuesday. The responses to the questions you answered were most informative. However, they have brought to light a few more questions. In my first letter, dated 13 August 2003,1 asked what the definition of a failed septic system will be once the sewer system is constructed. I asked this because in the previous Neighborhood Meeting that I had attended at the City Water Building on 9 July 2003, you had stated to the members of the proposed districts that we would not be required to connect to the sewer, once installed, unless our septic systems failed. In your letter on 21 August 2003 to the entire district you stated that the Washington County DEH "strictly interprets the provisions of the current OAR. They would deny permits for repairs of systems if sewer is physically or legally available in an area! That position would concur with the statement I was given by an employee at the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) who stated that they are not allowed to approve a permit once sewer is available to a property. She quoted Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) §454.655 as the basis for this decision. Should I take your statement in the letter to the community to indicate that your position is that any repair necessary for our septic systems would constitute a "failure" of the system? If so, it would appear that your position on this matter has changed as we have learned more about the proposed project, is this true? In my same original letter to you, dated 13 August 2003, 1 also asked "What city fees (Le. permitting fees, etc) are associated with connecting to a sewer line and what city fees are associated with repairing a septic tank? Additionally, my understanding from talking with Clean Water Services is that they expect residences within 300ft to connect to the sewer within 3 years, unless the resident has a deferral. What deferral programs does the city have in place to address this issuer To date I have not received a reply, from you, to these questions. My question about n the deferral programs is especially important in light of the Clean Water Services requirement It would be very unfortunate if 3 yeam5 after the sewer system was completed property owners were 3 forced to connect despite your verbal assurances that they could wait until they wished to connect. 0 1 was also not provided a copy of the request for bids or a copy of all the bids that were submitted in response to it as 1 requested in this letter. In the original letter to you I also asked you what financing options you had looked at for this project. I asked this question, because at the 9 July 2003 neighborhood meeting you told those of us in attendance that the initial construction funds were coming from the profit that the city makes providing sewer services to the areas currently under its sewer jurisdiction. Additionally, as 22 August 2003 Letter to Augustin Duenas, P. E. 1 of 3 UO/L.1/LUVJ LJ:UJ raA oUJ44JJbm/ GOUSINEAU LAW ueHCE 1&009 the current proposal for the reimbursement district is constructed if the property owners within it did not connect within the first 15 years after the project was completed the city will forgive all fees other than the connection fee. From that, it appeared tome that the city was attempting to finance the project to some degree. You replied to my question on financing options that "(clities are not in the financing business." I understand that the City of Tigard is not a substitute for the other financial institutions In our community. However, from my research, I gather that there are some financing options that are only available through the city. Your apparent access to the profits from current sewer services Is one of these. The Bancroft Bonds that you mentioned are another of these. I am not sure why you would be unable to secure a lien against the effected properties in this situation. If you were able to place a lien against the effected properties would that change your ability to utilize these bonds? There also appears to be a fund administered through the DEQ called the State Revolving Fund (SRF). 1 spoke with a Mr. Richard Santner at DEQ on 18 August 2003. He is in the Northwest Region - Water Quality Department at DEQ. He is also the individual in charge of the SRF for the Washington County area. In my conversation with him he indicated that the SRF is a loan program administered by his department and that he felt it would be appropriate in this situation. He also informed me that the "only qualified borrower for the SRF is the city." He said that, currently, the interest rate associated with the SRF is about 2.9% for 20 years. This is a significantly lower interest rate than I was quoted from Wells Fargo Bank, NA for a home equity loan interest rate of 7.89%. Additionally, the use of a financing mechanism such as the SRF would make financing available to all members of the proposed district, regardless of their current income. I believe that such an option would be very helpful to the many retired home owners that are included in this district as you have currently proposed it. Lower interest rates make a greater number of projects available to more people. At the end of my conversation with Mr. Santner he requested that i have someone from the City of Tigard contact him about their ability to utilize the fund from the state at (503) 229-5219. He also stated that if he is not in the office that person could also talk with either Larry McAllister at (503) 229-6412 or Rick Wafters at(503)229-6814. Mr. Santner appeared very eager to assist us in designing a workable project. Thank you for your clarification to my question in the 17 August 2003 letter, on why the amount to be assessed to each property owner has changed. Although I am still confused as to why it has changed so frequently, I will assume that the undated copy that you provided, on 13 August 2003, on lavender paper is the correct amount. I also appreciate your explanation as to why the members of the district had changed. I was surprised to note that Mr. Phillips' lot had been excluded due to its low elevation. Although it is difficult to tell minute differences in elevation while walking around the neighborhood, i had not ever noticed that his property was significantly lower than mine. In answer to my questions about restructuring the proposed reimbursement district, dated 20 August 2003, you stated that to have the north side of Derry Dell Ct connect to the existing sewer you would have to gain new easements creating additional expense and making it difficult to 4 maintain the lines in the future. Have you talked with any of the residents in the proposed district C to see if they would be receptive to granting such easements? Do you think that they might be receptive to it if you were to place a paved trail that connected them to the existing greenway along those easements? If such a trail were in place, would that make the future maintenance more i easily accomplished? Additionally, would such a plan allow the 3 houses on Deny Dell Ct. that are I presently excluded from the proposed district to be included without incurring significant additional expense to that plan? Mention of the houses, excluded from the. proposed district, that are on Derry Dell Ct. reminds me of another question that I had. In your letter tome, dated 21 August 2003, you stated that "we did leave out two lots from the district...." My understanding from the map and current list of the proposed district that you provided to members of the district on 13 August 2003 is that there are 22 August 2003 Letter to Augustin Duenas, P.E. 2 of 3 VVrrrvvV - VV ran OU04400004 WUbliNbAU LA" Urrit 6 IQJ 004 four properties which could be included but are not. These are 10635 S.W. Derry Dell Ct.,10825 S.W. Deny Dell Ct., 10845 S.W. Derry Dell Ct., and 10676 S.W. Cook Ln. Which of these properties were you referring to in your previous statement? Additionally, what options are you intending for the other two properties? In your letter to the community, dated 21 August 2003, you pointed out that, "[t]here are at least two areas of concern regarding these on-site disposal systems. One is the potential for the health hazards to develop as the aging systems begin to fail. The second is the potential for contamination of the groundwater and the adjacent streams. In urban areas such as Tigard where the houses are close together, septic system failures could create significant health hazards in the various neighborhoods. In addition, groundwater, once polluted, is difficult and sometimes impossible to clean up." I can understand the city's interest in avoiding health and environmental problems before they arise. However, it seems that by leaving out several properties that could be served by the proposed district you are not taking into account the potential that these properties have to create the same or similar health and environmental issues. This seems especially relevant as the properties at 10825 S.W. Derry Dell Ct. and 10845 S.W. Derry Dell Ct. appear to be next to the Derry Deli Creek and Greenway. It is my understanding that the environmental considerations would be increased with this proximity. This impression of mine was confirmed in conversation with the Sawkins family who reside at 10815 S.W. Deny Dell Ct. They reported to me that their drain field is failing and in order to replace the septic system to current code standards they would have to install a sand fittrafion system. They indicated that this was necessitated by their close proximity to Derry Dell Creek and Greenway. Do you have information on the omitted properties that would indicate that they pose significantly less potential for creating the above referenced environmental and health hazards? If so, what is that information. If not, what provisions are you intending to ensure that they do not create these hazards? It would be a shame to go through these exercises for one group of properties only to create a bigger problem for neighbors and other participants who all feed into the same watershed. From your letter to me, dated 21 August 2003, 1 understand that you consider septic systems to be °a short-term disposal system." You also told me that "[t]he life expectancy of septic systems is between 20 and 30 years, depending upon use and maintenance." How did you arrive at that figure? Additionally, do you know the condition of the septic systems in this district that have not been reported as having failures? Thank you again for your time. In light of the imminent City Council Meeting on the 2e of August I would request that you respond to me by email at jessica coscrye.com. L C Sincerely, 4e;L-. Cousineau r j cc, William A Monahan, City Manager Mayor and City Councilors Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder 22 August 2003 letter to Augustin Duenas, P.E. 3cf3 LCathy Whea`ay 'Fwd: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 page 1] Mr 5 ~ -P ve o Cou5, niaL From: Cathy Wheatley To: Council Subject: Fwd: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 Another item for Reimbursement Dist. No. 29... Cathy CC: Duenas, Gus; Monahan, Bill Catli Whea a 'Re: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 page From: Cathy Wheatley To: Steven Cousineau Subject: Re: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 Mr. Cousineau, Thank you for your e-mail, which has been forwarded to the City Council and City Engineer Duenas. Cathy Wheatley City Recorder Steven Cousineau <steve@scrye.com> 08/25/03 05:35PM Dear Mayor Griffith, Council President Dirksen, and Councilors Moore, Sherwood, and Wilson: This morning I delivered a detailed letter opposing the the formation of Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 for many reasons. This opposition can be summarized into three areas. First, the definition and cost of the district has changed at least four times and at this time we do not know the final definition of the district. Second, the proposed plan contains no financing options which are essential to those on limited and fixed incomes. Third, if environmental concerns are truly the driving force for initiating this district then we must work to include every home possible as we work to make the proposed district as financially attractive as possible so that people subscribe early. Until these issues are addressed, the district as proposed, should not be approved. I would be happy to work with the Council and City of Tigard staff in designing a program that meets the above requirements. The current proposal is deficient in all those areas as it appears to be a rushed design with significant shortcomings. -Steve Steven B. Cousineau, 10755 SW Derry Dell Ct., Tigard OR 97223 7 I I athy Wheatley, Letter for Reimbursement District 29 - for 8_26-03, Council Meeting Page 1 From: Cathy Wheatley To: Council Date: 8/25/03 2:35PM Subject: Letter for Reimbursement District 29 - for 8-26-03 Council Meeting Administration received this afternoon a letter from Steven B. Cousineau along with 21 exhibits concerning Reimb. Dist. 29, which is an agenda item for the 8/26/03 meeting, Gus has also rec'd a copy of the letter and exhibits and will be reviewing to respond to the letter. Attached is a copy of the letter only for your preview. I will have a copy of the letter and all exhibits for Council members tomorrow night. Cathy CC: Duenas, Gus; Monahan, Bill i 'r J D 9 Copies to: Mayor/Council Other: City Manager C:2 ~ _ Council Fite 1Z- Steven B. Cousineau RECEIVED C.O.T. 10755 SW Derry Dell Ct. Tigard, Oregon 97223 AU G) 2003 August 25, 2003 Administration Tigard City Council & Mayor Griffith 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District Number 29 Please consider the following my written testimony in opposition to Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29. This testimony was solicited by the City of Tigard in announcements sent to all members of the proposed district. My name is Steven Cousineau and I live at 10755 SW Derry Dell Ct., Tigard, Oregon. My home is inside the boundaries of all four definitions that we have received describing the proposed Sewer Reimbursement District #29. 1 point this out since up to this point in time we have received four different descriptions of the district. Copies of each of these tables describing the members and reimbursement levels are provided as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 attached to this letter. Please note that none of these tables are dated and there is no documentation explaining the changes. There appear to be either 46 or 47 members of the proposed district. The names, addresses, and lot sizes of the proposed district member's are also inconsistent. Given this inconsistency, it is difficult to believe that everybody has received adequate notice about the proposed district. My neighbors Abigail and Brian Frainey asked for an explanation of these variations and a once and final statement of the boundaries of the proposed district from the City of Tigard in a letter dated August 14, 2003. The Fraineys report that they have had no response to their request at this time. A copy of their letter is included with this letter in Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5 also contains an email where Warren Krager, a member of the proposed district, reports that he had received no answer to similar questions as of August 21, 2003. The fact that this district appears to be poorly defined alone should be sufficient reason to postpone it until these disparities are clarified. Exhibits I through 4 also show that the total cost of the project varies from: $535,029.81 to $593,477.60. 1 assume these costs were taken from the bids received for the project. These bids have been published on the City of Tigard web-pages. The relevant pages are included in this letter as Exhibit 6. The lowest bid of $272,887.00 from J. W. Underground appears to be excluded from 3 1 further consideration with no explanation. None of the costs included in Exhibits 1, 2, 3, or 4 are duplicated in any of the submitted bids. There is no statement in the documentation provided by the City of Tigard to the members of the district as a whole explaining these discrepancies. As the definition of the boundary changes, the costs appear to have also changed and there is no explanation why in any of the documentation provided by the City of Tigard. The problems with the Proposed S. Cousineau, Page 2 August 25, 2003 District grow from here. I also find it interesting that the City of Tigard web-pages showed that this proposed District was awarded to Dunn Construction on August 12, 2003 who bid $485,894.50 which is over a 40% price premium over the low bid with no explanation to the members of the district. A copy of this web- page is included as Exhibit 7. After the August 12, 2003 Tigard City Council meeting this was apparently changed as Exhibit 8 points out. However, after that meeting several surveyors marks were placed all over streets in the proposed district as illustrated by pictures taken on or about August 23, 2003 and included in Exhibit 9. These inconsistencies lead me to suggest that either it is standard procedure for the City of Tigard to perform expensive and extensive surveying in advance of the projects formal approval or the City of Tigard has already made up their mind to fund the project while there are still substantial issues unaddressed. The perception that these districts have been ratified, in spite of statements by the Council that it is still under advisement and not approved, is also shared by the Tigard Times who reports on Page A3 of the August 21, 2003 edition that the Proposed Districts 28 & 29 have been approved and are going forward. A copy of the unsigned article is included as Exhibit 10. There are many homeowners in the Proposed District that are retired or on fixed income. These people would be adversely impacted by the district as proposed in the event their existing septic system needs minor repair. Today, if their system needs minor repairs such can be accomplished for only a couple hundred dollars at the time the tank is being pumped. After the sewer system lines are made available Clean Water Services guidelines and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) standards, as interpreted from Oregon Revised Statutes 454.655, included in Exhibit 11, say that in the event any repairs are needed to a septic system the tank must be removed from service and the homeowner must hook up to sewer. Currently our district shows this to be a minimum approximate cost of $11,000 ($6,000 cost of project, $2,534 for Clean Water Services and an assumed $2,500 for plumbing on the property). This substantial cost differential is especially onerous to retirees and others on fixed incomes and could force them to sell a life long home prematurely. IL This significant initial capital cost to hook up to the sewer line leads to my next issues for discussion. There are at least two ways for the city to finance this project that do not require the J intimidating capital cost to hook up as referenced in Exhibits 1, 2, 3, & 4. The first of these is the ~ n State Revolving Fund (SRF) as administered by the DEQ. Exhibit 12 is a program description from u the DEQ website describing the its applicability to a project such as this and it was found at: J http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/wggrant/srf fs.pdf. The most attractive thing about this program is that the effective interest rate is approximately 2.9% according to the point of contact for the program Mr. Richard Santner (ph: (503) 229-5219). This rate is far better than the current prevailing mortgage rates of 6.0% to 6.5% as shown in Exhibit 13. Mr. Santner also reported that this proposed district would be perfect for his program in conversations on August 18, 2003 with Jessica S. Cousineau, Page 3 August 25, 2003 Cousineau. The other possible way I can think of for the City of Tigard to fund this program is to set up a municipal bond fund and then charge effected homeowners a monthly hookup fee. I am not endorsing any of these mechanisms as much as I am offering them as alternatives superior to the current proposal. Jessica Cousineau asked if the City of Tigard had conducted any analysis of the various financing options in letters sent on August 13, 17, and 20, 2003 and included as Exhibit 14. The answer to this from Mr. Deunas in a letter dated August 21, 2003 and included as Exhibit 15 is that "Cities are not in the financing business." At my house we pay the City of Tigard for water service which includes all of the pipes in the ground, the cost of administering the system, and the costs of water acquisition and disposal. All of these elements require financing and the City of Tigard is already billing each of the potentially effected addresses. Mr. Duenas' claim that the administrative costs of financing would be "excessively high" implies that the current billing system is inflexible. Mr. Deunas states in the same letter that the interest rate obtainable by the City of Tigard for this proposed project "would not be significantly better than those the property owner could arrange on their own through a bank or other financing company." The above quoted Oregon SRF rate is 2.9% while current first and second mortgage rates are at least twice that as shown in my Exhibit 13. I suspect that there are options not included in Mr. Deunas' analysis as a doubling in interests rates appears significant. Again, all of the members of the district should be given information by the City of Tigard supporting this decision and supporting analysis. At this point in time there appears to be no mechanism determining if the proposed district is the least cost option using any accepted benefit/cost analysis mechanism to the proposed members who have to pay the bill as the Ciy of Tigard has supplied no data supporting this particular plan for sewer as opposed to any other even when such was asked for in Jessica Cousineau's August 13, 17, and 20, 2003 letters (Exhibit 14). If we are expected to pay the bill for this proposal, we ought to have some assurance that we are paying for the most cost effective option. I would be happy to assist Mr. Deunas and his staff in applying a benefit/cost analysis to various solutions for this proposed project. The City of Tigard reports that they have survey results stating that 15 people want the district G now, 11 want it later, and that four residents have serious problems with their existing systems. There was a significant design bias in these cards as they only gave the option of sewer now or later i and did not include the option of no action. A survey design such as that is often said to be designed to obtain a specific result. These results were mentioned in Mr. Duenas' letter to Jessica Cousineau dated August 7, 2003 and included as Exhibit 16. Exhibit 17 is a copy of the survey card that was sent out. At the August 12, 2003 City Council meeting, Council directed Mr. Duenas to provide information about the survey responses to interested parties. Ms. Cousineau's letter of August 13, 2003 (Exhibit 14) specifically asked for copies of these responses. Mr. Deunas' response to that request sent August 21, 2003 (Exhibit 15) directed requests for information to Diane Jelderks. Given that these instructions arrived in our mailbox after the close of business on Friday August 22, 2003, S. Cousineau, Page 4 August 25, 2003 this has left very little time to go through those results and still get this letter to you in time for the August 26, 2003 Tigard City Council Meeting. This is somewhat frustrating as Mr. Deunas states in his August 21, 2003 letter that he "delayed in responding to your letters." The Tigard City Council has directed Mr. Deunas to answer our questions and with this intentional delay, I respectfully ask that we be given at least a minimum of two additional weeks to study the differences between the returned cards which can at best be called a sample of the effected members of the district and which conflict directly with Jessica Cousineau's district census results in petition form as delivered to the Council via personal presentation at the August 12, 2003 Tigard City Council Meeting. This petition was also delivered via fax on August 6, 2003 and is included in this letter as Exhibit 18. The petition states opposition to the proposed district and presents results which are an actual census of opinions and feelings in the proposed district that are significantly different than the results reported by Mr. Deunas. Explaining these differences should be addressed before proceeding with this district. That petition shows 31 people of the 47 in the district at the time of the petition were opposed to the proposed district. Jessica Cousineau gathered each of those signatures by speaking face to face with 45 reachable members of the proposed district. She was unable to contact one homeowner who is selling and the other is never at home according to neighbors. It is possible that the disparity in results between Jessica Cousineau's census and the cards returned to the city might be explained if results from the various districts were commingled. This will take some time to analyze. Independent of the legality of the petition it clearly shows that a 2/3rds majority of the effected homeowners will consider this project, if it goes through an example of a coercive government rather than quality customer service, even if they eventually sign up for sewer service. Mr. Duenas' letter of August 7, 2003 (Exhibit 16) was written to Jessica Cousineau after she delivered a petition to the City of Tigard asking that Proposed Reimbursement District No. 29 be stopped. Mr. Duenas' position in that letter is that the referenced law does not apply to the city. This is interesting as the law comes from the same statutes that give Clean Water Services their charter to operate and thus the City of Tigard's sewer service provider. The City of Tigard has also spoken with confusing tones about sewer over the years. In 1999 Mr. L Duenas' department wrote a letter to Albert McCutchan's general contractor Bill Robak stating that r the City of Tigard had no intention of building sewer lines in this area. A copy of this letter is included as Exhibit 19. Mr. McCutchan, who is a member of the proposed district was assured that he should invest in a new septic system while undertaking remodeling of his property based upon 3 that letter. Perhaps this confusion can be attributed to changing environmental laws which are j introduced by Mr. Deunas in his August 21, 2003 letter to the Proposed Districts Nos. 28 & 29 and i included as Exhibit 20. This letter states that environmental regulations are going to change in the near future and make on-site disposal systems even more difficult to continue operating. Mr. Deunas' letter also implies that environmental concerns are the most significant reason for putting in sewer lines. If this is true some of the confusion may reflect back upon the difficulty of balancing expensive environmental concerns with the limited budgets of both members of the district and the S. Cousineau, Page 5 August 25, 2003 City of Tigard tasked with providing service. This confusion is probably aggravated when the effected members of the district are given conflicting information late in the process, see signs that the district has already been awarded, and were not brought into the planning process as partners early on. Given the above stated conflicting numbers and definitions of Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29, confusion over the cities' positions, and the fact that this project appears essential to urban plans, taking the time to build consensus with the effected members by working to address their needs along with those of the City of Tigard's is essential before the project takes one more step forward. After all, every member of the proposed district is a member of the larger community of Tigard. Taking the time to address the problems presented in this letter is even more important when one reads the Agenda published on the City of Tigard for the August 26, 2003 Council Meeting which states that Item 9.2 is "Award Contract for the construction of... Sanitary Sewer District No. 29 to Dunn Construction, Inc." A printout of this agenda is included as Exhibit 21. This is quite frustrating to read when we have been assured by City Council Members that this project is still being debated and is not just another consent agenda item. Is this stated granting of the contract a mistake, like the one referenced in Mr. Deunas' letter of August 13, 2003 (Exhibit 8), allowing this project to still be subject to debate and discussion, or has the issue already been decided? I would like to believe that my government follows through on their promises to their constituents. Thank you for your time, S4E-mail: steve@scrye.com This letter has 21 Exhibits attached. r 6 7 E,ch~b,t SCt~J.S~+,evv Reimbursment District No. 29 Estimated Cost to Property Owners ESTIMATED OWNER SITE ADDRESS AREA (S.F.) COST TO PROPERTY OWNER 1 MILLER ALLAN S DOREEN J 10665 SW DERRY DELL COURT 15365.72783 $10,849 2 MOELLER JOHN C & NANCY A 10695 SW DERRY DELL CT 15366.95090 $10,850 3 FRAINEY BRIAN A & ABIGAIL J 10725 SW DERRY DELL CT 15366.98757 $10,850 4 COUSINEAU STEVEN B 10755 SW DERRY DELL CT 15367.02424 $10,850 5 HEINTZ BARRY E 10700 SW DERRY DELL CT 19537.74845 $13,794 6 GROENLUND DAVID R AND 10730 SW DERRY DELL 19533.50173 $13,791 7 WATSON GARY D 13120 SW WATKINS AVE 13916.56716 $9,826 8 BARRETT HARLEY E 13150 SW WATKINS AVE ' 13926.64909 $9,833 9 NOLES DAVID R AND 10630 SW PARK ST 14667.82779 $10,356 10 WILLIAMS DAVID S 10635 SW COOK LN 14467.42728 $10,215 11 LEPPER CHAD & MI YOUNG 13060 SW WATKINS AVE 14195.40658 $10,022 12 TIPTON TROY P & MICHELLE J 10785 SW DERRY DELL CT 15367.06091 $10,850 13 SAWKINS DOUGLAS S 10815 SW DERRY DELL CT 16763.55464 $11,836 14 MENDEZ JUDITH A 13090 SW WATKINS AVE 13905.98901 $9,818 15 HAMMES ALFRED J HELEN L 13115 SW WATKINS AVE 14471.49969 $10,217 16 HANSEN HARRIS H SARA J 10610 SW DERRY DELL 17986.13480 $12,699 17 PHAM SIMON C & REBECCA T 10640 SW DERRY DELL CT 19538.24056 $13,795 18 GUSTIN RONALD L & TAMMY G 10670 SW DERRY DELL CT 19537.91667 $13,794 19 STOUDER CHARLES H TR 10760 SW DERRY DELL CT 19537.06360 $13,794 20 BORCHERS VELLA M 10790 SW DERRY DELL CT 22358.89852 $15,786 21 BROWN HUBERT A 10820 SW DERRY DELL CT 16724.83997 $11,808 22 TESSMAN OWEN H 10865 SW DERRY DELL CT 16199.23647 $11,437 23 HARMON KATIE 13145 SW WATKINS AVE 14429.56599 $10,188 24 MCCUTCHAN ALBERT 10880 SW DERRY DELL 15118.21956 $10,674 25 KOOL SCOTT D & CELIA C 10885 SW DERRY DELL CT 16201.93421 $11,439 26 WINTERS GERRY L (Existing) 10625 SW PARK ST 14687.80616 $10,370 27 WINTERS GERRY L (Back Lot) 10625 SW PARK ST 14687.80616 $10,370 28 BRADEN ROBERT W & KATHLEEN J 13175 SW WATKINS 14429.44431 $10,18B 29 KRAGER ROBERT WARREN 10655 SW PARK ST 20861.07951 $14,729 30 FURRER ROSMARIE 10685 SW PARK ST 19762.54608 $13,953' 31 MCGRIFF JAMES E/SHEILA M 10735 SW PARK ST 19211.32816 $13,564 32 MIGUES RONALD P & DEBORAH R 13180 SW WATKINS AVE 13936.73103 $9,840 33 HATCH JAMES S/MARCIEL J 13205 SW WATKINS AVE 14347.22665 $10,130 34 MEYER DUANE FRANCIS 13210 SW WATKINS AVE 13934.27425 $9,838 35 GRAY GAYLE R 10660 SW PARK ST 14573.06828 $10,289 36 WEESE TERRY & DORI 10600 SW PARK ST 14764.34445 $10,424 37 PUGSLEY CLAYTON A 10570 SW PARK ST 14778.43789 $10,434 38 PONIATOWSKI-D'ERMENGARD 10665 SW COOK LN 14466.20714 $10,215 j 39 ROSSBERG STEPHEN A 10605 SW COOK LN 14465.75477 $10,213 40 MURFINSIMMONS MATTHEW T 13365 SW WATKINS 14375.98869 $10,150 41 PHILLIPS RICHARD F 10676 SW COOK LN 9993.93370 $7,056 42 SHOLES LANCE M 10634 SW COOK LN 19572.73686 $13,819 43 RESLER MICHAEL D & BARBARA S 10620 SW COOK LN 19574.84873 $13,821 44 BISHOP WILBUR A AND MARTHA E 10590 SW COOK LN 14646.50836 $10,341 45 HOLCOMBE GERALD A 13485 SW WATKINS ST 14726.18773 $10,397 46 JENSEN RONALD M 13000 SW WATKINS AVE 20738.95548 $14,642 47 GROAT RANDALL S & CAROLYN J 13010 SW WATKINS 15404.02471 $10,876 Totals 757793.21 $535,029.81 Reimbursment District No. 29 S . C©•t~,;hgq~ Estimated Cost to Property Owners ESTIMATED OWNER SITE ADDRESS AREA (S.F.) COST TO PROPERTY OWNER 1MILLER ALLAN S DOREEN J 10665 SW DERRY DELL COURT 15365.72783 $12,034 2 MOELLER JOHN C & NANCY A 10695 SW DERRY DELL CT 15366.95090 $12,035 3 FRAINEY BRIAN A & ABIGAIL J 10725 SW DERRY DELL CT 15366.98757 $12,035 4 COUSINEAU STEVEN B 10755 SW DERRY DELL CT 15367.02424 $12,035 5 HEINTZ BARRY E 10700 SW DERRY DELL CT 19537.74845 $15,301 6 GROENLUND DAVID R AND 10730 SW DERRY DELL 19533.50173 $15,298 7 WATSON GARY D 13120 SW WATKINS AVE 13916.56716 $10,899 8 BARRETT HARLEY E 13150 SW WATKINS AVE 13926.64909 $10,907 9 NOLES DAVID R AND 10630 SW PARK ST 14667.82779 $11,487 10 WILLIAMS DAVID S 10635 SW COOK LN 14467.42728 $11,330 11 LEPPER CHAD & MI YOUNG 13060 SW WATKINS AVE 14195.40658 $11,117 12 TIPTON TROY P & MICHELLE J 10785 SW DERRY DELL CT 15367.06091 $12,035 13 SAWKINS DOUGLAS S 10815 SW DERRY DELL CT 16763.55464 $13,129 14 MENDEZ JUDITH A 13090 SW WATKINS AVE 13905.98901 $10,891 15 HAMMES ALFRED J HELEN L 13115 SW WATKINS AVE 14471.49969 $11,334 16 HANSEN HARRIS H SARA J 10610 SW DERRY DELL 17986.13480 $14,086 17 PHAM SIMON C & REBECCA T 10640 SW DERRY DELL CT 19538.24056 $15,302 18 GUSTiN RONALD L & TAMMY G 10670 SW DERRY DELL CT 19537.91667 $15,301 19 STOUDER CHARLES H TR 10760 SW DERRY DELL CT 19537.06360 $15,301 20 BORCHERS VELLA M 10790 SW DERRY DELL CT 22358.89852 $17,511 21 BROWN HUBERT A 10820 SW DERRY DELL CT 16724.83997 $13,098 22 TESSMAN OWEN H 10865 SW DERRY DELL CT 16199.23647 $12,687 23 HARMON KATIE 13145 SW WATKINS AVE 14429.56599 $11,301 24 MCCUTCHAN ALBERT 10880 SW DERRY DELL 15118.21956 $11,840 25 KOOL SCOTT D & CELIA C 10885 SW DERRY DELL CT 16201.93421 $12,689 26 WINTERS GERRY L (Existing) 10625 SW PARK ST 14687.80616 $11,503 27 WINTERS GERRY L (Back Lot) 10625 SW PARK ST 14687.80616 $11,503 28 BRADEN ROBERT W & KATHLEEN J 13175 SW WATKINS 14429.44431 $11,301 29 KRAGER ROBERT WARREN 10655 SW PARK ST 20861.07951 $16,338 30 FURRER ROSMARIE 10685 SW PARK ST 19762.54608 $15,477 31 MCGRIFF JAMES E/SHEILA M 10735 SW PARK ST 19211.32816 $15,046 32 MIGUES RONALD P & DEBORAH R 13180 SW WATKINS AVE 13936.73103 $10,915 33 HATCH JAMES S/MARCIEL J 13205 SW WATKINS AVE 14347.22665 $11,236 34 MEYER DUANE FRANCIS 13210 SW WATKINS AVE 13934.27425 $10,913 ' 35 GRAY GAYLE R 10660 SW PARK ST 14573.06828 $11,413 36 WEESE TERRY & DORI 10600 SW PARK ST 14764.34445 $11,563 37 PUGSLEY CLAYTON A 10570 SW PARK ST 14778.43789 $11,574 38 PONIATOWSKI-VERMENGARD 10665 SW COOK LN '14468.20714 $11,331 39 ROSSBERG STEPHEN A 10605 SW COOK LN 14465.75477 $11,329 40 MURFINSIMMONS MATTHEW T 13365 SW WATKINS 14375.98869 $11,259 41 PHILLIPS RICHARD F 10676 SW COOK LN 9993.93370 $7,827 42 SHOLES LANCE M 10634 SW COOK LN 19572.73686 $15,329 43 RESLER MICHAEL D & BARBARA S 10620 SW COOK LN 19574.84873 $15,330 44 BISHOP WILBUR A AND MARTHA E 10590 SW COOK LN 14646.50836 $11,471 45 HOLCOMBE GERALD A 13485 SW WATKINS ST 14726.18773 $11,533 46 JENSEN RONALD M 13000 SW WATKINS AVE 20738.95548 $16,242 47 GROAT RANDALL S & CAROLYN J 13010 SW WATKINS 15404.02471 $12,064 Totals 757793.21 $593,477.60 SCovs►~ega Reimbursement District No. 29 EsWiated Cost to Property Owners ESTIMATED OWNER TAX LOT SITE ADDRESS AREA (AC) AREA (S.F.) COST TO PROPERTY OWNER 1 JENSEN RONALD M & 251028003500 13000 SW WATKINS 0.476 20738.95548 $15,679 2 GROAT RANDALL S & CAROLYN J 2SI02BC03400 13010 SW WATKINS 0.354 15404.02471 $11,646 3 LEPPER CHAD & MI YOUNG 2$1030A00100 13060 SW WATKINS ST 0.326 14195.40658 $10,732 4 COLE TERRA J 2S103DA01100 13075 SW WATKINS AVE 0.416 18126.07349 $13,704 5 MILLER ALLAN S DOREEN J 2SI03DA01300 10665 SW DERRY DELL 0.353 15385.72783 $11,617 6 MOELLER JOHN C & NANCY A 2S103DA01400 10695 SW DERRY DELL 0.353 15368.9509 $11,618 7 FRAINEY BRIAN A & ABIGAIL J 2SI03DA015M 10725 SW DERRY DELL 0.353 15388.98757 $11,618 8 COUSINEAU STEVEN B & 2S103DA01600 10755 SW DERRY DELL 0.353 15367.02424 $11,618 9 TIPTON TROY P & MICHELLE J 215 03DA01700 10785 SW DERRY DELL 0.353 15367.06091 $11,618 10 SAWKINS DOUGLAS S & 2SI03DA01800 10815 SW DERRY DELL 0.385 16763.55464 $12,674 11 MENDEZ JUDITH A 2S103DA00200 13090 SW WATKINB AVE 0.319 13905.98901 $10,513 12 HAMMES ALFRED J HELEN L 28103DA01000 13115 SW WATKINS AVE 0.332 14471.49969 $10,941 13 HANSEN HARRIS H SARA J 2SI03DA03100 10610 SW DERRY DELL 0.413 17988.1348 $13,596 t4- f~MtaAM SIM ON C'&' T 2SI03OA03000 10640 SW DERRY DELL 0.449 1953824056 $14,772 15 GUSTIN RONALD L & TAMMY G 2S103DA02900 10670 SW DERRY DELL 0.449 19537.91667 $14,771 16 HEINTZ BARRY E 2SI03DA02800 10700 SW DERRY DELL 0.449 19537.74845 $14,771 17 GROENLUND DAVID R AND 2S103DA02700 10730 SW DERRY DELL 0.448 19533.50173 $14,768 18 STOUDER CHARLES H TR & 2SI03DA026W 10760 SW DERRY DELL 0.449 19537.0636 $14,771 19 BORCHERS VELLA M 2SI03DA02500 10790 SW DERRY DELL 0.513 22358.89652 $16,904 !0 BROWN HUBERT A 2SI03DA02400 10820 SW DERRY DELL 0.384 16724.83997 $12,645 M WATSON GARY 0 & 251030A00300 13120 SW WATKINS AVE 0.319 13916.56716 $10,521 !2 TESS" OWEN H 2SI03DA020DO 10865 SW DERRY DELL 0.372 1619923647 $12,247 !3 HARMON KATIE 2SI03DA00900 13145 SW WATKINS AVE 0.331 14429.56599 $ 0,909 !4 BARRETT HARLEY E 2SI03DA00400 13150 SW WATKINS AVE 0.320 13926.64909 $ 0,529 !5 MCCUTCHAN ALBERT 2S103DA02300 10880 SW DERRY DELL 0.347 15118.21956 $ 1,430 !6 KOOL SCOTT D & CELIA C 2SI03DA02100 10865 SW DERRY DELL 0.372 16201.93421 $2,249, !7 WINTERS GERRY L 2SI03DA03201 10625 SW PARK ST 0.674 29375.61232 $22,209 !8 BRADEN ROBERT W & KATHLEEN J 2S103DA00800 13175 SW WATKINS AVE 0.331 14429.44431 $10,909 !9 KRAGER ROBERT WARREN 2S103DA03290 10655 SW PARK ST 0.479 20861.07951 $15,772 N) FURRIER ROSMARIE 2S103DA03300 10885 SW PARK ST 0.454 19762.54608 $14,941 N MCGRIFF JAMES EISHEILA M 2SI03DA03400 10735 SW PARK ST 0.441 19211.32816 $14,524 12 MIGUES RONALD P & DEBORAH R 28103DA00500 13180 SW WATKINS AVE 0.320 13936.73103 $10,537 0 HATCH JAMES SIMARCIEL J & 2SI03DA00700 13205 SW WATKINS ST 0.329 14347.22665 $10,847 A MEYER DUANE FRANCIS 2SI03DA00600 13210 SW WATKINS ST 0.320 13934.27425 $10,535 6 GRAY GAYLE R 2SI03DA04300 10660 SW PARK ST 0.335 14573.06828 $11,018 -6 NOLES DAVID R AND 2S103DA04400 10630 SW PARK ST 0.337 14667.82779 $11,089 .7 WEESE TERRY & DORI 2SI03DA04500 10600 SW PARK ST 0.339 14764.34445 $11,162 8 PUGSLEY CLAYTON A & 2S103DA04600 10570 SW PARK ST 0.339 14778.43789 $11,173 9 PONIATDWSKI-D'ERMENGARD 2SI03DA05200 10665 SW COOK LANE 0.332 14468.20714 $10,938 0 WILLIAMS_DAVID S 28.MDA05100 10635-SW COOT . 0.332 - 44467:42728 --110.998 T" 1 ROfggBERG STEPHEN A 2S103DA050DO 10605 SW COOK LN 0.332 14465.75477 $10,937 0. 2 MURFINSIMMONS MATTHEW T & 2SI03DA04900 13365 SW WATKINS ST 0.330 14375.98869 $10,869 a 3 SHOLES LANCE M & 2SI03DA05700 10634 SW COOK LN 0.449 19572.73686 $14,798 4 RESLER MICHAEL 0 & BARBARA S 2SI03DA05M 10620 SW COOK LANE 0.449 19574.64873 $14,799 9)) 5 BISHOP WILBUR A AND MARTHA E 2S103DA05900 10590 SW COOK LN 0.336 14646.50836 $11,073 } 6 HOLCOMBE GERALD A & 2SI03DAOWW 13485 SW WATKINS ST 0.338 14726.18773 $11,133 17.58 765925.35211 $579,064.77 Reimbursement District No. 29 5. CooS;h e ov EsUmated Cost to Property Owners Based on Bid Results ESTIMATED OWNER TAX LOT SITE ADDRESS AREA (AC) AREA (S.F.) COST TO PROPERTY OWNER 1 MILLER ALLAN 8 DOREEN J 2S103DA01300 10665 SW DERRY DELL COURT 0.353 15365.72783 $11,742 2 11 ER JOHN C & NANCY A 2SI03DA01400 10695 SW DERRY DELL CT 0.353 15366.95090 $11,743 3 FRAINEY BRAN A & ABIGAIL J 2SI03DA01500 10725 SW DERRY DELL CT 0.353 15366.98757 $11,743 4 COUSINEAU STEVEN B 2SI03DA01600 10755 SW DERRY DELL CT 0.353 15367.02424 $11,743 5 HEINTZ BARRY E 2SI03DA02800 10700 SW DERRY DELL CT 0.449 19537.74845 $14,930 6 GROENLUND DAVID R AND 2S103DA02700 10730 SW DERRY DELL 0.448 19533.50173 $14,926 7 WATSON GARY D 2SI03DA00300 13120 SW WATKINS AVE 0.319 13916.56716 $10,634 8 BARRETT HARLEY E 2SI03DA00400 13150 SW WATKINS AVE 0.320 13926.64909 $10,642 9 NOLgS DAVID R AND 2S103DA04400 10830 SW PARK ST 0.337 14667.82779 $11,208 10 WILLIAMS DAVID S 2SIO30ADS100 10635 SW COOK LN 0.332 14467.42728 $11,055 11 LEPPER CHAD & MI YOUNG 2SI03DA00100 13060 SW WATKINS AVE 0.326 14195.40658 $10,847 12 TIPTON TROY P & MICHELLE J 28103DA01700 10785 SW DERRY DELL CT 0.353 15387.06091 $11,743 13 SAWKINS 8 _ 28_1Q3DAQ18(ID 10815SW DERRY DELL CT 0.385 16763.55464 $12.810 14 MENDEZ J~ 2SI03DA00200 13090 SW WATKINS AVE 0.319 13905.98901 $10,626 15 HAMMES ALFRED J HELEN L 2SI03DA01000 13115 SW WATKINS AVE 0.332 14471.49989 $11,058 16 HANSEN HARRIS H SARA J 2SI03DA03100 10610 SW DERRY DELL 0.413 17988.13480 $13,744 17 PHAM So" C & REBECCA T 2SI03DA03000 10640 SW DERRY DELL CT 0.449 19538.24056 $14,930 18 GUSTIN RONALD L & TAMMY G 2SI03DA02900 10670 SW DERRY DELL CT 0.449 19537.91667 $14,930 19 STOUDER CHARLES H TR 2SI03DA02600 10760 SW DERRY DELL CT 0.449 19537.06360 $14,929 20 BORCHERS VELLA M 2SI03DA02500 10790 SW DERRY DELL CT 0.513 22358.89852 $17,085 21 BROWN HUBERT A 2SI03DA02400 10820 SW DERRY DELL CT 0.384 16724.83997 $12,780 22 TESSMAM OWEN H 2S103DA02000 10865 SW DERRY DELL CT 0.372 16199.23647 $12,379 23 HARMON KATIE 28103DA00900 13145 SW WATKINS AVE 0.331 14429.56599 $11,026 24 MCCUTCHAN ALBERT 2SI03DA02300 10880 SW DERRY DELL 0.347 15118.21956 $11,553 25 KOOL SCOTT D & CELA C 2S103DA02100 ' 10885 SW DERRY DELL CT 0.372 16201.93421 $12,381 26 WINTERS GERRY L (E)isting) 2SI03DA03201 10625 SW PARK ST 0.337 14687.80616 $11,224 27 WINTERS GERRY L (Bads Lot) 2S103DA03201 10625 SW PARK ST 0.337 14687.80616 $11,224 28 BRADEN ROBERT W & KATHLEEN J 2SI03DA00800 13175 SW WATKINS 0.331 14429.44431 $11,026 29 KRAGER ROBERT WARREN 2SI03DA03290 10655 SW PARK ST 0.479 20861.07951 $15,941 30 FURRIER ROSMARIE 2SI03DA03300 10685 SW PARK ST 0.454 19762.54608 $15,101 31 MCGRIFF JAMES EISHEILA M 28103DA03400 10735 SW PARK ST 0.441 19211.32816 $14,680 32 MIGUES RONALD P & DEBORAH R 2S103DA00500 13180 SW WATKINS AVE 0.320 13936.73103 $10,650 33 HATCH JAMES SIMARCIEL J 2SI03DA00700 13205 SW WATKINS AVE 0.329 14347.22665 $10,963 34 MEYER DUANE FRANCIS 2SI03DA00600 13210 SW WATKINS AVE 0.320 13934.27425 $10,648 35 GRAY GAYLE R 2SI03DA04300 10660 SW PARK ST 0.335 14573.06828 $11,136 36 WEESE TERRY & DORI 2SI03DA04500 10600 SW PARK ST 0.339 14764.34445 $11,282 37 PUGSLEY CLAYTON A 2SI03DA04600 10570 SW PARK ST 0.339 14778.43789 $11,293 38 PONIATOWSKHnRMENGARD 2S103DA05200 10665 SW COOK LN 0.332 14468.20714 $11,056 39 ROSSBERG STEPHEN A 2S103DA05000 10605 SW COOK LN 0.332 14485.75477 $11,064 40 MURF01M10NSUATTH EW T 2SI03DA049W 13366 SW WATKINS 0.330 14375.98869 $10,985 41 PHILLIPS RICHARD F 2S103DA06603 10676 SW COOK LN 0.229 9993.93370 - $7,637 42 SHOLES LANCE M 2SI03DA06700 10634 SW COOK LN 0.449 19572.73686 $14,956 43 RESLER MICHAEL D & BARBARA S 2S103DA05800 10620 SW COOK LN 0.449 ' 19574.84873 $14,958 IL 44 BISHOP WURM A AND MARTHA E 2S103DA06900 10590 SW COOK LN 0.338 14646.50836 $11,192 a 45 HOLCOMBE GERALD A 2S103DA06000 13485 SW WATKINS ST 0.338 14726.18773 $11,253 11- 47 GROAT RANDALL S & CAROLYN J 2S102SO03400 13010 SW SW WATKINS WATKINS AVE 0.0.476 954 155404.024771 $11,771 4 17.40 75779321232 $879.084.77 ' J_ 113 S CoJyi~e.aV Brian & Abigail Frainey 10725 SW Derry Dell Ct. Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 598-9351 Agustin P. Duenas, P.E. City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 August 14, 2003 RE: Proposed Sewer District #29 Mr. Duenas: Upon receipt of your letter dated August 13`h, 2003 we feel it is important to communicate with you some of our concerns and questions. First, with the time frame left and the information given to date it is very confusing trying to figure out what our actual costs will be to complete this project. Second, will you please address the inconsistencies of the information that we have received from your office. We have received 4 lists of effected properties and each list involves different homes, area square feet and total estimated costs to owners. The lists are not dated and there is no information where these figures came from. The lack of dates on the reports makes it impossible for us to determine which are the most recent figures. Third, none of the figures that we have received match any of the bids that have been disclosed. It also appears that the lowest bid have been ignored. We would like to know why? Last, given that we are being asked to pay thousands of dollars to finance this project we feel that we need to know what our actual complete costs are going to be and what we can expect in terms of additional costs to us. Before any further advancement of this project, including public hearings, the inconsistencies we have noticed throughout the process need to be addressed and conveyed to all homeowners affected. r ards,Y-AJ J 0 B an & Abigail rai ey u cc: Mayor and City Councilors William A. Monahan, City Manager Steven & Jessise Cousinseau Tammy Gustin S PINE 4.44 MESSAGE TEXT Folder: INBOX Message 13 of 116 TOP 5 Co~st~eaJ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:45:42 EDT From: Wkrager@aol.com To: jessica@scrye.com Subject: Fwd: Sewer Reimbursement District No29 - - - Hi Steve and Jessica, I sent this Email to Gus Duenas and copied to Mayor Griffith but got no response. FYI Regards, Warren [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:05:41 EDT From: Wkrager@aol.com To: mayor@ci.tigard.or.us Cc: gus@ci.tigard.or.us Subject: Sewer Reimbursement District No29 [ Part 2.2: "Attached Text" ] August 14, 2003 Tigard City Council 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223 Regarding: Proposed Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No 29 Dear Mr. Duenas: Would you please clarify in writing for myself and other residents of the proposed sewer reimbursement district No 29 as to what our options are for continuing to maintain, repair and/or replace in part or entire portions of existing septic systems once sanitary sewer has been installed in the streets? It has been suggested that we can no longer legally obtain permits to repair or replace septic systems if sanitary sewer service is available. In your response would you please direct me to the pertinent code sections that address 9 this concern. I would appreciate your prompt response. Regards, R Warren Krager 10655 S. W. Park Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 C: Jim Griffith, City of Tigard Mayor [END of message] BID RESULTS FOR Park St, Derry Dell St, Watkins Ave, Cook Land San Sew Ext File No. SS 02-17 BID OPENING: June 3 2003 2.00 PM _ .4 - Aaknowle4ownt ofAddmda B - Bid Bond (date) (time) s - First Tier Su&-wtrxhw.i List PHONE ADDRESS NUMBER $ AMOUNT CQMPiM NA 639-4171 CITY OF TIGA" IiIYGWEts'R S ES7YMATEi' . $ 40% J. W. Underground 27050 SE Jeanette 503-519-6232 $272,887.00 Gresham, OR 503-663-5577 Dunn Construction, Inc. 10340 NE Weidler St 503-408-7601 $485,894.50 Portland, OR 503408-7602 Russell Construction 2211 NW Front Avenue 503-228-3413 J $570,518.00 Portland, OR 97209 Emery & Sons PO Box 398 503-769-7751 $520,150.00 Stayton, OR 97383 503-769-5266 U ..t - I 1= yCw-a iwyc m a wrai mmhft'W-w am m. mm VMM-pWk e.ry Awl a„a A. W aF US. ltt-O."DW& WEi...dm N+ O O P Y P P T Y ri1 + p 0• •I P P♦ 4 N r ~ !•3 8SS a E~ ~e~;> v ys oq' ~ /v y y i ~ ~jE Tr~ X10 N O c - ~ z ua~zn __N~ - N~ i ~Q c w w w m r r r r w r r r r r c T it T T it ~1 T T T T T N 0 w in N ~ 888$8ggggg888g8S8!!i 9=1 a ~»1 MM yN~ p r N~« M~~~ u~ Z~ M 4 M V~ ~ 8 $8888888$8888888$$8$88 AFB 898~8~s 8 ~gg 88 g g g 11 ~ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 $ g 0 88g88g8gggg888ggg9888g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 8 8$ 8 8 8 8"' 3' n i Y~s11 yyk1 s s M M~ M W P• A V Y ~j V F~ O M~ N !`i ti 88 g889 8g8 9 9 g9 88888886$ 4Z~ 888g888gggbt88$gG~jiia g 888888g99~ge8y 88$8$8$$$ 8888$2 !T 8 XI a ti tJ C g J: « 8899 _8ag "$A 8888$8 ~8 B8g ~~d8i%s~g g88 8~p Cab ~t~1 S(~17J'S Fage _ ids Previous Bid Tabulatioi'`' ns.asP ~ B tabulat~a 7 City of Tigatd~ Bus'I'ess .usfbus~nessVO%dsl Ojed Me Weuti1ighilghting• d os s we age v++tho ~Ghe of htlp of we~9p°G ck hetre for h W 9ooa P : agp+6h1sen51e=~TF'8 °Y its cooteN• To dwith the m'tfm~s °{this pa&e °or resp°"s`btel 100910 7 p O 91 Q's ~t ave cha ed SIeYceSe me n 'e b51d rbpale +'1 G e n-oY (1)1ks Y ti8 V ad • 01-91' iS FS ~t~ yG 1-be. ► k e o f or bOO lc a M3~1m18 maw ci tt~ to oc 4 each - ~ sl}}= v1st IOU Of Coo Open Awarded Ift to: -OUS Bid Ta~uia 1C S ious 6rd Tabulations date: p3 s sr~h for prev% ss > Bids game' s) 712 d 6/03 s-2 Contractors IteMS Hone 7 Bus►r'e Sotieitatio ar bid tabulation 511 Relate t Bid leot below Ass Curren aeMen" olieitav, (5ele~ pro bi1►tY esm5 ent 7/1.41,13 WYS Advert' 9 p3 Wo S # stem \julnera 7/ CurreptCt;an a Water SY nstruction 6/'17/93 1e elsner C°n ring u/ on►ta Road Reno er ReaV%gnment 6/30193 ~a9 Con ~te 'nee oePeItn'ent STO3_O5 6 n►tarY Sew storm pra►nage & d utilities Ccgt °n SSO2-1g Derry oeu11 5alevard - Stye t~ ralnage 5/12103 512sIQ3 tour lnc m truce diA its qu~Ck k~ STp3-02 utility'MProvc : Street & 5t°rm p3 ou a~ 12/o3 y H°n„e t Terra & Cook t'n, 6131 ~.$id }see'ents it 1~mProvements Ct, Watk►n5 log Program - Contractors,ir,c tns Kerr eft SSOZ- errY pe11 er EX e Adv CV" Council Park st' Sanitary Se`N No, 29 A9~nda X02-03 ent p►strfct Sanitary Cmr` K r SSO2..17 Re►mbur$em cponald Stl Q2_03 Mews u`tien'n ara st & M _ - and g y DeveloD~ent S Co u5 itA2av August 13, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Re: Residents in Proposed District Nos. 28 & 29 City Council has decided to consider formation of Reimbursement District Nos. 28 (O'Mara and McDonald Street area) and 29 (Park Street and Derry Dell area) at the August 26, 2003 Council _ meeting,_During__the meeting-on. August_ 12, .200'l,_.certain residents of District _No.- 29 voiced - - - concerns that contracts have already been awarded for the projects. The reimbursement district formation process requires formation of a district before any contract can be awarded for construction of the improvements. The districts have not yet been formed. Attached is a notice of the informational hearing scheduled for August 26, 2003, together with estimated costs to each of the residents in the proposed district. If Council approves formation of either or both of the districts, they will consider award of the construction contracts at the same meeting. The City's website incorrectly showed award of the contracts as occurring on August 12, 2003. That was the date originally scheduled for formation of the districts and award of the contracts. Because of limited funding available this fiscal year, Council delayed the process for approximately two weeks by asking for a review of three districts (District No. 27 in the 100s' and Murdock Street area is the third one) proposed for FY 2003-04. Council reviewed all three districts at the meeting on August 12`s and directed staff to schedule District Nos. 28 and 29 for Council consideration on August 26, 2003. The information on the City's website has now been corrected. Again, no contracts have been awarded on either of these two projects. Bids have been received, an apparent responsive low bidder has been identified for each project, and contract award is pending Council action to form the districts and approve award of the contracts. The septic systems in these proposed districts are generally close to 50 years old or older. City Council has heard from residents opposing the formation of the districts. Fn)m the comment cards L and phone calls, we know there are lot owners who are experiencing problems with their septic r systems and wish to connect to City sewer. City Council is interested in hearing from those residents as well. The informational hearing is your opportunity to provide that input for consideration. Sincerely, USTIN P. DUENAS, P.E. Engineer c: Mayor and City Councilors William A. Monahan, City Manager L-%NQWXWtZrTELJVaw to Rwi&w of D&:rb Nm 1! We 29.doe 3125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 6394171 TDD (503) 6842772 tX~,~J ~eaJ S Go S l S, , Pictures taken August 23, 2003 GD ~ - ~ P J I ~ _ k'- tJo1 1, No. 39 5 Co~S►heav August 21, 2003 i A3 Street fee prop= would pq for itself The City Council wants Ills fee to The city has a $4 million backlog in pre- "We anticipate that the aggregate total will fund MM M nett atseelated with ventive and maintenance needs that include not exceed 25 percent of the $800,000;" said slurry seals, pavement overlays and recon- City Enginw Gus Duenas. "As a practical the program struction, and over five years the street main- rnattff, I also anticipate that as we proceed tenance fee would fund these projects. through the budget process each year, we TIGARD - City officials plan to keep projected rates include a flat monthly fee would request that whatever gas tax dollars administrative and overhead costs to a mini- of 52.21 to be paid by residents. The month- u mum if the City Council implements a street ly cost for businesses initially would be 82 are available be combined with the nstrte- maintenanee fee program later this year. cents for each parking space, with a mini- tion from an the foe amount to make available for cogrea Following minor revisions to the plan - mum of five and a maximum of 200. equal to or hopofittly greater which would raise $800,000 annually The City Council Aug. 12 decided to fol- than through fees paid by residents and business low a staff recommendation to include the "We do want to have at least 5800,000 net owners - the council is expected to vote on program's overhead, engineering and con- that aehrally goes into the street projects so the plan in November. It would go into effect struction administration expenses in the street that we can stay on schedule with a five-year in January maintenance fee costs. maintenance plan." City moves ahead with two sewer extension districts O'Mara, McDonald and P#* streeft As for District No. 29, five were in favor of amount, there are enough funds to construct plus OM Dell Court will get towers Proceeding immediately and six wanted a possibly two of the three districts. ifl 21183.04 delay. Bids have been received for all three proj- "In addition, at the neighborhood meeting, ects. some of the residents in the district indicated "The final project cast that will be used to TIGARD - Over the, objections of a problems with their septic systems;' Duenas determine each owner's fair share of the cost group of angry neighbors, the City Council said. "Hence, city staff conducted a mail sw- will be the actual cost of construction plus a Aug. 12 voted 5-0 to form two sewer rem- vey of all the residents in the proposed District 115-percent engineering and administrative bursement districts for the 2003-04 fiscal year. No. 29 to determine if they really do want or fee,,, Duenas said The council fast discussed forming the dis- need sewer in their neighborhood. trios June 10 and continued the informational 'The responses received from that survey ~ Contractors provided the low bid on hearing to June 24. Two neighborhood meet- show 15 in favor - some strongly in favor No. 28 of 64, which with 5 percent ings also were held to give people an opportu- because of septic system problems - and I 1 contingency added totals 5385,000. Dunn nity to discuss the proposal and get questions wishing to delay the project until 2006. It Construction tendered the low bid on both No. answered. appears from the responses that residents in 29 - 5485,895 plus 5 percent for a total of The neighborhoods considered for rein- both districts do want the sewers now." 5510,200 - and No. 27 - $613,686 plus 5 bousement districts were No. 27 (70 lots along However, from the responses of neighbors percent for a total of $644,400. 100th Avenue and Murdock Street), No. 28 at the Aug. 12 meeting, many also do not want "District No. 29 in combination witt (36 lots along O'Mara and McDonald streets) the city to provide sewer service in their areas. District No. 28 can be awarded for construe. and No. 29 (47 lots along Park Street and Several said that they had not received all the Lion this fiscal year," Duenas said. "In fact Derry Dell Court). idibrination that was supposed to be provided, some residents in District No. 29 are experi. At the neighborhood meetings, people also and others said that they had seen on the city's encing problems with their septic systems ano were asked to fill out comment cards to indi- Web site that the contracts had been awarded. cate their preferred schedule for their project. "The homeowners don't have a choice," ~ relief soon. Of the throe districts, No. 2' According to City Engineer Gus Duenas, said Elizabeth McCord. "You are forcing bwr' should be the priority project. the cards for District No. 28 showed seven in hand. That is the frustration - we aren't get- "B the responses raxived, the big favor of proceeding this year, throe in favor if ting the information." results and on the need for sewer, city star the project was postponed until spring 2004 According to Duenas, with $750,000 in the recommends that Districts Nos. 28 and 29 b and time in favor of delaying it until 2006, sewer extension program in the 2003-04 formed and the projects constructed this fisci which is the final year of the program. budget, plus $282,000 in a contingency year." Chapter 454 - Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems Page 1 of 2 txG~bi t 11 covsi~e0.~1 454.655 Permit required for construction; application; time limit; special application procedure for septic tank installation on parcel of 10 acres or more. (1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 454.675, without first obtaining a permit from the Department of Environmental Quality, no person shall construct or install a subsurface sewage disposal system, alternative sewage disposal system or part thereof. However, a person may undertake emergency repairs limited to replacing minor broken components of the system without first obtaining a permit. (2) A permit required by subsection (1) of this section shall be issued only in the name of an owner or contract purchaser in possession of the land. However, a permit issued to an owner or contract purchaser carries the condition that the owner or purchaser or regular employees or a person licensed under ORS 454.695 perform all labor in connection with the construction of the subsurface or alternative sewage disposal system. (3) The applications for a permit required by this section must be accompanied by the permit fees prescribed in ORS 454.745. (4) After receipt of an application and all requisite fees, subject to ORS 454.685, the department shall issue a permit if it finds that the proposed construction will be in accordance with the rules of the Environmental Quality Commission. A permit may not be issued if a community or area-wide sewerage system is available which will satisfactorily accommodate the proposed sewage discharge. The prohibition on the issuance of a permit in this subsection does not apply to a public agency as defined in ORS 454.430. (5)(a) Unless weather conditions or distance and unavailability of transportation prevent the issuance of a permit within 20 days of the receipt of the application and fees by the department, the department shall issue or deny the permit within 20 days after such date. If such conditions prevent issuance or denial within 20 days, the department shall notify the applicant in writing of the reason for the delay and shall issue or deny the permit within 60 days after such notification. (b) If within 20 days of the date of the application the department fails to issue or deny the permit or to give notice of conditions preventing such issuance or denial, the permit shall be considered to have been issued. (c) If within 60 days of the date of the notification referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection, the department fails to issue or deny the permit, the permit shall be considered to have been issued. L (6) Upon request of any person, the department may issue a report, described in ORS 454.755 (1), of C evaluation of site suitability for installation of a subsurface or alternative sewage disposal system or nonwater-carried sewage disposal facility. The application for such report must be accompanied by the fees prescribed in ORS 454.755. i (7) With respect to an application for a permit for the construction and installation of a septic tank and necessary effluent sewer and absorption facility for a single family residence or for a farm related i activity on a parcel of 10 acres or more described in the application by the owner or contract purchaser of the parcel, the Department of Environmental Quality: (a) Within the period allowed by subsection (5)(a) of this section after receipt by it of the application, shall issue the permit or deliver to the applicant a notice of intent to deny the issuance of the permit; (b) In any notice of intent to deny an application, shall specify the reasons for the intended denial based j.o-4h-n Ionr nfn4.a nw nn/n..n /AGA l.a„t O~'1'} MnAl Chapter 454 = Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems Page 2 of 2 6,c ~'u 11 S• CoosivAeaJ upon the rules of the Environmental Quality Commission for the construction and installation of a septic tank and necessary effluent sewer and absorption facility or based upon the factors included in ORS 454.685 (2)(a) to 0); (c) Upon request of the applicant, shall conduct a hearing in the manner provided in ORS 454.635 (4) and (5) on the reasons specified in a notice of intent to deny the application with the burden of proof upon the department to justify the reasons specified; and (d) In the case of issuance of a permit, may include as a condition of the permit that no other permit for a subsurface sewage disposal system or alternative sewage disposal system shall be issued for use on the described parcel while the approved septic tank, effluent sewer and absorption facility are in use on the described parcel. [1973 c.835 §213; 1974 c.30 §2; 1975 c.167 §5; 1975 c.794 §1; 1999 c.551 §6; 2001 c.557 §6] 2 1 i Lwr../b.».....L,.. ..a..a.. 14 CA 1.~ l OYYf MAM S• C.3&JS ltneGU Oregon's Clean Water State Revolving Fund The water quality of our State's rivers, streams, lakes and estuaries is an important aspect of Oregon's "livability", Although a lot has been accomplished, there still remains a need for improving the quality of our waters. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Loan Program administered by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) provides low-cost loans for the planning, design and construction of a variety of projects that address water pollution. The program has recently been refined to better support improvements to water bodies polluted by non-point sources of pollution The loans through the CWSRF program are available to Oregon's public agencies. Public agencies include cities, counties, sanitary districts, soil and water conservation districts, irrigation districts and various special districts. The Department of Environmental Quality is committed to working with Oregon communities to attain and maintain water quality standards. These standards are necessary to protect beneficial uses such as recreation, fish habitat, boating, irrigation and drinking water. Overview Congress established the CWSRF in 1987, to replace the Construction Grants program, which had provided direct grants to communities to complete sewer infrastructure projects. In the CWSRF program, Congress appropriates funds to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the purpose of capitalizing the CWSRF program each year. This appropriation to EPA was $1,350,000,000 for the 2003 federal fiscal year, and is in turn allocated to all the states and Puerto Rico based on a pre-determined formula. Each state must contribute a minimum matching amount of 201/6 of this federal grant to the program annually. Oregon's 2003 grant is approximately $15,000,000 which, when combined with the State's required $3,000,000 matching amount and repayments of existing loans, provided the Oregon program with approximately $68,000,000 of available funds for providing assistance to local communities. As of June 30, 2003 Oregon's CW SRF Loan Program has provided a total of $407,186,484 to Oregon communities since the program's start. During 2003, the program was extensively revised and now provides additional types of loans and varying interest rates. Currently, loan terms can be as long as 20 years with interest rates in the 2-3% range. Loans and Loan Terms There are six different types of loans available within the program. These include traditional planning, design and construction loans, There are also loans available for emergencies, urgent repairs and local community projects. Each of these loan types has different financial terms, and is intended to provide communities with choices when financing water quality improvements. Interest rates are based on the nation's bond buyer's index and fluctuate quarterly. The interest rates of our various loans are substantially discounted from the bond rate. For example, with a quarterly bond rate of 5.0%a, the CWSRF interest rates (depending on the type of loan) would range from 1.25% to 3.25%. Loan payback periods vary, ranging from 5 to 20 years. Loans do include an annual loan fee of 0.5% of the outstanding balance. Planning loans are exempt from this fee. Eligible Projects • Water quality related planning or studies • Septic system repairs • Wastewater reuse • Various non-point source best management practices • Storm water control • Riparian or wetland restoration • Wastewater treatment projects • Irrigation improvements • Interim financing for some USDA programs C • Major sewer replacement and rehabilitation • Infiltration and inflow correction • Estuary management activities j • Others 1 1 Application The program is continuously open to new applications. The information required by the application is pretty comprehensive. The application and its associated documents provide DEQ with the information needed to understand the need for the project, the project's intention, its benefits, costs and its overall viability. The associated documents might include environmental reviews, land-use compatibility statements and financial reports. Based upon these documents, the DEQ assesses the ability of the applicant to repay the loan and the readiness of the project to proceed. Applications are available by contacting DEQ's regional Project Officers or from DEO's CWSRF website. ~ xl~;~o~ Ir 1 Z Project Priority List S G0Q& i ^ea, V All eligible proposed projects are ranked based upon their application information and entered on the program's Project Priority List. Points are assigned based on specific ranking criteria. Newly ranked projects are integrated into the priority list on a regular basis. The Project Priority List itself is incorporated within P1 t is ,tit ofd lotentl4tl (lsr I'lan_ It lift which indicates DEQ's proposed use of the funds each year. Project Funding The timing of our loan process is dependent on both DEQ's internal process and the motivation of each applicant. In a best case scenario, applicants could expect to receive funding within six months of applying. That timeframe could double depending on several variables. DEQ's process includes ranking applications, revising our project priority list, updating the intended use plan and allowing the public to comment on that plan. It's the upplicant's responsibility to ensure the required information and associated documents are submitted to DEQ. Some documents may take significant lead-time to develop. Upon approval of all application documents, the project is funded ff sufficient loan monies are available. If monies are insufficient to fully fund all of the completed applications, projects are funded in Project Priority List order. Each time new monies become available, those monies are allocated to as many unfunded or partially funded projects as possible Summary Improving the water quality within Oregon is one of the primary goals of DEQ. For over a decade our CWSRF loan program has helped many Oregon communities address a variety of water pollution concoms. Annually, the program has about $50million available for water quality improvements, While continuing to serve traditional municipality wastewater needs, the loan program is now expanding with additional loans and incentives to also address non-point source water pollution. Public agencies involved in water quality issues and seeking financial supportshould consider this program as an option. For more information For specific information on applications, types of loan, current financial terms or anv other questions, please contact DEQ's Project Officers: Western Region: Jaime Isaza, Eugene (541) 686-7838, ext. 233 Gary Artman, Eugene (541) 686-7838, ext. 256 artmgn.:~;ir}, ~r,lr~i ,tatr.,~r u, NW Region: Richard Santner, (503) 229-5219 ,;uunrr.rt~harcl.«.drq.;tat..nr u, Eastern Region: Elizabeth Hutchison, Pendleton (541) 278-8681 lititrl~i.,<<n~.~liah~•tlt,i ~J~•~_~i;ur ,a u> i - DEO Headquarters. Portland Larry McAllister, Program Coordinator (503) 229-6412 in,:a1li.ter l;nn ,t L1vq ;l;ac Of L11 Rick Waiters, Financial Analyst (503) 229-6814 vk_Am r,.rich ud"l ,t;uc.,u u, You may also call toll free in Oregon, and askfor the CWSRF loan program, 1800 452-4011, or obtain information from the DEQ s CWSRF website, at. http://www.dea.state.or.us/wq wq grl ant/wgprant.htm Quick Rate-Check Result Page I of 1 Er'u,,Ik 13 You have requested a loan of $150,000 to Refinance & cash out on a Single Family House valued at $200,000. S Cpl I N~Q Loan ID Loan Interest APR Monthly Total Amortization Apply Program Rate Payment Points or Now (Prin. & 'Lender Int.) Credit CJ 30 $803 900018029 Year 6.25% .377% $924 Fixed Rate Apply Fixed 0.535% 17 30 No Points 900018929 Year 6.5% 6.577% $948 plus $600 Fixed Rate Apply Fixed Credit 30 No Points M us 900018029 Year 6.75% 6.829% $973 $21250 Fixed Rate Apply Fixed Credit Rates were last updated on 8122/2003. "Interest rates shown are subject to change without notice and assume excellent credit Mortgage Design Group.com Is not responsible for any rates that may change prior to lock confirmation. Your rate Is not guaranteed until written confirmation Is received from the lender." * "Lender Credit" Is a credit towards non-recurring closing costs at close of escrow. These are the most attractive programs based on a loan amount of $150,000 on a property having an estimated value of $200,000 based on our research of today's marketplace. To see more detailed information including associated closing costs, please click on the Loan Program. If you would like to see programs based on different criteria, please return to Quick Rate Check and modify your search criteria. Notes: 1. Our programs and interest rates are updated weekdays between 12:00 P.M and 1:00 P.M. These rates are subject to lenders' mid-day changes. Please confirm with your loan officer. 2. If you choose to pursue any of these programs, your loan officer will determine if we can offer that program to you. Af4n• Ilnnt1sv Mn~nnnorlnaim~n~.nnw nnw+Iw{~n~on.aln/nom/II~inLD..fa!'~1,onL~:n raw a n z /~nn7 Oregon Lender Search @ INTEREST.COM Page 1 of 3 S - C,-'31JS1H~a11J ® LINTERESICOM Shop Rates Mortgage Loan Basks Home Equity Refiner Find Lenders Calculators Loan Options Bad Credit RateTra. Navigation Sponsors Appear Below... Click hart a consolidate your debt Less .Eo!lPsr and lower your monthM y~nts For Solutions Find a IRatel M,3 Mortgage Lenders in Oregon Advertisement Mortgage Discussion cat lltlDrt«. LOW Mortgage Banker/Broker refinance! f, Associations a Ist Existing Condo : S50,000 Housing Finance Ore Agencies Resin Lending Rates for 30 Year Conventional Fixed Rate Programs Institution/ Broker (ReflnanCe) Regulator New Housing Counseling POSTED Rate Points Orig. A.P.R. LOCK Range Agendas Payment Amt Amt Fees Down Refll Pmt.q not mearatgom • tlii1iiil tO1"r 08/23/03 6.000% 0.000 0% 6.110% 30 100000.01 Check-this Payi Find a Lender 21:45 $899 $0 $0 $1265 5% to 322700 lender's Track Mortgage Rates rating No Clos Prot' Use our mortgage calculators A71 At Homebound r Not-so Discussion Boards M 08/23 03 6.125% 0.000 0% 6.243% 30 100000.01 • Check this Cry SmartStats N' 09:52 $911 $0 $0 $1365 5% to 322700 lender rating Porl Inside Mortgagee Newwest Funding E.u.c 08/22/03 6.000% 0.000 0% 6.050% 30 100000.01 Check this Mec 1st Time Buyer's Guide 17:37 $899 $0 $0 $845 20% to 322700 lender's _Penc Your Mortgage Options rating La G MRe8nance Center LoansAtWho_ lesale am' Fast tur 'Got Bad credit? 08/22/03 6.125% 0.000• 0% 6.190%I r , 30 150000.01 Check this & Lor, 7Home Equity Loans 17:09 $911 $0 $0 $1185 5% to 322700 lender's 7Govurnment Loans rating Click EederslLMQCtga,9e_Eldndillfl r - 08/22/03 6.000% 0.000 0% 6.097% 30 150000.01 Check this 16:35 $899 $0 $0 $2000 5% to 322700 tender's Mori` rating q Interest.com wants your input! Tell us your experiences with the lenders in our ti listings. Call us toll free 1-888-278-7348 M-F 9am - 5pm CST or email your comments to custornersenriCe(Minterest_Com Thank you for choosing Interest.com' ExeCS~Bve_Lending Services Q3UREE• elsmortgage.com 08/22/03 6.000% 0.000 0% 6.071% 42 100000.01 Check this 14:32 $899 $0 $0 $1261 5% to 322700 lender's rating PE[celinem9rtga e 08/22/03 6.000% 0.000 0% 6.118% 45 150000.01 Check this 14:08 $899 $0 $0 $1450 20% to 322700 lender's t+Nw•//«n6anl+nwwsr iwls+.ani I.nMJM~a+. nn~e7,.hn~e-R"lAnro+rnn-S«teMn~ nn...Al..n«~....e-1 P.~..«s o/11i1)nm Oregon Leader Search (c), INTEREST.COM Page 2 of 3 &c„ 6tt 43 S C.a,.;s i Ne J rating f3eirnlls_MQrtgage Corporation 08/22/03 6.000% 0.000 0% 6.131% 30 100000.01 Check this 12:30 $899 $0 $0 $1293 5% to 322700 lender's rating east-West Mortgage Cc= 11010MMMM 08/22/03 6.375% 0.000 0% 6.600% 30 100000.01 Check. this 12:25 $935 $0 $0 $1073 5% to 322700 lender's rating POSTED Rate Points Orig. A.P.R. LOCK Range Payment Amt Amt Fees Down Pmt. Savings. Mortgage,. Inc. r 08/22/03 6.125% 0.000 0% 6.160% 60 150000.01 Check this 12:08 $911 $0 $0 $995 5% to 322700 lender's rating Arnen-an Pacifls p; Mortgage CC= iri 08/22/03 6.000% 0.000 .125% 6.083% 35 150000.01 Check this 11:48 $899 $0 $188 $1160 5% to 322700 lender's rating InterRetmortgage.cQm Div, of Bank ofslue r valley 08/22/03 6.250% 0.000 0% 6.285% 6 150000.01 Check this 11:42 $923 $0 $0 $kk 5 10% to 322700 lender's rating E_Loan 08/21/03 6.875% 0.000 0% 6.951% 30 100000.01 Check this 17:00 $985 $0 $0 $425 20% to 322700 lender's rating Horizon National Bank Elmazz 08/21/03 6,000% 0.000 0% 6.066% 45 150000.01 Checkthls 10:32 $899 $0 $0 $10$0 5% to 322700 (prrder_'s rating Interest.com wants your input! Tell us your experiences with the lenders in our listings. Call us toll free 1-888-278-7348 M-F 9am - 5pm CST or email your comments to customerserv_iceinterest corn . Thank you for choosing Interest.com! Arnerisave r ? 08/21/03 6.125% 0.000 0% 6,191% 30 100000.01 , Check this 08:51 $911 $0 $0 $1399 20% to 322700 lender's rating flQtJd;i._eank 08/21/03 6.250% 0.000 0% 6.337% 45 100000.01 Check this 07:46 $923 $0 $0 $682 30% to 322700 lender's rating Charter F1na-Rciai. Group LLC 08/19/03 5.875% 0.000 .75% 5.976% 30 100000.01 Check this 12:37 $887 $0 $1125 $1233 5% to 322700 lender'5 rating NM Mortgage_Company 08/09/03 5.875% 0.000 0% 5.917% 30 100000.01 Check this httn•//ratPa}jnnnPr intnt»af rnm/ratPC aen9atata=3 7.Q•annrrP=intarr+et rr.M9r1nanfvrw=1 kt-urw Rnij,)MI Oregon Lender Search (a; INTEREST.COM Page 3 of 3 &L,%6tQ s' Ca~sjrecio 12:00 $887 $0 $0 $855 5% to 322700 lender's rating Search Again: Loan Pu 208e: List your Lending Institution Herat Plow Taff tiro Choos Chops e Qne _ LwWars ONyerrsaw0ralrratss anon XTIMST.COM web aftsf Loan Type: 'This feature is a paid advertisement Rates are subject to change without notice. Ai rate Informisdon is 30 Year Fixed Rate mostved dhdly from the lending Institutions and Is deemed reliable but not guaranteed. Desired discount 22int ran Truth In LwWing Dleabsurse: Payment. Monthly no discount lots Payment based on $160000. Monthly payments are based on a 30 year amortization (360 payments), and Estimated loan amount: do not Include fazes and Insurance. Borrowers that put leas than 20% down could be required to purchase mortgage Insurance, which ooud Increase the monthly payment amount (Contact each lender for further payment details) Points It Point: t% of ban amount) are costs used to lower the ban's Interest rate. Orig (Origination) - Points charged by the lender for Origination Few. And (Amount) ■ Dollar Amount of Points bawd on $160000. Fees - Costs to be paid by the borrower In connection with the loan. A.P.R. (Annual Percentage Rate) . A.P.R, quotations OW are o ra0at that the lender did not supply INTEREST.COM with a Annual Percentage Rate for that program. See http:l~nterest.comlgugalines.html for loan quotation guidelines. Listed Lenders Support Equal Opportunity Housing. 020021NTEREST.COM. All rights reserved. Further distribution violates law. AN personal information collected by Interesteom is processed by our secured server. For more information, read our Pri Statement. INTEREST.CONI is an independent information service and is not affiliated with any tending institution. All content 02002 by INTEREST.COM i Disclaimers. i Lender Services i Helg I Feedback_n new Site Design 9 i i h1M•I/rataol+nnnnr ints.rnef r•nm/r*fae per+9afafra=Z^,Riannrr•s.=intnevaw i.nm Qilnonf~rnacl .P,t,,- QM1 MA M Jessica L. Cousineau rS1c~bi~ ( y 1o755 S.W. Derry Dell Ct., Tigard, OR 97223 S , Co v5ivkex", email: jessica@scrye.com 13 August 2003 Augustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Via Fax: (503) 624-0752 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 Thank you for your response to our petition and your offer to help us resolve this issue in a manner that is helpful to all involved. I do have a few questions that have not been answered yet. The first set have to do with the opinion survey cards that you sent out to our district. In the letter and at the City Council Meeting on the 121h of August you stated that there were 15 responses that wanted to implement the district this year and 11 that wanted to wait until 2006. Were there any responses that indicated an interest in waiting until next summer? Were there any cards that indicated interest in options other than those presented on the card? Also, you mentioned that you had been told of 4 failures. Can you tell me who they were and what type of failure they indicated that they were having? My second set of questions have to do with the implementation of the proposed district. If the district were to be implemented as currently proposed, what would be the definition of a failed septic system? What repairs are currently allowed once a residence is within 300ft of a sewer line? In the sewer districts that have already been implemented, what is the average time between installation of the lines and residential connection? What city fees (i.e. permitting fees, etc.) are associated with connecting to a sewer line and what city fees are associated with repairing a septic tank? Additionally, my understanding from talking with Clean Water Services is that they expect residences within 3008 to connect to the sewer within 3 years, unless the resident has a deferral. What deferral programs does the city have in place to address this issue? My third set of requests and questions have to do with the financial aspects of the proposed district. I would like a copy of the request for bids and all of the bids that were submitted in response to it. I would also like to see a list of all of the relevant options for payment of the installation. Additionally, what mechanisms have you investigated for the city to pay for this initial investment and what financing mechanisms have you investigated for the members of the proposed district. L Because of the timely nature of this issue I trust that you will respond by close of business on Ffiday the le of August. If it is easier, response by email at jessica@scrye.com would be sufficient as long as hard copies were to follow. Thank you again for your continued help in this ma'der. 3 o Sincerel 7 4- _ Je . l Ca L. Cousineau cc: William A Monahan, City Manager Mayor and City Councilors Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder Jessica L. Cousineau b K i, i t( N 10755 S.W.1Derry Dell Ct., Tigard, OR 97223 email: jessica@scrye.com s ~OvS~~egv 17 August 2003 Augustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Via Fax: (503) 624-0752 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 Last week I received a letter from you letting us know about the City Council meeting on the 261" of August. I appreciate your timely notice about this meeting. While I was looking over the information included in this letter I noticed that you had sent us different information about who Is in the proposed district and how much each affected property owner will have to pay. For example, my house at 10755 SW Derry Dell Ct. was listed as having an estimated cost to property owner of $12,035 and in the current list that you included it is now listed as being $11,618. While I am certainly glad to see that the amount has decreased, I am a little curious about the reason for this change. Has a new bid been submitted since you last told us about the bids submitted? Also, I noticed that you removed Richard Phillips, at 10676 Cook Ln., and added Terri Cole, at 13075 SW Watkins Ave., from the list of affected property owners. What is the reason for those changes? Your continued timely attention to my concerns is appreciated in light of the upcoming City Council meeting. Sincerely, Jessica L. Cousineau cc: William A Monahan, City Manager Mayor and City Councilors L Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder J a Jessica L. Cousineau b x b y 1o755 S.W. Derry Dell Q., Tigard, OR 97223 ~V 5 cAe ck J email: jessica@scrye.com 20 August 2003 Augustin P. Duenss, P.E. City Engineer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 In the past few days l have discovered a few more questions that I have about the current proposal for the sewer reimbursement district. My first question has to deal with the structure of the current proposed district. When your department made the plans for this district they included some houses on Derry Dell Ct. and excluded others. In the meeting at the water building on the 9"' of July you told those of us in attendance that the mason some houses were excluded was that they were too low to be included. However, you also indicated that night that the city is interested in installing the sewer system in order to forestall any unfortunate environmental issues that might occur in the case of a septic system failure. In the Interest of making sure that no property was left in a position that could create an environmental problem, did your office consider having one side of Derry Dell Ct. conned to the sewer that is already in place on the north side of the street and the other side of Derry Dell Ct. connect to the new sewer that you are attempting to build? What would that do to the cost model that you have constructed? My second question deals with the function of septic systems. In both your written and verbal correspondence with this dWd you have noted that the septic systems in place are over 50 years old. Do you know what the average Iife of a property maintained septic system is? Thank you again for your time. I eagerly await the your prompt response in light of the upcoming City Council Meeting on the 2& of August. Sincerely, i esa . Cousineau cc: Wdiiam A Monahan, City Manager Mayor and City Councilors Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder i w S Q\15iNegv August 21, 2003 Jessica L. Cousineau CITY OF TIGARD 10755 SW Derry Dell Ct. Tigard, OR 97223 OREGON RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 Dear Ms. Cousineau: This is in response to your various letters asking a wide variety of questions regarding proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29. I delayed in responding to your letters because I felt it was important that all the residents of the two proposed districts receive relevant information at the same time. Enclosed for your information is a letter dated August 21, 2003 sent to all residents in the two proposed districts explaining why the City is pursuing the extension of sewer to all developed but unserved areas Citywide. The letter answers some of the questions posed in your letters. Nevertheless, I have prepared responses to your questions in the various letters in the order that you have posed them and listed under the dates of the letters I have received. The following are my responses: Letter of August 13, 2003 • Question on Survey Cards: Response: The survey cards showed 15 residents in favor of forming the district and constructing the project this year. There were 11 residents that wanted to delay the district until 2006. There were no cards submitted in favor of delaying it till next year. • Question on septic system failures noted on the survey cards: Response: The comments on the survey cards ranged from drain field saturation to the septic system is not working well and is in the process of failing. Rather than provide the names without each resident's permission, you are welcome to come and view the comment cards. L Give Diane Jelderks a call at 503-718-2465 to set up the time and date. • Question on repairs and sewer connections: a Response: My enclosed letter explains the reasons for the City's Citywide program. As a L1 resident in District No. 29, you should also be receiving a copy in the mail. In general, on-site 5 sewage disposal systems are considered as short-term methods until public sewer can be J made available. It is the City's responsibility to extend public sewer to those areas with septic systems that have already exceeded their life expectancies. The City does not wish to perpetuate on-site disposal methods and through the Citywide Sewer Extension Program is prepared to provide public sewer to those areas with septic systems that have already exceeded their life expectancies. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 6394171 TDD (503) 684-2772 bx1.~1;~t 15 CAVSi'AERV • Question on Cityfinancing: Response: Cities in are not in the financing business. Cities are able to offer low cost financing for local improvement districts because of a specific provision of State law known as the Bancroft Bond Statutes. These bonds, known as Bancroft bonds, are secured primarily by assessments and liens against the properties within the districts and the unlimited power of i cities to levy a citywide property tax to pay debt service on the bonds if property owners fail to make their payments. Because of this double security, bond buyers offer the lowest possible interest rates for these bonds. This same authority does not exist for reimbursement districts. Any bonds sold to finance property owner obligations would be backed solely by the property-owner's promise to pay, and would therefore carry higher interest rates. These interest rates would not be significantly better than those the property owner could arrange on their own through a bank or other financing company. We also looked into the possibility of providing financing for this program, but have concluded that the administrative costs in establishing a financing and tracking mechanism would be excessively high. Those costs would have to be incorporated into the program thereby increasing the costs to the residents, whether or not they choose to participate. We are trying to reduce the overall program costs, not increase them. In addition, we see collection as a potential problem in cases of non-payment. Without a lien on the property or some other method to enforce collection, non-payment would be a significant issue. Finally, there are a number of financial institutions that provide financing as part of their services. Because of these reasons, the City has opted not to pursue the establishment of a financing mechanism for this program. Letter of August 18, 2003 • Question regarding why costs changed from previous cost estimates: Response: The first estimated cost for the Cousineau lot of $12,035 was based on the initial estimate for the project prepared prior to receiving bids for the construction. It included the estimated construction cost, a 15% construction contingency and the 13.5% engineering and administrative fee required as part of the reimbursement district ordinance. The $11,618 estimate is the current estimate and is based on the contractor's bid. It includes a 5% construction contingency and the 13.5% engineering and administrative fee. a F . Question on removal of one lot from the district and addition of another lot: Response; Removal of the Phillips lot, 10676 Cook Lane, from the district- This lot is too J low to be served by the proposed line. Service to this lot can be better accomplished by ® extending an existing line in SW 108th Avenue as part of a future reimbursement district. W The Cole lot, 13075 SW Watkins Avenue, was originally believed to be served from the back J of the lot by a line from the Watkins Place cul-de-sac. We have since discovered that the lot does not have access to this line so it was added to the district. Letter Responding to Questions by Jessica Cousineau Page 2 of 3 Letter of August 20, 2003 SCuusiNeav • Question regarding having only one side of Derry Dell Court connect to the new sewer: Response: The most cost-effective way to extend sewer lines is to include as many properties as possible without driving costs up beyond reason. This spreads the total costs among the properties included. Eliminating lots from the proposed district increases the cost per remaining lot. In order to connect the north side of Derry Dell Court to the existing sewer, we would have to run a new line along the rear of the properties on the north side requiring easements that are not already available. Not only is that an additional expense, it requires that the line be in a location that would be difficult to access for maintenance. Our policy is to place sewer lines within streets whenever possible for maintenance purposes. Connection to one sewer line as designed would be the most cost-effective method to deliver service. We did leave out two lots from the district because they were too low to be served by the line. Those two can be connected through a small reimbursement district that ties those two to the line to the north. The line would run through the rear of the properties to connect to the line that runs along the creek. Maintenance access could be an issue later, but it would be limited to just those two properties. • Question on the average life of a properly maintained septic system: Response: On-site septic systems are considered a short-term disposal method, which would eventually be replaced by public sewer. The life expectancy of septic systems is between 20 and 30 years, depending upon use and maintenance. The septic systems in proposed District Nos. 28 (O'Mara, McDonald Street area) and 29 (Park Street and Derry Dell areas) are generally close to 50 years old or older, well beyond the typical life expectancy for such systems. See enclosed letter to all residents of District Nos. 28 and 29 for a more complete explanation. Letter of August 20, 2003 (apparently to residents in the proposed district) There were no specific questions in this letter. This is to acknowledge that we did receive a copy. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. L Sincerely, X Q p STdAI P. DUENAS, P.E. y Engineer u Enclosure: Letter dated August 21, 2003 to residents in proposed District Nos. 28 and 29 c: Mayor and City Councilors William A. Monahan, City Manager 1.-*N IGUS%Citywide Sewer Eftwim RoVenWespown oo Qwsdow by les&4 Coutimu 9-21-03.dw Letter Responding to Questions by Jessica Cousineau Page 3 of 3 bnl,,; d~~l to S-(:Ovsi-Ne~v August 7, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Jessica L. Cousineau 10755 SW Deny Dell Ct. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Ms. Cousineau: We received a petition from you dated August 6, 2003 opposing the formation of proposed Reimbursement District No. 29 and quoting ORS 451.495(1)(c) as the reference. Please note that the ORS referenced in the petition has no connection to reimbursement districts and does not apply. It actually applies to service districts that may be formed by counties. However, the petition will be submitted to City Council for the discussion on August 12, 2003. What does apply is Chapter 13.09 of the Tigard Municipal Code, which covers reimbursement districts. An informational public hearing with appropriate notice is the only requirement prior to formation of a reimbursement district. Because "formation of the reimbursement district does not result in an assessment against property or lien against property, the public hearing is for informational purposes only and is not subject to mandatory termination because of remonstrances. The City Council has the sole discretion after the public hearing to decide whether a resolution approving and forming the reimbursement district shall be adopted" (TMC Chapter 13.09.050 Public Hearing). As the current City code states, the process to form reimbursement districts to construct these sewers does not require resident approval. However, to determine level of interest, we did conduct a survey by mail of all the residents in the proposed district. Out of 26 respondents, 15 indicated they wanted sewer now while 11 wanted the project delayed. Four residents indicated serious problems with their existing septic systems. D The reason for extending sewers Citywide on a systematic basis is to more efficiently J provide sewers to those that need it. The previous approach was to construct sewers at random depending upon resident interest. This was an extremely inefficient approach to providing sewers. In many cases, the residents that need it are not located adjacent to existing sewer lines. 13125 5W Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Gx1~~b~ t 1 b • 5•Cousi~egJ In addition, the septic systems within many of the unserved areas in the City are 30 to 50 years old or older. Septic system failures are expected with systems that old. In urban areas such as Tigard, the relative densities and the houses so close together create a potential health hazard once septic systems begin failing. The fact that some of the residents in District No. 29 are experiencing problems with their septic systems should be strongly considered in any discussion for formation of the district. If you have any questions or would like additional information regarding either the proposed project or reimbursement districts in general, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, P. P. DUENAS, P.E. eEngineer c: Mayor and City Councilors William A. Monahan, City Manager I;IEng%GuslUamVAtta to larica Cmintau Regarding Aetitiou for District No. 29.doc L 2 a 3 Letter to Jessica Cousineau Regarding District No. 29 Page 2 of 2 L EGaLffy STRIP treat # ok Lane Dell Court, Watkins Avenue & Park Street, Derry ent Drs Sanitary Sewer Reimbursern NAME: ADDRESS: pHONE NO.: Preferred option - Please select one. construct the project ra ect to the summer. The estimated cost ❑ Form the proposed distr permit construction and award the strucoracton to this ts current low bidder-, This would is shown to each owner undr this option.or is shown in the attached table. The c a 5% construction contingency, and 13.5% include the amount the c and adminiarrative costs- ring on. Rebid the covering the enginee Do not form the district now and do not award the contract for 'construct' project next spring. year of the Citywide Sewer Extension Delay the entire project until 2006. the final y Program. WRITE ~gSE SIDE WRITE ANY COMNiEr~TS ON ~ . ~LEthSE xr- r- -4 J G S CaasiHeav Pursuant to ORS §451.495(1)(c), we the undersigned object to the current proposed formation and implementation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 by the City of Tigard. According to ORS §451.595(1)(c) "(ijf the cost, or any portion of the cost, of service facilities for a district is to be assessed under ORS §451.490 against the property directly beneliitted, the governing body of the district shall, before attempting to implement the service facilities, adopt a general ordinance providing for the method of assessment. The ordinance shall:... Provide that if the district receives written objections prior to the conclusion of the hearing signed by more than 50 percent of the affected property owners representing more than 50 percent of the affected property the proposed service facilities will not be implemented." Name Address Signature &eAo / rc% < 1072;E 5u/ 4-' iV G '78c7 Der~-L C4.1 J- L. C JOUIJ c v t -1 w r GAR ' tLG r- 7i XJ 4 q n-e ~v / ~fltJJEy~`%(,GLGa~- ~OVsd SGJ~c~~y,~ti~~ c7" 7~l~awl ~r~1Z~ ILb G 1~R~,1=S ~~,S7aviJ 1074a .14,).QAFR0F41, CJ o ~ 2003 Sewer Reimbursement District #29 fof4 S.Co~~~~eau Pursuant to ORS §451.495(1)(c), we the undersigned object to the current proposed formation and implementation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 by the City of Tigard. According to ORS §451.595(1)(c) "(ijf the cost, or any portion of the cost, of service facilities for a district is to be assessed under ORS §451.490 against the property directly benefitted, the governing body of the district shall, before attempting to implement the service facilities, adopt a general ordinance providing for the method of assessment. The ordinance shall:... Provide that if the district receives written objections prior to the conclusion of the hearing signed by more than 50 percent of the affected property owners representing more than 50 percent of the affected property the proposed service facilities will not be implemented." Naive Address Sig ! ure^ l l 1' t' ` 4VIV 1 I . ; r ~I' WU5, wqo 0 7 5 5 SW bo" C . -T t ~ [ ~GUL{,$ ~C rd~ 76 S GJ A-K ((;i4f~yJ 1 . V. M+ D C FfFaP,S /r O7~'OS tu+. FI~7RSL n,ckL CL la(zSv- =n AF PIG e~Pk 1AJ, z nit, d(`, d1 i 0 lQ ~5 SW . Coo L,~ ward b -v-r- e v 1-3 -o I zt~ 2003 Sewer Reimbursement District #29 2of 4 5 •~~sihea~ Pursuant to ORS §451.495(1)(c), we the undersigned object to the current proposed formation and implementation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 by the City of Tigard. According to ORS §451.595(1)(c) "[ilf the cost, or any portion of the cost, of service facilities for a district is to be assessed under ORS §451.490 against the property directly benefitted, the governing body of the district shall, before attempting to implement the service facilities, adopt a general ordinance providing for the method of assessment. The ordinance shall:... Provide that if the district receives written objections prior to the conclusion of the hearing signed by more than 50 percent of the affected property owners representing more than 50 percent of the affected property the proposed service facilities will not be implemented." Name Address Signature 31 W0 O S LY 32 33•(3V~1«l,ar 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 L 41 42 43 y i 44 45 2003 Sewer Reimbursement District #29 3of 4 bx 1~,1y~ ► ~ S. Co%)si%Aecw Pursuant to ORS §451.495(1)(c), we the undersigned object to the current proposed formation and implementation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 by the City of Tigard. According to ORS §451.595(1)(c) "[i]f the cost, or any portion of the cost, of service facilities for a district is to be assessed under ORS §451.490 against the property directly benefitted, the governing body of the district shall, before attempting to implement the service facilities, adopt a general ordinance providing for the method of assessment. The ordinance shall:... Provide that if the district receives written objections prior to the conclusion of the hearing signed by more than 50 percent of the affected property owners representing more than 50 percent of the affected property the proposed service facilities will not be implemented." Name Address Signature 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 M 58 59 60 2003 Sewer Reimbursement District #29 4of 4 S . (~p~S►h6t J OREGON March 16,1999 Bill Robak 1436 SW Park Avenue #501 Portland OR 97201 stmeet: Application to Washington County for Repair of a Septic System at 10880 SW Deny Date Court. Dear Mr. Robot: Please accept this in response to your request for confirmation that the Engineering Department will not require connecting the house at this address to a public sewer. The purpose of the requested County application is to modify a drainfieid to accommodate an addition to the house. Sewer service is not available in this area and there are no current plans to provide service. Consequently, connection to a public sewer will not be required. Information concerning City permitting requirements is available from the Building Division. Sincerely, ZA7,# Greg N. Berry Utility Engineer W J 13125 SW HOP Blvd., PCWd, OR 97223 (503) 6394171 TDD (503) 684.2772 bXt,'~bit ~'O S CoJ5t mc, August 21, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Re: Residents in Proposed District Nos. 28 & 29 The following information is provided to you prior to the informational public hearings (scheduled for August 26, 2003) on the proposed districts so that you may be fully aware of the various details regarding City of Tigard's Sewer Extension Program. The following explains the reasons why the. City is seeking to provide sewer service to all developed but unserved areas in the City. It describes the current incentive program developed to encourage early connections to public sewer, and the Washington County Division of Environmental Health's position on repairs to on-site sewage disposal systems (typically septic tank and drain field) once City sewer becomes available. On-site septic systems are considered a short-term disposal method, which would eventually be replaced by public sewer. The life expectancy of septic systems is between 20 and 30 years, depending upon use and maintenance. The septic systems in proposed District Nos. 28 (O'Mara, McDonald Street area) and 29 (Park Street and Derry Dell areas) are generally close to 50 years old or older, well beyond the typical life expectancy for such systems. There are at least two areas of concern regarding these on-site disposal systems. One is the potential for the health hazards to develop as the aging systems begin to fail. The second is the potential for contamination of the groundwater and the adjacent streams. In urban areas such as Tigard where the houses are close together, septic system failures could create significant health hazards in the various neighborhoods. In addition, groundwater, once polluted, is difficult and sometimes impossible to clean up. The state policy is therefore to strictly control waste discharges to groundwater such that the highest possible water quality is maintained. The State Department of Environmental a Quality has the responsibility for ensuring that groundwaters in the state are protected R from pollution. Washington County's Division of Environmental Health (Department of w Health and Human Services) is responsible at the County level for issuing permits and for monitoring those on-site disposal systems. ® Because of these concerns, individual on-site sewage disposal systems that have the J potential to create significant health hazards and pollute the groundwater are far from being the preferred means for sewage disposal. They are allowed only until public sewer can be made available. The standard system of septic tank and drain field may have been the only alternative many years ago. That is not the case today. The City of Tigard has the responsibility to provide public sewer to those areas in the City that need it. The sewage flows in this public system are transmitted to a Clean Water Services treatment plan, which treats the wastewater and properly disposes of the effluent. The City of [3125 SW HCM Blvd, Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 S U jS\j,%eGV Tigard and Clean Water Services are both actively seeking to encourage connection to public sewer. The Citywide Sewer Extension Program is a Council-directed program to systematically extend sewer service throughout the City. The annexation of the Walnut Island area, which had septic systems 30 years old and older with some exhibiting signs of failure, created the need to establish a Citywide program. Our evaluation of other unserved areas in the City at that time indicated that these areas also had old on-site disposal systems and needed to be incorporated into the program. It is extremely difficult to react to failed septic systems that occur at random throughout the City. The ideal solution would be to extend sewers to all unsewered residential areas such that City sewer would be available as these systems fail. The mechanism to extend the sewer lines and provide service is through the formation of reimbursement districts. Reimbursement districts are formed to install public sewers to the lots within the districts and the owners would reimburse the City for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer at the time of connection. The program is now entering its third year and is intended to provide public sewers to all developed but unserved areas in the City. At the beginning of this program approximately two years ago there were approximately 660 residential lots throughout the City, plus about 80 commercial lots in the Tigard Triangle Area, without sewer service. These lots were typically on septic systems 30 years old or more. To date, 268 out of 660 sewer services have been installed. To encourage early connections, the City developed an incentive program to subsidize the cost of putting in the sewer lines to these unserved areas. The City's current incentive program limits the reimbursement fee to $6,000, if the actual costs fall in the range between $6,000 and $15,000, for those connecting within three years after the sewer becomes available. Any actual costs that exceed $15,000 would have to be assumed by the homeowner. Homeowners with large lots that have development potential are generally assessed proportionately higher costs. However, we are planning to submit to City Council an amendment to the incentive program to defer payments of those amounts exceeding $15,000 for those homeowners that merely wish to connect an existing house to the sewer. The balance deferred would become due only if the property is partitioned 0 or begins the process for subdivision and development. OC H ~N We have consulted with the Washington County Department of Health and Human J Services, Division of Environmental Health (DEH), on repairs to on-site disposal systems m once sewers have been made available to neighborhoods. That division enforces the Ej provisions of OAR (Oregon Administrative Rules) Division 71, Section 160 which deals ~ with on-site disposal systems. Because of the health-related and groundwater quality concerns, DEH strictly interprets the provisions of the current OAR. They would deny permits for repairs of systems if sewer is physically or legally available in an area. Physically available means sewer is available 300 feet from a single family residence. Legally available could mean an entity that provides sewer services (such as the City of Tigard or Clean Water Services) is willing and able to provide sewer service to that neighborhood. There are even more stringent DEQ (State Department of Environmental Letter to Residents of Proposed District Nos. 28 and 29 Pape 7 of i S Loo5'1v1Qgv Quality) rules that are scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2004. The staff of the County DEH feel that on-site disposal systems would face even more restrictive requirements that could result in use of much more expensive alternative on-site disposal systems (such as sand filters) as opposed to the standard septic tank and drain fields. The City does not wish to see relatively old septic systems perpetuated where there is an opportunity to provide public sewer that minimizes the potential for significant health hazards and pollution of the groundwater. We know there are some residents who are already experiencing septic system failures in these two proposed districts. The formation of Sewer Reimbursement District Nos. 28 and 29 would allow the City to construct the sewer services needed for these two areas. Sincerely, STIN P. DUENAS, P.E. C Engineer c: Mayor and City Councilors William A. Monahan, City Manager t:\ENG\GUS\Citywide Sewer Extension Program\Letter to Residents of Districts 28 and 29 - 8-20-03.doc d. lr1 , CW9 3 J Letter to Residents of Proposed District Nos. 28 and 29 Page 3 of 3 S•Co~Si~eq~ IGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING., AUGUST-26, 2003 6:00 p.m. CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY HALL 1,31125 SW:HALL BLVD TIGAMOR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet Is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; It Is recommended that persons Interested In testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign In on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard In any order after 7:30 p.m. Assisdve 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. 2410 (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 L • Qualified bilingual interpreters. 2 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 j Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684.2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). u SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 26, 2003 page 1 AGENDA s CoaS ~e4 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 26, 2003 6:00 PM • Tour of the "White House" on City Property (Adjacent to the New Library Property) (Council will meet at the property for thls portion of the meeting. After the Tour, the Council will meet for the remainder of the meeting at City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon) 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > Quarterly Meeting - Budget Committee > Bull Mountain Annexation Discussion > City Manager's Review > Sewer Reimbursement Program Discussion > Tualatin River Bridge Information EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go Into Executive Session to discuss current and pending litigation under ORS 192.660(1)(h). 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. L C 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council at Local Contract Review Board i 1.2 Roil Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications at Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 26, 2003 page 2 5 C,o~siweG~ 2. PROCLAMATIONS 2.1 Proclaim September 2003 as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month 2.2 Proclaim Week of September 17 - 23 as Constitution Week • Mayor Griffith 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 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 July 15 and 22, 2003 4.2 Declare Real Properly Located at 13050 SW Walnut as Surplus and Authorize the Sale of Said Property - Resolution No. 03- 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. S. DISCUSSION WITH STATE SENATOR GINNY BURDICK AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE MAX WILLIAMS a. Comments by Senator Burdick and Representative Williams b. Council Discussion 6. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 28 - PORTIONS OF SW O'MARA STREET, SW FREWING STREET, SW EDGEWOOD STREET, SW HILL i VIEW COURT, AND SW MCDONALD STREET a. Open Public Hearing b. Summation by Engineering Department C. Public Testimony COUNCIL AGENDA -AUGUST 26, 2003 page 3 d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion $ _~~s`~¢SJ f. Close Public Hearing g. Consideration by Council: Resolution No. 03 - 7. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 29 - SW PARK STREET, SW DERRY DELL COURT, SW COOK LANE AND SW WATKINS AVENUE a. Open Public Hearing b. Summation by Engineering Department C. Public Testimony d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion f. Close Public Hearing g. Consideradon by Council: Resolution No. 03 - 8. CONSIDER ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 27 - SW PARK 1001' AVENUE, SW MURDOCK STREET a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Motion to deny the formation of the district and direct staff to resubmit a request to establish Reimbursement District No. 27 for construction of sewer Improvements during the 20042005 fiscal year. 9. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD CONSIDERATION OF: 9.1 Award Contract for the Construction of SW O'Mara Street and SW McDonald Street Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 28 to Kerr Contractors, Inc. a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Motion to Award Contract for the Construction of SW O'Mara Street and SW McDonald Street Sanitary a Sewer Reimbursement District No. 28 to Kerr Contractors, Inc. i 9.2 Award Contract for the Construction of Park Street, Deny Dell Court, Watkins Avenue and Cook Lane Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 to i Dunn Construction, Inc. a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff b. Council Discussion COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 26, 2003 page 4 Ex~ti;t Z,I S C_o~s~HeQJ C. Council Consideration: Motion to Award Contract for the Construction of Park Street, Deny Dell Court, Watkins Avenue and Cook Lane Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 to Dunn Construction, Inc. 9.3 Reject Bid Proposals for the Construction of SW 100' Avenue & Murdock Street Sanitary Reimbursement District No. 27 a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Motion to Reject Bid Proposals for the Construction of SW 100' Avenue 8t Murdock Street 9.4 Award Bid for Five-Year Street Sweeping Contract to Great Western Sweeping, Inc. a. Staff Report: Public Works Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Motion to Award Bid for Five-Year Street Sweeping Contract to Great Western Sweeping, Inc. 10. CONSIDER AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) TO REPLACE THE WORDS "CITY ADMINISTRATOR" TO "CITY MANAGER" THROUGHOUT TMC TITLES 1-18 a. Staff Report: Administration Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 03- 11. CONSIDER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION a. Staff Report- Administration Staff b. Council Discussion and Direction to Staff 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 13. NON AGENDA ITEMS 14. 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. 15. ADJOURNMENT I:%ADM%CATHnCCA%20031030829P.DOC COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 26, 2003 page 5 C' ~D~e/lGc~ Tammy G. Gustin pC r 10670 SW Deny Dell Ct CE~VE Tigard, Or 97223 AUK August 26, 2003 atiltoING p/VARo Re: Proposed Sewer Re-imbursement District No. 29 S~~N Dear Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, Mr. Monahan and City Staff, I find myself in the predicament of being backed into a corner from which there is no exit. I am hoping that you can help alleviate this feeling of confusion, and mistrust. At this point in time going ahead with the Proposed District is only going to add to distrust and confusion as there are so many unanswered questions. Monday, August 18, the City sent people to mark our streets with Pink survey markings, for an issue that I understood had not been settled. The Mayor, Mr. Griffith, himself told me at the City Council meeting Augustl2, this entire proposed district had not been ruled on. That they were only trying to decide which districts, IF any went forward. Is it normal City Operation to spend this much time and expense on a process that hasn't been ruled on? I believe that more than one bid was given. However the highest bid seems to be the one in favor by the City, why is that? Additionally, I understand that there is already capital allocated, $982,000, for this project. As much as I care for my neighbors who may have septic failures, I also am not willing to write a check for $9000 to $25,000 to reimburse the city for an expense that seems unclear and unnecessary. Unfortunately that brings to mind another question, which one of the letters you sent is the correct assessment for my property? Also, if my system were to develop a problem and I could not repair the septic myself, my resolution would be to find a fair priced contractor to make the necessary repairs. If it was impossible to repair and needed replacement, I am told this cost less than $3000. Why would I choose a more costly solution? We have more than 6 neighbors on my street alone, who are retired and on fixed incomes. a This project would negatively impact their lifestyles and quite possibly be discriminating. Why if the city believes we need to reimburse them for this horrendous expense, is there not some funding available? I am under the impression that none has been offered? Is this true and if so, why not? I understand there is very reasonable funding available J through the State Revolving Fund. I was sent a letter from the city about your extreme concern for possible contamination to groundwater and the adjacent streams. We have 3 or more properties adjacent from Derry Dell Creek, in our District 29, with a very high potential of exactly the possibility your letter states is your main concern. These properties have been excluded from your proposal. These property owners were told because of elevation concerns they are unable to connect to the sewer and it will go right past their driveway. I am also told that a possible solution to these homeowner's connection difficulties was suggested to the city engineer, and ignored. Why was that possible solution ignored? If this is your largest concern why would you not address these properties with the leading potential for hazards foremost? We understand that some of our new neighbors or prospective buyers see a potential for additional revenue as they look at our'/4 and jr. '/Z acre lots with the desire to subdivide. And without the installation of sewer subdivision would not be possible. We are intelligent educated people, and we would like to be treated as such. If the sewer is inevitable, for the homes with septic problems the sewer would be a blessing. For potential buyers or even folks looking to subdivide to enhancement their retirement funds it is also attractive. But those of us who bought our properties because of large lots with our children in mind, and do not have problems with our current septic do not feel this expense is justified. In addition those of us who do not provide a threat to the streams would like the very provisions that were stated in one of your many letters to stand without hidden clauses. "There is no requirement to connect to the sewer or to pay any fees until the owner chooses to connect to the sewer. Property owners that connect to the sewer fifteen (15) years or more after the district is formed do not have to pay the reimbursement fee. The connection charges at the time of connection would apply." If protecting ground water is so important, why would you add this sort of exception to connection? You see when this Sewer project came to light and the 1`4 letters came to us, we were inclined to go along with progress, provided the requirements were acceptable. However as this project progressed so did your prices. Each of the city's letters seemed to contradict the last. Our stand is because of this confusion, duplicity and unjustifiable expense. The Tigard Times states, "Based on the responses received, the bid results and on the need for sewer, city staff recommends that Districts Nos. 28 & 29 be formed and the projects be constructed this fiscal year." Why is the city staff recommending this with all of these unanswered questions? Has the city also told everybody but the effected homeowners that this project is going forward? I unfortunately do not believe that the City has done their research in a responsible manner, or supplied the homeowners with information that will enable us to make an informed decision. Homeowners of District 29 have many unanswered questions. I am lead me to believe this is a poorly conceived plan, and there is much more research to be done, in order to work cooperatively with affected homeowners and bring about a fair process for all involved in this project. Thank you for your time, Tammy G. Gustin r Cathy- Wheatley'- City Council t.etter.doc page 1_ August 20, 2003 I Tigard City Council Re: Sewer Reimbursement District #29 Dear Mr. Mayor and Council members First of all, 1 would like to commend Mr. Duenas and his staff For the professional manner in which they ' have handled this issue. They have been thorough, and truthful, in their attempt to gather a good representation of the mood of the properties affected. They have been prompt in returning calls. They have been friendly and upfront with me any time I called to request information or give input. They have handled themselves very calmly and decisively at the meetings, even in light of the hostile nature of some of the participants. Mr. Mayor, you should be proud of these people, they do an outstanding job. Now, I would like to speak in favor of Sewer District #29, and would ask this council to vote in favor of forming the Reimbursement District at this time. I live on SW Park St and my septic system is 45 years i old, as are most of the systems in the neighborhood, since the homes were built at about the same time. So, II all of these systems are old and probably near the end of their life expectance. I was advised in March of this year when my septic tank was pumped, that the tank and drain field were not in good shape and would probably need to be replaced in the very near future. My home is on the south side of the street, so my backyard and drain field are higher than the house. During the winter rainy season, my backyard is soggy, to say the least. I asked the representative of the septic tank company if there was anything I could do to improve the water table problem. He laughingly said, "Get on sewer!" He said I could put in collection pipes in the yard, but that would not solve the problem. It would move the water to my front yard, but since we have no storm drain system, now my front yard is wet too. The only real solution is city sewer. Last month, I applied to the City of Tigard to obtain permits for a remodel project at my home. I was i informed that I needed to get a letter from Clean Water Services, because my property was on a map identified as a "water sensitive area". I received a letter saying that my property is more than 200 feet from any body of water, and therefore, do not have to do anything to comply with the water sensitive regulations. However, this brings a question to me, "How are the septic systems in this neighborhood affecting the water quality of a "water sensitive area?" No matter how you look at it, even if a septic system that is working I+ perfectly, the water coming through the drain field is "gray water" and could negatively affect the drinking water and the habitat of the watershed. I realize the expense of hooking up to City Sewer is high, but paying to replace a septic system that will not improve my situation, and is not something I want to go through. I would ask you to consider the situation I and a few other property owners are in with failing systems, and not deny us the opportunity to have sewer j available to alleviate our current problems. I can sympathize with the opponents ofthis project who prefer to repair their existing systems instead of hooking up to city sewer. This work would require permits, and 1 would remind these people that this area is designated as a "water sensitive area" and question if the permits would even be granted if their drain field is too close to a body of water. I would guess these permits might be hard to get. I would like to comment on the subject of the petition that came to you from one of the property owners. j She came to my door too. The information she presented was that it would cost me $20,000 to hook up to city sewer. 1 asked her how she got those numbers, and she said that the fair share for her property was about $12,000, plus the $2435 to hook up, plus the fees to a plumber to reverse your plumbing, which she 1 suggested could be up to $6,000. Ora total of about $20,500. When I told her that you were only 1 responsible for the first $6,000 of the $12,000, she said that the city did not have to honor that part of the plan. I merely laughed at this suggestion. I am only to assume that she presented the same information to all she talked to, in order to get some 31 signatures. So, by misrepresenting the numbers, she was able to "scare" people into signing her petition. If I was not informed on the subject, she probably could have ~Cathy~Wheatley =City Courici(Letter.doc Page 2 scared me into signing it too. I figure for me to hook up to total between $10,500 and $11,500, not $18,000 to $22,000, like some are suggesting. In closing, I would like to make 2 points. First, I believe it is high time that we, as residence of a city, realize that we have a responsibility to the environment to be good stewards, and preserve the land and water for not only our future, but for future generations as well. And second, a considerable amount of time and money has already been spent on this project by city employees. Let's not waste this money, only have to do it all over again next year. Mr. Mayor, and members of council, thank you for your time and I ask you to please bring the sewer to my neighborhood - for me it's not a matter of wanting sewer - I NEED IT!! ! ! If you have any questions of me please feel free to contact me, E-mail would probably be the best method. Sincerely, David R Noles 10630 SW Park St Tigard, Oregon 97223-3895 503-620-7553 dpaknoles@msn.com cc: Gus Duenas Greg Barry a 1 I Cathy Wheatley -City Council Letter.doc Pa e 1 August 20, 2003 t~7 Tigard City Council 1 Re: Sewer Reimbursement District #29 Dear Mr. Mayor and Council members First of all, I would like to commend Mr. Duenas and his staff for the professional manner in which they have handled this issue. They have been thorough, and truthful, in their attempt to gather a good representation of the mood of the properties affected. They have been prompt in returning calls. They have been friendly and upfront with me any time I called to request information or give input. They have handled themselves very calmly and decisively at the meetings, even in light of the hostile nature of some of the participants. Mr. Mayor, you should be proud of these people, they do an outstanding job. Now, I would like to speak in favor of Sewer District #29, and would ask this council to vote in favor of forming the Reimbursement District at this time. I live on SW Park St and my septic system is 45 years old, as are most of the systems in the neighborhood, since the homes were built at about the same time. So, all of these systems are old and probably near the end of their life expectance. I was advised in March of this year when my septic tank was pumped, that the tank and drain field were not in good shape and would probably need to be replaced in the very near future. My home is on the south side of the street, so my backyard and drain field are higher than the house. During the winter rainy season, my back yard is soggy, to say the least. I asked the representative of the septic tank company if there was anything 1 could do to improve the water table problem, He laughingly said, "Get on sewer!" He said I could put in collection pipes in the yard, but that would not solve the problem. It would move the water to my front yard, but since we have no stomt drain system, now my front yard is wet too. The only real solution is city sewer. Last month, I applied to the City of Tigard to obtain permits for a remodel project at my home. I was informed that I needed to get a letter from Clean Water Services, because my property was on a map identified as a "water sensitive area". I received a letter saying that my property is more than 200 feet from any body of water, and therefore, do not have to do anything to comply with the water sensitive regulations. However, this brings a question to me, "How are the septic systems in this neighborhood affecting the water quality of a "water sensitive area?" No matter how you look at it, even if a septic system that is working perfectly, the water coming through the drain field is "gray water" and could negatively affect the drinking water and the habitat of the watershed. I realize the expense of hooking up to City Sewer is high, but paying to replace a septic system that will not improve my situation, and is not something I want to go through. I would ask you to consider the situation I and a few other property owners are in with failing systems, and not deny us the opportunity to have sewer available to alleviate our current problems. I can sympathize with the opponents of this project who prefer to repair their existing systems instead of hooking up to city sewer. This work would require permits, and I would remind these people that this area is designated as a "water sensitive area" and question if the permits would even be granted if their drain field is too close to a body of water. I would guess these permits might be hard to get. I would like to comment on the subject of the petition that came to you from one of the property owners. She came to my door too. The information she presented was that it would cost me $20,000 to hook up to city sewer. I asked her how she got those numbers, and she said that the fair share for her property was about $12,000, plus the $2435 to hook up, plus the fees to a plumber to reverse your plumbing, which she suggested could be up to $6,000. Or a total of about $20,500. When I told her that you were only responsible for the first $6,000 of the $12,000, she said that the city did not have to honor that part of the plan. I merely laughed at this suggestion. I am only to assume that she presented the same information to all she talked to, in order to get some 31 signatures. So, by misrepresenting the numbers, she was able to "scare" people into signing her petition. If I was not informed on the subject, she probably could have Cathy Wheatley -City Council Letter.doc Pale Z scared me into signing it too. I figure for me to hook up to total between $10,500 and $11,500, not $18,000 to $22,000, like some are suggesting. In closing, I would like to make 2 points. First, I believe it is high time that we, as residence of a city, realize that we have a responsibility to the environment to be good stewards, and preserve the land and water for not only our future, but for future generations as well. And second, a considerable amount of time and money has already been spent on this project by city employees. Let's not waste this money, only have to do it all over again next year. Mr. Mayor, and members of council, thank you for your time and I ask you to please bring the sewer to my neighborhood - for me it's not a matter of wanting sewer - I NEED IT!!!! If you have any questions of me please feel free to contact me. E-mail would probably be the best method. Sincerely, David R Noles 10630 SW Park St Tigard, Oregon 97223-3895 503-620-7553 dpaknotes@msn.com cc: Gus Duenas Greg Barry L r 3 i r JU, C VI wo The Sawkins `J 10815 SW Derry Dell Court Tigard, Oregon 97223 August 18, 2003 40,0 ti FQ Q0 r' Mayor and City Council ~0$%7,1,. at'oo 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Septic to Sewer Conversion Project Dear Mayor and City Council: We are sending a second letter to demonstrate our support for the conversion of septic systems to city sewers in the Derry Dell District - Number 29. Since our first letter, dated June 17, 2003, it has been determined that our septic system is failing. This determination was made by comments from Affordable Septic, intermittent odors coming from the backyard, an unscheduled, emergency pumping on July 12, 2003 and changes in the backyard landscaping. Our septic pumping schedule was consistently every 4 years and has now declined to 2 years and 8;months. We are asking the City Council this question: what is the next interval? We do not know how long the failure process will continue and consider this situation a serious emergency. This situation is creating not only health hazards for ourselves and other residents but also environmental hazards. Approximately 65% of our back property line is adjacent to wetlands that support Derry Dell Creek. Our back fence is about 30 feet from Derry Dell Creek and the creek is a tributary to Fanno Creek. a We are requesting that the City of Tigard bring the sewers down Derry Dell Court immediately. We need the ability to connect as soon as possible. We have received an estimate for a `repair' for our failing system from Affordable Septic and the recommendation was a sand filtration system with a minimum cost of $16,000. The sand filtration system is also preferred by Washington County because of the in 0 process and small amount of space that it occupies. In speaking with Bill Ross, Head A Sanitarian, Washington County - Environmental Health Office, he stated an average cost of $20,000 for sand filtration. He said that the cost can be much higher based _ upon the initial septic system install and any modifications made by the owner r. kr - . to the replacement plot. He also stated that the new DEQ regulations for septic systems that become effective on January 1, 2004 are much more restrictive and constraining. Residents in the process of making a `repair' may want to preview the new regulations. We may not have many options. The City has estimated our total cost to connect this year to the sewer would be $12,674. The City's estimate would fall in line with our connect estimate from Affordable Septic. We WANT to connect to the sewer and do NOT want to invest another cent in a 47 year old septic system or a new sand filtration system. It does not take a `rocket scientist' to see that the most cost effective option for the average resident (when the time comes) will be connection to the city sewers. We, Douglas and Carolyn, and we include the support of our neighbor, Hubert Brown, are asking the City of Tigard to bring the sewers to the Derry Dell District - Number 29 ASAP. We do not want and cannot afford any more delays. PLEASE VOTE TO REFORM THE DISTRICT AND AWARD THE CONTRACT AT THE AUGUST 2e CITY COUNCIL MEETING!!!! M! We need this done this year and it is already the end of August!! Sincerely, Douglas and Carolyn Sawkins Hubert Brown 10815 SW Derry Dell Court 10820 SW Derry Dell Court -lam - L a n A QUESTION FIRST.. DOES THIS C:URENT ESTIMATE INCLUDE SEWER LINE, CONNECTION CHARGE AND COSTS TO TURN HOUSE LINES TO MEET THE SEWER LINE. STORY..ISLAND STORY STRAIGHTEN 72 ND ST FOR THE TAXES WE PAY, THE CITY OWES US HEALTH AND WELFARE. IN THIS CASE HEALTH = SEWERS, AND WELFARE = TERMS WITHIN REASON TO PAY FOR THEM IN EARLIER DAYS, CAREFUL PLANNING WITH OUR RETIREMENT RESOURCES LOOKED LIKE ENOUGH TO LIVE ON AND HAVE AN OCASIONAL VACATION TRIP, BUT NOW THEY BARELY COVER FOOD, MEDICALS, AND SHOES. TO AID THE CITY IN THESE PLANS FOR SEWER COVERAGE, THE CITY OWES US ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING A NON-OPPRESSIVE METHOD OF REPAYMENT IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS IF WE HAVE TO SELL OUR HOMES AND MOVE AWAY TO PAY THE BILL SO NOW WE FACE A SUGGESTED BID FOR THIS CONSTRUCTION WHICH ENDS SATURDAY NIGHT AT MIDNIGHT, AND AS IN ALL THINGS FINANCIAL, THE NEW RPLACEMENT BID WILL UNDOUBTABLY CONTAIN NEW FACTERS OF COST WHICH SEEM TO RISE DAILY. MY POSITION ON THIS ISSUE IS... GET THE PIPES IN THE GROUND BEFORE THE PRICE DOUBLES AND FIND A WAY FOR US TO PAY THEM WITHOUT GUTTING WHATEVER RESOURCES WE HAVE. r J 0 u9 J ~ ~ac~ l03 Pursuant to ORS §451.495(1)(c), we the undersigned object to the current proposed formation and implementation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 by the City of Tigard. According to ORS §451.595(1)(c) "[i)f the cost, or any portion of the cost, of service facilities for a district is to be assessed under ORS §451.490 against the property directly benefdted, the governing body of the district shall, before attempting to implement the service facilities, adopt a general ordinance providing for the method of assessment. The ordinance shall:... Provide that if the district receives written objections prior to the conclusion of the hearing signed by more than 50 percent of the affected property owners representing more than 50 percent of the affected property the proposed service facilities will not be implemented." Name Address Signature s r u r~.~ n 107 Sw Ct-4~1 -7" t O W i i o • t i 4- r- 71 D 7,[~7 NC7~r,4/J~ 722 , ~6 r~~~l OyBd sc~L~cr~~y <-~l C7' 7-dg, ",I `(~2Z? /d1pa5 S'-S4. la t Cts z.1= s S?a'vlJER r p7~ yrJ.L, C-r M-J WWI 2003 Sewer Reimbursement District #29 l of 4 Pursuant to ORS §451.495(1)(c), we the undersigned object to the current proposed formation and implementation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 by the City of Tigard. According to ORS §451.595(1)(c) "[i]f the cost, or any portion of the cost, of service facilities for a district is to be assessed under ORS §451.490 against the property directly benefitted, the governing body of the district shall, before attempting to implement the service facilities, adopt a general ordinance providing for the method of assessment. The ordinance shall:... Provide that if the district receives written objections prior to the conclusion of the hearing signed by more than 50 percent of the affected property owners representing more than 50 percent of the affected property the proposed service facilities will not be implemented." Name Addroas Sig uUm, t d~ ZVN• 1~W51 0 7. 5 6W bl- C 7 K~ L r ~Gy G- v toy -76 S ;W 194-4L <<6Ai?i7 V, DRc #61E S 110 I.DS, . 12 U 13 46 4L G T. 4*04 ~AI6-, /0&(,0 %J P44A -Y 1 ' 44d 5(1 r 1 Wit, ~(',d► i o l~fo5 sW . Cook Lnrd 0~ N~. 3 a Z V-c.1 rvvli; 6 6?Z-2~ 9~.za 5 2003 Sewer Reimbursement District #29 2of 4 Pursuant to ORS §451.495(1)(c), we the undersigned object to the current proposed formation and implementation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 by the City of Tigard. According to ORS §451.595(1)(c) "[i)f the cost, or any portion of the cost, of service facilities for a district is to be assessed under ORS §451.490 against the property directly benefitted, the governing body of the district shall, before attempting to implement the service facilities, adopt a general ordinance providing for the method of assessment. The ordinance shall:... Provide that if the district receives written objections prior to the conclusion of the hearing signed by more than 50 percent of the affected property owners representing more than 50 percent of the affected property the proposed service facilities will not be implemented." Name Address Signature 31 32 le- L 1 WtAW. (3 ` u 5 r4c:c 33 j v~ t7 S ,tJ~ , 34 S s ~T- 35 W 37 38 M 10 E 11 h- 12 13 m 15 2003 Sewer Reimbursement District #29 3of 4 Pursuant to ORS §451.495(1)(c), we the undersigned object to the current proposed formation and implementation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 by the City of Tigard. According to ORS §451.595(1)(c) "[i]f the cost, or any portion of the cost, of service facilities for a district is to be assessed under ORS §451.490 against the property directly benefitted, the governing body of the district shall, before attempting to implement the service facilities, adopt a general ordinance providing for the method of assessment. The ordinance shall:... Provide that if the district receives written objections prior to the conclusion of the hearing signed by more than 50 percent of the affected property owners representing more than 50 percent of the affected property the proposed service facilities will not be implemented." Name Address Signature 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 i5 a i6 a pv~.i i7 j i8 m i9 ;0 2003 Sewer Reimbursement District #29 4of 4 20 August 2003 Thanks for all the support at the August 12"' City Council Meeting. Although we weren't scheduled time to speak itwas good to see people there and showing the council members that we care. The meeting was a little disappointing. Although our project was listed on the agenda as being scheduled for that meeting, when we arrived they had not allowed any time for open public comment. Rather, they were planning on just listening to the City Engineer's report. None-the4ess we were able to present the council members with our petition and some of the people in our district were able to create time to voice their concerns about the current district plan to the council members. The city council members did not answer any of our questions. However, they did let us know that the city website was in error when it listed the bid on our district having been approved that night. Since that time they have changed the website to reflect that the bid has not yet been awarded. They also told us that there will be a chance for public comment at the meeting on the 26"' of August. In the meantime, several of the members of our district have sent letters to Augustine Duenas, the city engineer, asking him questions that we have about the proposed district. As of yet none of us has gotten a response. We have made sure that the city council was gnien a copy of the questions, and if we still have not gotten a response by the time the next meeting comes we will ask them at that time. If you have any questions about the proposed district please make sure to either write, fax, or email Mr. Duenas and the city council those questions. If you have any questions about how to contact them feel free to call me and I will help you get that information. I am sure that you have all noticed the new pink markings on our street. They are the surveyor markings. I spoke with one of the city employees who was out working on them this morning and she said that she was not sure whether the sewer had been approved yet, but' they were starting on the surveying anyway. As I mentioned above, the next City Council Meeting is scheduled forAugust 26"'. It would be great to have as many members of our community as possible at the meeting. A few of us are arranging to car-pool to the meeting. If anyone would like to join, please give me c. a call and we will arrange it. a Sincerely, Jessica L. Cousineau F'ECEiV EID C. a. T J 10755 S.W. Derry Dell Ct. AUG 21 2003 (503) 443-3W7 AdminiStratian August 21, 2003 Jessica L. Cousineau CI 1 i OF 1 IGAR® 10755 SW Derry Dell Ct. Tigard, OR 97223 OREGO+! RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 Dear Ms. Cousineau: This is in response to your various letters asking a wide variety of questions regarding proposed Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29. I delayed in responding to your letters because I felt it was important that all the residents of the two proposed districts receive relevant information at the same time. Enclosed for your information is a letter dated August 21, 2003 sent to all residents in the two proposed districts explaining why the City is pursuing the extension of sewer to all developed but unserved areas Citywide. The letter answers some of the questions posed in your letters. Nevertheless, I have prepared responses to your questions in the various letters in the order that you have posed them and listed under the dates of the letters I have received. The following are my responses: Letter of August 13, 2003 • Question on Survey Cards: Response: The survey cards showed 15 residents in favor of forming the district and constructing the project this year. There were 11 residents that wanted to delay the district until 2006. There were no cards submitted in favor of delaying it till next year. • Question on septic system failures noted on the survey cards: Response: The comments on the survey cards ranged from drain field saturation to the septic system is not working well and is in the process of failing. Rather than provide the names without each resident's permission, you are welcome to come and view the comment cards. L Give Diane Jelderks a call at 503-718-2465 to set up the time and date. n • Question on repairs and sewer connections: a Response: My enclosed letter explains the reasons for the City's Citywide program. As a 13 resident in District No. 29, you should also be receiving a copy in the mail. In general, on-site 5 sewage disposal systems are considered as short-term methods until public sewer can be 1 made available. It is the City's responsibility to extend public sewer to those areas with septic systems that have already exceeded their life expectancies. The City does not wish to perpetuate on-site disposal methods and through the Citywide Sewer Extension Program is prepared to provide public sewer to those areas with septic systems that have already exceeded their life expectancies. 13125 SW Hail Blvd.. Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 • Question on Cityfinancing: Response: Cities in are not in the financing business. Cities are able to offer low cost financing for local improvement districts because of a specific provision of State law known as the Bancroft Bond Statutes. These bonds, known as Bancroft bonds, are secured primarily by assessments and liens against the properties within the districts and the unlimited power of cities to levy a citywide property tax to pay debt service on the bonds if property owners fail to make their payments. Because of this double security, bond buyers offer the lowest possible interest rates for these bonds. This same authority does not exist for reimbursement districts. Any bonds sold to finance property owner obligations would be backed solely by the property-owner's promise to pay, and would therefore carry higher interest rates. These interest rates would not be significantly better than those the property owner could arrange on their own through a bank or other financing company. We also looked into the possibility of providing financing for this program, but have concluded that the administrative costs in establishing a financing and tracking mechanism would be excessively high. Those costs would have to be incorporated into the program thereby increasing the costs to the residents, whether or not they choose to participate. We are trying to reduce the overall program costs, not increase them. In addition, we see collection as a potential problem in cases of non-payment. Without a lien on the property or some other method to enforce collection, non-payment would be a significant issue. Finally, there are a number of financial institutions that provide financing as part of their services. Because of these reasons, the City has opted not to pursue the establishment of a financing mechanism for this program. Letter of August 18, 2003 • Question regarding why costs changed from previous cost estimates: Response: The first estimated cost for the Cousineau lot of $12,035 was based on the initial estimate for the project prepared prior to receiving bids for the construction. It included the estimated construction cost, a 15% construction contingency and the 13.5% engineering and administrative fee required as part of the reimbursement district ordinance. The $11,618 estimate is the current estimate and is based on the contractor's bid. It includes a 5% 1 construction contingency and the 13.5% engineering and administrative fee. l~ • Question on removal of one lot from the district and addition of another lot: Response; Removal of the Phillips lot, 10676 Cook Lane, from the district- This lot is too p" low to be served by the proposed line. Service to this lot can be better accomplished by extending an existing line in SW 108th Avenue as part of a future reimbursement district. ~t The Cole lot, 13075 SW Watkins Avenue, was originally believed to be served from the back of the lot by a line from the Watkins Place cul-de-sac. We have since discovered that the lot does not have access to this line so it was added to the district. Letter Responding to Questions by Jessica Cousineau Page 2 of 3 r Letter of August 20, 2003 • Question regarding having only one side of Derry Dell Court connect to the new sewer: Response: The most cost-effective way to extend sewer lines is to include as many properties as possible without driving costs up beyond reason. This spreads the total costs among the properties included. Eliminating lots from the proposed district increases the cost per remaining lot. In order to connect the north side of Derry Dell Court to the existing sewer, we would have to run a new line along the rear of the properties on the north side requiring easements that are not already available. Not only is that an additional expense, it requires that the line be in a location that would be difficult to access for maintenance. Our policy is to place sewer lines within streets whenever possible for maintenance purposes. Connection to one sewer line as designed would be the most cost-effective method to deliver service. We did leave out two lots from the district because they were too low to be served by the line. Those two can be connected through a small reimbursement district that ties those two to the line to the north. The line would run through the rear of the properties to connect to the line that runs along the creek. Maintenance access could be an issue later, but it would be limited to just those two properties. • Question on the average life of a properly maintained septic system: Response: On-site septic systems are considered a short-term disposal method, which would eventually be replaced by public sewer. The life expectancy of septic systems is between 20 and 30 years, depending upon use and maintenance. The septic systems in proposed District Nos. 28 (O'Mara, McDonald Street area) and 29 (Park Street and Deny Dell areas) are generally close to 50 years old or older, well beyond the typical life expectancy for such systems. See enclosed letter to all residents of District Nos. 28 and 29 for a more complete explanation. Letter of August 20, 2003 (apparently to residents in the proposed district) There were no specific questions in this letter. This is to acknowledge that we did receive a copy. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. a Sincerely, a t- 3 Q J m STIN P. DUENAS, P.E. y Engineer Enclosure: Letter dated August 21, 2003 to residents in proposed District Nos. 28 and 29 c: Mayor and City Councilors William A. Monahan, City Manager 1.\ENG\GUS\Citywide Sewer Extension Pro®ramUtespouses to Questions by Jessica Cousineau 5-21-03.doc Letter Responding to Questions by Jessica Cousineau Page 3 of 3 08.13.2003 14:48 FAX 5034 33887 COUSINEAU LAW OFFICE [a 002 Jessica. L. Cousiueau 10755 S.W. Derry Dell Ct., Tigard, OR 97223 email: jessica@scrye.com 13 August 2003 Augustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Via Fax: (503) 624-0752 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 Thank you for your response to our petition and your offer to help us resolve this issue in a manner that is helpful to all involved. I do have a few questions that have not been answered yet. The first set have to do with the opinion survey cards that you sent out to our district. In the letter and at the City Council Meeting on the 12' of August you stated that there were 15 responses that wanted to implement the district this year and 11 that wanted to wait until 2006. Were there any responses that indicated an interest in waiting until next summer? Were there any cards that indicated interest in options other than those presented on the card? Also, you mentioned that you had been told of 4 failures. Can you tell me who they were and what type of failure they indicated that they were having? My second set of questions have to do with the implementation of the proposed district. If the district were to be implemented as currently proposed, what would be the definition of a failed septic system? What repairs are currently allowed once a residence is within 300ft of a sewer line? In the sewer districts that have already been implemented, what is the average time between installation of the lines and residential connection? What city fees (i.e. permitting fees, etc.) are associated with connecting to a sewer line and what city fees are associated with repairing a septic tank? Additionally, my understanding from talking with Clean Water Services is that they expect residences within 300ft to connect to the sewer within 3 years, unless the resident has a deferral. What deferral programs does the city have in place to address this issue? My third set of requests and question; have to do with the financial aspects of the proposed district. I would like a copy of the request for bids and all of the bids that were submitted in response to it. I would also like to see a list of all of the relevant options for payment of the installation. Additionally, what mechanisms have you investigated for the city to pay for this initial investment and what financing mechanisms have you investigated for the members of the proposed district. IL Because of the timely nature of this issue I trust that you will respond by close of business on r91 Friday the 15w of August. If it is easier, response by email at jessica@scrye_com would be sufficient as long as hard copies were to follow. Thank you again for your continued help in this matter. 00 W Sincerel , J Je 6 L. Cousineau CC: William A Monahan, City Manager Mayor and City Councilors Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder 08.18 2003 10:25 FAX 5034433887 COUSINEAU LAW OFFICE (0002 Jessica L. Cousineau 10755 S.W. Derry Dell Q., Tigard, OR 97223 email: jessica@scrye.com 17 August 2003 Augustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Via Fax: (503) 624-0752 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 Last week I received a letter from you letting us know about the City Council meeting on the 2e of August. I appreciate your timely notice about this meeting. While I was looking over the information included in this letter I noticed that you had sent us different information about who is in the proposed district and how much each affected property owner will have to pay. For example, my house at 10755 SW Derry Dell Ct. was listed as having an estimated cost to property owner of $12,035 and in the current list that you included it is now listed as being $11,618. While I am certainly glad to see that the amount has decreased, I am a little curious about the reason for this change. Has a new bid been submitted since you last told us about the bids submitted? A)so, I noticed that you removed Richard Phillips, at 10676 Cook Ln., and added Terri Cole, at 13075 SW Watkins Ave., from the list of affected property owners. What is the reason for those changes? Your continued timely attention to my concerns is appreciated in light of the upcoming City Council meeting. Sincerely, Jessica L. Cousineau cc: William A Monahan, City Manager Mayor and City Councilors IL Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder OC tr m to J Jessica L. Cousineau 10755 S.W. Derry Dell Ct., Tigard, OR 97223 email: jessica@scrye.com 20 August 2003 Augustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 In the past few days 1 have discovered a few more questions that I have about the current proposal for the sewer reimbursement district. My first question has to deal with the structure of the current proposed district. When your department made the plans for this district they included some houses on Derry Dell Ct. and excluded others. In the meeting at the water building on the a of July you told those of us in attendance that the reason some houses were excluded was that they were too low to be included. However, you also indicated that night that the city is interested in installing the sewer system in order to forestall any unfortunate environmental issues that might occur in the case of a septic system failure. In the interest of making sure that no property was left in a position that could create an environmental problem, did your office consider having one side of Derry Dell Ct. connect to the sewer that is already in place on the north side of the street and the other side of Derry Dell Ct. connect to the new sewer that you are attempting to build? What would that do to the cost model that you have constructed? My second question deals with the function of septic systems. In both your written and verbal correspondence with this district you have noted that the septic systems in place are over 50 years old. Do you know what the average life of a properly maintained septic system is? Thank you again for your time. I eagerly await the your prompt response in light of the upcoming City Council Meeting on the 2e of August. Sincerely, Jessi a . Cousineau L E cc: William A Monahan, City Manager a Mayor and City Councilors Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder D t 20 August 2003 Thanks for all the support at the August 12' City Council Meeting. Although we weren't scheduled time to speak it was good to see people there and showing the council members that we care. The meeting was a little disappointing. Although our project was listed on the agenda as being scheduled for that meeting, when we arrived they had not allowed any time for open public comment. Rather, they were planning on just listening to the City Engineer's report. None-the-less we were able to present the council members with our petition and some of the people in our district were able to create time to voice their concerns about the current district plan to the council members. The city council members did not answer any of our questions. However, they did let us know that the city website was in error when it listed the bid on our district having been approved that night. Since that time they have changed the website to reflect that the bid has not yet been awarded. They also told us that there will be a chance for public comment at the meeting on the 26°t of August. In the meantime, several of the members of our district have sent letters to Augustine Duenas, the city engineer, asking him questions that we have about the proposed district. As of yet none of us hat, gotten a response. We have made sure that the city council was given a copy of the questions, and if we still have not gotten a response by the time the next meeting comes we will ask them at that time. If you have any questions about the proposed district please make sure to either write, fax, or email Mr. Duenas and the city council those questions. If you have any questions about how to contact them feel free to call me and I will help you get that information. I am sure that you have all noticed the new pink markings on our street. They are the surveyor markings. I spoke with one of the city employees who was out working on them this momhV and she said that she was not sure whether the sewer had been approved yet, but they were starting on the surveying anyway. As I mentioned above, the next City Council Meeting is scheduled forAugust 2e. It would be great to have as many members of our community as possible at the meeting. A few a of us are arranging to car-pool to the meeting. If anyone would like to join, please give me a call and we will arrange it. J m Sincerely, W Jessica L. Cousineau J 10755 S.W. Deny Dell Ct (503) 443-3687 August 21, 2003 Re: Residents in Proposed District Nos. 28 & 29 The following information is provided to you prior to the informational public hearings (scheduled for August 26, 2003) on the proposed districts so that you may be fully aware of the various details regarding City of Tigard's Sewer Extension Program. The following explains the reasons why the City is seeking to provide sewer service to all developed but unserved areas in the City. It describes the current incentive program developed to encourage early connections to public sewer, and the Washington County Division of Environmental Health's position on repairs to on-site sewage disposal systems (typically septic tank and drain field) once City sewer becomes available. On-site septic systems are considered a short-term disposal method, which would eventually be replaced by public sewer. The life expectancy of septic systems is between 20 and 30 years, depending upon use and maintenance. The septic systems in proposed District Nos. 28 (O'Mara, McDonald Street area) and 29 (Park Street and Derry Dell areas) are generally close to 50 years old or older, well beyond the typical life expectancy for such systems. There are at least two areas of concern regarding these on-site disposal systems. One is the potential for the health hazards to develop as the aging systems begin to fail. The second is the potential for contamination of the groundwater and the adjacent streams. In urban areas such as Tigard where the houses are close together, septic system failures could create significant health hazards in the various neighborhoods. In addition, groundwater, once polluted, is difficult and sometimes impossible to clean up. The state policy is therefore to strictly control waste discharges to groundwater such that the highest possible water quality is maintained. The State Department of Environmental Quality has the responsibility for ensuring that groundwaters in the state are protected from pollution. Washington County's Division of Environmental Health (Department of C Health and Human Services) is responsible at the County level for issuing permits and for L monitoring those on-site disposal systems. Because of these concerns, individual on-site sewage disposal systems that have the potential to create significant health hazards and pollute the groundwater are far from being the preferred means for sewage disposal. They are allowed only until public sewer i can be made available. The standard system of septic tank and drain field may have been the only alternative many years ago. That is not the case today. The City of Tigard has the responsibility to provide public sewer to those areas in the City that need it. The sewage flows in this public system are transmitted to a Clean Water Services treatment plan, which treats the wastewater and properly disposes of the effluent. The City of j ~ . Tigard and Clean Water Services are both actively seeking to encourage connection to public sewer. The Citywide Sewer Extension Program is a Council-directed program to systematically extend sewer service throughout the City. The annexation of the Walnut Island area, which had septic systems 30 years old and older with some exhibiting signs of failure, created the need to establish a Citywide program. Our evaluation of other unserved areas in the City at that time indicated that these areas also had old on-site disposal systems and needed to be incorporated into the program. It is extremely difficult to react to failed septic systems that occur at random throughout the City. The ideal solution would be to extend sewers to all unsewered residential areas such that City sewer would be available as these systems fail. The mechanism to extend the sewer lines and provide service is through the formation of reimbursement districts. Reimbursement districts are formed to install public sewers to the lots within the districts and the owners would reimburse the City for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer at the time of connection. The program is now entering its third year and is intended to provide public sewers to all developed but unserved areas in the City. At the beginning of this program approximately two years ago there were approximately 660 residential lots throughout the City, plus about 80 commercial lots in the Tigard Triangle Area, without sewer service. These lots were typically on septic systems 30 years old or more. To date, 268 out of 660 sewer services have been installed. To encourage early connections, the City developed an incentive program to subsidize the cost of putting in the sewer lines to these unserved areas. The City's current incentive program limits the reimbursement fee to $6,000, if the actual costs fall in the range between $6,000 and $15,000, for those connecting within three years after the sewer becomes available. Any actual costs that exceed $15,000 would have to be assumed by the homeowner. Homeowners with large lots that have development potential are generally assessed proportionately higher costs. However, we are planning to submit to City Council an amendment to the incentive program to defer payments of those amounts exceeding $15,000 for those homeowners that merely wish to connect an existing house to the sewer. The balance deferred would become due only if the property is partitioned or begins the process for subdivision and development. We have consulted with the Washington County Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Environmental Health (DEH), on repairs to on-site disposal systems once sewers have been made available to neighborhoods. That division enforces the provisions of OAR (Oregon Administrative Rules) Division 71, Section 160 which deals with on-site disposal systems. Because of the health-related and groundwater quality concerns, DEH strictly interprets the provisions of the current OAR. They would deny permits for repairs of systems if sewer is physically or legally available in an area. Physically available means sewer is available 300 feet from a single family residence. Legally available could mean an entity that provides sewer services (such as the City of Tigard or Clean Water Services) is willing and able to provide sewer service to that neighborhood. There are even more stringent DEQ (State Department of Environmental Letter to Residents of Proposed District Nos. 28 and 29 Page 2 of 3 . i Quality) rules that are scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2004. The staff of the County DEH feel that on-site disposal systems would face even more restrictive requirements that could result in use of much more expensive alternative on-site disposal systems (such as sand filters) as opposed to the standard septic tank and drain fields. The City does not wish to see relatively old septic systems perpetuated where there is an opportunity to provide public sewer that minimizes the potential for significant health hazards and pollution of the groundwater. We know there are some residents who are already experiencing septic system failures in these two proposed districts. The formation of Sewer Reimbursement District Nos. 28 and 29 would allow the City to construct the sewer services needed for these two areas. Sincerely, AGUSTIN P. DUENAS, P.E. City Engineer c: Mayor and City Councilors William A. Monahan, City Manager 1:\ENG\GUS\Citywide Sewer Extension Program\Utter to Residents of Districts 28 and 29 - 8-20-03.doc L 'r 1 t Letter to Residents of Proposed District Nos. 28 and 29 Page 3 of 3 .r CITY OF TIGARD August 21, 2003 OREGON Jessica L. Cousineau 10755 SW Derry Dell Ct. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 Dear Jessica, I am in receipt of your letter of August 20, 2003 regarding the work being performed by City surveyors. You are correct that the decision on whether Sewer Reimbursement District 29 will be formed or not will be made by the City Council on Tuesday, August 26. 1 expect that the survey crew may have been completing some work which will be necessary if the district is formed this year or completed at another time. However, I will ask City Engineer Gus Duenas to look into the matter and be prepared to give a full presentation at the meeting on August 26. Thank you for your letter. Sincerely, William A. Monahan C: Gus Duenas Mayor and City Council istadmlbilNetterst2003kousineaudoe L r r J 0 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Jessica L. Cousineau 10755 S.W. Derry Dell Ct., Tigard, OR 97223 email: jessica@scrye.com 20 August 2003 RECEIVED C. CO.Ii: William Monahan AUG 2 0 2U03 City Manager 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Administratior, Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 1 am an affected homeowner in the recently proposed Sewer Reimbursement District #29. 1 understand that the issue of whether or not the district will be approved is on the City Council agenda for the 2e of August. However, despite the lack of approval from the City Council there have been several surveyors from the City of Tigard on our street last week and this week. Out of curiosity I introduced myself and talked with one of the surveyors. She indicated that she did not know whether the district had been approved or not, but that they were surveying in order to start construction on the sewer. I understand that the employees in this city are busy and that they are interested in prioritizing their work. However, beginning work on a project that has not yet been approved would seem to be hasty, especially in light of the dissent over whether or not this project should continue. Sincerely, Jes ca L. Cousineau cc: Mayor and City Councilors Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder CL E Jessica L. Cousineau io755 S.W. Derry Dell Ct., Tigard, OR 97223 email: jessica@scrye.com 20 August 2003 Augustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Proposed Sewer Reimbursement District 29 In the past few days I have discovered a few more questions that I have about the current proposal for the sewer reimbursement district. My first question has to deal with the structure of the current proposed district. When your department made the plans for this district they included some houses on Derry Dell Ct. and excluded others. In the meeting at the water building on the 0 of July you told those of us in attendance that the reason some houses were excluded was that they were too low to be included. However, you also indicated that night that the city is interested in installing the sewer system in order to forestall any unfortunate environmental issues that might occur in the case of a septic system failure. In the interest of making sure that no property was left in a position that could create an environmental problem, did your office consider having one side of Deny Dell Ct. connect to the sewer that is already in place on the north side of the street and the other side of Deny Dell Ct. connect to the new sewer that you are attempting to build? What would that do to the cost model that you have constructed? My second question deals with the function of septic systems. In both your written and verbal correspondence with this district you have noted that the septic systems in place are over 50 years old. Do you know what the average life of a properly maintained septic system is? Thank you again for your time. I eagerly await the your prompt response in light of the upcoming City Council Meeting on the 2e of August. Sincerely, Jessi. Cousineau a cc: William A Monahan, City Manager H Mayor and City Councilors Greer Gaston, Deputy City Recorder _J M W J Page 1 of 1 Cathy Wheatley - Sewer Reimbursement District No29 From: <Wkrager@aoi.com> To: <mayor@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/14/031:06 PM Subject: Sewer Reimbursement District No29 CC: <gus@ci.tigard.or.us> August 14, 2003 Tigard City Council 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223 Regarding: Proposed Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No 29 Dear Mr. Duenas: Would you please clarify in writing for myself and other residents of the proposed sewer reimbursement district No 29 as to what our options are for continuing to maintain, repair and/or replace in part or entire portions of existing septic systems once sanitary sewer has been installed in the streets? It has been suggested that we can no longer legally obtain permits to repair or replace septic systems if sanitary sewer service is available. In your response would you please direct me to the pertinent code sections that address this concern. I would appreciate your prompt response. Regards, R Warren Krager 10655 S.W. Park Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 C: Jim Griffith, City of Tigard Mayor i I I file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00015.HTM 8/18/03 OF T,r„,~ (503) 639-4171 CITY OF TIGARD EMERGENCY AFTER HOURS; UTUTY UTILITY BILLING L , TIGARD j (503) 639-1554 l W/ 8777 SW BURNHAM STREF.'T 6 © , OREGON KEEP THIS PORTION SERVICE LOCATION: CUSTOMER NO. 10676 SW COOK LN 025188-000 RICHARD & CHRISTINE PHILLIPS TYPE SERVICEpATE5 10676 SW COOK LN : . . TIGARD OR 97223 FROM TO 1NA1 ER'BILLING ; . WATER 14f Ekt R1F.~IDi[!t t}SAGE lkl WATER ^°r X00 CzU~.FT a .RATES r-.,. SERVICE DESCR{RTI Q N BIL! INCA{VIQUMTS CUSTOMER CHARGE 4.40 957 978 26 1.71 44.46 WATER CONSUMPTION 0.00 BOOSTER FIRE 0.00 SUB-TOTAL WATER BILLING = 48.86 'SEW00 SWM x `ufCNFFAF SE1lUE1& SIRFAEEINICTER MANkGEMENT 9i.LLING; BILtIN6~►1ViE7l7u;TS, ' ERICGE fQ0 CC1 `F F RATE <,~~,-SERV.I CEDESCRIPTION SEWER BASE CHARGE 30.53 1.15 SEWER USAGE 25.30 24.00 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT 7.34 SUB-TOTAL SEWER BILLING 63+7 .!.GRANDTOTAYft UO*Z NTB c . m 105.05 0.00 o m~ _ TOTAL AMOUNT puE 112.03 s Due Date PLEASE PAY THIS~ •w u wY wn res u+ oec ww OCT ssv ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF PLEASE NOTE MAILING ADDRESS OR NAME CHANGES ON BACK OF---UB.---------------- More information on reverse Side ------------------------------ST----- IL oc ' _J m U W J i AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF August 26, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 (SW Park Street and Derry Dell Court) PREPARED BY: G. Bent/ DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR GK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a sewer reimbursement district to construct a sanitary sewer project as part of the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached Resolution forming the Reimbursement District. INFORMATION SUMMARY On June 10, 2003, City Council conducted informational hearings and considered establishing Reimbursement Districts No. 29 (SW Park Street, Derry Dell Court) and No. 28 (SW O'Mara, McDonald Streets). Council continued the hearings and directed that a neighborhood meeting be conducted. On June 24, 2003, City Council closed the hearings for Districts Nos. 28 and 29 and declined to form the districts pending the results of a neighborhood meeting. The neighborhood meeting was conducted on July 9, 2003. On August 12, 2003, City Council considered the results of the neighborhood meeting and a survey by mail of District No. 29. Council directed staff to submit a request for establishment of Reimbursement Districts Nos. 28 and 29 and award the contracts to construct the projects. The proposed project would provide sewer service to forty-six lots along the entire unserved portions of SW Park Street, Derry Dell Court, Cook Lane and Watkins Avenue. Through the City's Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program, the City would install public sewers 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 $2,435 before connecting to the line and i would be responsible for disconnecting the existing septic system according to County rules and any other plumbing modifications necessary to connect to the public line. Each owner has been notified of the hearing by i mail. The notice, mailing list and additional details are included in the City Engineer's Report attached as Exhibit A to the proposed resolution. 1 I If Council approves this request to form the Reimbursement District, Council will be requested to award the contract for the construction of the project. Another resolution to finalize the formation of the Reimbursement District, with cost adjustments, will be submitted for Council action after construction is completed and actual construction costs are determined. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable. ATTACHMENT LIST Proposed Resolution Exhibit A, City Engineer's Report Exhibit B, Map Vicinity Map Notice to Owners Letter Estimated Cost to Owners Mailing List Resolution 01-46 FISCAL NOTES Funding is by unrestricted sanitary sewer funds. I:1enp=3 20%ly dp`dWrkt n (park, deny delpu9eW3 flan Ur Wy rntdo L C i i i i L.EGIBII.ITY S'PRIP PARK STREET & DERRY COURT •M 29 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT SANITARY A PORTION OF THE NE 1 /4 OF SECTION 3 T2S R1 W `ra/r- H C' ' ' \ 4 r f Si 1 G 1 T i K' i ,l o Cr VICINITY MAP NTS L August 13, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON NOTICE Informational Hearin g NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, August 26, 2003 AT 7:30 PM IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD OR 97223 TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: Proposed Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29. (SW Park Street and Derry Dell Court) The Tigard City Council will conduct an informational public hearing to hear testimony on the proposed Reimbursement District formed to install sewers in SW Park Street and Derry Dell Court. CL Both public oral and written testimony is invited. ~c The public hearing on this matter will be conducted as required by Section 13.09.060 of the Tigard Municipal Code. m J Further information and the scheduled time for this item during the Council meeting may be obtained from the Engineering Department, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223, by calling 503 718-2468 or at www.ci.tigard.or.us. I..W4=REGiR6n1xxUment Distdcls%29 Derry Dolt, Walkins\FometionWolice I- FomeUon Hearing.doc 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 (SW Park Street and Derry Dell Court) At this meeting, City Council will be requested to form a sewer reimbursement district to provide your neighborhood with sewer service. There is no requirement to connect to the sewer or pay any fee until connection is made. Each property owner's estimated fair share of the public sewer line is based on the area of the lot served and is summarized in the attached table. This amount will be revised once construction is completed and final costs are determined. An annual increase of 6.05% simple interest will also be applied to this amount. The amount each property owner will be required to pay will be limited to $6,000 for connections completed within three years of City Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report following construction, in accordance with Resolution 01-46. Please note that this resolution also requires the owner to pay any fair share amounts that exceed $15,000. Consequently, if the final fair share for an owner exceeds $15,000, the owner would be required to pay $6,000 plus the amount the fair share exceeds $15,000. The owner would also be required to pay a connection fee of $2,435 at the time of connection to the sewer. In addition, property owners are responsible for disconnecting their existing septic system according to Washington County rules and for any other modifications necessary to connect to the public sewer. PARK STREET do DERRY COURT SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT #29 A PORTION OF THE NE 114 OF SECTION 3 T2S RIW W.M. ' R 4 L r~ N '9 - C_ J ' -~LLT1~1 i ~ LTTl , VICINITY MAP NTS Reimbursement District No. 29 Estimated Cost to Property Owners ESTIMATED OWNER TAX LOT SITE ADDRESS AREA AC AREA S.F,) COST TO PROPERTY 1 JENSEN RONALD M & OWNER 2S102BC03500 13000 SW WATKINS 0.476 20738,95548 $15,679 2 GROAT RANDALL S & CAROLYN J 2St028CO3400 13010 SW WATKINS 0.354 15404.02471 $11,646 3 LEPPER CHAD & MI YOUNG 2S103DA00100 13060 SW WATKINS ST 0.326 14195.40658 $10,732 4 COLE TERRI J 28103DA01100 13075 SW WATKINS AVE 0.416 18126.07349 $13,704 5 MILLER ALLAN S DOREEN J 2S103DA01300 10665 SW DERRY DELL 0.353 15365.72783 $11,617 6 MOELLER JOHN C & NANCY A 2S103DA01400 10695 SW DERRY DELL 0.353 15366.9509 $11,618 7 FRAINEY BRIAN A & ABIGAIL J 2S103DA01500 10725 SW DERRY DELL 0.353 15366.98757 $11,618 8 COUSINEAU STEVEN B & 28103DA01600 10755 SW DERRY DELL 0.353 15367.02424 $11,618 9 TIPTON TROY P & MICHELLE J 28103DA01700 10785 SW DERRY DELL 0.353 15367,06091 $11,618 10 SAWKINS DOUGLAS S & 2S103DA01800 10815 SW DERRY DELL 0.385 16763.55464 $12,674 11 MENDEZ JUDITH A 2S103DA00200 13090 SW WATKINS AVE 0.319 13905.98901 $10,513 12 HAMMES ALFRED J HELEN L 2S103DA01000 13115 SW WATKINS AVE 0.332 14471.49969 $10,941 13 HANSEN HARRIS H SARA J 2S103DA03100 10610 SW DERRY DELL 0.413 17986.1348 $13,598 14 PHAM SIMON C & REBECCA T 2S103DA03000 10640 SW DERRY DELL 0.449 19538.24056 $14,772 15 GUSTIN RONALD L & TAMMY G 2S103DA02900 10670 SW DERRY DELL 0.449 19537.91667 $14,771 16 HEINTZ BARRY E 2S103DA02800 10700 SW DERRY DELL 0.449 19537.74845 $14,771 17 GROENLUND DAVID R AND 28103DA02700 10730 SW DERRY DELL 0.448 19533.50173 $14,768 18 STOUDER CHARLES H TR & 28103DA02600 10760 SW DERRY DELL 0.449 19537.0636 $14,771 19 BORCHERS VELLA M 2S103DA02500 10790 SW DERRY DELL 0.513 22358.89852 $16,904 20 BROWN HUBERT A 2S103DA02400 10820 SW DERRY DELL 0.384 16724.83997 $12,645 21 WATSON GARY D & 2S103DA00300 13120 SW WATKINS AVE 0.319 13916.56716 $10,521 22 TESSMAN OWEN H 2S103DA02000 10865 SW DERRY DELL 0.372 16199.23647 $12,247 23 HARMON KATIE 2S103DA00900 13145 SW WATKINS AVE 0.331 14429,56599 $10,909 24 BARRETT HARLEY E 2S103DA00400 13150 SW WATKINS AVE 0.320 13926,64909 $10,529 25 MCCUTCHAN ALBERT 28103DA02300 10880 SW DERRY DELL 0.347 15118.21956 $11,430 26 KOOL SCOTT D & CELIA C 2S103DA02100 10885 SW DERRY DELL 0.372 16201.93421 $12,249 27 WINTERS GERRY L 2S103DA03201 10625 SW PARK ST 0.674 29375.61232 $22,209 28 BRADEN ROBERT W & KATHLEEN J 2S103DA00800 13175 SW WATKINS AVE 0.331 14429.44431 $10,909 29 KRAGER ROBERT WARREN 2S103DA03290 10655 SW PARK ST 0.479 20861.07951 $15,772 30 FURRER ROSMARIE 2S103DA03300 10685 SW PARK ST 0.454 19762.54608 $14,941 31 MCGRIFF JAMES E/SHEILA M 2S103DA03400 10735 SW PARK ST 0.441 19211.32816 $14,524 32 MIGUES RONALD P & DEBORAH R 2S103DA00500 13180 SW WATKINS AVE 0.320 13936.73103 $10,537 33 HATCH JAMES S/MARCIEL J & 2S103DA00700 13205 SW WATKINS ST 0.329 14347.22665 $10,847 34 MEYER DUANE FRANCIS 2S103DA00600 13210 SW WATKINS ST 0.320 13934.27425 $10,535 35 GRAY GAYLE R 2S103DA04300 10660 SW PARK ST 0.335 14573.06828 $11,018 36 NOLES DAVID R AND 2S103DA04400 10630 SW PARK ST 0.337 14667.82779 $11,089 37 WEESE TERRY & DORI 2S103DA04500 10600 SW PARK ST 0.339 14764.34445 $11,162 38 PUGSLEY CLAYTON A & 2S103DA04600 10570 SW PARK ST 0.339 14778.43789 $11,173 39 PONIATOWSKI-D'ERMENGARD 2S103DA05200 10665 SW COOK LANE 0.332 14468.20714 $10,938 40 WILLIAMS DAVID S 2S103DA05100 10635 SW COOK CT 0.332 14467.42728 $10,938 41 ROSSBERG STEPHEN A 2S103DA05000 10605 SW COOK LN 0.332 14465.75477 $10,937 42 MURFINSIMMONS MATTHEW T & 2S103DA04900 13365 SW WATKINS ST 0.330 14375.98869 $10,869 43 SHOLES LANCE M & 2S103DA05700 10634 SW COOK LN 0.449 19572.73686 $14,798 44 RESLER MICHAEL D & BARBARA S 2S103DA05800 10620 SW COOK LANE 0.449 19574.84873 $14,799 2 45 BISHOP WILBUR A AND MARTHA E 2SI03DA05900 10590 SW COOK LN 0.336 14646.50836 $11,073 46 HOLCOMBE GERALD A & 2S103DA06000 13485 SW WATKINS ST 0.338 14726.18773 $11,133 17.58 765925.35211 $579,064.77 J p 9 u J JENSEN RONALD M & 13000 SW WATKINS AVE TIGARD OR GROAT RANDALL S & CAROLYN J 13010 SW WATKINS TIGARD OR LEPPER CHAD & MI YOUNG 13060 SW WATKINS AVE TIGARD OR COLE TERRI J 13075 SW WATKINS AVE TIGARD OR MILLER ALLAN S DOREEN J 10665 SW DERRY DELL COURT TIGARD OR MOELLER JOHN C & NANCY A 10695 SW DERRY DELL CT TIGARD OR FRAINEY BRIAN A & ABIGAIL J 10725 SW DERRY DELL CT TIGARD OR COUSINEAU STEVEN B & 10755 SW DERRY DELL CT TIGARD OR TIPTON TROY P & MICHELLE J 10785 SW DERRY DELL CT TIGARD OR SAWKINS DOUGLAS S & 10815 SW DERRY DELL CT TIGARD OR MENDEZ JUDITH A 13090 SW WATKINS AVE TIGARD OR HAMMES ALFRED J HELEN L 13115 SW WATKINS AVE TIGARD OR HANSEN HARRIS H SARA J 10610 SW DERRY DELL - TIGARD OR PHAM SIMON C & REBECCA T 10640 SW DERRY DELL CT TIGARD OR GUSTIN RONALD L & TAMMY G 10670 SW DERRY DELL CT TIGARD OR HEINTZ BARRY E 10700 SW DERRY DELL CT TIGARD OR GROENLUND DAVID R AND 10730 SW DERRY DELL TIGARD OR STOUDER CHARLES H TR & 10760 SW DERRY DELL CT TIGARD OR BORCHERS VELLA M 10790 SW DERRY DELL CT TIGARD OR BROWN HUBERT A 10820 SW DERRY DELL CT TIGARD OR WATSON GARY D & 13120 SW WATKINS AVE TIGARD OR TESSMAN OWEN H 10865 SW DERRY DELL CT TIGARD OR HARMON KATIE 13145 SW WATKINS AVE TIGARD OR BARRETT HARLEY E 13150 SW WATKINS AVE TIGARD OR MCCUTCHAN ALBERT 10880 SW DERRY DELL TIGARD OR KOOL SCOTT D & CELIA C 10885 SW DERRY DELL CT TIGARD OR WINTERS GERRY L 10625 SW PARK ST TIGARD OR BRADEN ROBERT W & KATHLEEN J 13175 SW WATKINS TIGARD OR KRAGER ROBERT WARREN 10655 SW PARK STREET TIGARD OR FURRER ROSMARIE 10685 SW PARK TIGARD OR MCGRIFF JAMES E/SHEILA M 10735 SW PARK ST TIGARD OR MIGUES RONALD P & DEBORAH R 13180 SW WATKINS AVE PORTLAND OR HATCH JAMES S/MARCIEL J & 13205 SW WATKINS TIGARD OR MEYER DUANE FRANCIS 13210 SW WATKINS AVE TIGARD OR GRAY GAYLE R 10660 SW PARK ST TIGARD OR NOLES DAVID RAND 10630 SW PARK ST TIGARD OR WEESE TERRY & DORI 10600 SW PARK ST TIGARD OR PUGSLEY CLAYTON A & 10570 SW PARK ST TIGARD OR PONIATOWSKI-D'ERMENGARD 10665 SW COOK LN TIGARD OR C WILLIAMS DAVID S 10635 SW COOK LN TIGARD OR D ROSSBERG STEPHEN A 10605 SW COOK LN TIGARD OR " MURFINSIMMONS MATTHEW T & 13365 SW WATKINS TIGARD OR j SHOLES LANCE M & 10634 SW COOK LN TIGARD OR RESLER MICHAEL D & BARBARA S 10620 SW COOK LN TIGARD OR BISHOP WILBUR A AND MARTHA E PO BOX 23832 TIGARD OR HOLCOMBE GERALD A & 13485 SW WATKINS ST TIGARD OR CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO.O1- 4t0 A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 98-51 AND ESTABLISHING A REVISED AND ENHANCED NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council has initiated the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program to extend public sewers through Reimbursement Districts in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.09; and WHEREAS, on October 13,1998, the City Council established The Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program through Resolution No. 98-51 to encourage owners to connect to public sewer. The program was offered for a two-year period after which the program would be evaluated for continuation; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2000, the Ciry Council extended The Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program an additional two years through Resolution No. 00-60; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that residential areas that rcmain without sewer service should be provided with service within five years; and WHEREAS, Council has directed that additional incentives should be made available to encourage owners to promptly connect to sewers once service is available and that owners who have paid for service provided by previously established districts of the Neighbc:hcod Sewer Extension Program should receive the benefits of the additional incentives. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Resolution No. 98-51 establishing the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program is hereby repealed. SECTION 2: A revised incentive program is hereby established for the Neighborhood Sewer Exicrrsion Program. This inccntivc program shall apply to scwcr connoct ons provided a through the sewer reimbursement districts shown on the attached Table 1 or established thereafter. All connections qualifying under this program must be completed within N three years after Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report following a public hearing conducted in accordance with TMC Section 13.09.105 or by two years from the date this resolution is passed, which ever is later, as shown on the attached Table 1. m t7 J SECTION 3: To the extent that the reimbursement fee determined in accordance with Section 13.09.040 does not exceed $15,000, the amount to be reimbursed by an owner of a lot zoned single family residential shall not exceed $6,000 per connection, provided that the lot owner complies with the provisions of Section 2. Any amount over $15.000 shall be reimbursed by the owner. This applies only to the reimbursement fee for the sewer installation and not to the connection fee, which is still payable upon application for RESOLUTION NO.01-LJ1-(0 Page I sewer connection. SECTION 4: The City Engineer's Report required by TMC Chapter 13.09 shall apply the provisions of this incentive program. Residential tot owners who do not connect to sewer in accordance with Section 2 shall pay the full reimbursement amount as determined by the final City Engineer's Report. SECTION 5: Any person who has paid a reimbursement fee in excess of the fee required herein is entitled to reimbursement from the City. The amounts to be reimbursed and the persons to be paid shall be determined by the Finance Director and approved by the City Manager. There shall be a full explanation of any circumstances that require payment to any person who is not an original payer. The Finance Director shall make payment to all persons entitled to the refund no later than August 31, 2001. SECTION 6: The Sanitary Sewer Fund, which is the funding source for the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Program, shall provide the funding for the installation costs over $6,000 up to a maximum of $15,000 per connection. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2001 PASSED: This day of J"~~ 2001. ayor Ci of and ATTEST: a i Recorder - City of tigard 1 m I:~Ciq wj& es\Resolution Revising the Neighborhood Sewer In=hve Pmgun J RESOLUTION NO.01-1A Page 2 LEGIBILITY STRIP TABLE Reimbursement Districts with Refunds Available DISTRICT FEE PER LOT REIMBURSEMENT AVAILABLE INCENTIVE PERIOD ENDS 'TIGARD ST.No.8 5,193 No reimbursement available FAIRHAVEN ST/WYNo.9 4,506 No reimbursement available , HILLVIEW ST No.11 8,000 -----,2003 106TM & JOHNSON No.12 5,598 No reimbursement available 100T" & INEZ No. 13 8,000 -----,2003 WALNUT & TIEDEMAN No.14 8,000 -----,2003 BEVELAND&HERMOSA No.15 5,036 No reimbursement available DELMONTE No. 16 8,000 -----,2003 OWARA No. 17 8,000 -----,2003 Z WALNUT & 121sT No.18 - Amount to be reimbursed will be Three years from service availability "ROSE VISTA No.20 - determined once final costs are determined. " Currently being constructed 19: hy_ Wheatley- Re: City Council Mtg August 12th Page 1 j From., Cathy Wheatley To: Tammy G Gustin Subject: Re: City Council Mtg August 12th Thanks for your e-mail. It has been forwarded to the Council as well as to City Manager Monahan and City Engineer Duenas. Cathy Wheatley City Recorder Tammy G Gustin <metogustin@juno.com> 08/14103 10:45AM Tammy G. Gustin 10670 SW Derry Dell Ct Tigard, Or 97223 August 13, 2003 Dear Mayor Griffith and Council Members; Please let me take this opportunity to apologize for my intrusion at the Council Meeting Monday evening. It was not my intention to be so brash. When I arrived at the meeting, I was under the impression that this meeting would include time for public comment on our issue. When I saw otherwise it further inflamed my feelings of helplessness regarding this matter. These feelings had started at the beginning of this process. As time has continued I have felt like very little has been done to change this perception, In the last few weeks I have seen city employees measuring my yard and surveying my street. When I saw on the city web site that the contract had already been awarded I felt that I had to take drastic measures to be heard. The majority of my neighbors do not appear to be in favor of the current sewer proposal. Although it is not our intention to ignore our neighbors who may be having difficulties with their septic systems, it is hard for me to believe that this is the only possible solution. Thank you for taking the time to correct my assumption that the contract j had already been awarded and for letting me know that the August 26th j meeting will allow me an appropriate time to voice my concerns. In the meantime my neighbors and I will contact Mr. Duenas to answer some of our questions in regard to this issue. I am certain that with this information I will be in a better position to have a well informed and composed discussion at that meeting. Thank you for your service and, again please accept my apologies. Sincerely, Page 2 11 /EC athy Wheatley - Re: City Council Mtg August 12th Tammy G. Gustin L r r J D u Cathy~iNheatley -Response to your letter of August 22, 2003 Page 1 From: Gus Duenas To: Jessica@scrye.com Date: 8/26103 8:32AM Subject: Response to your letter of August 22, 2003 Attached Is a letter In response to your letter of August 22, 2003. 1 will be mailing the original out today. If you can't read the word document, please let me know what you can read so that I can save it In an earlier format, or in rich text format. Agustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: (503) 639-4171 x2470 Fax: (503) 624-0752 gus@ci.tigard.or.us CC: Bill Monahan; Cathy Wheatley r 0 u AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF August 26, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDATITLE Formation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 27 (SW 100th Avenue, Murdock Street) (Continued from July 22 2003) PREPARED BY: G.N. Be~~ DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a sewer reimbursement district to construct a sanitary sewer project as part of the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That City Council, by motion, deny formation of the district and direct staff to resubmit a request to establish Reimbursement District No. 27 for construction of sewer improvements during the 2004 - 2005 fiscal year. INFORMATION SUMMARY On June 10, 2003, City Council directed that a neighborhood meeting be conducted before Council considered forming the district. The neighborhood meeting was conducted on July 10, 2003 followed by an informational hearing before Council on July 22, 2003. City Council concluded the hearing but delayed action on forming the district pending a review of three districts proposed for implementation in FY 2003-04. Based on the funding available, only two projects at most could be constructed this fiscal year. Bids for construction of the project were opened on July 28, 2003. The three proposed districts with estimated construction costs were reviewed by Council at the meeting on August 12, 2003. At the meeting on August 12, City Council directed that District No. 27 be delayed until next fiscal year so that District Nos. 28 (O'Mara and McDonald area) and 29 (Park Street and Derry Dell area) could be constructed during the current fiscal year. Council action to deny formation of the district would end further consideration L of the district until another informational hearing is conducted next spring. If City Council denies formation of the district as recommended, Council would be requested to reject all bids received to construct the project. J 9 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 9 u Not applicable VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMM17TEE STRATEGY Not applicable ATTACHMENT LIST Vicinity Map of the proposed district FISCAL NOTES The proposed district would be resubmitted to Council for formation in the spring of 2004. The project would be rebid, possibly in May 2004, for construction to begin after July 1, 2004. Funding for the project would be from sanitary sewer funds. I:\EWA200 -2006 FY CIRIO(1h & Murdock Sarileq fleMbumment Dist 270st6ct 27 JIMh, Murdock)\S=may Sheet Aug 2e.doo 100TH AVENUE & MURDOCK STREET FY 2003-04 SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PROGRAM REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 27 N v Mc DONALD ST I Z-- I _-_-1LL---l ~ - MURDOCK,ST ~ i. L'i J L W a MARILYN TEMPLETON D , A.- I I o w 1Iy ELEMENTARY Q Go, E DAM SCHOOL E PER \ C m J Y LADY MARION D SATTLER- Lj- jL~ L )l MLFLZ~ L-zi % AGENDA ITEM # q, FOR AGENDA OF August 26, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Award of Contract for the Construction of O'Mara Street and McDonald Street Sanitary Sewer - Sewer Reimbursement District No. 28 PREPARED BY: Vannie N yguL >613PT HEAD OK: Agustin. 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 O'Mara Street and McDonald Street Sanitary Sewer - Sewer Reimbursement District No. 28? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, reject the bid proposal submitted by JW Underground, Inc. and approve the contract award to Kerr Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $366,664.40. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed project would provide sewer service to 36 lots along O'Mara Street and McDonald Street through Sewer Reimbursement District No. 28 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 $2,435 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. The project was advertised for bids on May 20, 2003. The bid opening was conducted on June 3, 2003. The bid results are: L JW Underground Gresham, Oregon $251,399.55 r Kerr Contractors Tualatin, Oregon $366,664.40 Emery & Sons Stayton, Oregon $404,153.00 Dunn Construction Portland, Oregon $416,575.00 Engineer's Estimate $326,600 The lowest bid was submitted by JW Underground, Inc. with a bid amount of $251,399.55. This bid is approximately $75,000 below the Engineer's estimate and approximately $115,000 below the next lowest bid. After the bid opening, JW Underground approached City staff with a request to withdraw the bid because of a mistake in the bid submittal. JW Underground indicated that they failed to include between $70,000 and $80,000 in their bid to cover the cost for placement of crushed rocks required by bid item "Trench Excavation and Backfill". As stated in the special provisions, the bid item requires contractors to excavate trench for installation of pipe and backfill the trench with rocks prior to paving it with asphaltic concrete. Staff was also notified by JW Underground that they failed to disclose a paving subcontractor and the value of the subcontract was such that the paving subcontractor should have been disclosed. Based on the failure of the contractor to meet this requirement, staff determined that the bid proposal is non-responsive. AR 30.075 allows bids to be withdrawn in the case of an inadvertent, non judgmental mistake. Since JW Underground's mistake appears to be an error in judgment, staff recommends that JW Underground not be allowed to withdraw its bid under this requirement. AR 30.090 provides that a contract is "to be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder." A responsible bidder as defined by AR 30.092 is one who has "adequate financial resources to perform the contract." While JW Underground would have the financial resources to perform the contract if it had bid an amount sufficient to cover its costs, it is apparent that its bid amount is so severely underbid that it would not have the financial resources to complete the contract. Hence, the bid proposal of JW Underground does not meet this requirement for contract award. Staff therefore recommends that the bid of JW Underground, Inc. be rejected on the grounds that it is not a responsible bidder on this project, and that its bid is non-responsive because it failed to include full information on first-tier subcontractors. The second lowest bid is $366,664.40 submitted by Kerr Contractors. Staff has reviewed the bid documents and concludes that this bid is responsive and that Kerr Contractors is a responsible bidder. The bid amount is 12.3% higher than the Engineer's Estimate of $326,600. However, the range of bid amounts received on this project indicates that the true project cost is probably around $400,000. Re-bidding the project would most likely not result in lower bids because as summer work progresses, contractors become fully engaged in construction and tend to bid higher on projects advertised at that time. Staff therefore recommends that the contract be awarded to Kerr Contractors at the bid amount of $366,664.40. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Reject all bids and re-bid the project. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Project location map FISCAL NOTES The amount of $750,000 is available in the FY 2003-04 Neighborhood and Commercial Sewer Extension Program for this and other sewer extension projects. In addition, there is an amount of $232,000 in general contingency that can be made available for the proposed projects. The available funding is adequate to award a contract of $366,664.40 to Kerr Contractors, Inc. i:teng12003.2004 fy cipVffera-mcdonald reimbursement dist no. Mcouncll packet (Vtn)\8-26-03 sewer district 28 contract award AIS.doc L a i~ i.EG~iL{T'r gTRIP MCppNALD M~N1 pISTR~C~ #ZS O' MA MEN& S REIMBIjRSE RY SEWER tMpF SANt1 P- p,SH PVE 4 WLAGE- Jw ~ La } ST ~MARA `h~6' x FWQ l ~O 4r~~ T q~4 1 C5MAP CtN~TY VI N-rs AGENDA ITEM # q ,'a FOR AGENDA OF August 26, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Award of Contract for the Construction of Park Street, Degy Dell Court, Watkins Avenue and Cook Lane Sanit Sewer - Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 PREPARED BY: Vannie Nguyen EPT HEAD OK: Agustin. 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 Park Street, Derry Dell Court, Watkins Avenue and Cook Lane Sanitary Sewer - Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, reject the bid proposal submitted by JW Underground, Inc, and approve the contract award to Dunn Construction, Inc. in the amount of $485,894.50. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed project would provide sewer service to 47 lots along Park Street, Derry Dell Court, Watkins Avenue and Cook Lane through Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 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 $2,435 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. The project was advertised for bids on May 20, 2003. The bid opening was conducted on June 3, 2003. The bid results are: JW Underground Gresham, Oregon $296,387.00 Dunn Construction Tualatin, Oregon $485,894.50 Kerr Contractors Tualatin, Oregon $520,150.00 Russell Construction Portland, Oregon $570,483.55 Engineer's Estimate $409,906 The lowest bid was submitted by JW Underground, Inc. with a bid amount of $296,387.00. This bid is approximately $113,500 below the Engineer's estimate and approximately $189,500 below the next lowest bid. After the bid opening, JW Underground approached City staff with a request to withdraw the bid because of a mistake in the bid submittal. JW Underground indicated that they failed to include between $120,000 and $130,000 in their bid to cover the cost for placement of crushed rocks required by bid item "Trench Excavation and Backfill". As stated in the special provisions, the bid item requires contractors to excavate trench for installation of pipe and backfill the trench with rocks prior to paving it with asphaltic concrete. Staff was also notified by JW Underground that they failed to disclose a paving subcontractor and the value of the subcontract was such that the paving subcontractor should have been disclosed. Based on the failure of the contractor to meet this requirement, staff determined that the bid proposal is non-responsive. AR 30.075 allows bids to be withdrawn in the case of an inadvertent, non judgmental mistake. Since JW Underground's mistake appears to be an error in judgment, staff recommends that JW Underground not be allowed to withdraw its bid under this requirement. AR 30.090 provides that a contract is "to be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder." A responsible bidder as defined by AR 30.092 is one who has "adequate financial resources to perform the contract." While JW Underground would have the financial resources to perform the contract if it had bid an amount sufficient to cover its costs, it is apparent that its bid amount is so severely underbid that it would not have the financial resources to complete the contract. Hence, the bid proposal of JW Underground does not meet this requirement for contract award. Staff therefore recommends that the bid of JW Underground, Inc. be rejected on the grounds that it is not a responsible bidder on this project, and that its bid is non-responsive because it failed to include full information on first-tier subcontractors. The second lowest bid is $485,894.50 submitted by Dunn Construction. Staff has reviewed the bid documents and concludes that this bid is responsive and that Dunn Construction is a responsible bidder. The bid amount is 18.5% higher than the Engineer's Estimate of $409,906. However, the range of bid amounts received on this project indicates that the true project cost is probably around $500,000. Re-bidding the project would most likely not result in lower bids because as summer work progresses, contractors become fully engaged in construction and tend to bid higher on projects advertised at that time. Staff therefore recommends that the contract be awarded to Dunn Construction at the bid amount of $485,894.50. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED L Reject all bids and re-bid the project. 2 VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY J N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Project location map FISCAL NOTES The amount of $750,000 is available in the FY 2003-04 Neighborhood and Commercial Sewer Extension Program for this and other sewer extension projects. In addition, there is an amount of $232,000 in general contingency that can be made available for the proposed projects. The available funding is adequate to award a contract of $485,894.50 to Dunn Construction, Inc. heng\2003.04 FY CIP\Park St Derry Dell 8 Watkins Ave Reimbursement District No 291Council Packet (vtn)16.26-03 Sewer District 29 Contract Award AIS 1 L~G~ILRY STRif' COURT DERRY MENT DtSTRICY #2 PARK STRMENTS REIMBURSE Y SEER IMPROVE Sp,N1T AR TKIN PL G T Ct SCy TN ET hp~ ~l sr E~ T OE RY K Z~ 7 2 3 8R L rq A(I K !N v o N FAIR AVEN ET-T~ Q VICINITY MA N AGENDA ITEM # Ci, 3 FOR AGENDA OF August 26, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Rejection of Bid Proposals for the Construction of 10& Avenue & Murdock Street Sanit Sewer - Sewer District No. 27 PREPARED BY: Vannie Nguyrl"EPT HEAD OK: A.P. Duenas CITY MGR OK: Bill Vonran ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board reject all bid proposals for the construction of 1001h Avenue & Murdock Street Sanitary Sewer - Sewer District No. 27? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, reject all bid proposals for the construction of 1001h Avenue & Murdock Street Sanitary Sewer - Sewer District No. 27. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed project would provide sewer service to 70 lots along 100`h Avenue, 98th Avenue, Murdock Street and Sattler Street through Sewer Reimbursement District No. 27 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 $2,435 before connecting to the line. The project was advertised for bids on July 15, 2003. The bid opening was conducted on July 28, 2003. The bid results are: Dunn Construction Portland, OR $613,685.50 Kerr Contractors Tualatin, OR $633,969.00 RCI Construction Sumner, WA $707,336.00 BCI Contracting Portland, OR $899,734.30 i Engineer's Estimate $502,000 i The low bid from Dunn Construction is significantly higher than the Engineer's Estimate, exceeding it by approximately $112,000 or 22.3%. Bid items "8-inch PVC", "4-inch PVC" and "Foundation Stabilization" were bid much higher than the City's estimated cost for the items. Because of the high bids received on this project, and because the amount of $750,000 and available contingency in the FY 2003-04 Neighborhood and Commercial Sewer Extension Program are insufficient to award this contract in conjunction with the two other sewer extension projects this fiscal year, staff recommends rejection of the bids. Upon approval of rejection of the bid proposals, staff intends to re-bid the project in late spring next year for construction to commence in July 2004. Re-bidding the project at that time should provide better competition and hopefully lower bids. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Project location map FISCAL NOTES The amount of $750,000 is available in the FY 2003-04 Neighborhood and Commercial Sewer Extension Program. An additional amount of $232,000 in general contingency can be made available for the proposed projects. I:\eng12003-04 fy cip\100'" & Murdock Sanitary Reimbursement Dist 27\council packet (vtn)\8-26-03 sewer district 27 bid rejection AIS L o~ a LEGiB11-1~ ETR1P STREET VENUE & MURDUTE SIGN PROGRAM i OOTH A SEWER EX ®4 SANITARY T DOSTRIOT NQ• 27 FY 2003 REIMBURSEMEN Me OONALD ST C N y~` 4 Z ti rn i i tt1J - - ~ TEMPLETON ~i - - a ELEMEtdTARY 00 z C3 J L T PERT - 1 PERT LADY MARION -~D~ a AGENDA ITEM # i FOR AGENDA OF August 26.2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Bid Award for Five-Year Street Sweeping Contract PREPARED BY: Dennis Koellermeier DEPT HEAD OK 15C f CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The issue before the Local Contract Review Board is to award bid for the street sweeping contract to the lowest responsible bidder for a five-year sweeping contract for $160,040 per year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the LCRD award the Street Sweeping contract to Great Western Sweeping, Inc., for the period of five years at a cost of $160,040 per year. INFORMATION SUMMARY The request for bids was advertised on May 20, 2003, with bid closing June 10, 2003. There were two bids submitted for this advertisement as follows: Great Western Sweeping, Inc. Pavement Maintenance. Inc 1. Air sweeper for an estimated 2,000 hours $90.00 per hour $76.50 per hour 2. Mechanical sweeper estimated 270 hours $90.00 per hour $76.50 per hour 3. Water truck estimated 15 hours $75.00 per hour $90.00 per hour 4. Debris removal estimated 1,142 yards $17.00 per yard $20.75 per yard 5. Detail work of City lots estimated 60 hours $45.00 per hour $60.00 per hour Estimated totals: $227,539.00 $202,301.50 The estimated hours were used only to provide comparative annual costs and do not are necessarily the total 6 number of hours it will take to sweep the City next year. r Based on a review of the information received in the bid packages from the two bidders, it is recommended we award the contract to Great Western Sweeping, Inc. Great Western meets all specifications and has had the sweeping contract for the City of Tigard since 1991. Our experience with Great Western Sweeping, Inc., has been positive and we have very few complaints regarding service. Although Pavement Maintenance, Inc., estimated annual cost was $25,301.50 less than that of Great Western Sweeping, Inc., their equipment failed to meet the i minimum requirement of the City specifications and their references failed to confirm the company's abilities. As an example, we require that the primary sweeper be no older than three years old and the back-up sweeper be no older than six years. The newest sweeper Pavement Maintenance, Inc., has is seven years old and the back up sweeper is twelve years old. Pavement Maintenance, Inc., stated in their bid that they would purchase the necessary equipment if they were awarded the bid. The City's Purchasing Dept. did confirm through the City Attorney that this was acceptable. One of Pavement Maintenance's references was the City of Estacada. Discussions with their staff have led the Public Works Department to conclude that it would not be in the City's best interest to enter into a 5-year contract with Pavement Maintenance, Inc., at this time. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Reject all bids and re-advertise for new bids. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Accommodate growth while protection the character and livability of new and established areas. ATTACHMENT LIST Copy of Contract. FISCAL NOTES Funds have been budgeted in streets contractual service budget to cover the $160,040.00 for 2003-2004. The contract has been structured to allow adjustments in the hourly rate of the contract cost at the beginning of the second year and the beginning of each remaining year of the contract. The adjustment shall be based upon the Portland CPI for that year. Any increase over the Portland CPI will require the contractor to provide documentation and justification for the additional increase and is subject to the approval of the City. L 2 n J 0 s J J CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT STREET SWEEPING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 1st day of August, 2003 by and between the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called City, and Great Western Sweeping, Inc. hereinafter called Contractor. RECITALS City has need for the services of a company with a particular training, ability, knowledge, and experience possessed by Contractor, and City has determined that Great Western Sweeping, Inc. is qualified and capable of performing the professional services as CITY does hereinafter require, under those terms and conditions set forth: AGREEMENT: The parties agree as follows: 1. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED: Contractor shall initiate street sweeping services immediately upon receipt of City's notice to proceed, together with an executed copy of this Agreement. Contractor agrees to complete work that is detailed in Exhibit "A" and by this reference made a part hereof. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION: This Agreement shall become effective upon August 1, 2003, and shall expire, unless otherwise terminated on July 30, 2008. Contract will be a five- (5) year contract. All work under this Agreement shall be completed prior to the expiration of this Agreement. 3. COMPENSATION: CITY agrees to pay CONTRACTOR for performance of those services as described below. Payment shall be based on an hourly rate only for those services received in an acceptable manner to City. Compensation over the life of this Contract is estimated at Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($900,000). a. The City agrees to pay the Contractor $90.00 per hour for Air Sweeper. b. The City agrees to pay the Contractor $90.00 per hour for Mechanical Sweeper. ? C. The City agrees to pay the Contractor $75.00 per hour for the Water Truck. 0 d. The City agrees to pay the Contractor $17.00 per Dumpster yard for disposal of debris. 3 C. The City agrees to pay the Contractor $45.00 per hour for detail work of city lots. 9 i Prices shall be firm through the first year of the contract. Price compensation may be allowed for an escalation in the rate of contract costs on a per hour basis, at the beginning of the second year and the beginning of each remaining year of the contract. The escalation increase shall be based upon the Portland CPI for that year. Contractor shall provide documentation and justification of any additional increase above the current Portland CPI. Personal Service Contract - Street Sweeping Services 1 8/I/03 f. Payment by City to Contractor for performance of services under this Agreement includes all expenses incurred by Contractor, with the exception of expenses, if any identified in this Agreement as separately reimbursable. g Payment will be made in installments based on Contractor's invoice, subject to the approval of the City Manager, or designee, and not more frequently than monthly. Payment shall be made only for work actually completed as of the date of invoice. h. Payment by City shall release City from any further obligation for payment to Contractor, for services performed or expenses incurred as of the date of the invoice. Payment shall not be considered acceptance or approval of any work or waiver of any defects therein. i. Contractor shall make payments promptly, as due, to all persons supplying labor or materials for the prosecution of this work. j. Contractor shall not permit any lien or claim to be filed or prosecuted against the City on any account of any labor or material furnished. k. Contractor shall pay to the Department of Revenue all sums withheld from employees pursuant to ORS 316.167. 1. If Contractor fails, neglects or refuses to make prompt payment of any claim for labor or services furnished to Contractor or a subcontractor by any person as such claim becomes due, City's Finance Director may pay such claim and charge the amount of the payment against funds due or to become due the Contractor. The payment of the claim in this manner shall not relieve Contractor or their surety from obligation with respect to any unpaid claims. M. Contractor shall pay employees at least time and a half pay for all overtime worked in excess of 40 hours in any one week except for individuals under the contract who are excluded under ORS 653.010 to 653.261 or under 29 USC sections 201 to 209 from receiving overtime. n. Contractor shall promptly, as due, make payment to any person, co-partnership, association or corporation, furnishing medical, surgical and hospital care or other needed care and attention incident to sickness or injury to the employees of Contractor or all sums which Contractor agrees to pay for such services and all moneys and sums which Contractor collected or deducted from the wages of employees pursuant to any law, contract or agreement for the purpose of providing or paying for such service. o. The City certifies that sufficient funds are available and authorized for expenditure to finance costs of this contract. 4. OWNERSHIP OF WORK PRODUCT: City shall be the owner of and shall be entitled to possession of any and all work products of Contractor which result from this Agreement, including any computations, plans, correspondence or pertinent data and information gathered by or computed by Contractor prior to termination of this Agreement by Contractor or upon completion of the work pursuant to this Agreement. Personal Service Contract - Street Sweeping Services 2 8/1/03 5. ASSIGNMENT/DELEGATION: Neither party shall assign, sublet or transfer any interest in or duty under this Agreement without the written consent of the other and no assignment shall be of any force or effect whatsoever unless and until the other party has so consented. If City agrees to assignment of tasks to a subcontract, Contractor shall be fully responsible for the acts or omissions of any subcontractors and of all persons employed by them, and neither the approval by City of any subcontractor nor anything contained herein shall be deemed to create any contractual relation between the subcontractor and City. 6. STATUS OF CONTRACTOR AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: Contractor certifies that: a. Contractor acknowledges that for all purposes related to this Agreement, Contractor is and shall be deemed to be an independent contractor as defined by ORS 670.600 and not an employee of City, shall not be entitled to benefits of any kind to which an employee of City is entitled and shall be solely responsible for all payments and taxes required by law. Furthermore, in the event that Contractor is found by a court of law or any administrative agency to be an employee of City for any purpose, City shall be entitled to offset compensation due, or to demand repayment of any amounts paid to Contractor under the terms of this Agreement, to the full extent of any benefits or other remuneration Contractor receives (from City or third party) as a result of said finding and to the full extent of any payments that City is required to make (to Contractor or to a third party) as a result of said finding. b. The undersigned Contractor hereby represents that no employee of the City, or any partnership or corporation in which a City employee has an interest, has or will receive any remuneration of any description from Contractor, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the letting or performance of this Agreement, except as specifically declared in writing. If this payment is to be charged against Federal funds, Contractor certifies that he/she is not currently employed by the Federal Government and the amount charged does not exceed his or her normal charge for the type of service provided. Contractor and its employees, if any, are not active members of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System and are not employed for a total of 600 hours or more in the calendar year by any public employer participating in the Retirement System. C. Contractor certifies that it currently has a City business license or will obtain one prior to delivering services under this Agreement. d. Contractor is not an officer, employee, or agent of the City as those terms are used in ORS 30.265. 7. INDEMNIFICATION: CITY has relied upon the professional ability and training of CONTRACTOR as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. CONTRACTOR warrants that all its work will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and standards as well as the requirements of applicable federal, state and local laws, it being understood that acceptance of a contractor's work by CITY shall not operate as a waiver or release. CONTRACTOR agrees to indemnify and defend the CITY, its officers, agents and employees and hold them harmless from any and all liability, causes of action, claims, losses, damages, judgments or other costs or expenses including attorney's fees and witness costs and (at both trial and appeal level, whether or n,jt a Personal Service Contract - Street Sweeping Services 3 13/ 1 /03 trial or appeal ever takes place) that may be asserted by any person or entity which in any way arise from, during or in connection with the performance of the work described in this contract, except liability arising out of the sole negligence of the CITY and its employees. Such indemnification shall also cover claims brought against the CITY under state or federal worker's compensation laws. If any aspect of this indemnity shall be found to be illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this indemnification. 8. INSURANCE: CONTRACTOR and its subcontractors shall maintain insurance acceptable to CITY in full force and effect throughout the term of this contract. Such insurance shall cover all risks arising directly or indirectly out of CONTRACTOR'S activities or work hereunder, including the operations of its subcontractors of any tier. The policy or policies of insurance maintained by the CONTRACTOR and its subcontractor shall provide at least the following limits and coverage's: a. Commercial General Liability Insurance CONTRACTOR shall obtain, at contractor's expense, and keep in effect during the term of this contract, Comprehensive General Liability Insurance covering Bodily Injury and Property Damage on an "occurrence" form (1996 ISO or equivalent). This coverage shall include Contractual Liability insurance for the indemnity provided under this contract. The following insurance will be carried: Coverage Limit General Aggregate 2,000,000 Products-Completed Operations Aggregate 1,000,000 Personal & Advertising Injury 1,000,000 Each Occurrence 1,000,000 Fire Damage (Any one fire) 50,000 Medical Expense (Any one person) 5,000 b. Commercial Automobile Insurance CONTRACTOR shall also obtain, at contractor's expense, and keep in effect during the term of the contract, Commercial Automobile Liability coverage including coverage for all owned, hired, and non-owned vehicles. The Combined Single Limit per occurrence shall not be less than $1,000,000. C. Workers' Compensation Insurance The CONTRACTOR, its subcontractors, if any, and all employers providing work, labor or materials under this Contract that are either subject employers under the Oregon Workers' Compensation Law and shall comply with ORS 656.017, which requires them to provide workers' compensation coverage that satisfies Oregon law for all their subject workers or employers that are exempt under ORS 656.126. Out-of-state employers must provide Oregon C workers' compensation coverage for their workers who work at a single location within Oregon for more than 30 days in a calendar year. Contractors who perform work without the assistance or labor of any employee need not obtain such coverage. This shall include Employer's i Liability Insurance with coverage limits of not less than $500,000 each accident. d. Additional Insured Provision The Commercial General Liability Insurance and Commercial Automobile Insurance policies and other policies the CITY deems necessary shall include the CITY, its officers, directors, and employees as additional insureds with respect to this contract. e. Notice of Cancellation There shall be no cancellation, material change, exhaustion of aggregate limits or intent not to renew insurance coverage without 30 days written notice to the CITY. Any failure to comply with this provision will not affect the insurance coverage provided to the CITY. The 30 days notice of cancellation provision shall be physically endorsed on to the policy. Personal Service Contract - Street Sweeping Services 4 8/1/03 f. Insurance Carrier Rating Coverage's provided by the CONTRACTOR must be underwritten by an insurance company deemed acceptable by the CITY. The CITY reserves the right to reject all or any insurance carrier(s) with an unacceptable financial rating. g. Certificates of Insurance As evidence of the insurance coverage required by the contract, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish a Certificate of Insurance to the CITY. No contract shall be effective until the required certificates have been received and approved by the CITY. The certificate will specify and document all provisions within this contract. A renewal certificate will be sent to the above address 10 days prior to coverage expiration. h. Independent Contractor Status The service or services to be rendered under this contract are those of an independent contractor. CONTRACTOR is not an officer, employee or agent of the CITY as those terms are used in ORS 30.265. i. Primary Coverage Clarification The parties agree that CONTRACTOR'S coverage shall be primary to the extent permitted by law. The parties further agree that other insurance maintained by the CITY is excess and not contributory insurance with the insurance required in this section. j. Cross-Liability. Clause A cross-liability clause or separation of insureds clause will be included in all general liability, professional liability, pollution and errors and omissions policies required by this contract. CONTRACTOR'S insurance policy shall contain provisions that such policies shall not be canceled or their limits of liability reduced without thirty (30) days prior notice to CITY. A copy of each insurance policy, certified as a true copy by an authorized representative of the issuing insurance company, or at the discretion of CITY, in lieu thereof, a certificate in form satisfactory to CITY certifying to the issuance of such insurance shall be forwarded to: Terry Muralt, Buyer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Such policies or certificates must be delivered prior to commencement of the work. The procuring of such required insurance shall not be construed to limit contractor's liability hereunder. Notwithstanding said insurance, CONTRACTOR shall be obligated for the total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by negligence or neglect connected with this contract. 9. METHOD AND PLACE OF GIVING NOTICE, SUBMITTING BILLS AND MAKING PAYMENTS. L All notices, bills and payments shall be made in writing and may be given by personal delivery, mail or by C fax. Payments may be made by personal delivery, mail, or electronic transfer. The following addresses shall be used to transmit notices, bills, payments, and other information: CITY OF TIGARD Howard Gregory, Streets Supervisor City of Tigard Business Phone: 503-63911171, Ext. 2606 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Business Fax: 503-684-8840 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Email Address: howard@ci.figard.or.us CONTRACTOR Dan Dodson Great Western Sweeping, Inc. Business Phone: 503-625-0596 14450 SW Tualatin-Sherwood Rd. Business Fax: 503-625-0672 PO Box 926 Email Address: Daniel-dodson@msn.com Sherwood, OR 97140 Personal Service Contract Street Sweeping Services 5 8/1/03 and when so addressed, shall be deemed given upon deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or when so faxed, shall be deemed given upon successful fax. In all other instances, notices, bills and payments shall be deemed given at the time of actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names and addresses of the person to who notices, bills and payments are to be given by giving written notice pursuant to this paragraph. 10. MERGER: This writing is intended both as a final expression of the Agreement between the parties with respect to the included terms and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement. No modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless and until it is made in writing and signed by both parties. 11. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: The City requires that services provided pursuant to this agreement shall be provided to the City by a Contractor that does not represent clients on matters contrary to City interests. Further, Contractor shall not engage services of an attorney and/or other professional who individually, or through members of his/her same firm, represents clients on matters contrary to City interests. Should the Contractor represent clients on matters contrary to City interests or engage the services on an attorney and/or other professional who individually, or through members of his/her same firm, represents clients on matters contrary to City interests, Contractor shall consult with the appropriate CITY representative regarding the conflict. After such consultation, the Contractor shall have 10 days to eliminate the conflict to the satisfaction of the City. If such conflict is not eliminated within the specified time period, the agreement may be terminated pursuant to Section 13 (b - iii) of this agreement. 12. TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE: At any time and without cause, City shall have the right in its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement by giving notice to Contractor. If City terminates the contract pursuant to this paragraph, it shall pay Contractor for services rendered to the date of termination. 13. TERMINATION WITH CAUSE: a. City may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to Contractor, or at such later date as may be established by City, under any of the following conditions: i. If City funding from federal, state, local, or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow for the purchase of the indicated quantity of services. This Agreement may be modified to accommodate a reduction in funds ii. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed, or interpreted in such a way that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate for purchase under this Agreement. iii. If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by Contractor, its subcontractors, agents, and employees to provide the services required by this Agreement is for any reason denied, revoked, or not renewed. iv. If Contractor becomes insolvent, if voluntary or involuntary petition in bankeuptcy is filed by or against Contractor, if a receiver or trustee is appointed for Contractor, or if there is an assignment for the benefit of creditors of Contractor. Personal Service Contract - Street Sweeping Services 6 8/1/03 Any such termination of this agreement under paragraph (a) shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such termination. b. City, by written notice of default (including breach of contract) to Contractor, may terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement: i. If Contractor fails to provide services called for by this agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof, or ii. If Contractor fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from City, fails to correct such failures within ten (10) days or such other period as City may authorize. iii. If Contractor fails to eliminate a conflict as described in Section 11 of this agreement. The rights and remedies of City provided in the above clause related to defaults (including breach of contract) by Contractor shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. If City terminates this Agreement under paragraph (b), Contractor shall be entitled to receive as full payment for all services satisfactorily rendered and expenses incurred, an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fees specified in this Agreement as the services satisfactorily rendered by Contractor bear to the total services otherwise required to be performed for such total fee; provided, that there shall be deducted from such amount the amount of damages, if any, sustained by City due to breach of contract by Contractor. Damages for breach of contract shall be those allowed by Oregon law, reasonable and necessary attorney fees, and other costs of litigation at trial and upon appeal. 14. ACCESS TO RECORDS: City shall have access to such books, documents, papers and records of Contractor as are directly pertinent to this Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts and transcripts. 15. FORCE MAJEURE: Neither City nor Contractor shall be considered in default because of any delays in completion and responsibilities hereunder due to causes beyond the control and without fault or negligence on the part of the parties so disenabled, including but not restricted to, an act of God or of a public enemy, civil unrest, volcano, earthquake, fire, flood, epidemic, quarantine restriction, area-wide strike, freight embargo, unusually severe weather or delay of subcontractor or supplies due to such cause; provided that the parties L so disenabled shall within ten (10) days from the beginning of such delay, notify the other party in writing K of the cause of delay and its probable extent. Such notification shall not be the basis for a claim for additional compensation. Each party shall, however, make all reasonable efforts to remove or eliminate such a cause of delay or default and shall, upon cessation of the cause, diligently pursue performance of its obligation under the Agreement. Q J 16. NON-WAIVER: J The failure of City to insist upon or enforce strict performance by Contractor of any of the terms of this Agreement or to exercise any rights hereunder should not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment to any extent of its rights to assert or rely upon such terms or rights on any future occasion. Personal Service Contract - Street Sweeping Services 7 8/1/03 17. NON-DISCRIMINATION: Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statues, rules, and regulations. Contractor also shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, ORS 659.425, and all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to those laws. 18. ERRORS: Contractor shall perform such additional work as may be necessary to correct errors in the work required under this Agreement without undue delays and without additional cost. 19. EXTRA (CHANGES) WORK: Only the City Administrator or designee may authorize extra (and/or change) work. Failure of Contractor to secure authorization for extra work shall constitute a waiver of all right to adjustment in the contract price or contract time due to such unauthorized extra work and Contractor thereafter shall be entitled to no compensation whatsoever for the performance of such work. 20. WARRANTIES: All work shall be guaranteed by Contractor for a period of one year after the date of final acceptance of the work by the owner. Contractor warrants that all practices and procedures, workmanship and materials shall be the best available unless otherwise specified in the profession. Neither acceptance of the work nor payment therefore shall relieve Contractor from liability under warranties contained in or implied by this Agreement. 21. ATTORNEY'S FEES: In case suit or action is instituted to enforce the provisions of this contract, the parties agree that the losing party shall pay such sum as the court may adjudge reasonable attorney fees and court costs, including attorney's fees and court costs on appeal. 22. GOVERNING LAW: The provisions of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of the laws of the State of Oregon. Any action or suits involving any question arising under this Agreement must be brought in the appropriate court of the State of Oregon. _L 23. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW: A ` Contractor shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the work under this Agreement, including those set forth in ORS 279.310 to 279.322. 0 24. CONFLICT BETWEEN TERMS: u J: It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument in the proposal of the contract, this instrument shall control and nothing herein shall s be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said proposal conflicting herewith. Personal Service Contract - Street Sweeping Services 8 8/1/03 25. AUDIT: Contractor shall maintain records to assure conformance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and to assure adequate performance and accurate expenditures within the contract period. Contractor agrees to permit City, the State of Oregon, the federal government, or their duly authorized representatives to audit all records pertaining to this Agreement to assure the accurate expenditure of funds. 26. SEVERABILITY: In the event any provision or portion of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected to the extent that it did not materially affect the intent of the parties when they entered into the agreement. 27. COMPLETE AGREEMENT: This Agreement and attached exhibits constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties. No waiver, consent, modification, or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. Such waiver, consent, modification, or change if made, shall be effective only in specific instances and for the specific purpose given. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. Contractor, by the signature of its authorized representative, hereby acknowledges that he has read this Agreement, understands it and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized undersigned officer and Contractor has executed this Agreement on the date hereinabove first written. City Of Tigard By: Bill Monahan, City Manager Date Contractor By: Contractor's Name Date tL r 4 1 7 Personal Service Contract - Street Sweeping Services 9 8/1/03 EXHIBIT "A" SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED "A" - City Streets to be Swept "B" - Scheduled Street Sweeps "C" - Noise Ordinance L r M J 0 i Personal Service Contract - Street Sweeping Services 10 8/1/03 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF August 26, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Consider Amending t_he Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) to Replace the Words "City Administrator" to "City Manager" Throughout TMC Titles 1-18 - PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Consider the proposed amendments to the TMC to update language to replace the words "city administrator" with "city manager." STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the proposed ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY On November 5, 1996, Tigard voters approved a City of Tigard Charter amendment changing the city administrator's title to "city manager" and designating the city manager as a city officer. Attached is a copy of City of Tigard Charter Chapter V, Section 20A - City Manager. The term "city administrator" still appears throughout the code and, if approved, the proposed ordinance would allow the city recorder to update the code with the proper title for the city manager in all sections of the TMC. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A L r ATTACHMENT LIST n 1. Proposed ordinance. 2. Excerpt from the Tigard City Charter Chapter V, Section 20A - City Manager p 7 FISCAL NOTES N/A 1:1ADMIPACKET'03\20030828\CITY MANAGER AIS.DOC i Attachment 2 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE the council; Chapter V POWERS AND DUTIES OF OFFICERS (d) See that all terms of franchises, leases, contracts, permits, and privileges granted Section 20. MAYOR. by the city are fulfilled; The Mayor shall appoint the committees (e) Appoint, discipline and remove provided by the rules of the Council. The Mayor appointive personnel, except appointees of the shall sign all approved records of proceedings of mayor or council; the Council and countersign all orders on the treasury. The Mayor ftU- have no veto power (f) Supervise and control the and shall authenticate by signature all ordinances managers appointees in their service to the city; passed by the Council after being enacted. After the Council approves a bond of a City Officer or a (g) Organize and reorganize the bond for a license, contract, or proposal, the departmental structure of city government; Mayor shall authenticate the bond by endorsement thereon. (Measure 55, November 5, (h) Prepare and transmit to the council 1983 election). an annual city budget; M)l Section 20A. CITY MANAGER (i) Supervise city contracts; (1) The city manager shall be the (j) Supervise operation of all city- administrative head of the government of the city. owned public utilities and property; and .n The office of city manager shall be filled by appointment of the city council. The manager (k) Perform other duties as the council shall be the chief administrative officer of the city, prescribes consistently with this charter. (Measure and as such shall be chosen solely on the basis of 34.58, November 5, 1996 election, Res. 96-53). administrative qualifications :and experience, without regard to political considerations. Section 2L MUNICITAL JUDGE. Appointment and removal of the manager by the council shall require the prior consent of a The municipal judge shall be the judicial majority of the full council recorded at a public officer of the City. The judge shall hold within the meeting. The city manager shall serve .at the City a court known as the Municipal Court for the pleasure of the council, and cause shall not be City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. The required for termination. court shall be open for the transaction of judicial business at. times specified by the municipal (2) The manager shall: judge. All areas within the City shall be within the territorial jurisdiction of the court The (a) Attend all council meetings unless municipal judge shall exercise original and excused by the council or mayor: exclusive jurisdiction of all crimes and offenses • defined and made punishable by ordinances of (b) Keep the council advised of the the City and of all actions brought to recover or affairs of the needs of the city; enforce • forfeitures • or penalties defined or j authorized,; by ordinances of the City or as (c) See that the provisions of all otherwise provided by state law. The judge shall ordinances are administered to the satisfaction of have authority to issue process for the arrest of C4 SFJCode Update: 01/00 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF a(nU3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMKI RY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE _ Consider Economic Development Program Participation PREPARED BY: Bill Monahan DEPT HEAD OK _b4q2=-CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City of Tigard consider participating in the Economic Development Program now underway by Regional Economic Development Partners? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has met with representatives of the Regional Economic Development Partners to gain an understanding of the purpose and activities of the Regional Partners. Based upon the evaluation conducted, staff recommends that the City of Tigard accept an invitation to join the Regional Economic Development Partners as a member. INFORMATION SUMMARY On July 2, 2003, Donald Mazziotti, Executive Director of the Regional Economic Development Partners wrote to the City of Tigard extending an invitation to join the Regional Economic Development Partners. The purpose of the regional partners is to engage in activities related to regional economic development including the recruitment, expansion and retention of businesses; marketing of the region; developing regional economic development policies strategies; and monitoring and reporting on general economic, industry and business trends. The Tigard City Council, during a goal setting session in January 2003, suggested that the City "explore the creation of an economic development program." Joining the Regional Economic Development Partners could have advantages to the City since the Partners have experience in economic development and are an established entity. Rather than create a separate program, Tigard could step in as an equal partner and share the resources, database and expertise of the Partners. The Partners are staffed by the Portland Development Commission, of which Don Mazziotti is Executive Director. > Member partners include the cities of Beaverton, Gresham, Hillsboro, Tualatin, Vancouver, and Clackamas County, Port of Portland, Washington County, Metro and others. Private partners are also welcome such as i Pacificorp. 1 In order to join, Tigard needs to respond to the invitation and agree to pay annual dues, presently structured at $5,000 per year for municipalities with a population over 40,000. Other services, such as contracting with Portland Development Commission for special studies or consulting services are available. The Regional Partners were formed more than 10 years ago to work to attract business to the area. They have worked together to facilitate getting businesses to relocate to the Portland area and through a cooperative process have marketed the area for the benefit of all partners. The Partners have developed a six-month work plan as a catalyst for a regional action plan for creating a region which continually responds to changing economic factors. Over the next six months the Partners should be extremely active, an excellent time for Tigard to participate in the program, become familiar with the activities of other member organizations, and formulate Tigard's plan for being engaged in regional economic development. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Take no action to join the Regional Economic Development Partners. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Growth and Growth Management - "local and small businesses are encouraged as an important part of our community and economy." The strategy is to attract, retain and assist local businesses. ATTACHMENT LIST Memo to the City Council regarding the Regional Economic Development Partners from Bill Monahan July 2, 2003 letter from Donald Mazziotti to Mayor Griffith inviting Tigard to join the Regional Economic Development Partners Regional Partners - Annual Dues Structure Association of Regional Economic Development Partners, Inc. By Laws Letter of June 2, 2003 to members of the Metropolitan Economic Policy Task Force regarding Regional Partners Six-Month Work Plan Regional Partners Six-Month Work Plan toward creating a vital and substainable regional economy Brochure entitled Regional Economic Development Partners - Working Together for an Economically Vital Region FISCAL NOTES Annual fees for the City of Tigard to participate in the Regional Economic Development Partners is $5,000. Additional costs could result if Tigard chooses to participate in other activities of the Partners. kiadmWiftagends item summary economic dev.doc 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, City Manag I RE: Participation by the City oqTigainn h e Regional Economic Development Partners DATE: August 20, 2003 On July 2, 2003, Donald Mazziotti, Executive Director of the Portland Development Commission, on behalf of the Regional Economic Development Partners, extended an invitation to the City of Tigard to participate as a Partner. Jim Hendryx and I visited with Don Mazziotti, Marty Harris, Director of Economic Development at PDC and Doug Rux, the City of Tualatin's representative to the Partners. Participation in the Partners provides the City of Tigard with a unique opportunity to participate as a full member of a regional economic development group which has an established track record. Tigard City Council in January 2003 identified a City goal that Tigard "explore the creation of an economic development program." No funding was established in the 2003-04 City budget for an economic development program. Instead, the Community Development Department, as in past years, is charged with taking part in limited economic development activities. Participating as a member of the Partners at this time would be very beneficial to Tigard. Community Development Director Jim Hendryx would serve as Tigard's lead and attend monthly meetings of the group. Jim would serve as Tigard's representative as the group takes initial actions necessary to begin addressing the six focus areas of the Partners' framework. - Innovation and industry clusters - Physical infrastructure - Talent - Livability - Marketing a - Regional collaboration A full copy of the Regional Partners Six-Month Work Plan toward creating a vital and o sustainable regional economy is attached. 3 It is my opinion that Tigard can learn quite a lot from participating in a group that is made up of the Portland Development Commission as well as other municipalities, and public private sector groups who have already established successful economic development programs. We will be in a position to be part of a successful organization and develop our own unique work plan which can be consistent with that of the Partners. To participate, Tigard merely needs to accept the invitation extended by the Partners, allocate $5,000 to annual membership, and designate Jim Hendryx as Tigard's contact person. Funding for our participation can be taken from the Community Development Department Long Range Planning budget for special projects. 11edm%iIKrnemos%200MzoundI 8.20-03.doe d _J m W J July 2, 2003 D C PQ I Mayor James Griffith Jut 08 City of Tigard 2003 t 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard, OR 97223 afi~n~strat1017 .t Dear Mayor Griffith: Worksn gethe I am writing to extend an invitation for the City of Tigard to join the Regional Economic fo Development Partners. Eco micaly" As you may be aware, the Regional Partners - a coalition of regional economic development 1 eon practitioners that have informally worked together for the past decade - recently formalized this coalition through the formation of a private non-profit corporation. POR rL•,!vi) _01'Mr ii The purpose of the Regional Partners is to engage in activities related to regional economic =o,)rac ;ior, development. Current and planned activities include: • The recruitment, expansion and retention of businesses; • Generalized marketing or `branding' of the region; • Industry sector and firm specific marketing and outreach; • The development of regional economic development policy and strategies; cr "of ,0 IN • Monitoring and reporting on progress on implementation of regional economic development strategies; and • Monitoring and reporting on general economic, industry and business trends. " The region of economic interest is the Portland-Vancouver PMSA, encompassing r=r..,:;_n Clackamas, Clark, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington and Yamhill counties. Enclosed are copies of the organization bylaws and dues structure for your review and consideration. Consistent with the group's purpose, they have deliberately structured the organization with a narrow membership focus - organizations, represented by individuals whose principal responsibilities include growing and attracting businesses. It is an organization of t practitioners. The dues are structured on a tiered basis - on population served - so that the dues do not Att. I" ' serve as a barrier to any community's ability to join the organization. Once you have had an opportunity to review the enclosed materials, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss any questions that you may have about the Regional Partners. Please contact me at 503-823-4590 or Marty Harris, the Director of Economic Development at PDC, at 503-823-3327. I look forward to speaking with you in the near future. Df%Ii,;,, r: rir Sincerely,. ;1Af I N Donald F.1Glazziotti> Executive Director tol; 503 823 1200 PARegional Partners\Organization\RP Letter of Invitation merge July7.doc f' w 503 823 336" - Regional Partners - Annual Dues Structure The annual dues structure detailed below was developed and discussed at Partners meetings during the Spring of 2003. Please note that this is the fee for membership as a voting member, referred to in the Bylaws as a Regular Member. Fees for services (such as business recruitment, marketing, etc.) would be additional and will be developed at a future date. However, forJuly '03 through June '04, fees for services and annual dues would be structured so that those members that were contracting for services prior to June of '03 would not pay more, in the aggregate, that they paid during the 2002-2003 fiscal year. If the Partners decide to admit an organization/company as an Associate Members, a flat fee of $1000 is the does amount for that membership category. Regional Partners - Regular Member Annual Dues Structure: Private Sector Business Associations $5,000 Individual Utilities (unless Portland Ambassador membership payments are = or $5,000 - Individual Education Institutions/Offices $5,000 Counties, municipalities, other public entities w/population < 10,000 $1,000 w/population > 10,000 <20,000 $2,000 w/population > 20,000 <30,000 $3,000 w/population > 30,000 <40,000 $4,000 w/population > 40,000 $5,000 P: Regional Partners/Organization/RP Dues Structure 6•10.03 a ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC. BYLAWS i i BYLAWS ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC. An Oregon nonprofit corporation THESE BYLAWS dated this tenth day of June, 2003 (Bylaws) are made and entered into by and between those entities listed on the attached Exhibit A to be referred to individually as Member and collectively as Members). 1 FORMATION 1.1 Name. The name of the nonprofit corporation shall be ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC. 1.2 Articles of Organization. The Articles of Organization have been filed with the Secretary of State of Oregon. 1.3 Term. The term for this nonprofit corporation shall be perpetual. 1.4 Names of Members. The names of the initial Members of the Corporation are set forth on the attached Exhibit A. Exhibit A shall be updated annually prior to the Annual Meeting of the Members to reflect any changes to the membership. 1.5 Principal Place of Business. The principal place of business of the Corporation shall be located at the offices of the Portland Development Commission, Suite 7000, 1900 SW Fourth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97201, or at such other locations within and without the State of Oregon as the Executive Committee may determine. 1.6 Purpose. The purpose of the Corporation shall be to engage in activities related to regional economic development including without limitation: the recruitment, expansion and retention of businesses; generalized marketing or `branding' of the region; industry sector and firm specific marketing and outreach; the development of regional economic development policy and strategies for implementation by member agencies, governments, associations and businesses; and gathering, monitoring and reporting of progress on implementation of regional economic development strategies, general economic, industry and business trends as necessary to support the Corporation's activities. 2 MEMBERSHIP 2.1 Minimum Oualifications. Each Member shall be an organization that will designate a representative and an alternate each of whom shall be individuals over the age of eighteen years, whose principle responsibilities include growing and attracting businesses with a geographic focus within Clackamas, Clark, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington and Yamhill BYLAWS ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC. PAGE 2 OF-W counties and/or any municipalities within these county borders ("Portland/Vancouver PMSA,") as follows: 2.1.1 Municipalities, counties or other public entities who are directly involved in the retention, expansion and recruitment of businesses; 2.1.2 Regional public entities with land use regulatory authority and/or transportation responsibility which encompasses more than one county or more than one municipality within the region; 2.1.3 Business Associations whose business members are located in more than one county or more than one municipality within the region and whose membership is generally representative of the region's economy as a whole; 2.1.4 Utilities serving parts of one or more counties or parts of one or more municipalities within the region; or 2.1.5 Offices of Universities, Colleges, Community Colleges or other higher education institutions or offices engaged in customized workforce training, technology transfer or business development in the retention, expansion and recruitment of businesses. 2.2 Manner of Admission; Withdrawal. 2.2.1 Members will be added by invitation only. Unless otherwise specified herein, any organization considered for membership must be sponsored by a Member in good standing and must be approved by a 213rds vote of those voting members present at the meeting in which a new member is considered. A quorum, for the purposes of voting on new members is 50% of the existing membership. Voting Members will receive notice of the intent to vote on the admission of new members prior to the meeting, according to a procedure established by the Membership. 2.2.2 Members may withdraw from the Corporation at any time by providing written notice of its intent to withdraw to the Executive Director. Pre-paid dues will not be refunded to the withdrawing Member. i 2.3 Membership Classes. There shall be two membership classes as follows: 2.3.1 Regular Members. Each Member admitted in accordance with these Bylaws shall be a full Voting Member of the Corporation entitled to all of the rights and privileges of Regular Membership. BYLAWS ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEvELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC. PAGE 3 ors.i4 2.3.2. Associate Members. Each Associate Member admitted in accordance with these Bylaws or by a method established by the Executive Committee shall be entitled to receive certain information and to participate in such activities of the Corporation as may be determined by the Executive Committee but shall not have the right to vote. Unless otherwise specifically stated, all references to "Member" in these Bylaws shall refer to Regular Members. 2.4 Annual Meetings of the Members. The Members shall hold an annual meeting within 90 days after the beginning of each calendar year. The annual meeting shall be for the purposes of electing new Members, adopting the annual budget, adopting a work plan and for the election of Members to fill any vacancies on the Executive Committee. Notice of the annual meeting of the Members shall be given to Members not less than 30 days prior to its scheduled date. 2.5 Regular Meetings of the Members. Regular Meetings of the Members shall be held not less than quarterly for the purpose of addressing such matters as properly come before the Members. The Regular Meeting shall be held at such time and at such place as may be determined by the Members at the previously held regular meeting. Failure to hold a Regular Meeting shall in no way affect the validity of the actions of the Corporation. 2.6 Special Meetings. Special Meetings of Voting Members may be called by the Executive Director or a majority of the Executive Committee. The purpose of each Special Meeting shall be stated in the notice and may only include purposes that are lawful and proper for the Members to consider. 2.7 Notice of Meetings; Waiver of Notice. Written, printed or electronically transmitted notice stating the place, day and hour of the meeting and, in the case of a special meeting, the purpose of the meeting, shall be delivered not less than seven days nor more than sixty days before the date of the meeting. Notice shall be given at the direction of the Executive Director to each Member entitled to participate or vote at the meeting. Attendance at a meeting or written waiver of notice signed or transmitted by a Member, whether before or after a meeting, L shall be deemed to satisfy the requirement of giving notice. This requirement shall not be r satisfied when a Member attends a meeting for the express purpose of objecting, at the beginning of a meeting to the transaction of business because the meeting is not lawfully called. 2.8 Emergency Action Without Meeting. Any action of Members may be taken D without a meeting, with 24 hours advance notice and with the prior consent of a majority of one- third of the Voting Members. The Executive Committee may establish additional procedures J under which such actions may be taken. 2.9 Member Quorum and Voting. Unless otherwise required in the Articles of Incorporation, or as set forth in these Bylaws, one-third of the Voting Members appearing in person or by proxy shall constitute a quorum at a meeting of Members. If a quorum is present, BYLAWS ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC. PAGE 4 Q&,1# unless otherwise provided by law or by these Bylaws, the affirmative vote of a majority of Members at a meeting entitled to vote on the subject matter shall be the act of the Members. After a quorum has been established at a Members' meeting, the subsequent withdrawal of Members, so as to reduce the number of Members entitled to vote at the meeting below the number required for a quorum, shall not affect the validity of any action taken at the meeting or any adjournment thereof. If a quorum is not present when a meeting is scheduled to start, then a majority of Members present may adjourn the meeting without further notice until a quorum is present. A Member abstaining from a vote for any reason will not be counted for the purposes of establishing a quorum and such abstention will not impliedly constitute a vote either for or against any action. 2.10 Votes: Each Voting Member shall be entitled to an equal vote on each matter submitted to a vote at a meeting of Members. 2.11 Proxies. Every Member entitled to vote at a meeting of Members or to express consent or dissent without a meeting may authorize another person (including another Member) to act on its behalf by proxy. Every proxy shall be transmitted electronically or shall be in writing and signed by the Member or its attorney-in-fact. No proxy shall be valid after the expiration of six months from the date thereof. Every proxy shall be revocable at the pleasure of the Member executing it, except as otherwise provided by law. 3 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 3.1 General Powers. Subject to the limitations of the Articles of Incorporation, these Bylaws, and the Oregon Nonprofit Corporation Act concerning corporate action that must be authorized or approved by the Members of the Corporation, all corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the authority of the Executive Committee, which shall manage the business affairs of the Corporation. 3.2 Specific Powers. The Executive Committee shall have the power and authority, on behalf of the Corporation, to perform or to delegate to the Executive Director, or to unrelated third parties, the functions described in this Section 3.2. The Executive Committee may contract with a Member to fulfill any of the following functions pursuant to a contract with the Corporation. Any Member with which the Executive Committee proposes to contract will C refrain from negotiating, voting on, or ratifying any aspect of any such contract as either a Member or a member of the Executive Committee. 3.2.1 The Executive Committee may enter into agreements and contracts and give receipts, releases and discharges and perform such activities it deems necessary and appropriate to conduct the business of the Corporation. 3.2.2 The Executive Committee may purchase liability insurance to protect the Corporation, and/ or the members of its Executive Committee. BYLAWS —ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC I)EVELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC. PAGE 5 E7H4, 3.2.3 The Executive Committee may execute any and all other instruments and documents which may be necessary to, or in the opinion of the Executive Committee desirable to cant' out the intent and purposes of the Corporation. 3.2.4 The Executive Committee may make any and all expenditures that the Executive Committee deems necessary or appropriate in connection with the management of the affairs of the Corporation and the execution of its obligations and responsibilities under these Bylaws. 3.2.5 The Executive Committee may employ consultants, accountants, legal counsel, administrative staff, and others to perform services for the Corporation. 3.2.6 The Executive Committee may enter into any kind of activity necessary to, in connection with, or incidental to, the accomplishment of the purposes of the Corporation. 3.3 Limitation of Authority. The Executive Committee shall have no authority to bind the Corporation as to the following matters without first obtaining approval by majority vote of all of the Members of the Corporation: 3.3.1 Final selection of an agent responsible for performance of all or substantially all of the administrative functions necessary to conduct the regular business of the Corporation ("Administrative Agent"). Prior to the organizational meeting of the Members, the Portland Development Commission will act as the Administrative Agent of the Corporation. 3.3.2 Changing the purposes of the Corporation as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation and in these Bylaws; 3.3.3 Establishing formal Corporate policy which, for the purposes of these Bylaws shall mean "any official position of the Corporation as represented by a Member, orally or in writing to an outside organization"; C 3.3.4 Dissolution and winding up the Corporation; or y 3.3.5 Amending the Articles of Incorporation or these Bylaws. 1 3.4 Other Activities. Executive Committee members may, in their individual i capacities, have business interests and may engage in business activities other than those relating to the Corporation, but shall always act in good faith furtherance of the best interests of the Corporation. 3.5 Executive Director. By a majority vote, the Executive Committee shall appoint BYLAWS —ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC. PAGE 6 a&44- an Executive Director to have general supervisory authority over operations of the Corporation and to coordinate and provide administrative services necessary to achieve the purposes of the Corporation as set forth Section 1.6 of these Bylaws but subject to the limitations set forth at Section 3.3. The Executive Committee may delegate to the Executive Director any of the specific powers set forth at Section 3.2 of these Bylaws. The Executive Director shall be a Member and a member of the Executive Committee of the Corporation. Upon initial formation, a designee of the Portland Development Commission shall act as the Executive Director of the Corporation. 3.6 Number, Qualification. Election and Tenure. Nine Executive Committee members shall be elected from time to time in accordance with these Bylaws. This number may be increased or decreased by a majority vote of the Members by election in accordance with these Bylaws but this number shall never be less than three. The members of the Executive Committee must be Voting Members of this Corporation. Each Executive Committee member shall hold office for a staggered term of two years, or until a successor shall have been duly elected and shall have qualified, or until death, or until resignation or removal in the manner hereinafter provided. The number of terms for which an Executive Committee member may serve shall be unlimited. The initial composition of the Executive Committee and designation of terms of service will be determined by a majority vote of the Members of the Corporation at its organizational meeting and vacancies will be filled by a vote of a majority of the Members at the Annual Meeting of the Members. 3.7 Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Executive Committee shall be held at least quarterly at such time and at such place as shall be determined from time to time by the members of the Executive Committee. 3.8 Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Executive Committee may be called by the Executive Director, or by any two Executive Committee members. The person or persons authorized to call special meetings of the Executive Committee may fix a reasonable time and place for the meeting. 3.9 Telephone Meetings. Executive Committee members may participate in meetings of the Executive Committee by means of conferencing communications equipment by ' which all persons participating can hear each other at the same time and participation by such means shall constitute presence in person at such a meeting. 3.10 Actions Without Meeting. Any action of the Executive Committee may be taken i without a meeting if a consent in writing setting forth the action so taken is signed by all of the members and is filed in the minutes of the Executive Committee. Such consent shall have the same effect as a unanimous vote. I 3.11 Notice and Waiver. Notice of any special meeting shall be given at least five (5) days prior thereto by written notice delivered personally, by mail or by facsimile or electronic mail to each Committee member. If mailed, such notice shall be deemed to be delivered when deposited in the United States Mail with postage prepaid. Any Committee member may waive B`!LAws ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC. PAGE 7 9F1.4 notice of any meeting, before, at, or after such meeting by signing a waiver of notice. The attendance of a Committee Member at a meeting shall constitute a waiver of notice of such meeting and a waiver of any and all objections to the place of such meeting or the manner in which it has been called or convened, except when a Committee member states at the beginning of the meeting any objection to the transaction of business because the meeting is not lawfully called or convened. 3.12 Quorum and Voting. A majority of the members of the Executive Committee in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The vote of a majority of those Committee members present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall constitute the action of the Executive Committee. If less than a quorum is present, then a majority of those Committee Members present may adjourn the meeting without notice until a quorum is present. 3.13 Vacancies. Any vacancy occurring in the Executive Committee will be temporarily filled by appointment by the Executive Director. Such appointee shall serve until the election of a replacement by a majority vote of the Members at the Annual Meeting of the Members or at a Special Meeting held for the purpose of this election. 3.14 Removal. Any Executive Committee Member may be removed from office, with or without cause, by vote of a majority of the Members at a duly called meeting. A member of the Executive Committee may be elected by the Membership for the unexpired term of the Committee member removed from office. 3.15 Presumption of Assent. A member of the Executive Committee of the Corporation who is present at an Executive Committee meeting at which action on any corporate matter is taken shall be presumed to have assented to the action taken unless he or she votes against such action or abstains from voting because of an asserted conflict of interest. Abstention shall be deemed neither assent nor dissent. 4 OFFICERS There shall be no officers of this Corporation. The Director of the Executive Committee shall preside at all meetings and shall act as the chief executive officer of the Corporation. The Executive Director shall designate a member of the Executive Committee to act in his or her absence. In the event the Executive Director is unable to make such a designation, an acting Executive Director will be designated by a majority vote of the members of the Executive Committee. i i 5 EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMITTEES I I 5.1 Creation of Committees. The Executive Committee may, by Resolution passed by a majority, or at the direction of a majority of a quorum of the Members, designate any one or more other committees. $YLAwws ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC. PAGE 8 oF-14 6 BANK ACCOUNTS, BOOFS AND RECORDS, ACCOUNTING, AND TAX ELECTIONS 6.1 Bank Accounts. The Executive Committee shall open and maintain in the name of the Corporation a bank account or accounts in which shall be deposited all funds of the Corporation. Withdrawals from such account or accounts shall be made upon the signature or signatures of such person or persons as the Executive Committee shall designate. 6.2 Method of Accounting. The Executive Committee shall keep, or cause to be kept, full and accurate records of all transactions of the Corporation in accordance with sound accounting principles, and will designate the method of accounting as cash, accrual, or a hybrid cash - accrual method and may change this designation if it determines that such a change is in the best interests of the Corporation. 6.3 Books and Records. All books and records of the Corporation, including the Corporation minute book, shall, at all times, be maintained in the principal office of the Corporation, and shall be open during reasonable business hours for the reasonable inspection and examination by the Voting Members or their authorized representatives. The Executive Director shall cause the Administrative Agent of the Corporation to prepare and make available minutes of all meetings within 28 days following the date of each meeting. The Executive Committee shall maintain books and records, including financial records, of the Corporation separate from the books and financial records of the Members and shall observe all Corporation formalities, including, without limitation, maintaining minutes of Member and Executive Committee meetings and records of the Members' actions on behalf of the Corporation, and taking all actions which are necessary or appropriate for the continuation of the Corporation's valid existence as a nonprofit corporation under the Act, or under the laws of any other jurisdiction in which the Corporation is doing business, in order to protect the limited liability of the Members and to enable the Corporation to continue to conduct the business in which it is engaged. 6.4 Accounting Reports. Within 90 days after the close of each Fiscal Year, the Executive Committee shall distribute to each Member a report of Corporation activities for the previous Fiscal Year. Voting Members shall have the right, as set forth at Section 6.3 above, to audit the books and records of the Corporation by providing two days advance written notice of j its intent to do so to the Administrative Agent of the Corporation. The Member that inspects the books and records shall reimburse the Corporation for any copying costs or administrative costs i incurred by the Corporation directly resulting from the Member's inspection or audit. f 7 INDEMNIFICATION i The Corporation shall indemnify its Executive Committee or each of the members of its Executive Committee to the fullest extent permissible under Oregon law, as the same exists or may hereafter be amended, against all liability, loss and costs (including, without limitation, attorney fees) incurred or suffered by such person by reason of or arising from the fact that such BYLAWS ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC. PAGE 9 0"4 person is or was a member of the Executive Committee or Member of the Corporation, or is or was serving at the request of the Corporation as an agent of another foreign or domestic nonprofit corporation, corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust, benefit plan, or other enterprise. The Corporation may, by action of the Members or Executive Committee, provide indemnification to employees and agents of the Corporation who are not members of the Executive Committee. The indemnification provided in this section shall not be exclusive of any other rights to which any person may be entitled under any statute, bylaw, agreement, resolution of Members or resolution of the Executive Committee, contract or otherwise. 8 NONPROFIT OPERATION The Corporation will not have or issue shares of stock. No dividends will be paid. No part of the income or assets of the Corporation will be distributed to its Members without full consideration. The Corporation may contract in due course with its Members or Executive Committee members without violating this provision. 9 FISCAL YEAR The fiscal year of the Corporation shall be selected by the Executive Committee of the Corporation. 10 NOT PUBLIC BODY The Members of the Corporation acknowledge and agree that the Corporation is not a "Public Body" for the purposes of ORS 192.610(4) and is not subject to Oregon public meeting laws and public records laws. 11 DUES 11.1 Establishment of Dues. The Members shall establish dues, if any, for all classes of membership. 11.2 Payment of Dues. Dues for new Members (both Regular and Associate) shall be paid to the Corporation within 30 days after admission. Annual dues shall be paid no later than February 1, of each calendar year. The Executive Committee will ensure that Members receive reasonable notice of the amount of dues and timing of required payment. 11.3 Termination of Membership. The Executive Committee may terminate the i membership of any Member if dues are not paid within 30 days after they are due. ► ► 12 MISCELLANEOUS 12.1 Notices. All notices required to be given hereunder must be in writing and will be duly given if delivered by hand or if addressed and mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested: BYLAWS ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC. PAGE 10 Ofr1z1 12. 1.1 Corporation. If to the Corporation, to the address of the principal office, or to such other address as the Corporation may hereafter designate by notice. 12.1.2 Members. If to a specific Member, to address set forth on Exhibit A, or such other address as such Member may hereafter designate by notice to the Corporation. 12.2 Governing Law. All questions with respect to the construction, enforcement and interpretation of these Bylaws and the rights and liabilities of the parties hereto shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon. 12.3 Severability. These Bylaws are intended to be performed in accordance with, and only to the extent permitted by, all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. If any provision of these Bylaws or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, for any reason and to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of these Bylaws and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby, but rather shall be enforced to the greatest extent permitted by law. 12.4 Binding Effect. These Bylaws are binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors. and administrators, personal and legal representatives, successors and assigns. 12.5 Number and Captions. As used herein, the singular shall include the plural, and the plural the singular. All captions used herein L C D 't i 1 BYLAWS AsSOCLA r1ON OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC. PAGE 11 OFD are intended solely for convenience of reference and shall in no way limit any of the provisions of these Bylaws. 12.6 Counterparts. These Bylaws may be executed and delivered in one or more counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one instrument. These Bylaws of the Association of Regional Economic Development Partners, Inc. are hereby adopted by the Members effective June 10, 2003. [Signature Pages Follow] L 2 J D J J BYLAWS ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTPARTNERS, INC. PAGE 12 OF44 EGIONAL E~ NOMIC June 2, 2003 DEV PMENT " CITY OF TUAL.ATIN PA NERS RECEIVED To: Members of the Metropolitan Economic Poli cy Task Force f° JUN 0 2003 ,Ntu:°ato 7 From: Regional Economic Development Partners COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -aGYtRTO .InAit- Re: Regional Partners Six-Month Work Plan ECONOMIC DEV DIVISION ' `TINS C CRAi . N,o14 2ogethtr or an; This document, the Six-Month Work Plan plus the Attachment, is presented as the catalyst for a omically' ~ regional action plan that will require focused, intense commitment from both the business Region community and local/regional governments to be successfully completed and implemented. It is not a plan for an endpoint; rather it is a plan for creating a region which collectively and in Administrative Lead Partners its individual jurisdictions and sectors, is continuously responsive to the changing factors which PORTLAND DEVELOPMENT affect our prosperity. COMMISSION PORTLAND AMBASSADORS The Regional Partners will, over the next six months, make progress on those items for which it is the logical lead and get other organizations' commitments in place to take the lead on the CITY of BEAVERTON other critical actions. CITY of GRESHAM CITY of HILLSBORO Recognizing the lack of a forum to discuss, develop and recommend regional economic policies CITY Of TUALATIN and strategies, the Regional Economic Development Partners, in the Fall of 2002, formed a CITY of VANCOUVER Metropolitan Economic Policy Task Force. The charge of the Task Force, made up of CLACKAMAS COUNTY individuals from both the private and public sectors, and who are broadly representative of the COLUMBIA RIVER ECONOMIC geography of the metropolitan area, was to review and assess adopted and emerging, local, DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL regional, and state economic development strategies. METRO MULTNOMAH COUNTY Following their review and assessment, the members of the Task Force requested that the OREGON ECONOMIC & Regional Partners present a six-month work plan for moving forward on regional economic COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT development. Enclosed is the Regional Partners response. It has two primary elements: DEPARTMENT PACIFICORP ° Implementing actions for those strategies for which the Regional Partners is the lead PORT of PORTLAND implementing organization, and PORTLAND BUSINESS ° Confirming the commitment of other organizations in the region - private and public - to ALLIANCE g PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC lead implementation of the remaining initiatives or strategies that are outlined in Attachment A. WASHINGTON COUNTY Z WESTSIDE ECONOMIC ALLIANCE Attachment A to the Six-Month Work Plan identifies six areas of focus for a long-term 1C economic strategy: Innovation and Industry Clusters, Physical Infrastructure, Talent, Livability, q Marketing, and Regional Collaboration. The discussion and recommendations in each area create a framework for action on critical issues, with the goal of sustained economic vitality. Elements of these topic areas raise tough issues that will require us to rethink how we operate 0 PORTLAND within and across municipal, state and organizational boundaries. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION We are part of a single economic region that spans two states and encompasses six counties and www.pdc.us 1900 SW Fourth Avenue forty-eight cities. Each of us needs to be willing to take a fresh look at our traditional, and Suite 7000 often insular, ways of doing business. This may mean rethinking traditional regulation, Portland, OR 97201 taxation, program priorities and service delivery - at least for those areas of regional tel: 503 823 3200 collaboration and coordination. fax: 503 823 3368 REGIONAL PARTNERS SIX-MONTH WORK PLAN TOWARD CREATING A VITAL AND SUSTAINABLE REGIONAL ECONOMY Presented to: IL The Metropolitan Economic Policy Task Force _J Presented by: J The Regional Economic Development Partners June 10, 2003 REGIONAL PARTNERS SIX-MONTH WORK PLAN TOWARD CREATING A VITAL AND SUSTAINABLE REGIONAL ECONOMY THE REGION A first step in achieving shared priorities for the region's economic future is to define the region. Economically, this region is a six-county area including Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington and Yamhill counties within the state of Oregon, and Clark County within the state of Washington - the Portland-Vancouver PMSA (Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area). This geographic area functions as one economy, at least in terms of jobs - 97% of those who work in this region live here and 98% of those who live in this region work here. THE REGION'S ECONOMIC GOAL- DESIRED OUTCOME To create and maintain a diverse, stable and resilient economy that: • is knowledge-based • balances growth and livability • is business supportive • is built through regional collaboration • has strong international ties • provides a continuum of opportunities for business and people • creates and retains jobs • funds infrastructure necessary to support business growth • maximizes existing resources • capitalizes on existing and emerging industry strengths REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS SIX-MONTH WORK PLAN This six-month work plan addresses the initial actions that will be undertaken in order to begin addressing the six focus areas outlined in this framework: Innovation and Industry Clusters; Physical Infrastructure; Talent; Livability; Marketing; and Regional Collaboration. The following initiatives address those actions where the Regional Partners are primarily responsible for implementation: • INDUSTRY CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT - growing key industries • REGIONAL MARKETING - driving job creation and investment • INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT - insuring an adequate supply of industrial & employment land • COMMITMENT TO REGIONALISM - achieving shared priorities In January 2004, the Regional Partners will report back to the Metropolitan Economic Policy Task Force. In addition to providing an update on progress, the January 2004 report will outline the success in enlisting organizations and individuals to champion the implementation of the remaining regional priorities. i 1. INDUSTRY CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT The Regional Partners will outline and initiate actions to grow key industry clusters. Within the next six months, four clusters will be the primary focus: silicon (semiconductors & photovoltaic); micro to nano technologies; cyber-security; and metals & transportation equipment. Specific work plans will be completed with the active engagement of industry. Work plans will address: a. The steps necessary to develop a good understanding of how the cluster functions, including the identification of existing strengths, addressing gaps or weaknesses and developing a longer term strategy for continued growth of the cluster. P: Regional Partners/2003/MEPTF/Partners Six-Month Work Plan 6-10-03 1 b. Cluster specific business retention, expansion and recruitment actions. c. Identification and communication of forecasted land and infrastructure needs for industry within the region for two and five year time horizons. d. Identification and communication of forecasted workforce needs. Outcomes/Deliverables/Products: - Produce industry data outlining needs and opportunities for each of the four clusters. - Deliver findings and issues for each cluster to education, workforce, and land use and transportation planning organizations. - Present four industry cluster strategies detailing the roles and responsibilities of involved organizations, including specific actions, steps, timelines and initial lists of targeted firms. - Make 2 to 3 private-sector led recruitment calls on targeted firms or site selectors within each of the four clusters. II. REGIONAL MARKETING Create, fund and implement a collaborative and focused private sector-led marketing campaign to strategically promote the Portland region as a desirable location for business and investment. In coordination with efforts outlined in I. INDUSTRY CLUSTER INITIATIVE, above, the promotional and marketing efforts will assist in gaining visibility and differentiation from other competing regions. The approach utilized will be to focus on identified industry clusters as well as overall regional competitive strengths. The region's marketing efforts will coordinate with and leverage the parallel statewide marketing efforts being lead through the Oregon Economic Development Association as well as the developing Brand Oregon messaging. Outcomes/Deliverables/Products: - Commitments in place to develop and implement a five-year regional marketing campaign. - Regional marketing campaign under contract with timeline for campaign implementation in place. III. INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT The goal is to identify land in the Portland-Vancouver region that is suitable for future industrial development, and recommend policy and investment priorities that support and enhance land development opportunities to meet business and industry needs. a. Task 3 Completion: • Work with Metro to complete Task 3, which requires addition of 2000 acres of industrial land to the Portland Area Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) by June 2004. • Specifically develop siting criteria for identified industries in order to ensure an appropriate supply of land. • Focus on including land identified by Regional Partners as part of 2002 Periodic Review process. L b. Regionally Significant Industrial Areas: • Work with Metro to finalize language in Title 4 related to Regionally Significant Industrial Areas. (Title 4 includes limitations or restrictions on commercial and institutional uses within industrial areas) J • Work with individual jurisdictions to identify appropriate areas within the current UGB that should i be subject to this designation. '9 c. Clark County/Vancouver: U J • Work with Clark County and the Port of Vancouver to advance planning and development of the Columbia Gateway properties. d. Regional Employment Lands Study: • Participate in planning for this private sector led effort that will analyze land needs for businesses that do not meet the traditional definition of "industrial". P: Regional Partners/2003/MEPTF/Partners Six-Month Work Plan 6-10-03 2 e. Oregon Industrial Land Initiative: • Work with state agencies and the Oregon Governor's office to inventory 25+ acre industrial sites. • Identify those sites that are "shovel ready", as well as analyzing those with development constraints, identifying those development constraints, and quantifying the costs or other actions necessary to remove those constraints. f. Industrial Land Supply Assessment: • Work with Metro, the public jurisdictions and the private development community in the region to develop and agree upon definitions and protocols for updating and maintaining a parcel-specific industrial land supply database. Agreed upon definitions and protocols will include how to determine/define sites as "shovel ready", the types of development constraints that will be inventoried and categorized, as well as protocols and common formats for data collection. g. Industrial Land Supply Target: • Work with Metro, the public jurisdictions and the private development community in the region to identify or create the necessary financial tools, technical assistance and policy mechanisms to insure a rolling 5-year supply of shovel ready industrial sites with characteristics appropriate to the industry needs identified in I. INDUSTRY CLUSTER INITIATIVE, Item c., above. Outcomes/Deliverables/Products- - 2,000 acres of industrial land, which meets forecasted industry needs, added to the UGB. - Title 4 language amended and specific industrial sites/areas included as Regionally Significant Industrial Areas. - Adoption of specific development strategies for the Vancouver Gateway area. - Regional Employment Lands Study underway and initial data. Complete regional contribution to the State inventory of "shovel ready" industrial sites (and assessment of development constraints and costs necessary to make the remaining industrial sites in the region "shovel ready"). Identification/creation of 2-3 new financial, technical assistance and/or policy mechanisms to support the maintenance of an ongoing 5-year industrial land supply. IV, COMMITMENT TO REGIONALISM The goal is to allow the Regional Partners to remain light, fast, agile and responsive to the market while building a sustained level of cooperation to achieving shared priorities for the region's economic future. The Regional Partners will: a. Advocate and promote the economic priorities, included in Attachment A, A Framework for Creating Shared Economic Priorities for the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area, by involving key public and private sector organizations to agree to implement specific strategies. In particular, clearly address ways in which this region will distinguish itself from its competitors, the metrics that the Regional Partners will need over time to understand regional economic performance, and sources to fund and expedite the vision. tL b. As a part of promoting the economic framework and getting other organizations to ratify it, identify and solicit organizations to act as "champions", that will commit to leading the implementation of n strategies and actions where the Regional Partners are not the lead organization (i.e. ODOT and/or local transportation agencies responsible for leading the implementation of the transportation J infrastructure priorities). Wherever possible, both private and public organizations/individuals will be solicited as "co-leads" for each strategy or action. j c. In the areas where they are not the lead organization, the Regional Partners' role is to keep the other lead organizations informed about general business and individual industry cluster needs and advocate for specific actions to meet these needs. d. Reach out to other organizations within the metropolitan area and solicit their involvement in the Regional Partners. e. Apply to the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) for funding to develop a regional Overall Economic Development Plan. As part of this effort, consider the formation of a regional P: Regional Partners/2003/MEPTF/Partners Six-Month Work Plan 6-10-03 3 economic development district. Forward the completed plan to EDA for their approval - which would allow the region access to federal funding for projects delineated in the plan. f. Create and adhere to a schedule and forum for monitoring and reporting on progress in implementing the strategies recommended in this report. Outcomes/Deliverables/Products: - Commitments by organizations to serve as the "Champion" for 8 of the specific strategies/actions contained in the Framework report. - Twenty members in good standing of the Regional Partners organization. - Adoption of the Regional Partners Six-Month Work Plan and the Framework report by the councils, commissions or boards of each of the Regional Partners organizations. - Completion of and acceptance by EDA of Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy grant for the Region. - Status report provided to the MEPTF in January 2004 on implementation of the elements of this work plan and strategies and actions recommended in the economic framework report. L r D 9 u P: Regional Partners/200MMEPTF/Partners Six-Month Work Plan 6-10-03 4 Members of the Metropolitan Economic Policy Task Force ■ Rob Drake (Chair), Mayor, City of Beaverton • David Bragdon, President, Metro ■ Jess Carreon, President, Portland Community College • John Castles, Trustee, Murdock Charitable Trust • Steve Clark, Publisher, Beaverton Valley Times • Eric Hovee, Principle, ED Hovee Company • Ron Johnson, VP Resource Development, Portland General Electric • Michael Jordan, Commissioner, Clackamas County • Vera Katz, Mayor, City of Portland • Kim Kimbrough, President/CEO, Portland Business Alliance • Kathy Long Holland, Long/Sherpa Eco-D ■ Donald Mazziotti, Executive Director, Portland Development Commission ■ Craig Pridemore, Commissioner, Clark County ■ Carl Talton, VP Community and Business Development, Portland General Electric ■ Bob Terry, Owner, Fisher Farms ■ Jose Ternero, Oregon Assoc. of Minority Entrepreneurs ■ Diane Vines, Vice Chancellor, Oregon University System ■ Rick Williams, Project Consultant, Melvin Mark Dev. Co. ■ William Wyatt, Executive Director, Port of Portland Regional Economic Development Partners The Regional Partners are a private non-profit organization. An association of public and private sector economic development professionals, representing agencies and organizations throughout the Portland-Vancouver region. The member organizations are listed below, including, the Regional Partners contact person(s): ■ The City of Beaverton (Janet Young) ■ The City of Gresham (Max Talbot, Shelly Parini) ■ The City of Hillsboro (David Lawrence, Larry Pederson) ■ The City of Tualatin (Doug Rux) ■ The City of Vancouver (Gerald Baugh) • Clackamas County (Greg Jenks, Renate Mengelberg) ■ Multnomah County (Duke Shepard) ■ Washington County (Dennis Mulvihill) ■ Metro (Andy Cotugno, Lydia Neill) ■ Port of Portland (Bill Wyatt, Lise Glancy) • Portland Development Commission (Don Mazziotti, Marty Harris, Michael Ogan) ■ Columbia River Economic Development Council (Bart Phillips, Pam Neal) ■ Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (Ron Fox, Joan Rutledge, Marcy Jacobs, Carolyn Sanco) • Portland Ambassadors (Randy Miller) ■ Portland Business Association (Kim Kimbrough, Scenna Shipley, John Rakowitz) • Westside Economic Alliance (Betty Atteberry) • Pacific Power & Light (Tim McCabe) ■ Portland General Electric (Charlie Allcock) P: Regional Partners/2003/MEPTF/Partners Six-Month Work Plan 6-10-03 5 Attachment A to: Regional Partners Six-Month Work Plan Toward Creating a Vital and Sustainable Regional Economy A Framework for Creating Shared Economic Priorities for the Portland -Vancouver Metropolitan Area Presented to: The Metropolitan Economic Policy Task Force _3 n Presented by: J The Regional Economic Development Partners June 10, 2003 Attachment A A Framework for Creating Shared Economic Priorities for the Portland -Vancouver Metropolitan Area This report identifies six areas of focus for a long term economic strategy. These focus areas represent the findings and conclusions of the Metropolitan Economic Policy Task Force and Regional Economic Development Partners on common themes (those areas where the jurisdictions throughout the region, through prior public processes and formal adoption, have identified and committed to economic strategies that are consistent, similar or supportive of one another); as well as conflicts or gaps (where there is a lack of agreement on solutions, or lack of existing collaborative effort). This framework provides a mechanism to better coordinate the region's economic development objectives with its land use and transportation planning and implementing actions and investments. This framework identifies and recommends six areas of economic focus: 1) Innovation and Industry Clusters 3) Talent S) Marketing 2) Physical Infrastructure 4) Livability 6) Regional Collaboration The first four of these are foundation issues of importance to the effective functioning of the region's economy. The importance of these four issues is interrelated and interdependent. Their ordering in this report is not meant to imply any priorities among or between them. The fifth is important in order to position this region within a competitive global environment, and the sixth is important as a mechanism for those of us in this region to more efficiently address the first five issues - and thereby more effectively compete nationally and internationally as an economic region. The discussion below identifies policies, strategies or actions within each of these six areas and discusses why and how each is important to the area's economy. Economic strategy is about 1) making sure that we provide essential resources and services that enable businesses to succeed, and 2) focusing on those things that differentiate this region from other, competing regions - where we have strengths or relationships that provide economic advantages. The first four areas of focus discussed below are important elements in differentiating the Portland-Vancouver region's economic advantages from those of other regions - how this region decides to address each of these elements, where priorities are placed, and what implementation decisions are made is critical to this differentiation. The six focus areas provide the framework for WHAT should be addressed within a regional economic strategy for this metropolitan area - most of which are presented in broad terms. Some areas include a specific approach, or suggested actions, on HOW these strategies should be implemented or carried out. The a intent of this document is to provide a foundation for ongoing collaboration among the. institutions and organizations throughout the metropolitan area to support the continual refinement of both WHAT this region's economic strategies should be and HOW to approach their implementation. s~ 3 U J P: Regional Partners/2003/MEFFF/Reg Econ Framework Attachment A 6-10-03 1 Background The Portland-Vancouver region faces a number of economic forces that will shape its future. • The evolution of a knowledge-based economy in which intellectual assets, rather than physical ones, are key to long term economic success. • An increasing use of technology throughout both traditional and new economy industries. • A shift overseas of many traditional as well as new economy jobs, facilitated by improved global transportation and communications and by lower wages overseas. • A shift from a local economic base, measured by political boundaries, to a highly integrated regional economy. • The development and emergence of industry clusters - concentrations of interrelated, globally competitive firms within related industries-unique to specific metropolitan areas. • Increasing competition from other regions within the United States, because of reduced transportation and com.nunication costs, and economic inducements provided by local, regional and state governments. • Shorter product and service life cycles, requiring much greater agility and speed by businesses in retooling to stay competitive. • The evolution of transportation and distribution systems to more efficiently move products and information. • Across the world, business and governments are mobilizing to reduce the effects of the recession and position themselves to take advantage of the economic restructuring that is underway. Due to an unprecedented period of economic growth in the 1990s, some people assumed that this region's positive economic future was a given. We know that this is not true-we must be proactive to be competitive. The challenge before us is how does this region position itself to effectively compete for the economic opportunities that will be presented in the global marketplace during the coming decade-by taking into account and balancing both what we desire as a community and what employers desire as a business location. Framework Elements - Leadlinvolved Organizations The recommendations outlined below are presented as the starting point for a regional action plan that will require focused, intense, commitment from both the business community and local/regional governments to be successfully completed and implemented. A critical element of that commitment includes organizations taking responsibility for leading the implementation of each of these recommended actions - a "champion" for that item. For each strategy or action item below, the set of organizations that should be involved in further discussion and/or implementation are shown. As with the recommended actions themselves, this list of involved organizations is presented as a starting point for discussion and further refinement. L For those items where the Regional Partners are committed to be the organization responsible for 2 implementation they are shown as the Lead. For those items where the Regional Partners are NOT the 0) organization responsible to lead implementation they are shown as the Advocate for this item - unless an appropriate organization has already committed to serve as the Lead organization for implementation. The Regional Partners role as advocate is to recruit a champion to lead. 9 u J P: Regional Partners/2003/MEPTF/Reg Econ Framework Attachment A 6-10-03 2 I. Innovation and industry Clusters A. Build on the region's existing and emerging industry sector strengths through cluster-focused public policy and program support and through resource allocation All types of business activity and industries contribute to the region's economy. However, in the world's more successful metropolitan areas, a small number of industry clusters serve as the primary drivers of the regional economy. A cluster is a group of firms that, through their interactions with each other and with their customers and suppliers, develop innovative, cutting-edge products and processes that distinguish them in the market place from firms in the same industry found elsewhere. The competitiveness of an industry cluster is determined by the presence of highly specialized pools of skills, technology and infrastructure tailored to the needs of the cluster firms. The presence of sophisticated and demanding customers in a cluster pressures firms to innovate on a continuous basis. A cluster is not simply the result of the presence of a large firm, or of a concentration of firms in the same industry. Identifying the presence of a cluster in a community refers specifically to the ability of the firms in an industry to interact in ways that create competitive advantages through the creation and incorporation of new knowledge into products and the processes that produce them. Therefore, cluster strategies focus on the relationships between firms, not on individual firms. A cluster strategy is based on the assumption that creating new knowledge in a place confers advantages on all firms in that industry in that place, even if those firms are, in fact, competitors within their industries. Those industry clusters that compete nationally and internationally are the core of this region's economy and what distinguishes it from other regions. The industry clusters that exist and that are emerging in the metropolitan area are built on the distinctive knowledge competencies of the region, and the strengths that currently enable the region to compete globally for economic activity and investment. Additionally, industries that sell their products and services nationally and internationally have greater long-term growth potential since their opportunities for growth are not constrained by the size of this region's market. For these reasons, focusing on industry clusters is both a more efficient and effective use of this region's efforts and resources. Established regional industry clusters include: Emerging regional Industry clusters include: • High Tech (Semiconductors/Silicon, Imaging • High Tech (Nano & Micro Technology & Display Technology) Cyber-Security, Health/Medical Information • Metals, Machinery, Transportation Equipment Technology) • Nursery Products • Creative Services (Advertising, Public Relations • Specialty Foods and Food Processing Film & Video, Web/Internet Content & Design) • Lumber and Wood Products • Sports Apparel/Recreation-Related Products There are also industry clusters that this region as ires to create and establish. Given the definition and L discussion of industry clusters, above, these would more appropriately be called targeted industries. In addition, there are industries that, while neither industry clusters nor targeted industries, are essential n support industries within the region. Targeted and Support industries include: _ • BiotechBioscience J (Medical Devices, Bioinformatics, Pharmaceuticals, Genomics, Anti-Virals) • Sustainable Industries u (Renewable Energy, Resource Efficiency Technologies, Sustainable Building Materials, Green Chemistry) • Professional Services (Architecture, Engineering, Legal and Financial Services, etc) • Distribution & Logistics P: Regional Partners/2003/ie.,.LPTF/Reg Econ Framework Attachment A 6-10-03 3 The components of a cluster-based strategy should include: Al. Increase support and commitment to the retention and expansion of existing business and attraction of new businesses. Lead/Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Portland State University, Oregon University System, Oregon Health and Science University, area Community Colleges, Industry Associations. Economic development needs to be an ongoing priority of the region, not a goal that applies only during economic downturns. Through the Regional Partners, the region will expand the community's awareness of and support for business retention, expansion and recruitment efforts as ongoing elements of the region's economic development efforts. The strategies and programs established to execute expanded business retention, expansion and recruitment efforts will be developed through the involvement of industry associations and firms in the cluster, education institutions and workforce training organizations, and other the organizations in the region that are responsible for the delivery of infrastructure and services necessary to support the continuing growth and development of the cluster. While supporting and growing industry clusters will be the focus of the region's strategic economic development efforts, these strategies should remain flexible and adaptable to changing conditions and opportunities. Companies and industries are continually adjusting to shifts in market forces and circumstances. The region will approach its economic development focus and plans with the same agility. A2. Proactively and cooperatively market and promote the metropolitan area as a positive business location for specific industry clusters. Advocate /Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Portland Business Alliance, Portland Oregon Visitors Association, Oregon Economic Development Association, Port of Portland, Port of Vancouver, Industry Associations. In addition to "branding" and marketing the region broadly as a business location, the region will also develop marketing messages and methods targeted at the specific industry clusters it is pursuing. A3. Track monitor and communicate information on cluster trends and needs with organizations that play a role in providing necessary business "infrastructure" and services. Lead/(nvolved Organizations: Regional Partners: Industry Associations. The Regional Partners, through ongoing research as well as their direct interactions with industry groups and individual firms, develop information and insight on the needs of industry clusters. This knowledge will be communicated and shared with the organizations in the region that are responsible for the delivery of physical infrastructure, workforce training, capital and a variety of services necessary to a. support the continuing growth and development of the cluster. B. The region needs to identify and create additional capital resource tools to support business creation and expansion. Advocate /involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Commercial Banking Community. g The Portland-Vancouver region must enhance its support for a highly entrepreneurial environment, so a larger number of locally grown ideas grow and prosper here: • The growth of the regional venture capital community needs be better supported, as it is small relative to other metropolitan areas. • There are limited resources for non-standard debt financing; area financial institutions will be encouraged to examine and develop new and alternative mechanisms. • The region needs to provide additional, more coordinated organizational and information support for entrepreneurs. P: Regional Partners/2003/MEPTF/Reg Econ Framework Attachment A 6-10-03 4 C. The region must invest in area educational institutions with a focus on commercialization Advocate /Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Portland State University, Oregon Health and Science University, Industry Associations The region must assist in the development and financing of incubator, accelerator, laboratory or other space needs to support commercialization of technology and the growth of emerging industries. ti. Physical Infrastructure Businesses require a number of services and resources in order to successfully operate and compete in both today's and tomorrow's economy. Those services and resources comprise the region's physical infrastructure. The infrastructure elements that this region can proactively provide are identified and discussed below. How this region chooses to provide this infrastructure will determine how successfully it will compete as a location for new and expanding business. In all areas discussed below, additional financial resources need to be found or created in order to fund the infrastructure improvements essential to a strong regional economy. A. Insure an Adequate and Available Supply of Land and Buildings that Meet Industry Needs To be economically competitive, communities must have an available supply of development-ready land and existing buildings to accommodate the needs of business and industry. Available land must be appropriately zoned, have adequate utilities and services and meet the location, size and other characteristics required by industry. The land resources in the region need to be competitive with other western US metropolitan areas. In addition to available land, the regulatory climate needs to be timely and provide certainty of development. Land requirements depend on industry and firm type. Research and development firms often want suburban campus locations where their development and production functions can take place interactively. Manufacturing and distribution firms need to be close to major interstate highways. High- tech manufacturing firms are more likely to be found in suburban industrial parks than in the central city. Firms involved in heavier manufacturing industries tend to be located in the older, established industrial areas of the central portions of the region rather than in the suburban industrial parks developed over the last three decades. The elements of insuring an adequate and appropriate supply of land and buildings should include: Al. Preserve, protect and redevelop existing industrial areas within the metropolitan area while recognizing the champing form, functions and site needs of "industry Advocate /Involved Organizations: Reclionai Partners: Local Jurisdictions, Metro, Industry Associations, Commercial Development Community. i With changes in how businesses are organizing their operations and functions to effectively compete in a dynamic global economy, the region must re-examine, update and redefine the concept of "industrial" to recognize and include "industrial office" - non-manufacturing uses that are integral parts of industrial sectors (such as software development, R&D and fab-less semiconductor operations within the high tech sector) - but which would limit "commercial office" uses (such as professional services firms, call centers, insurance, medical or other personal services uses). As part of the identification and regulation of regionally significantly industrial land, the region needs take into account and address the changing form, functions and site needs of industry and particular industry clusters. Definitions and regulations should be adjusted to respond to these new realities. P: Regional Partners/2003/MEPTF/Reg Econ Framework Attachment A 6-10-03 5 A2. The region needs to develop tools, processes and public incentives to encourage the redevelopment of industrial sites and buildinqs in established industrial areas to maximize past public investment in infrastructure and to create and maintain lobs in established communities. Advocate Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Local Jurisdictions, Metro, OECDD, Commercial Development Community, State Senators and Representatives from the Metro area. Throughout the region there are significant numbers of previously developed industrial sites that have antiquated facilities or contamination problems. The cost of redevelopment can be high: brownfield sites may require environmental remediation; historic buildings require seismic upgrades. In order to preserve and maintain the land resources in existing industrial areas, the region needs to create and employ public financial incentives and other mechanisms necessary to encourage and make financially feasible the redevelopment of existing industrial sites and buildings. Without the commitment and investment necessary to redevelop and reutilize older industrial sites for new industrial uses, the need to expand the urban growth boundary and urban development into greenfields will be even greater. A3. Through periodic additions to Urban Growth Boundaries maintain an adequate supply of developable vacant industrial land appropriately sized and located throughout the region to meet the needs of industry growth forecasted by Metro, other iuris_dictions and clusters identified in this report. Advocate /Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Metro, Local Jurisdictions, Commercial Development Community. The Metro Council, in collaboration with the cities and counties throughout the region - including those located outside of Metro's regulatory authoriy - must take a strong leadership role in actively supporting the periodic expansion of their urban growth boundaries (UGB) to address the current industrial land shortage and future industrial land needs. Land must be added in appropriate parcel sizes and locations that are responsive to the needs of industry clusters throughout the Region. Industrial land added to UGBs needs to be protected through appropriate mechanisms to ensure its use for industrial purposes, taking into account the changing form, functions and site needs of industry. A4. Create and maintain a business-supportive regulatory and development permit climate Advocate/Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Local Jurisdictions; Regulatory Streamlining Manager, Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services; Commercial Development Community. Regulations exist to maintain the health, welfare, and safety of a community. They are designed to make buildings safer, the air cleaner, and provide a variety of other protections. However, firms must work with local bureaucracies to meet regulatory requirements, and some regulations and processes can be quite onerous. Shorter product life cycles have put pressure on companies to bring new products to market quickly. Simplified bureaucracies and a short and predictable permitting process can help firms react quickly in a competitive marketplace-a factor of particular significance between municipalities within a l metropolitan area. 1 The attitude behind the implementation of the local regulatory and permit system is equally important. 1 Locations that work to assist development within the context of meeting the community's regulatory mandates fare better than locations that use their regulatory and permit system to "keep undesired things from happening" - the difference between viewing businesses as part of the community or an adversary to protect the community from. P: Regional Partners/2003/MEPT'F/Reg Econ Framework Attachment A 6-10-03 6 Regulatory and permit systems have traditionally been wholly local in nature and scope - leading to significant differences among and across the jurisdictions in the region. While acknowledging the need to preserve local preferences and control, it is recommended that the jurisdictions in the metropolitan area move towards the development and implementation of a "smart permit system" - see recommendation "B", under section Vl. Regional Collaboration, below. B. laintain and strengthen the transportation and other infrastructure systems servinq the Metropolitan area. To stay competitive, cities must have modern and efficient physical infrastructure, including roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, airport and cargo facilities, energy systems, and telecommunications. The availability of fiber optic and other high capacity telecommunications systems are growing in importance. An important rote of government is to increase economic capacity by improving quality and efficiency of public infrastructure and utilities necessary to business operation. While businesses prefer localities that offer low tax rates, they will be less likely to choose an area if low taxes are reflected in poorly- maintained infrastructure, low-quality schools, and a substandard communications network. Locations with relatively higher taxes but with infrastructure and public services levels comparable to low tax locations are even less attractive to businesses. In order to remain competitive, the Portland Vancouver region should maintain and strengthen the following transportation systems: B1. Air Service: Strengthen Portland International Airport's national and international role. Lead/Involved Organizations: Port of Portland: Regional Partners, Local Jurisdictions. The region must actively support the Port of Portland's efforts to expand the airport and develop increased domestic and international passenger and cargo service, including connections to Asia, Europe and Mexico. B2. Roads & Highways: Maintain and strengthen connections from key commercial and industrial areas to necessary transportation systems (highway, train airport marine terminals). Advocate/Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Oregon Department of Transportation, Washington Department of Transportation, Port of Portland, Port of Vancouver, Metro, Local Transportation Offices and Departments. The region needs to address the relationship, conflicts, and needs for freight movement in and between industrial areas, inter-modal and terminal facilities, and for local delivery of goods to 2040 regional centers, main streets, and at the interface of residential neighborhoods and freight districts and corridors. r B3. Transit: Maintain and expand the region's transit system in order to provide transportation choices and increased mobility and access. j Advocate /Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: TriMet, Ctrans, Metro, Local Transportation Offices and Departments. This region's system of light rail, bus and streetcar provide transportation mode and cost choices necessary to meet the needs of residents and employees. In addition to helping the community to meet it energy and environmental objectives, the transit system also increases the region's overall transportation capacity, providing increased mobility and access important to residents and businesses. The region must support expansions of the system to Milwaukie and along I-205 to the Clackamas Town Center area in the short term and to Wilsonville and Vancouver in the longer term. P: Regional Partners/2003/14EPTF/Reg Econ Framework Attachment A 6-10-03 7 B4. Rail: Promote the upgrade and maintenance of rail infrastructure. Advocate /Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Oregon Department of Transportation, Washington Department of Transportation, Port of Portland, Port of Vancouver, Union Pacific Rail Road, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Road, Metro, Local Transportation Offices and Departments. Many important rail lines are in need of upgrade, repair and possible reconfiguration or re-alignment. Current facilities will not be adequate to meet the needs of the future. To reduce congestion and expedite access, the region should support additional rail access points to the system such as the new Amtrak station being developed in Oregon City and improved facilities such as a new rail bridge across the Columbia River. B5. Marine: Support deepening of the Columbia River Navigation Channel (subject to environmental approvals). Advocate /Involved Organizations: . Regional Partners: Port of Portland, Port of Vancouver, Army Corp of Engineers: US Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Transportation, Washington Department of Transportation. The region must strongly support deepening and maintaining the Columbia River navigation channel to 43 feet - necessary to maintain the region's role in meeting the marine freight needs of Oregon and portions of the Mid and Western US. B6. Telecommunications: Support and promote the continued expansion of state-of-the-art communications technology necessary for area businesses to effectively compete. Advocate /Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Portland Office of Cable Communications and Franchise Management: area Cable and Communications Commissions, area Telecommunications Utilities and Companies. The region needs to work with companies providing communications services to enhance the connectivity and bandwidth for businesses and residents within the metropolitan area. III. Talent A. Build stronger education and training programs and their linkage to workforce requirements. Advocate /Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Portland State University, Oregon Health and Science University, area Community Colleges, local School Districts, Private Foundations, Oregon and Washington Employment L Departments, Oregon and Washington Governor's Education Offices, Worksystems, Inc., area One Stops, Industry Associations. The single most important factor for most companies is labor-its cost and its quality. For most firms, labor is the largest operating cost, and access to a talented, well-trained work force will be a deciding factor in the company's competitiveness. Computers and other high-tech equipment have brought about a °p shift in occupations across the country and a change in the workforce skill requirements of all industries, including heavy manufacturing. As the U.S. evolves into a more knowledge-based economy, virtually every company requires technical literacy at all skill levels. An educated workforce has become the primary factor for growing companies. New plants are more likely to select from sites where a skilled workforce exists, and then compare wage rates among those locations. As more routine production functions are shifted to lower cost locations (increasingly offshore), continual increases in the skill and education levels of their labor force will allow regions to remain a competitive location for growing firms. P: Regional Partners/2003/MEPTF/Reg Econ Framework Attachment A 6-10-03 8 Al. Ensure coordination between the region's workforce delivery system (Oregon Employment Department; Worksystems,. Inc.: and area "One Stops") and the region's economic development efforts. Advocate/Involved Organizations: Reaional Partners: Oregon and Washington Employment Departments, Oregon and Washington Governor's Education Offices, Worksystems, Inc., area One Stops, Industry Associations. Businesses that are locating or expanding in the region need a coordinated workforce delivery system to recruit, screen and hire local workers. The region must support expanded funding for the workforce delivery system and insure that its focus and services are coordinated with the region's business retention, expansion and recruitment efforts. A2. Make a strong commitment to the workforce training and development system Advocate /Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Worksystems, Inc., Oregon and Washington Employment Departments: Portland State University, Oregon Health and Science University, area Community Colleges, local School Districts, Private Foundations, Oregon and Washington Governor's Education Offices, area One Stops, Industry Associations. In order to insure the long-term competitiveness of the workforce, the region must actively support efforts to establish a statewide Workforce Training Fund, as most states do, using a portion of Unemployment Insurance or other resources and expand trades training and vocational education for high-demand occupations. A3. Supoort the development of a stable funding source for Oregon's K-12 education system Advocate /Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Oregon Governor's Education Office, local School Districts, Local Jurisdictions. The region needs to take a leadership role in supporting the creation of a stable funding basis for Oregon's education system. If the education system on the Oregon side of the metropolitan area erodes, it will place the entire region at a significant disadvantage as a business location. Governments and businesses throughout the region, those in Washington as well as Oregon, have a vested interest in insuring the long-term stability and competitiveness of the education system. f3. investigate and identifv the region's strengths in attracting high-skilled or "knowledge" workers as well as strategies and systems to augment their skills on an ongoing basis Advocate /involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Portland State University, Worksystems, Inc., area Community Colleges, Oregon Health and Science University, local School Districts, Oregon and Washington Governor's Education Offices, Industry Associations. In addition to maintaining its ability to attract new, high-skilled or "knowledge" workers, the region i needs to develop and support educational and workforce training strategies and systems to enhance and augment people's skills on an ongoing, continuous basis. If we do not provide mechanisms to allow people, once they join our community, to maintain their skills at a competitive level, we will not be able to retain them. P: Regional Partners/2003/MEPTF/Reg Econ Framework Attachment A 6-10-03 9 IV. Livability A. The region's livability is one of its strategic economic advantages. The region should maintain a strong commitment to the elements of the region's livability that are essential to its economic competitiveness. Advocate /Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Local Jurisdictions, Metro: 1000 Friends of Oregon, Regional Arts and Culture Commission, Industry Associations. The Portland Vancouver region's livability provides it a competitive economic advantage, particularly for high-skilled or "knowledge" workers. Households are attracted to regions by amenities that wages alone cannot provide. Many high-skilled or knowledge workers can choose where they want to live and they can apply their skills to a variety of industries. Because they can pick and choose their locations, they choose locations with the combination of amenities they value. Unfortunately, in many public discussions there is the implication that the region must make choices between a positive business climate and healthy economy on one hand, and quality of life and livability issues on the other - an all or nothing choice. The region's economy and livability are not independent, but are interdependent. While not involving all or nothing choices, interdependent relationships still involve interactions among and between the interdependent elements - both positive and negative tradeoffs. The region's livability is made up of a variety of separate elements - some of which many people cannot articulate or describe. The importance of those separate elements varies from person to person, based on the person's beliefs, values and current economic situation. Without a clearer articulation of which livability issues provide strategic economic advantages, everything is equally important - and we are back to all or nothing choices. Therefore, a critical first step in retaining and promoting the region's quality of life while spurring economic success is to define the elements of livability that strategically support its economic health and competitiveness. V. Marketing A. Proactively and cooperatively market and promote the metropolitan area as a positive business location. Advocate /Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Portland Business Alliance, Portland Oregon Visitors Association, Oregon Economic Development Association, Port of Portland, Port of Vancouver, Industry Associations. The Portland Region lacks an identifiable, dynamic and consistent marketing message for national and international business attraction. To effectively market the region a clear articulation of its "brand" and a "brand manager" are necessary - an entity that consistently shapes, refines and stewards the brand for this region. The focus of the brand manager and the marketing efforts should be on developing consistency in the message, as well as marketing sites, industrial sector strengths, quality of workforce, and exceptional livability factors. The region's marketing efforts and messages must be coordinated with and leverage the parallel statewide marketing efforts. i i i I P: Regional Partners/2003/MEPTF/Reg Econ Framework Attachment A 6-10-03 10 VI. Regional Collaboration A. Encourage collaborative problem-solving and implementation of economic policy and strategy. Lead/Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Governor's Community Solutions Team, Local Jurisdictions, Metro. The Portland Vancouver region has a long and established reputation for regional collaboration. The region is frequently held up as a model of regionalism - particularly for land use and transportation planning. The region's collaboration on economic development issues and efforts is less well known. The general awareness of the existing level of economic development coordination throughout the region needs to be raised, along with ongoing increases in that level of coordination and collaboration. As noted earlier, metropolitan regions are the building blocks of economic activities and functions. In order for this region to be economically competitive, a more collaborative culture as well as the systems and mechanisms to support it need to be expanded and developed. B. The jurisdictions in the metropolitan area needs to move towards the development and implementation of a "smart permit and fee system" throughout the region. Advocate/Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Local Jurisdictions, Commercial Development Community, Metro. A "smart permit and fee system" is one that would utilize similar application forms and user interface across all of the jurisdictions in the region. It would also insure consistent (e.g. 90 day) timeframe for permit review and approval. Building a single, regional permit system is a long-term goal, one with both technical and political difficulties. However, as an initiative to build this region's economic competitiveness, this region needs to find ways to make the regulatory, permit and fee system across jurisdictions more consistent to the "customer". This would also be a powerful, positive way of distinguishing the region. C. The jurisdictions across the metropolitan area should investigate the development and implementation of a tax system that is supportive of regional cooperation. Advocate /Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Local Jurisdictions, Commercial Development Community, Metro. Oregon's land use planning system is based on the presumption that each city and county must plan for the complete spectrum of commercial, industrial and residential development opportunities and provide the public facilities and services necessary to support them - as if each jurisdiction existed independently, both geographically and economically. However, not every jurisdiction has the physical size, breadth of existing development or development opportunities necessary to create the tax base sufficient to support the necessary public services. Oregon's tax structure serves as a disincentive to t, regional economic cooperation and coordination. The jurisdictions across the region should explore the C issue of how to effectively address the long-term resource needs and capacity of this metropolitan area, as well as the individual jurisdictions that are part of it. D. The metropolitan area needs to investigate the development and implementation of a regional economic database and forecasting system that allows it to benchmark and track its progress on economic strategies and initiatives, as well as identifying economic and business trends. Advocate /Involved Organizations: Regional Partners: Portland State University, Metro, Local Jurisdictions, Commercial Development Community, Industry Associations. The metropolitan area needs to identify indicators of successful regional economic development, tracking mechanisms to inform us if we are successful in implementing agreed upon strategies and initiatives, and information on changes in the make-up of our regional economic drivers. P: Regional Partners/2003/MEPTF/Reg Econ Framework Attachment A 6-10-03 11 Members of the Metropolitan Economic Policy Task Force ■ Rob Drake (Chair), Mayor, City of Beaverton • David Bragdon, President, Metro ■ Jess Carreon, President, Portland Community College ■ John Castles, Trustee, Murdock Charitable Trust • Steve Clark, Publisher, Beaverton Valley Times • Eric Hovee, Principle, ED Hovee Company ■ Ron Johnson, VP Resource Development, Portland General Electric • Michael Jordan, Commissioner, Clackamas County ■ Vera Katz, Mayor, City of Portland ■ Kim Kimbrough, President/CEO, Portland Business Alliance ■ Kathy Long Holland, Long/Sherpa Eco-D • Donald Mazziotti, Executive Director, Portland Development Commission ■ Craig Pridemore, Commissioner, Clark County ■ Carl Talton, VP Community and Business Development, Portland General Electric ■ Bob Terry, Owner, Fisher Farms ■ Jose Ternero, Oregon Assoc. of Minority Entrepreneurs ■ Diane Vines, Vice Chancellor, Oregon University System ■ Rick Williams, Project Consultant, Melvin Mark Dev. Co. ■ William Wyatt, Executive Director, Port of Portland Regional Economic Development Partners The Regional Partners are a private non-profit organization. An association of public and private sector economic development professionals, representing agencies and organizations throughout the Portland-Vancouver region. The member organizations are listed below, including, the Regional Partners contact person(s): ■ The City of Beaverton (Janet Young) ■ The City of Gresham (Max Talbot, Shelly Parini) ■ The City of Hillsboro (David Lawrence, Larry Pederson) • The City of Tualatin (Doug Rux) • The City of Vancouver (Gerald Baugh) • Clackamas County (Greg Jenks, Renate Mengelberg) ■ Multnomah County (Duke Shepard) ■ Washington County (Dennis Mulvihill) ■ Metro (Andy Cotugno, Lydia Neill) • Port of Portland (Bill Wyatt, Lise Glancy) • Portland Development Commission (Don Mazziotti, Marty Harris, Michael Ogan) ■ Columbia River Economic Development Council (Bart Phillips, Pam Neal) ■ Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (Ron Fox, Joan Rutledge, Marcy Jacobs, Carolyn Sanco) • Portland A rnbassadors (Randy Miller) ■ Portland Business Association (Kim Kimbrough, Scenna Shipley, John Rakowiiz) ■ Westside Economic Alliance (Betty Atteberry) • Pacific Power & Light (Tim McCabe) ■ Portland General Electric (Charlie Allcock) P: Regional Partners/2003/MEPTF/Reg Econ Framework Attachment A 6-10-03 12 Regional Economic Development Partners s -I, ANCO VER i Y tSBORO P IND t26 84 BEA GRESHAM ` - } TUALA J 2os L Ut Working Together for an Economically Vital Region enhancing coordination. Upon completion, the Partners will select priorities for joint action. 'r • Plan and execute regional marketing efforts nationally and internationally. - " ' - ' • Advocate for the long-term economic prosperity I. of Metropolitan Portland and educate and influence regional, state and federal leaders regarding issues affecting the economic well- being of Metropolitan Portland. This includes The Regional Economic Development Partners is Hands-on approach weighing in on policy issues that impact regional a public-private partnership of economic development Working closely with the Regional Partners, PDC economic development and advocating for professionals in the staff directly consults with businesses to determine increased region who have worked their needs, identifies available properties or local, state collaboratively for 10 buildings region-wide, provides data and marketing and federal years to recruit and retain I materials, and conducts tours of potential sites.With resources. businesses and promote the Partners' support, PDC staff provides, as much i ' the Portland metro region I as possible, a "one-stop" professional resource for ° Provide an ...r .3 information as a vital economic center. potential business recruitment and expanding s 44, clearinghouse With the assistance of employers within the region. on regional staffing resources provided 'i business by its Lead Partner, the Long-term objectives development Portland Development During monthly meetings, the Partners and and Commission, the Regional y _ Supporters (listed on back) study economic investment Partners have been development issues and opportunities and identify opportunities. instrumental in recruiting and organize joint economic initiatives. Specifically, many major employers to the Partners' objectives are to: the region. Recent examples include the Kindercare headquarters in Portland; lVafer Tech in • Actively participate in business recruitment, - Clark County, Novellus in Tualatin, Sumitomo Elemic retention and expansion to increase and maintain in Hillsboro and LSI Logic in Gresham. (The private employment and investment within the group was also involved in the original recruitment of region. Recruitment activities are both national .,r Fujitsu Microelectronics to Gresham, and in the resale of and international in scope. ~aFujitsu's facility to another employer in 2002.) ° Conduct an integrated regional economic In addition, development program through communication the Regional Partners have played a role and collaboration among jurisdictions and in the retention and expansion of several companies, economic development organizations. For including semiconductor chip leader Intel in Hillsboro, example, the Regional Partners are sponsoring and GNP` (transportation services) and 11,ackerSiltrouc a comprehensive evaluation of local, regional (silicon wafer manufacturer) in Portland. These and state economic development strategies, to exam ales alone translate into 5,200 jobs in our region. identify a s and potential opportunities for Re U n s co Th nk,: Regionally; Develo' ent Pa tners Act Collaboratively. ADN41NIs, R.N1'IVE LE: PART ' ° A thriving regional Portland Developmen Commission Portland Ambas dors economy doesn't just DIRF.CI - ,0N'I'RI JTORS happen: It takes the right ;'City of Beaverton mix of buildable land, City of Gresham City of Hillsboro infrastructure and public City of Tualatin services, supportive Clackamas Coun ~ Port of Porfla d government, as well as an land Business A liance educated and available O'-IIR St'1'{ ' lt'1' ~;I?S workforce. And, increasingly, it requires thinking L_"ity of Vanco e outside the box of government boundaries. Columbia River Economic Deve meet Council 0 M nomah ounty For the Portland Metropolitan Region to successfully . Oregon Economic & ommu Development D t. i attract new and retain existing businesses, we must PacifiCorp Portland General Electr' Y present a united front to the business community. ~ Washington County We must collaborate to provide seamless services Westside Economic Allian For more information, cons et: n whether a business is looking at potential sites in one J local jurisdiction or several. And we must be proactive 1 - both in marketing our region's many benefits as a . business location and in influencing local, state and r~ federal policies that affect the region's economic 1900 SW Fourth Avenue, ite 7000 Portland, Oregon 97 climate. tel: 503 823 3200 fax: 503 82 d WWW.p City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting A w k CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter of the Proposed Notice of Special Meeting STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose ansay: That I posted in Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, a copy of Notice of Special Meeting for the City Council meeting of Ano / 3 2,003 , with a copy of said Notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the 25~day of / f /ril-CJ~ , 20p-1- a- -e 14 /LV ID Signature of Person who Performed sting Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this 0157 day of Kl ffh , 20f)..:_. Signature of Notary Public for Oregon OFFIM& SEAL OREER A GASH NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.37 M MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT. 10, 2003 1:,ADMAGREERIFORMSINFFIDAVITSIAFFIDAVIT OF POSTING - SPECIAL MEETING.DOC CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Note time change - Meeting will start at 7 p.m.) (~')Revlsed... Please forward to: (Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-620.3433) Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) April 3, 2003 - 7 p.m. Tigard-Tualatin School District Administration Office 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard, Oregon Notice is hereby given that a meeting is planned between the Tigard City Council, the Tualatin City Council and the Tigard-Tualatin School District to discuss issues of mutual concern. Meeting topics will include: ■ Status of School Resource Officers in Tualatin ■ Property Tax Funding for the School District and Recreation • School Construction Update • Latino Awareness For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171, ext. 2410. City Recorder i Post: City Hall Lobby i Date of Notice: March 28, 2003 1\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\ADM\CATHY\CCA\CC MTG NOTICESWOTICE SPEC MTG 032703.DOC Cathy. ley-.A! *Joint*Meeting•Agenda Page 1 Welcome to a Joint Meeting of the Tigard-Tualatin School District Board of Directors And the Tigard and Tualatin City Councils Thursday, April 3, 2003 Hibbard Administration Center, 6960 SW Sandburg St., Tigard, OR 97223 !.p.m. Work Session I. CALL TO ORDER Mark Chism (chair) Caroline Neunzert (Vice-Chair). Pat Biggs, Al Hieb, Bang Albertson (Members) Jim Griffith (Tigard Mayor), Craig Dirksen, Brian Moore, Sydney Sherwood and Nick Wilson (Councilors) Lou Ogden (Tualatin Mayor), Ed Truax (Council President) Chris Bergstrom, Chris Barhyte, Bob Boryska, Steve Chrisman, Jay Hams (Councilors) H. School Resource Officers (Tualatin) III. Tigard-Tualatin Youth Services Levy Proposal IV. Tigard-Tualatin School Construction Projects Update I. Tigard Resevoir Partnership 2. Tualatin Facilities Visioning Update/Partnership Possibilities L V. Latino Awareness Issues C 0 VI. Tigard Mayor's Youth Forum I i VII. Tualatin High School neighborhood/parking issues VIII. Other topics as may arise City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Notification A4 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter of the Proposed Notification of Special Meeting STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, n, 1 y7' 0_ D a-)'-& / , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I notified the following people/ organizations by fax of the Special Meeting of the City Council on AD~ 26113 , with a copy of the Notice of Special Meeting being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the LEI Lh_ day of Md rd) Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) 9"Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) CrEmily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) C~ -tA-) Signature of Person who Performed Notific ion IL Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this J1 day of ~ N]drf1~ , 2012 ~ . r) OFMAL SEAL 9 Am a GREEK AGASTON Sig ure of Notary Public for Oregon W NOTARY PUBWWREWN cOMMSSM NO.317908 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT. 10. MW 1:IADMIGREERIFORMSVAFFIDAVITS\AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION - SPECIAL MEETING.DOC 03<28/2003 17:46 FAX 5036847297 City of Tigard Q001 *a* MULTI TX/RX REPORT TX/RX NO 1269 PCs. 1 TX/RX INCOMPLETE TRANSACTION OK 1 0915039686061 1 1115039687397 Regal Courier ERROR INFORMATION CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF &Revised... SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Note time change - Meeting will start at 7 p.m.) Please forward to: Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-620-3433) Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968.7397) Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) April 3, 2003 - 7 p.m. Tigard-Tualatin School District Administration Office 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard, Oregon L Notice Is hereby given that a meeting is planned between the Tigard City Council, the 2 Tualatin City Council and the Tigard-Tualatin School District to discuss Issues of mutual o concern. Meeting topics will Include: 3 Status of School Resource Officers in Tualatin ■ Property Tax Funding for the School District and Recreation ■ School Construction Update Latino Awareness For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171, ext. 2410. City Recorder 03428/2003 17:41 FAX 5038847297 City of Tigard 001 TX REPORT TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO 1268 CONNECTION TEL 5035460724 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID TT Newsroom ST. TIME 28 0 USAGE T 00,55 PGS. SENT 1 RESULT OK CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF SPECIAL. CITY COUNCIL MEETING Revised... Note time change - Meeting will start at 7 p.m.) Please forward to: Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-620.3433) Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968.6061) April 3, 2003 - 7 p.m. Tigard-Tualatin School District Administration Office ` 6960 SW Sandburg Road • Tigard, Oregon Notlce is hereby given that a meeting Is planned between the Tigard City Council, the Tualatin City Council and the Tigard-Tualatin School District to discuss issues of mutual concern. Meeting topics will include: ■ Status of School Resource Officers In Tualatin ■ Property Tax Funding for the School District and Recreation ■ School Construction Update • Latino Awareness For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503.639.4171, ext. 2410. CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF SPECI L CITY COUNCIL MEETING Please forward ❑ Barbara Sherm , Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-620-3433) ❑ Lee Douglas, Reg Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) ❑ Emily Tsao, The O gonlan, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) A ril 3, 2003 6:30 m~ Tigard-Tualatin hool District Administration Office 696 SW Sandburg Road 'gard, Oregon Notice is hereby given that a meeting is fanned between the Tigard City Council, the Tualatin City Council and the Tigard-Tua tin School District to discuss issues of mutual concern. Meeting topics will include: ■ Status of School Resource Officers in alatin • Property Tax Funding for the School Diss ict and Recreation ■ School Construction Update ■ Latino Awareness For further information, please contact City Recorder thy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171, ext. 2410. f3 7~ c3` Deputy City Recorder i 't Post: City Hall Lobby i Date of Notice: March 27, 2003 11TIG3331USP,\DEPTSWDWCATHIICCA\CC MTG NOTICESWOTICE SPEC MTG 032703.00C City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter of the Proposed Notice of Special Meeting STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of 1Tigard ) :~ASTdI_I being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted in Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, a copy of Notice of Special Meeting for the City Council meeting of with a copy of said Notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the ~'~ay of /V)A&4 - v Signature of Person who Performed Posting 7 ~/k Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this c) _ day of 2043- L A-) OFFICIAL SEAL Signature of Notary Public for OA on ` CATMERW o WWAmy 0 COMMISSPUXICoOF ION NO My COMMISSION E7(PIRES MAy 10, ID= 3 u J I:IADMIGREERIFORMSkAFFIDAVITSIAFFIDAVIT OF POSTING - SPECIAL MEETING.DOC 1 CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Please forward to: ❑ Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-620-3433) ❑ Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) ❑ Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) April 3, 2003 - 6:30.m. Tigard-Tualatin School District Administration Office 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard, Oregon Notice is hereby given that a meeting is planned between the Tigard City Council, the Tualatin City Council and the Tigard-Tualatin School District to discuss issues of mutual concern. Meeting topics will include: ■ Status of School Resource Officers in Tualatin ■ Property Tax Funding for the School District and Recreation • School Construction Update ■ Latino Awareness For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171, ext. 2410. a ~ "dZI Deputy City Recorder _J m t9 Post: City Hall Lobby Date of Notice: March 27, 2003 OTIG3331USR1DEPTSIADMICATHYICCA\CC MTG NOTICESWOTICE SPEC MTG 032703.00C City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Notification CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter of the Proposed Notification of Special Meeting STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard i ) I,~ ~C l :7AS1 GlL/ , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I notified the following people/organizations by fax of the Special Meeting of the City Council on /1'0-3 with a copy of the Notice of Special Meeting being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the 24-~) day of I " l A'k l'tf" , 20-,!Q.]_. ❑ Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) ❑ Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) ❑ Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) Si nature of Person who Performed Notification IL Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this c>i day of N -T" J ~ `yLp Q OFFICw.SM Signature of Notary Public for O gon C00M DOOM NOTARY PLOU0 DFAM COMMISSION NO. 32=3 AAYC0MMISSION EXPIRES MAY 106 90 ►:WDMIGREERIFORMSWFFIDAVITSWFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION - SPECIAL MEETING.DOC I ; CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Please forward to: ❑ .Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-620-3433) ee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) ❑ Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) April 3, 2003 - 6:30.m. Tigard-Tualatin School District Administration Office 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard, Oregon Notice Is hereby given that a meeting is planned between the Tigard City Council, the Tualatin City Council and the Tigard-Tualatin School District to discuss issues of mutual concern. Meeting topics will include: ■ Status of School Resource Officers in Tualatin ■ Property Tax Funding for the School District and Recreation ■ School Construction Update ■ Latino Awareness For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171, ext. 2410. a Deputy City Recorder m 0 Post: City Hall Lobby J Date of Notice: March 27, 2003 \\TIG3331USRM)EPTSWDhACATHriCCA1CC MTG NOTICESW OTICE SPEC MTG 032703.DOC 03/V/2003 17:18 FAX 5038847297 City of Tigard Q001 TX REPORT ~c ~8c&~kY~~ac~k~k~&Yc~~C~s~ac~kYe~ TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO 1257 CONNECTION TEL 5039887397 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID Regal Courier ST. TIME 03/27 17:17 USAGE T 00'42 PGS. SENT 1 RESULT OK CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Please forward to: WL arbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-620-3433) ee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) ❑ Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) . April 3, 2003 - 6:30.m. Tigard-Tualatin School District Administration Office r 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard, Oregon Notice Is hereby given that a meeting is planned between the Tigard City Council, the Tualatin City Council and the Tigard-Tualatin School District to discuss Issues of mutual concern. Meeting topics will Include: ■ Status of School Resource Officers in Tualatin ■ Property Tax Funding for the School District and Recreation • School Construction Update ■ Latlno Awareness For further Information, please-contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171, ext. 2410. CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Please forward to: Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-620-3433) ❑ Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) ❑ Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) April 3, 2003 - 6:30.m. Tigard-Tualatin School District Administration Office 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard, Oregon Notice is hereby given that a meeting is planned between the Tigard City Council, the Tualatin City Council and the Tigard-Tualadn School District to discuss issues of mutual concern. Meeting topics will include: • Status of School Resource Officers in Tualatin ■ Property Tax Funding for the School District and Recreation ■ School Construction Update ■ Latino Awareness For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171, ext. 2410. sDeputy City Recorder _J n Post: City Hall Lobby Date of Notice: March 27, 2003 %%T1G333\USR\DEPTS\ADM\CATHY\CCA\CC MTG NOTICESWOTICE SPEC MTG 032703.DOC 03/27/2003 17:15 FAX 5036847287 City of Tigard Q001 *#s#ss*x#x*s*#x#s#*xx #s* TX REPORT :#x x*#xsss#s#s#xs#xsxs## TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO 1256 CONNECTION TEL 5035460724 SUB:IDDRESS CONNECTION ID TT Newsroom ST. TIME 03/27 17:14 USAGE T 00'54 PGs. SENT 1 RESULT OK CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Please forward to: Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-620-3433) ❑ Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) ❑ Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No.'503-968-6061) April 31 2003 - 6:30.m. L Tigard-Tualatin School District Administration Office 6960 SW Sandburg Road n Tigard, Oregon o Notice Is hereby given that a meeting is planned between the Tigard City Council, the Tualatin City Council and the Tigard-Tualatin School District to discuss issues of mutual u J concern. Meeting topics will Include: Status of School Resource Officers in Tualatin • Property Tax Funding for the School District and Recreation • School Construction Update • Latino Awareness For further Information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171, ext. 2410. t i CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Please forward to: Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-620-3433) ~ee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) April 3, 2003 - 6:30.Ln. Tigard-Tualatin School District Administration Office 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard, Oregon Notice is hereby given that a meeting is planned between the Tigard City Council, the Tualatin City Council and the Tigard-Tualatin School District to discuss issues of mutual concern. Meeting topics will include: ■ Status of School Resource Officers in Tualatin ■ Property Tax Funding for the School District and Recreation • School Construction JJpdate ■ Ladno Awareness For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639.4171, ext. 2410. d ~ Deputy City Recorder J Post: City Hail Lobby Date of Notice: March 27, 2003 1RIG30USRTEPTS%ADMICATWCCA%CC MTG NOTICESWOTICE SPEC MTG 032703.DOC 03/,27/2003 17:13 FAX 5036847297 City of Tigard Q 001 s*ssss**s**s*s*ss*ss* **s TX REPORT s*s*sss*s***ssss#s**s 'T'RANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO 1255 CONNECTION TEL 5039686061 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID Oregonian ST. TIME 03/27 17:13 USAGE T 00'16 PGS. SENT 1 RESULT OK CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF An N SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Please forward to: 0 Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-620-3433) Q. ee Dougias, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) April 3, 2003 - 6:30.m. L Tigard-Tualatin School District Administration Office c 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard, Oregon. Notice is hereby given that a meeting is planned between the Tigard City Council, the i Tualatin City Council and the Tigard-Tualatin School District to discuss Issues of mutual concern. Meeting topics will include: ■ Status of School Resource Officers in Tualatin ■ Property Tax Funding for the School District and Recreation ■ School Corutruction Update ■ Latino Awareness For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171, ext. 2410.