Loading...
City Council Packet - 09/21/2004 -e _ v a f- C, - j a t r z 1, , 1,~~',' - , , 'i, - , , '.~-.j , , , rr - - , , A y± } a key' Pt y-tt ^,z. { .r E 1- s --q £ YS - t - f - 4' t s ' rS. x ''rv€yr' I.-,, ,Q -k s r- 'I , - y 7J Y 1 -~reJ - .H - 4 c, b f +a - `4 Sk t 1" l h7 J - - - t t - W Y_ 6,-,-,,,q t -~s-s-rf t-r, - - x,6 - t - - S? -Z 4J l 7_ rfA-,y ~Y~ qty -H `-H ii ` - _ 5- -,s - - 3 c H i-- t A J$ y - 1 U~ '.y,}._LrA A, S~ . - t E - - - , t r 1" t~ , f } , TIC GITY CCU ,Y IL rk 'L - - - - Y -r - {i ,y,~~..i r~ }j;i s t f 1'r 7 - G~, YA I ",L t,~s kk -r r ~ '3- H h _ ' CSI 0 I- t xsrP~r 4 q l - - _ J { , "few T _ 4, 4 v,, b ~ P ' L Y- 5 4 t t - r '-rp 4 -P T L kf 1 ` - - Aa,- € ''~~`a my - r.' _ - 1 - - ' ` s r2 t- 1 _ r.;~,F - - - r a ~1 t- - 0` ° 9 <}a t, ti~.:;~~;,,: _.~m - ~.~,~~,P::,- I-T - ,lb.--- *,',N~~:, I E w j - t i,l "'I k-hj"' ~ h 4' t -i' _ _ 4c'~ s fz. _ J 714 - t E - - _ ~ . - _ rT i elt _ _ _ - - , 4F --~,,,TINGW ~ . , ,,q 1". ~ - i~ , ~ 4. ;,0 ,7~." P, . ~ ~ c 7 < t 1 C f fk'~4y' - I - frig{'; i ! ? - R V 6 I E o#, - t - i x _ 1 _ i t f ' , t - J k e55 t t i 3 F i` - 3_ _ ,1, }J V iF - E, 4 C J- j 7 f L _ 1 y - E - , ! H's-, t'r`y L 4 r r ! t - R - t- d- - I 3 f - _ `'.r` .v!,Q fir { jam - r- t _ t a i f s p - i " 1,S y' am' -f j x !''-S } as v 8''1a x t! ° ' i ? _ - ' - r T', `n , t~'~' r`4f ~,'Hyv1 st iy f tt - ; ' - Fi _ - _ -ROm s'`t s, a. 3 n a~ .rc w e J { i^ ' S° r # - G..ca~vaer+u .~d~.aw`W.diY.an,rs, "na,,r f t,, _ rg rg WT, I 9 , t y'' r` 's - s - F alts - .r _ ,x m -z. v - q, i r s t ysz ,t c'FV ?'tt t r is y' l t _ c s j - 11 'll 3~r~~P Y € ~i - ; a jan- a } J r } -r- ,F Ci-K' P.--ff - ,TR_ #._W-,,, 1 eL~t xr.s,~r`„e"' *u x`r m x~ -x'''`"- x r - t - s - E lwl~x t r I'll , I "I - I - I_i , . - , I ml Agenda Item No. Meeting of COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 21, 2004 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors Moore, Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff were present 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications az Liaison Reports: None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items: Mr. Monahan noted the items will be discussed at the end of the meeting. Mayor Dirksen noted tonight was the last meeting Lindsay Boyce, Youth Advisory Council Liaison, would attend as ex-officio member of the Council. Ms. Boyce stated Rob Williams was elected to the position and will attend Council meetings during the coming year. 2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE Finance Director Craig Prosser introduced Budget Committee members Irene Moszer, Mike Benner and Susan Yesilada. The Budget Committee Agenda is included in the Council packet. 1) Budget Amendments Mr. Prosser distributed copies of the FY 2004-05 Budget Amendment Summary, which were then reviewed (Agenda Item #2, Exhibit 1 - copy of which is on file with the City Recorder). 2) Financial Reports Mr. Prosser reminded Council they had reviewed the various financial reporting forms available and the first monthly Revenue and Expenditure for the General Fund had been distributed. Other funds will be reviewed at future quarterly meetings. i Tigard City Council Minutes Page 1 Meeting of September 21, 2004 3) Discussion of November Ballot Measures a) Measure 37 - Governments Must Pay Owners, or Forego Enforcement, when Certain Land Use Restrictions Reduce Property Values Community Development Director Jim Hendryx reviewed aspects of Measure 37 and information included in the agenda packet. Basically, no one has adequate funds to pay property owners if this measure is approved and cities, counties and the state will look at this on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Hendryx answered questions from members of the Budget Committee and Council. b) Measure 38 - Abolishes SAIF; State Must Reinsure, Satisfy SAIF's Obligations; Dedicates Proceeds, Potential Surplus to Public Purposes. Risk Manager Loreen Mills reviewed the material included in the Council packet and answered questions of Council. 4. Bull Mountain Annexation Mr. Prosser noted the Bull Mountain Annexation ballot measure will be on the November ballot, which included a phase in of taxes over three years. Staff analysis shows the taxes on property assessed at $250,000 would be reduced by $15 the first year, increase by $167 the second year and $318 the third year. He then discussed the issue of cost of service and revenue generated in the Bull Mountain area. The City is committed to begin the hiring process of additional police officers early in 2005 in order for those officers to go through the Police Academy and Tigard's tutoring type program new officers go through and be ready to begin patrolling the area on July 1, 2005. In the operations side, the annexation will more than pay for itself. Regarding capital needs for the area proposed to be annexed, the area does not produce sufficient revenues to pay for all the capital improvements that are needed. An analysis has not been conducted in order to determine all the needs of the area but they know the area lacks park .facilities. The intent is to use money from cash flow from operating funds to support bonds to provide a pool of money to immediately begin buying land for parks in the annexed area. Otherwise, with tax phase-in, the process to buy land would not be able to occur as rapidly. Mr. Prosser noted discussion continues with Washington County about approving and implementing a Park System Development Charge (SDC) system for this area. The residents of the Bull Mountain area had requested Tigard City Council Minutes Page 2 Meeting of September 21, 2004 that SDC's collected in the area be used in the area. The current City policy is that SDC's collected throughout the city is used throughout the city. This would require a change in policy. Mayor Dirksen pointed out the Council had some discussion that the area proposed for annexation needs park land as well as the concept of using SDC's collected in the area specifically for projects in the area. The Council also noted there would not be enough SDC money collected in the area for some time and other money from the City would have to be used in order to have sufficient funds to acquire land for park purposes. 5. Telecommunications a) Qwest /Verizon Audit Status Mr. Prosser explained the City of Tigard has participated for the past two years with 70 jurisdictions about auditing Qwest and Verizon operations._ Verizon finally allowed auditors on site in Dallas, Texas, in June. The plan is to have the audit concluded by the end of December. b) Privilege Tax Mr. Prosser reminded the Budget Committee that there had been some additional revenue options discussed at their meetings last May. One was a privilege tax, which is a tax on utilities. There was not a lot of interest or opposition expressed, so this continues to remain on the back burner. Mr. Process discussed issues relating to the privilege tax; A new agreement negotiated with NW Natural was approved by the City and NW Natural in July, which included a 5% increase in the franchise fee which began to be implemented with customer's bills in August. The franchise agreement with Verizon expired in 2003 and staff has tried to negotiate a new franchise with Verizon. He reviewed the status of the lawsuit Qwest filed against the City of Portland which challenged the local franchising authority. Verizon has verbally indicated it would continue to abide by the terms of the old franchise agreement, including payment of the franchise fees, even though there is no agreement. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 3 Meeting of September 21, 2004 Because the agreement has expired, the City has no standing to require Verizon to pay the franchise fee. ® Other cities in this position have implemented a privilege tax ordinance on telecommunication companies, to the effect that if a franchise agreement is not in effect, the privilege tax controls. Staff could easily write an ordinance with a 5% level. Any proposed ordinance would apply to all telecommunication agencies as there are some existing companies operating in Tigard who do not have franchise agreements. Mr. Prosser indicated he could begin to write and submit a proposed privilege tax ordinance to telecommunication companies before being submitted to Council for consideration. He noted other cities in the region are in the same situation as Tigard with Verizon who have approved a privilege tax on telecommunications in order to protect themselves should. any telecommunication company refuse to comply with the city's franchise requirements. Council concurred to direct Mr. Prosser to study this issue further relating to how a privilege tax is shown on the bill, and where the tax comes from. Mr. Prosser indicated that if he finds the tax is within the rate base, he will first report back to Council, before beginning to work with the City Attorney on a draft ordinance. If the tax is on top of the rate base, it will probably just go away. 6) Library Status Report Mr. Prosser explained the Library construction budget was $14.5 million; after the outstanding bills are paid, the cost will be $13.8 million. The bond was $13 million; under IRS regulations, that was the first amount spent. The city received a bequest from Grace Tigard Hotten for library purposes. As a result in reduction of funds from WCCLS this year, the hours of operation needed to be reduced beginning in July. The Library Board contacted Curtis Tigard, sister of Ms. Hotten, who approved using some of the bequest to increase the Library hours to 54 hours a week between July 1 and the end of November. In November, the City will be faced with deciding whether to reduce the hours or using other City funds for operating the Library. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 4 Meeting of September 21, 2004 Mr. Monahan noted a decision would need to be made by mid-November. Shortly before that, the Library Board will be talking about that and making a proposal to the City Council. The City has continued to ask guidance from r Tsntr4 ac that bequest was made in his sisters name. I LI iga u as that Mr. Prosser explained the balance in the construction budget is from the Hotten bequest. The City had transferred $200,000 from the General Fund to the Facility Fund. This could be looked into. One of the concerns with the Hotten bequest is that it is one-time money and once used, it is gone. Mayor Dirksen asked if those funds could be used to retire the bonds earlier. Mr. Prosser noted it could or it could be used to buy additional books, which might increase funding from WCCLS. Councilor Moore asked what effect the reduced hours have had on circulation, and the funds received from WCCLS. Mr. Monahan explained the City receives WCCLS funding based on a number of factors, including circulation, internet use, open hours, and introduction of new materials irat;; the collection. There has been an increase in circulation because of the new Library. Some funds were put aside in the City budget prior to the opening date to enhance the collections. The open hours are competitive with other libraries in that all have had to make adjustments in their hours of operation. The problem is the amount of money available in the WCCLS fund has been reduced and there is not a whole lot to be gained by increasing circulation. If the City made a push to increase the hours to 75 and circulate more books, there is not a whole lot more funding the City could get from WCCLS. The Advisory Board and staff have been making some decisions and soliciting input from patrons on how the current hours are working. The Library is not open on Sundays. There are some people who indicate the Library should be open on Sundays but have shorter hours during the weekday. There are a lot of different groups and categories of users using the Library and all need to be considered. Any time you go to the Library, there are a huge number of people using the Internet and people are taking the resources out the door. 3. REVIEW INITIAL DRAFT UPDATED PARKS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT f CHARGE METHODOLOGY City Engineer Dennis Koeliermeier explained this is a draft of the updated Parks System Development Charge Methodology. If Council approves, this process will begin the process to hold a public hearing on November 23. He noted the City Tigard City Council Minutes Page 5 Meeting of September 21, 2004 hired Don Ganer Associates to review and prepare the Parks U Recreation System Development Charge (SDC) Methodology Update, a copy of which is included with the agenda packet. Mr. Ganer is considered to be an expert on Parks SDC Methodology. Don Ganer noted the draft report in the agenda packet will be updated to correct a number of typographical errors and include updated information. Mr. Ganer explained some significant changes to the system development charge statutes were made in the 2003 Legislative session. The most significant change is that SDC's have to be based on 'a specific list of projects that identifies the growth-related portion of the projects. This has made a huge difference in the way the process is laid out and how SDC money can be spent. Mr. Ganer then reviewed several tables and data relating to the rate structure. Tigard currently has two types of SDC's for Parks, which are residential development and non-residential development. Changes have been taken into consideration in growth and population as well as employment. He then reviewed the report: • Table 3.1 shows the projected increase between 2003 and 2008. The year 2008 was chosen because 2008 is the limit of the current Parks u Recreation Master Plan. The projected increases take into account both the current city area as well as the projected annexation of Bull' Mountain as it is included in the City's planning area. The current rates were based on 1990 census data and the proposal incorporates 2000 census data. There is a discussion on the benefit of identifying non resident vs. resident demand on the system. The approach is very similar to the current methodology. Tigard's model has been used by a number of cities in terms of the non- residential demand ratio. • Table 3.6 shows the weighted average hours for non-resident employee's use of facilities or potential use of facilities versus that of residents, in order to develop a ratio of 22.8. This means that it takes a iittle more than 4.5 employees to have the same impact on facilities used by one resident. • Table 3.7 describes the needs for facilities. The Parks ax Recreation Master Plan takes into account the entire planning area, as well as the Parks White Paper, to make sure all projects have been taken into account. Table 3.7 shows the current inventory of each type of park facility. The column "2008 Need" is what the Master Plan calls for Tigard to have. The difference between the "Current Inventory" column and the "2008 Need" column drives the other numbers. The difference between the "Current Inventory" and the "2008 Need" columns represents the current need. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 6 Meeting of September 21, 2004 This number is the total acres or miles of trails to meet the standard expected by the year 2008. This is based on the specific need by type of facility and will provide that information in the chart. The Overall Master Plan projected an overall need of a little over 11 acres per thousand, which is a very high level of service. This was what was identified in the capital improvement plan included in the master plan. That information will be included in the next draft report. This figure provides information on what is needed to meet that standard today. When the current need is compared with the current inventory, which identifies where the deficiencies are. There is already a deficiency of 17.15 acres of neighborhood parks which needs to be added to meet the needs of current residents. The growth from now through 2008 is only 3.59 acres. The growth needs determines how much the SDC rates should be and how much of a project can be allocated between SDC and non-SDC use. The information in Table 3.7 is what drives all the other numbers. • Table 3.8 shows application of a cost per unit for each different type of facility, multiplies those numbers against the number of units that are needed to come up with the total cost, and how much is growth costs. Total new facility cost is $27.7 million. Of that, $10.4 million is growth-related, with the rest being non-growth related; meaning projects would have to be paid for from some other source of revenue. • The SDC statute allows recouping administrative costs as part of the SDC fees. Page 12 shows the calculation for administrative and compliance costs to include those costs in the SDC calculations. Mr. Ganer explained the next section gets into the calculation of the residential portion of the SDC rates: • Table ;4.1 shows the growth required costs and the compliance costs, for a total of $9.5 million in SDC eligible residential costs. • Table 4.2 divides figures from Table 4.1 to get a cost per capita, which is just under $1,800, which is then multiplied by persons per dwelling unit. • Table 4.3 shows a residential improvements cost per dwelling unit for single family residents, which is $4,800. • Mr. Ganer noted there needs to be taken into account the deficiency repair. Currently there is $17.5 million in deficiencies that need to be paid for out of some other source and is included for the purpose of calculation. The Statutes do not require having a funded plan, but does require identification Tigard City Council Minutes Page 7 Meeting; of September 21, 2004 of some feasible way to fund filling that deficiency. You cannot just impose an SDC and not do anything about it. If you do that, what you are saying is that growth is going to fill the hole, and SDC money cannot be used for that. He has calculated some "what ifs" scenarios. One "what if" would be if a bond issue was passed in a couple of years to make up that $17.5 million. All of that money would be paid back by property taxes, but part of it would be from property taxes paid from growth areas, and property owners cannot be charged both the SDC and property taxes. A credit is calculated for the present value of the future property taxes. This tax credit is shown in Table 4.4. ® The bottom line in Table 4.5 shows improvement costs, less the tax credits, and ends up with an SDC per dwelling unit of $3,893 for a single family dwelling unit. ® The same process is applied for non-residential SDC rates. ® Table 5.4 shows a rate of $265 per employee. Mr. Ganer stated there are the three appendices attached to the report. Appendix A is the capacity improvement program showing a number of different projects, not site specific, but general area specific, and shows a breakout between what portion of a project is growth related and non-growth related. The first six projects are identified as Bull Mountain neighborhood parks, either site acquisition or development, and shows a 40% growth need, 60% other needs. The reason for that is there has already been a lot of growth that has taken place in the Bull Mountain area. The total number of acres that are needed that are growth related is 40% of these projects. The funds were allocated on a 40/60 division, but could be modified to a 50/50 or even 30/70 split. Some could be 30/70 for one project or 50/50 for another project. Some jurisdictions use SDC funds for site acquisition only, and non for development. They will increase the allocation for the r site acquisition and zero out the allocation for development. This type of issues are now required by Statute that there be this breakout by percentage. Mr. Ganer explained the legislature did not change the statute that would allow jurisdictions to make changes in the plans at any time. If the plan is adopted, it can be modified. You are not stuck with the plan forever. If after the plan is adopted, you find a source of revenue that you had planned to use SDC's on something, you can reallocate the percentages, or you had planned to use SDC's and the other source of revenue is no longer available, you can reallocate. There is some flexibility; you are tied to the plan until it is modifled. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 8 Meeting of September 21, 2004 Councilor Wilson asked how the money can be used that has already been collected. Mr. Ganer noted this proposal anticipates growth need for future revenues that come in after this methodology goes into effect. The money already in the bank is allocated for projects included on this list. That list can be modified as well. Mr. Koellermeier distributed a handout entitled "Parks Capital Fund - 5 year CIP" (Agenda Item #3, Exhibit 1, copy of which is on file with the City Recorder). This information was crafted to explain that the current planning is based on current resources, and identifies some commitments that have been made in the current capital improvement program which uses SDC's as the match for grant projects and debt services for a loan which had been pledged against current SDC's. It also shows projects currently in the works, what could be changed other than debt services, or even the possibility of pulling back from some existing grants. There is some reprogramming that could take place. He noted this is a substantial change to the methodology and different from the way the City has historically calculated the SDC methodology. This process pre-identifies projects and allocations that is growth related vs. non-growth related. Mr. Ganer distributed a list of cities in the metro area to show how Tigard ranks with other cities and their SDC rates and is identified as Appendix B, (Agenda Item #3, Exhibit 2, copy of which is on file with the City Recorder). There are three jurisdictions with rates lower than Tigard's and 12 jurisdictions with higher rates. Three and possibly four jurisdictions are currently reviewing their rates and West Linn's fees, which are the highest in the region, are currently be reviewed by the Oregon Court of Appeals. Two other cities have already increased the rates which will take effect January 2005. Councilor Woodruff stated many people have stated they felt Tigard's parks and open spaces are under-funded. If there a way in this process to justify a significant increase in SDC, he would support it. Councilor Moore stated he was not aware that Tigard's SDC's were so low in comparison with other jurisdictions in the region. Mayor Dirksen said he was concerned that the increase be justifiable. He said a lot of the methodology is anticipatory, based on the supposition that Bull Mountain will become part of the taxing authority area. He asked how the City can pull Parks SDC from that area without the authority to do so, and how are we going to be able to fund capital improvement projects without having the taxing authority for the area. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 9 Meeting of September 21, 2004 Mr. Ganer stated the Washington County Commissioners are currently dealing with that issue with the Tualatin Hills Park District. There is a lot of growth going on that outside the District but inside their planning area, just like Bull Mountain Is in Tigard's planning area, and do not have any authority to impose the SDC on those areas outside the current District boundaries. They are working on an agreement with the County where the County is actually going to become the Park's provider and adopt the same methodology as the Park District. Washington County Commissioners are considering this agreement which is on their agenda next week. The County would have an intergovernmental agreement with the Park District on managing the money and the County would have to develop and maintain their own fund, but the money could be used on joint projects. The City of Tigard could do the same thing if they had an agreement with Washington County for areas outside the City's boundaries. There would have to be an additional agreement for maintenance. There are a lot of "it's." Mayor Dirksen noted that based on these "if's," would the rates be challengeable. Mr. Ganer said he didn't believe it would be, because Tigard is responsible for growth within its planning area. This is a formal agreement to manage the growth. To do something less than anticipation of all the growth that may occur would not be living up to the agreement. Mr. Koellermeier stated he had asked Mr. Ganer the same question relating to how this affects the Bull Mountain area. He was told that Tigard still has the authority to plan and calculate what the need would need. If the annexation happens, that is fine and it is business as usual, and Tigard would address it as if the area was in the city at that time. If the annexation does not happen and the County did not come up with some way to collect the SDC's for the City, there will still be a need sometime in the future. The one factor we would not have is the income stream. The one difference is that the need has been ratcheted up. Councilor Wilson asked if the money could be used to purchase property and not improve it. Mr. Ganer responded it is correct that some cities just use SDC funds for land acquisition, and others also use the funds for development. Some cities have open space or trail corridors that are just open space and have used SDC money on it. One issue the Homebuilders Association used to challenge the Park SDCS in the City of West Linn, which the Circuit Court upheld, was that the city was buying open space with no plans to do anything with it, other than to maintain it as open space and that it was a non park and recreation facility. Several cities have decided that pending the outcome of the Court of Appeals decision, they are not using SDC Tigard City Council Minutes Page 10 Meeting of September 21, 2004 money to buy open space that they plan to leave as open space. They will buy land that has been identified as future recreation facilities, but not just open space. Mr. Koellermeier noted that with Council's approval, the schedule will be to open this up for public comment and a public hearing scheduled at the November 23 Council meeting, after the outcome of the election is known. The intent of this meeting was to provide an initial introduction to the concept and to indicate there are substantial changes to the methodology, before beginning the public process. With Council's approval, the document will be distributed, he will establish a contact with the Homebuilder's Association and identify any issues they might have concerns about, and then hold the public hearing. Mr. Monahan noted the last column on page 2 of Appendix B relating to the Parks Capital Fund 5 year projected balance, the beginning fund balance should be blank. 4. PRESENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PARK 8z RECREATION ASSESSMENT SURVEY Mr. Koellermeier introduced Melissa Martin from The Nelson Report, to present the findings of the Parks 81 Recreation Assessment Survey. Copies of the report were distributed to the public (Agenda Item #4, Exhibit 1). A copy of the report is on file with the City Recorder. Melissa Martin, The Nelson Report, P O Box 12945, Salem, reviewed the questions and the survey results. Carl Switzer, Chair of the Parks 8z Recreation Advisory Board, noted this was the first opportunity for the Advisory Board to see the results at the same time Council received the report. He noted that Dan Plaza, Parks Manager, did a good job of working with the consultant. He thanked the Council for their support and allowing the survey to be conducted. It appears there is some support for protecting wetlands and open space. The challenge for the Board is, what are we going to do with this information now that we have it. It is too late to put something on the November ballot, but maybe next year or the year after. The challenge will be to not loose momentum that indicates the City of Tigard residents may be ready for a recreation program and supports the protection of wetlands and open space. Scott Bernhard, Parks & Recreation Advisory Board member, said there has been a lot of effort put forward on this survey and money is what is takes to make anything happen. The Board has a challenge of what to do with the survey now. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 11 Meeting of September 21, 2004 Councilor Sherwood noted that in order to get community support, she suggested the Advisory Board start making suggestions, looking a potential property, and plans. Mr. Bernhard replied the Board has looked at ways to bring this to the community. Councilor Moore stated his expectations would be for the Board to come to City Council with some recommendations, on a possible bond measure or how it feels the City should proceed. He felt the document contains some very valuable information. He felt the board should sit down, beat it to death, and come back in three or four months, to make some recommendations. Mr. Monahan suggested that another element might be, now that the Board has this report and because the Committee is still relatively young in its existence and may not be well known to the community, that after the Board meets to discuss it, that they take the report out to the community and hold a couple of public meetings, to enlist input from the community. The respondents had very little information to go on. Perhaps the Board will find some community interests in the questions and results, thus being able to help identify some projects and properties for acquisition. Councilor Wilson said while this is a good piece of work, he had some disappointments that there is not a bigger mandate on any particular area, as almost all the responses were 50/50. Councilor Moore stated the results did not surprise him. Not everyone wants the same thing and there is not 100% agreement on everything. He almost expected these results. Ms. Martin indicated the survey asked questions about a variety of different issues and there was a lot for the person on the phone to digest. As the survey progressed, the responses became mushier because there was so much information being requested at one time. Councilor Sherwood stated when she participated in a survey recently, after 15 minutes, she had had enough and just couldn't concentrate on the questions. Councilor Wilson noted the schools do surveys all the time. The schools have to educate the kids and have to find a way to sell it to the public. He asked if this type of response was typical. Parks are either there, great, but if they aren't, citizens will find something else to do. He thought that if the focus of the survey was a skateboard park, the responses would have been more focused. The survey was asking about too many proposals, and in looking at the results, it appears that green spaces had a lot of support. A case could be made for a community center from Tigard City Council Minutes Page 12 Meeting of September 21, 2004 the results of the survey. We could put together a proposal and try to sell it, but there was no clear mandate. Ms. Martin explained that most of the time when surveys are conducted for school districts, there is a very specific project in mind. The public knows where it will be located and it is easy to zero in on the particular issue. As you saw in the community recreation center area, a variety of questions were asked trying to determine what information brought out a positive response. In most cases, they are only dealing with one or two proposals. Because there were so many projects for this particular questionnaire, they did not have the time to focus on any of the projects to get a real good feel for what the community really supported. Mr. Switzer said one comment Councilor Wilson stated was there was no clear mandate on any particular issue. One page 2, it appears there is a clear interest in - creating a recreation district. He noted the survey was conducted in a vacuum with no pre-publicity that the survey was going to be conducted, and the phone calls came out of nowhere. If there had been some publicity, even an article in the newspaper that this was being done, he felt the results might have been different. This was a cold call to citizens asking what they thought about recreation and parks. Mr. Bernhard agreed no footwork was done, and who knows what kind of picture the Board could draw for the Council if there had been more time to do this. There is some real good quality input available and the results will provide some hare core data from citizens. Mayor Dirksen agreed there was no clear mandate on this survey. He would have been surprised if there had been. It is nice to see the results of this survey, but the Parks 8i Recreation Advisory Board will need to take the data out to the citizens and then come back with some concrete recommendations on what the City should do. Mr. Bernhard stated the survey is a starting point of discussion for the Board. They do not have any history, and there are some indicators in the survey on what citizens are interested in. • Mayor Dirksen recessed the study session at 9:05 p.m. Mayor Dirksen reconvened the study session at 9:12 p.m. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 13 Meeting of September 21, 2004 S. SOCIAL SERVICES GRANT REVIEW u FUNDING PROCESS Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, explained the Council discussed this proposal on August 17. She reviewed the Rating Criteria that was included in the packet. Item No. 6 might be clearer if it read, "The agency demonstrates that a smaller portion of their funding requests will serve the same number of Tigard residents," or "More Tigard residents will be served for the same funding level that they received from the City in the previous fiscal year." Councilor Woodruff asked how this item would affect the first time applicant. Ms. Newton noted that was a good point. The Council may want to change the values in the rating criteria. What has been discussed in the past is to make sure applicants were demonstrating they were looking for more funding sources. Councilor Sherwood pointed out that other funding sources need to be provided on the application. Ms. Newton noted one of the criteria is that the applicant has demonstrated an effort to find other funding sources. Councilor Woodruff's point that if an agency is applying for the first time, they would need to show their efforts were demonstrated. Mayor Dirksen stated an applicant would have to have a proven track record, so this just reinforces that. He did not think an agency would have to prove that they are doing better this year than the previous year, but if you can prove that, the application would have a higher standing. Ms. Newton asked if that item should have a lower rating. Councilor Sherwood agreed with a lower rating for item 6, as she would not like to see someone loose funding because of that. The Council discussed redistributing the points. Councilor Woodruff stated that instead of trying to come up with a revised statement for item No. 6 during the meeting, he would write something later and forward it to Ms. Newton for her review. Ms. Newton reviewed the timeline for soliciting applications which begins in October. Once received, she will incorporate Councilor Woodruff's revision into the proposed rating criteria and forward the revised statement to Council for final review. She indicated reporting forms from the cities of Tualatin, Hillsboro and Beaverton were chosen as the cities from Washington County cities are familiar with Washington County's forms and programs, whereas Clackamas County's Social Tigard City Council Minutes Page 14 Meeting of September 21, 2004 Service program is slightly different. Agencies applying to Tigard would also be applying to Washington County and other cities. The Council concurred to proceed with the application process after the revision of item No. 6 and revising the point distribution. 6. TRIMET COMMUTER RAIL STATION DESIGN Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, stated this has been an ongoing project for about eight years. There has been extensive discussion with Council and the downtown task force relating to some design concerns for the commuter rail stations. He then introduced Joe Walsh, TriMet, to update the Council. Mr. Walsh distributed an outline of his presentation to Council (Agenda Item #6, Exhibit 1), copy on file in the office of the City Recorder. He stated he wanted to talk about where we are and where we are going relating to the station design. ® September 29 is "Distribution Day," meaning the project design is 60% complete. The project covers the 15 miles from Wilsonville to Beaverton, including tracks, signals, and park and ride facilities. The stations are the weakest part of the package right now in terms of percent complete. ® The biggest concern TriMet has relates to the cost estimates of the project. TriMet will begin discussion with the Federal agencies about the whole funding agreement, which is a major key of the entire deal. The estimated project cost is $103.5 million, with 50% coming from the federal dollars and rest will be from "local" sources. No local money of consequence can be spent until the whole package is approved (federal and local money). ® They are looking at a proposal for self-propelled vehicles, which is a big innovation of this project. ® TriMet has gotten into the station design since he last met with Council, which is moving slower than anticipated. The major concern has been the interface of the station location with street crossing which has been larger than anticipated. TriMet has talked with the Tigard Downtown Task Force a number of times. The stations at the major cross streets at Hall, Main, and Tualatin Sherwood Road will be required to be 300 feet from the cross streets. Crossing gates are heavily regulated by the State of Oregon and federal mandates. There are regulations on how long a gate can be down. The regulations allow one minute unloading and loading before the gates have to come back up. He explained that there are two kinds of traffic on the same line: freight and passenger, which Tigard City Council Minutes Page 15 Meeting of September 21, 2004 is unusual. Gates will always come down when freight trains approach crossings and stay down. Right now, there is not a reliable way other than speed for the signal system to distinguish between a freight or passenger train. The train slows down and stops for the circuit to recognize the commuter train. Gates need to stay up while the passenger train comes into the station and loads, and as the train takes off, the gates are to come down. This is a huge issue that still needs to be addressed by the signal engineers, both by in house and the consultants, to see if there is a system available that can solve this problem. Mayor Dirksen stated he felt there were systems available that can distinguish between the types of trains. Mr. Walsh stated there is a budget element involved in the signal device as well. TriMet will need to convince the State of Oregon, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Portland 8t Western Railway, that the signal device is reliable and manageable. There are some highly technical satellite and GPS systems being tested in the mid-west but these systems are three to five years from approval for use. They will continue to look into these revolutionary systems. Mayor Dirksen stated his opinion was that having the station that far from Main Street is unacceptable. Mr. Hendryx stated he did not believe Mr. Walsh completed the presentation on the separation and recognition of trains. It is critical that when the arms go down, the equipment be able to distinguish between a freight or commuter train. TriMet is saying that the technology is not yet available. Those concerns impact the distance of the stations from Main Street and Scholl's Ferry Road. Mr. Walsh explained the need to have some margin of safety for station overrun. They know that Portland 8t Western operators are licensed and regulated by the Federal government, and the consequences for the Portland 8E Western operators overrunning a station or going through a signal are very significant as this is their livelihood. Things do happen with mechanical or tension issues, but there needs to be some provision for safe stopping. That has to do with how quickly the trains decelerate into the station. The commuter trains will start slowing down as they come into the station and travel at 10 MPH between the Hall Blvd. and Main Street stations. This concern creates a whole cascading series of considerations. TriMet continues to look for ways to make the stations line up with the transit center to make a clear and inviting path from Main Street back to the station. The intent is to widen out the tracks to accommodate the station, meaning there is approximately 16 feet gross area to include railing, lighting and plantings to create an inviting pedestrian walkway. TriMet is also looking at ways, from a visibility and attractive standpoint, to make a better tie from Commercial Street to the station. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 16 Meeting of September 21, 2004 Mr. Walsh pointed out there is a real problem with the station at Washington Square, south of Scholl's Ferry Road. The existing businesses in the area include Levitz, Toys 'R Us, and where Westside Propane is located. That location has been where the park and ride has been conceptually located. There are a number of challenges to locating the park and ride in this area, including security, access to the park and ride facility to the station and from Cascade Avenue. He pointed out some difficulties they were still faced with at this station. Mr. Hendryx stated this station is physically located behind Toys 'R Us. TriMet will be looking at a couple of different options and recognizes the problems with visibility and access from the park and ride. Mayor Dirksen said he didn't know if it made any difference which side of Scholl's Ferry Road the station is on, whether it is in Tigard or in Beaverton. If it is better if it is located on the other side of Scholl's Ferry and works better, he feels that is the better way to go. Mr. Walsh stated TriMet has been talking about the location of that location in Tigard for long time; it would be difficult to begin discussions to move that station location now. He explained that Levitz had indicated a willingness to agree to a long term lease for the park structure on its property. They are faced with a different situation dealing with the downtown Tigard stations. He referred Council to the conceptual drawing of the station shelter on the back of the handout, and reviewed the project schedule before construction is to begin in the fall of 2005. Mr. Hendryx noted TriMet is faced with some critical deadlines as the final design is scheduled to be completed in January 2005. TriMet will continue to meet with the Downtown Task Force on the issue of betterments over the baseline project. He asked how Council wants to be informed of progress or whether additional briefings were needed. Either he or Mayor Dirksen, who is a member of the Downtown Task Force, could keep the Council up to date on progress. The Council concurred that either Mayor Dirksen or Mr. Hendryx would keep the Council informed. Council concurred to proceed with last couple of items and go past 10 p.m. but proceed at this time with Item 8 7. CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL GROUNDRULES - VISITOR'S AGENDA Tigard City Council Minutes Page 17 Meeting of September 21, 2004 At the end of the meeting, Mr. Monahan noted that Joanne Bengtston had surveyed the Oregon Association of Municipal Recorders on how other cities handle comments from the public on items not on the agenda. She had prepared a spread sheet showing the responses. Councilor Moore indicated there was some good information from other cities, generally which is similar to what is being done now. Mr. Monahan stated this item would be added to the Study Session agenda at the September 28 meeting. 8. PROCESS FOR CONTIGUOUS ANNEXATIONS Mr. Hendryx explained a number of developments have been proposed or approved in the area adjacent to the City which have an impact on the City. He reviewed a list of terms relating to annexation. Council has placed the Bull Mountain annexation ballot measure on the November 2004 ballot, but other developments will have an impact on the City independent of that vote. A map showing the location of developments with Consent to Annex and Waiver of Remonstrance's had been executed was reviewed, which included Tuscany Estates, Bella Vista, Summit Ridge, Alberta Rider, Arbor Summit 1 and 2 developments, and areas were islands existed or might be created as a result of annexation. Mr. Hendryx reviewed his staff report and recommendations which were included in the council packet. Mr. Hendryx, in response to Council questions, indicated that Park SDC's may be lost if the Washington County Commission does not impose a proposed Park SDC program for the Bull Mountain area. There was Council concurrence to: ® Not support cherry stem annexations in order to annex areas some distance from existing City limits, ® Avoiding purposely creating islands, but realizing that an island might be created as a result of annexing land approved for development, O When an annexation petition is received, to continue the process of staff contacting other property owners to see if owners of adjacent property are interested in annexing at the same time, Tigard City Council Minutes Page 18 Meeting of September 21, 2004 • At this time, not proceeding with annexing islands without consent of property owners, and • Continue with the existing policy relating to double majority of not annexing other properties without owner consent, but look at it on a case by case basis. 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS - none 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS ➢ TVF8zR REQUEST FOR A ]DINT COUNCIL/BOARD MEETING. Mr. Morrison indicated TVF&R has requested a joint council/board meeting in addition to the lunch meeting set for September 29. Councilor Moore asked if whatever they are concerned about could be discussed at the lunch meeting. Mr. Monahan stated their request did not include a specific reason for a joint meeting. He will check to see if their concern could be discussed at the September 29 lunch meeting. ➢ ATTENDEES FOR TVF8LR LUNCHEON AT STATION 51 9/29/04 Noon-1:15 P.M. Councilor Moore, Sherwood, Wilson and Woodruff indicated they would attend the joint Meeting with TVF&R. ➢ BENEFIT VERIFICATION SHEET - DEADLINE 9/30/04 Mr. Monahan noted the 'enrollment forms need to be submitted by September 30. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS Calendar Review • September 29: Lunch at TVF8zR Station 51 - Noon - 1:15 pm Tigard City Council Minutes Page 19 Meeting of September 21, 2004 October 12: Council Business Meeting 6:30 pm October 19: Council Workshop Meeting 6:30 pm October 26: Council Business Meeting 6:30 pm October 31: Daylight Savings Time Ends November 2: Election Day November 4 - 6: League of Oregon Cities Conference - Portland ® November 9: Council Business Meeting 6:30 pm November 11: Veterans Day - City Hall Closed ® November 16: Council Workshop Meeting 6:30 pm November 23: Council Business Meeting 6:30 pm ® November 25: Thanksgiving - City Hall Closed November 26: Holiday - City Hall Closed Mr. Monahan noted he had talked with Steve Wheeler, Tualatin City Manager, who had proposed a joint meeting with the Cities of Tigard and Tualatin, and the Tigard/Tualatin School District Board, with the School District hosting the meeting. The School District had proposed a meeting date in October, but he and Mr. Wheeler had suggested delaying the meeting until mid-November, in order to invite the newly elected Council members to attend. The Council concurred with Mr. Monahan's proposed date. 11. ADJOURNMENT Study session recessed at 10:12 p.m. J McGarvin, D putt' City Recorder Attest: Mayor, City of Tigard Date: Tigard -City Council Minutes Page 20 Meeting of September 21, 2004 'rIGARD CITY COUNCIL L-1EETING Lk I CITY OF TIGARD SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 6:30 p.m. OREGON TIGARD CITY HALL 13 3 2 5 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OR 97223- PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive_Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 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 • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead-time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date by calling- 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING September 21, 2004 6:30 PM 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications at Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items 2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE a. Staff Report: Craig Prosser, Finance b. Council Discussion 3. REVIEW INITIAL DRAFT UPDATED PARKS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY a. Staff Report: Dan Plaza, Public Works b. Council Discussion 4. PRESENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PARK $t RECREATION ASSESSMENT SURVEY a. Staff Report: Dan Plaza, Public Works b. Council Discussion 5. SOCIAL SERVICES GRANT REVIEW & FUNDING PROCESS a. Staff Report: Liz Newton, City Administration b. Council Discussion 6. TRI-MET COMMUTER RAIL STATION DESIGN a. Staff Report: Jim Hendryx, Community Development b. Council Discussion 7. CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL GROUNDRULES - VISITOR'S AGENDA a. Council Discussion 8. PROCESS FOR CONTIGUOUS ANNEXATIONS a. Staff Report: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director b. Council Discussion COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 page 2 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 11. ADJOURNMENT 1:%DM\CATHY\CCA\2004\040921. DOC COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 page 3 r rj ~"+er i~' T lyv# $ t 1 - ne $ " r1 S f wY r ,a:< j -.y ' s a3.r' +3ta 31l 5 a € ; - _ a a-x~ _ 4_ - s`Y t`? s':~ ~i 'Y 7 r E*-- is rz , - a .r y € _ - M i r~~ Yx.'3,. t• 5 EG a t a 3b'n ~t + r f f - , - x - "I I a~ mac,, 5,~~g+~ i+v`# ~~'p~tz fx~ Yt'J 4 Nn ; rt 'k fiat r' a u - ' + k °-r. ~ 9SXi J Mkt a~a»q , 4 , j- t `.e,A x~-5~#ns 1. r ~li _ phi Q/~..pi y~~l r■p~~g* -,x. 4 I. t 4 1 -.~.4 , /!~y',y,j q 3~ry■,Y Yela-~=V ■w'Yq.D~ A~~.yM T-11~ ~i' I!~{4fplg"A. 5-ry1 _ t'1 4 ~'"Y {5p Y'rr3}4 S i IL1 # - Y L t N - ~4~ 1t^ cI ~ ~RMy~R~~it~}.p~~O~/q~I~M#Mi.#iy X " .e y,sf ~"x,--s"1i" 3 1 3 r? c§,f F t` :'21j 4~, "w + N f•-IIM•t" s # l r { ~~F 125 iN Ball Rouievard,11~ C?t cftt --yr*#,€'ai - 3t%rx nr`'~ s - - +1 r. t , Y- e ~~..1 e.. lr 22 --L`~ - I - f -s i - " . t 'M 11 I ~ °j 4+~ 5 .h„t[ `o-• tpq o tonDgitc's tlieetir~Bf ' ' r I't _ I~ertis vyl;CDaz~ed OtM~ Nan Agen dd Item bg~ s u~ z .d 4 y §§i~) ! € ,a a _ tt y 4 _ r _ r _ §r mm ~ Say~jJ k?~;. rrr„pp~~~~~~~'`VT k +t, 'Y,.L ?'ryy;~ _IT Fh 4~ { 1 4 } E k S~ y t ti t S - .'M i jy,'i 4 ;^S.I,.T`~7ct'~,, ,ft. r,.t t- car _,L c rfi ~s y 2' _ a of ~ ; `0, . k, K~`{ ~yc y~>~5 FO A OINT OUNCIIJBOARU.ME~TING q~isaY'~,5+CYY "`„„"~-;as/i'"z•`. K-re Q}R RE 4.1y! 1 ~,Yr«? I 11 4 . 'T a ii, s'fk$a t i fi -i rs a t , ;t . } e;' ~~~rs u'~'~3~`}~i%F>R LUP~CHEG}N ATxSTA'f1ON 51 9f29/04 Noon 1 .15' ~ i s ~ TTEAIDEES FO1 a~'t?'$y-_z-°rv.th {5 12i-. - h;,,W r\- - - .t~s. t~ - - `r''< z13ENIrFIT YERIFICATIOA# SHEET DEADLINE 9/30f0~F ` m,~ AD ' WISTRATIyE ITEN1$ It , ~I ~ x - ~ x k ` Calends[ Review September 2g: lunch at`}T1~FSZDt Stadon 5D =Noon l 15 pm r r y Y ~ -c' ' `;W'ft T' fi i'f's , - a-Y`r 4®' ~Oq W I Z Council Busliu s" Meeting Q 5b pm - t T~ F k, r Qctober f 9 Council Workshop Meedn6 6 30 pm -e~ . (~cWber 26 Council 11 Business Mewing b 30 pm V 5 ~ , vyy"~ ' y l' ` . r} , ",W 3 kD, y Savings lime Ends 44~ W' 4K, Nav~mber2 EletdonDay t r 1 _ . NoYembdr ; b" League of Oreggn Cities Gcsgference Portland g p K t ° x, - . ~~lgver4~ber 4; "gone!' Business Meedn8:30 m 4 r : No em 11: ~feterans Day City Hall Closed .1 I N -1 -4 s November f b Cenci{rAMorkshop Mewing 6 30 pm e s pia - '+o x , y, - - 3 . - _ November 23 Cound'! Widnes Meedn~ ,,30 pm _ , . Nov T(~anksgtvin$ qty Haq f~osed ~t ember 25 r Ciflr Nati CSosed November 26` Hop day - r r Y d M' JI $ a 4 i t - 1 , J S p €4 Z 5 T ? 1 Z 3 rte' i,x x~!' 7 x4 i + 'm k i`` _ z - t y a' t-- s z -sf , t t r - - fiY - 1 "h Y _ - - - t 4*s _ L 7 t, g 7 t t- y _ ''a z _ X _ _ s x, t 5- ,f'w - t,Tr _ F -a f s-r F t, d, x - f x, tf rL' i - L ,.f I r d.J r t _ '%"R ~ q"t"yr sg _3 "4 # Y ~ a, tt kt i _ , 11 {4 € " ¢ s "$s d f L,# P't~ 3'' S 5 3 3 -t~ s , F M - t a a n r _ t ''a ~ ro .tea z. 4 4"~iw-fl t i-k''r`5 k „ *x {ens- +i r y x 4 ¢ ~ ra s t - $ t t ? d- - n t 4 i e s . j s *tl-~v krsT*t ~-`W , xp r, - t'~7' `~`fik'it ,r, - - Y-_ R' i `~v a" ` r-€ j , t , r - Z .4taJrj$r : 61 ~'r, I'z ',acs,- m t,_s 3 ts. - ~'t F x r~F ~fr"~.X 'kr t 's - m-f{, 3 k r _ r1S>js7-'f # {r i - ~ a7 s~- rr7is-t a }'s-{¢ta g- SF T A -C t a - a~ . E wa i-1% ! t - y +s'=- r - - d _ ix~-cs~ s > r r~ t"3''+✓`. -^t g 'x t= ° j H , ~si~~ € r is ~k y r 6 t,xiYII z+~ vx r x = Hz ' t r r 1%ualatin Talley ° e & Rescue September 2, 2004 Mayor Craig Dirksen Tigard City Hall 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mayor Dirksen: Every couple of years the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) Board of Directors hosts a series of meetings with the City Councils of each of the cities we serve. The purpose of the meetings is to become acquainted with new members and staff, and to discuss issues which are of mutual interest to the parties. As it has been some time since we met, we have a number of things to share which we believe will interest you. The meetings are typically held at our training facility where we arrange to have dinner served. As the summer draws to a close, we'd appreciate knowing of your interest in holding a joint meeting sometime in the fall. As there are numerous schedules to coordinate, we'd also appreciate receiving more than one possible meeting date. I have asked Chief Johnson's executive assistant, Sherri Camarillo to contact your staff in a couple of weeks to follow up. Hopefully this should provide ample opportunity for you to discuss my request with your staff and members of the Council. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE AND RESCUE lot Larry D. Goff President cc. Bill Monahan Administration Office 20665 S.W. Blanton Street, Aloha, Oregon 97007-1042 Phone (503) 649-8577 Fax (503) 642-4814 www.tvfr.com Page 1 of 1 Joanne Bengtson - RE: Tigard Council meeting with the TVF&R Board From: "Camarillo, Sherri D." <camarisd@tvfr.com> To: "Bill Monahan" <BILL@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 9/16/2004 3:28 PM Subject: RE: Tigard Council meeting with the NF&R Board HI Bill - Thank you for the response. I had this on my list today to call your office to start the ball rolling. We would be happy to do whatever your Council decides. Actually, our Board meeting nights work very well. The next two upcoming meetings will be October 26 and November 23rd. Our thoughts were to have the joint meeting at our administration building in Aloha beginning at 5:30 or 6:00pm with a light buffet dinner, and then perhaps give your Council members a short presentation. We could also do an Q&A. You would then be free to leave, or attend our Board meeting that generally starts at 7:00pm, however depending on the agenda, we could move our Board meeting to begin at 7:30pm at which time you would be free to join us or adjourn. We are open to any suggestions you might have. Regards, Sherri Camarillo -----Original Message--- From: Bill Monahan (maiito•BILL ci tigard.or.usj Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 5:15 PM To: Camarillo, Sherri D. Subject: Tigard Council meeting with the TVF&R Board HI Sherri, Recently Larry Goff wrote to Mayor Dirksen suggesting a joint meeting In the fall. Mayor Dirksen plans to ask the city council members next Tuesday night what their preference is. I expect that they will agree that a meeting is a good Idea. Do you have any specific dates to suggest that I can run by the Council to expedite selecting a date? Or, do you have some dates that definitely don't work for you (like your Board meeting nights, etc). If you can send me some ideas by close of business this Friday, I may be able to nail this down next week. Thanks, Bill Bill Monahan City Manager (503) 639-4171, ext 2406 bill@d.tigard.or.us file://C:\Dacunients%20and%2OSettings\olga\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 9/17/2004 . . Joanne Bengtson - Benefit Confirmation , Statements Page From: Sherrie Burbank To: " Date: 9115/0410:15AM Subject: Benefit Confirmation Statements All employees enrolled In either a Kaiser or Regence Blue Cross/Blue Shield health plan will be receiving a "confirmation statement" for their review via interoffice mail by the end of this week. It Is Important that employees carefully review the following information for accuracy: 1) Medical Plan Name (one of the following should be indicated): - Plan V-C PPC Indicates the Legacy Health Care system • Plan V-C PPP Indicates the Providence Health Care system - Kaiser 2) Dental Plan Name: - Dental 11 3) Vision Plan Name: - Regence subscribers will show "VSP Cities - Active" - Kaiser subscribers will show "NIA" (your coverage is provided through the Kaiser Medical Plan rather than as a separate vision plan) 4) Dependent Information - Check all information for accuracy Once you have reviewed the Information and determined it is correct, please sign and date the confirmation statement then return It to Human Resources by September 30, 2004. If there are any discrepacleIn the Information provided, contact me immediately at x2414 to make arrangements to meet with me so we make the appropriate corrections. All corrections must be made by September 30, 2004. Please keep in mind that If you made any address changes or dependent status changes since open enrollment (August 1, 2004) the confirmatlon statements probably do not reflect these changes. If you have questions related to those particular changes, please contact me at x2414. A#M1YMAAf#iYARAA#AAAAAAAA#AAi4fAAAAAA44Y1A#AAAfAAAf1/4#Af4A4 Supervisors and Managers: Please share this e-mail with any employee who does not have access to e-mail and encourage them to contact me with questions. t###6AA#Af144AAA#AA#AfAYAAAAAAAff1f A4AA1AAAA41fA44AAA4A44fA Sherrie Burbank, Senior Human Resources Analyst sherrie@ci.tigard.us.or Phone: 503-718-2414 Fax: 503-718-2718 4 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF September 21, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Joint Meetin with Ti and Bud et Committee PREPARED BY: Craig Prosser DEPT HEAD OK -d CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Quarterly informational meeting with the Budget Committee. No action required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and discuss information. No action required. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Budget Committee meets during April and May each year to review and approve the annual budget. It also meets quarterly thereafter to receive and discuss information regarding the financial affairs of the City. The September 21 meeting will be the first Quarterly meeting of FY 2004-05. At this meeting, staff will update the citizen members of the Committee on financial issues that have developed since the Committee last met in May, and will receive committee comments and suggestions. The proposed agenda for this meeting includes: 1. Budget Amendments a. Report on actual and planned Budget Amendments in FY 2004-05 2. Financial Reports a. Monthly Report to Council & Budget Committee 3. Discussion of November Ballot Measures a. Measure 37 -Governments Must Pay Owners, Or Forego Enforcement, When Certain Land Use Restrictions Reduce Property Value b. Measure 38 - Abolishes SAIF; State Must Reinsure, Satisfy SAIF's Obligations; Dedicates Proceeds, Potential Surplus to Public Purposes 4. Bull Mountain Annexation a. Status Report (Ballot Measures referred) b. Phase in of taxes c. Potential Parks SDC dedication 5. Telecommunications a. Qwest/Verizon audit status b. Privilege Tax 6. Library Status Report a. Project completion/final cost b. Operations/open hours c. WCCLS Levy status OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY NA ATTACHIv1ENT LIST Letter to Budget Committee, with draft agenda and Ballot Measure Issue Papers. FISCAL NOTES No impact. September 3, 2004 i F TIGARD Mr. Craig Dirksen OREGON 9131 SW Hill Street Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Craig, the. next meeting of the Tigard Budget Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, September 21, 2004 at 6:30 pm in Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. This meeting will occur during a regular Council Workshop session. , Enclosed with this letter is an agenda for the Budget Committee portion of this meeting along with summary information on Agenda item #3 - Review of.Statewide Ballot Measures with potential Impact on Tigard. We expect the Budget Committee portion of this meeting to last approximately 45 .minutes. The Council will have other items on the workshop agenda, however, that may be of interest to Budget Committee members, so we encourage you to stay for those items. Other items on the workshop agenda that may be of interest to you include: Social Service Grant Review and Funding Process ® Presentation on the Parks and Recreation Assessment Survev Review of the initial draft of an update Parks SDC calculation methodology Information of these three agenda items will be available on the City's website -prior to the September21 meeting - Please'contact Maureen Denny at 503-718-2487 or maureen@ci.tigard.or.us to confirm your attendance at this meeting. We have already heard that Katie Schwab will not be able to attend. look forward to seeing you on the 21St. 'Sincerely, Craig Prosser, Finance Director, cc: Bili,Monahan, City Manager Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director Loreen Mills,'Risk,Mar , r , 'Tom Wdieke, 0inancOperations and Planning Manager Michelle Wareing, Management Analyst 13125 SW Halt 131vd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 MD (503) 684-2772 Budget Committee Agenda September 21, 2004 1. Budget Amendments a. Report on actual and planned Budget Amendments in FY 2004-05 2. Financial Reports a. Monthly Report to Council & Budget Committee 3. Discussion of November Ballot Measures a. Measure 37 - Governments Must Pay Owners, Or Forego Enforcement, When Certain Land Use Restrictions Reduce Property Value b. Measure 38 -Abolishes SAIF; State Must Reinsure, Satisfy SAIF's Obligations; Dedicates Proceeds, Potential Surplus to Public Purposes 4. Bull Mountain Annexation a. Status Report (Ballot Measures referred) b. Phase in of taxes c. Potential Parks SDC dedication 5. Telecommunications a. Qwest/Verizon audit status b. Privilege Tax 6. Library Status Report a. Project completion/final cost b. Operations/open hours c. WCCLS levy status CITY OF TIGARD Ballot Measure 38: Exhibits: Abolishment of SAN ➢ Ballot title ➢ Explanatory statement ➢ League of Oregon Cities poll of cities for DAS review of financial impact ➢ Oregon Mayors Assn. resolution oppos- ing Measure 38 S U MMA R Y Measure 38 states it would abolish SAIF; SAIF must stop selling new policies of insurance on 1/1/05, stop renewing policies on 1/1/06 and be abolished on 1/1/07; the state must reinsure, satisfy SAIF's obligations; and dedicate proceeds, poten- tial surplus, to public purposes. I MP A C T S O N T I G A R D: Tigard has been insured through SAN for workers' compensation for the majority of the last twenty years. During that time, SAIF has'provided the lowest premium cost for coverage except for about four years at which time the City used Liberty NW as the provider of workers' comp (WC) insurance. In Oregon, there are very few WC insurance carriers who will insure cities (SAIF, Lib- erty NW and City County Insurance Services who is actually a pool for members rather than a commercial insurance company). Tigard has requested quotes from the other two carriers in the past. There were two reasons SAIF has remained Tigard's carrier for the past several years: quotes from Liberty NW and CCIS were higher than SAW or quotes were not provided because Liberty NW said they could not be competitive with SAIF's rates. Tigard currently spends $173,687 for WC coverage in the 04-05 fiscal year. It is un- known what the financial impact to Tigard would be if Measure 38 passes since it is not known how Liberty NW and CCIS would respond to the marketplace. This measure is a hotly contested issue in Oregon and is getting press outside the state as well. A recent article appeared in the Oregonian on 8/9104 which stated Liberty NW, SAIF's main competitor, has been assisting with financing the measure's supporters to abolish SAIF. The League of Oregon Cities was asked by the State's Department of Administrative Services to poll its members who use SAIF to determine what analysis had been done at the local level for WC carrier premiums. That review is attached. The Oregon Mayors Association recently took a position on Measure 38 by passing a resolution to oppose the measure. Lm\H:\ DCKS\Measure 38 Budget Comm Info.doc ,s Proposed by Initiative Petition MEASURE 38 ABOLISHES SAIF; STATE MUST REINSURE, SATISFY SAIVS OBLIGATIONS; DEDICATES PROCEEDS, POTENTIAL SURPLUS TO PUBLIC PURPOSES RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote abolishes SAIF; state must reinsure, satisfy SAIF's current obligations (including pending policyholder claims against SAIF); dedicates proceeds, potential surplus to specified public purposes. RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote retains law authorizing SAIF, a public corporation, to sell and administer workers compensation insurance and to administer an accident fund for that purpose. SUMMARY: State Accident Insurance Fund (SAIF) is a public corporation selling, administering workers compensation insurance, and administering accident fund for that purpose. Measure abolishes SAIF. Requires state to assume SAIF's authority over accident fund; reinsure fund; satisfy SAIF's obligations under its existing policies; use fifty percent of any excess surplus (meaning any funds exceeding reserves and surplus necessary to satisfy future liabilities) to satisfy policyholder claims in litigation before October 2003; transfer forty percent of any excess surplus to new fund; sell SAIF's assets; transfer proceeds to same fund; and reinsure, otherwise resolve SAIF's remaining liabilities. Dedicates new fund to supporting schools, local law enforcement; providing medications to seniors, medically needy; promoting job growth. Requires certain reports to legislature regarding rates for insurance premiums. Other provisions. ESTIMATE OF FINANCIAL IMPACT: The measure would reduce state revenue by approximately $405 million per year and would reduce state expenditures by approximately $301 million per year due to the elimination of SAIF. The measure would require additional state government expenditures of $1.8 million to $5.5 million per year on a recurring basis with an additional one-time expenditure of $2.2 billion to $2.4 billion. There will be a one time increase of state revenues of $32.6 million from sale of real property. The measure would require local government expenditures of $2.6 million to $10.5 million per year on a recurring basis. There is no financial effect on local government revenues. November 2, 2004 General Election Ballot Measure 38 Explanatory Statement: Ballot Measure 38 abolishes SAIF, the public corporation that sells workers' compensation insurance to and administers workers' compensation insurance for the state and other public and private entities and administers the Industrial Accident Fund for that purpose. On January 1, 2005, SAIF must stop selling new policies of insurance. The Board of Directors of SAIF is abolished and its authority transferred to the Director of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS). The DAS Director and the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) are required to prepare a plan for the cessation of workers' compensation retail insurance business activities by the state. Such plan must include reinsurance of liabilities of the fund and satisfy SAIF's obligations under its existing policies. On January 1, 2006, SAIF must cease renewing policies of insurance, and the DAS Director must reinsure a portion of the liabilities of SAIF Corporation and the Industrial Accident Fund. The measure requires the State Treasurer to set aside 50 percent of any funds exceeding reserves and surplus necessary to satisfy future liabilities of SAIF ("excess surplus") to be used to satisfy SAIF policyholder claims and claims against the Industrial Accident Fund in litigation prior to October 2003, which may be ultimately adjudicated. The State Treasurer then must transfer 80 percent of the remaining excess surplus to the Oregon Priorities Fund created by the measure. Moneys in the Oregon Priorities Fund are continuously appropriated to the Legislative Assembly for the purposes of supporting schools and local law enforcement, providing prescription medications to seniors and the medically needy, and promoting job growth through workforce training. On January 1, 2007, SAW is abolished. The DAS Director must reinsure or otherwise resolve the remaining liabilities of SAIF and the Industrial Accident Fund, and sell all of SAIF's real and personal property. The State Treasurer is required to deposit proceeds from the sale of SAIF's property and any excess surplus remaining after all the obligations of SAIF and the Industrial Accident Fund are satisfied in the Oregon Priorities Fund. The DAS Director and State Treasurer are authorized to contract with independent outside persons or firms to provide advice and assistance in carrying out provisions of the measure. The Board of Directors of SAIF Corporation may not challenge any provisions of the measure or take any action that undermines or otherwise weakens the full implementation of the measure. The DCBS Director is instructed to report to the Governor and the Legislative Assembly regarding the requirement that premium rates for workers' compensation insurance set by the department not be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory. CITIES WHO HAVE WORKERS' COMP. INSURANCE THROUGH SAIF (July 14, 2004) • Adair Village • Joseph • Redmond • Baker City • Lakeview • Reedsport • Butte Falls • Lebanon • Springfield • Coos Bay • Lostine • St. Helens • Cove • Madras • Sutherlin • Enterprise • Maupin • Sweet Home • Forest Grove • Medford • The Dalles • Gladstone • Milton-Freewater • Tigard • Happy Valley • Molalla • Toledo • Hermiston • Mosier • Umatilla • Hillsboro • North Bend • Vale • Hood River • Oakridge • West Linn • John Day • Paisley • Wilsonville • Jordan Valley • Prairie City • Winston Questions: 1. What is the amount of your premiums? (per year) 2. Has yoar city recently done an analysis of whether or not other providers would be more or less expensive? 3. If so, what was the conclusion (more expensive, less expensive, etc.)? City #1 #2 #3 Coos Bay $123,711 Yes All were about the same. Enterprise $16,500 No N/A Forest Grove $137,510 Yes SAIF was a little more expensive, but decided not to switch this year. Gladstone $53,339 No Eliminating SAIF would make the market less competitive. Hillsboro $663,267 No N/A Hood River $82,000 Yes Get quotes every year. Switched t back to SAIF a few years ago because it was cheaper. John Day $2,063 Yes SAIF was less expensive. Joseph $3,580 No NIA LoreenW%docs1wrkscomplSNF DAS Inquiry.pdf City #1 #2 #3 Lebanon $71,687 Yes SAIF was less expensive. Lostine $552 No N/A Medford $2701000 Compared two years ago. SAIF less expensive. Milton-Freewater $67,827 Yes Look annually. The appreciate SAIF's local office. Mosier $538 No N/A North Bend $68,682 No N/A Oakridge $31,382 No N/A Redmond $132,304 No N/A Reedsport $32,000 Yes CIS cheaper, but they have been happy with SAIF. St. Helens $59,573 Yes SAIF was less expensive. Sutherlin $49,498 Yes SAIF was less expensive. Tigard $173,687 Yes SAIF was less expensive. It is important to remember there are only three provider options for Oregon cities. Toledo $39,757 Yes Liberty said they wouldn't cover them (they cover the volunteer firefighters at too high of an assumed wage). Umatilla $27,549 No N/A West Linn $115,967 Yes Has a meeting with another provider, no cost analysis yet. LoreenlhAdocslwAc =M\SAOF DAS Inquiry.0 Oregon Mayors Association Resolution Opposing Measure 38 (Abolishment of SAIF) WHEREAS, Oregon cities have a responsibility and are held accountable for spending every tax dollar efficiently; and WHEREAS, Every extra dollar spent on workers compensation insurance is a dollar that can not be spent on police, fire, clean water, parks, streets or libraries; and WHEREAS, Many Oregon cities have chosen to purchase workers compensation insurance from SAIF; and WHEREAS, SAIF's injury-prevention programs have helped make workplaces safer, reduced injuries and lowered the cost of claims; and WHEREAS, the abolition of SAIF significantly reduces competition in the marketplace which hurts all employers whether covered by SAIF or another insurer; NOW, THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED that the Oregon Mayor's Association opposes Measure 38 (Abolishment of SAIF). • LoreenftWocs1wrkscomp%SA1F OMA resolution 2004.pdf Exhibits: ® Ballot Measure 3 and Explanatory State- ment; CITY OF TIGARD ■ Lake Oswego City Attorney's Council Report on Ballot Measure 37; Ballot Measure 37: "Government must a Oregon Planners' Journal selected articles pay owners, or forgo enforcement, when cer- ® Oregonians in Action Article tain land use restrictions reduce property value" SUMMARY: In general terms Measure 37 requires that if land use regulations reduce the value of land, a government must either pay the property owner for lost value, or forgo enforcement of the regulation. Measure 37 is similar to Measure 7 passed in the 2000 General Election, but subsequently found invalid by the Oregon Supreme Court because it amended multiple, unrelated parts of the State°s Constitution. Measure 37 avoids this issue by amending Oregon statutes rather than the Constitution. IMPACTS ON TIGARD: Measure 37 states that if a governmental entity (including the State, Metro, a city or a county) "enacts" or "enforces" a land use regulation that restricts the use of property, and has the effect of reducing the value of the property it must: ® Pay the property owner compensation equal to the reduction in value. ® As an alternative, the public entity may forgo enforcement of the regula- tion against that property rather than paying compensation. ® The provision for compensation does not apply if the regulation was en- acted before the property was acquired by the owner or a"family member" of the owner. ® A family member includes; spouses, children, parents, certain in-laws, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, stepparents, stepchildren, grand- parents and grandchildren - or the estates of any of these relatives. s In the case of property passed down from parents or grandparents to the current owner, the right to compensation could apply to regulations adopted many years ago. Land Use Regulations subject to compensation requirement. Land use regulations include: ® Statutes regulating the use of land or any interest in land. 1 • LCDC administrative rules and goals. • Local government comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, land division ordinances and transportation ordinances. • Metro framework plans, functional plans and planning goals and objec- tives. • Statutes and administrative rules governing farming and forest practices. Exceptions The right to compensation does not apply to: • Regulations prohibiting activities historically recognized as "nuisances" under common law. • Public health and safety regulations such as fire and building codes, as well as health, sanitation, solid waste, hazardous waste and pollution control regulations. • Regulations that are required in order to comply with federal law. • Regulations prohibiting or restricting pornography or nude dancing. • Regulations enacted before the acquisition of the property by the owner or a "family member" (discussed above). What are the Procedures under Measure 37? If the land use regulation was enacted before the effective date of Measure 37, the property owner must: • Submit a demand for compensation within two years of the effective date of the Measure. • Or the date the public entity applies the regulation as an approval criterion in a development application submitted by the property owner, whichever is later. • If the regulation is enacted after the effective date of Measure 37, written demand must be made within two years of the enactment of the regula- tion. • Or the date the owner submits a land use application for which the regula- tion is a criterion, whichever is later. In lieu of payment, the public entity may elect to "modify, remove or not to apply the land use regulation and to allow the owner to use the property for a use per- miffed at the time the owner acquired the property." The Measure provides that this may occur despite any contrary requirements in state statues or local ordi- nances. If the public entity continues to enforce the regulation against the property 180 days after the written demand is made: • It must pay the property owner an amount equal to the reduction in the fair market value of the property resulting from the enactment or enforcement of the regulation. 2 • If it fails to pay, the property owner may sue the public entity in Circuit Court for the compensation plus attorney fees, court costs and any other expenses "reasonably incurred" in collecting the compensation. • In addition, if the claim for compensation has not been paid within two years from the date it "accrues," the owner must be allowed to use the property as permitted at the time the owner acquired the property. How would Measure 37 apply to Tigard? It has to be assumed that Measure 37 would apply to those regulations within the Community Development Code (CDC) and Tigard's Comprehensive Plan that "restrict the use of property." It is obvious that almost any regulation within the CDC or Comprehensive Plan could be said to restrict use in some way. Tigard's CDC regulations relate to: • General land use categories (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.), types of uses allowed in various zones within the various zoning districts (for example, for residential: single family, multi-family, group care homes, etc.; for commercial: retail sales, services, lodging, medical facili- ties, restaurants, auto sales, etc.) • Lot size and dimensions, lot coverage, floor area ratio, densities, height, setbacks, lot coverage, landscaping and screening standards, open space requirements, parking standards and building design standards. • Certain districts have unique design standards, including the Tigard Tri- angle, Washington Square, etc. • Tree and Sign standards. What's this all mean? If an owner of real property in the City were to determine that any of these regu- lations were enacted after he or she acquired the property, or were enacted after the owner's ancestors (as far back as grandparents) or other family members acquired the property, the owner could make a claim against the City for com- pensation under Measure 37. If the fair market value of the property, without the challenged restriction, were more than the value of the property with the restric- tion, the City would have to either pay the owner the difference in value or release the property from the restriction. An unanswered question is how do you calculate this? It is assumed that an appraisal would be needed to make such a determination. If the City chose to not apply the restriction, the owner would be allowed to use the property as permitted at the time the property was acquired or, presumably, as permitted when the relative acquired the property. If the ownership by a par- ent or grandparent went back a number of decades, in Tigard's case to the 1960's before the City was incorporated, it could result in the owner possessing 3 a parcel with virtually no development or use restrictions. It is difficult to deter- mine the potential liability that exists through long term ownership in the community. An additional question arises about land use regulations enacted by one level of government, but applied by another. Can the governmental unit that applies an- other unit's regulations choose not to enforce those regulations? This could be a particular issue in the Portland metropolitan area where local governments are responsible for developing policies and procedures to implement regulations de- veloped by Metro. Measure 37 does not limit the number of regulations that may be combined in a claim. Nor does it prohibit claimants from making multiple claims, as long as all claims are made within the time limitations discussed above. Following the adoption of Measure 37, the City would need to carefully consider whether to adopt any amendments to the City's land use regulations if those regulations could be viewed as being more restrictive. For example, after ap- proval of Measure 7, in 2000, the City delayed adopting the Transportation System Plan (TSP) until the court determined Measure 7 was unconstitutional. The TSP established new street standards that in some cases required addi- tional right of way dedication and improvements over what had been previously required. Jurisdictions throughout Washington County, including Tigard, have been work- ing with Metro on Goal 5. The Goal 5 program and subsequent land use amendment potentially could limit or further restrict the use of certain properties throughout Washington County. Goal 5 is an example where more restrictive standards could potentially be considered. Another consideration will be the effect on the Downtown Improvement Plan. With passage of Measure 37, consideration will need to be given to any potential changes resulting from the Downtown Improvement Plan. This is potentially an- other example where land use standards could be viewed as being more restrictive. As noted before, the Measure does not set out any procedures or criteria for how a government decides when to pay compensation and when to release property from regulations. If Measure 37 passes, the City would need to implement pro- cedures and payment or release criteria. Measure 37 is silent about annexations. It does not state whether regulations are considered to be "enacted" with annexation to the City. The effective date of an annexation is typically when city regulations are first applied to a property. Or for annexations, were regulations "enacted" when they were first made part of the city code, even if they did not apply to the subject property until after annexa- tion? This is particularly interesting with the Bull Mountain Annexation heading to the same ballot as Measure 37. The County basically adopted Tigard's zoning standards in 1997 for Bull Mountain as part of Tigard's Urban Services Agree- ment with the County. 4 =~MMMMMMMi What is the financial impact of Measure 37? The official estimate of the financial impact of this measure indicates that local governments in Oregon will have to spend between $46 and $300 million per year in administrative costs to implement this measure and an unknown amount to pay claims. The State of Oregon would have to spend between $18 million and $44 million per year to pay administrative costs and an unknown amount to pay claims. s 5 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE ELecn" DMSIO t BILL BRADBURY ~~A~ DocEnat SECRETARY OF STATE 141 STATE CAF TOL SALELL OREGON 97310-0722 ELECnoNs -(503) 986-1518 March 17, 2003 To All Interested Parties: Secretary of State Bill Bradbury is responsible for the pre-election review of proposed initiative petitions for compliance with the procedural constitutional requirements established in the Oregon Constitution for initiative petitions. This review will be completed before approving the form of the cover and signature sheets for the purpose of circulating the proposed initiative petition to gather signatures. The Secretary of State is seeking public input on whether proposed initiative petition (#36), satisfies the procedural constitutional requirements for circulation as a proposed initiative petition. Petition #36 was filed in our office on March 14, 200'3, by Eugene Prete and Barbara Prete, for the General Election of November 2, 2004. Enclosed is a copy of the text of this proposed initiative petition. If you are interested in providing comments on whether the proposed initiative petition meets the procedural constitutional requirements, please write to the secretary at the Elections Division in the State Capitol. Your comments, if any, must be received by the Elections Division no later than April 7, 2003, in order for them to be considered in the review. BILL BRADBURY Secretary of State BY: Mt ~Ct, Summer Davis Compliance Specialist Proposed by Initiative Petition MEASURE 37 GOVERNMENTS MUST PAY OWNERS, OR FORGO ENFORCEMENT, WHEN CERTAIN LAND USE RESTRICTIONS REDUCE PROPERTY VALUE RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote requires that governments pay owners, or forgo enforcement by repealing, changing, not applying restrictions, when certain land use restrictions reduce owners' property value. RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote rejects requiring that governments pay owners or forgo enforcement by repealing, changing, not applying restrictions, when certain land use restrictions reduce property value. SUMMARY. Currently, Oregon Constitution requires government(s) to pay owner "just compensation" when condemning private property or taking it by other action, including laws precluding all substantial beneficial or economically viable use. Measure enacts statute requiring that when state, city, county, metropolitan service district enacts or enforces land use regulation that restricts use of private real property or interest thereon, government must pay owner reduction in fair market value of affected property interest, or forgo enforcement. Governments may repeal, change, or not apply restrictions in lieu of payment; if compensation not timely paid, owner not subject to restrictions. Applies to restrictions enacted after "family member" (defined) acquired property. Creates civil right of action including attorney fees. Provides no new revenue source for payments. Certain exceptions. Other provisions. ESTIMATE OF FINANCIAL IMPACT: The measure would require state administrative expenditures to respond to claims for compensation of between $18 million and $44 million per year. The measure may require compensation to landowners. The amount of state expenditures needed to pay claims for compensation cannot be determined. There is no financial effect on state revenues. The measure would require local government administrative expenditures to respond to claims for compensation of between $46 million and $300 million per year. The measure may require compensation to landowners. The amount of local government expenditures needed to pay claims for compensation cannot be determined. The effect of the measure on local government revenues cannot be determined. November 2, 2004 General Election Ballot Measure 37 Explanatory Statement: Ballot Measure 37 adds a new statute to ORS chapter 197. As specified in the measure, the owner of private real property is entitled to receive just compensation when a land use regulation is enacted after the owner or a family member became the owner of the property if the regulation restricts the use of the property and reduces its fair market value. If a property owner proves that a land use regulation restricts the use of the owner's property, and reduces its value then the government responsible for the regulation will have a choice: pay the owner of the property an amount equal to the reduction in value or modify, change or not apply the regulation to the owner's property. The measure allows the state, county, city or metropolitan service district to adopt procedures for processing claims for compensation, but prohibits those procedures from being treated as a prerequisite to the filing of a claim in circuit court. The measure does not apply to commonly and historically recognized public nuisances, public health and safety regulations, regulations required to comply with federal law, and regulations restricting or prohibiting the use of a property for the purpose of selling pornography or performing nude dancing. The measure specifies that compensation is due if the regulation remains in force 180 days after the owner makes written demand for compensation. After that time, the present owner may file an action in the circuit court in the county in which the property is located. The measure also specifies that the present owner is entitled to reasonable attorney fees, expenses, costs and other disbursements reasonably incurred to collect compensation. The measure provides no new revenue source for payments, if any, required under this measure. The measure defines several terms that are used in the statute including "family member" which is defined as wife, husband, son, daughter, mother, father, brother, brother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, son- in-law, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, father-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, stepparent, stepchild, grandparent, or grandchild of the owner of the property, an estate of any of the foregoing family members, or a legal entity owned by any one or combination of these family members or the owner of the property. The following provisions are added to and made a part of ORS chapter 197: (1) If a public entity enacts or enforces a new land use regulation or enforces a land use regulation enacted prior to the effective date of this amendment that restricts the use of private real property or any interest therein and has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property, or any interest therein, then the owner of the property shall be paid just compensation. (2) Just compensation shall be equal to the reduction in the fair market value of the affected property interest resulting from enactment or enforcement of the land use regulation as of the date the owner makes written demand for compensation under this act. (3) Subsection (1) of this act shall not apply to land use regulations: (A) Restricting or prohibiting activities commonly and historically recognized as public nuisances under common law. This subsection shall be construed narrowly in favor of a finding of compensation under this act; (B) Restricting or prohibiting activities for the protection of public health and safe-ty, such as fire and building codes, health and sanitation regulations, solid or hazardous waste regulations, and pollution control regulations; (C) To the extent the land use regulation is required to comply with federal law; (D) Restricting or prohibiting the use of a property for the purpose of selling pornography or performing nude dancing. Nothing in this subsection, however, is intended to affect or alter rights provided by the Oregon or United States Constitutions; or (E) Enacted prior to the date of acquisition of the property by the owner or a family member of the owner who owned the subject property prior to acquisition or inheritance by the owner, whichever occurred first. (4) Just compensation under subsection (1) of this act shall be due the owner of the property if the land use regulation continues to be enforced against the property 180 days after the owner of the property makes written demand for compensation under this section to the public entity enacting or enforcing the land use regulation. (5) For claims arising from land use regulations enacted prior to the effective date of this act, written demand for compensation under subsection (4) shall be made within two years of the effective date of this act, or the date the public entity applies the land use regulation as an approval criteria to an application submitted by the owner of the property, whichever is later. For claims arising from land use regulations enacted after the effective date of this act, written demand for compensation under subsection (4) shall be made within two years of the enactment of the land use regulation, or the date the owner of the property submits a land use application in which the land use regulation is an approval criteria, whichever is later. (6) If a land use regulation continues to apply to the subject property more than 180 days after the present owner of the property has made written demand for compensation under this act, the present owner of the property, or any interest therein, shall have a cause of action for compensation under this act in the circuit court in which the real property is located, and the present owner of the real property shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees, expenses, costs, and other disbursements reasonably incurred to collect the compensation. (7) A metropolitan service district, city, or county, or state agency may adopt or apply procedures for the processing of claims under this act, but in no event shall these procedures act as a prerequisite to the filing of a compensation claim under subsection (6) of this act, nor shall the failure of an owner of property to file an application for a land use permit with the local government serve as grounds for dismissal, abatement, or delay of a compensation claim under subsection (6) of this act. (8) Notwithstanding any other state statute or the availability of funds under subsection (10) of this act, in lieu of payment of just compensation under this act, the governing body responsible for enacting the land use regulation may modify, remove, or not to apply the land use regulation or land use regulations to allow the owner to use the property for a use permitted at the time the owner acquired the property. (9) A decision by a governing body under this act shall not be considered a land use decision as defined in ORS 197.015(10). (10) Claims made under this section shall be paid from funds, if any, specifically allocated by the legislature, city, county, or metropolitan service district for payment of claims under this act Notwithstanding the availability of funds under this subsection, a metropolitan service district, city, county, or state agency shall have discretion to use available funds to pay claims or to modify, remove, or not apply a land use regulation or land use regulations pursuant to subsection (6) of this act. If a claim has not been paid within two years from the date on which it accrues, the owner shall be allowed to use the property as permitted at the time the owner acquired the property. (11) Definitions - for purposes of this section: (A) "Family member" shall include the wife, husband, son, daughter, mother, father, brother, brother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, father-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, stepparent, stepchild, grandparent, or grandchild of the owner of the property, an estate of any of the foregoing family members, or a legal entity owned by any one or combination of these family members or the owner of the property. (B) "Land use regulation" shall include: (i) Any statute regulating the use of land or any interest therein; (ii) Administrative rules and goals of the Land Conservation and Development Commission; (iii) Local government comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, land division ordinances, and transportation ordinances; (iv) Metropolitan service district regional framework plans, functional plans, planning goals and objectives; and (v) Statutes and administrative rules regulating farming and forest practices. (C) "Owner" is the present owner of the property, or any interest therein. (D) "Public entity" shall include the state, a metropolitan service district, a city, or a county. (12). The remedy created by this act is in addition to any other remedy under the Oregon or United States Constitutions, and is not intended to modify or replace any other remedy. (13) If any portion or portions of this act are declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this act shall remain in full force and effect. W o C"3 s m c l "O < 11 3 m cn ca -i w M City Attorney's Office Council Report 4lL To: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Members of Lake Oswego City Council Doug Schmitz, City Manager From: David Powell, City Attorney Date: July 29, 2004 Subject: 2004 Ballot Measure 37 (Initiative Petition #36) On July 21st, Secretary of State Bill Bradbury announced that Initiative Petition #36 had received enough valid signatures to qualify for the November 2, 2004 General Election ballot. Two days ago, the Initiative was designated as Ballot Measure 37, and will be referred to as such in this memo. In general terms, Measure 37 requires that, if a land use regulation reduces the value of land, a government entity must either pay the property owners for the reduced value or forgo enforcement of the regulation. The voters adopted a similar initiative, Ballot Measure 7, in the 2000 General Election. However the Oregon Supreme Court invalidated Measure 7 because it violated the provision of the Oregon Constitution that prohibits amending multiple, unrelated parts of the Constitution through a single ballot measure. Measure 37 avoids this issue by amending the Oregon statutes rather than the Constitution. EFFECT OF MEASURE 37 General Rule Measure 37 provides that if a public entity (including the State, Metro, a city or a county) "enacts" or "enforces" a land use regulation that restricts the use of property, and has the effect of reducing the value of the property, the public entity must pay the owner compensation equal to the reduction in value. As an alternative, the public entity may forgo enforcement of the regulation against that property rather than paying compensation. The right to compensation does not apply if the regulation was enacted before the property was acquired by the owner or a "family member" of the owner. The measure defines "family member" as including spouses, children, parents, certain in-laws, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, stepparents, stepchildren, grandparenis and grandchildren - or the estates of any of these relatives. Consequently, in the case of property passed down from parents or grandparents Council Report Ballot Measure 37 July 29, 2004 Page 2 to the current owner, the right to compensation could apply to regulations adopted many years ago. Land Use Regulations subject to compensation requirement. The compensation requirement applies to "land use regulations," which are defined as including: • Statutes regulating the use of land or any interest in land; • LCDC administrative rules and goals; • Local government comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, land division ordinances and transportation ordinances; • Metro framework plans, functional plans and planning goals and objectives; and • Statutes and administrative rules governing farming and forest practices. Exceptions The right to compensation does not apply to: • Regulations prohibiting activities historically recognized as "nuisances" under common law; • Public health and safety regulations such as fire and building codes, as well as health, sanitation, solid waste, hazardous waste and pollution control regulations; • Regulations that are required in order to comply with federal law; • Regulations prohibiting or restricting pornography or nude dancing; and • Regulations enacted before the acquisition of the property by the owner or a "family member" (discussed above). Procedure If the land use regulation was enacted before the effective date of Measure 37, the claimant must file a written demand for compensation within two years of the effective date of the Measure, or the date the public entity applies the regulation as an approval criterion in a development application submitted by the property owner, whichever is later.. If the regulation is enacted after the effective date of Measure 37, written demand must be made within two years of the enactment of the regulation, or the date the owner submits a land use application for which the regulation is a criterion, whichever is later. As discussed above, in lieu of payment, the public entity may elect to "modify, remove or not to (sic) apply the land use regulation to allow the owner to use the property for a use permitted Council Report Ballot Measure 37 July 29, 2004 Page 3 at the time the owners acquired the property." The Measure provides that this may occur despite any contrary requirements in state statues. If the public entity continues to enforce the regulation against the property 180 days after the written demand is made, it must pay the property owner an amount equal to the reduction in the fair market value of the property resulting from the enactment or enforcement of the regulation. If it fails to pay, the property owner may sue the public entity in Circuit Court for the compensation plus attorney fees, court costs and any other expenses "reasonably incurred" in collecting the compensation. In addition, if the claim for compensation has not been paid within two years from the date it "accrues," the owner must be allowed to use the property "as permitted at the time the owner2 acquired the property." MEASURE 37 APPLIED TO LAKE OSWEGO Measure 37 would apply to those regulations within the Community Development Code (CDC) and the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan that "restrict the use of property." While the quoted phrase is not defined in the Measure, arguably almost any regulation within the CDC or Comprehensive Plan could be said to "restrict" use in some way. CDC regulations relate to general categories of use (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.), types of uses allowed in various zones within the general categories (for example, for residential: single family, multi-family, group care homes, etc.; for commercial: retail sales, services, lodging, medical facilities, restaurants, auto sales, etc.) lot size and dimensions, lot coverage, floor area ratio, densities, height, setbacks, lot coverage, landscaping and screening standards, open space requirements, parking standards and building design standards. Certain districts have unique design standards, including the Downtown Redevelopment District, Old Town District and West Lake Grove Design District. It could also be argued that Measure 37 would apply to much of the Lake Oswego Tree Code and Sign Code. If an owner of real property in the City were to determine that any of these regulations were enacted after he or she acquired the property, or were enacted after the owner's ancestors (as far back as grandparents) or other family members acquired the property, the owner could make a claim against the City for compensation under Measure 37. If the fair market value of the property without the challenged restriction were more than the value of the property with the restriction, the City would have to either pay the owner the difference in value or release the property from the restriction. r The use here of only the term "owner" appears to be an error as it fails to take into account those instances in which the land use regulation was enacted before acquisition by the claimant/owner, but after acquisition of the by an ancestor "family member" of the owner. See discussion under section titled "General Rule." 2 See footnote . Council Report Ballot Measure 37 July 29, 2004 Page 4 If the City chose to release the restriction, the owner would be allowed to use the property as permitted at the time the property was acquired or, presumably, as permitted when the ancestor acquired the property. If the ownership by a parent or grandparent went back a number of decades, and if the entire current Code were challenged and released, it could result in the owner possessing a parcel with virtually no development or use restrictions. Measure 37 does not limit the number of regulations that may be combined in a claim. Nor does it prohibit claimants from making multiple claims, as long as all claims are made within the time limitations discussed under "Procedure," above. Following the adoption of Measure 37, the City Council would need to carefully consider whether any proposed amendments to City land use regulations presented in the future could be viewed as more restrictive than the status quo. If so, additional claims for compensation could be expected following adoption of the amendments. The Measure establishes no criteria or a process for how a government entity decides when to pay compensation and when to release property from regulations. If Measure 37 passes, it would be advisable for the Council to adopt claim procedures and payment or release criteria. Measure 37 does not address annexations. The Measure expressly exempts land use regulations "enacted" prior to the date the property was acquired by the owner (or ancestor). The Measure does not state whether regulations are considered to be "enacted" as to a specific property as of the date that property is annexed to the City (annexation being when those regulations are first applied to the property), or considered to be "enacted" when first made part of the Code, even if they did not apply to the subject property until it was annexed at a later time. The Measure also does not address whether rezoning property within the City amounts to "enacting" new regulations for that property, or merely applying previously enacted zone restrictions. Finally the Measure does not specify whether the term "property owner" includes corporate entities. If so, this could expand the potential extent of the Measure's retroactivity. ii .Orggon Planners ' ournal VOLUME 23e NUMBER 7 AuGUsr/SEP'rF. aER2004 ®eath Knell `s for Land Use Planning in Oregon r By Bob Stacey,AICR 1000 Friends of Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (BM-37) appears to be about "compensation" for losses in the market value of property due to zoning changes. But what it's really about is gutting the land use planning system of this state. BM-37 gives goverment a "choice" when confronted by a property owner's claim: either k+ pay the difference in value resulting from riot allowing a use that was permitted when the owner (or family member) first acquired the property; or waive, modify or repeal the regulation and allow the owner a use prohibited by current land use regulations. F ` 4 How does it world r - BM-37 requires government to pay compensation when "land use regula- tions" reduce property values. The right to compensation is triggered by 7 enactment of a regulation after the "acquisition of the property by the owner or a family member of the owner," which is defined to include a parent or grandparent of the current owner. 3fi- BM-37 would establish the date on which an owner acquired property as a wild _ card that would supersede land use policy in all Oregon cities and counties. The relatively recent adoption dates of important city and county zoning ordinances, together with the long tenure of title on many properties, will cause BM-37 to =Y :a r 4 ~n~ generate many compensation claims. Zoning adoption and amendment dates for upt W mtw, cities are a complicated pastiche, dating from 1924 in Portland, and with many' important changes over the years. For counties, key dates range from the 1960s V n yr, through the mid 1980s; some counties had no zoning before the 1970s. _L 't ti What will it cost? ~ ~ H 1z The jurisdiction may elect to "modify, remove, or not to apply" land use t regulations and allow the property owner to build uses "permitted at the time the owner acquired the property." Or, the government can pay "compensation" to the property owner. Although BM-37 obligates governments to pay tax dollars to compensate owners, it creates no new source of revenue to fund the compensation. r State and local governments lack money to pay even a small number of the ; compensation claims BM-37 will generate. For example, the same family has btu owned a 1,800-acre cattle ranch since 1942 (See The Ranch, pg. 6). BM-37 xia13 " t 1 f See BALLOT MEASURE 37.PUe 14 ~s~tY'v`5 i}: 4£s ~,a ~!a;~'! Sir a, :•,i,.'. a lqn aDesig ni,hg n. Ure Measure 37' continued from page I Creativity, Integrity, and Skill a would entitle the owners of the ranch to demand $4 to $6 million in compen • strengthening our communities ® ° sation because of zoning that limits the land to farm use instead of residential • performing exciting work home sites, But the County's general fund in 2002 was $3.2 million. Many • serving our clients small counties would face similar situations: the potential for insolvency vVWW.Otak.COm resulting from a single claim under BM-37. As a result, in lieu of a funding source for payment, BM-37 effectively requires government to allow Parametrix, Inc. scattershot repeal of city and county zoning. Consunants in Engineedrg and Enwronmentat Sciences This is not an isolated incidence. Two longtime Washington County 700 NE Multnomah, suite 1160 farmers recently reviewed a map of 22 sections (14,060 acres) of agricultural Portland, OR 87232 503-233.2400.360.694.5020 • Fax: 503-2334825 land between North Plains, Cornelius, and Hillsboro and estimated that 55 to www.prn E-mail:dslogedslegelOpar®parametrtx.com 60 percent of that acreage has been held by the same owners since before 1972, the date Washington County adopted its "Framework Plan." Before the David M. Siegel, AICP iz plan, the county allowed 2-acre residential lots on this land. If BM-37 is OualltyService Throupll Employee Ownership enacted, owners of the roughly 7,500 acres scattered throughout the 14,060 acre area will be able to demand compensation equal to the difference between the 2004 market value of 2-acre residential lots and farm use. If the F; IUCKt`A ~cT County couldn't pay, or chose not to, BM-37 would entitle these owners to Smbr ReJ Estate Mulyst _ a - - subdivide and build houses on the land. till SR' 1'ANN III L57 JIFF 1 SUII E NXI ^4 PORTLAND, OREGON v7104 Neighbors donft matter? PA L M E R (503) 226 0983 ext. Tt7 Whether in urban or suburban neighborhoods, or in rural areas, repeal of GROTH & FAX (503) 2734273 zoning for particular property owners has the potential to harm a great number PIETKA INC Rwalke com a of surrounding property owners. BM-37 provides no compensation for r arat IsTIrI Titus r~~~ ' neighboring property owners who are harmed by government decisions to approve otherwise unlawful development. BM-37 provides no recourse to RAMIS adjacent landowners for unanticipated, perhaps irreversible harm. And it sets a CREW double standard for more recent purchasers of nearby lots. CORRIGAN & Tim R"m" Gary Firestone When a property owner seeks to build in violation of zoning, the neighbors BACHRACH, III, tarn emkstaff would be at a disadvantage. BM-37 declares that decisions under these rules - A -TT O C N E Y 5,.~t... including. decisions to allow development in isolation of zoning rather than pay )717N.N; Hoyt 972109 land U. L-, Municipal Irv " Puntand Oregon n 97 compensation" - are not land use decisions. This exempts zoning waivers from and Gt eminent Rclatitxu notice and hearing requirements. The First knowledge a neighbor may have of (303) 111.4401 Fax (503) 143-1944 an apartment building, convenience store, or other development next door r, could be the arrival of the backhoe and construction crew. Satre Associates, P.C. For example, farmers on Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zoned land, like those in 132 East Broadway, suite 536 = Washington County, rely on compatibility of adjacent uses. Farming involves Eugene. Oregon sFaot (541) 4651721 Fax (541) 4654122 dust, spraying, smoke, odor, bird cannons, and other disagreeable effects of - - wwwsalrenc lawful farm practices. Scattershot repeal of EFU zoning in favor of small-acreage nrmau sau..ASLA•Pnub«u SAM residential development would spawn serious conflicts. Moreover, successful Tare I+aare. AICP. Pt-n W-W ASSOCIATES Asm 6-.AI P. Ptaa,ar farms wouldn't be able to expand if neighboring EFU land is suddenly priced for development because of BM-37 "grandfather" rights. Planners, Landscape Ardutects, and Environmentat Spedaasts wsoN•STRATEG)ES•sotunaas Who is sponsoring Ballot Measure 37? 4 Sponsors of this petition, "Oregonians in Action," also sponsored Measure C3WW 7 (M-7) in November 2000. M-7 w•as eventually invalidated by the courts, but BM-37 is significantlY different than Measure 7. `,ti M-7 didn't reach back through generations to define ownership, as BM-37 a DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION DEVELOPMENT CODES does. M-7 was interpreted by the state's Attorney General to require compen- ■ SPECFICPONS sation until the agency ran out of money; only then would government be a DESIGNOUlOELINES able to repeal regulations. In contrast, BNI-37 gives government an immedi- • STREETSCAPENLAU DESiON a PUBLICPARTIGPATION ate, unfettered power to repeal regulations, even if money is available to E,CA%%I8 • compensate. Because of this unbridled discretion and greater retroactivity, ;.y HIMIA122 a E VAL, UDSIUDMAOLCOM 7FAX9.0J5S5M OrePOn Planners Journal t^.• AuRustlSe! ember 2004 t tiM1 +yv D E a! G N I N C. V Y.i BM-37 would generate far more claims than M-7, and would result in the U' V E Y I ; repeal of far more zoning. Although BM-37 claims to offer governments the "choice" to pay or ]et play, it's a false choice. Local governments are struggling to pay for schools, `1' • public safety, and social services. Our farms, our ranches, our neighborhoods f are at stake. n . Bob Stacey, AICP, is the Executive Director of 1000 Friends of Oregon. Westlake consultants,inc Lee 0. Leighton, AICP o- DIRECTOR OF PLANNING fJ, t• EM lleighton@westfakeconsultants.com ~hdad continued from ague 2 PH 503.684.0652 I Fx 503.624.015 = Nr~ 7 °t - . PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING c: peop that obtain power will try to accomplish and the value of human ' is not as 'ghly valued as in other nations. Gregwinterowd & Tim Brooks This a slow process at this neighborhood level. However, the olks are Principals learning t and would enjoy living in country that is less viole an I[ IS U fan C.nnvttiMv oven ent now. M shop owners, restaurateurs, vendors, laborers, an st random speGfiearv PIa folks I chat 'th when I decide it is time to start walking ar d town areN w u N i t T~ t55N Wetlands, Goal s Compliance starting to ell me the same thing. Basically, since Sa left they now are I t s o u I c t De et pmenr Cade Admn5lrat ort allowed to ha satellite television and Internet acces his is showing them S` r t A M N I N 6 1e k lannincom the rest of the ld does not live with the level of verty and violence that: 503.827.4422 www.winterbroop g• they took for gr d existed everywhere; they w t this for themselves. r " X44 +rk ' • " # People are still t ' g shots at us now and a n. Mortars hit our com- tQ.` w~F • i . {RyYi,7-y'N' ` r , pound regularly. No dy has been seriously lured and we continue to do { s our missions every da We are not ]JI an ay safe, but we are certainly t~ healthy and alive. Whe I get a chant write again I will discuss infrastruc--"f ' Y a v ture projects that involve e City M ger functions. Flooded streets with r raw sewage at l20 degrees is just o much fun not to want to share. -ZA t_t} ~•}w , t t;, x Yt ; t'` '`r CaSeS' ~conti d from e 13 sup.' ..it i,_.... m. r.- ^fi t ~ ~ F, ~V~1~~~•C 1 ~1~a.2~ _4 nine acres and had ay the logging corn y. The decision was promptly f isms y. ; appealed to the O on Supreme Court. As this printing, the Supreme Court has not decided ether to hear the case and, it does, a decision is not expected befor ext year. r „ gp sM x s .d For obvio easonst the decision in this case i articularly troubling to text r t r j f^r~ .+t r~=C' + planners. I e decision is upheld - denying a pro owner the right to xj < r t s~3 build on ad~ part of the property is a "taking" - who oes that mean for ti , ~s y~kr{Y" proper a setbacks or wetland protections? The nu er of land use and t'Sr s r~nti ''+r ' build' code regulations that are potentially affected is ensive. Quite apart L t ` {r 5 h ' from a long-term affect the decision could have on the c otter of our •'3r co unities, there is the immediate question of how to am the local code to mply. For an answer to that question, you may want to as lawyer, kris Crean it an Assistant County Attorney in Multnomah County. I a for is a rd year law student at law at Lewis and Clark Law School. t r. Orooon Phnneri tournat L1 Aueustl5eotember 2004 The Mechanics ®f Allot Measure 37 by Stephen T. Janik, Ball Janik, LLP In April 2004, I gave a presentation to the Oregon Association of Realtors describing the challenges that real estate brokers, consultants, and lawyers will have to contend with if Ballot Measure 37 (BM-37) (Initiative 36 in April 2004) is passed. This article is based on that presentation and focuses on the technical aspects of implementing BM-37; for the devil really is in the detail. What Regulations Can Give Rise to a Claim? BM-37 defines "land use regulations" as those including local comprehensive plans and zoning ordi- nances. However, it exempts regulations based on "public health and safety." The troubling interpretation issue is that the early case law supporting zoning was grounded in the protection of public health and safety. For example, in Euclid v. Ambler Really, the original U.S. Supreme Court case upholding modern zoning, the court recognized zoning regulations as a means to implement the protection of public health and safety. The question then arises as to whether or not land use regulations can be re-characterized as regulations that are exempt from BM-37 because they are an expression of the protection of public health and safety. This interpretation will vary, depending upon the nature of the land use regulation. For example, a land use regulation intended to control traffic may be exempt from BM-37 while a regulation requiring design review of commercial structures may not be exempt. BM-37 defines "land use regulations" so as to include "local land division ordinances and state statutes regulating the use of land." The problem is that there are state statutes that govern the division of land and sales of land, which are neither "local land division ordinances" nor "state statutes regulating the use of land." Because the division of land is not the use of land, it is unclear whether these state statutes regarding the division and sale of land are covered by BM-37 or not. What if the current owner is a legal entity such as a corporation or an LLC? BM-37 says that it does not alter constitutional rights, which is a curious statement in that no ballot measure adopting a statute could have any impact on the superior constitutional rights. This statement does, however, express the clear intent that existing U.S. and Oregon constitutional rights will not be affected. Among those constitutional rights are the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and the equal privileges clause of the Oregon Constitution. Under the "equal protection" and the "equal privileges" clauses, legal entities have the right to equal protection and equal privileges as do individuals. Thus, it is highly likely that a legal entity, such as a corporation, that has owned land prior to the enforcement of the existing regulation would be entitled to compensation under BM-37 for the enforcement of that regulation or the government would have to waive the enforcement of the regulation. Another Equal Protection Claim There is an additional equal protection or equal privileges issue that can rise under BM-37. Assume that -there are two identical lots located next to one another. One was recently purchased while the other lot has been owned by the same family for generations. If BM-37 passes, then the owner of the family-owned lot could file a claim because the current zoning (which was not in effect when the current owner's grandfa- ther bought the lot) prohibits commercial development. Assume that in response to that property owner's claim for compensation, the local government elects to waive the prohibition on commercial development so as to enable that lot owner to build a commercial structure. In response, the owner of the recently- purchased identical lot files a lawsuit claiming a violation of equal protection and equal privileges. The argument of that property owner is that there is no valid reason to differentiate between two identical lots based simply upon the duration of ownership. What then ensues is litigation over whether or not duration of ownership is a constitutionally-permissible basis for the unequal treatment of parties that are otherwise identically situated. It is unclear how that litigation may be resolved. Pursing the Claim In order to actually pursue a claim for monetary compensation under BM-37, there are a number of difficult steps that would need to be accomplished. Oregon Planners' Journal 6 Aujust/September 2004 The current property owner would have to prove the requisite ownership by a prior family predecessor or entity. This would have to be based upon court-admissible evidence and documentation. The claimant would then need to prove what regulations were in effect at the time of his predecessor's commencement of ownership and what regulations are now in effect. At first blush, this may not seem to be a difficult challenge. In reality, it is very difficult to determine exactly when certain land use regulations were in effect. The archiving processes of local governments vary substantially. However, even in larger jurisdic- tions such as the City of Portland, it is extremely difficult to determine what were the applicable land use regulations some 50 or 60 years ago. There is no ready index that chronologically includes a comprehensive catalogue of all land use regulations, the date of their enactment, the date of their subsequent amendment and the date of their repeal (if any). The claimant will also have the burden of proving the reduction in the fair market value of the property. It is highly likely that the only way to prove reduction value would be for the property owner to hire an appraiser and even then, there can be considerable dispute about the diminution in value based upon certain types of land use regulations. For example, if a land use regulation limits the height of a commercial building to 3 stories, what is the diminution in value caused by the limitation? To make that determination is necessary to consider the value without the regulation. However, does that consideration mean that you have to consider all conceivable (and potentially uneconomic) building heights that could theoretically be constructed upon the property? In order to initiate a claim, BM-37 requires that the property owner file an "application" so as to trigger the needed "enforcement" of an existing regulation. It is unclear what the application consists of. For example, if property is currently zoned residential and the property owner wants to assert a claim because the residential zoning prohibits commercial use of the property, then what is the application to be submit- ted by the owner? There is no application for approval of a prohibited commercial use in a residential zone. The ultimate application may be an application for a building permit. However, in order to apply for a building permit, the property owner would have to prepare definitive construction level plans and specifications for the proposed commercial development and then submit these and request a building permit for the commercial use. This obviously would involve a considerable amount of expense and effort. In the case of a farmer outside the urban growth boundary who now wants to sell his land to a shopping center developer, it would appear that as a precondition to asserting a claim, the farmer would have to prepare plans and specifications for a shopping center and seek a building permit. In the face of an asserted claim, a local government may elect to pay the reduction in fair market value or waive the regulation. That decision, as well as a determination of the amount of the compensation, would likely be subject to local-level hearings and potential judicial appeals. While BM-37 makes clear that these decisions are not "land use decisions" appealable to the Land Use Board of Appeals, these are likely to be local quasi-judicial decisions that can be appealed to the circuit courts through a writ of review. FFinally, the property owner will bear the burden of proof in any litigation to compel the payment of compensation by the local government. All of the above steps in actually pursuing a claim will involve considerable expense, time, professional consultants, and uncertainty. Certainty in Planning One of the benefits of land use planning is providing a level of predictability for property owners that want to develop their land. BM-37 would diminish that predictability. Take, for example, a situation where someone wanting to purchase a property instructs her real estate broker that she will buy a 2-acre parcel of property but only if she can be assured that there will be no commercial or manufacturing uses within the 10 parcels that are in close proximity to the 2-acre parcel. In order for the broker to give that assurance to his client, after the passage of BM-37, the broker would have to take the following steps: First, the broker would need to determine the ownership of the nearby 10 parcels. For each of the nearby 10 parcels, the broker would need to determine the ownership history and, implicitly, the genealogy of the present owners. In the case of individuals, this would mean tracing back the current owner's genealogy to the current owner's grandparents and determining whether the See MECHANICS, Page 10 1 Men Oregon Planners' Journal .1 August/September 2004 0 • ZONINGPRAC'°I~: 6~eC~1a111CS. continued from page S AMERICAN PUNNING ASSOCMhON grandparent owned an interest in the current owner's property. In the case of a legal entity that owns the property, it would be necessary to determine the t Fos bw, decades, pla"nm who tadde twee land • i Nupmbtemah.,dep.WWMroningNe . genealogy of that legal entity, which may involve determining whether mergers Nine ZwIngNew,ties berAmeZoning ommre- or acquisitions had occurred. more eagoo.g, - comprehensive, and move Mndscn,but still canmined to the same end: Second, if it tums out that any of the current owners had a predecessor who `t h. WM planners use miln%to treat. toin."ties oElastf s.ke. had an ownership interest in the property, then it would be necessary to zon"gPat""°"h"p'qutali part determine the land use regulations in effect at the time the predecessor ac- otyar cammuJty~a•wt®thvjh sokttlaN 's e t' W'""t"Rp R ap!° ° d ° quired the property. Assuming that the broker was resourceful and was able to m free sampl.+ytq.MlRttww',~wIN(aRraa~, a r determine what those regulations were, then the broker would be able to inform y 4 r t the prospective purchaser of the 2-acre parcel of whether or not any of those 10 L i nearby properties were owned at a time when there was no zoning or there was zoning that allowed commercial or manufacturing use on any of those parcels. K cE m zoNINGpN g ki r However, that is not the end of the analysis. The next problem is that the is p E ;r prospective purchaser of the 2-acre parcel will not know whether the local r rr ; i i u government will enforce or waive the current residential-only zoning on the other parcels. That will require that those property owners with potential claims tr^ r t .fs.. under BM-37 submit an application to the local government in order to get the r r• 7MF mot local government to decide whether they will enforce or waive the current t , residential-only zoning. If those property owners do nothing, the prospective buyer of the 2-acre parcel will not know what may be developed on those H~ neighboring parcels. How Does the Waiver of Enforcement Affect Subsequent Owners? BM-37 provides that, when faced with a claim, the local government can either enforce the regulation and a the claim or can waive the enforcement ' of the regulation. The decision to waive the enforcement of the regulation affects the current owner, but its effect upon subsequent owners is unclear. ` Assume that a property owner owns 25 acres and wants to sell that property to s a shopping center developer. The owner's grandfather acquired the property when there was no zoning, and the property is now zoned residential. 1. , Under BM-37, the owner would be entitled to compensation for the seE«e awas tn7dusdszdetb9oiges< NOwas reduction in the value of the property from a shopping center site to a residen- Law tial-only site. Alternatively, the local government could choose to waive the enforcement of the current residential-only zoning. If that occurs, then the Law property owner cannot sell the property to the shopping center developer for e, 4d-to-IM_P =rn._wawnsn.> a development as a shopping center, because the shopping center developer is `1 Our new title reflects the issues that most challenge not protected under BM-37. BM-37 defines the "owner" as the "present r'S plannas and larid-use and ron ef1~ - owner" at the time of application. Thus, if the shopping center developer attorneys. A more accessible fornnat and style snake Q easier to Eind the w«rnau«tyou need to keep t acquires the property and files an application, the shopping center developer is yarn mrnnnuruty, out Of court not protected under BM-37 because he acquired the property after the existing But yo«tN still Eltd the breadth of coverage. t '1 , }aexpert tnmt>&ttary. and ship insights into cuneru zoning regulations were in effect. legal thinking that Lane the Laws[ Zwkv DW A Another issue arises if the property owner develops the shopping center and i realm have depended on since teas. then sells it to the developer once it is completed. The question is whether or re's rc..p p.wetywd nea- ead not the waiver of the land use regulation survives that transfer. Once the owner that received the waiver sells the shopping center, it is no longer the owner using f. mww .Wrrdry{.«dlea^^. -..law rermmoanrw wtm. d e e.. the property. After such a sale, it unclear whether the shopping center becomes ""p'' a non-conforming use, with all of the limitations inherent in that legal status, or a ?t prohibited use, or a legally permitted use. It remains unclear as to how these legal issues will be resolved, and it will be cf L-• '.r' unclear until litigation or legislation resolves these and other issues. T, I Stephen T. janik, Partner, Ball janik, L LP seas " ! Oregon Planners' journal 4 August/September 2004 J 0, dkt*lg A~ pibLiGatrurr of Oregonians In Action Education Center , :11 on land use and property rights ►®®f Measure 7 Ready Gret;ontu~s~l Action nt~~T' ,p y ~ is a, til ls. 1 dt~ e non pro o - nrhsait r By David Hunnicutt; IhS SO.h (~J~ ),~aroora= , ~ taott i~hnll %ndstl Executive Director, «i olnriwy, contr rations Oregonians In Action ; A u. ~r Relief is finally on the way Forbalanced, flexr.ble ~3 - - t t for Oregon property owners. After I and fau land-r regtil~. months of gathering signatures, and ttons;~+rfh aspect said ` ~ thousands of hours of volunteer protci Iron for lht rcblit5"` efforts, the signatures have been of l an owners turned in for Initiative Petition 36, "We are thrilled with the also known as the "Son of response we are getting for the r Measure 7." measure," said Dave Hunnicutt, OIA Executive Director. "The As discussed in previous people gathering signatures for the Ongiiffi m i[ n~I in Lao~ing For'~,or~,aaud_issues of Looking Forward, measure reported that people were y t;~- ~ rr,;cty. Wc woUtd',:: Initiative Petition 36, if approved eager to sign the petition.. We ~prr c~ crcd t w' oa so,=;aRr , by the voters, protects Oregon aren't surprised since Oregon vot- OI Ed ~canan Cei°r, bu[vnll t,a «©c os to ose property owners from changes in ers already approved Measure 7. c b~eci,E a i4on~c-w,st ie wimoat'c dig government regulations adopted Even though the Oregon Supreme after they buy their property. Court invalidated Measure 7, a Currently, property owners have majority of people in this state still virtually no protection from new believe that it is wrong to steal, i regulations adopted after they buy whether it's a thief stealing your their land, even if those changes wallet or the government stealing 1 destroy the value of their property. your property." E continued on page 3 41gV'~ ~p~ ~'1'i' ~[~19+~1".pn "°"tA 'T T'EY'gq 9yk;"j°+°l~pwhf~~"LYM € ~j ~.~nt Yi; ""~j~,ry° ~rV1~k~'/r5f `ij$ 1 1;}'i+h "^vl r+6, V ' A ~y{} Ty py~y ~ 1 ti ~ . 1 t ~ ~ 3 f F~ t 7a ~ `~4'~ ~ ~t ~ ~ JL ~ ~G.4 !s S~.Cp ~ s kt r ~ 1 x~ v } u3~~5...:.t..+6ys,^*~r a`~~+33.a•i•«liNiG."..+P.s=?.~+' `~p"i ~liA;.F,.w ~.:LL[id3;t:, t3:tiGY:-:.~1J~ fir".#:l.L.~c'.'~t".[v"'~~a,':. a,.3,.a i..u., .ti ..«r.sr.w.....sn. Son of Measure 7 Ready for Ballot continued from front page Support for the measure is so strong that it Hunnicutt and the Chief Petitioners for the measure, Dorothy English of Multnomah County and Gene and Barbara Prete of Deschutes County, were able to turn in 146,495 signatures, an all time record for an t„ t h. initiative to amend the Oregon statutes, and nearly twice the amount needed to qualify the measure for thebaliot. The amount of signatures needed to qualify the measure is 75,630. "We wanted to send a message to those who would regulate us out of our homes and businesses," said Hunnicutt. "If you're going to take property from y- _ a family or business, you have to be willing to treat that property owner fairly. I think we got our point `s H `P. across." Gene Prete, Barbara Prete, Dorothy English "Foday, there is a feeling among the citizens and Dave Hunnicutt at the State Capitol. in this state that regulations have gone too far, and thatpeople aren'tbeing treated fairly," said Hunnicutt. different initiatives for the ballot," continued "Our polling shows that most Oregonians have either Hunnicutt. "But because we were able to turn in been victims ofexcessive property regulation, orknow almost twice the number of signatures we needed, I someone who has been victimized Once people have think we'll make it." been mistreated, or know a friend or relative who has, their reaction is always the same - we need help, Assuming the measure qualifies for the and we need it now." Novemberballot, the attention now shifts to the media campaign to pass the measure. "In 2000, we were Although the signatures have been turned in, outspent by a 10 to 1 ratio, yet still managed to pass the Secretary of State has yet to verify the signatures Measure 7. We expect to be outspent again this and certify the measure for the ballot. That process year, but it doesn't seem to matter how much money has commenced, and must be finished by August 1. is spent by the opponents to confuse the voters, people "With all of the other campaigns turning in their are able to see through the smoke and mirrors and signatures at about the same time we did, the state understandthatas afundamentalprinciple, itis simply Elections Division is working hard to verify all of the wrong to take property without compensation." `hut property nhls pie note aigbt5 of property;: they are thenghts'of humans with regard tc prope~rty, T'ney`area'phcu~arkind of hurnart right." - Da' Vid Fries mbn, M ofessor Of ]L W Santa Clara university „3° - _,•r-+ .•-t- _'..:'r f.r.._ r d r,• 7f ,fir, W,94 3 s.. Entered into the Record on q121114* /I 1,;q A /i By: Agenda Item# Exhibit FY 2004-05 BUDGET AMENDMENT SUMMARY 1. Budget Amendment #1- Approved This amendment was approved on July 13, 2004 in the amount of $371,482. This amendment increased appropriations for SEW and Management staff for COLA's, insurance adjustments, and to implement the City's participation in VEBA accounts for said staff. It also includes additional appropriations in the City Management Division to cover unanticipated personnel costs due to an extended leave of absence by an existing staff member. 2. Budget Amendment #2 - Scheduled for October 12, 2004 This amendment is for the acceptance of a US Department of Justice grant in the amount of $23,467 for the "DARE to be GREAT" summer camps. The expenditures for the camp were already included in the FY 2004-05 Adopted Budget. The grant funds will be used to pay for the costs of the camp instead of other General Fund revenues. 3. Budget Amendment #3 - Scheduled for October 12, 2004 The City has applied for grant from the US Department of Domestic Preparedness to fund certain communication devices. The City has received notice that the grant request has been tentatively approved in the amount of $164,958. The grant documents have not yet been finalized. The grant is a reimbursable grant, which means the City must first expend its own resources on the approved items and then seek reimbursement. The grant budget shows the following expenditures: $58,800 for twenty 800mhz Motorola "SmartZone" portable radios o $2,805 for twenty rapid single unit desktop charger o $1,870 for twenty spare portable radio 7.5v battery o $1,483 for twenty remote speaker mic o $100,000 for ten mobile data computers (MDC), including mounts These expenditures were not included in the FY 2004-05 Adopted Budget, so the budget amendment will increase both revenues and expenditures in the General Fund. 4. Budget Amendment #4 - Scheduled for October 12, 2004 This amendment may be rolled into Amendment 0. It is for purchase of the mobile data computers (MDC). The City needs to replace all Mobile Data Terminals in Police cars with encrypted devices before July 2005. Funding will be provided in part by the US Domestic Preparedness Grant, but total costs are still being researched. This project was known while the FY 2004-05 Budget was under development, but it was not included because total costs were not known and the City did not want to preclude possible grant funding. 5. Budget Amendment #5 - Pending This amendment will be for the additional costs associated with the Permit Center remodel. The amount is unknown at this time. The additional costs are due to unanticipated electric problems that resulted in the burning of the electrical fuse panel, move costs, and additional required repairs. Attachment 1 Summary of Changes by Department/Division COLA, City Mgmt Insurance, Temporary Total Budget Unit Number etc. Staff Adjustment Police Administration 1110 $8,963 $0 $8,963 Police Operations 1120 27,563 0 27,563 Police Support Services 1130 14,047 0 14,047 Total Police $50,573 $0 $50,573 Library Administration 1410 $10,259 $0 $10,259 Reader' Services 1420 10,641 0 10,641 Technical Services 1430 7,078 0 7,078 Circulation 1440 11,243 0 11,243 Total Library $39,221 $0 $39,221 Public Works Administration 2110 $16,348 $0 $16,348 Sanitary Sewer 2120 8,192 0 8,192 Storm Sewer 2130 9,896 0 9,896 Street Maintenance 2140 9,766 0 9,766 Fleet Maintenance 2150 3,311 0 3,311 Property Management 2160 4,042 0 4,042 Parks and Grounds 1600 12,594 0 12,594 Water 2170 17,758 0 17,758 Total Public Works $81,907 $0 $81,907 Community Development Administration 2210 $5,510 $0 $5,510 Building Inspection 2220 23,495 0 23,495 Current Planning 2230 12,787 0 12,787 Long Range Planning 2240 7,572 0 7,572 Total Community Development $49,364 $0 $49,364 Engineering 2250 $28,503 $0 $28,503 Total Engineering $28,503 $0 $28,503 City Management 3120 $17,805 $45,900 $63,705 Information Technology 3140 12,853 0 12,853 Human Resources 3130 10,800 0 10,800 Risk Management 3150 2,817 0 2,817 Total City Administration $44,275 $45,900 $90,175 Finance Administration 3210 $8,948 $0 $8,948 Financial Operations 3230 11,636 0 11,636 Office Services 3320 7,584 0 7,584 Municipal Court 3340 3,571 0 3,571 Total Finance $31,739 $0 $31,739 Total Citywide $325,582 $45,900 $371,482 AGENDA ITEM # 3 FOR AGENDA OF 9/21/04 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Parks System Development Charge Update on Revision of Methodology and Rates PREPARED Dan Plaza, 2590 DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OKzg2ef:~- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council will hear a presentation on the process to update the current Park SDC Methodology and Rates STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the public release of the "draft" SDC methodology which starts the process for a public hearing in November. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard's Parks SDC methodology must be updated in order to comply with new requirements adopted into law during the 2003 legislative session. Changes to the Oregon SDC Act [ORS 223.297 - 223.314] now require that improvement fee SDC methodologies consider the projected cost of specific capital improvements identified in an adopted plan and list of capital improvements needed to increase system capacity. The methodology used for the City's current Parks SDC was developed using standards for levels of service, rather than a specific list planned of capital improvements. The City adopted the current Park System Master Plan (Master Plan) in March 1999 [Resolution 99-16], but specifically excluded adoption of the "Capital Improvement Plan" included in that Master Plan pending consideration "at a later time in conjunction with potential revisions to the City park system development charge fee structure" Projects identified in the Master Plan have been reviewed, updated, and combined with additional projects included in the "Bull Mountain White Paper on Parks and Open Spaces" to develop a Park System Capacity Improvements Plan. An updated Parks SDC methodology has been drafted based on the Park System Capacity Improvements Plan. DRS 223.304(7)(a) requires that written notice must be mailed to persons who have requested notification at least 90 days prior to the first public hearing to establish or modify a system development charge, and the methodology must be available for review at least 60 days prior to the first public hearing. A public hearing has been scheduled for November 23, 2004, and notice has been sent to persons requesting notification (e.g., the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland) informing them of this public hearing. A draft methodology must be available for public review by September 24, 2004. Following City Council review at the September 21, 2004 work session, the draft methodology will be made available for public review and comment until the scheduled public hearing on November 23, 2004. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED n/a VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" Council Visioning Process - Urban and Public Services - Goal 1, Strategy 1- Acquire and Develop Parkland ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1- Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Methodology Update Revised Draft 913/04 FISCAL NOTES n/a 17 iL CITY OF TIGARD PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES METHODOLOGY UPDATE REVISED DRAFT as of September 4, 2004 Don Caner PO Box 91491 Portland. OR 97291. 503.690.8981 • DGaner@GanerAssociates.com Associates, Inc. CONVENTS page 1,0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 AUTHORITY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2 A. Legislative Authority 2 B. "Improvement fee" and "Reimbursement fee" SDCs 2 C. Requirements and Options for Credits, Exemptions, and Discounts 3 D. Alternative Methodology Approaches 4 3.0 PARKS AND RECREATION SDC METHODOLOGY 5 A. Population and Employment Growth 6 B. Persons Per Dwelling Unit 6 C. Benefit of Facilities 7 D. Facility Needs 10 E. New Facility Costs 11 F. Compliance/Administrative Costs 12 4.0 RESIDENTIAL PARKS AND RECREATION SDC RATES 13 A. Formula 4a: Net Residential SDC-Eligible Costs 13 A. Formula 4b: Residential Improvements Cost Per Capita 14 C. Formula 4c: Residential Improvements Cost Per Dwelling Unit 14 D. Formula 4d: Residential SDC Tax Credit Per Dwelling Unit 15 E. Formula 4e: Residential SDC Per Dwelling Unit 16 5.0 NON-RESIDENTIAL SDC RATES 17 A. Formula 5a: Net Non-Residential SDC-Eligible Costs 17 B. Formula 5b: Non-Residential Improvements Cost Per Employee 18 C. Formula 5c: Non-Residential Tax Credit Per Employee 18 D. Formula 5d: Non-Residential SDC Per Employee 19 6.0 ANNUAL RATE ADJUSTMENTS 20 APPENDIX A: SDC Parks Capacity Improvements Program APPENDIX B: Parks SDC Rates in Washington County APPENDIX C: Parks SDC Update Calendar TABLES page TABLE 3.1: Projected Population and Employment Increases From 6 New Development (2003 - 2008) TABLE 3.2: Average Persons Per Dwelling Unit 7 TABLE 3.3: Estimates of Average Daily Availability 8 of Parks and Recreation Facilities TABLE 3.4: Total Annual Availability of Parks 9 and Recreation Facilities TABLE 3.5: Total Residence and Non-Resident Employment Related 9 Availability of Parks and Recreation Facilities TABLE 3.6: Non Resident Employee-To-Resident Parks Demand Ratio 10 TABLE 3.7: Facility Needs for Population and Employment Growth and Deficiency Repair 10 TABLE 3.8: Residential and Non-Residential Growth-Required New Facility Costs 11 TABLE 3.9: Compliance/Administrative Cost Allocations 12 TABLE 4.1: Net Residential SDC-Eligible Costs 13 TABLE 4.2: Residential Improvements Cost Per Capita 14 TABLE 4.3: Residential Improvements Cost Per Dwelling Unit 15 TABLE 4.4: Tax Credit Per Dwelling Unit 16 TABLE 4.5: Residential SDC Per Dwelling Unit 16 TABLE 5.1: Net Non-Residential SDC-Eligible Costs 17 TABLE 5.2: Non-Residential Improvements Cost Per Employee 18 TABLE 5.3: Tax Credit Per Employee 19 TABLE 5.4: Non-Residential SDC Per Employee 19 TABLE 5.5: Square Feet Per Employee 20 CITY OF TIGAID Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Methodology Update 1.0 INTRODUCTION System Development Charges (SDCs) are one-time fees charged to new development to help pay a portion of the costs associated with building capital facilities to meet needs created by growth. SDCs are authorized for five types of capital facilities including transportation, water, sewer, stormwater, and parks and recreation. The City of Tigard adopted the current parks and recreation SDCs methodology in 1996, and last updated the parks SDCs in March 2001. In July 2004, the City engaged Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. to update the City's Parks and Recreation SDC methodology to reflect an updated Parks Capacity Improvements Program including selected needs identified in the Tigard Park System Master Plan (July 1999) and in the Bull Mountain Annexation White Paper on Parks and Open Spaces (May 28, 2004). Section 2.0 of this report presents authority and background information including (1) legislative authority for SDCs; (2) an explanation of "improvement fee" and "reimbursement fee" SDCs; (3) requirements and options for credits, exemptions and discounts; and (4) alternative methodology approaches. Section 3.0 presents the methodology used to update the Parks and Recreation SDCs, section 4.0 presents the calculation of Residential Parks and Recreation SDC Rates, section 5.0 presents the calculation of Non-Residential Parks and Recreation SDC Rates, and section 6.0 discusses annual adjustment of the SDC rates. The Parks and Recreation SDC Parks Capacity Improvements Program (PCIP) listing of projects that may be funded with SDC revenues is included as Appendix A to this report. Don Ganer & Associates, inc. I REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 M- 2.0 AUTHORITY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. Legislative Authority The source of authority for the adoption of SDCs is found both in state statute and the City's own plenary authority to adopt this type of fee. While SDCs have been in use in Oregon since the mid-1970's, State legislation regarding SDCs was not adopted until 1989, when the Oregon Systems Development Act (ORS 223.297 - 223.314) was passed. The purpose of this Act was to "..provide a uniform framework for the imposition of system development charges..". Additions and modifications to the Oregon Systems Development Act have been made in 1993, 1999, 2001, and 2003. Together, these pieces of legislation require local governments who enact SDCs to: • adopt SDCs by ordinance or resolution; • develop a methodology outlining how the SDCs were developed; • adopt a capital improvements program to designate capital improvements that can be funded with "improvement fee" SDC revenues; • provide credit against the amount of the SDC for the construction of certain "qualified public improvements"; • separately account for and report receipt and expenditure of SDC revenues, and develop procedures for challenging expenditures; and • use SDC revenues only for capital expenditures (operations and maintenance uses are prohibited). B. "Improvement fee" and "Reimbursement fee" SDCs The Oregon Systems Development Act provides for the imposition of two types of SDCs: (1) "improvement fee" SDCs, and (2) "reimbursement fee" SDCs. "Improvement fee" SDCs may be charged for new capital improvements that will increase capacity. Revenues from "improvement fee" SDCs may be spent only on capacity-increasing capital improvements identified in the required capital improvements program that lists each project, and the expected timing, cost, and growth-required percentage of each project. "Reimbursement fee" SDCs may be charged for the costs of existing capital facilities if "excess capacity" is available to accommodate growth. Revenues from "reimbursement fees" may be used on any capital improvement project, including major repairs, upgrades, or renovations. Capital improvements funded with "reimbursement fee" SDCs do not need to increase capacity, but they must be included in the list of projects to be funded with SDC revenues. Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 2 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 C. Requirements and Options for Credits, Exemptions, and Discounts 1 Credits A credit is a reduction in the amount of the SDC for a specific development. The Oregon SDC Act requires that credit be allowed for the construction of a "qualified public improvement" which (1) is required as a condition of development approval, (2) is identified in the City's capital improvements program, and (3) either is not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval, or is located on or contiguous to such property and is required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project. The credit for a qualified public improvement may only be applied against an SDC for the same type of improvement (e.g., a parks and recreation improvement can only be used for a credit for a parks and recreation SDC), and may be granted only for the cost of that portion of an improvement which exceeds the minimum standard facility size or capacity needed to serve the particular project. For multi-phase projects, any excess credit may be applied against that accrue in subsequent phases of the original development project. In addition to these required credits, the City may, if it so chooses, provide a greater credit, establish a system providing for the transferability of credits, provide a credit for a capital improvement not identified in the City's capital improvements program, or provide a share of the cost of an improvement by other means. (2 Exemptions The City may "exempt" certain types of development, such as "non-residential development" from the requirement to pay parks SDCs. Exemptions reduce SDC revenues and, therefore, increase the amounts that must come from other sources, such as bonds and property taxes. Don Ganer,& Associates, Inc. 3 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 (3) Discounts The City may "discount" the amount of the SDC by reducing the portion of growth-required improvements to be funded with SDCs. A discount in the SDC may also be applied on a pro-rata basis to any identified deficiencies to be funded from non-SDC sources. For example, the City may decide to charge new development an SDC rate sufficient to pay for some types of facilities but not for others (i.e., neighborhood parks but not trails, etc.), or to pay only a percentage (i.e., 80%, 50%, etc.) of identified growth-required costs. The portion of growth- required costs to be funded with SDCs must be identified in the City's capital improvements program. Because discounts reduce SDC revenues, they increase the amounts that must come from other sources, such as bonds or general fund contributions, in order to achieve or maintain adopted levels of service. D. Alternative Methodology Approaches There are three basic approaches used to develop improvement fee SDCs; "standards-driven", "improvements-driven", and "combination/hybrid". (1) Standards-Driven Approach The "standards-driven" approach is based on the application of Level of Service (LOS) Standards for facilities such as neighborhood parks, community parks, etc. Facility needs are determined by applying the LOS Standards to projected future population and employment, as applicable. SDC-eligible amounts are calculated based on the costs of facilities needed to serve growth. This approach works best where current and planned levels of service have been identified but no specific list of projects is available. Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 4 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 I Jill 1 11'' (2) improvements-Driven Approach The "improvements-driven" approach is based on a specific list of planned capacity-increasing capital improvements. The portion of each project that is attributable to growth is determined, and the SDC-eligible costs are calculated by dividing the total costs of growth-required projects by the projected increase in population and employment, as applicable. This approach works best where a detailed master plan or project list is available and the benefits of projects can be readily apportioned between growth and current users. Combination/Hybrid Approach The combination/hybrid-approach includes elements of both the "improvements- driven" and "standards-driven" approaches. Level of Service standards may be used to create a list of planned capacity-increasing projects, and the growth- required portions of projects can then be used as the basis for determining SDC- eligible costs. This approach works best where Levels of Service have been identified and the benefits of individual projects are not easily apportioned between growth and current users. 3.0 PARKS AND RECREATION SDC METHODOLOGY The Improvements-Driven approach has been used to develop the updated Parks and Recreation SDC methodology. The Tigard Park System Master Plan (July 1999) and the Bull Mountain Annexation White Paper on Parks and Open Spaces (May 28, 2004) identify projects designed to repair deficiencies and address growth needs within the City's urban services planning area. The SDC Parks Capacity Improvements Program (Appendix A) includes these projects and identifies the growth-required portion (if any), the estimated timing, and the estimated cost of each project. Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 5 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 Parks and recreation facilities benefit City residents, businesses, non-resident employees, and visitors. The methodology used to update the City's Parks and Recreation SDCs establishes the required connection between the demands of growth and the SDC by identifying specific types of parks and recreation facilities and analyzing the proportionate need of each type of facility for use by residents and employees. The SDCs to be paid by a development meet statutory requirements because they are based on the nature of the development and the extent of the impact of the development on the types of parks and recreation facilities for which they are charged. The Parks and Recreation SDCs are based on population and employment, and the SDC rates are calculated based on the specific impact a development is expected to have on the City's population and employment. For facilities that are not generally used by employees (e.g., neighborhood parks), only a residential parks and recreation SDC may be charged. For facilities that benefit both residents and employees (i.e., community parks, etc.), parks and recreation SDCs may be charged for both residential and non-residential development. A. Population and Employment Growth The Parks and Recreation SDCs are based on costs per "capita" (person). Estimates of current and projected population and employment within the Tigard urban services planning area were calculated using data from Metro and the Population Research Center at Portland State University. TABLE 3.1 PROJECTED POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT INCREASES FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT (2003 - 2008) Estimated = 2008 (Projected) 2003 Proiected Increase Population: 58,367 - 53,099 = 5,268 Employment: 41,575 - 38.441 = 3,134 B. Persons Per Dwelling Unit The Residential Parks and Recreation SDC rates are based on costs per capita and are calculated based on the number of persons per dwelling unit. Dwelling units typically house different numbers of persons depending on the type of unit (i.e., single family, multi-family, etc.). To determine the appropriate number of persons per dwelling unit, official U.S. Census data gathered in 2000 was analyzed, and the resulting calculations are displayed in Table 3.2, page 7. Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 6 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 TABLE 3.2 AVERAGE PERSONS PER DWELLING UNIT 2000 Census Avg. Persons Type of Unit Per Dwelling Unit Single-Family 2.67 Multi-Family 1.86 Manufactured Housing 1.81 C. Benefit of Facilities Facility needs must consider the proportionate benefit each type of facility has for residents and employees. A resident is any person whose place of residence is within the Tigard urban services area. An employee is any person who receives remuneration for services, and whose services are directed and controlled either by the employee (self-employed) or by another person or organization. The parks and recreation facilities discussed in this report are defined in the Tigard Park System Master Plan (July 1999). For purposes of this report, neighborhood parks are considered to be used primarily by residents, rather than by employees and other non- residents, and; therefore, the identified needs for these types of facilities are based only on population and do not consider employment. For all other facilities including community parks, linear parks, etc., both population and employment were considered when identifying facility needs. While parks and recreation facilities benefit both residents and employees, the amount of time these facilities are available for use by employees is not the same as for residents; an employee does not create demands for facilities equal to those created by a resident. In order to equitably apportion the need for facilities between employees and residents, an employee-to-resident demand ratio was developed based on the potential time these facilities are available for use. First, estimates for the average number of hours per day these facilities are available for use were identified. Children's ages, adult employment status, work location (inside or outside the City), and seasonal variances were taken into account and are displayed in Table 3.3, page 8. Don Ganer & Associates. Inc. 7 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 TABLE 3.3 ESTIMATES OF AVERAGE DAILY AVAILABILITY OF PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES Non-Employed Live In/ Live In( Live Out/ Adult 18+ 5-17 Kids Work In Work Out Work In Total Summer (June-Sept) Weekday Before Work 1 1 2 Meals/Breaks 1 1 2 After Work 2 2 4 Other Leisure 12 12 2 2 28 Sub-Total 12 12 6 2 4 36 Weekend Leisure 12 12 12 12 0 48 Sub-Total 12 12 12 12 0 48 Summer Hrs/Day 12 12 7.71 4.86 2.86 39.43 Spring/Fall (April-May, Oct-Nov) Weekday Before Work 0.5 0.5 1 Meals/Breaks 1 1 2 After Work 1 1 2 Other Leisure 10 4 2 2 18 Sub-Total 10 4 4.5 2 2.5 23 Weekend Leisure 10 10 10 10 0 40 Sub-Total 10 10 10 10 0 40 Spring/Fall Hours/Day 10 5.71 6.07 4.29 1.79 27.86 Winter (December-March) Weekda Before Work 0.5 0.5 1 Meals/Breaks 1 1 2 After Work 0.5 0.5 1 Other Leisure 8 2 1 1 12 Sub-Total 8 2 3 1 2 16 Weekend Leisure 8 8 8 8 0 32 Sub-Total 8 8 8 8 0 32 WinterHours/Day 8 3.71 4.43 3 1.43 20.57 Annual Weighted Avg. Hours 10 7.14 6.07 4.05 2.02 29.29 The Annual Weighted Average Hours of availability was calculated for each category of residents and employees using the following formula`. (Summer Hours/Day X 3 [months] + Spring/Fall Hours/Day X 6 + Winter Hours/Day X3)/12 Don Garter & Associates, Inc. 8 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 Next, the Annual Weighted Average Hours (from Table 3.3, page 8) were applied to population and employment data (2000 Census) to determine the Total Annual Weighted Average Hours for each category of Resident and Employee. The results are displayed in Table 3.4. TABLE 3.4 TOTAL ANNUAL AVAILABILITY OF PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES Non-Employed Live In/ Live In/ Live Out/ Adult 18+ 5-17 Kids Work In Work Out Work In Total 65,411 Population & Employment Data 9,140 7,270 5,798 15,821 27,382 (2000 Census) Annual Weighted Avg. Hours 10 LI4 6.07 4.05 2.02 29.29 Tot. Annual Weighted Avg. Hrs. 91,400 51,929 35,202 64,037 55,416 297,984 Next, the available hours (from Table 3.4) were allocated between resident hours and non- resident employment hours, as displayed in Table 3.5. TABLE 3.5 TOTAL RESIDENCE AND NON-RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT RELATED AVAILABILITY-OF PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES Hours %ofTotal Resident Non-Employed Adult 91,400 5-17 Kids 51,929 Live In/Work In 35,202 Live In/Work Out 64.037 sub-total 242,568 81.40% Non-Resident 18.60% Non-Resident Employee 55,416 Finally, the Non-Resident Employee to Resident Parks Demand Ratio was calculated by dividing the total of non-resident employment hours by the total for resident hours (from Table 3.5), with results summarized in Table 3.6, page 10. Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 9 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04104 TABLE 3.6 NON RESIDENT EMPLOYEE-TO-RESIDENT PARKS DEMAND RATIO Weighted Average Weighted Average Non-Resident Hours/Non-Resident Weighted Average Employment % Employment Hours/Residents to Resident Demand 55,416 - 242,568 = 22.8% D. Facility Needs The Tigard Park System Master Plan (July 1999) included a 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (Table 11) that was not adopted by the City, pending updating the SDC Methodology. The Master Plan also included a recommended Level of Service (LOS) standard of 11.0 acres per 1,000 persons that was not adopted, but instead is "viewed by the Council as a visionary goal or ideal standard". The facility needs identified in the "Bull Mountain Annexation White Paper on Parks and Open Spaces" have been combined with major needs included in the Master Plan to develop the Parks Capacity Improvements Program included as Appendix A to this report. Table 3.7, below, presents a summary of facility needs through the year 2008, both for growth and to repair deficiencies for current residents and employees. The "Current Need" is the proportionate share needed to provide facilities to current residents and employees (if applicable) at the levels of service planned for the year 2008. The "Growth Need" is the proportionate share needed to provide facilities to future residents and employees (if applicable) at the planned levels of service for 2008. TABLE 3.7 FACILITY NEEDS FOR POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH AND DEFICIENCY REPAIR Current Current Surplus or 2008 Growth Facility Type Invento Need (Deficiency) Need Need Neighborhood Parks (acres) 19.06 36.21 (17.15) 39.80 3.59 Community Parks (acres) 102.87 112.03 (9.16) 122.87 10.84 Greenways (acres) 173.00 201.05 (28.06) 220.50 19.44 Linear Parks (acres) 52.22 50.14 2.08 55.00 2.78 Trails (miles) 8.00 11.95 (3.95) 13.11 1.16 There are deficiencies in the number of acres of Neighborhood Parks, Community Parks, and Greenways; and in the miles of Trails available to serve current residents and employees. Improvement fee SDC revenues must be used only for growth needs, and may not be used to remedy deficiencies. Alternative non-SDC revenues must be used to repair deficiencies. Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 10 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 E. New Facility Costs The SDC Parks Capacity Improvements Program (PCIP), included as Appendix A, identifies new facilities needed to serve parks and recreation needs of the City through the year 2008. Table 3.8, below, shows a breakout of residential and non-residential share of costs for these new facilities. Because employees need fewer facilities than those required for a resident, the residential share of growth costs is 88.1% of the total for those facilities which benefit both residential and non-residential development (i.e., community parks, linear parks, etc.), and 100% for those facilities which benefit residential development only (e.g., neighborhood parks). TABLE 3.8 RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL GROWTH-REQUIRED NEW FACILITY COSTS Cost Per Total New New Facility Residential Non-Residential Facility Unit Facility Costs Growth Costs Growth Costs Growth Costs Neighborhood Parks (acres)* $420,000 $8,710,800 $1,508,220 $1,508,220 $ 580,482 Community Parks (acres)** 450,000 9,000,000 4,878,000 4,297,518 323,870 Greenways (acres)*** 140,000 6,650,000 2,721,600 2,397,730 71,781 Linear Parks (acres)# 240,000 667,200 603,200 531,419 79.397 Trails (miles)## 520,000 3,193,750 725.000 587.803 Totals $27,685,200 $10,378,220 $9,322,690 $1,055,530 89.8% 10.2% Percentage of Growth Costs * Neighborhood Parks are considered to benefit residential population only; cost per unit is based on land at $250,000 per acre and development at $170,000 per acre. Land cost estimate is based on a review of recent similar acquisitions by the cities of Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin and Hillsboro, and by the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District. Community Parks cost is based on $250,000 per acre for acquisition and $200,000 for development. Lan cost estimate is based on a review of recent similar acquisitions by the cities of Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin and Hillsboro, and by the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District. Greenways cost of $140,000 per acres is based on a review of recent similar acquisitions by the cities of Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin and Hillsboro, and by the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District. # Linear Parks cost is based on $140,000 per acres for acquisition and $100,000 per acre for development. Trails costs include land acquisition at approximately $70,000 per mile (1/2 acre per mile), and development at $450,000 per mile. Land cost estimate is based on a review of recent similar acquisitions by the cities of Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin and Hillsboro, and by the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District. i- l . I I REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. F. CompliancelAdministrative Costs of the s an ay recoup The City incurs costs in the development and administration Compliance/administrative costs portion of those costs in accordance with ORS 223.307(5). during the 5-year collection period have been estimated as follows: 100,000 for consulting and staff services) $100,000 Master Plan Update ($100, Annual PCIP Management, Accounting and Reporting Costs (approximately $10,000 per year for consulting, legal, audit, financial reporting and $50,000 staff services) 000 SDC Methodology Reviews and Update $1 $ 155,,000 Total Estimated 5-year Compliance/Administrative Costs These costs are allocated between opl1 and are shown in Table 3 based on the growth share percentages included in Table 3.8, page TABLE 3.9 COMPLIANCE/ADMINISTRATIVE COST ALLOCATIONS Estimated 5-year Compliance/ Share of Compliance/ Administrative Type of Development Growth Costs Administrative Costs Cost Allocation Population (Residential) 89.8% $165,000 $148,218 $165,000 $16,782 Employment (Non-residential) 10.2% 12 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 Don Garter & Associates, Inc. 4.0 RESIDENTIAL PARKS AND RECREATION SDC RATES The City's Residential Parks and Recreation SDC rates are calculated using a series of sequential formulas which, when completed, yield the total SDC rates for each new dwelling unit in the City. The formulas identify: a) the net residential SDC-eligible costs (Formula 4a, below) a) the residential improvements cost per capita (Formula 4b, page 14), a) the residential improvements cost per dwelling unit (Formula 4c, page 14), a) the residential SDC tax credit per dwelling unit (Formula 4d, page 15), and a) the residential SDC per dwelling unit (Formula 4e, page 16). The Residential SDC rate is an "improvement fee" only, and does not include a "reimbursement fee" component. A. Formula 4a: Net Residential SDC Eligible Costs The net residential SDC-eligible costs are calculated by adding the residential portion of growth- required improvements cost (identified in Table 3.8, page 11) and Compliance/Administrative Costs (Table 3.9, page 12). Residential Compliance/ Net Residential 4a. New Facility + Administrative = SDC - Eligible Costs Costs Costs Table 4.1 presents the calculation of the net total SDC-eligible costs. _ TABLE 4.1 NET RESIDENTIAL SDC-ELIGIBLE COSTS Residential SDC Eligible Costs Growth-Required Facilities $9,322,690 PLUS: Compliance/Administrative Costs 14$ 8.218 EQUALS: Total Growth-Required Costs $9,470,908 Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 13 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 B. Formula 4b: Residential Improvements Cost Per Capita The residential improvements cost per capita is calculated by dividing the net residential SDC- eligible portion of growth-required improvements cost (identified in Table 4.1, page 13) by the increase in the City's population expected to be created by new development through 2008 (from Table 33, page 6). Net Residential Residential 4b. SDC-Eligible - Population = Improvements Cost Costs Increase Per Capita Table 4.2 presents the calculation of the facilities cost per capita. TABLE 4.2 RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS COST PER CAPITA Residential Residential SDC Population Improvements Cost Eligible Costs Increase Per Capita Net Residential SDC-Eligible Costs $9,470,908 - 5,268 $1,798 C. Formula 4cr Residential Improvements Cost Per Dwelling Unit The residential improvements cost per dwelling unit is calculated by multiplying the average number of persons per dwelling unit (from Table 3.2, page 7) by the residential improvements cost per capita (from Table 4.2, above). Residential Residential 4c. Persons Per x Improvements Cost = Improvements Cost Per Dwelling Unit Per Capita Dwelling Unit The results of these calculations are displayed in Table 4.3, page 15. x 1 Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 14 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 TABLE 4.3 RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS COST PER DWELLING UNIT Average Total Residential Persons Per X Residential Cost = Improvements Cost Type of Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Per Capita Per Dwelling Unit Single-Family: 2.67 $1,798 $4,800 Multi-Family: 1.86 $1,798 $3,344 Manufactured Housing: 1.81 $1,798 $3,254 D. Formula 4d: Residential SDC Tax Credi' Per Dwelling Unit Debt instruments will likely be used as a future source for funding capacity improvements. A portion of funds used to repay these debts may come from property taxes paid by growth. A tax credit has been calculated to account for potential payments in order to avoid charging growth twice; once through the SDC, and a second time through property taxes. A credit has been calculated for each type of dwelling unit using the following assumptions: • $17.5M in 20 year G.O. bonds at 5.5 $3.5M to be issued in 2007, • 6.0% average annual increase in total City property valuation for taxes, 3.0% annual increase in assessed property valuations, • 3.0% annual inflation (decrease in value of money), • Average 2003 property valuations for new construction at $250,000 for single family, $60,000 for multi-family, and $85,000 for manufactured housing units ($75,000 for unit, $10,000 for lot) Present Value SDC Tax 4d. of Future Property = Credit Per Tax Payments Dwelling Unit The amounts of these credits are shown in Table 4.4, page 16. Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 15 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 TABLE 4.4 TAX CREDIT PER DWELLING UNIT Tax Credit Per Type of Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Single-Family: $907 Multi-Family: $218 Manufactured Housing: $171 E. Formula 4e: Residential SDC Per Dwelling Unit The residential SDC rate per dwelling unit is calculated by subtracting the tax credit per dwelling unit (Table 4.4, above) from the residential improvements cost per dwelling unit (Table 4.3, page 15). Residential SDC Tax Residential 4e. Improvements Cost - Credit Per SDC Per Per Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit The results of these calculations are shown in Table 4.5, below. TABLE 4.5 RESIDENTIAL SDC PER DWELLING UNIT Residential SDC Tax Residential Improvements Cost - Credit Per = SDC Per Type of Dwelling Unit Per Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Single-Family: $4,800 $907 $3,893 Multi-Family: $3,344 $218 $3,126 Manufactured Housing: $3,254 $171 $3,083 Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 16 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 5.0 NON-RESIDENTIAL SDC RATES The City's Non-Residential Parks and Recreation SDC rates are calculated using a series of sequential formulas which, when completed, yield the total SDC rates for each new employee added by new development in the City. The formulas identify: a) the Non-Residential Improvements Cost Per Employee (Formula 5a, below), a) the Tax Credit Per Employee (Formula 5b, page 18); and a) the Non-Residential SDC Per Employee (Formula 5c, page 18). The Non-Residential SDC rates is an "improvement fee" only and does not include a "reimbursement fee" component. The SDC rates are based on costs required for and benefits received by new development only, and do not assume that costs are necessarily incurred for capital improvements when an employer hires an additional employee. A. Formula 5a: Net Non-Residential SDC Eligible Costs The net non-residential SDC-eligible costs are calculated by adding the non-residential portion of growth-required improvements cost (identified in Table 3.8, page 11) and Compliance/Administrative Costs (Table 3.9, page 12). Non-Residential Compliance/ Net Non-Residential 5a. New Facility + Administrative = SDC - Eligible Costs Costs Costs Table 5.1 presents the calculation of the net total SDC-eligible costs. TABLE 5.1 NET RESIDENTIAL SDC-ELIGIBLE COSTS Non-Residential SDC Eligible Costs Growth-Required Facilities $1,055,530 PLUS: Compliance/Administrative Costs 1$ 6.782 EQUALS: Total Growth-Required Costs $1,072,312 Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 17 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 B. Formula Sb: Non-Residential Improvements Cost Per Employee The Non-Residential Improvements Cost Per Employee is calculated by dividing the net non- residential SDC-eligible costs (from Table 5.1, page 17) by the increase in the City's employment expected to be created by new development through 2008 (from Table 3. 1, page 6). Net Non-Residential Employment Non-Residential 5b. SDC-Eligible Increase From = Improvements Cost Costs Development Per Employee Table 5.2 presents the calculation of the Non-Residential Improvements Cost Per Employee. TABLE 5.2 NON-RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS COST PER EMPLOYEE Net Non-Residential Non- Residential SDC Employment Improvements Cost Eligible Costs Increase Per Employee Growth-Required Facilities $1,072,312 - 3,134 = $342 C. Formula 5c: Non-Residential Tax Credit Per Employee Debt instruments will likely be used as a future source for funding capacity improvements. A portion of funds used to repay these debts may come from property taxes paid by growth. A tax credit has been calculated to account for potential payments in order to avoid charging growth twice; once through the SDC, and a second time through property taxes. A credit has been calculated for each type of dwelling unit using the following assumptions: • $17.5M in 20 year G.O. bonds at 5.5 $3.5M to be issued in 2007, • 6.0% average annual increase in total City property valuation for taxes, • 3.0% annual increase in assessed property valuations, • 3.0% annual inflation (decrease in value of money), • Average 2003 property valuation for non-residential (office) development at $45 per square foot; • An average of 470 square feet per employee (retail) Present Value of Tax 5c. Tax Payments Per = Credit Per Employee Employee Don Ganer & Associates, inc. 18 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 The amount of this credit is shown in Table 5.3, below. TABLE 5.3 TAX CREDIT PER EMPLOYEE Tax Credit Per Employee Present Value of Tax Payments = $77 D. Formula Sdr Non-Residential SDC Per Employee The non-residential SDC rate per employee is calculated by subtracting the tax credit per employee (from Table 5.3, above) from the improvements cost (Table 5.2, page 18). Non-Residential SDC Tax Non-Residential 5d. Improvements Cost - Credit Per = SDC Per Per Employee Employee Employee The results of these calculations are shown in Table 5.4, below. TABLE 5.4 NON-RESIDENTIAL SDC PER EMPLOYEE Improvements Tax Non-Residential Cost Per Credit Per = SDC Employee Employee Per Employee $342 $77 $265 The parks and recreation SDC for a particular non-residential development is determined by: 1) dividing the total building space (square feet) in the development by the number of square feet per employee (from the guidelines in Table 5.5, page 20), and 2) multiplying the result (from step 1) by the Non-Residential SDC Per Employee (from Table 5.4, above). Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 19 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 For example, the parks and recreation SDC for a 40,000 square foot office building for services such as finance and real estate would be calculated as follows: 1) 40,000 (sq. ft. building size) = 370 (sq. ft. per employee) = 108 employees, 2) 108 employees X $265 (SDC rate) _ $28,620. For non-residential development where more than one SIC may be used, multiple SICs may be applied based on their percentage of the total development. TABLE 5.5 SQUARE FEET PER EMPLOYEE (recommended guidelines from Metro Employment Density Study) Standard Industry Square Feet Standard Industry Square Feet Classification (SIC? Per Employee Classification (SIC) Per Employee 1-19 Ag, Fish & Forest Services; 37 Transportation Equipment 700 Construction; Mining 590 40 - 42, 20 Food & Kindred Products 630 44, 45, 47 Transportation and Warehousing 3,290 22,23 Textile & Apparel 930 43, 46, 48, 24 Lumber & Wood 640 49 Communications 25, 32, and Public Utilities 460 39 Furniture; Clay, Stone, & Glass; 50,51 Wholesale Trade 1,390 Misc. 760 52 - 59 Retail Trade 470 26 Paper and Allied 1,600 60 - 68 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 370 27 Printing, Publishing & Allied 450 70 - 79 Non-Health Services 770 28 - 31 Chemicals, Petroleum, 80 Health Services 350 Rubber, Leather 720 81 - 89 Educational, Social, 33,34 Primary & Fabricated Metals 420 Membership Services 740 35 Machinery Equipment 300 90 - 99 Government 530 36,38 Electrical Machinery, Equipment 400 * Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Standard Industrial Classification Manual 6.0 ANNUAL RATE ADJUSTMENTS City of Tigard Resolution No. 01-13 provides for annual adjustments to parks SDC rates to account for changes in the costs of acquiring and constructing parks facilities. The SDC rate adjustment factor is based on the change in average market value of residential land in Washington County and the change in construction costs according to the Engineering News ` Record (ENR) Northwest (Seattle, Washington) Construction Cost Index. Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 20 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/04/04 APPENDIX A SDC PARKS CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM page I of 5 City of Tigard draft as of 09/03/04 Parks and Recreation Facilities 2004 -2008 TOTAL % SDC-ELIGIBLE % OTHER PROJECT j PROJECT GROW'T'H PORTION OTHER PORTION FUNDING j PROJECT COST rII OF TOTAL COST NEE OF TOTAL COST SOURCES NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS 1 Bull Mountain Neighborhood Park Site Acquisition 04-08 $750,000 40% _ $299,250 60% _$450,750 SDC, Grants, Donations - acquire approximately 3 acres for a neighborhood park to Bonds, Partnerships, L meet growth and non-growth needs in, Bull Mountain. Sponsorships, Other 2 Bull Mountain Neighborhood Park Site Acquisition 04-08 $750,000 40% $299,250 60% $450,750 SDC, Grants, Donations - acquire approximately 3 acres for a neighborhood park to Bonds, Partnerships, LII meet,growth and non-growth needs in Bull Mountain. Sponsorships, Other 3 Bull acquire ountain Neighorhood Park Site Acquisition approximately 3 acres for a neighborhood park to -08 $750,000 40% $299,250 60% $450,750 Bonds, Grants, LI ? meet growth and non-growth needs in Bull Mountain. Sponsorships, Other 4 Bull Mountain Neighborhood Park Development 04-08 $510,000 40% $203,490 60% $306,510 SDC, Grants, Donations - develop a neighborhood park of approximately 3 acres Bonds, Partnerships, Ln to meet growth and non-growth needs in Bull Mountain. Sponsorships, Other I 5 Bull Mountain Neighborhood Park Development 04-08 $510,000 40% $203,490 60% $306,510 _SDC, Grants, DonationsI - develop a neighborhood park of approximately 3 acres Bonds, Partnerships, LII to meet growth and non-growth needs in Bull Mountain. Sponsorships, Other 6 Bull Mountain Neighborhood Park Development 04-08 5510,000 40% $203,490 60%, $306,510 SDC, Grants, Donations - develop a neighborhood park of approximately 3 acres Bonds, Partnerships, LP to meet growth and non-growth needs in Bull Mountain. Sponsorships, Other c APPENDIX A SDC PARKS CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM page 2 of 5I City of Tigard draft as of 09/01/041 Parks and Recreation_ Facilities 2004 2008 i TOTAL % SDC-ELIGIBLE % OTHER PROJECT PROJECT GROWTH PORTION OTHER PORTION FUNDING PROJECT R COST NEED OF TOTAL COST NEED OF TOTAL COST SOURCES i NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS 7 Neighborhood Park Site Acquisition 04-08 $750,000 0% $0 100% $750,000 Grants, Donations - acquire approximately 3 acres for a neighborhood park Bonds, Partnerships, LII to meet_non-growth needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other i i 8 Neighborhood Park Site Acquisition 04-08 $750,000 0% $0 100% $750,000 Grants, Donations - acquire approximately 3 acres for a neighborhood park Bonds, Partnerships, LII to meet non-growth needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other 9 Neighborhood Park Site Acquisition 04-08 $750,000 0% $0 100% $750,000 Grants, Donations - acquire approximately 3 acres for a neighborhood park Bonds, Partnerships, LII to meet non-growth needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other 10 Neighborhood Park Site Acquisition 04-08 $685,000 0% $0 100% $685,000 Grants, Donations ! - acquire approximately 2.74 acres for a neighborhood park Bonds, Partnerships, Lll to meet non-growth needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other 11 Neighborhood Park Site Development 04-08 $510,000 0% $0 100% $510,000 Grants, Donations - develop a neighborhood park of approximately 3 acres Bonds, Partnerships, LII to meet non-growth needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other 12 Neighborhood Park Site Development 04-08 $510,000 0% $0 100% $510,000 Grants, Donations - develop a neighborhood park of approximately 3 acres Bonds, Partnerships, LII to meet non-growth needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other APPENDIX A SDC PARKS CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM page 3 of 51 City of Tigard draft as of 09101/041 Parks and Recreation Facilities 2004 -2008 TOTAL % SDC-ELIGIBLE % OTHER PROJECT PROJECT GROWTH PORTION OTHER PORTION FUNDING PRO~F~CT YRS COST NEE OF TOTAL COST NEED OF TOTAL COS7 SOURCES i NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS 13 Neighborhood Park Site Development 04-08 $510,000 0% $0 100% $510,000 Grants, Donations - develop a neighborhood park of approximately 3 acres Bonds, Partnerships, LIl to meet non-growth, needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other 14 Neighborhood Park Site Development 04-08 $465,800 0% $0 100% $465,800 Grants, Donations - develop a neighborhood park of approximately 2.74 acres Bonds, Partnerships, Lt] to meet non-growth needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other COMMUNITY PARKS i 15 Bull Mountain Community Park Site Acquisition 04-08 $5,000,000 , 54% $2,710,000 46% $2,290,000 SDC, Grants, Donations - acquire approximately 20 acres for a Community Park Bonds, Partnerships, LI to meet growth (10.84) and non-growth (9.16) Sponsorships, Other needs in Bull Mountain. 16 Bull Mountain Community Park Development 04-08 $4,000,000 54% $2,168,000 46% $1,832,000 SDC, Grants, Donations! develop a community park of about 20 acres in size Bonds, Partnerships, 1-11 to meet growth (10.84) and non-growth (9.16) Sponsorships, Other needs in Bull Mountain. APPENDIX A SDC PARKS CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM page 4 o:f 5 draft as of 09/01/041 City of Tigard Parks and Recreation Facilities I 2004 -2003 { TOTAL % SDC-ELIGIBLE % OTHER PROJECT PROJECT GROWTH PORTION OTHER PORTION FUNDING PROJECT YRS COST NEED OF TOTAL COST NEED OF TOTAL COST SOURCES GREENWAYS i 17 Greenways Acquisition 04-08 $6,650,000 41% $2,721,600 59% $3,928,400 SDC, Grants, Donations - acquire approximately 47.5 acres of greenways Bonds, Partnerships, LI. to meet growth (19.44) and non-growth (28,06) Sponsorships, Other I needs in the City planning area. I TRAILS 18 Trails Acquisition/Development 04-08 $2,657,200 23% $603,200 77% $2,054,000 SDC, Grants, Donations{ _ - acquire/develop approximately 5.11 miles of trails to Bonds, Partnerships, LII meet growth (1.16) and non-growth (3.95) needs. Sponsorships, Other LINEAR PARKS 19 Linear Parks Acquisition/Development 04-08 $667,200 100% $667,200 0% $0 SDC, Grants, Donations - acquire/develop approximately 2.78 acres of linear parks Bonds, Partnerships, LII, to meet growth needs in the City planning area. Sponsorships, Ocher APPENDIX A SDC PARKS CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM page 5 of 5' City of Tigard draft as of 09/03/04 Parks and Recreation Facilities 2004 -2008 i TOTAL % SDC-ELIGIBLE % OTHER PROJECT GROWIN PORTION OTHER PORTION PROJECT YRS COST ICE OF TOTAL COST ZF~E OF TOTAL COST l TOTALS $27,685,200_, 37.49%_ $10,378,220 62.,51% $17,306,980 i Neighborhood Parks $8,710,800 17.31% $1,508,220 82.69% $7,202,580 Community Parks $9,000,000 54.20% $4,878,000 45.80% $4,122,000 Greenways $6,650,000 40.93% $2,721,600 59,07% $3,928,400 Trails $2,657,200 22.70% $603,200 77.30% $2,054,000 I Linear Parks $667,200 100.00% $667,200 0.00% $0 Totals $27,685,200 37.49% $10,378,220 62.51% $17,306,980 I APPENDIX B Parks SDC Rates Washington County Cities Sinele Family Multi-Family Non-Residential Sherwood $4,996 $3,851 $50/employee Beaverton' $2,533 $1,948 $79/employee Hillsboro $2,168 $2,168 $364/parking space $2,100 $2,100 none TualatinZ $2,144 $2,308 none North Plains $2,000 $2,000 none Forest Grave Tigard $1,852 $959 $131/employee 'Tualatin Hills PRD provides parks for the City of Beaverton. z City of Tualatin Parks SDC rate is scheduled to increase to $3,150 in January 2005. APPENDIX C Tigard Parks SDC Update Task Calendar NLT Date Lead Person Task 08/25/04 Dan Plaza Schedule puble hearing for November 23 and send Notice to HBA (and to anyone else who has sent a written request for notification). Notice is required 90 days before the first public hearing. 08/30/04 Don Ganer Prepare draft SDC methodology and project list for review by City Staff. 09/21/04 Dan Plaza City Council review of draft SDC methodology and project list at work session. 09/24/04 Don Ganer Have draft SDC methodology report available for public review at City Hall (send or email a courtesy copy to HBA and others). The draft report must be available for public review 60 days prior to the first public hearing. 10/15/04 Don Ganer Draft updated parks SDC ordinance and resolutions for review and modification by City staff. 08/27 - 11/23 Dan Plaza Community review of draft parks SDC methodology report. Nov 23/Dec 2004 All Public Hearings and City Council Action Dec 2004 Don Ganer Update Procedures Guide and Provide Training Session 01101105 City Implement updated Parks SDCs Parks Capital Fund - 5 Year CIP Non- SDC/GF SDC/GF Fiscal Year Project # Project Name Non-SDC/GF Type Expense Expense Total Expense 2004105 1 Fanno Creek Trail (Grant to Main) Grant 52,192 51,000 103,192 2 Fanno Creek Trail (Hall to Wall) Grant/Gas Tax Transfer 76,486 25,000 101,486 3 Skate Park Donations/Grants/In-kind 405,000 0 405,000 4 Fanno Creek Park Shelter/Parking insurance from fire 30,000 30,000 60,000 5 ParkMaster Plan/SDC Updates 0 40,000 40,000 6 Cook Trail (gazebo to bridge) Grant 42,500 55,030 97,530 7 Fanno Creek Trail Boardwalk Const.(Tigard 0 10,000 10,000 Sub-total for FY 2004105 St./Tiedeman Segment) 606,178 211,030 817,208 2005106 430,000 44,000 474,000 8 Washington Square Regional Trail MTIP 0 45,000 45,000 9 Northview Park install plygrd & soccer 0 30,000 30,000 10 Jack Park install picnic shelter & irrigation 230,000 23,000 253,000 11 Tualatin River Pedestrian Bridge MTIP 660,000 142,000 802,000 Sub-total for FY 2005/06 2006107 45,000 45,000 12 Northview Park Install shelter and path 0 418,388 50,000 468,000 13 Fanno CreekTrail (Grant St to Woodard Park) Grant 50,000 50,000 100,000 14 Summerlake Park Development Grant 468,388 145,000 613,388 Sub-total for FY 2006107 2007108 50,000 50,000 100,000 15 Englewood Park install playground and shelters Grant 50,000 50,000 100,000 16 Jack Park Development Grant Sub-total for FY 2007108 100,000 100,000 200,000 2008109 1,131,400 125,600 1,257,000 17 Washington Square Regional Trail MTIP 1,131,400 125,600 1,257,000 Sub-total for FY 2007/08 Grand Total $2,965,966 $723,630 $3,689,596 MTIP = Metro Transportation Improvement Program Entered into the Record on Depending upon annexation vote SDC = Park System Development Charge outcome, projects for the Bull Mountain GF = General Fund By: i)p~(1~'~ p,V(11 Q 1 Pte( _ area (land acquisition and development) may be incorporated into the Parks CIP. Agenda Item#~ Exhibit Parks Capital Fund - 5 Year Projected Cash Flow FY 2004105 FY 2005106 FY 2006107 FY 2007108 FY 2008109 Total RESOURCES Beginning Fund Balance 2,079,347 2,082,871 2,110,352 2,149,734 2,250,556 10,672,861 Tree Replacement Beginning Fund Balance 173,922 137,400 100,548 62.959 24,619 499,449 25 938 10,173,412 Net Fund Balance 1,905,425 1,945,471 2,009,804 2,086,775 2,2 Revenues Park SDC* 500,080 450,300 463,800 477,700 492,000 2,383,880 Grants/MTIP 171,178 660,000 468,388 100,000 1,131,400 2,530,966 Donations/In-Kind 405,000 0 0 0 0 405,000 Tree Replacement** ` 10,000 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 51,600 Interest 42,600 41,657 42,207 42,995 45,011 214,470 Total Revenues 1,128,858 1,162,357 984,795 631,095 1,678,811 5,585,916 Transfer in from other funds 0 0 0 25,000 Gas Tax 25,000 0 Total transfer in from other funds 25,000 0 0 0 0 25,000 TOTAL RESOURCES $3,233,205 $3,245,228 $3,095,147 $2,780,829 $3,929,367 $16,283,777 REQUIREMENTS Expenditures Debt Service 283,126 282,876 282,025 280,273 278,053 1,406,353 Capital Improvements 817,208 802,000 613,388 200,000 1,257,000 3,689,596 Tree Replacement CIP 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Total Expenditures 1,150,334 1,134,876 945,413 530,273 1,585,053 5,345,949 Ending Fund Balance Undesignated Fund Balance 1,945,471 2,009,804 2,086,775 2,225,938 2,358,803 10,626,790 Tree Replacement Fund Balance 137,400 100,548 62,959 24,619 (14,489) 311,038 Ending Fund Balance 2,082,871 2,110,352 2,149,734 2,250,556 2,344,314 12,594,181 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS $3,233,205 $3,245,228 $3,095,147 $2,780,829 13,929,367 $17,940,130 *Does not include any revenues from Bull Mountain Annexation. **Can only be used for tree replacement and mitigation. APPENDIXB R 4 Single "Non- City or Parks District Family Multi-Family Residential West Linn' $ 8,029 $ 5,677 $ - Sherwood 5,618 4,261 59 TroutdaleZ 3,100 3,100 - Lake Oswego 2,825 2,230 264 Tualatin Hills PRD 2,533 1,948 79 Oregon City 2,449 1,937 160 Wilsonville 2,320 1,764 61 North Clackamas PRD (east of 1-205) 2,200 1,991 - Hillsboro 2,168 2,168 364 "North Plains 2,144 2,308 - Tualatin3 2,100 2,100 - Forest Grove 2,000 2,000 - 1,852 959 131 "Tigard North Clackamas PRD (west of 1-205) 1,817 1,498 - "Portland 1,705 1,098 "Gresham 1 038 1 038 • Non-residential rates are per employee except for Hillsboro, which is per parking space. " Parks SDCs methodologies and rates are currently being reviewed and updated. ' City of West Linn Parks SDC methodology is currently being reviewed by the Oregon Court of Appeals 2 City of Troutdale rate is scheduled to increase to $3,600 in January 2005. 7 City of Tualatin rate is scheduled to increase to $3,150 in January 2005. Entered into the Record on 5 By: Uiq t2f- r1 Agenda item# 1 Exhibit AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF Sept 21, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Review Executive Summary of Park and Recreation Needs Assessment Survey PREPARED BY: Dan Plaza 2590 DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE CO CIL Presentation of Executive Summary of Park and Recreation Needs Assessment Survey STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review and accept the summary, provide direction to the staff and Parks and Recreation Advisory Board as to next steps INFORMATION SUMMARY In an effort to identify the park & recreational needs of Tigard residents, a park and recreation needs assessment survey was formulated. Three hundred and eighty-three (383) randomly selected Tigard residents participated in a phone survey. The survey was designed to ascertain Tigard residents' interest in, and willingness to pay for: recreation programs and facilities, e.g. skate park/community recreation center, create a city Recreation Division, or create a Special Recreation District similar to the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District in Beaverton, and, purchase land for parks/sports fields and natural resources such as wetlands and green spaces. The survey was conducted by Public Affairs Counsel (PAC). They used a methodology that provides scientifically valid data accurate to 5.0%. The results of the survey will assist the City Council and the Park and Recreation Advisory Board in making decisions pertaining to what should be done regarding parks and recreation in the city of Tigard and when. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED n/a VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Council Goal 4 Parks and Recreation City Visioning Process - Urban and Public Services Recreation Goal #1 ATTACHMENT LIST A copy of the Executive Summary was not available from the consultant to attach to this summary. A copy will be delivered with the Council newsletter on Friday, September 7. FISCAL NOTES n/a Entered into the Record on ov By: ~ ftey Agenda Item# Exhibit i ' 00 NELSON , E _s JWUC, FMAW COUNSEL • P.O. BOX U90 • SA D% OREGON 97309 • (503) 363.7084 CITY OF TIG.ARD - 2404 SURVEY RESEARCH REPORT EXECUTIVE SUZMARY SEPTEMBER S, 2004 The following survey research report provides some valuable information regarding voter's attitudes and opinions concerning a variety of proposals to enhance recreational opportunities for Tigard residents. This report should assist the city in determining what if, any, recreational projects would be supported by residents. Below, The Nelson Report has highlighted the key results of the survey research report. . The final report is over 200 pages in length, with multiple tables designed to assist the-client in undmtanding and analyzing the respondents'views. Throughout this executive summary, The Nelson Report identifies "key" demographics for many of the questions. Key demographics are those subgroups that respond at a higher • percentage rats than the total sample for any given response. The key demographic groups for any given opinion are not necessarily the only subgroups in the survey who share that opinion. They are, however, the ones that hold that opinion most strongly. A total of 333 respondents were interviewed between August 23 and August 27, 2004. The margin of error for this survey is +1-4.99% at the 95% level of confidence. Prepared By The Nelson Report FAVORlOI'FOSE: CREATING RECREATION DIVISION Respondents were read the following information and question: "The City of Tigard currently provides park services only. Park services do not include recreation programs. Many individuals and groups have come up with a variety of ideas to enhance recreational opportunities for city residents events, children's classes, day camps, summer playground programs, camps, special middle school programs, teen programs and adult programs such as sports leagues and classes. We are going to be presenting you several of these ideas. These ideas are not to be viewed as city proposals, but merely it way to gauge public support of the following options." should be ' "The city would like your opinion on whether ~ervices are paid for of of the City of park offered to city residents. Currently Tigard budget. The city has two other options they would like your opinion on." "One option.ls for the city to create a separate Recreation Division with its own budget. This Division would be funded by the city's general fund revenues." "Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the City of Tigard creating a Recreation Division of the cityr Well over half of respondents, 57%, favored creating a Recreation Division of the city, while 3l % opposed. Twelve percent were not sure as displayed below. ;.:u: ;J~j? vb y hr~, •i . •sYv .,'Cfr. fi• r 3 i+E••34r~ c ; fix 1 . Z i III !I! III Prepared By The Nelson Report Y demographics who favored the City of Tigard creating a Recreation Division of the city were females (63%),18-34 years old (79%), 35-44 years old (62%), renters (65%), voters in 1 out of 4 elections (66%), and 4 out of 4 elections (59%). Key groups who opposed creating a Recreation Division of the city were males (35%), 55-64 years old (38%), 65+ years 'old (33%), and voters in 2 out of 4 elections (35%). FAVOR /OPPOSE: CREATING RECREATION DISTRICT Next, respondents were read the following question: "Another option is for Tigard to present to voters for approval, a separate Recreation District with its oven taxing authority-" "Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a separate Recreation District with its own taxing authority?" Slightly over half of respondents, 53%, opposed the creation of a separate Recreation District with its awn tmdng.authority, while 34% favored the proposal. Thirteen percent were not sane. The following chart shows the comparison between the proposals to create a Recreation Division and Recreation District Prepared By.The Nelson Report 3 A 1 41 IV V dJ'7 f5t ii: -Y~. 4 4~ ~y"r;'~ ii~ ;`'Q' f'S. Y 4 ~;.titi!'d .N•~Ko i it ~f' : ~ii:!"•A .f"•{r~y`•4,%ij•Ir7JS 1' 1 M• Y:: Key demographics who opposed the creation of a Recreation District with its own taxing authority were males (58%), 55-64 years old (66%), 45-54 years old (59%), home owners (560K), and voters in 2 out of 4 elections (67%). Key groups who favored the creation of a Recreation District were 18-34 years old (41 35-44 years old (400/6), renters (48%), voters in 3 out of 4 elections (38%), and 1 out of 4 elections (37%). Prepared By The Nelson Report 4 RECREATION DIVISION VS. RECREATION DISTRICT Respondents were given the following information and question. "The creation of a Recreation Division within the city would cost $060,000 per year. The operation of the Recreation Division would be paid for through an operating levy and would increase the property tax rate by 22-cents per thousand. The other option is for Tigard residents to vote•for the creation of a Recreation District. A Recreation District would cost $1 million per year and increase the property tax rate by 26-cents per thousand. or the creation of RECREATION "If you had to choose, 22-cents per prefer the creation of a JPECIAL ' DIVISION at a cost of RECMTION DISTRICT at a cost of 26-cents per thousand?" Slightly less than half of respondents, 48%, preferred the creation of a city Recreation Division, while 28% preferred neither option. Thirteen percent preferred a special Recreation Dist&4.one percent cited "other" options, and ten percent were not sure. ,i rt 28 a ' p y " j SS~ C . r !K•ro J 4 1 Prepared By The Nelson Report 5 Key demographics who preferred a city Recreation Division were females (51%),18-34 years old (79%), 35-44 years old (520/o), 45.54 years old (51%), renters (50%), voters in 3 but of 4 elections (58%), apd 2 out of 4 elections (55%). Primary reasons for preferring a city Recreation Division were: Costs less than Recreation District 71% Good ideatmakes sense 7% City is more aware of community needs 7% Key groups who preferred neither option were males (32%), 65+ years old (33%), 55-64 years old (31%), and voters in 2 out of 4 elections (32%). Key demographics who preferred a special Recreation District were males (16%), 55-64 years old (18%), and voters in 4 out of 4 elections (16%). Main reasons for preferring a Special Recreation District were: Prefer independent district without city control 37% My preference 16% Includes more than just city residents 16% "other" responses are listed in the table below, The reader should note the following percentages were taken from a much, much smaller sub-sample (I% of all respondents). Of Total Universe Merge with Tualatin Hills District 34% less thaw 1% Both 33% less than I% Construct Senior Center 33% less than 1% Prepared By The.Nelson Report 6 Following the creation of a Recreation Division vs. Recreation District questinn, respondents were asked the following qu.estion• The net gain/loss reflects the push or movement in support of a Recreation District. Not Net Recreation Recreation Division )District Neither Other , Sure Gain/Loss _ Question 28 1 10 Division vs. District 48 13 If you knew the Special Recreation District would be similar to Beaverton's Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, would you prefer the creation of a QTY RECREATION DIVISION at a cost of 22-cents per thousand, or the =ation'of a SPACIAL RECREATION DISTRICT at a cost of 26-cents per 23 26 1 14 +10 thousand? 36 Ker observations to this argument are as follows: e Information that the Special Recreation District would be similar to Beaverton's Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District pushed +10% ofrespondents a Recreation District were 35- District, Key demographics who increased in support 44 years old (+200/o), and 18-34 years old (+12%). Again, "other" responses ate listed in the table below. The reader should note the following percentages were taken from a much, much smaller sub-sample (I% of all respondents). Of Total Universe No new tares 50% less than 1% Merge with Tnalatin Hills District 25% less than 1% Open to idea 25% less than 1% prepared By The Nelson Report 7 'WHO'S ABER`C~REATICENTER • COMMUNITY In addition, respondents were given the following information and question: "Another concept is a 20-year $6.75 million bond measure that would be used to construct a 30,000 square foot Community Recreation Center. The Community Recreation Center would include an indoor gym, classrooms, multi-purpose rooms, and meeting rooms. The construction of a Community Recreation Center would increase the property tax rate by 13-cents per thousand of assessed value." "If an election were held today, would you FAVOR o for the City a $6.75 miilllliio of Tigard bond measure for a Community rate n Center by 13-cents per thousand?" ' would increase the property Slightly over half of respondents, 52%, opposed a $6.75 million Community Recreation Center, while 41% favored the proposal. Seven percent were not sure. .•'rF; x r fit.,. :•;ti;S i. Y:k.~ ~d N' I q ~'.r. YC. .7,j,~2:"^a. j9 C.~?~N'•b,. ,i~~i'k 'i ~ ~t'~•' ~r, ~.Pf~IY rrP • r~ r ~Y' ¢x~.• r.G~r'x " , ~'71• S ' ayTl+Y: I.y i~ . `~:'p• •~~a.•,'{.rSt• 4c `~~ti~> '+''.r~~'4~j1b''-7f' ~#`YV`•~,'r"' •,~-.•~t~ Key demographics who opposed a $6.75 million Community Recreation Center were males (54%), 55-64 years old (630/o), 65+ years old (58%), and voters in 3 out of 4 elections (54%). Prepared By The Nelson Report Foremost reasons for opposing a Community Recreation Center were: Taxes too highloppose increase 43% Already have activides/facili ies/school gyms 26% Focus on more important priorities • :10% Key groups who favored a $6,75 million Community Recreation Center were 18.34 years old (68%), 35•-04 years old (46%), 45-54 years old (431Yp), renters (50%), voters in 2 out of 4 elections (479/o), and 1 out of4 elections (45%). Top reasons for favoring the Recreation Center were: Need recreational facilities 54% Would improve quality of life 26% The chart below displays the $6.75 million Community Recreation Center who's ahead results with the corresponding key demographics. P-MV-9-01" WON 0, x. A - M1l lr i~e~ r 5> ~;1 C~ y da t A ~r'r':F,Kar?'~L 50. ' ~ • r t.y4.~17EL:' 1^,ifi~uµy~ni S ~X' y,((fr'ff *}f,r y 'lFr. `r 4r ~V .S. . _ n n , C7>KQgt~r~11t, ' F Prepared By The Nelson Report 9 5 t Furthermore, respondents were asked: "In addition, the operation and maintenance of the Community Recreation Center would cost $400,000 per year. 111,10- con.--+ vtm;rra Inc-mole. the property tax rate by an additional 11-cents per thousand." qf an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the concept that would increase property tax rate by 11-cents per thousand?" Well over half of respondents, 55%, opposed a proposal to fund the operation and maintenance of the Community Recreation Center, while 34% favored the proposal. Eleven percent were not sure. Yvfto*~. X. ,'::~lji.~,.,Y P tia"••r~F C,4 F" •;•tii.t„?' : i ''~S.']' Flit: ~4.`:y'i' i. "v'' 'r~ e' ~•Y'!f'i~: r'?i~• l ~isU;.~k ~S}~':~;•F.a~". rFe.r.^rdbu'.5ap$°.::' 3:nr•.. ::rt' %f! aY A,. r..: $"y/: Y.•.^': .1:. ti4'.i+~"G G:io..:' : 5 t I . ~y^4 ' :Y''"` tiiL►y,;rxy.;.F: r~ i;,.5 ;1; A„±, I•~d ET .r1: H~+~~ j. , E~ r( ~ i t• k' L rrF~. rD?..~, ( ~iy : .4{i, wf.},j f`•': ~ r Y.~r`4V'• 9.7 ~``~a::.~; T,~u;a,,. t':~ f }~^:~,rMr,•'dF..:!:`try.. ' y; ~ .~4 r.•F ~tress ~~#v . xH.. • 4~! .:n.•. •¢'t'~~t~f.'..'~. ..t., . _ I, r51"~'~ry"az. r~~ 1' Key groups who opposed the operation and maintenance of the Community Recreation Center were males (57%), 55-64 years old (61%), 65+ years old (60%),45-54 years old (57%), and voters in 3 out of 4 elections (62%). ? Primary reasons for opposing Recreation Center funding were: Taxes too high/oppose increase 54% Unnecessary/use schools/other buildings 20% Not a high priority with city's current budget 11% Prepared By The Nelson Report 10 1 , Key demographics who favored funding the operation and maintenance of tine Community Recreation Center were females (36%),1 8-34 years old (59%), 35-44 years old (45%), 45-54 years old (36%), voters in 2 out of 4 elections (41%), and 1 out of 4 elections (39%). ftolple reasons favoring Recreation center funding were; Unable to operate without money 44% Needed/goodidea 36% The chart below displays the Community Recreation Center funding who's ahead results with the corresponding key demographics. t t i ran , OF s k rr"L n r f ~e J d ~ . ' Y l~. ~~1 Prepared By The Nelson Report ii c; PUSH[ RESULTS: COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER. WAV4 rMnOndents were asked a series of questions designed to gauge the positive or x, negative impact of certain pieces of information. This methodology was used to ascertain which arguments produced the greatest net movement from the original "who's ahead" question. The reader should keep i.n mind the "if you knew..." format. Certain arguments may push people "if they knew," but the nature of the argument may make it impossible to convince someone that it is factual. In addition, the resources required to do the convincing may be too groat when compared to other arguments. This series was crosschecked later in the survey by the agree/disagme series. The results are ranked on the following page in descending positive order. The net gain/loss reflects the push or movement off the original "who's ahead" question. Not Net Favor Oppose Sure Gain/Loss Question Who's Ahead Results'. Community Recreation Center 41 52 7 If you knew the Community Recreation Center would ' enable the city to provide , additional recreational opportunities for Tigard residents, such as live theatre performances, children's U programs like classes, summer playground programs, camps, special events, middle school programs, teen programs, and adult programs such as sports leagues and classes, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a bond 52 38 10 +11 measure? Prepared By. The Nelson Report 12 Not Net Question Favor Oppose Sure Gain/Loss 1 who's Ahead ResaraM: 41 52 7 Community Recreation Center If you knew the bond payments would be structured so that new residents who wove into the community in the future would assist in the payment of the bond measure, would you FAVOR or 40 .11 +8 OPPOSE the $6.75 million concept? 49 If you knew that a bond measure would cost property taxpayers 13-cents per thousand or $26 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home, would you 43 9 +7 FAVOR or OPPOSE the bond measure? 48 If you knew operation and maintenance costs for the Community Recreation Center would increase property taxes by an additional 11-cents per thousand or $22 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR 42 47 11 +1 or OPPOSE the bond measure? Key observations to this series were as follows: ® The argument that produced the largest increase (+11%) in support of a Community Recreation Center was knowledge that the Community Recreation Center would enable the city to provide additional recreational opportunities for Tigard residents, such as live theatre performances, children's programs like classes, summer playground programs, camps, special events, middle school programs, teen programs, and adult programs such as sports leagues and classes. Key demographics who increased in support were females (+16%), 35-9 years old (+22%), 45-54 years old (+16%), home owners (+13%), voters in 1 out of 4 elections (+161/o), and 4 out of 4 elections (+13%). . Information that bond payments would be structured so that new residents who move into the community in the future would assist in the payment of the bond measure increased support for the Recreation Center b++8%4 54 des o demographics impacted with this (+10%), information were 35.44 years old (+16), Y (+10%), home and voters in 4 out of 4 elections (+10%). Prepared By The Nelson Report 13 The fact that the bond measure would cost property taxpayers 13-cents per thousand or $26 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home also moved (+7%) of respondents to t suap ort the proposed community Recreation Center. Key demographics moved with this females (+120/o), 35-44 years old (+190/o), 45-54 years old (+90/0), and voters in 3 out of 4 elections (+10%). WHO'S AHEAD: $400,000 SKATE PARK Next, respondents were presented with the following information and question: "Another idea is a 10 year, $400,000 bond measure that would be used to construct a skate park for youth. s concept would $260 per year for the swner of $200,000 home.'o~ately 1-cent per thousand or "if an electlon were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSrate 0 bond cent measure to construct a skate park that would increase property by } per thousand?" Slightly less than half of respondents, 49%, opposed a bond measure to construct a skate park, while 43% favored the proposal. Eight percent were not sure. ~ "v;`..iwi•.3..'.F~j:':h jf. ';'y'i•;2 M•:f4'~Sl*~%: p•. t'n:~j• h~v'S%tiF,,5!f t• k'.'.y'.d: ~8 "'a'J .S~"t'~ .y~.: .C~~!S,l.. ::r ~ ;~:~ti<f:i .1., • ~ 3q ..1Yt'{f :..~r' "r `:.L<'i}': $<i t f'» u~ 'si•+fi"P ~ ~ t4,r i~1'a• 'y, s ~'F'~ o. f ltri b ) uie ~:.•°Ld? S,,ys~1•a4.,4r 1j, J ?+i~, _•w~; I M. 4. ST f'i)'U".•N,' t ~Y+a - iss a tt i+ rt '•i''3a1~.,/•~ER'.'~1,. •*c.'fr-•~S. ~-F l~~ t:+~~z..,• y :,try. S L.q+,A....•tiy>.: a~•:~t_ . ti•APkS'k•~•.A. 1 Yt rz'. f " ~`kt : f Prepared By The Nelson Deport 14 c' 1 Key demographics who opposed the proposed skate park were males (51%), 65+ years old (514%), 55-64 years old (52%), and voters in 3 out of4 elections (51%). Foremost reasons respondents opposed the proposeu n,.a,e t..,...were, No more taxes 26% Unnecessary 17% Will be only utilized by a few 11% Key groups who favored a $400,000 skate park were males (4611o), 18-34 years old (50%), 3544 years old (49%), 45-54 years old (48%), and voters in 1 out of 4 elections (47%). Main reason respondents favored constructing a skate park were: Need activities for youth 70% Reasonable cost 16% The chart below displays the skate park who's ahead results with the corresponding key demographics. f f e f b ti '1 .4 t. ir" , e S 9t~•F tt '9~?y~ § ~ '?t 4l/ ~ ~ r '1 ! y~i ° x y 1~?4' 4+A~` .[Fl~i' a ~4 ".i~'fit. f' r . 4.u"{ 3. •f- eG~, ~y~.~~~' ~ ~~f1~`~~~~~~; , ; ,yam x~ u, d.! i - ~~i f` ' m: ei#sF..•;4;t:1A t F',- '+n°~.: ri~~','r ,.r~ a*. i`Ntj4.. ~~,,.ryy~=,~taN? t Prepared By The Nelson Report 15 [O'S AHEAD: $5 MMLION BOND MEAS~ FOR PARKSlATS'LFTIC FIELDS " .«,rmn6nnandquestion: Vetre6pondents were gVGIa purchase "Another idea includes a $5 Million bond te ~c ~ i~ fro gha t the city. This idea land to construct ad fon parks rate by 9-cents Per thousand." would increase the property an election were held today, would you IAVathletic OR Idph® would $5 willion increase t d he arks and measure to construct ad nay nal ousand?" property tax rate by 9- p arks and gAspondents were split with 45% who opposed a $5 million bond measure for p athletic fields and 44% who favored the Proposal. Eleven percent were not sore. yS li T 1.~~tS:.~)• J'18;f.''F~'.,"f.N,~. y;..~;q:t 1~.~i5'~.I II~:Y •'s (~Pv ,,j,. 'a ~s~,q,,•<~'yy:'~.ns• 'yY,s r~, '.u..::n ~ryt r ' '•i' S,u•. ~i `^wA r. ' a[ 1• F.Yi••~,.j;.~l i.~ . ?jyk 6 y t7~t' f. p!p •G".,.A yi ar'" , I..ti1s i S . D 'W y,H~~`y+a'V34kh "~^5'Y~; • C3,.•+~ .fit` ~ r Li osed the proposed bond measure for parks and athletic fields Key demogmPhics who opp emales 47%), 65+yem old (50%), 55-64 yew old (49%), renters (50%), voters in 2 out were f ( 47%) of 4 elections (50%), and 3 out of 4 elections ( -area By The Nelson Report Prep 16 primary reasons respondents opposed the proposed parks/athletic fields were. Already have parks/doWt maintain what they 38% have -.A1 Taxes too high/oppose increase Key groups who favored a additional parks/athletic fields were males (470/,), 35-44 years old (57%),18-34 and 45.54 years old (471/6), and voters in 1 out of 4 elections Main reasons respondents favored additional parks/athletic fields were: 17% Need more parks/athletic fields 41% Favor city improvements 11% Provides place for children to play The chart below displays the proposed parks and athletic fields who's ahead results with ' the corresponding key demographics. IM I(> ak R y~Y elt Y~~4' 1 > t 6Y T j.~'~ >~+JS' t + rY ,7F`+t u~ix 2 5}~ t.{0 ;~li^~'r :4.tFf ~V Z 4j~ f~ S l r L1r f ~y W~ ,f rA 4 IN , MIN III Prepared By The Nelson Report 17 c.: following the $s million bond measure for parks and athletic fields question, respondents were asked the following question. The net gain/loss reflects the push or movement in favor of the proposal Not Net Favor Oppose Sure Gain/Loss Question Who's Ahead Results: 45 li Additional Parks/Athletic Fields 44 if you knew the $5 million bond measure would increase property taxes by 9-cents per thousand or $18 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the concept to construct additional parks and 44 43 13 +0 athletic fields? V HWS AMA]D: $5 MILLION BOND NZASM FOR WETLANDSIGREEN SPACES Next, respondents were asked.: ,'In addition, there is another idea which includes a $5 million bond measure that would be used to purchase land in order to protect wetlands and green spaces throughout the city. This idea would increase the property tax rate by 9-cents per thousand:' "if an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $5 million bond measure to purchase land for wetlands and green spaces that would increase the property tax rate by 9-cents per thousand?" Slightly less than half of respondents-49%, favored the proposed $5 million bond measure for.wedands and green spaces, while 41% opeosed the proposal. Ten percent were not sure. Prepared By The Nelson Report C,. "N1"i P+j•en<b•:}.tIT.i (.•:.1~.'S ~~':;IYI'Id '~17'; yt::i:'! kJ.:,.,A , ~-y _ ~1*~~ 14' "1 "t A' f.r15t rrr5•~f :i 1!~,i'r}'7i it T7:,., h.,~;{•:+.tr?M.o- Y'., I. r:' • i >'~!:n':ii:3.M.'t.,;~;~`Y`si'liS! i• b.;t:. ji(5.F3;>~c}~f.%~1n,~:r7'rYa;;~i,r',,. ! `'•',7iteti~`}i~'ti :••y-' :Y .:3~ . A S~ Gi:.~i~•t'1 1'J!`/"~Ik?:t• 1'4 :'`••s3'<`~n`-.<y r.%t''i a:1 Y;t,.•:',•4. d5. y7t ~ y fit,^• R},r...:." ilk, L. , r . _1~:~.;1't7`,1r nrP~+eti~h,~~_~,~`'`"''ayt.r,k~4y.~' ! ups who favored purchasing land for wetlands and green spaces were females Key groups - (54%), 18.34 years old (706), 45-54 years old (61%), renters (60%), and voters in 2 out of 4 t elections (52%). y Main reasons respondents favored land for wetlands/greeu spaces were: Need to preserve open spaces 67% Good for the environment 17% Key demographics who opposed the proposed bond measure for wetlands and green spaces were males (46%), 55-64 yew old (48%), 65+ years old (47%), 35-44 years old (460/), home owners (43%), slid voters in 1 out of 4 elections (45%). Primary reasons respondents opposed wetlands and green spaces were: Oppose tax increase 33% C) Unnecessary 26% Environment is already protected '13% The following chart displays the proposed bond measure for wetlands and green spaces t , who's ahead results with the corresponding key demographics. Prepared By The Nelson Report 19 w. + ^pr ' asL *;C . ar y =`at n}~': ` ~ i~ { t~ ~Y 94.. ~~ti~ bs, f~¢ ej.~ ~t• } ny,1 i a F Y y n a4l~^~~ rl.~ ~f f ^T~ w ~i iy'i..~k` N y(~ 7 v. R ~ ` . i. ,d i• Z, ~ .r ~ ^ ~M°j{'^~$ ~~e . 'i ¢ w4'»e , tS NrVj i ` •'~,F~, i ri t^Fi$$+ j t..~~~~1,yk1 .d<v;y,5 , 1' f r s i S y 33" a„ •I ~i ii r~yf {Yi hl k r. 11, 2, F72, (7j:fRie ,,~d . f5~ i;r~°~j•rr•yI ~~~°~kt,_,:.:; . ~t~.iv ''"''i" :~~i~,';! ~ a ~f'Ca~ ~~'G~~~Y~n~ OI • ~ 4 ~ i Sit y~r ~1 n •r. i ti. . k o- t N~~r+ ah' G M.5 e'f.ryy~p1`°Sf. ta.t.4f..}v Lis « . r: e .g 5 1q ,R r Y "S' k M1 Following the $5 million bond measure for wetlands and green spaces question, C' respondents were asked the following question- The net gain/loss reflects the push or movement Kffim in favor of the proposal. Not Net ]Favor oppose Sure Gain/Loss Question Who's Ahead Results: 49 41 10 Wetlands/Green Space U if you knew the $5 million bond measure would increase property taxes by 9-cents per thousand or $ l g per year for an. owner of a i $200,000 home, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the concept to protect wetlands and green spaces 49 38 13 +0 throughout the city? c! Prepared By The Nelson Report 20 CONCEPTS PREFERRED IN ONE ]BOND MEASURE Next respondents were given the following options: "Thinking about four of the concepts N CONS iRMAIVIv vxA'C1'EeTrnN CENTER, CONSTRUCTION OF A SKAW PARK, the PURCHASE OF LAND FOR PARKS AND ATHLETIC FIELDS, and SPACES, which ofh ~epts these concepts would you a POR willing WETLANDS AND GREEN to vote for In one bond measure?" A plurality of respondents, 24%, were willing to vote for a Recreation Center only in one bond measure, while 21% would vote for wetlands and green spaces only. Sixteen percent were .1 not willing to vote for any of the concepts; another 16% were willing to vote for "other" concepts, and 13% would vote for land for parks and athletic fields only. Eight percent would vote for a skate park only and two percent were not sure. ubgt r ' :.`1. t y f i4r.: ry r• j l:ll . y.' t" y f• k`r,~" ,~~'..(`.'+t•i::~ y:~ ~ $ w%~,~•'..:7 i~,.,, .:'!yf~•.: a a a M. u r n m ~ iz~', ~L t l:. }a~+.Y ~'t:. •.i,. ate, 4.r~k~, ~•~R • ' v, < ,}fft.Rx~ s MA" ' "t ~.~r d;' 4?$'y.+')... r. ~•w,'...ii{L•..,i' 1:y''~ , 'a:n` .y y - ~i:' ?•,.;:'r .lit :..1~ciF.;4"; y.;.~. rQ r' ; ~ti We 4:uq Of ti, a F ~:41, $'',.Ye b. •~~1~.i•C{;~f~:~:.` tif'"i~i~:~', ,b. ;y r+E6:'"+;,~;dY:•.FC;. `»'~*,Y'6~•.~yly'^ rvy~..~ ~ 'iMr.: ~~;t~,i•!. Jril: fF•.% i:7'!;. Fr ;....dG•C.i; 'r'~;•`tar,. ,:7".~f~''r~~ FJ~~`w ~'bx~y}},,z.4q~'~;s~~;'~YA Y.H Y;iC6 :;AEG "~~F 1 t a ¢ ~ Ste'}~~~7 y A S„~ ady'~''~c'?! . t T ~x ti ' ~ r . ~ }s✓~~ 'T""1` + 1 rb,'r: r * i. '~rJ r vY~Lt~ ~~~~;Y , i !e Z}f's ~ rw-'.,~J'~a4 a r~+~4..'rt ~W~:•: 16 It dh ~ - 5~ ~tf b MLfV'9`'1'Q' s}41S r~•~~f a w~ r e, v~1 9+ 'i iA 'f! a-MR' ~'.~ih 1 r~~i¢'g~e~ka~ r~Cq~,~f a i.' ~,~'YtY! ,C:' ~>•~k•' ~ +.$,?'dw r~ '1.•. lrS: 1!'i}i;;v F ~'."f4r`:?.~f'_±. Key demographics who would vote for a Recreation Center only were females (26%),18- 34 years old (411/6), 3544 years old (28%), and voters in 4 out of 4 elections (26%). t.~ Prepared By The Nelson Report 21 1 Key demographics who would only vote for land for wetlands and green spaces were females (25%),18-34 and 55-64 years old (240/6), 4554 years old (23%), renters (23%), voters in ..,efl.~ 3 out of 4 elections (290/0), and 2 out of 4 eiections kAU 70). Key groups who would not vote for any of the concepts were males (lg%), 65+ years old (220A), 55-64 years old (219/6), and voters in 4 out of 4 elections. (19%). Key demographics who cited "other" concept combinations were 35-44 and 45-54 years old (25%),18-34 years old (21%), renters (19010), voters in 1 out of 4 elections (246/a), and 2 out s of4 elections (20%). Of those respondents who felt "other" options were best, "all of them" topped the list, followed by `'parks and open space", as indicated in the table below (16% of all respondents). Of Total Universe All of them 20% 3% Parks and open space 177% 3% 1% Ali except skate park 8% 1% Recreation Center and open space % Recreation Center and skate park 7% 7% 11% Skate park and open space 7% 1% Recreation Center and parks In a special cross tab, 44% of respondents who previously said they favored a Community Recreation Center (18% of all respondents) said they would only vote for a Community Recreation Center in one bond measure. In another key cross tab, 36% of respondents who previously said they favored land for wetlands and green spaces (18% of all respondents) said they would only vote for wetlands and green spaces in one bond measure. Prepared By The Nelson Report 22 } HOW MUCII RFSIDFNTS Ala WILLING IES AY FOR RNCREATI®NAL OPPORTUNITIES A .+1,mmlity of resvondents, 23%, were not willing to pay anything Per year to enhance r----w - recreational opportunities and preserve green spaces in the City of Tigard, while 21% were willing to pay between $1-$18 per year, Seventeen percent were willing to pay between $19-$36 er ear, and eight percent were willing to pay over $90. per year, ten percent between $37-$52 p y Five percent were willing to pay between $53-$90 per year and 16% were not sure. 1 t. 5„ F B t~ .~'•;•8i'Ik .a'4 ~:Y,i, ''Hn~',~-..5;{.~. `:4 ' ;e :5° o %?~wa~~~Fr:y.^~K "~tty''••~'.~• t n. 4 0 1"t~N.;4 `.:S ; $7,k y,~4',.~*v'NFr a~` ° 7~~*5!t>'* e r.r•p^'':~=(•:r.: - f'~ ;Y i ~ .3.• ~1 'Y f~..i gi37 :•t;1R6 t'k:~. . _CN:. t{Ty`4~:~~,'e{1' f'a 3.S`Rf.` ..`•f.~p `'i4.,fS'.~l'l hYil{'' J 1Fy jx . t N 1N jId • S!s; 'i1Fn Yl~if~}f; ,i,;, y I f+f 'oi• ~'~'t " Gkt jq '1.7':.;H::. 4y~ a• ; tti, . d k ll:; . YY r ~ k Y f SM `4 4a3• P~ groups who were not willing to pay anything to enhance recreational opportunities in C) Ti and were males (27%), 55-64 years old (310/6), 65+ years old (300/o), renters (25%), voters in 2 g out of 4 elections (26%), and 3 out of 4 elections (25%)• Key demographics who were willing to pay between $1418 per year in to enhance recreational opportunities and preserve green spaces were 65+ years old (25%),18-34 years old (240/o), and voters in 2 out of 4 elections (26%). i~ Prepared By The Nelson Report 23 Key demographics who were willing to pay between $19-$36 per year were females (200/6), 35-44 years old (28%),18-34 years old (240%), and voters in 1 out of 4 elections (241/6). who- nraviously said they favored land In an interesting cross tab, s~,.-,,r,o of 1G aya~udo . for wetlands and green spaces 12% of all respondents) said they would be willing to pay between $1418 per year to enhance recreational opportunities and preserve green spaces. In another cross tab, 20% of respondents who also previously said they favored land for wetlands and green spaces (10% of all respondents) said they would be willing to pay between $19.$36 per year to enhance recreational opportunities and preserve green spaces. In yet another cross tab, 25% of respondents who also previously said they favored a ' Community Recreation Center (10% of all respondents) said they would be willing to pay between $19436 per year to enhance recreational opportunities and preserve green spaces. AGREE/DISAGREE In this series, respondents were presented with a number of potentially prejudicial statements regarding the various recreation projects. This. format was designed to serve as a cross-check on various close-ended questions as well as to pickup variations on prejudices not readily apparent in those types of questions. r-:e following table displays all of the C } agree/disagree statements in descending order of agreement AGREE/DISAGREE STATEMENTS IN DESCENDING ®RDE Agree Disagree Not Sure Statement I like the idea that the city is considering in protection of natural wetlands and greenays the city. I favor the idea that would preserve our 69 25 6 natural resources. Prepared By The Nelson Report 24 Statement Agree Disagree Not Sure It's about time the City of Tigard began providing additional recreational opportunities for citizens. 43 8 - -9. rnmmnnity Recreation Center. 49 I favor Tae WUWIJI. N - Our city already has plenty of parks and athletic fields. I oppose the $5 million bond measure for 42 46 12 parks and fields. I would prefer to create a Recreation District similar to Beaverton's, Tualatin Hills park and Recreation District to enhance recreational ' opportunities for residents rather than create a 38 34 28 Recreation Division within the city. My taxes are already too high. I can't afford any of the recreation concepts being discussed in this 38 56 6 survey. I like the community,just the way it is. We don't need additional recreational activities to improve 30 60 10 livability in our area. v prepared By The Nelson Report 25 C:: 1 CONCLUSIONS 1. Well over half of respondents favor creating a Recreation Division of the city. _.r nm,nge the creation of a separate Recreation District 2. Slightly over nau Vl icayv.s....... -rr--- I with its own taxing authority. creation of Recreation Division over i 3. Slightly less than half of respondents prefer the creation o► - a separate Recreation District with its own taxing authority. 4. Primary reasons for preferring a city Recreation Division are "costs less than Recreation " District', "good idea/makes sense", and "city is more aware of community needs. 5. Main reasons for preferring a Special Recreation District are "prefer independent district without city control d "includes more than just city residents". "mY Preference", an 6 Information that a Special Recreation District would be similaro Beav Special Rem Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, pushes respondents to supp District by a large margin. 7. Slightly over half of respondents oppose a $6.75 million Community Recreation Center, while fewer numbers favor the proposal. g. Foremost reasons for opposing a Community Recreation Center are "taxes to focus on bighloppose increase", "already have activities/facilities/school gyms more important priorities". 9. Top reasons for favoring a Community Recreation Center are "need recreational facilities" and "would improve quality of life". 10. Well over half of respondents oppose the additional $400,000 per year it would cost to hind the operation and maintenance of the Community Recreation Center, while slightly over one-third favor the additional costs. 11. Primacy reasons for opposing funding for the operation and maintenance of the Recreation Center are "taxes too high/oppose increase", "unnecessary/use schools/other buildings", and "not a high priority with city's current budget". 12. "Unable to operate without money" tops the list Center, followed by "needed/good idea'. maintenance costs of the Community Recreation C. , Prepared By The Nelson Report 26 1 13. The argument that produces the largest increase in support of a Community Recreation Center is knowledge that the Community Recreation Center would enable the city to provide additional recreational opportunities for Tigard residents, such as live theatre performances, children's programs like classes, summer playground programs, camps, special events, middle school programs, teen programs, and adult programs such as sports leagues and classes. Recreation Center will enhance recreational opportunities for all Tigard residents is a primary theme for respondents. 14. Information that bond payments would be structured so that new residents who move into the community in the future would assist in the payment of the bond measure also increases support for a Recreation Center. This is a primary theme. 15. The fact that the bond measure would cost property taxpayers 13-cents per thousand or $26 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home also moves respondents to support the proposed Community Recreation Center. 16. Slightly less than half of respondents oppose a bond measure to construct a skate park, while slightly fewer numbers favor the proposal. 17. Top reasons for opposing the proposed skate park are "no more taxes", "!unnecessary", and "will only be utilized by a few". 18. Main reasons for favoring a skate park are `!need activities for youth" and "reasonable cost". 19. Respondents are split with slightly less than half who oppose a $5 million bond measure for parks and athletic fields and slightly less than half of favor the proposal. - , 20. Primary reasons for opposing the bond measure for parks and athletic fields are "already have pmWdon't maintain what they have" and "taxes too high/oppose increase". 21. "Need more parkslathletic fields" tops the list of reasons for favoring the bond measure to purchase land for parks and athletic fields, followed by ",favor city improvements", and `provides place for children to play". ti 22. Slightly less than half of respondents favor a $5 million bond measure for wetlands and green spaces. 23. Foremost reasons for favoring land for wetlands and green spaces are "need to preserve ' open spaces" and "good for the environment". 24. Top reasons respondents oppose land for wetlands and green spaces are "oppose tax increase", ` umecessW', and "environment is already protected". Prepares! By The Nelson Report 27 't 25.. A plurality of respondents are willing to vote for a Recreation Center only in one bond measure, while slightly fewer numbers are willing to vote for wetlands and green spaces only. 26. A plurality of respondents are not willing to pay anything per year to enhance recreational opportunities and preserve green spaces in Tigard, while slightly fewer numbers are willing to pay between $1-$18. .t . 27, Tigard residents clearly prefer the creation of a city Recreation Division over a special Recreation District even after being presented with information that the Recreation District would be similar to Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District. While none of the proposed bond measures receive a majority of support, it appears Tigard residents are most supportive of a bond measure that would be used to preserve wetlands and green spaces, followed by a proposal for additional parks and athletic fields. While slightly more than half of respondents oppose a bond measure for a Community Recreation Center, information that the Recreation Center would enhance recreational opportunities for all residents significantly increases support for the proposal. It is clear, however, respondents are not supportive of the additional operation and maintenance costs associated with a Recreation Center. Liven with some of these positive responses, respondents appear to be stpaggling with the tax increases that come with each of these proposals. r't . Prepared By The Nelson Report 28 ' . S U 'L . . T'l 0 N., N S , FINAL RESULTS (n=383) CITY OF TIGARD 2004 ' FINAL DRAFT Hello, my name is I'm with The Nelson Report, a public opinion research firm. We are conducting a brief survey today in your area and would like to include your household's opinions. May I please take a few minutes of your time? Let me assure you I am not selling anything. First of all, are you registered to vote in the state of Oregon? (INTERVIEWER: IF NO, POLITELY TERMINATE) The City of Tigard currently provides park services only. Park services do not include recreation programs. Many individuals and groups have come up with a variety of ideas to enhance recreational opportunities for city residents such as children's classes, day camps, summer playground programs, camps, special events, middle school programs, teen programs and adult programs such as sports leagues and classes. We are going to be presenting you several of these ideas. These ideas are not to be viewed as city proposals, but merely a way to gauge public support of the following options. The city would like your opinion on whether recreational programs should be offered to city residents. Currently park services are paid for out of the City of Tigard budget. The cityhas two other options they would like your opinion on. One option is for the city to create a separate Recreation Division with its own budget. This Division would be funded by the city's general fund revenues. 1. Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the City of Tigard creating a Recreation Division of the city? 1. Favor 57 2. Oppose 31 J 3. Not Sure/Refused 12 Another option is for Tigard to present to voters for approval, a separate Recreation District with its own taxing authority. 2. Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a separate Recreation District with its own taxing authority? 1. Favor 34 2. Oppose 53 3. Not Sure/Refused 13 Page I August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelsons ][deport M The creation of a Recreation Division within the city would cost $860 thousand per year. The operation of the Recreation Division would be paid for through an operating levy and would increase the property tax rate by 22-cents per thousand. The other option is for Tigard residents to vote for the creation of a Recreation District. A Recreation District would cost $1 million per year and increase the property tax rate by 26-cents per thousand. 3. If you had to choose, would you prefer the creation of a CITY RECREATION DIVISION thousand, or the creation of a SPECIAL RECREATION . at a cost of 22-cents per DISTRICT at a cost of 26-cents per thousand? 1. City Recreation Division (GO TO "A') ~3 2. Special Recreation District (GO TO"A'J 28 3. Neither (SKIP TO #4) 1 4. Other 10 5. Not Sure/Refused (SNIP TO #4) A. (RECREATION DIVISION/RECREATION DISTPJCTT ONLY AT ONOM 93) Why would you prefer the (RECREATION DIVISION) (RECRE DISTRICT)? (PROBE) 4. If you knew the Special Recreation Distri ct would be similar to Beaverton's Tualatin Hills park and Recreation District, would you prefer the creation of a CITY . RECREATION DIVISION DISTRICT at a ostsof~26--thousand, or the cents pe thousand? on of a SPECIAL RECREATION 1. City Recreation Division 36 2. Special Recreation District 6 23 3. Neither 1 4. Other I4 5. Not Sure/Refused Another concept is a 20-year $6.75 million bond measure that would be used to construct would a 30,000 square foot Community Recreation Center. The Community Recreation cCenter onstruction include an indoor gym, classrooms, multi purpose rooms, and meeting rooms. The of a Community Recreation Center would increase the property tax rate by 13-cents per thousand J of assessed value. 5. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $6.75 million bond measure for a Community Recreation Center for the City of Tigard that would increase the property tax rate by I3-cents per thousand? 1. Favor (GO TO "B") 41 2. Oppose (GO TO"B") 52 3. Not sure/Refused 7 B Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) the $6.75 million bond measure? Page 2 August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Report In addition, the operation and maintenance of the Community Recreation Center would cost $400,000 per year. This concept would increase the property tax rate by an additional I I - cents per thousand. 6. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the concept that would increase property tax rate by 11-cents per thousand? 1. Favor (GO TO "C") 34 2. Oppose (GO TO "C") 55 3. Not Sure/Refused 11 C. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) the concept? (PROBE) Another idea is a 10-year, $400,000 bond measure that would be used to construct a skate park for youth. This concept would cost property taxpayers approximately 1-cent per thousand or $2.60 per year for the owner of a $200,000 home. 7. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $400,000 bond measure to construct a skate park that would increase property tax rate by 1-cent per thousand? 1. Favor (GO TO "D") 43 2. Oppose (GO TO "D") 49 3. Not Sure/Refused 8 _ D. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) the proposed skate park? (PROBE) J Now I am going to ask you a variety of questions concerning the idea of a $6.75 million bond measure to construct a Community Recreation Center. For each one, I will give you some information and ask, whether with that information, you would FAVOR or OPPOSE the idea. 8. If you knew the bond payments would be structured. so that new residents who move into the community in the future would assist in the payment of the bond measure, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the $6.75 million concept? 1. Favor 49 J 2. Oppose 40 3: Not Sure/Refused 11 ..1 ..J Page 3 August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Report J 9. If you lmew the Community Recreation Center would enable the city to provide additional recreational opportunities for Tigard residents, such as live theatre performances, children's programs like classes, summer playground programs, carrrps, special events, middle school programs, teen programs, and adult programs such as sports leagues and classes, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a bond measure? 1. Favor 52 2. Oppose 38 3. Not Sure/Refused 10 10. If you knew that a bond measure would cost property taxpayers 13-cents per thousand or $26 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the bond measure? 1. Favor 4$ 2. Oppose 43 3. Not Sure/Refused 9 11. If you knew operation and maintenance costs for the Community Recreation Center would increase property taxes by an additional 11-cents per thousand or $22 per year -r- an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR Dr OPPOSE the bond measure? 1. Favor 42 2. Oppose 47 3. Not Sure,/Refused 11 J Another idea includes a $5 million bond measure that would be used to purchase land to construct additional parks and athletic fields throughout the city. This idea would increase the property tax rate by 9-cents per thousand. 12. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $5 million bond measure to construct additional parks and athletic fields that would increase the property tax rate by 9-cents per thousand? 1. Favor (GO TO I'M 44 2. Oppose (GO TO "EIS 45 3. Not Sure/Refused 11 E. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) a $5 million bond measure for parks and athletic fields? (PROBE) .7 1 Page 4 August 27, 2004 ]Prepared By The Nelson Report 13. If you knew the $5 million bond measure would increase property taxes by 9-cents per thousand or $18 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the concept to construct additional parks and athletic fields? 1. Favor 44 2. Oppose 43 3. Not Sure/Refused 13 In addition, there is another idea which includes a $5 million bond measure that would be used to purchase land in order to protect wetlands and green spaces throughout the city. This idea would increase the property tax rate by 9-cents per thousand. 14. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $5 million bond measure to purchase land for wetlands and green spaces that would increase the property tax rate by 9-cents per thousand? 1. Favor (GO TO "T+") 49 2. Oppose (GO TO "F") 41 3. Not Sure/Refused 10 F. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) a $5 million bond measure for wetlands and green spaces? (PROBE) 15. If you knew the $5 million bond measure would increase property taxes by 9-cents per thousand or $18 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the concept to protect wetlands and green spaces throughout the city? 1. Favor 49 2. Oppose 38 3. Not Sure/Refused 13 16. Thinldng about four of the concepts - CONSTRUCTION OF A RECREATION CENTER, CONSTRUCTION OF A SKATE PARK, the PURCHASE OF LAND FOR PARKS AND ATHLETIC FIELDS, and the PURCHASE OF LAND FOR WETLANDS AND GREEN SPACES, which of these concepts would you be willing to vote for in one bond measure? (INTERVIEWER: COMBINATION RESPONSES WILL GO UNDER THE "OTHER" CATEGORY) 1. Recreation Center Only 24 2. Skate Park Only 8 3. Land For Parks Only 13 4. Land For Wetlands/Open Spaces Only 21 5. None 16 6. Other 16 7. Not Sure/Refused 2 Page 5 August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Repot 17. How much more would you be willing to pay each year in property taxes in order to enhance recreational opportunities and preserve green spaces throughout the City Of Tigard? ! 1. Nothing 23 2. $1-$18 21 3. $19-$36 17 4. $37-$52 10 5. $53-$90 5 6. Over $90 8 7. Not Sure/Refused 16 Now I am going to read youiseveral and statements s currently seeking your opinion one For ea he various recreation projects the City of Tg ! statement, I would like you to tell me if you AGREE or DISAGREE with the statement. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Not Sure/Refused AGREE - DISAGREE NOT SUREIREFUSED - 18. My taxes are already too high. I can't afford any of the recreation concepts being discussed in this survey. 38-56-6 19. I like the idea that the city is considering the protection of natural wetlands and greenways in the city. I favor the idea that would preserve our natural resources. } 69-25-6 20. It's about time the City of Tigard began providing additional recreational opportunities for citizens. I favor the concept of a Community Recreation Center. 49-43-8 21 Our city alreadyhas plenty of parks and athletic fields. I oppose the $5 million bond measure for parks and fields. j 42-4612 22. I like the community just the way it is. We don't need additional recreational activities to improve livability in our area. 30-60-10 Page 6 August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Report 6 d N AGREE - DISAGREE - NOT SURE/REFUSED 23. I would prefer to create a Recreation District similar to Beaverton's Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District to enhance recreational opportunities for residents rather than create a Recreation Division within the city. 38-34-28 DEMO bRAEM S. 24. SEX: 1. Male 2. Female 1 25. AGE: Are you between the ages of.....? 1. 18-34 2, 35-44 3. 45-54 4. 55-64 5. 65+ 6. Not Sure/Refused .1 26. OWN/RENT: Do you own or rent your home? 1. Own 2. Rent 3. Not Sure/Refused INTERVIEWER: POLITELY END SURVFY WITH RESPONDENT, IM OMPT.FTE THE E011,03ENf~ ()TTE~'i'f N: J 27. VOTER HISTORY: (INTERVIEWER: RECORD THE NUMBER OF TIMES RESPONDENT HAS VOTED IN THE LAST FOUR ELECTIONS FROM THE PHONE LIST - SEE INSTRUCTION SHEET) 1. 1 Out Of 4 Elections 2. 2 Out Of 4 Elections 3. 3 Out Of 4 Elections 4. 4 Out Of 4 Elections Page 7 August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Report AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 9/21/04 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Social Services Grant Review and Funding Process r PREPARED BY: Liz Newton _V DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Review of the Social Service Grant Funding Process policies, rating criteria and reporting requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the proposed Social Service Grant Funding Process policies, rating criteria and reporting requirements. INFORMATION SUMMARY At the August 17, 2004 City Council Workshop meeting, staff presented a proposal to revise the Social Service Grant Program Funding process. After discussion, Council directed staff to proceed with modifications to the process and bring proposed policy changes, rating criteria, and reporting requirements back for Council review. A memo describing the proposed rating criteria and reporting criteria is attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Modify the proposed policies, rating criteria and/or reporting requirements. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Memo from Liz Newton with Attachments FISCAL NOTES N/A i;ydm~city euuneilkouoeil agatda item summedes12004bis for social sme grant «view040912*010m04 MEMORANDUM Administration CITY OF TIGARP Shaping A Better Community TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager v l t% DATE: September 10, 2004 SUBJECT: Social Service Grant Funding Process Rating Criteria and Reporting Requirements Background: At the August 17, 2004 City Council Workshop meeting, staff presented recommendations to revise the Social Service Grant Program Funding Process to ensure that a wide range of programs and activities that qualify can be considered for funding and that grant recipients are addressing an unmet or growing social service need in the Tigard community. After some discussion, the Council directed staff to bring back proposed rating criteria and prioritize criteria as appropriate. In addition, Council requested that the application and reporting requirements be simplified so that needed information is collected, but the reporting requirements aren't so cumbersome they are costly to comply with. Issues: Polio : The Social Service Funding Policy currently in place has not been revisited since 1996. The policy need to be revised to reflect current practice and the proposed changes in the process. A proposed revised policy is attached. Rating Criteria: The rating criteria presented by staff at the August 17 Workshop meeting included the funding criteria in the existing Social Service Policy along with classification and additions. Council concurred with the proposed criteria with some suggested modifications. Staff recommends the following criteria be adopted: 1 The agency's service meets an unmet or growing social service need in the City of Tigard. (A majority of the clientele served are Tigard residents). 20 points 2 The agency has been providing service to Tigard residents for at least one year prior to the date of application. 10 points Social Service Grant Funding Process Rating Criteria and Reporting Requirements I 3. The service or program is convenient to Tigard residents (both location and hours service is available). 10 points 4. The agency is fiscally responsible; operates with a balanced budget. 20 points 5. The agency demonstrates efforts to explore other funding options. 20 points 6. The agency demonstrates that a smaller portion of their funding serves the same number of Tigard residents or more Tigard residents are served for the same funding level from the City in the previous fiscal year. 20 points Staff will incorporate the rating criteria as approved by council into a revised Social Services Grant Funding application form. Reporting Requirements: Staff contacted the Washington County cities of Hillsboro, Tualatin, and Beaverton to obtain copies of grant funding reporting forms. Tualatin does not require reports. Samples of the forms used by Beaverton and Hillsboro are attached. Based on Council's comments at the August 17 work session, staff drafted the attached Social Services Grant Funding reporting form. The report reflects the proposed grant approval criteria and the format is designed to require information similar to other cities and be easy to prepare. Staff will finalize the report format based on Council's comments and direction. Next Steps: Staff will prepare a revised application packet which will include the rating criteria and report format and begin outreach to potential qualified agencies in mid-October. Social Service Grant Funding Process Rating criteria and Reporting Requirements 2 CITY OF TIGARD BUDGET COMMITTEE SOCIAL SERVICE FUNDING POLICY The City of Tigard receives funding requests from various agencies and non-profit corporations each year during the budget process. This policy provides the framework within which funding decisions will be made by the Budget Committee. 1. The maximum social service agency funding total each year will be one - half of one percent of the previous year's operating budget, rounded to the nearest $1,000. 2. Agencies requesting City funds shall: a. Demonstrate that the Agency has been providing service to the City of Tigard residents for at least one year prior to the date of application. b. Demonstrate that the Agency's services address a current or growing social service need in the City of Tigard. c. Be registered with the Internal Revenue Service with a 501 (c )(3) Not for Profit tax status. d. Be run by a volunteer Board of Directors with representation from the City of Tigard that is reflective of the agency's overall geographic membership and client service, e. Operate with a balanced budget f. Be incorporated in the State of Oregon and registered to do business here. g. Fill out and submit a completed application to the City of Tigard Finance Department by the deadline set in the application. h. Provide written reports on a bi-annual basis during the period of funding. Reports must include information related to the use of City funds and a discussion of services provided to Tigard citizens. 3. The Social Services Funding Subcommittee shall review the applications from each requesting agency and prepare a recommendation to the Budget Committee on which agencies should be funded and how much requesting agencies should be awarded. The total amount of the funding recommended shall not exceed the maximum social service agency funding total for the upcoming fiscal year. Budget Committee Social Service Funding Policy 1 4. The Budget Committee will consider the recommendation of the Social Services Funding subcommittee as part of the City's budget approval process. 5. Those agencies selected for funding will be notified upon approval of the City's budget. -OadmViAmornoftudget Comm social service funding pollcy040910.doc9110104 Budget Committee Social Service Funding Policy 2 CITY OF BEAVERTON SOCIAL SERVICE FUNDING GRANT 2004-2005 FIRST QUARTER REPORT JULY 1, 2004 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 Program Name: How many clients did your program serve during the first quarter (July 1 - September 30, 2004)? How many of those clients served during the first quarter were Beaverton residents? What services and/or expenses were paid for by the first quarter payment? If necessary, please update your contact information: Mailing Address: City: State: Zip: Email address: Contact Person: Title: Phone Number: (503) Fax Number: (503) Please mail the completed form to: Joyce Storms P.O. Box 4755 Beaverton, OR 97076 Or, fax this form to: Joyce Storms, City of Beaverton (503) 526-2571 THE FIRST QUARTER REPORT IS DUE BY FRIDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2004. CITY OF HILLSBORO Commupi Y Pr®grams:2004-2005-Grant Application Project Evaluation Form This form MUST be returned within 90 days of the completion of the groiect/activity orAggncX,s year-end, as app/icab/e 1. Who benefited from your activity/project? • Approximately how many? Where from? - 2. List and evaluate the measurable goals as described in your grant application. 3. Will this activity/project be recurring? How do you anticipate funding the activity/project in the future? C-WOCUME-1\UzXLOCALS-1\Temp\2004-2005 Appiicauon Workbook\P'roject Evaluation Form 9/10/2004 11:02 AM CITY OF HILLSBORO Community Programs 2004-2005 Grant Application Project Evaluation Form This form MUST be returned within 90 days of the completion of the proiect/activity orAgency's year-end, as apn/icab/e 4. If a specific project budget was provided in your application, please provide a comparison of the budget to actual in a separate spreadsheet (see attached BudgetlActual Recap worksheet). If funding was used to supplement operations, please provide a copy of the financial statements covering the funding period. Please use the space below to make any comments pertaining to the financial information provided. 5. How would you rate the City of Hillsboro's Community Programs Grant Application process on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best? Please provide any comments that may make this a more efficient process in the future. P_LEASE„~EAD ARlD INITIAL TFtE F®LL®WING: Organizations and Agencies applying for funds under this program are obiigated to spend funds in the manner described in their application. All funds not specifically used for the purposes described need to be returned to the City of Hillsboro. Failure to meet all or most of the objectives outlined in the application may result in future disqualification from applying and regeiving City of Hillsboro Community Program Funds By initialing here, I am indicating that I have read and understand the above. C:\DOCUME-1\UZ\LOCALS-1\Temp\2004-2005 Application Workbook\Project Evaluation Form 9/10/2004 11:02 AM Social Service and Community Events Report CITY OF TIGARD Name of Organization: Attachments: (Listing of Attachments, if any) Reporting Period: Amount of Grant: Amount Spent Year-to-Date: SUMMARY: (Statement of Grant Purpose and/or Intended Use) How many clients dad your program serve durng this period? How many of those clients served were Tigard residents? What services were paid for with the grant funds during this reporting period? What other funding sources have you pursued during this funding period? How have the funds been used to address an unmet or growing social service need in Tigard? AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 9/21/04 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE TriMet Commuter Rail Station Desi PREPARED BY:_ Jim Hendryx DEPT HEAD OK / Y MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE C UNCIL TriMet will update City Council on the proposed designs for the Washington Square and Downtown Tigard Commuter Rail stations and ask for Council comments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council provide comments to TriMet regarding the proposed design alternatives. INFORMATION SUMMARY TriMet along with Tigard, Beaverton, Tualatin, Wilsonville and other regional partners- is planning a Commuter Rail train system that would carry commuters from Wilsonville to Beaverton beginning in fall 2007. Tigard will have two stations: Downtown and Washington Square. As TriMet refines the stations, it must balance safety and design. TriMet has been coordinating with the Downtown Task Force on the Downtown station since 2002. Staff planners presented two proposed station alternatives at the Aug. 5, 2004, Task Force meeting and took comments. TriMet has also been working with all the jurisdictions through a design group that meets periodically. City Community Development and Police staff have been examining both the Washington Square and Downtown alternatives. Tonight, TriMet will provide an update on the project and present all the station design alternatives for Council's comments. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Community Character and Quality of Life/Central Business District Goal #1, Provide opportunities to work proactively with Tigard Central Business District Association (TCBDA) businesses and property owners and citizens of Tigard to set the course for the future of the central business district. Transportation and Traffic Goal #3, Alternative Modes of Transportation are Available and Use is Maximized. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment I :Commuter Rail O~ erview from TriMet FISCAL NOTES None. 1.\LRpLN\beth\Downtown 9 04 to 6 05\Council\9 21 04 Commuter Rail AIS.doc Attachment 1 Beaverton COMMUTER RAIL Overview Washington Square The Washington County Commuter Rail line will offer a new Scholls Ferry F1dl transportation route within the heavily used Interstate 5 and Washington Highway 217 corridor. Using existing freight tracks, it will Square` connect to TriMet AMAX light rail in Beaverton and serve Washington Square, Tigard, Tualatin and Wilsonville. Final Tigard design Is underway and the line could open in fall20OZ Length and route • The proposed 14.7-mile project will share freight train tracks with the Portland dr Western Railroad in eastern Washington County. Frequency and travel time - • Commuter Rail will operate weekdays every 30 minutes during Tualatin ` morning and afternoon rush hours. • The trip from Beaverton Transit Center to Wilsonville will take 27 minutes. • Train speeds will average 37 mph, with a top speed of over a~ Proposed Commuter 60 mph Rail line . Q Proposed Commuter Rail stations Stations O Existing MAX light rail station The five stations will include a total of approximately 800 Park dr Ride spaces at four stations: - MAGresham-Hillsboro i e: • Beaverton Transit Center will connect with 11 TriMet bus lines - MAX Red Line: and MAX Blue and Red lines serving the Beaverton to Airport-BeavertonTC Hillsboro corridor, downtown Portland and Portland Wilsonville © Transit Center International Airport. - ocher railroad • Scholis Ferry Rd/Washington Square station, located across TriMet boundary Highway 217 from the Washington Square Mail, will have about 200 parking spaces and connect to local TriMet bus Project partners: lines serving residential and employment areas. Commuter Rail is a project ofThMet, Washington County, Metro, the Oregon Department of Transportation and the • The downtown Tigard Transit Center station will provide about communities of Beaverton, rrgard Tualatin and Wilsonville. 120 parking spaces and connect with five TriMet bus lines. • Tualatin station will have about 120 parking spaces and T R I V r M E T connect to local TriMet bus service. • Wilsonville station will have about 400 parking spaces and connect with SMART buses serving residential and 7r&- employment areas. METRO Ridevship Funding • Average daily ridership is estimated between The $103.5 million project will be funded by: 3,000 and 4,000 trips by 2020, with half of • $51.75 million in federal funding the riders new to transit. • $35 million from state lottery bond proceeds Vehicles $10.25 million from the Metro • TriMet will Transportation Improvement Program work with $6.5 million from local cities and Washington U.S. and County international rail car • TriMet and Washington County will builders to contribute a total of $4,1 million to annual design and operating costs. build a Timeline self-propelled diesel vehicle • A Full Funding Grant Agreement, which that meets all assures construction funding, could be federal safety Two prototypes of new self-propelled secured as early as spring 2005. standards. diesel rail cars. • Construction would get underway soon • Initial proposals from rail car builders are afterward. due in summer 2004. • Commuter Rail line could open in fall 2007. Street improvements and construction Project partners • Using existing freight tracks in a dedicated Washington County; the cities of Beaverton, corridor will mean minimal construction Tigard, Tualatin, Wilsonville and Sherwood; impacts for most of the new line. TriMet; Metro; and the Oregon Department • A short section of new track will be of Transportation initiated a feasibility study constructed in Lombard Avenue between of Commuter Rail in 1996. Farmington Road and Beaverton TC at the • The project has received strong support from same time planned street improvements will the public and business community. be made. Public art program j • The Commuter Rail Art Advisory Committee, composed. of representatives from every station area, will guide the public art program.' E' >i L- I r • A team of artists, Frank Boyden and Brad Rude, will create art for each of the 5 stations. For snore information: Design and Construction • Carlos Banks • 503-962-2867 Public Art Program • Mary Priester • 503-962-2291 DBE/Diverse Workforce Programs • Bruce Watts • 503-962-2217 06104 500 Entered into the Record on 442116 ~f By: Agenda Item#-6-p Exhibit Tigard City Council Update Washington County Commuter Rail September 21, 2005 Current Report ■ 60% design milestone tomorrow Submit Full Funding Grant materials to FTA mid-November ■ Reviewing vehicle proposals Platform Location Ba~ckground ■ Current Plans Ocet from cross street ■ Location driven by: o State Regulation - limits time gate arms may be down o Complexity of freight and commuter mix and need for reliable detection o Safety - protection from train overruns, insure driver compliance with gates ■ Continuing to seek alternatives Downtown and Washington Square Station Update ■ Refining Downtown design based on setback o Inviting walkway from Main Street - low railing, planting, ped level lighting o Possible "feature" at Main Street/P&R entry o Improve access & visibility from Transit Center? ■ Discussing City concerns re Washington Square, looking for improvements - other opportunities? Station Improvements/Community Betterments Review TriMet's platform plans in more detail with Task Force ■ Dialogue about pros and cons of ideas to date ■ Proposed baseline/betterments list by 12/15 Next Steps/Schedule ■ Continue working with the Downtown Task Force ■ Further review with City Council? ■ Submit land use applications in December ■ 95% design January 31, 2005 ■ Full Funding Grant discussions with FTA begin late Fall `04 ■ Begin construction as soon as Summer '05, opening Fall `07 'f - O O 0 Q r I - I i AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF September 21, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discuss Council Groundrules - Visitor's Agenda PREPARED BY: Joanne Bengtson DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK L! ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council revise the Visitor's Agenda portion of the Council Groundrules? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the information collected by staff on Visitor's Agenda format from other cities and provide direction on changes to the City's current process. INFORMATION SUMMARY At the request of City Council, on August 19, 2004 City Administration conducted a poll of cities through the Oregon Association of Municipal Recorders. We requested samples and information regarding their Visitor Agenda process. All cities contacted have a Visitor Agenda which require speakers to sign in (samples attached) to speak on a topic not already listed on the meeting agenda. Most limit the speakers to 2 - 3 minutes. Beaverton and Troutdale allow 5 minutes. Only 3 of the 11 cities limit the total amount of time allowed for the Visitors Agenda. Washington County also limits the time, but returns at the end of the meeting for 30 minutes to allow speakers that did not get a chance to address the Commissioners at the first "Oral Communication". Each city refers to the Visitor Agenda as something different, including: "Citizen Communication", "Public Testimony", "Communication on Non-Agenda Items", "Verbal Communication", "Audience Participation", "Public Comment" and "Citizen Input". The smaller cities were the most informal. McMinville doesn't move ahead with their agenda until everyone gets a chance to speak. Washington County's process was the most detailed, outlining every eventuality and it was the only location that restricts speakers to only one oral communication per meeting. A matrix is attached that summarizes how various cities address the "Visitor's Agenda". When issues are raised by a speaker that require a response, 8 of the I I cities have the Mayor or Council answer the speaker with the other two cities deferring to staff. In all cases a staff member or the City Manager would follow-up with the speaker if their issue was not resolved at the meeting. Only two cities would add the speaker to the next regular agenda if the item was not resolved at the current meeting. The "Public Hearing" sign-in was different from the "Visitor Agenda" sign-in in about 25%0 of the cities. Lake Oswego and Washington County have the most regulations regarding time for testimony. In most cases, cities reported that the Mayor requests one person testify for a group if many people sign up to speak on the same issue. ' While 28 Cities were contacted, only 11 responded: Beaverton, Forest Grove, Kenzer, Lake Oswego, McMinnville, Molalla, Oregon City, The Dalles, Troutdale, Washington County and Wilsonville. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Matrix Summarizing Visitor Agenda Process by City 2. Sample Sign - In Forms FISCAL NOTES There is no financial impact created by this action. i:tadmkity councihcouncil agenda item summariest2004Ws for council groundmles visitor agenda) 04092 Ldoc9/9/04 VISITOR'S AGENDA RESPONSES BY CITY Beaverton Forest Grove Keirer Lake Oswego Visitor Agenda allowed by Council ? yes yes yes yes Agenda Order in meeting 4th -after proclamations varies after call to order 6th, after consent Agenda Item Title Citizens Citizen Public Citizen communications Communication Testimony Comment Limited to NON-AGENDA items? yes yes yes yes sign in sheets used? cards sheet individual sheet cards Time Limit of speaker? 5 min 2 min 3 min 3 min Agenda item total time-limited to move fwd? no yes hasn't happened yes, 30 min If limited, return to speakers later in meeting? NIA Mayor req.1 speaker next agenda make statement for grp. citizen notified Issues raised that require a response? yes yes yes yes Who answers speaker Mayor Mayor/Council Council Council, if simple Item referred to staff? yes, when app. unknown yes yes Who follows up with speaker? staff or Mayor unknown staff Dept. Director Public Hearing sign in different than V.A.? no yes yes no Allow different time limit for Public Hearings? To speak to agenda issue yes- 5 min 5 min-person public hearing must be on public comment 10 min- CPO agenda or no comment on issues not 15 min- Applicant allowed scheduled for PH are at Mayor's discretion VISITOR'S AGENDA RESPONSES BY CITY Washington Co. Wilsonville p 7-- - 777777 Visitor Agenda allowed by Council ? yes yes Agenda Order in meeting 3rd, after consent 4th Agenda Item Title Oral Communication Citizen Input & Communication Announcement Limited to NON-AGENDA items? yes yes sign in sheets used? sign-in sheet only 9 expecting many speakers Time Limit of speaker? 2 min, longer at end of mtg only if many sign up to talk Agenda item total time-limited to move fwd? yes - 30 min requires CC vote to extend If limited, return to speakers later in meeting? yes, 5 min per person, 10 min per topic Issues raised that require a response? yes yes Who answers speaker Chairman Council Item referred to staff? staff yes Who follows up with speaker? On next agenda if not Staff and City Manager resolved Public Hearing sign in different than V.A.? yes not answered Allow different time limit for Public Hearings? 1 st & 2nd Hearings: not answered 3 min for individuals/12 min group Additional Hearings: 2 min-individuals/5 min group speakers limited to ONE oral communication Visitor Agenda Poll by City OREGON CITY - CITY COMMISSION MEETING L/F Sign-In To Give Testimony Hand To Mayor or City Recorder (Please Print) 6V IV C(T~ Name: Address: Phone: Agenda Issue: For: Against: Today's Date: 08/20/2004 14:15 FAX 5035262479 AV CITY HALL 3rd FLOOR To Subject of your testimony Position on issue ( ) FOR ( )AGAINST Name Date Street City State Zip Phone I represent O Myself O Other ~c'ov LA-Irf Date: Agenda Item No. Subject: Request to Testify at Public Nearing The Mayor will announce the opening of the public hearing. A staff report will be read first. The Mayor will then ask for'public testimony along with instructions on the type of testimony that is admissible. When the Mayor calls your name to testify, move to the center table and begin your testimony by stating your name and address for the record, and state your support, opposition or question(s) relating to the issue. In the interest of time, please be prepared to summarize your comments to three minutes. PLEASE SIGN UP BELOW: Proponents: (Please print legibly) Name: Address: Opponents: (Please print legibly) Name: Address: Other. (Please print legibly) Name: Address: CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS Item 2 of the City Council Agenda Anyone wishing to address the Council on an item NOT on the printed agenda may do so. The Mayor will announce Citizen Communications and ask if anyone wishes to be heard; please sign up below if you wish to speak to the Council. Alen the Mayor calls your name, move to the center table and begin by stating your name and address for the record, and state your comments. In the interest of time, please limit your comments to two minutes. PLEASE SIGN UP BELOW: Name Address Phone , Topic: Name Address Phone Topic: Name Address Phone Topic: Name Address Phone To ic: Address Phone Name To ic: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER AGENDA ITEM NUMBER DATE DATE IN FAVOR OPPOSED LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL LAKE OSWEGO CrrY COUNCIL REQUEST TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ITEM OR THE APPEAL THE ITEM OR THE APPEAL Subject Subject Name Name Address Number Street City Address Number Street City State Zip Telephone State Zip Telephone Are You Part of an Organized Presentation? ❑ No ❑ Yes Are You Part of an Organized Presentation? ❑ No ❑ Yes If Yes, List Speakers In Order of Presentation. If Yes, List Speakers In Order of Presentation. Please read Welcome to the Meeting brochure for procedures. Please read Welcome to the Meeting brochure for procedures. The Mayor will call you to the microphone at the appropriate time. The Mayor will call you to the microphone at the appropriate time. SUBMIT TO CITY RECORDER SUBMIT TO CITY RECORDER AGENDA ITEM NUMBER DATE NEUTRAL ° LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL REQUEST TO SPEAK NEUTRALLY ON THE ITEM OR THE APPEAL ayafda Subject Dame - CAI f- r e. Address Number Street City State Zip Telephone n Are You Part of an Organized Presentation? ❑ No ❑ Yes If Yes, List Speakers In Order of Presentation. a 6A~ Please read Welcome to the Meeting brochure for procedures. The Mayor will call you to the microphone at the appropriate time. SUBMrr TO CITY RECORDER C:\DOCUME-1\jane\LOCALS-1\Temp\REQUES-1.DOC tL- PUBLIC TESTIMONY PUBLIC TESTIMONY IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL ON AN ISSUE NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA OR AN ITEM ON AN ISSUE NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA OR AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA NOT SCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC ON THE AGENDA NOT SCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION BELOW HEARING. PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION BELOW AND GIVE TO THE CITY RECORDER OF STAFF GREETER AND GIVE TO THE CITY RECORDER OF STAFF GREETER PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. THE MAYOR PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. THE MAYOR WILL RECOGNIZE YOU AND ASK FOR YOUR TESTIMONY WILL RECOGNIZE YOU AND ASK FOR YOUR TESTIMONY AT EITHER THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY SECTION OF THE AT EITHER THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY SECTION OF THE MEETING OR THE APPROPRIATE AGENDA ITEM. MEETING OR THE APPROPRIATE AGENDA ITEM. EACH PERSON'S COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE EACH PERSON'S COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES. MINUTES. Name: Name: Address: Address: Subject or Agenda Item Number: Subject or Agenda Item Number: Your Comments: Your Comments: Proponent: Opponent: General: Proponent: Opponent: General: Date: Date: 4 SIGN.- U,P--:,.S--"H EET. Date: August 2, 2004 T ime: 7:00 pm Agenda Item: 5b Hunter Addition Street Lighting LID Before the: City Council Place: Robert L. Simon Council Chambers Please Print NAME ADDRESS GENERAL PROPONENT OPPONENT f AGENDA ITEM # ~7 FOR AGENDA OF September 21. 004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Process for Conti ous Annexations PREPARED BY: Jim Hendra DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Opportunities and options for annexation of properties contiguous to the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Consider options and provide direction. INFORMATION SUMMARY Council was most recently briefed on the City's policies and practices of annexation of contiguous properties during the study session of the September 14, 2004 Council meeting. The purpose of this agenda item is to update Council on those policies and receive direction should there be a need to change policy and practice. In exchange for the City's provision of services, the current practice is to require properties within Tigard's Urban Services Area and adjacent to the city limits to annex prior to development, i.e., final plat approval. Properties within the Urban Services Area but not adjacent to the city limits are required to submit consents to annexation at the time of development approval. ORS 222.115 allows cities and property owners to enter into a written annexation contract and consent to annex. Several properties are currently undergoing development in unincorporated Bull Mountain. Council recently took action to place the Bull Mountain Annexation issue separately before the voters of unincorporated Bull Mountain and the City of Tigard on the November 2, 2004 ballot. Unincorporated Bull Mountain will continue to develop regardless of the outcome of the November election. The issue before Council is whether to proceed with annexation where properties are adjacent to the City and/or initiate annexations of those properties where consents to annexation exist. Under State statutes, annexations cannot become effective within 60 days prior to a general election. This means that we can currently process an annexation, however, it cannot become effective until November P . OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Growth Management, Goal #2 - Urban services are provided to all citizens within Tigard's urban growth boundary and recipients of services pay their share. ATTACHMENT LIST Exhibit A: Memo, Process for Contiguous Annexations Attachment 1: Summary of Comprehensive Plan Policies Attachment 2: Memo from Gary Firestone, Annexation Without Elections Exhibit B: Map of Current Development Projects in Unincorporated Washington County FISCAL NOTES The current Parks System Development Charge (SDC) is $1,852 per single family detached dwelling. Assuming that Summit Ridge, Bella Vista, and the Gooley property would be built with single family detached dwellings prior to annexation, the potential Park SDC revenue would equal $381,512. Attached dwellings (row houses) are assessed a lower SDC of $1,163 and multi-family dwellings pay $959 per unit. Assuming Alberta Rider would be built prior to annexation, the City would lose Park SDCs also. Schools are currently assessed a Park SDC fee of $31 per full time employee. At this time, we do not know how many employees will be at the Alberta Rider School. Other land use applications aren't far enough in the review process to know how many lots and lost SDCs are involved. EXHIBIT "A" Avzam CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Mayor and City Council members FROM: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director A~JAW DATE: August 30, 2004 SUBJECT: Process for Contiguous Annexations The City Council was updated this past spring regarding the existing process regarding annexation of contiguous properties, consents to annex and the issue of lost Park SDC's if development occurs prior to annexation. This memo builds upon and expands upon these prior discussions. It should be noted that these options could be considered regardless of the Bull Mountain Annexation vote in November. If the annexation vote passes in November, timing for annexation of particular properties, pending development, could be a consideration for collection of Park SDC's, if the County does not establish an interim Park SDC. Existing Policy and Practice regarding annexation Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies (refer to Attachment 1 for summary of Comprehensive Plan policies), the City has required properties in the Urban Services Area to annex prior to or as a condition of their development if they are contiguous to the City limits. Annexation has not been required for properties not contiguous because irregular and confusing boundaries would be created. In those instances, consents to annex are currently required. The City began the practice of requiring consents to annex for any non-contiguous land development within the Urban Service Area after direction provided by the City Council regarding the Thornwood Subdivision in 2000. Since that time, subdivisions have been conditioned to either annex (if adjacent to the City) or sign consents to annex. Of the 17 subdivisions approved since Tigard began development review of the Urban Services Area (1997), 5 annexed prior to final plat, 2 signed consents to annex and 4 have been conditioned to sign consents to annex. Six subdivisions do not have valid consents to annex because the subdivisions were processed prior to Council direction on development within the Urban Services Area. There are also 3 subdivisions in process which will be required to sign consents or annex, if approved. 8-31-04 Contiguous Annexation update memo Page 1 of 7 With a number of consents existing or pending, the City has some opportunities to examine the existing policy and determine if other approaches are more appropriate. Below is a discussion of the opportunities as well as some identified alternatives for Council to consider. Preferred options are provided for Council which will result in 1.) the collection of some Park SDC's that previously may not have been collected and 2.) a planned and efficient annexation approach for future annexations. The City Attorney has provided a memo (Attachment 2) that outlines various methods of annexation and specifically answers under what circumstances annexation can occur without an election. Consent to annex The City has 2 consents to annex that have been recorded and are valid and several more pending. The pending consents to annex and waivers of the one year time limit for the consents have been required as conditions of approval for recent decisions, but the conditions have not been satisfied yet. The areas with valid (signed and recorded) consents are Tuscany Estates and Bella Vista. Evaluation of Tuscany Estates The map below shows that Tuscany has been primarily built out and is at the western edge of the urban services area. Since Tuscany Estates is primarily built, there would be no opportunity to capture Park SDC's for this development. The current assessed value for all lots in the subdivision (most recent assessment does not include homes) is approximately $6.7 million, however, due to the distance from the existing City limits, service provision would not be very efficient. There are two alternatives identified for this area: Option A+: Act on the consents to tom' annex and annex right of way' between the existing City of Tigard" y City limits and this area. The map shows that, in order to bring this site in, annexation of extensive right of way would be needed. This would result in irregular boundaries which could cause confusion to service providers and is inconsistent with current Comprehensive Plan Tuscanv Subdivision policies and County policies regarding annexation. If this alternative were chosen, the Council would need to consider amending the Comprehensive Plan. Option B: Do not act on at this time and wait until more properties are annexed or annexation consents signed that would allow for a more uniform boundary. Because the consents are recorded with a waiver of the one year time limit, there is no risk with waiting beyond one year to act upon them. 8-39-04 Contiguous Annexation update memo Page 2 of 7 wood Preferred option: (Option B) Council take no action at this time on the consents to annex for the Tuscany Subdivision. Evaluation of Bella Vista The following map shows the second area that Tigard has a consent to annexation for, Bella Vista subdivision. Bella Vista is located between Beef Bend and Bull Mountain road, near the Alberta Rider school site. Bella Vista has been platted, but substantial construction has not begun yet. Based on the number of lots in the subdivision that have not been built upon at this time, it is estimated that approximately $17,000 in Parks SDC's (based on the current SDC methodology) would be generated if the area were inside the City limits immediately. While Bella Vista is currently not adjacent to the City limits, it differs from Tuscany in that there are several projects underway that have been or will be conditioned to annex or sign consents to annex which would connect this site to the City limits. Pending developments Bella Vista An additional subdivision directly north of Bella Vista, Summit Ridge, has been conditioned to sign a consent to annex. Alberta Rider Elementary School has been conditioned to annex which will bring the City limits to the edge of these subdivisions before substantial house construction were completed. Arbor Summit 1 is under review and pending a final decision and Arbor Summit 2 has an application in that has not been deemed complete, however, a petition for annexation has been received for these properties. As a result of the multiple projects in process near Bella Vista, several alternatives have been identified for annexation of Bella Vista: Alberta Rider Arbor Summit 1 & 2 Option A: Act only on the existing Bella Vista consent and annex right of way to bring the City limits to the Summit Ridae property. This will create a temporary irregularity in the boundary. An outstanding issue is that emergency Bella Vista _ service providers must be able to provide adequate service to this area. ' Option B: Once we receive the consents to annex from Alberta Rider and Summit Ridge, act on the consent to annex and annex the Alberta Rider School site, Summit Ridge and Arbor Summit at the same time. This may create a temporary irregularity in the boundary because there will be unincorporated areas south of Bull Mountain between the existing City limits and this area. Emergency service providers must be able to provide adequate service to this area. 8-31-04 Contiguous Annexation update memo Page 3 of 7 Option C: Once we receive the consents to annex from Alberta Rider and Summit Ridge, act on the consent to annex and annex the Alberta Rider School site, Summit Ridge and Arbor Summit and take in additional property using the double majority annexation method. The double majority method is authorized by ORS 222 and requires a majority of property owners and majority of registered voters to support annexation. Option D: Once we receive the consents to annex from Alberta Rider and Summit Ridge, act on the consent to annex and annex the Alberta Rider School site, Summit Ridge and Arbor Summit and annex the Beef Bend right of way. This would create an island and the unincorporated areas could be brought in through the island annexation process. Option E: Do nothing at this time. Wait until more consents have been recorded and/or additional properties annex to ensure that there will be no island or irregular service boundaries. Because the consents are recorded with a waiver of the one year time limit, there is no risk with waiting beyond one year to act upon them. Preferred option: (Option C) In order to capture anticipated Park SDC's prior to development, act upon the Bella Vista consent to annex and once we receive the consents, bring it in along with Summit Ridge, Alberta Rider and Arbor Summit (which currently has an annexation petition filed) and bring in additional properties via the double majority annexation method. Coordinate with the existing and future service providers to ensure that the configuration of properties annexed is planned to minimize confusion for emergency service provision. Properties contiguous to City limits As noted above, the current practice is to require development adjacent to the City limits to annex prior to development (e.g., Final Plat approval) and to process any requested annexation that is adjacent to the City limits immediately. Examples include Alberta Rider School, Arbor Summit, and Summit Ridge. This brings these properties into the City prior to building permits and SDC's being paid, however, it is a piece-meal annexation method that can result in irregular boundaries. In the past, the City has changed its practice regarding how proactive it is in bringing in additional properties utilizing the double majority method. In most cases, the City has not annexed additional properties to create a more uniform boundary, however, more recently, the City has been more proactive. An example of this is annexation of the BPA powerline right of way as part of the annexation of the Pacific Crest Subdivision. The Council should decide if this outcome, the continued piece-meal annexation method, is efficient or if they want to take a more planned and proactive approach to annexation. There are several alternatives identified: Option A: Continue to annex properties at the property owner request and require it with new development adjacent to the City limits (status quo). Option B: Continue to annex properties at the property owner request but also take full advantage of the double majority method and require additional properties to annex if it will create a more uniform boundary. 8-31-04 Contiguous Annexation update memo Page 4 of 7 Option C: Cease annexing at property owner requests and requiring annexation as part of development approval, but instead, require consents to annex and waivers of the one year time limit on these consents so that annexations can be done in a more planned and efficient way. It should be noted that pending the outcome of the Washington County interim Park SDC, this method may result in the loss of SDC's if annexations are not accomplished prior to building permits. All of the alternatives identified above are consistent with existing policies. Preferred option: The preferred option depends on whether the County adopts a park SDC for the unincorporated Bull Mountain area: • If there is a County interim Park SDC, the preferred option (Option C) is to cease annexing at property owner requests and requiring annexation as part of development approval, but instead, require consents to annex and waivers of the one year time limit on these consents so that annexations can be done in a more thoughtful and effective way. This gives the City the ability to annex immediately but also provides the discretion to wait until the boundaries are the most logical for service provision. • If there is no County Park SDC, the preferred option (Option B) is to ensure properties are annexed prior to development by continuing to annex properties at the property owner request but also take full advantage of the double majority method and require additional properties to annex if it will create a more uniform boundary. Islands ' t1J'~~- A separate issue involves island annexations. Islands F- 7,,-,.- are lands within unincorporated Washington County that Fern street island Parcels are completely surrounded by the City. Currently, there Ltj are several islands of unincorporated areas along Fern Street, which are identified on the map to the right. ; Council's direction on the above policy issues could result in additional islands being created. s In addition, there is a petition for annexation submitted north of Bull Mountain Road that will create an island if approved which is noted on the map below. Because the Bull Mountain annexation vote will not include the Fern Street unincorporated Petition for island areas, the Council can consider annexation whether to annex these areas separately utilizing the island annexation method. It should be noted that some of these parcels previously in the island have annexed prior to development. There are large parcels that could develop further, however, because they are adjacent to the City limits, they would be 8-31-04 Contiguous Annexation update memo Page 5 of 7 required to annex (or sign consents to annex, depending on Council direction on the previous discussion item) prior to development. The question Council must decide is how soon and in what way they want to annex islands. The options identified include: Option A: Use the island annexation method and annex at this time. This method is more proactive, and might result in people being annexed against their will. Option B: Do nothing immediately, but require annexation (or consents to annex) as development occurs. Because the identified islands are contiguous to the City limits, development will be required to annex before construction thereby allowing the City to collect Park SDC's. In addition, annexation of any of these island parcels will decrease the existing irregularity in the boundary. Preferred option: (Option A) Because annexation is required as part of development, not acting on these islands will not result in a loss of Park SDC revenue, however, the islands do result in an irregular service boundary and it may be appropriate to move forward with annexing these areas at this time. Summary As a result of existing annexation policy regarding the creation of uniform boundaries, the City has lost potential Park SDC's that might have been collected with new development. However, Council has several options that could minimize this trend. These options could also require amending the Comprehensive Plan, Intergovernmental Agreements, etc. There also is an issue of fairness for residents, contiguous to the city, which are not paying for city services they are receiving. The options identified above illustrate the complexity surrounding this issue of contiguous annexation. Council needs to have a discussion on the broader policy issues before considering individual situations. One policy does not address all the individual situations. The various options impact the City's ability to collect Park SDC's; however, the County's action on an interim Park SDC could resolve that issue. The preferred options identified, however, attempt to provide a balance between being proactive and doing nothing. It is recommended that Council begin discussion on these options and schedule subsequent discussions fora future Council meeting in October to further determine the best course of action. Page 6 of 7 8-31.04 Contiguous Annexation update memo Attachment 1 Summary of Comprehensive Plan Policies Existing Comprehensive Plan policies regarding annexation include Policy 10.1.1, 10.12 and 10.2.1. Below is a brief summary of these policies. Policy 10.1.1 -requires that prior to the annexation of land to the City of Tigard, the City shall review services to determine that there is adequate capacity to serve the parcel, and will not significantly reduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land within the city of Tigard. Policy 10.1.2 - provides specific criteria to guide annexations. The annexation must: e eliminate an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincorporated territory; or e not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the City (police must comment upon the annexation), e The land must be is located within the Tigard urban planning area and be contiguous to the city boundary; and e The annexation must be able to be accommodated by services. Policy 10.2.1 states that the City shall not approve the extension of City or Clean Water Services (formally USA) sewer lines unless the property annexes or signs a consent to annex, or where there is a potential or imminent health hazard. 8-31-04 Contiguous Annexation update memo Page 7 of 7 Attachment 2 RAMIE CREW CORRIGAN BACHRACH, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 MEMORANDUM (503) 2224402 Fax: (503) 243-2944 TO: Barbara Shields, Long Range Planning Manager, City of Tigard FROM: Gary Firestone DATE: August 25, 2004 RE: Annexation Without Elections ISSUE Under what circumstances can the City annex territory without an election? ANSWER Under ORS Chapter 222, the presumption is that there will be an election in both the area to be annexed and in the City. However, various provisions of that chapter allow the annexation to proceed without an election in the area to be annexed or in the City. If standards for both areas are met, the annexation may proceed without any vote of the electors. The City does not need to call an election in the territory to be annexed under any of the following circumstances: I . The City has the written consent' of a majority of all owners of land and of at least 50% of the electors. ORS 222.125. 2. The City has the written consent of at least half the owners of the land in the area to be annexed, who own half the total land with at least half the value of land in the territory. ORS 222.170(1). Note that the constitutionality of this provision has been questioned and use of this provision would almost certainly result in a challenge that has a some 'This memorandum does not address the issue of what constitutes valid written consent. Memorandum re: Annexation Without Elections August 25, 2004 Page 2 chance of success. 3. The City has the written consent of a majority of the electors and the owners of more than half the land. ORS 222.170(2). 4. The territory to be annexed is an "island" totally surrounded by the City. ORS 222750. 5. The annexation is needed to abate a health hazard (i.e to provide water or sewer). ORS 222.840 et seq. The health hazard annexation requires approval of the state Department of Human Services. Because ORS 222.125 establishes a more difficult standard to meet than ORS 222.170(2) and there are no situations in which ORS 222.125 has any advantages over ORS 222.179(2), ORS 222.125 is rarely, if ever, used. The City may annex without approval of the voters within the City because no City charter or code provision requires City voter approval for annexation. However, the City must follow the public hearing procedures of ORS 222.120 if it does not hold an election. ORS 222.120 requires a public hearing, preceded by published notice (once a week for two weeks in a newspaper of general circulation and posting in four public places) of the public hearing. The statutes provide legal authority for annexation procedure, but a decision to annex is also a land use decision, so applicable land use standards, including the goals, comprehensive plan policies and the Community Development Code apply at least to the land use portion of the decision. G:4nuni\Ti gard\anncxvotci ssucs082504.wpd Map of current development projects in unincorporated Washington County ~ r j, ® ~ ~ r~ b-Ill`f`t1~1g uuLuu m ~I e ~ I X a r ~