Loading...
City Council Packet - 11/23/2004 07 Mal CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 23rd, 2004 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED 1:\0fs\Donna's\Ccp1d3 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Agenda Item No. Meeting of i ( I , OS COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 23, 2004 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Dirksen. Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors Moore, Sherwood, Wilson (arrived at 6:33 p.m.), Woodruff STUDY SESSION > DISCUSS COUNCIL LAPTOPS/ISSUES Mr. Monahan asked if Councilors had any problems with their laptop computers, they should let staff know so that IT staff could take the computers after the December 14 meeting until the January 1 1 Council meeting to make any needed upgrades. > CITIZEN COMMUNICATION FOLLOW-UP - Mr. Monahan reported on the following Items that had been brought up during Citizen Communication: • Status of Fred Fields' access across City land • Bull Mountain Annexation - Mr. Monahan noted there was comments from Mr. Frewing about the City not dropping the Bull Mountain annexation, and did not feel he needed to comment on that, as he was asking Council to keep this in mind. • Gretchen Buehner, Regarding Late Delivery of Cityscape - Mr. Monahan noted staff had commented about that last week. • Lisa Hamilton-Treick comments about the Fifth Tuesday, open to public with Tigard related issues Mr. Monahan stated there had been comment about whether non-city residents could speak. The concern was the focus of discussion should be on city business. The Council was not concerned about just talking about Bull Mountain as an example. Mr. Moore stated he did not want to hear about things the City has no control over. Mayor Dirksen suggested if people begin to talk about those issues, we say the appropriate venue for that would be the Washington County Commission Chamber in Hillsboro. • Mayor Dirksen stated he was interested in the issue about the light and crosswalk at the Library. There have been several letters to the editor in the Tigard City Council Minutes Page I Meeting of November 23, 2004 Rr ti Tigard Times. This did not come up as part of Citizen Communication. He asked if this had been covered In Cityscape yet. Mr. Monahan noted the Executive Staff did talk about the location not being at Omara, but at the north side of Wall Street. *Councilor Wilson arrived at 6:33 p.m. > CITY HALL CLOSED ON THURSDAY 81 FRIDAY > LIBRARY IS OPEN FRIDAY AND SATURDAY > NO NEWSLETTER THIS WEEK > SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT RECRUITMENT PROCESS - Meet December 14 @ 6 OR 6:30 PM? Mr. Monahan noted he was just asked this question. The existing school superintendent, Steve Lauer, will be moving back to California next spring. The School District is hiring a consultant to assist the Board to select a new superintendent. The question is whether the City Council as a group, or just a couple of members, would want to meet with the consultant to identify community issues the School District Is faced with, what qualities are needed in a superintendent, and what are the challenges ahead. He suggested to Susan Stark-Hayden the consultant could meet with Council on December 14 at either 6 or 6:30 p.m. to receive Council's input. She had indicated this time fits into the consultant's schedule. Council concurred to schedule the consultant at 6 p.m. for half an hour on December 14. > COUNCIL SCHEDULE FOR DECEMBER 2004 - Meetings on December 21 and 28 - Mr. Monahan stated he had asked Washington County Administrator whether L the County Commissioners could meet with the Tigard Council on December 20, but r he has not yet received a response back. December 20 has tentatively been scheduled for that meeting, pending confirmation with Washington County Administrator. The purpose of that meeting would be to discuss post annexation o issues. Washington County Commissioners just held their strategic planning session and he felt it was important to hear their point of view before Council goes into its i goal setting in January. The Council concurred to eliminate the meeting on December 21 if the meeting on December 20 takes place, and also to cancel the regular business meeting on December 28, unless something very pressing comes up. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 2 Meeting of November 23, 2004 > RICHARD FRANZKE LETTER RE: BULL MOUNTAIN Mr. Monahan briefly reviewed the contents of Mr. Franzke's letter In which Mr. Franzke offers to continue the discussion of annexation with Mayor Dirksen. The specific concerns Mr. Franzke has is to reduce the current zoning density and provide parks and open space. He suggested staff draft a letter for the Mayor's signature. Councilor Woodruff stated the dialogue should continue. The Council is not cutting them off, but the ball is In the Bull Mountain community's court to come back at some point and tell us what they think will work relating to annexation. Councilor Sherwood stated because the Bull Mountain area residents overwhelming rejected the Bull Mountain annexation, she did not feel the City should put too much energy Into that area. Councilor Moore noted Tigard does not have the resources to do their studies. Councilor Woodruff suggested that they come back and say what they would need and put a proposal In front of Council. Mr. Monahan noted Council is just seeing the lengthy letter. He suggested Council look through It closely and give direction to staff and Mayor Dirksen on how to respond. > ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS a. Calendar Review November 25: Thanksgiving - City Hall Closed November 26: City Hall Closed - LIBRARY OPEN ` November 30: 5th Tuesday - Water District Auditorium/Lobby Conf. Rm - 7:00 pm L December 1-4: National League of Cities Conference- Indianapolis C December 6: Cathy Wheatley returns! December 14: City Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm a December 21: City Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm December 24: City Hall Closed - LIBRARY OPEN December 28: City Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm December 31: City Hall Closed - LIBRARY OPEN > FOREST DEFERRAL AMENDMENT PROCESS Tigard City Council Minutes Page 3 Meeting of November 23, 2004 Dick Brewersdorff, Current Planning Manager, reviewed Jim Hendryx' memo and map showing the impacted areas. The properties under Forest Deferral are pretty much exempt from normal provisions. Properties do not have to get a tree removal permit unless they are In steep slopes or wetland areas, and in those cases, the main criteria are to file an erosion control plan. The maps indicates the number of tree deferral areas left in the city, and the urban planning area; seven are located inside the existing City limits and the others are in the urban planning area. Four properties are located outside the City are owned by people who will ultimately develop their land. The memo also points out that If Council decides to amend the code relative to Forest Deferral, it will only Impact the areas inside the city, not the areas in the urban planning area in unincorporated Washington County, unless Washington County decides to implement the amendments as well, and Washington County basically looks at Its codes once a year. Mr. Brewersdorff noted Ballot Measure 37 is now the big issue to be faced. He discussed this issue with Gary Firestone, Deputy City Attorney, who indicated owners have a right to log their property because that is a permitted use in the County. If the City chooses to do something in the future, there will be a distinct possibility of a takings claim. Given the number of properties left, unless Council wanted staff to talk to all those property owners and see where they are headed, he would not recommend doing a code revision at this time. He reviewed the status of several of the properties he is aware of. Until all the issues under Ballot Measure 37 are resolved, which may take a couple of years, he believes everyone forgot about the benefits of land use planning restrictions. Mayor Dirksen stated Mr. Brewersdorff thought process was parallel to his. If there were an opportunity to try to get rid of these within the city, it would make perfect sense. Until this whole issue arose as part of Measure 37, he was not aware there were any forest deferral areas within the city. The Council concurred to let the issue of Forest Deferral to remain as is and not amend the code. Mr. Brewersdorff stated in many instances, developers say they would like to save the trees, but the problems they are faced with in some subdivisions with steep slopes, rather than be hassled with where they put the tree protection fencing and quality issues that come about, it is easier to cut down the trees. Councilor Moore noted in many instances, the trees were planted and the owners have spent a lifetime nurturing and watching them grow, all with the expectation of cutting and selling the timber at some time and using that income for their retirement. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 4 Meeting of November 23, 2004 Mr. Brewersdorff Indicated the Tree Task Force spent about three years studying this issue where people had planted trees years ago for this purpose. Councilor Moore stated he was not Interested in subsidizing a farmer for their trees. Mr. Brewersdorff stated the City has only heard one side of the tree removal issue, and there are probably two other sides or more of this Issue. > COUNCIL TRAINING - CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Monahan reviewed the list of possible training topics, and asked Council if they had a preference to the order. There are changes in State Law being Implemented to the Public Contract Review Process on March 1, so Finance Director Craig Prosser will conduct that training of Council and the Budget Committee closer to the time the rules change. Councilor Woodruff noted he would like a review of land use process. Council concurred this was the number one priority for training. *City Attorney Tim Ramis arrived at 6:53 p.m. Following discussion on each topic, Council concurred to the following priority of training issues: 1) Land Use; 2) Meeting Procedure and Public Meetings Law; 3) Public Records and Records Retention, E-mail, Phone Records; 4) Personal and Municipal Liability. Council discussed when the training would take place. It was agreed that some training would be added to Study Sessions. This option would not require additional cost by the City Attorney. Council could also schedule a longer period of time to discuss so Mr. Ramis could cover more subjects at one time. Mr. Monahan noted the Planning Commission holds training on land use issues, which Councilors could also attend. Mr. Monahan asked if municipal powers could be blended with meeting procedure. Election law can wait. Maybe a session on Ethics could be a citywide session with Boards and Commissions. Funds were budgeted for training. He noted funds were budgeted in this year's budget for Council training. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council recessed into Executive Session at 6:56 p.m. to discuss Pending Litigation under ORS 192.660(2)(h). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the Tigard City Council Minutes Page 5 Meeting of November 23, 2004 purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. The Executive Session concluded at 7:30 p.m. i i i Tigard City Council Minutes Page 6 Meeting of November 23, 2004 BUSINESS MEETING Mayor Dirksen called the City Council St Local Contract Review Board to order at 7:40 p.m. Councilors Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors Moore, Sherwood, Wilson and Woodruff. 1.4 Council Communications 81 Liaison Reports 1.5 Cali to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Mr. Monahan requested the addition of a resolution after item 6. 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Norman Russell, 8857 SW Edgewood Street, Tigard, stated he represents his local neighborhood, and read a letter into the record (Agenda Item No. 2, Exhibit #1) concerning possible multi-housing development of property at 8855 SW Edgewood Street, into three parcels, and the impacts on adjacent properties. He asked Council to consider the negative impact this type of development would create, which would also establish a precedent for a patchwork of development in the neighborhood. Councilor Moore stated he was not familiar with the proposed project but asked If this had gone through the permit process. Mr. Monahan asked Mr. Brewersdorff to report on the status of this proposal. Mr. Russell noted a pre-application meeting was held March 4, 2004, but the application has now expired. The owner has moved out but has the property for sale and is being marketed to developers. Neighbors know of two different people trying to buy it for its current use, but the owner is distributing information through multiple listing a service indicating the property has been surveyed and able to be subdivided into smaller lots. e Dick Brewersdorff, Current Planning Manager, reviewed the process developers are required to follow, including a pre-application conference during which staff reviews the standards and rules, and holding a neighborhood meeting before a plan can be submitted. Depending on the method of development chosen, the plan is then reviewed by either the Planning Commission for planned developments, or to staff on subdivision proposals. There are specific requirements relating to streets, fire access, water service, drainage, erosion control, and a service provider letter is required from Clean Water Services. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 7 Meeting of November 23, 2004 Mayor Dirksen noted Clean Water Services and Tualatin Valley Fire st Rescue reviews all the applications and is required to sign off on them before any permits are issued. It is a long and involved process that any developer would have to go through, before something like that can move forward. Mr. Russell stated the neighbors are not against anyone from making money, but there were some particular issues the neighborhood was concerned about protecting. Mayor Dirksen noted he lived in the area and would be concerned about drainage Issues as well. Ed Duffield, 8859 SW Edgewood, noted he also lives in the same area and was concerned about the potential development. FOLLOW-UP TO CITIZEN COMMUNICATION • Fields Property - Mr. Monahan noted regarding the access across City property to the property behind the library that Mr. Frewing mentioned last week, there has been considerable communication between the City Engineer and Mr. Fields, the property owner. There has not been any development application submitted. It was determined the property owner was going back there to do some analysis to determine where the flood plain lines are, and it Is his understanding Mr. Fields has completed that project. • Fifth Tuesday - Mr. Monahan noted Council would hold its first Fifth Tuesday Citizen Forum on November 30, in the Water Building auditorium, from 7 to 9 p.m. There was question whether those meetings would be open to the public for Tigard related issues. The Council's answer is that they will be there to hear citizen issues related to Tigard related issues, and Council wanted to 1 focus on Tigard business. Notice has been sent out about that meeting. i 3. CONSENT AGENDA Rob Williams, president of the Youth Action Council, read the Consent items. i Upon motion of Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for October 26, 2004 3.2 Local Contract Review Board Tigard City Council Minutes Page 8 Meeting of November 23, 2004 a. Amend Engineering Design Services Contract on Hall Blvd/Wall St Intersection Project b. Approve the Purchase of Three (3) Hybrid Vehicles for Building Division Use C. Approve the Purchase of Two (2) Half-Ton Pickups for Police Department 3.3 Intergovernmental Agreement for Towing Services The motion was approved by a unanimous vote: Mayor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes Councilor Woodruff - Yes * Item No. 5 was taken out of turn at this time. 4. JOINT MEETING WITH STATE SENATOR and STATE REPRESENTATIVE State Senator District 18, Ginny Burdick, and State Representative District No. 35, Larry Galizio, were present. Senator Burdick noted Captain Bell wrote the first draft of a bill she introduced and then became an initiative to voters to require background checks at gunshows. Several issues she is concerned about include: • Ballot Measure 37, and the impacts it has on local governments. • She had closely watched the proposed Bull Mountain annexation to the City of Tigard. She will be proposing legislation to put cities within the Metro area on the same basis as other cities in the State, allowing a straight majority requirement to annex an area like Bull Mountain. i Representative Galizio stated he was excited about the upcoming session but hopes to e attend occasional City of Tigard Council meetings to keep Council informed about ! what is going on in Salem. He is excited to work with Senator Burdick because she has a lot of institutional memory, is experienced and well respected throughout the State. His concerns include Measure 37, the State's budget, the "Do No Harm" legislation, unfunded mandates, and other policy decisions local governments have to deal with. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 9 Meeting of November 23, 2004 Councilor Moore said he would like to hear what goals and concerns Senator Burdick and Representative Galizio have, and what is on their priority list. Senator Burdick noted her challenging Issues would be: • implementation of Ballot Measure 37, which might possibly come before the Legislature. She explained she did not believe the Legislation can or should do much to Ballot Measure 37 because of the 60/40 margin It was approved by, and any changes would need the support of the proponents. • Educational funding will continue to be a huge issue because there Is a billion dollar shortfall. Education is a huge part of the budget, so she Is worried how education will fare during the session. She noted voters of the Tigard/Tualatin School District approved the renewal of the local option even given what she felt was a misleading ballot title, because it looked like a new tax. • She hoped to continue as chair of the judiciary Committee, and hope to use that to deal with many problems. That Committee will need to deal with the huge methanphetamine epidemic in Oregon. She noted many property crimes are due to that problem. • Interpretation on the vote of the gay marriage issue, which will be a thorny issue to figure out which direction to go with that. Senator Burdick noted that with Measure 37, the legislature has several options: • ]ust let it go into effect and see what the local governments handle it. Local governments already are taking different positions. One Jurisdiction adopted an ordinance allowing property owners to sue if a property owner gets Measure 37 waivers they don't like. • Send it through either the judiciary Committee or a Land Use Committee, or set up a special committee to deal with this. Max Williams will be missed because he headed up a special committee to deal with Measure 7. Many policy issues will be overshadowed by the budget constraints. Senator Burdick stated she would continue to push her bill to allow school boards to keep guns out of schools, even if people have concealed licenses. It will be a difficult t bill to pass because of the power of the gun lobby, and also because people already feel It Is the law. There is a loophole, which she intends to deal with. i i Representative Galizio stated he concurred with Senator Burdick. One thing he heard over and over was that people are tired of partisan bickering. A major goal of his and other freshman legislators is not to have several special sessions. He feels a legislature that understands there are difficult issues, but legislators need to listen to others and collaborate and negotiate with others. This is something he wants to help to reach difficult decisions. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 10 Meeting of November 23, 2004 Senator Burdick concurred there needs to be cooperation by all the members of each house. She noted for the first time ever, the Senate Democrats agreed their caucus meetings would follow the requirements of the Public Meeting Law, Including notice and being open to the public. Councilor Moore stated Salem has credibility problems and a historic lack of effectiveness by not getting things done. One thing he would like to see is return of school funding to the school boards. There is a lack of funding that Tigard is used to. While the local school tax option passed, there is still a need to return that control to the local level. He hopes that something can be done about this. Mayor Dirksen noted he concurred because the school funding is a burden that has been placed on the State. Senator Burdick stated this issue was a reverse mandate by the voters. The State approves mandates to local governments all the time, but the voters did It to the State this time by giving responsibility for schools to the Legislature and not adding a dime in additional revenue In which to handle this huge issue. Senator Burdick advised local governments to contact Oregonians in Action, to request their support to change the law under Ballot Measure 37. With a 60/40 margin of approval, any changes will require to have the support of the proponents. If the proponents are not supportive of any change, there Is not much the Legislature can do until at least some time has gone by. The Legislature found that out when voters approved the Medical Marijuana and Death with Dignity ballot measures. Councilor Woodruff stated he appreciated Senator Burdick mentioning she will be looking at the annexation issue and trying to clarify the statutes that conflict with each other. He hoped there would be a public hearing on that issue to allow people with different points of view to air their perspective. There are many views, and hope a decision is made that will be fair to everyone. Representative Galizio stated he looks forward to working with Tigard City Council. Councilor Woodruff noted Council meets at regular times each month, and hoped Senator Burdick and Representative Galizio could come to some of those meetings to present updates. 5. SWEARING IN OF NEW POLICE CAPTAIN MICHAEL BELL Chief of Police, William Dickinson, noted Captain Michael Bell worked for the City of Portland for 23 years and seven years for Lame County. He then gave the oath of office to Captain Bell. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 11 Meeting of November 23, 2004 Captain Bell introduced members of his family, and was congratulated by Mayor Dirksen and the Councilors. 6. FORMAL GRADUATION OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM (CERT) VOLUNTEER PROGRAM CLASS 11 Dennis Koellermeler, Public Works Director, presented the staff report, and then Introduced Mike Lueck, the EOC commander. Mr. Lueck reviewed the CERT training program, and then introduced each of the Graduates, and presented certificates and pins. The following graduated from the second session: Donna Hammersly, Cindy Eng, Loel Strong, Judy Baxter, Ann Anderson, Louise King, Linda Soto, Scott Peterson, Brady Minthome, Phil Wentz, Jennifer Glaser, Irene Finch, Phil Westover, and Ted Baxter. Councilor Moore asked If there was going to be any on-going training for CERT graduates. Mr. Lueck explained Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF 8t R) provides the funding for the Initial training of 24 hours of training for eight weeks. TVF 8zR is planning to provide additional training through the year for enhanced training in fire and patient extraction in cooperation with the City of Beaverton's training program. 66 - RESOLUTION - ACKNOWLEDGING THE VALUABLE SERVICE OF JANE MCGARVIN, DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Mayor Dirksen read the resolution, and presented Ms. McGarvin with certificates, pins and a potted plant. Upon motion of Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Wilson, and unanimously to approve RESOLUTION 04-90, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGING THE VALUABLE SERVICE RENDERED BY JANE MCGARVIN AS DEPUTY CITY RECORDER, FROM JUNE 2004 TO DECEMBER 2004. Mayor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes Councilor Woodruff - Yes Tigard City Council Minutes Page 12 Meeting of November 23, 2004 7. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) - CONSIDER RESOLUTION FORMING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 32 (Fern Street) Gus Duenas, City Engineer, stated one property owner had signed up to speak. He spoke with that property owner before this hearing who told him that his property was already hooked up to sewer. Because this project was going to be part of the MSTIP-3 project to be constructed In the spring, there Is time to research this concern. He would recommend that instead of proceeding with this project at this time, the project be withdrawn In order for staff to Investigate the property owner's concern. If staff' finds that the property Is already hooked to the sewer, then staff' will revise the Engineer's report to spread the cost of the project over the rest of the properties. This would provide correct notice of the estimated to the property owners before the project Is begun, rather than at the end. The property owner Indicated his home had sewer that is served from the rear of the property, rather than the normal front access. He did not know why the consultant was not aware this property was already connected to the sewer. This item was then officially withdrawn from the agenda. 8. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) - CONSIDER RESOLUTION FORMING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 33 (Walnut Street) a. Mayor Dirksen opened the Public Hearing. b. Mr. Duenas presented the staff report, which included a PowerPoint presentation (Agenda Item No. 8, Exhibit #1, copy on file with the City Recorder). Mr. Duenas reviewed the elements of the incentive program for property owners to hook up sewer after the project is complete and accepted. C. Public,,-Testimony - None. d. Staff Recommendation - Mr. Duenas indicated the staffs recommendation is r » to approve the resolution initiating the formation of the Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 33 (Walnut Street). J g e. Council Discussion 7 J Councilor Sherwood asked if it was usual to have a proposal were there is one or two lots separated by some distance from other lots. Mr. Duenas responded the sewer line runs along the creek at the rear of the property instead of in the front of the property, and this proposed Sanitary Sewer District is trying to pick up the lots that are not hooked up. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 13 Meeting of November 23, 2004 f. Mayor Dirksen closed the Public Hearing. g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 04-91. Upon motion of Councilor Wilson, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to approve RESOLULTiON 04-91 - A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 33 (SW WALNUT STREET). The motion was approved by a unanimous vote: Mayor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes Councilor Woodruff - Yes 9. PUBLIC HEARING - REVISED PARKS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY AND RATES a. Mayor Dirksen opened the Public Hearing. b. Dennis Koeliermeler, Public Works Director, Introduced Don Ganer, consultant, who worked with staff on this project. He noted Council had received a letter from Ernie Platt of the Home Builders Association (Agenda Item No. 9, Exhibit # 1) and then distributed copies of a faxed memo from Ed Sullivan that was received this afternoon (Agenda Item No. 9, Exhibit #2, copies of which are flied with the City Recorder). He then presented his staff report, explaining the current methodology needed to be updated in order to comply with state law adopted in 2003. The proposed revision updates the methodology as well as increases the rates as of January 1, 2005. Council received a briefing on the proposal on September 21. At that time, Council authorized staff to release the draft of the SDC methodology and to begin the process for holding this hearing. He noted Mr. Ganer and staff met with the chair of the Home Builders Board to address their concerns. One of the issues raised by the Home Builders resulted in a proposed change, which has been included in the agenda packet. Staff will be asking for Council's direction on that proposed change. One issue staff will be addressing during this hearing is the amount of green space included in the plan. Staff studied the issue and does not recommend any change based on the fact that City residents have consistently Indicated a desire to increase green spaces in the City. In addition, Tigard City Council Minutes Page 14 Meeting of November 23, 2004 staff concluded that Oregon law allows appropriate credits against SDC's for donation of green ways made by developers. The new rates to be adopted by Council will generate approximately $5.5 million in additional SDC fees over the next five years. The fee increase would not be applicable in the Bull Mountain area. If approval had been given on the Bull Mountain area annexation, an additional $5 million would have been collected over a five- year period. If Council approves the SDC methodology and rates, SDC fees will Increase from $1,852 to $3,893 for a single-family residence, or $3,753 If Council accepts the adjustment that was suggested tonight. Mr. Koellermeler explained the process suggested is to conduct the public hearing, consider the Home Builder's request, and then direct staff to prepare the necessary resolutions that will brought back to the December 14 Council meeting. C. Public Testimony Mr. Monahan suggested that staff comment about concerns addressed in Mr. Sullivan's letter. Don Ganer, Don Ganer Consultant, stated Mr. Sullivan in his letter is basically talking about property the owner is voluntarily consenting to be annexed, and If that occurs, the proposed development could be annexed. Mr. Sullivan's concerns include: • Developer's plans had been developed based on the premise they would not be paying SDC's, and now if they are required to pay SDC's which would not be fair. • There are a lot of green spaces developers are required to set aside as a condition of approval. Developers would request credit against the SDC for the green space if they were required to pay SDC's. There is a possibility the City could do that, If the green space areas are donated to the city. If the property that is being talked about is not going to be developed or is not being donated as public property, then it is not i appropriate to give SDC credit. • The final issue was there was an adjustment in the proposed SDC methodology to account for tree mitigation. If the tree mitigation costs i were considered, the development costs for parks could be reduced by $10,000 an acre. That has been factored out. The developer did not believe that was sufficient, and believes that should be more. Councilor Woodruff asked when approval for the development was given. Mr. Koellermeier responded he was not sure, but believes it was several weeks ago. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 15 Meeting of November 23, 2004 Councilor Woodruff asked if this was an area that would have been annexed as part of the Bull Mountain annexation, which has been talked about for well over a year. Mr. Koellermeier responded that was part of the Bull Mountain area proposed for annexation. Councilor Woodruff noted It seems a little strange the owners were not aware of the City's SDC's and development requirements since the City has been talking about the Bull Mountain Annexation plan for well over a year Councilor Wilson asked if SDC's are collected at the time the Building Permit Is issued. If this is a voluntary annexation, then he did not see this should be exempt. Mr. Ganer explained their contention is that they should not have to pay the SDC's. Normally whatever is in place at the time the building permit is issued is what they have to pay. Until they pull a building permit, no money has been expended on construction. It is assumed they can make adjustments in their price. Mr. Koellermeier noted one concern expressed was If Council approved an increase In SDC rates on a Tuesday night and the rates were to go into effect the next morning. What Council Is proposing is a lag time for the rate to go into effect until January 1, 2005. There Is an opportunity for someone to pick up a permit before the end of December and avoid paying the increased SDC's. Mr. Ramis asked staff to restate the comment about the SDC credit, because Mr. Sullivan's letter characterizes the city's position as "refusing to authorize SDC's credits when the developer provides passive recreation areas to the residents of this development and the community as a whole." Mr. Ganer responded the point he was making earlier is if the developer donates that property and makes it a public property owned by the city, then it is eligible for credit. What Mr. Sullivan refers to in his letter is a situation where they provide some things but it is not really public, it is privately owned. Unless something is available to the public and publicly owned, it is not eligible for SDC credit. Mr. Ramis noted the letter states, "...provides passive recreation areas to the residents of the development and to the community as a whole." He asked if that required dedication of land to the public. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 16 Meeting of November 23, 2004 Mr. Ganer responded If they are stating this is a dedication to the public, then it would be eligible. If what they are saying is some developments will provide things like privately owned trails or other types of facilities that are owned by the subdivision or a community association, but they are not available to the general public use, it is not covered. Mr. Ramis asked If it was a dedication that allows public use, it would be eligible for consideration for credit, but it Is in private, it doesn't. Mr. Ganer stated that was correct. Ernie Platt, Home Builders Association, 15555 SW Bangy Road, Lake Oswego, stated the Home Builders Association (HBA) did receive early notification of the proposed change of methodology, and did spend a couple of hours with several members of the City staff and the City's consultant, as well as several HBA members. The HBA thoroughly reviewed the proposal and had four questions, which were outlined in their November 15 letter (See Exhibit 1). The first two items have been sorted out and City staff commented those issues have been addressed. The third and fourth points raised in his letter relates to the quantity of green space. Unfortunately In the City's master planning, there Is no standard for a level of service and almost anything can be done. He feels the quantity of green space proposed by the City is really beyond the norm. He reviewed the National Recreation and Park Association website on the Internet to see what kind of suggested levels of service they might suggest for various classifications of park and parks uses, which is not binding on anybody. Their recommendation for green spaces was in a range of 3/4 to 1 acre for thousand population. The City's plan specifies 3-3/4 acres per thousand, four times the National standard number. In his opinion, the City's proposal is excessive. At that number, the overall level of service equates to 6.55 acres per thousand, 3-1/4 that is your green space. It is approximately half of your park system, by land area. Councilor Woodruff stated he talked with Mr. Platt yesterday and explained the City is catching up on parks and green spaces. The parks that are located in Tigard per thousand residents continue to be less than the number of acres per thousand than some of the surrounding cities. While it may seem to be excessive, the City is trying to catch up and develop more space that was not developed earlier. Mr. Platt said he had two comments relating to that. The standards by the National Recreation and Park Association for cities the general size of Tigard is between 6 and 10 acres per thousand population. Tigard is projecting 6.5 5 acres, so Tigard is right in the range. As to comparing Tigard to other cities, he does not buy that argument. Every city and every park district prepares Tigard City Council Minutes Page 17 Meeting of November 23, 2004 their own master plan, prepares their own associated capital improvement plan that goes with that, and what one city or one park district does in relationship to what another city or park district does, does not make sense because Tigard Is not bound by what others do and they are not bound by what Tigard does. Councilor Woodruff noted Council Is bound by what its citizens want. Tigard citizens have stated there are not enough parks. Mr. Platt stated he was addressing green spaces, not the overall number of park areas. Mayor Dirksen stated Mr. Platt is not really challenging the overall total acreage the City is considering, but what it sounds like is a concern from his letter is the proportion of green spaces vs. developed parks. Mr. Platt stated that was correct. Mayor Dirksen said his first thought was if the City were to change that ratio and go to a higher ratio of developed parks, the development costs for those parks would go up and would probably lead to an Increase in the SDC's to produce those. Mr. Platt agreed that might be possible. He would have to review the numbers and the consultant would have to re-crunch the numbers. The other Issue he wanted to discuss is the magnitude of this proposal and the timing. The suggested SDC for single-family residents as amended Is $3,753, and currently the fee is $1,873 now. This amounts to over a 100% increase. The Council has the authority to do this, as the city is the sole provider for building permits. He does not know anyone in a competitive market that provides goods and services that can pull off a 100% increase in a price of a commodity or service. He did not know the direction Council will give staff, but he would suggest that if-that is to be the number, but if Council decides to implement the increase, then Council consider phasing the increase in over a two-year period to accomplish, increasing it by 1 /3 in 2005, another 1/3 in 2006, and to the total increase in 2007. A minimum would be 1/2 in 2005 and the full Increase in 2006. He said this proposed increase is catching people right on the fence who have made plans, made commitments, gotten loans, sold houses, on a presale basis, and the price of a house just went up $2,000. You are asking them to pay $2,000 more for that building permit on January 2, then what they would pay on December 30. If they do not have the means to collect that in the price of a house, you are really picking their pocket. That is his recommendation, and if Tigard has to do it, he asked that the increase by phased In. Tigard Clty,Councll Minutes Page 18 Meeting of November 23, 2004 d. Mayor Dirksen closed the public hearing, as there was no one else indicating they would like to testify. e. Council Direction Councilor Wilson asked how long ago was the last increase. Parks Manager Dan Plaza responded it was January 1, 2004. There was a formula in place that automatically increased the SDC by a small percentage January 1, 2004. Councilor Woodruff' asked when the last time the SDC's were really examined like this was. Councilor Wilson noted his answer to Mr. Platt would be there have been huge Increases, particularly in land costs. Not to long ago, property could be purchased for $100,000 to $200,000 an acre and the price Is pushing $500,000 now. He is curious what the history of the Park SDC has been. By the time you add the Park SDC, the streets, and water, what is the total cost of fees. It probably is close to $10,000 in fees, but on the other hand, if It cost $400,000 to build a house, this amount probably would be close to what It has always been. Councilor Sherwood said she was thinking about this as well and how these fees impacts affordable housing. One thing that drives up the cost Is all these fees. The last report for the City of Beaverton is that for house costing $140,000, there is $20,000 In fees. Affordable housing is needed but yet the fees are being increased. She Is not saying that is bad, because every time the City has gone out to buy park land, they have gotten into bidding wars with developers, and the City looses because the City is not able to buy affordable park land. Mayor Dirksen noted that if you look at the level of fees, instead of looking at the price or cost that the fees add to the house, you need to look at the fee as being a measure of the impact the new house will have on the city, for traffic or parks, or whatever. Once that house is built and that one-time fee is paid, the impact of that house is there forever. That is the only time it is collected. He believes Council is all in agreement about that. When Council talked about the draft methodology back in September, Council recognized that Park SDC has not kept pace with the actual cost incurred and trying to create parks. That is what Council is trying to address with this proposal. Mr. Plaza noted in response to Councilor Wilson's question, the last time the SDC's were increased by resolution was April 2001. The cost per acre at that time was $7,700 an acre. He recalled that fact was one of the reasons that Tigard City Council Minutes Page 19 Meeting of November 23, 2004 drove the staff to take another look at this. At $7,700 an acre, staff knew something needed to be done. Mayor Dirksen asked if land prices have really gone from $7,700 an acre to over $300,000 an acre. Mr. Ganer said he didn't know if it had gone up that much, but that was the number that was used in the 2001 calculations. The figure of $7,700 an acre was probably low. Mr. Plaza stated when staff started doing the Bull Mountain analysis several years ago, he recalled checking the price of property, which was $125,000 an acre. After a short time went by, he checked back and the price was between $225,000 and $275,000 an acre. The last time he checked, the price was over $300,000 an acre. That Is how fast land cost has climbed during the past two to 2-1/2 years since the City has been working on the Bull Mountain project. Mayor Dirksen noted one issue that was mentioned is there Is a development that Is in process and others are near the end, where development is taking place under the assumption that the Parks SDC was not going to be increased or there would be a small percentage Increase. The developments are at the point now where they are actually going to coming in for building permits, because the infrastructure is basically complete and soon construction of houses will commence. There could arguably an unanticipated impact on the development, if there are any at that stage. He asked Mr. Koellermeier if he knew about this. Mr. Koellermeier stated developments are in almost every stage of completion. If one is nearing completion, another one is just starting. At any one point in time, it would be hard to say where each development is. Another aspect to add to that discussion, historically SDC's have been paid at the time the building permit is issued. There has been discussion if we should do it differently, possibly at the subdivider level. Staff is not proposing that. It seems the best time to collect SDC's is at the time the building permit is issued because there is still an opportunity for the builder to make adjustments in the i home and price. While a little sympathetic, you have to start somewhere and i whatever date is selected, there will be problems for someone. i i Councilor Moore stated he did not believe builders are going to absorb this increase, because residents are going to use parks and green spaces. Our citizens are screaming they need more parks and green spaces. Anything that Tigard City Council Minutes Page 20 Meeting of November 23, 2004 Is worthwhile will be added to tie purchase price, and parks can then be developed. Councilor Woodruff said Council is sympethetic to the homebuyer and there are goals for affordable housing. This decision is going to Impact that decision. The Vision Task Force has talked a lot about growth. One suggestion had to do with increasing SDC's fees as a way to provide some incentive for development not to have so many units on property, which Is what some people would like to have, with less density. He Is in favor of moving forward for Council to take action on December 14, and maybe more information will come In between now and then for Council's review. Mayor Dirksen stated he has not seen anything to change the direction Council gave staff earlier. Councilor Moore stated what he recalled seeing in the study in September was a comparison of what other tides charge. Tigard is not at the top of the scale. He feels the proposal is reasonable in comparison with other cities. Mr. Ganer stated of the SDC rates in Washington County cities, the highest single family rate Is Sherwood at $5,618, Tualatin Hills Park District, Is currently $2,533 and they are scheduled an increase based on inflation to $2,750 January l; Tualatin is currently at $2,100 and will increase to $3,150 in January 2005, which was phased in at the request of the Home Builders; North Plains is at $2,144, but they are in the process of updating their methodology. West Linn in Clackamas County is the highest in the State at $8,200, but their fee is still facing a court challenge. Mayor Dirksen asked if there is consensus on the direction to give staff to move forward. Mr. Koellermeler stated one clarifying point needed from Council is, does Council want the resolution prepared with the adjustment staff suggested which would reduce the rates. Mayor Dirksen stated the recommendation was based on what staff did. Mr. Koellermeler stated the change would be in response to the Home Builders Association. Staff worked with the Home Builders Association and thought there was some validity to their request. This was stated in a staff memo. Mayor Dirksen asked what the recommended rates would be. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 21 Meeting of November 23, 2004 Mr. Koellermeler responded the revised rate recommendation would be: • Single Family Home, $3,753 • Multi-Family, $3,017 • Manufactured Housing, $2,976 • Commercial per Employee, $255 per employee. Councilor Sherwood asked staff If they were recommending a phase In of the rates. Mr. Koellermeler responded they were not recommending a phase In, although the Council could decide to approve a phase in of the Increased SDC's. Councilor Wilson stated he was sympathetic to the argument presented, but people commit to loans just prior to construction. Most builders, unless they build spec houses, build houses when they have a buyer. If the price of lumber jumps up or other commodities, they just make adjustment for that. That is part of the risk of building a home. Mayor Dirksen noted that when Council approved a phase In of taxes for the annexed area, It was for a consideration for the people who were living there, and It would be an Increase over a long period of time, where as this is a one time thing, and it Is always brand new. He asked staff if they felt they had direction from Council on what to do. Mr. Koellermeler stated yes, they would prepare necessary resolutions for consideration on December 14. 10. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS DISCUSSION • Staff Report: Barbara Shields, Long Range Planning Manager Barbara Shields, Long Range Planning Manager, noted the critical piece is the chart, which outlines the timeline proposed for the comprehensive plan update, which will take three years, which is based on the Planning Commission's recommendations. The Planning Commission is requesting a joint meeting with the City Council to address the scope of work as well as other workload issues. The staff report listed a number of issues identified by the Planning Commission. • Study Area - Should the unincorporated Bull Mountain area be included in the study area. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 22 Meeting of November 23, 2004 • Public Involvement process - What should the extent of the public involvement be? Should the Council establish another task force to guide the comprehensive plan update process? • Priority Issue - What are the Council's priorities regarding the long range planning projects. Mr. Monahan explained staff is looking for feedback on the Planning Commission's recommendations, because the comprehensive plan update process will be a very extensive process. The City has worked with the Committee for Citizen's Involvement (CCI), which could assist in this process, or would Council prefer creating another totally separate committee, which might be a blend of the Planning Commission and the CCI to oversee this process. The feedback the staff would like at this time includes: • Is staff on the right track; • Does Council have any concerns about the proposed timeline; • is Council concerned about the process; and • Does Council want to meet with the Planning Commission to discuss their recommendations and to make sure everyone is thinking the same way and how to proceed. Councilor Wilson said he has strong feelings about the comprehensive planning project. The staff and Council just went through a very controversial year, which was very taxing and was an extensive use of city resources and Council's time. He concurs the comprehensive plan needs to be updated soon, but he Is concerned that effort not jeopardize the work on the Downtown Plan, as it is a big project by itself. He feels the comprehensive plan update needs to take a back seat to the Downtown Plan at this time. In addition, a major tool for planning was just lost as a result of the passage of Ballot Measure 37. He believes there needs to be a delay of at least six months to a year of the comprehensive plan uqdate before staff, the Planning Commission and Council knows what tools are available. He felt to move forward now would be futile. Councilor Sherwood noted she concurred with Councilor Wilson that the Downtown Plan needed to be the focus at this time, especially since cutbacks were made to long range planning area. She appreciated all the staff has been able to do during the past year. It might be possible to do some preliminary work on the comprehensive plan. She felt it would be a good idea for Council to meet with the Planning Commission. Councilor Woodruff stated he supported having a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to talk about this and to hear directly what they have to Tigard City Council Minutes Page 23 Meeting of November 23, 2004 say about the update process as well as the Council's proposal to delay work on the comprehensive plan. Mayor Dirksen stated he appreciated all the comments. He noted Councilor Wilson prefaced his remarks that the comprehensive plan needs to be updated soon, but "soon" Is a relative term. This Is certainly not something the City wants to rush Into or do as quickly as possible. There is certain urgency to updating the comprehensive plan because of the consequences of allowing development to continue under an outdated comprehensive plan. He would not want to see the efforts of the Downtown Plan to stop or to update the comprehensive plan in a hurry. Even if the comprehensive plan process were to begin, it will not happen very quickly. Some preliminary steps could still take place as it would take months before any recommendations for changes are made. He noted the first couple of steps involve development of a public participation program and then to create a background report. If there Is a citizen task force involved, it would take a period of time for them to review the volumes of documents in order to become familiar with the existing planning documents before the process could move forward. Councilor Sherwood noted the concern she has is the amount of staff' time It would take to create the preliminary background reports, because basically the same staff that are working on the Downtown Plan are also working on the comprehensive plan background reports. Mr. Monahan pointed out at this time, staff does not know what the impacts will be from Measure 37 or the number of claims that will be filed, and those claims will be processed by the long range planning staff. He feels Council's consensus is that there is not a need to rush on the comprehensive plan update, and to schedule a joint meeting with the Planning Commission probably after the first of the year. He asked for Council comments on the timetable proposed by Ms. Shields, which is proposed to be a three-year process. Other concerns are: does this meet Council's expectations, is this too long of a process, too short, or about right. If Council decides not to start the process now, comments can wait until Council meets with the Planning Commission. He noted that both Council and the community have j commented in the past that the comprehensive plan review process was going i to be started after the first of the year, which was why staff has put so much effort in getting to this point. If the decision is to delay, then staff will put their efforts into other activities until Council wants to begin working on the update. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 24 Meeting of November 23, 2004 Councilor Woodruff stated Council had answered staff's fourth question and the first three are Important but was not sure if direction can be given at this time. Councilor Sherwood stated she would not be in favor of including the unincorporated Bull Mountain area in the City's comprehensive plan update unless Washington County was willing to pay the City to do that work. She did not feel Tigard should use its money to address planning issues for that area. She would not want to include the unincorporated area after the voters' resoundly rejected the annexation proposal. Mr. Monahan recapped the Council's discussion as follows: • Task 1 - Study Area - Staff will initiate discussion with Washington County to determine If they would be willing to contribute funds to the City of Tigard for Including the unincorporated Bull Mountain area as well as other Urban Growth Boundary areas in the updating the comprehensive plan. When he reports back to Council on that discussion, Council can determine the total study area. • Task 2 - Citizen Participation - No direction at this time, but Council wants to talk to the Planning Commission to see if they want to take this on, or partially involve the members of the Planning Commission In a different task force. • Task 3 - Public Participation - There is time for discussion on whether to get the CCI up and running again. • Task 4 Priorindon of Long Range Planning Projects - It sounded like for the foreseeable future, the Downtown Plan will be the focal point of the Long Range Planning staff. Council wants to discuss how the comprehensive plan update fits into that process. If Council decides at a later date to focus on the comprehensive plan update, there is a timeline chart prepared that can be updated. Councilor Woodruff stated the staff is already working on the Downtown Plan. In addition, he wants to see what the impacts will be of Measure 37 before moving ahead too much. Councilor Wilson noted the TGM grant for the Downtown Plan ends in June, but the project will not be complete at that time. It will probably require an urban renewal district, which will involve a lot of effort and take several years to complete. Mayor Dirksen acknowledged the principles of the Downtown Plan, but asked Council not to halt the comprehensive plan update process. He did not feel the preparation of the background documents would take that much time. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 25 Meeting of November 23, 2004 The TGM grant will be completed in June after when the plan is presented and approved. He would like the Comprehensive plan process to proceed as well. Councilor Woodruff noted he heard a lot of comments during the election process from citizens that they wanted the City to move ahead with the comprehensive plan update. Ms. Shields stated staff will create some preliminary elements of the public involvement plan and Council will meet with the Planning Commission. She will report the Council's concerns to the Planning Commission. Mr. Monahan noted Council had committed the January workshop meeting to Council Goal Setting, so February's workshop meeting would be the logical date for the joint meeting to occur. 11. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN DEMANDS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE #37, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 1.20 TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE. a. Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing. b. Staff Report. Mr. Ramis referred to the revised ordinance that he had prepared (Agenda Item No. 11, Exhibit #1) that would establish the process for people to make claims under Measure 37. Measure 37 changed the land use framework in the State and provides in circumstances where property values have been devalued by the effects of regulation, a property owner may apply for compensation. Under the measure, the Council is charged with deciding who will decide on the claims, may award compensation, or may determine to waive the land use regulations and allow development. The measure goes into effect December 2. The ordinance sets up a procedure to process claims, and provides information to the public on how to file a claim. Mr. Ramis indicated the ordinance provides general authorization for the procedure and Exhibit A outlines the specific procedures. It is recommended Council adopt the Ordinance, as well as carefully consider the various provisions of Exhibit A. There are three areas staff requests guidance from Council. • Whether to charge a fee for filing a claim; and if so, how much. Should It be a straight fee or a deposit where the time staff spends on the claim is Tigard City Council Minutes Page 26 Meeting of November 23, 2004 charged against? Will the fee be imposed if it is decided the application is valid, or will the fee be waived in those instances? What evidence does Council feel should be submitted relating to value? Would you expect to see an opinion offered at one of the spectrum, or would you expect to see a formal appraisal at the other end of the spectrum, or something in the middle? Would a less formal market analysis be sufficient? What information will be required to be submitted as part of the application? Page 2 of Exhibit A includes a list of various items that states appellants are encouraged to be included, but Council may want to make some or all of those Items to be mandatory. C. Public Testimony Gretchen Buehner, 13249 SW 136` Place, Tigard, stated she was opposed to Measure 37 and feels it will create a big mess. She is concerned about what the Legislature is going to have to do to this measure beginning in January. Regarding the procedure the City is proposing to adopt to process claims, she feels the more detail that can be required as part of an application, the better results the City will have if it ever has to defend the record at an appellate level. She would strongly urge requiring a formal appraisal as part of the application. The IRS requires an appraisal if there Is any question of value, and that analogy should easily be carried over to this situation. Basically her advice would be to get as much information as possible in order to develop a very detailed record. Councilor Sherwood noted the Council met with three legislators last week at the Joint Meeting with Tualatin City Council and the Tigard/Tualatin School District Board and we were told there Is little the Legislature will do to the Measure, other than possibly a few tweaks. Basically, they indicated implementation of this Measure is up to the local governments. Ms. Buehner stated the reason she recommends requiring as much information as possible with the application is what will occur if a decision is challenged to an appellate court. The city will be in a much stronger position if it has a very detailed record at the local level. i r d. Staff Recommendation i Mr. Ramis stated the staff's recommendation is for Council to adopt the ordinance and provide direction with respect to the features to be in Exhibit A. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 27 Meeting of November 23, 2004 e. Council Discussion Councilor Moore noted Mr. Ramis touched on a number of issues that Council has questions about, Including covering the cost to process claims, should this be fee neutral, Is It a fee or a deposit to cover the cost to process claims, should Council require a market analysis or a formal appraisal. Regarding Section B on page two of Exhibit A, instead of "encouraging" the five items to be submitted, should those items be "required" to be submitted. If they are required, but unable to be provided, require that a statement be submitted to explain why that Item cannot be provided. Councilor Woodruff stated Council talked about balancing the needs of the staff and the applicants, and he did not want this so burdensome that it looks like the property owners/claimants are being punished if they file a claim under this new law. At the same time, we want to make sure enough information is provided, that the applicant has done some homework on the analysis of their claim, that sufficient Information Is provided to identify the issue and reasons why they feel their property was devalued before they submit their application. He concurred with Councilor Moore about making the statements under Section B on page 2 of the exhibit to be mandatory, as well as having a fee that would cover the actual costs of processing an application. Councilor Moore stated he did not know what a fair fee would be, but he thought staffs time should be covered by a fee. He did not want other taxpayers to assume the cost burden of someone who is filing to be compensated. He did not know how much time staff would be required to spend on each application but the fee should be enough to cover the cost. Possibly there should be a deposit required that costs are charged against, and any unused portion of the deposit would be refunded to the appellant at the end of the process for that application. Councilor Sherwood asked if the deposit would be refunded if it were found there is a legitimate claim. Councilor Moore responded the city should be able to recover its cost to investigate, regardless of if it is a legitimate claim or not. He would propose a fee of $1,000. If the cost $500 to investigate the claim, the other $500 would be refunded. He asked how hard would this be to administer. Councilor Wilson asked if the fee would be refunded it the claim is not legitimate. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 28 Meeting of November 23, 2004 Mr. Ramis stated there Is not a precise answer to that based on the language in the Ballot Measure. A successful applicant that the procedure Itself will impose an additional restriction on the use and therefore should be compensated for the cost of processing the application could make an argument. That will be an Issue that probably will be subject to a court challenge. Councilor Moore asked if language could be included that the fee would be required to be paid at the time of submitting an application, and that all or part of the fee would be refundable, based on the final decision. Mr. Ramis concurred that language could be written to address that concern. Councilor Moore stated he would prefer that rather than calling it a filing fee, the money paid would be a "deposit." Mr. Ramis stated he felt staff's concern is that a consistent procedure be established on the way applications are treated, and it would be helpful to know up front how the claims were being treated that is proven to be valid, when it comes to payment. Councilor Sherwood concurred that there should be a deposit, even by those who have a legitimate claim. She felt having a deposit would keep those who thought they would submit a claim just to test the system from filing an application. She felt that people who have a legitimate claim would complete the application, provide the required information, and pay the deposit, before staff has to go through the entire process to find there was no decrease of value. Councilor Moore stated he preferred requiring a deposit, which would pay the cost of processing a claim, and if found to be valid, then possibly refund the entire amount of the deposit, not just the cost to process the claim. He did not want taxpayer money to benefit someone who did not have a valid claim. Councilor Wilson noted that Ms. Buehner's comment about market analysis was one he had not thought about. He has been thinking about what happens if there is insufficient information provided on a proposed claim, and if there is a process to go back and ask for additional information. Mr. Ramis said he feels that during a hearing process, it would be fair to tell an applicant/claimant that their Information was inadequate, and give them time to get that information. However, there is a time limitation to process claims. It is necessary that claims be processed expeditiously, but it would be better if City can give notice to prospective appellants what information is required. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 29 Meeting of November 23, 2004 Councilor Wilson agreed that an appraisal would certainly be better than a market analysis. What happens if an appraisal is submitted, but the City disagreed with the findings. Can the City have its own appraisal conducted. Would the City have an appraisal conducted automatically on every application. Mr. Ramis responded there would be situations where staff feels an appraisal would absolutely be needed because It is obvious there has been a substantial diminution of value because of regulation, and other times when an appraisal clearly would not be needed. There are going to be a certain number of cases that an appraisal will be necessary, especially in close cases where it will be necessary for both sides to have the best Information available to support its case. Mayor Dirksen suggested that in paragraph B-3, perhaps a minimum of a market analysis would be required, but leave It up to the claimant whether they feel it was necessary to have a full appraisal conducted. Councilor Moore asked what the difference In cost between a market analysis and an appraisal. Councilor Wilson responded that a realtor could probably provide a market analysis for free on residential property, whereas an appraisal would cost about $500 for residential property. Appraisal for commercial property would be higher. Councilor Moore stated he felt it should be left up to the claimant to decide whether to just have a market analysis or a full appraisal. In situations where value is questionable, claimants would probably have a full appraisal completed. ` Councilor Wilson asked what the difference Is between a market analysis and an appraisal. Ms. Buehner explained when developers' look at property, both as a buyer or seller, the client gives an appraiser a list of criteria to look at. An example might be, what is the current zoning, what the proposed use might be, and what would the property valued at under that scenario. This is done all the time. An appraisal is based on certain criteria or variables. An appraisal for commercial property will cost between $1,500 and $2,000, and the cost for an appraisal on residential property is about $400. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 30 Meeting of November 23, 2004 Councilor Woodruff said that if he were an applicant, he would bring in the most compelling evidence he could to support his case, and would probably have an appraisal done as part of the evidence, to prove diminution of value. Councilor Moore requested that the wording In Section B on Page 2 of Exhibit A be changed from "recommend" to "requiring," so that if people are really serious about their claim, they are providing the best Information they can. Councilor Sherwood stated that If this Information is not required, then she felt claims would be submitted even if they do not have a substantiated claim. Councilor Woodruff said he felt the serious claimant who believe they have a legitimate claim, will provide that Information, but this may discourage those who does not have a valid claim from filing. Some might just be throwing in a claim to see what sticks to the wall. Councilor Sherwood concurred minimum requirements for Information that is needed to be submitted to show It is a legitimate claim. That would definitely be to their benefit, and would possibly discourage frivolous claims from being submitted. Councilor Wilson asked what the process will be if they do not like the City's decision. Mr. Ramis stated appeals would be filed at the Circuit Court level. Councilor Wilson asked if only the evidence submitted to the City can be considered by the Circuit Court, or can new evidence be submitted. Mr. Ramis responded he did not know what an appeal to the Circuit Court would be like. His guess would be that creative advocates on both sides would try to find ways to bring in additional evidence on appeal. Even If an appraisal was not submitted to the City to review, he thought an appraisal would definitely be submitted to a judge on appeal. Councilor Wilson asked what the City's liability would be if the City lost an appeal at the Circuit Court level. Will the City be required to pay court costs as well as other damages. Mr. Ramis stated that was probably correct. The Measure, although styled as a compensation matter, is probably more realistically a waiver measure. There isn't a lot of money around to pay claims, so the real Issue will probably be Tigard City Council Minutes Page 31 Meeting of November 23, 2004 whether to waive the land use requirements and allow whatever the landowner had requested. Mayor Dirksen stated that in many instances, what the person Is after is not financial compensation, but a variance in order to be able to develop their property. Mr. Ramis stated language was included In Section B, the recommended items, which Council wants to change to required, which states, "a statement describing the extent to which the regulation would need to be waived, suspended or modified to avoid the need for compensation." This was Included to put the burden on the claimant to tell the City what precisely do they want changed to order to avoid the cost. Councilor Sherwood noted under B-3, there Is a statement regarding requiring a minimum of a market analysis. She asked If that needed to be changed to recommended appraisal. Mayor Dirksen suggested leaving it as market analysis, and letting the claimant to think that up on their own. He also felt there was concurrence by Council to take out the sentence as part of B, and add Items i through 5 to A, under items required to be submitted. Councilor Moore asked which body would be hearing these cases. Mayor Dirksen asked if that decision needed to be made tonight. Councilor Moore said he thought the Council should initially be the "decision maker." He felt if Council were involved in this at least in the beginning, It would give Council a better understanding of what is involved, rather than Just setting the policies. He did not feel that it needed to be stated in the ordinance itself. L Mr. Ramis stated the ordinance as written would allow Council to be the C 5 decision maker initially. That process could be changed later. i Councilor Sherwood noted that Exhibit A refers to both "demand" and "claim." She suggested that the word "demand" be changed to "claim" through the exhibit. Council concurred with that recommendation. The Council concurred to set the deposit at $1,000, with staff costs charged against the deposit. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 32 Meeting of November 23, 2004 Mayor Dirksen asked what happens when property values are lowered even if there was no plan for development. He gave a hypothetical situation where someone owns 10 acres, which would be developable if a regulation did not exist, but because there Is a regulation, a person cannot develop the property. However, that person really has no plan to develop, but the value was reduced. He asked If that person would have a valid claim. Mr. Ramis replied that If someone comes in and it Is determined the owner had a valid claim that they were not able to develop and that is accepted, the owner could choose to exercise that waiver or not. The City would not have any control over what they did. Councilor Woodruff noted he felt there was Council agreement on the ordinance, but some tweaking still needs to be made to the Exhibit. Could the ordinance be approved and the exhibit brought back at the next Council meeting. Mr. Monahan noted Council Intends to adopt the Ordinance without Exhibit A, and then recapped the discussion as follows: • Mr. Ramis would continue working with staff to modify Exhibit A to be adopted by Council on December 14. • The other direction to staff would be that if anyone comes In between December 2 and December 14, we do not know what the fee will be, who the decision maker body will be as those Issues would be sorted out, but they would be notified as soon as we know the answer. • Mr. Ramis was directed to modify Exhibit A as discussed. Council concurred with that synopsis. Mr. Ramis stated even though the ordinance refers to Exhibit A, Council's action would not include Exhibit A. sExhibit A will be brought back to Council L on December 14 for adoption. 2 f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 04 - 12. i s : Upon Motion of Commissioner Woodruff, second by Councilor Sherwood, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 04-12, AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN DEMANDS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE 37, ADDING A NEVY CHAPTER 1.20 TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, AND Tigard City Council Minutes Page 33 Meeting of November 23, 2004 DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. It was noted that Exhibit A was not included with the ordinance. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote: Mayor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes Councilor Woodruff - Yes 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS - none 13. NON AGENDA ITEMS - none 14. AD)OURNMENT Upon motion of Councilor Woodruff, seconded by Councilor Wilson, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m. o'...' /&"4", Lei--, a c arvm, Deputy ity ecor er Attest: e, '40'e - a19ayor, 1ty o gar Date: i i Tigard City Council Minutes Page 34 Meeting of November 23, 2004 Item No. Greeter: Barbara Shields REVISED 11 / 19/04 For Council Newsletter dated 1 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda Item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet Is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda Item. Citizen Communications items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard In any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with Impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684- 2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 23, 2004 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 2004 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > COUNCIL TRAINING - CITY ATTORNEY > DISCUSS COUNCIL LAPTOPS/ISSUES > FOREST DEFERRAL AMENDMENT PROCESS • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss Pending Litigation under ORS 192.660(2)(h). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order -City Council 8z Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications az Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 PM 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:40 PM 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for.October 26, 2004 3.2 Local Contract Review Board a. Amend Engineering Design Services Contract on Hall Blvd/Wall St Intersection Project b. Approve the Purchase of Three (3) Hybrid Vehicles for Building Division Use C. Approve the Purchase of Two (2) Half-Ton Pickups for Police Department 3.3 Intergovernmental Agreement for Towing Services COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 23, 2004 page 2 • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered Immediately after the Council has voted on those Items which do not need discussion. 7:50 PM 4. JOINT MEETING WITH STATE SENATOR and STATE REPRESENTATIVE o State Senator, Ginny Burdick o State Representative, Lary Galizio 8:30 PM S. SWEARING IN OF NEW POLICE CAPTAIN MICHAEL BELL • Chief of Police, William Dickinson 8:35 PM 6. FORMAL GRADUATION OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM (CERT) VOLUNTEER PROGRAM CLASS 11 • Staff Report: Dennis Koellermeler, Public Works Director 8:40 PM 7. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) - CONSIDER RESOLUTION FORMING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 32 (Fern Street) a. Open Public Hearing b. Summation by Gus Duenas, City Engineer C. Public Testimony d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 04- 9:00 PM 8. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) - CONSIDER RESOLUTION FORMING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 33 (Walnut Street) a. Open Public Hearing b. Summation by Gus Duenas, City Engineer C. Public Testimony d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 04- 9:20 PM 9. PUBLIC HEARING - REVISED PARKS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY AND RATES a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Dennis Koellermeler, Public Works Director C. Public Testimony COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 23, 2004 page 3 d. Close Public Hearing e. Council Direction to Schedule Adoption of Resolution for December 14, 2004 Business Meeting. 9:30 PM 10. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS DISCUSSION C Staff Report: Barbara Shields, Long Range Planning Manager 9AS PM 11. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN DEMANDS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE #37, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 1.20 TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE. a. Open Public Hearing b. Summation by Barbara Shields, Long Range Planning Manager C. Public Testimony d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 04 - 9:55 PM 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 1000 PM 13. NON AGENDA ITEMS 10:05 PM 14. ADJOURNMENT 1-.=M\CATFMCCA\20041041123.000 1 L E 3 ~ s i COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 23, 2004 page 4 COMMUNITY ► ; I'APE1~S + CITY OF TIGARD 1325 SW WW MR PrW 0110111 • PO In 370.11n1 tK 01 97M OREGON PNK H 84-M FK 503CM E4WI:~SWQC1=MWM-a0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On November 23, 2004 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Hall room of city AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION hall, the Tigard City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider changes to the Ciry's parks system development charges (SDCs). State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS Both public oral and written testimony is invited. Under the proposed schedule, the charge for a single family dwelling unit would increase I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, to $3,753, and the charge for a multi-family dwelling unit would depose and say that I am the Accounting increase to $3,017, and the charge for a manufactured housing Manager of the Ti ardfTualatin Times, a dwelling unit would increase to $2,976, and the charge for an 9 employee would increase to $255. The charges for park SDCs have newspaper of general circulation, published not been increased since January 1, 2004: at Beaverton, in the aforesaid county and Please contact Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director, at (503) state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and 718-2596 if you have any questions or would like additional details. 193.020, that A copy of the proposed revised parks SDC methodology is available upon request. Notice of Public Hearing - SDCs 10499 Publish November 18, 2004 City of Tigard CNI TT10499 a copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 1 successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues November 18, 2004 Nay' t•e Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manager) Subscribed and sworn to before me this OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A BURGESS NOTARY PUBUC-OREGON November 18, 2004 MY COMMISSION ~ q COMMISSION NO. 63414559 . - 01 NOTARY PUBLIC FOR ORE N My commission expires i Acct # 10093001 1 City of Tigard Attn: Accounts Payable 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Size Amount Due $_4U_< • remit to address above City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance(s) . _-Dr_ d. -i~ oL(ra , Act ~ t l ~3-v~l STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I. CN-rusez M E IIm A being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) 0 L] - ) a , which were adopted at the City Council meeting of j I• a.3. 04 , with a copy(s) of said Ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the a~t lV '-4 day of 5W 4*4-v-% 62A , 20 DJ 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Orcgon 2. Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Signature of Person who erfo Posting Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this day of GLfaht OFFICIAL SEAL j GREER A GASTON Signature of Notary Public for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 373020 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT. 10, 2007 11TIG3331USR1DEPTSIADM\GREER\FORMS\AFFIDAVITS\AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING - ORDINANCEMOC City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinances 04-01 through 04-15 STATE OF OREGON ) 04e D A JO. Dy- J a County of Washington ) ss. a 3.04 City of Tigard ) I, 04;Ab r' (L#) being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: . That I on December 15, 2005, I posted in the following public place, a copy of Ordinance Numbers 04-OLthrough 04-15, which were adopted by the City Council. Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Signature of Person who erfo d Posting Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this 5 day of 20 OFFIOAL SEAL J" M BYARS lG1 ' ' NOTARY PUBIIC-0RECiON MY COMMISSION~SIXP R S~JUNE14, 200Q Signature of Notary Public for Oregon I:ldmpreeNomnWlCavRSWNCavLL of PoA+O. 04 oF6moms - 04-01 W 04.15- DenTA ftmr do QTY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NTO. 04-/Z AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN DEMANDS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER. 2004 BALLOT MEASURE 37, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 120 TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING AN EUMGENCY. WHEREAS, the City has developed a sound system of land use planning which includes regulations that in some cases restrict the uses that can be made of property; and WHEREAS, the restrictions on use of property have both served the public interest and increased property values by allowing the City to develop a harmonious way avoiding incompatible uses and assuring appropriate development; and WHEREAS, the voters of the state adopted Ballot Measure 37 in the November 2004 election adding new sections to ORS Chapter 197, which provide that local governments may pay compensation to property owners for reductions in property values resulting from land use regulations that restrict uses of the property or may waive restrictions as an alternative to paying compensation; and WHEREAS, some property owners may believe that existing or future land use regulations as applied to their property both restrict use of the property and reduce the fair market value of the property and consequently may bring claims under Measure 37; and WHEREAS, Ballot Measure 37 explicitly allows local governments to develop procedures for assessing claims made under Measure 37; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate for the City to provide a Measure 37 claims procedure; now, therefore; TM CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Tigard Municipal Code is amended by repealing the existing Chapter 1.20 and replacing it with a new Chapter 1.20 in the form of Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. i Section 2. Because this ordinance is necessary for the preservation ofthe health, ! safety and welfare ofthe City and is needed to provide a process for claims by December 2, 2004, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect on December 2, 2004. PASSED: By ftW,n f n'! baAl vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this ay of 2004. -ity e-V~eet~cp, Recorder 4,n~. ry1 <<a V. v pl r bap:.~_ APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this i~ day of NO we I .2004. 11,0107 Craig Pirksen, Mayor Ap roved as to rm: ity Attomey Date ' I November 23, 2004 Ordinance 04-12 was adopted WITHOUT Exhibit A on November 23, 2004. i Council directed that Exhibit A to Ordinance 0412 be revised. After the City Attorney makes changes to Exhibit A, it will brought back for ratification at a December Council meeting, and added to Ordinance 0412. Jane Mcaarvin Deputy City Recorder I i I I AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING - STUDY SESSION November 23, 2004 - 6:30 p.m. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon The Study Session is held In the Red Rock Creek Conference Room. Enter at the back of Town Hall. The Council encourages Interested citizens to attend all or part of the meeting. If the number of attendees exceeds the capacity of the Conference Room, the Council may move the Study Session to the Town Hall. • STUDY SESSION • COUNCIL TRAINING - CITY ATTORNEY • DISCUSS COUNCIL LAPTOPS/ISSUES • FOREST DEFERRAL AMENDMENT PROCESS COUNCIL SCHEDULE FOR DECEMBER 2004 ♦ December 21 ♦ December 28 > CITIZEN COMMUNICATION FOLLOW-UP ♦ Status of Fred Fields' access across City land ♦ Fifth Tuesday, open to public with Tigard related issues > CITY HALL CLOSED ON THURSDAY 8z FRIDAY > LIBRARY IS OPEN FRIDAY AND SATURDAY • > NO NEWSLETTER THIS WEEK > SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT RECRUITMENT PROCESS - ♦ Meet December 14 @ 6 OR 6:30 PM? > RICHARD FRANZKE LETTER RE: BULL MOUNTAIN > ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS a. Calendar Review • November 25: Thanksgiving - City Hall Closed • November 26: City Hall Closed - LIBRARY OPEN • November 30: 5'11 Tuesday - Water District Auditorium/Lobby Conf. Rm - 7:00 pm • December 1-4: National League of Cities Conference- Indianapolis • December 6: Cathy Wheatley returnsl • December 14: City Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm • December 21: City Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm • December 24: City Hall Closed - LIBRARY OPEN • December 28: City Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm • December 31: City Hall Closed - LIBRARY OPEN Executive Session - The Public Meetings Law authorizes governing bodies to meet in executive session in certain limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as "any meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body, which is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions: 192.660(2) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents, if the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660(2) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192-660(2) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. 192.660(2) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded In this instance.) 192.660(2) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660(2) (0- Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from public Inspection." These records are specifically Identified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. 192-660(2) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body Is competing with other governing bodies. 192.660(2) (h) - Legal counsel - for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. 192.660(2) (1) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives to he used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body In meetings open to the public in which there has been do opportunity for public comment. 192.660 (2) - Public investments - to cant' on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments. 192.660 (2) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. 192.660 (2) (I)- Relates to State Landscape Architect Board. 192.660 (2) (m)- Relates to the review and approval of programs relating to security. 1:%adm1cathy\Coundr#nk sheet - study session a0endast2004W40120.da Joanne Bengtson - Re: Fw: FW: Faring Creek Re sort Pa e 1 From: Gus Duenas To: Bill Monahan; council andmayor; John Frewing Date: 11/22/2004 8:55:05 PM Subject: Re: Fw: FW: Fanno Creek Report Mr. Frewing: This is in response to various emails from you regarding Fanno Creek, the Library property, and activities on the Fred Fields property. I think it is important to be clear on the City's involvement in the issues you raised regarding Fanno Creek. Mr. Fields has an easement across the Library property north of Fanno Creek to access his property on the east side of the creek. The City does not speak on behalf of Mr. Fields. As the property owner on the east side of Fanno Creek, he is responsible for whatever activities he has undertaken to survey the property and identify the various features on it. That said, most of the City's and Clean Water Services' requirements are triggered by development through land use or building permit applications. The activities on the property in question are not considered development. I'll respond to your most recent question first. In your November 19, 2004 e-mail you asked why the buffer area at the new library is not fenced. Concern: Why is the buffer area on the new Library property not fenced? Response: There is no requirement to put any kind of permanent fencing on the buffer strip. The fencing requirement for the Library project was to address those areas where construction activities would be occurring, was temporary in nature during construction, and was to be removed after completion of construction. Fencing is typically required as a temporary measure during construction to ensure that damage does not occur within the vegetated corridor as a result of the construction activities. During the library construction, the fencing was installed in accordance with the approved plan, as required by the July 23, 2003 CWS Service Provider Letter (Requirement No. 4). It was removed at completion of construction. In your November 11, 2004, e-mail, you mentioned a number of concerns about the need for a permit under the City's Community Development Code or Clean Water Services Design Standards. I have reviewed these concerns and continue to find that these rules do not impose permit requirements. Based on our review of the activities on the property, we do not believe that the standards or requirements from either the City or Clean Water Services have been violated. Separate responses to your concerns follow. Concern: Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal) is not the correct section of the CDC to apply here. Response: This chapter provides that it is intended to "Regulate the removal of trees in sensitive areas" (18.790.010 B.2.). Tree removal permits are only required for trees in sensitive areas (18.790.020 A.6). A portion of the lot in question is within sensitive areas. To the extent that there is tree removal in the sensitive areas, a tree removal permit is required. Since Chapter 18.790 regulates tree removal in sensitive areas, this is the section that should be followed and the 6-inch definition of that chapter applies. Concern: The definition of "tree" should be the 2-inch definition from 18.120.030.140 and not the 6-inch definition of 18.790. Response: Section 18.120.030 also states that "For additional words and terms, also see...Tree Removal (Chapter 18.790)". Again, since Chapter 18.790 regulates tree removal in sensitive areas, the 6-inch definition of that chapter applies here. Concern: Removal of brush is a "material change" requiring a Sensitive Land Review. Response: Brush clearing before a land use application is a common and accepted practice. In certain circumstances, 7.40.050 of the TMC imposes an affirmative duty on. a land owner to remove brush and other vegetation. Brush and small trees may be removed without altering the ground or otherwise creating a "material change". The CDC sets the material change threshold for tree size at 6-inches. Concern: The definition of "development" in Chapter 3 of the CWS Standards should be used. Response: As mentioned in an earlier response and as confirmed by Astrid Dragoy of CWS, this definition is not relevant because the review provisions of Chapter 3 do not apply. Concern: Replanting of native vegetation is required by 18.775.070 EA of the CDC. Response: Throughout Tigard, riparian native vegetation has long since been totally driven out by other plants. The only existing native vegetation is in restored areas that have been replanted and protected. Once the invasive plant takes over, it must be totally removed. It is unlikely that native vegetation was removed as part of any clearing. Agustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: (503) 718-2470 t Rp CITY COUNC►t. TtGA REQUEST To SPEAK CokNgCLt. FTH TU Cl ESDAY TIGARD FI of TIGARC REQUEST -TO SPEAK CIoREGO" At F1FTK TUESDAY C1V of -'IGaRD DATE: RRGON Np,~tE: DATE: ADDRESS: NAME' lip Te1ePh0t`e ADDRESS: sou TelxQhone E 14PA' ZAP state SUBIE~T: SUgIECT -c ►-74►9e 1, b1b V01/bb NW ly '04 it1:.$ti S T O E L "a S.W. r" &"W. State AW RIVES fWand. 0,qM 17M 1 r PhOW tuls I,.soi.22o.245D s+ao www.swd.mm ATTORNLT{ AT LAW Name: _ Fu No. Company/Firm Phone No TO: Cram Dirksen 503-684-7297 Mayor, City of Tigard 503-639-4171 V Councilor Tom 503-584-7297 Tigard City Council Woodruff 1Vames Sender's Direct Dial: Sender's Direct Emall: FROM: Richard A. Franzke 503-294-9385 rafranzke@stoebeom (Mr. Franzke's direct fax 503-2949402) Client: Matter: Date: November 19.2004 No. of Pages (including this cover): s;.Q Originals Not Forwarded Unless Checked: Pint Class Mail [3 Overnight Delivery Hand Delivery In case of error call MERIDITH NIGHTINGALE at 503-2949531. This facsimile may contain confidential information that it protected by the attorney-client or wwrk product privi /ege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee responsible for delivering the facsimile, please do not distribute this facsimile, notO us Immediately by telephone, and return thus facsimile by mail. Thank you. COMMENTS: i i i 1 Pedind3-1471751.1 W99999-WWI ~S_ 4_y4b~ blb F'Wd/%0b "JV ly ' 04 Id: -5d AWeh4rd A. Franzke 14980 SW 133' Avenue 77gard, OR 97224 503-639-7235 November 19, 2044 VIA FAX - 503-684-7297 Craig Dirksen Mayor City of Tigard Tigard, OR Re: Bull Mountain Annexation Dear Mayor Dirksen: Following the Bull Mountain annexation vote, you were quoted in the newspaper to the effect "I would like to have an on-going dialogue with the Bull Mountain residents, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon." Speaking only as one Bull Mountain resident, I would like to respond to your statement. Without a doubt, I would welcome such a dialogue. Annexation is not a dead issue; it will continue to be an important issue until some kind of incorporation occurs. Certainly annexation into Tigard is one of the options that exist. Again, speaking only for myself, the two top priorities in my mind are: (1) reducing the current zoning density on the remainder of the mountain, and (2) providing parks and open space. The other issues such as police, streets and roads, etc. are of less importance to me, and I believe most of my neighbors feel the same. Regarding density, I was surprised when I read your statement published in the Voter's Pamphlet in which you stated you favored lowering the density in the Bull Mountain area to 4.5 units from the current 7 units. I had never heard you make that statement previously and it offers me encouragement that we might be able to resolve the density issue amicably. Tom Woodruff, in his Voter's Pamphlet Portlnd3-1500070.1 0009990-OOWI 503-294-9492 C 616 P03/06 NW 19 104 18:38 Craig Dirksen Mayor, City of Tigard November 19, 2004 Page 2 statement, also indicated that he favored lower residential densities, although he was not quite as specific as you were. From brief conversations I have had with Sally Harding, I believe she also supports reducing the density on Bull Mountain. I call your attention to the Bull Mountain Community Plan (the "Plan"). Although the Community Plan was adopted 20 years ago and has not been updated since then, it is still the operative Comprehensive Plan governing Bull Mountain, a conclusion supported by the Hearing Officer in both the Summit Ridge and Alberta Rider decisions. It is beyond dispute that for the past several years the Bull Mountain Community Plan has been largely ignored actually, violated - in making land use decisions. With specific reference to density, the Plan describes the intended development pattern as follows: "The development approach planned for the Bull Mountain Area is intended to ensure the careful and deliberate growth of a distinct residential community. *%I * * Bull Mountain is to be developed as a distinctive residential environment in a naturally fortunate setting with development opportunities for a variety of housing options." "The development pattern begins with medium density housing along major collector and arterial roads at the foot of Bull Mountain where appropriate. Residential densities, as planned, decrease gradually up Bull Mountain with the re ter part of the summit and surrounding ridges designated as the County's lowest urban residential density. * * (Emphasis added.) With regard to the south slopes and summit, the Plan states: * * Low densities are planned on the Bull Mountain summit and slopes mainly because of the dominance of Panw3-1500010.10099999-0owl S-~`J4-y40~ L 616 P04/06 NOV 19 1 04 18: 38 Craig Dirksen Mayor, City of Tigard November 19, 2004 Page 3 steep slopes and the established pattern of low density residential development. This low density designation extends from the Fern Street development and the eastern edge of the Planning Area * * * to the southwest edge of the Planning Area at the Urban Growth Boundary." Unfortunately, recent developments have disregarded the goal of preserving the unique attributes of the area, and densities have been increased - not decreased - as development has moved up the mountain. Other provisions of the Bull Mountain Community Plan have also been ignored in approval of recent land use applications. For example, concerning new streets, the Plan provides: "The residential character of this subarea is to be protected. Improvement of roadways should be done in a manner which does not encourage excessive through traffic. * * * * For similar reasons, all the roads planned for improvement or connection to Bull Mountain Road within the Planning Area should be constructed as minor collectors or local streets following the Lo2o generally and not directly aligned with other major roadways." (Emphasis added.) In spite of the Plan requirement that streets and roads should be built following the natural topography, Tigard approved the Summit Ridge application permitting construction of towering retaining walls hundreds of feet in length throughout the development; the retaining walls were built so the streets did not have to follow the natural typography. Although challenged by residents by an appeal to the Hearings Officer, the retaining walls were approved. The Hearings Officer brushed aside the objections regarding the retaining walls by simply stating his conclusion that ,,the streets follow the topography of the site to the extent feasible * * (Decision at p. 13, 111, a, ii.) There was no evidence in the record that it would PonW3-1500070.1 0099999-00001 bYJ3-GJ4-J417~ L blb Hdt:VIOb NUV 1J '164 IU:.SJ Craig Dirksen Mayor, Cigr of Tigard November 19, 2004 Page 4 not be feasible to build the streets fbU2M j g the natural topography of the site. It is apparent that throughout the area other developers have been able to build streets without making mass excavations and constructing huge retaining walls. Regarding tree preservation, the Bull Mountain Community Plan provides that trees larger than six inches in diameter are considered to be "mature" and that no more than 50% of mature trees shall be removed. The City of Tigard disregards the Plan's definition of mature trees as being six inches in diameter or larger and, instead, defines "mature" trees as only those 12 inches in diameter or larger. (City's Decision, Summit Ridge, at p. 12, 14.) The result of this change in the definition is seen on the photograph of the denuded Summit Ridge site recently published in the Tigard Times. These are but a few examples of the continuing disregard for the Bull Mountain Community Plan. While other examples could be presented, these are sufficient to make the point: to protect what is left of Bull Mountain, the sRirit and the intent of the Bull Mountain Community Plan must be recognized and enforced. ORS 197.520(3)(a)(A) provides that a city, county or special district may adopt a moratorium on construction if it finds * * application of existing development ordinances or regulations and other applicable law is inadequate to prevent irrevocable harm from development in affected geographical areas." The current regulations, at least as they have been interpreted, clearly are inadequate to prevent irrevocable harm to the Bull Mountain area. Alternatively, under ORS 197.522, "A local government may deny an application that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan * * (See also ORS 197.524, et seq.) Whether by a moratorium under 197.520 or by denial under 197.522 of applications not consistent with the Bull Mountain Community Plan, the goals of the Plan would be given effect. I sincerely believe that if the spirit and the intent of the Bull Mountain Community Plan were followed by the City of Tigard in consideration of future land development applications, the major objection to annexation into the City would be removed. The other remaining major obstacle would be development of a concrete plan for providing parks and open spaces within the Bull Mountain area; I believe that issue is manageable. PorthW3-1500070.10099999-00001 503-294-9402 C 616 P06/06 NOV 19 104 18:39 Craig Dirlmn Mayor, City of Tigard November 19, 2004 Page S As I said at the outset, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with you and/or the Council in the near future and work toward a resolution that would be acceptable to all concerned Very truly yours, Richard A. Franzke RAF/mkn cc: Councilor Tom Woodruff Sally Harding Lisa Hamilton-Treick (Friends of Bull Mountain) POW3.1"WO.1 0090999 OMI LEGIBILITY STRIP i N~j1 ~rx :i' r I f 1 ;!a%I:j,'i , I':~'`i`3' lU`"tl r` t t i J llil~3!thCpq,~ r ~~1 t:.•._1 .i• Iem S !T F;# t ~ F1j} ! ? F • r~~ 1 r 4,' i Geographic Inlormat :rd t f J t ~ N ~zh rs rariFOREST DEFERALS l jh~'~:;ed?__'~ _ I 'K~_._..,'~,~7-•tkSS', L \r,._~'c~i~ . sl? ti.•.F x _ _ ~r } 1 F rt~°~~ 4fs~r ~~r4:1,~; t.,l ~w J LOr'UST a. ST i ?I r- J co .^•fi,.=. 3j~- il~~ait ~•f' o~NiF • 1't •u•1 r ~Lr ` = 2. T _ ~ ~ ~ i. _ r ~,p~y\Sp `F~•~'r`l~E yy,~•~ c r e+n~a, , r 1 N& S FOrMIDNxral ~~l~sCc'~.1''~r ,•i ®WanlMdarFae4lkrertai L~il p:.anMro9waF fit..' en 0 'e Tq. e CRY Lmrs { i T~'i ix-. F` Ctt11 G2 j y i< C It n r t r N DAKOTA ST a , , J t 1 i PFAME ST~. i ; -nsen„ce<Nee i r 1 r'~. 2• R~ r f, y- tit 11 ~Y-_f I I t [v~~~L ~~~5n ~'~,~!'~,tl"r'.tt §~F` •W l 1Fr /li.. uj i ~I rT i7t~ T~Fr:~ ± ~'~'ij;~~1Fl~QKJ~~re},~t~tjlw Q • Q ; \ ;L) \ ICti11; t ~i.•.I,t"'y. 1 L I _ fn F.I .t • r,C~ - - _ r 'Iff -Ho' \ 'cC.7.S . to `)q ! '4 j1 t{ 't • N ! 1 I \i ( tD-F t r - I I I ir(z,,t ..WALNUT I •'y~ • n q 1 elm lyc Q ~ / !j } r £x FF1 I~ / / 3 t4 '/Y ( a Gi R: I'f' - - ro~+we rrz.''T ti'it i' { -i~1 y -l C _ S'j•L. J'. ~N I 00 .L__,5 - P, 'rjil t~ _ k`~>>! L 4• f - - -rf Mp,\~ - Sjl//tFR. ' tn. ranr.alcwo. rlc w3'r.,. •=t..yM ,g`J'1j~:. ~ ~ r..~ ~ jl{k,:}' ao.uwe - i I~ t ~ , ntm'f m F~. fitly ( t (tl ut.K! 1 1~' ` r; - t.rct..a*tc i - r~;;,l ~ 1 f u'~Ji ,.l ~J~`• --~Q \G 1. co 1d~.. F - I; 1~1 <~'1I~:C^1'.,^(t~', °lt,A~.~7~ .rt• t ..^ry y ne.~n ~ J 1 , _ _'I ! ~.-~-c t~~'- ' Y t i R.- mau.°'m'ic'm~.u.ri.•ow+ yin. ~i,t.,. ~ f . .n... •P : f , _ ' Q rs~ - _ _ 1 = r;,C >tftt*n:l x:.,. + `X' GA4RDE ST r 0~ am. 1:jJi mersc"'..aao „~.?I /av BULL MOUNTAIN'RD,?' BONITA RD y~rrt'",kr 41'ti ' f'~1 :?7 k rr::-At - o..ow......N of _ 1~• t t ' I i ' ?9t tc~f , ' T t.Ttt r wtcer'.°.°..,ua !d 1 t t n ' rm... a - - . W I" ' ' r <J.I Lt ~ t~'r. ~~4 t 4 ~ ~ 4'r t ~ i ~ra.l~.. r - i + 'r ~ r •.t tR c I' 3 1 w~ x is ~ ' ~ a.oloeo m ti -@.. l• . Q"• `mM.r<.<a rte.: tI -C',` • F :T _ l : v ' J 'rwom.wu~e r - - ,.W\~~ A,/ City of Tigard DURHAM ,r.ti~ -RDa _ y t...reEEFe__EN ~fi L w 1•. _ 1 4 ' i .r. rrr on _ _ ? = I 970.65 0 97oF..1 3'~ r +'IF ~ Yri,u auinw+.o ~ 11 v~.uxow ro .w,i• +-.V y~ i I s 1 1-j-1 i 'W" - - m..ro...e..ate w.rd..w.. ' - , 1.. _ - t a ~I ' _ 1 - _ _IIN- - TIr UYtan ME.IrIeAWrel.bry rroa 'I.IH~~'fj! ~~t. 'Z 71v.lu..fr. ~rro ru~illMbh.P aYJ x 1~ FCi1LYlIID C41l~~a ~;~~CGL','~S{~~+ ~ ~~~-l-r;• .1~, ~l N~--'~c`~~,~r~~>~F~ ' gam. ~ ..1 N DAKOTAt f I I D ~ t ~ 1~ ri i ~ 1• ~ r~.'I^-, ~ 1(f ~jLl ~ i LLJ F GEC. , b r., ,E ~ .C'~t~~~~j~~~~:•~,~'`~-.`':.,}•.. ~w S J, ~ / t4~;C/Yi1~1~f~1~>{ t~ ~f:.~I:Ft*~ ''`l~•r''~~ `i~ t~ I , 3 fJ,• ) tir,1•.~ _ t , "l:Lt~`~' ~ti'1E~._ I Q1t1i IT -T .".c~-9 ~ jv~ ~•t' tK..t f,. ~.f:'t~.;....trl~~- `.j<l~i}ia•- EIIIF Eff { LNUT, OVER. DONE y?..- 266raxr V-P!] ~1 F n,06CD001oo .i. ~ t c ' 7 •-l {R'F1 If j :c,~ '3 I TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND. THE "t S C 7 ~y I aea.x.. - ,T 113 a j ~ ` ~ ~''t Q ^ I nlaoew+aoo tb I~t~ Tf E.t_I ~1 C `~i COSrI 2S1D6D000100 FJ:iiRJ 000100 i •1 II ~j I LUDLUM. ROBERT S JOANN NM1/tiE•LEOND ~G COSTiUC, CONSTAARNJADRUNA ~j(fRp f •%rrus 6.76axw F-{~-,j~ ,?lraar j'~L+~M •L iF tl ~ ~"r '4-: 2s,oxooo2DO y L ~i TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND. THE f ` ` (1• w • iul ~}r c . J'. NMI, / 5y;LLw„ JONES. SNIRLEVJTR 1r~r*y I, 2S1060DDt9Op 11 ~yJ 677axs y/L"i~~:--~::!~•~, 7.2 . cGNSTANTIHE l ATLRIAWI 2 1 F - - - 1 .j.,. Y"-t ~j.. 2BI05DCOD300 - `CY FGAgRDE ST CACHFAMRYREVTRUST 2S106DO00100 t' -a - J`T~= Q 0.768x. C SE.ANGELOS ❑I-t-1 4.t - ' "T' ® lC_B('T' LT ~i , i• BULL MO,UNTAINiRD. E ~ pqp p 2S109M01201 \ w 2S109DA02100 t GANG. CHI T a VINH W r MM n ES ROBERT R AND 2_C2 ° r k V 1J.14- r'- O) U r ~I n110BC01700 01600 PNOERS f-RWDE. CARL I NOERSON, SCOTT Ma I J.t)eaam ~ d9B~ars ~ tl.;: VOLPE. JOSEPH a SERNECE U TRS 2SIIDCB01000 FROUDE. CARL J/BEVERLV J 6.27s ' BEEF eBE N R~ 2S109DC00700 - D!J PAMERL JAMSHEED a GOU 1D.778xes 2SIOSDO002D0 2SI090COI000 p~ TSENG, JAMES JONG-MNG CAMERON, CHARLES D a MICHELE M L1:i111TL 4.93a 2.Sexvs r LiLi::u=i i i Agenda Item No. SS-Z Meeting of Jl f 23 O CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx NP? DATE: November 10, 2004 SUBJECT: Forest Deferral Amendment Process Concern has been raised about a provision in the Community Development Code (Section 18.790) which exempts treed properties under forest deferral from the provisions of the code that govern tree removal. Specifically, properties registered with the Washington County Assessor's Office as tax deferred tree farms or small woodlands, are not required to have a removal permit. I am requesting Council direction prior to proceeding with any code amendment. This follows Council's discussion with the Tree Board on November 16, 2004. The Tree Board has been reviewing several provisions of the tree removal standards with particular attention to enforcement and administration of the provisions of the code. At the study session on Tuesday, staff will present a map showing all the properties, both in the Urban Services Area and inside the City limits, that are designated forest deferral. Several properties have been logged. This will also be noted on the map. Washington County adopted Tigard's tree code provisions with the intergovernmental agreement for the Urban Services Area. Council can only modify the City's tree provisions; the County would be required to take separate action to reflect any changes Tigard makes to the County's code for the Urban Services Area. Should the IGA be terminated, the County would need to consider how they want to continue with land use and tree regulations for the Urban Services Area. It is important to weigh any potential amendments to the tree removal standards with the recently passed Measure 37. Measure 37 requires either compensation or waiving of land use regulations, etc., that diminish the value of property. Arguably, imposing strict mitigation standards could be considered lessening the value of properties under forest deferral. It is important to state, however, that it is too early to fully understand the impacts of Measure 37. 1:lcdadmyerreeyim~generaiNforest deferral memo to council.doc 3 ::1 LLLLI r tL t l ~rf1r~ rr~T~t W ViTli vR - ~C Cq~~^ ~ ~E ' 1 fir. N DAKQT-i S ~ ~ '~.'-¢L'rct, ~'1-:L'~ •i 13~3.1;I'~t: it: `)F j }'r't✓ `I'f.''J; i', W j#" ; EP V,;5'hr `~4.~/s~ti~t€~=J I Lr ciL{l~ftS~ Q l,jllJiWV 'l' t'- J I pv p,L. UT. 4. ~p~DSDOOD200 z.Sam" ~:.j - `Ft~: ~ ~r (1I*( "l't rF; )I r(3;1 , ai .l..ll •`1, nA Flt ,~I -.~~1CL~ ``~.!(~'~Y~~•~~IT~~. 1J, ~~~,r tf ln, ri,oacooo,oo Vr; f r ~ s,, ~ t..~!( VV C' t j'i~l[7{.i€~ f'I~E{~~:~~;r {i ~t::`•i',.;~ TRUST FOR P„BUC LAM. T,E f Lll 23104DBW9DO t {l~r1 ~~v•,,;. " ~.eaw.. ~l€ - t ? 1 2SICJDB00100 f ri105DD00t00 LUOLUM, ROBERT S JOANN WHITE LEOND U COSTIUC. CONSTANTIN& ADR1AIM 49awr ,I I!•I t'•,_• H• \ a06wr• tFSIIT➢i ,.z:.v.. n, - Cil~iiif)Ir`CJ~-" ~iJ ~ 1~• ~~fv,' St at:.:i~4 ~ 2S1OS0000200 ) y f ~ SL 1S fr L...1.. .1 . . TRUST FOR PUDLIC LAND. THE SIL tt~• JONES, SHIRLEYJ TR 'II``.~ ® fA"'.4'i2T'1 6 .77.as COSTIUC, CONSTAHTINE a ADRIANA _ ~E["'• 211idi CGAAR_DE ST'E3 ` f rilosocaoaoo - t----- L (tt GLN FAMILY REV TRUST Q 0.2a.or• 2SCOMESE. IVX00004NDGaoa p k BULL .MO TAR D. -U) zS,09M8,28, of. ri109DAa21oo DANG. CHI T a VNH VU r ® 14.14 MES, ROBERT R AND 2024as s -0.~I ri109DB0,a00 FROUDE.CARI ANDERSON. SCOTT H a 4.W... } - 399.as J OI ri,oeac,zloo fy, VOLPE, JOSEPH a BERNECE U TRS ~ - ' a.72, 2511pC801M FROUDE. CARL JIBEVERLr J B.Z7we4 D' ri109D=MO DL BEEF egEN AMERL JAMSHEED a GOU 1 10.77we. 2S JAMES JONGMNG C CAMER ' AMERcolooo TSENG.NG, J AMEON. CHARLES D a MICHELE M 4.93a 2.54 m~ AGENDA ITEM NO. - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE : November 23, 2004 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED NCVVAA'a vve'6c-Z CD6n~w~,r, -v C'k k~A (4 0 Ck 122 ; ~T , CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Page 1 G lT y ~~r Tigard City Council Meeting NOv. 23, 2004 Entered into the Record on 11123kY "Protect Edgewood Street° Business Agenda By: OVm~h }~1 C S e NATURE OF BUSINESS TONIGHT: Agenda Item#-2- Exhibit Good Evening, My name is Norman Russell and I am here representing a local neighborhood. First I would like to thank the mayor and members of council for all their hard work on behalf of the citizens of Tigard. I would also like to thank all of you for taking your valuable time to hear our concerns. My neighbors and I ars here representing Edgewood Street. Our mission tonight is to express our concerns about a proposed multilhousing development at 8855 SW Edgewood Street. The owner of the referenced property sought approval to create lots for 3 additional homes. We understand that the owner may be within his rights based upon a simple square foot calculation however the location of the existing home on the property, would require flag lots which are difficult in terms of access for the fire department. We would ask the council to consider the unique challenges of Edgewood Street. There are no sanitary or storm sewers nor are there street lights, sidewalks, curbs, or gutters. Many years ago the residents banded together and surfaced the street with gravel and emulsion using their own funds. The existing road is not engineered to modem standards. The residents here tonight and many others which were unable to attend, oppose multi-housing developments with the proposed density. We also have rights and one of them is to protect our property values. The planned development would defeat our original purpose for purchasing our properties. It would create additional traffic on a non engineered road. It would create additional storm water for which there is no sewer. It would create dead end roads which would make access difficult for the fire department. The infrastructure simply is not available on Edgewood St. We would ask the council to consider the negative impact this type of development creates. This would set a precedent for a patchwork of development in the Edgewood neighborhood. We ask that the council consider the foilowing: 1) FIRE PROTECTION ACCESS 2) DEAD END / CUL-DE-SAC 3) TREE REMOVAL 4) ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ON NONENGINEERED ROAD 5) LACK OF SANITARY OR STORM SEWER 6) ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC AT OMARA / HALL INTERSECTION 7) LACK OF FIRE HYDRANTS 8) COST OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE CITY We thank you for your time tonight and appreciate any consideration you may give to our concerns. Sincerely, Paul and Betty Clark 9160 SW Edgewood St. Doug Geoffroy 9325 SW Edgewood St. 47 Bob and Bonnie Bunger 9215 SW Edgewood St. Larry and Rose Bailey 9355 SW Edgewood St. Angela McAndrew 8830 SW O'Mara Lois, David, and Rachael Jensen 8840 SW Edgewood St r Ed and Susan Duffield 8895 SW Edgewood St. Bob and Elaine Tinnin 8876 SW Edgewood St. Terry and Bill Lasniewski 8860 SW Edgewood St. Laurie Abbott 8995 SW Edgewood St. Ken and Willie Lasvik 9155 SW Edgewood St. Remi and April Sabbe 9175 Sw Edgewood St. Ron Holland 8850 SW Edgewood St. Lou and Carole Wachsmuth 9285 SW Edgewood St. Larry Mabray 8890 SW Edgewood St. Carol and Kazu Takuda 8870 SW Edgewood St. MA,&Susan Underhill 8960 SW Edgewood St. Norman and Kelly Russell 8857 SW Edgewood St. Paul and Lori Larsen 9115 SW Edgewood Sto.- >r _J Q u AGENDA ITEM FOR AGENDA OF November 23.2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Amendment to the Engineering Design Services Contract on the Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection project 1VTW PREPARED BY: Vannie Nguyen DEPT HEAD OK : Agustin. P. Duenas CITY MGR OK: Bill Monahan ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The proposed contract amendment for additional services on the Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection project exceeds 20 percent of the contract amount. This agenda item requests the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, to approve the contract amendment to date on this project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the amendment to the contract with DeHaas & Associates in the amount of $81,929 for additional engineering design and construction services on the Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection project. Staff also recommends that Council authorize any additional amendments which may become necessary as the project progresses, up to 20 percent of the amended contract amount, without further action by Council. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed Wall Street project includes dcsign and construction of the street from Hall Boulevard to Hunziker Street and Hall Boulevard approaches at its intersection with the proposed Wall Street. In July 2002, the design team led by DeHaas & Associates was selected to provide engineering design services through a formal Request for Proposal process. In April 2003, the City was required to provide half-street improvements along Hall Boulevard as a condition of approval for the Library project. The City was also required by ODOT to construct a joint access for the library and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums. In the City Council meeting of May 13, 2003, Council approved a resolution amending the FY 2002-03 CIP Budget to separate the Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection project from the Wall Street LID project. Separation of the two projects provided the City an opportunity to expedite the construction schedule for the Hall Boulevard half-street improvements required as a condition of approval for the Library project. The rest of Wall Street would be designed to the 60% stage to complete the Preliminary Engineer's Report. Any additional design after that would be dependent upon formation on the LID to construct the improvements. Limits of work for the two projects are defined as follows: - Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection project: Construction of half-street improvement on Hall Boulevard and the first 425 feet of Wall Street to provide a joint access for the library and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums. - !Nall Street LID project: Extension of the first 425 feet of Wall Street across Fanno Creek and existing railroad tracks to Hunziker Street. On February 25, 2003, a contract in the amount of $202,022 was issued to DeHaas & Associates to provide topographical survey, preliminary design and final design services for the Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection project. On December 16, 2003, Council approved an amendment of $177,410 (Amendment No. 1) for additional work in associated with wetland permit applications, alternative design analysis and Comprehensive Plan amendment for removal the existing two ponds for construction of Wall Street. Scope of services included in Amendment No. 1 also included the re-design of an existing culvert on Hall Boulevard to allow for fish passage into Fanno Creek and other miscellaneous designs for the Hall Boulevard drainage and retaining walls. On April 4, 2004, the City approved a second contract amendment in the amount of $13,810 for the design of Wall Street landscaping and Hall Boulevard bio-swale. The total contract amount and amendments issued to date to DeHaas & Associates are as follows: Original Contract $ 202,022.00 Amendment No. 1 $ 177,410.00 Amendment No. 2 $13,810.00 Total Contract $ 393,242.00 Because of the requirements involving acquisition of wetland permits for construction of the first 425 feet of Wall Street, the Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection project was further sub-divided into two phases to ensure timely construction of the half-street improvement: - Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Improvements - Phase 1: This project includes construction of half-street improvements on Hall Boulevard. Construction of this phase has been completed. - Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Improvements - Phase 2: The project involves construction of the first 425 feet of Wall Street to provide a joint access for the two developments. Wetland pen-nit, sensitive lands permit and comprehensive plan amendment permit are being obtained. The design of Phase 2 is substantially completed. During the design of the project, staff had requested signalization of the Hall Boulevard/Wall Street intersection. However, because the warrant for the eight-hour and peak hour volumes was not met, ODOT did not approve the signal system request at that time. Due to the uncertainty of ODOT's approval, the original contract with DeHaas & Associates did not include engineering costs for the signal. However, ODOT has recently reconsidered the request and has allowed the City to install a signal at the new library entrance. Staff proposes that the current contract with DeHaas & Associates be amended in the amount of $25,000 for the design of the new signal. The signal would be designed and installed as soon as possible. Because the construction of the first 425 feet of Wall Street is linked with the realignment of Pinebrook Creek, the construction work for the street must be performed in conjunction with the creek realignment. The project would be advertised for bids in the spring. However, the work in the creek would have to be performed during the period of time between July 1, 2005 and September 30, 2005. Construction of the new signal is anticipated to begin in early spring of 2005. The signal system would be designed such that it could be transitioned to the segment of Wall Street (first 425 feet) that would provide joint access to the Library and Fanno Pointe. Staff also proposes that the contract be amended in an additional amount of $56,929 for construction staking, construction inspection oversight for the new signal, wetland planting, and wetland report as required by permit conditions of approval. Upon Council's approval of Amendment No. 3 on November 23, 2004, the total contract amount would be: Original Contract $ 202,022.00 Amendment No. 1 $ 177,410.00 Amendment No. 2 $13,810.00 Amendment No. 3 (proposed) $81,929.00 otal Contract $ 475,171.00 There may be additional contract amendments necessary as the project proceeds towards completion with potential construction change orders likely to occur during construction. Staff recommends that Council authorize any additional amendments which may become necessary as the project progresses, up to 20 percent of the amended contract amount, without further action by Council. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Council does not approve the contract amendment. Although the original Request for Proposal included a comprehensive scope of work for the entire project through construction, Council could elect to require a new RFP for the additional work. A Request for Proposal would need to be prepared for design, construction staking and construction oversight services, which could be time consuming and could be more costly since a new consultant would need to become familiarized with the project at additional cost. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Completion of the Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection project that expands the capacity of Hall Boulevard and prohibits direct access onto Hall Boulevard, an arterial street, meets the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Transportation and Traffic Goal of "Improve Traffic Flow and Safety." ATTACHMENT LIST Map showing the project limits for the Wall Street LID project and the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection projects. FISCAL NOTES The project was approved in the FY 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program using Traffic Impact Fee funding of $400,000.00. The remaining budget of approximately $386,000 is sufficient to approve the proposed contract amendment of $81,929. 1 %K0vamW&y eotMON ap pWd VrA Sal 1-23-04 W Wd • %-4 street anxhdmw* ab.doc N NO SCALE •~Y \ w Qpe ~ Jo I y'~ I ~ o I o\ I ~ Library O'MARA 5T ` 9 ~ Hall Blvd/Wal treat \ Intersection- e 1 project ~ O Hall 1 /W II Street \ REGIN Fanno Pointe \ Condominiums Into ti hose 2 pro AGENDA ITEM #I a h FOR AGENDA OF November 23, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Approve the purchase of three Hybrid V hi es for Building Division use.. An PREPARED BY:Dennis Koellenneier x2596 DEPT HEAD OK: CITY MGR OK:O VV ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the purchase of three hybrid Ford Escape Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) for use by the City's Building Division? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board approve the purchase of three hybrid Ford Escape SUVs utilizing an existing; State of Oregon Contract. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Building Division currently has the need to replace three vehicles assigned to Inspectors. Earlier this year, staff stated that Fleet Maintenance would continue to track development of hybrid vehicles as possible replacements for the City's aging vehicles. With the release of the hybrid Ford Escape SUV, there is now a hybrid vehicle that meets the needs of the City's Building Division. Given the vehicle specifications required by the Building Division, including the ability to traverse rough ground, including curbs, rocks, and lumber pieces, high clearance, heavy upholstery, rubber floors, and room to cant' tools, along with the higher fuel efficiency and lower environmental impact, staff has determined the hybrid Escape is an excellent fit for the Building Division. Staff has further determined that the best means to procure these hybrid vehicles would be through the utilization of State of Oregon contract 94184, which the City is eligible to use through its membership iii die Oregon Cooperative Purchasing Program. Utilizing this contract will save the City staff time and cost in preparing a solicitation for the vehicles. The existing three vehicles being replaced (1993 and two 1995 pick-up) will be circulated into the City fleet in back-up assignments to maximize the use of our investments. . OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . 1. Direct staff to prepare and advertise an Invitation to Bid solicitation for the purchase of the replacement vehicles. 2. Do not replace vehicles at this time. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None. i ATTACHMENT LIST 1 State of Oregon contract #4184. FISCAL NOTES The cost of each Escape is $25,008 for a total of $75,024. Currently the City has $76,000 budgeted for vehicle replacements within the Building Division's budget. Funds for this division are dedicated revenues generated by building permit fees and restricted in use to Building Division operating costs. ~seph arrett - VIP Btd Document - - - _ - _ _ _ Page 3 , STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 1 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 BUYER NAME: W. JACOBS (503) 378-4646 ITEM: HYBRID FORD ESCAPE, SUV, 2 WHEEL DRIVE, PRICE AGREEMENT IS FOR THE 2005 MODEL YEAR WITH AN OPTION TO RENEW FOR ADDITIONAL TERMS AGENCY: STATE AGENCIES AND AUTHORIZED ORCPP MEMBERS CONTRACTOR: LANDMARK FORD 12000 SW 66TH AVENUE TIGARD OR 97281 3970 PH#:(503) 639-1131 FAX:50359883840000 CONTACT:DAVE FREZZA BRAND/TRADE NAME: HYBRID COMPACT SUV, FORD ESCAPE, 4X2 PRICE: $24,943.00 TERMS: NET 30 FOB: FOB DESTINATION CONTRACT PERIOD: SEP 29 2004 THROUGH SEP 28 2005 DAYS REQUIRED FOR DELIVERY: 180 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF PURCHASE ORDER MINIMUM ORDER: ONE UNIT TRANSPORTATION CHARGES: SEE D.2 OTHER CONDITIONS: BEFORE ISSUING A PURCHASE ORDER AGAINST THIS PRICE AGREEMENT CALL THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY OPTION PRICING. OPTION PRICES IN THIS SUMMARY MAY NOT BE ACCURATE PURSUANT TO OAR 125-050-0040, AUTHORIZED PURCHASERS TO THIS CONTRACT/PRICE AGREEMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE DAS SURPLUS PROPERTY PROGRAM AT 503.378.4714 TO CONFIRM AVAILABILITY OF VEHICLES AT A DISCOUNTED PRICE PRIOR TO PURCHASING FROM THIS PRICE AGREEMENT. THIS CONTRACT COVERS ONLY THOSE ITEMS LISTED. DATE OF ISSUANCE: 09/22/2004 BID NO.: 10200045 04 Joseph Barrett-VIP Bid Document Page 4) STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ' PURCHASING DIVISION i PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 2 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 ITEM - 00001 UNIT - EA COMMODITY - 99894 PRICE - $24,943.0000 Year : 2005 Make : Ford Utility Vehicles i Model: Escape Style: U95 4dr 103" WB 2.31- Hybrid ♦ffNfNNfNMNfNfff STANDARD EQUIPMENT ' fNff1N►fffffNNffN** "ASTERISK INDICATES EQUIPMENT WHICH IS IN ADDITION TO OR REPLACES BASE MODELS STANDARD EQUIPMENT" <<< MECHANICAL * 2.31. 4V 14 Atkinson Cycle engine * Permanent Magnet electric motor * 330V sealed nickel-metal hydride (Ni-MH) battery Engine block heater *Standard on non-fleet vehicles in AK, MN, ND, SD, MT, WI & WY* * Electronically controlled continuously variable transmission (ECVT) Front wheel drive 4-wheel independent suspension * (4) P235/70R16 BSW all-season tires * (4) 16" Hybrid-unique aluminum wheels i Underbody-mounted compact spare tire * Electric power assisted steering (EPAS) * Power front/rear disc brakes 4-wheel ant]-lock braking system * Quick brake assist * Regenerative braking system 15.0 gallon fuel tank <<< EXTERIOR * Roof rack w/cross bars Grey bumpers Grey body cladding/rocker moldings Black liftgate molding i Black grille w/black mesh center Black full grip ergonomic door handles i Clear lens halogen headlamps w/delay * Round front fog lamps Black fold-away power side mirrors Dot matrix windshield pattern Solar-tinted glass on doors & liftgate * Privacy glass on rear doors/quarter windows/liftgate Variable intermittent windshield wipers Rear 2-speed wiper w/washer ~loseph ¢arrett -VIP Bid Document - -Page 51 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 3 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 <<< INTERIOR • Premium cloth front low-back bucket seats-inc: adjustable head restraints, dual map pockets • 6-way power driver seat w/height adjuster • Premium cloth 60/40 split tip-fold-flat rear bench seat w/removable cushion, head restraints Floor console-Inc: (2) cup holders, storage bin • Front color-keyed carpeted floor mats * Tilt steering wheel w/speed control • White-faced Instrument panel-Inc: warning lights & Hybrid-unique gauges • Warm steel-painted center cluster & front door switch bezel trim Power windows w/driver "one-touch-down" & accessory power delay Power locks Remote keyless entry w/(2) transmitters • Perimeter alarm • Message center Air conditioning Rear floor heat ducts Rear window defroster * ETR AM/FM stereo w/6-disc in-dash CD changer-inc: (4) speakers Locking glove box Power point w/cap In floor console Cloth visors w/covered vanity mirrors Front/rear assist handles-inc: rear coat hooks interior lighting w/delay-inc: map lights, rear cargo light <<< SAFETY Dual stage driver & front passenger airbags w/passenger side Occupant Classification Sensor 4-wheel anti-lock braking system * Quick brake assist Front height-adjustable 3-point safety belts w/pretensioners Rear 3-point safety belts Rear outboard LATCH child seat anchors & tethers Belt Minder feature Child safety rear door locks Side Intrusion door beams CONTINUED NEXT PAGE STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 4 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 ..rwn.H.ri,v,r,.~.,►~sssr FACTORY OPTIONS OPTION CODES DESCRIPTION Invoice U95 4dr 103" WB 2.3L Hybrid 24943.00 <<< EMISSIONS STANDARD EMISSIONS 0.00 422 CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS 'Required on units for CA, CT, ME, MA, NJ, NY, RI or VT registration. Optional for Cross-Border States' 0.00 423 CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS NOT REQUIRED *For units shipped or sold to California Emission States dealers for registration out of state' (REQ: Standard Emissions) 0.00 938 CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS STATES PUBLIC SERVICE/ EMERGENCY VEHICLE EXEMPTION "Only available on units sold to authorized government un1t3 & privately-owned ambulance companies' (REQ: 423 Emissions) 0.00 93N NON-CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS/NON-CROSS-BORDER STATES DEALER ORDER FOR CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS STATES REGISTRATION "Required on all units ordered by dealers for California Emissions States registration when vehicle is being delivered to a non-California Emissions/non-Cross-Border States location. Vehicles must be registered in California Emissions States" (REQ: 422 Emissions) 0.00 <<< ENGINE P j 99H 2.31- 4V 14 ATKINSON CYCLE ENGINE (STD) 0.00 I TRANSMISSION 44H ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED CONTINUOUSLY VARIABLE TRANSMISSION (STD) 0.00 Joseph.,l3anetE- VI.1'? Bid Documenf Page 7 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 5 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 <<< SERIES ORDER CODE 300A HYBRID SERIES ORDER CODE 0.00 <<< TIRES T53 P235/70R16 BSW ALL-SEASON TIRES (STD) 0.00 <<< SEAT TYPE It, PREMIUM CLOTH LOW BACK BUCKET SEATS (STD) 0.00 <<< PAINT SOLID PAINT (STD) 0.00 <<< ADDITIONAL OPTIONS 47C APPEARANCE PKG-Inc: A-gloss Silver Metallic fascias, bodyside claddings & wheel lip moldings, & A-gloss body color door handles & litigate garnish 563.00 85S SAFETY PKG-inc: side air curtains w/rollover sensor, front side air bags *Deletes STD 2nd row assist handles" 536.00 588 MACH AUDIO "CDX6" SYSTEM-Inc: ETR AM/FM stereo w/6-disc in-dash CD changer, (7) speakers 509.00 655 CARGO AREA RETRACTABLE COVER 67.00 161 FLOOR MATS, REAR 23.00 21E AC 110V POWER OUTLET, FRONT CONSOLE 99.00 153 LICENSE PLATE BRACKET 0.00 • WARRANTY PRELIMINARY 2005 WARRANTY Basic: 3 Years/36,000 Miles Drivetrain: 3 Years/36,000 Miles Corrosion: 5 Years/Unlimited Miles Roadside Assistance: 3 Years/36,000 Miles Jose h Barrett -VIP Bid Document ' ' " ' ' ` ' ' " STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 8 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 Color Chart 2005 Ford Escape 4dr 103" WB 2.31. Hybrid EXTERIOR COLORS INTERIOR COLORS MdDk Fint Dark Shadow Grey Met X Titanium Green Met X Red Fire Metallic X Sonic Blue Metallic X Silver Metallic X Oxford White X Color Chart Legend Abbreviation Full Name Code INTERIOR COLORS MdDk Fint Medium/Dk Flint 2 EXTERIOR COLORS Dark Shadow Grey Met Dark Shadow Grey Metallic CX Titanium Groan Mct Titanium Green Metallic DV Red Fire Metallic Red Fire Metallic G2 Sonic Blue Metallic . Sonic Blue Metallic SN Silver Metallic Silver Metallic YN Oxford White Oxford White YZ I - Pa e 9 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 7 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 This price agreement summary is for informational purposes only. In the event that any part of this summary conflicts with any of the I terms and conditions of the contract resulting from Invitation to Bid # 10200045-04, the terms and conditions of said contract shall govern. All terms and conditions and specification requirements as stated in Invitation to Bid # 10200045-04 apply, even though they may not be stated in this price agreement summary. This is a requirements contract, and the state agency or agencies listed are required to purchase from the contractor when purchasing Items listed in the price schedule and covers only those items listed. Contractor Performance: If products or services purchased under this price agreement are unsatisfactory agency personnel need to notify the buyer listed on page 1 of the contract summary by filling out a Purchasing Performance Report form. This form is available on line at the following address: http://tpps.das.state.or.ustpurchasingAink. SECTION B - ORDER OF INFORMATION SECTION C - GENERAL BIDDING INFORMATION SECTION D - SPECIFICATIONS SECTION E - ORCPP PARTICIPATION SECTION F - PRICE AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS SECTION G - STANDARD CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS SECTION C - GENERAL BIDDING INFORMATION CA GENERAL DEFINITIONS: C.1.1 "Addendum" or "Addenda" means an addition or deletion to, a material change in, or clarification of, the ITB. Addenda shall be labeled as such and shall be made available to all interested Bidders in accordance with the Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 125-030-0007(4). C.1.2 "Authorized Purchaser" means the State of Oregon, acting by and through DAS and Purchasing Agencies submitting Purchase Orders pursuant to DAS purchasing authority and direction. It may also include ORCPP Participants with appropriate purchasing authority under their applicable rules or regulations who submit Purchase Orders to Contractor. ;Joseph Barrett . IP Bld-bocument Pa a 1l)' STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY- PAGE: 8 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 C.1.3 "Bid" means the Bidder's written offer submitted in response to an ITB, including all necessary attachments. (Refer to Section C.4.1.) C.1.4 "Bid Closing" means the date and time set in the ITB for Bid submission, after which Bids may not be submitted, modified, or withdrawn by Bidder. C.1.5 "Bid Item" means the Individual items one (1) and two (2) Identified in the Pricing Submittal Section. C.1.6 "Bid Opening" means the same date and time set for Bid Closing, unless otherwise specified in Section C.10. C.1.7 "Bidder" means the person or other legal entity that submits a Bid in response to an ITB. C.1.8 Not used in this ITB C.1.9 "Contract" means the entire agreement between the Contractor and the Authorized Purchaser, comprised of the Price Agreement and a signed Purchase Order. C.1.10 "Contractor" means the person or other legal entity with whom the State enters Into a Price Agreement setting prices for the purchase of Goods and/or Services pursuant to the 1713, and with whom Authorized Purchasers subsequently contract through submittal of Purchase Orders. C.1.11 "DAS" means the State Department of Administrative Services, acting through the State Procurement Office of the Procurement, Fleet and Surplus Services Division. C.1.12 Not used in this ITB C.1.13 "Good" means the individual Bid item, including all installed components and accessories, if any, described in the ITB, as well as manufacturer options available to the general public. C.1.14 "GVW" means Gross Vehicle Weight. C.1.15 "Invitation to Bld" or "ITB" means the entire solicitation document, including all parts, sections, exhibits, attachments, and Addenda. C.1.16 OMPG6 means miles per gallon. .,Joseph Barrett -VIP gid Document STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 9 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 C.1.17 NOT USED THIS ITB C.1.18. "ORCPP" means the Oregon Cooperative Purchasing Program, whose Participants include but are not limited to: cities, counties, school districts, special districts, Qualified Rehabilitation Facilities (ORFs), residential programs under contract with the Oregon Department of Human Services, United States governmental agencies, and American Indian tribes or agencies. C.1.18.a. "ORCPP" also includes quasi-State Agencies such as Oregon Department of Higher Education, Oregon Health Sciences University, and Oregon State Lottery with statutory authority or autonomy to solicit for Goodslservices Independently. C.1.19 "Participants" means members of ORCPP. C.1.20 "Price Agreement" means the Invitation to Bid and the successful Bidder's Bid. It is the agreement between the Contractor and the State under which the Contractor agrees to hold prices, terms and conditions firm for a specified period of time for the benefit of Authorized Purchasers. C.1.21 "Purchase Order" means the purchase order document submitted to Contractor by Authorized Purchasers for the purchase of Goods and/or Services under the Price Agreement. C.1.22 "Purchasing Agency" means a State Agency subject to DAS purchasing authority under ORS 279.712. C.1.23 "Specifications" means the specific attributes of the Goods to be purchased or Services to be provided, if any. C.1.24 "Services" means the services to be performed under the Contract incidental to the purchase of Goods. C.1.25 "Standard" means everything that the manufacturer of a Unit offers to the general public (consumer goods) during the applicable model year as standard equipment on the particular model. C.1.26 "State" means the. State of Oregon. 0.1.27 "State Agency" means every board, commission, department, or agency of the State of Oregon, whose costs are paid, in whole or in part, from funds held in the State Treasury. C.1.28 "UCC" means the Uniform Commercial Code, ORS chapters 71, 72, and 72A, as applicable and as amended from time to time. STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 10 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 C.1.29 "Unit" and "Good" may on occasion be used interchangeably; In such cases "Unit' shall mean "Good," as defined in this Section. C.2 GENERAL INFORMATION: C.2.1 BID SUBMITTAL ADDRESS AND BID CLOSING: DAS will receive sealed Bids until 2:30 p.m. (Pacific time) on the Bid Closing date specified on page one (1) of the ITB, or as amended by Addenda, at the office of DAS State Procurement, at the receptionist's desk, on the north end of the second floor, In the General Services Bldg., at 1225 Ferry SL SE U140, Salem, Oregon 973014285. C.2.2 SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT: There will be only one point of contact during the procurement process. This includes the bidding process; requests for brand approval, change, clarification, and protests; the award process; and/or any other questions that may arise. The contact point for this ITB Is John Weber, who can be contacted at (503) 373-1197 or via fax (503) 373-1626. C.2.3 VIP SYSTEM: C.2.3(a) VIP VENDOR HANDBOOK: New Bidders are encouraged to request a copy of "VIP Vendor Handbook." This brochure is available free of charge from DAS State Procurement Office, 1225 Ferry St. SE 0140, Salem, OR 973014285; telephone (503) 3784642. C.2.3(b) ITBs: ITBs, including all Addenda and most attachments, are posted on the vendor information program ("VIP System"). Bidders who do not have access to the VIP System may download copies at a Plan Center, or at DAS State Procurement, 1225 Ferry St. SE U140, Salem, Oregon 97301-4285. Bidders may also order hard copies from DAS State Procurement for a fee. VP C.2.3(c) ATTACHMENTS: Some exhibits and attachments may not be available on the VIP System. These must be purchased separately from DAS State Procurement, where so specified in the ITB. See Section C.2.2 "SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT." _ C.2.3(d) ADDENDA: Addenda can be downloaded from the Addenda Menu on the VIP System. Bidders should consult the VIP System regularly until Bid Closing to assure that they have not missed any Addenda announcements. C.2,3(e) PLAN HOLDER'S LIST: IN ORDER TO APPEAR ON THE BID PLAN HOLDERS LIST, VENDORS MUST BE ENTERED ON THE VIP SYSTEM. Vendors can enter their vendor Information via the Internet at http://tpps.das.state.or.uslpurchasing Joseph ~arrstt-VIP Bld Document ' " " " " " ' " ' _ _ _ _ Page 13~ STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 11 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 VENDORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THEIR VENDOR INFORMATION IS CURRENT AND CORRECT. DAS shall accept no responsibility for Incorrect vendor information shown on the VIP System, or information missing from It. C.2.4 BIDDERS NOTE: PRICING PAGES, SECTION D "SPECIFICATIONS AND PRICING", SECTION E "ORCPP PARTICIPATION", SECTION J "CONTRACTOR REFERENCES", AND SECTIONS I THROUGH VI CONTAIN INFORMATION REQUIRING RESPONSES OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM BIDDER. C.2.5 TRADE SECRETS: Any Information Bidder submits in response to the ITB that Bidder considers a trade secret under ORS 192.501(2) or confidential proprietary information, and that Bidder wishes to protect from public disclosure, must be clearly labeled with the following: "This information constitutes a trade secret under ORS 192.501(2) or confidential proprietary information, and is not to be disclosed except in accordance with the Oregon Public Records Law, ORS Chapter 192." Bidders are cautioned that price information submitted In response to an ITB Is generally not considered a trade secret under the Oregon Public Records Law. Further, information submitted by Bidder that Is already in the public domain is not protected. The State shall not be liable for disclosure or release of any information when authorized or required by law or court order to do so. The State shall also be Immune from liability for disclosure or release of information under the circumstances set out in ORS 646.473(3). C.20 BID RESULTS: After awards are completed, Bidders may download a tabulation of Bid results from the VIP system. Alternatively, Bidders may submit a written request to DAS State Procurement for a copy of the tabulation. Each request must indicate the Bid number and must include a self-addressed envelope and a $5.00 check payable to the Department of Administrative Services. C.21 REVIEW OF AWARDED BID FILES: Awarded Bid files are public records and available for review at the DAS State Procurement office by appointment. Joseph,6arrett - VIO Bid Document _ - _ - Page 14 - - STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 12 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 SECTION D - SPECIFICATIONS AND PRICING DA GENERAL PROVISIONS: D.1.1 SILENCE OF SPECIFICATIONS: The apparent silence of the specifications as to any detail, or the apparent omission of a detailed description concerning any point, shall be regarded as meaning that only the best commercial practice, is to prevail, and that only materials and workmanship of first quality are to be used. However, if any omitted specification results in ambiguity as to material characteristics of the Bid Item, and inclusion is necessary to enable a reasonable Bidder in the particular industry to properly Identify such characteristics, Bidder shall submit a formal request for change as set forth in Section C.5.4. Failure to make such a request Is at Bidder's risk, and the Bidder awarded a Price Agreement shall be required to provide Goods meeting the Authorized Purchaser's needs with regard to any omitted specification for which change should reasonably have been sought. D.1.2 ADHERENCE TO THE SPECIFICATIONS: Deviations from any of the specifications requirements In the ITB may result in Bid refection. Deviations discovered after purchase shall be corrected at no cost to Authorized Purchaser. D.1.3 Not applicable in this ITB. D.1.4 NEW AND UNUSED: All Goods shall be new, unused, produced from current Standard production components, and shall be delivered ready for use. D.1.5 STANDARD CONSTRUCTION: Unless superceded by the ITB specifications, Goods shall include all components and accessories listed by the manufacturer as Standard on Standard vehicles. All vehicles shall be of identical body style, quality, appointments, and design as those offered during the course of the model year to the general public. Joseph,Barrett- VlP_Bid Document , Page~151 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 13 i COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 D.1.6 STANDARD VEHICLE COMPONENTS: ALL items, such as ashtrays, lighters, dome lights, inside mirrors, headlights, rear windshield wipers, ABS, Air bags etc., considered Standard factory equipment ! for the base model by the manufacturer, or which are required under federal regulations, shall be Included as part of the base Bid Item. These items cannot be deleted or added as additional cost Itom(s) (i.e. options), even If not noted specifically in the specifications. D.2 DELIVERY: 0.2.2 DELIVERY DATE PROPOSED BY BIDDER: 180 calendar days from date of Purchase Order. Failure to provide a delivery schedule or submittal of proposed delivery dates later than those required, may result in Bid rejection. Submittal of delivery dates providing for earlier delivery than required by the State will bind the Bidder, should it be awarded a Price Agreement, but shall not be considered for award purposes. D.2.3. DELIVERY CHARGE (SEE SECTIONS G.3 AND H.3): ALL VEHICLES DELIVERED WITHIN SALEM OREGON AND PORTLAND OREGON CITY LIMITS SHALL NOT BE CHARGED FOR DELIVERY. D.2.3A. DELIVERY CHARGES FOR ALL OTHER DESTINATIONS WILL BE BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND AUTHORIZED PURCHASER AT TIME OF ORDER. D.2.3A.1. AUTHORIZED PURCHASER. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PICK UP ORDERED VEHICLE(S) AT CONTRACTOR/ES BUSINESS ADDRESS AND NOT INCUR ANY DELIVERY CHARGES. D.2.313 DELIVERY COMPONENTS: Delivery shall include all of the following items (collectively referred to as "Delivery Components"). D.2.313(a) A copy of all product information and instructions t supplied by the manufacturer. Also see C.22. D.2.3B(b) One (1) copy of the operator's manual and ail other operator Information and instructions provided by the manufacturer. D.2.313(c) Data sheets (furnished by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for ODOT orders only) will be filled out by Contractor with applicable data and shall be delivered with each Unit. Page 16 Joseph a'rrett -VIP Bid Document STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ' PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 14 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 D.2.36(d) A manufacturer's Statement of Origin signed off to the Authorized Purchaser. D.2.3B(e) Keys, two sets, plus vehicle ID number shall be supplied for each vehicle at time of delivery. All keys shall be same shape and size as original. Each ordered vehicle shall be keyed differently. D.3 CORRECTION OF BID PRICING PERTAINING TO OPTIONS: In the event optional equipment pricing furnished by Bidder/Contractor -nor the PC Car Maker Program) Is entered incorrectly, the State reserves the right to correct the Bidder/Contractor's typographical error for that option bid under Section 3 of Categories I. DA FLEET VEHICLES: A manufacturers fleet vehicles shall not be bid for this requirement, D.5 - CATEGORY I D.5 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS: This Bid covers Standard model vehicles, D.5.2 BID FORMAT FOR EACH CATEGORY: D.5.2a SECTION 1 - Required equipment for all items bid. D.5.2b SECTION 2 - Required minimum specifications for each Bid item. D.5.2c SECTION 3 - Mandatory options for each Bid item, that shall be used as part of the award criteria. D.5.2d SECTION 4 - Mandatory option pricing for undercoating, and keys for all Bid items. Bidders shall submit pricing for this section, although it is not part of award criteria. D.S. - CATEGORY 1, SECTION 1 - REQUIRED EQUIPMENT FOR ALL SPORT UTILITIES D.6.1a BODY STYLE: i D.6.1a.1 - Full length solid top. D.6.1 a.2 - Four passenger seating (minimum). ,Joseph Barrett -VIP. Bid Documerit_ ~ Pege 17 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 15 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 D.6.1b EXTERIOR: D.6.1 b.1 - Color, shall be solid, Standard color. D.6.1 b.2 - Mirror, Outside Rear-View, to be manufacturer's Standard, but shall at least be a four (4) inch diameter minimum both left and right. D.6.1 c INTERIOR: D.6.1c.1 - Radio, standard manufacturer's AM/FM with multiple speakers and Standard antenna (Factory installed). D.6.1d OTHER: D.6.1d.1 - Spare tire and wheel will be the same size as Bid on the base unit. SECTION 4 - CATEGORY I DEALER OPTION PRICING D.11 UNDERCOATING: Bidders shall provide mandatory pricing for all Bid item. $125.00 D.16 EXTRA CODED KEYS: Bidders shall provide mandatory pricing for extra keys requested by the Authorized Purchaser. See 13.2.38(e). Bid cost per key - $ 15.00 , Bid cost for Coded Key - $57.00 n SECTION E - ORCPP, AND WSPC PARTICIPATION Bidder shall specify below whether it will accept orders from, and provide the Goods/Services specified in the ITB to ORCPP Participants ("Contract Authorization"). CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION FOR ORCPP PARTICIPANTS: CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION FOR ORCPP PARTICIPANTS: YES Joseph 6arreit -VIP Bid bocument _ _ _ Page 18 f STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 18 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 SECTION F - PRICE AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS F.I. TERM OF PRICE AGREEMENT: The initial term of the Price Agreement shall be one (1) year, beginning on the date the Price Agreement Is awarded. F.2 EXTENSIONS: Upon concurrence of the parties, the Price Agreement may be extended for additional terms ("Extension Terms"). Provided, however, that the maximum duration of the Price Agreement, Including all extensions, shall not exceed five (5) years. F.2.1 RENEWAL NOTICE. DAS shall notify Contractor In writing of its Intent to extend the Price Agreement ("Renewal Notice") at least ninety (90) calendar days prior to the expiration of the then- current term. F.2.2 CONTRACTOR CONSENT. If Contractor consents to the extension, it shall sign and return the Renewal Notice to DAS within the time period specified therein. If Contractor's consent is contingent upon a price increase, It shall so signify on the Renewal Notice, and shall sign and return it to DAS, together with cost/price documentation supporting the requested increase, within the time period specified. F.3 EXTENSION TERM PRICE ADJUSTMENTS: F.3.1 BASIS FOR PRICE INCREASE. Price increases, if granted, shall be based solely upon increases in manufacturer's invoice price to Contractor or decreases, if any, in manufacturer's assistance to Contractor. F.3.2 DAS'S DISCRETION. DAS reserves the right in its sole discretion to determine whether to agree to a price increase for an Extension Term. It further reserves the right to require additional i documentation, or to independently verify the basis for and validity • of any proposed price increase utilizing its internal price review and analysis protocols. DAS may accept or reject the requested i increase or offer some lesser amount. F.3.3 COMPROMISE OR REJECTION. In the event DAS offers some compromise amount or rejects the requested price increase, Contractor may elect to agree to the proposed Extension Term under those conditions, or allow the Price Agreement to expire. However, Contractor has no right to receive, or claim for failure to receive, a price increase for any Extension Term. ;Jose_~ti,Barretf-V1P 81d Document 75 = STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 17 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 F.3.4 PRICE ADJUSTMENT FIRM. Approved price increases shall be firm for the duration of the applicable Extension Term. Provided, however, no more than one price increase shall be allowed during any twelve-month period regardless of the number of Extension Terms entered into during that time. F.4 ONE MONTH EXTENSION OPTION: Notwithstanding the foregoing Sections F.1 through F.3, DAS reserves the right in its sole discretion to extend the Price Agreement for a maximum of one (1) calendar month beyond any term. DAS shall notify Contractor in writing of the one-month extension prior to the expiration of the then-current term. Price adjustments are not available for one-month extensions obtained pursuant to this Section F.4. Consecutive one-month extensions under this Section are also not allowed. F.5 GOODS AND SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED: During the term of the Price Agreement Contractor agrees to deliver all Goods and provide all services ordered by Authorized Purchasers in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract. F.5.1. COST OF OPTIONS. The cost to Authorized Purchasers of options ! shall be at manufacturers invoice price to the Contractor. I F.5.2. MANUFACTURERS REBATES, INCENTIVES, ADDITIONAL WARRANTIES. Contractor shall honor and pass on to Authorized Purchasers any additional warranties (written or unwritten) extended by the manufacturer. Contractor shall pass on to Authorized Purchasers all additional rebates or incentives offered by the manufacturer for vehicles purchased under the Price Agreement, whether or not figured i in the original Bid price quoted. ! F.6 PURCHASE ORDERS: Contractor shall not accept any Purchase Order that does not comply with the following requirements: F.6.1 STATE AGENCIES: Purchasing Agencies shall use the DAS-approved Purchase Order forms to order Goods and/or Services under the Price Agreement unless otherwise authorized by DAS. Purchase Orders shall Incorporate the Price Agreement by reference, and identify the Price Agreement number, the ITB number, and Bid item number(s) of the i Unit(s) and options ordered. ,Joseph Barrett - VIP Bid Document Pa a 20 _....._.._....._,._............._...g. STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 18 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 However, no language in a Purchase Order submitted by a State Agency shall vary, amend, modify, or add terms or conditions to the Price Agreement Operative provisions in Purchase Orders shall be limited to: designation of Authorized Purchaser and Its authorized representative; identification of Goods and order quantities; optional Services, equipment and accessories offered under the terms of the Price Agreement; delivery schedules in accordance with the terms of the Price Agreement; and Delivery Destination and invoicing address. F.6.2 ORCPP PARTICIPANTS: ORCPP Participants shall use their own Purchase Order forms to order under the Price Agreement The Mandatory Purchase Authorization Language set out in Section F.6.3 shall be required on the front page of each Purchase Order submitted to Contractor by an ORCPP Participant for Goods and/or Services ordered under the Price Agreement. F.6.3 MANDATORY PURCHASE ORDER LANGUAGE: THIS PURCHASE IS PLACED AGAINST STATE OF OREGON SOLICITATION # 10200045-04 AND PRICE AGREEMENT # -ORDERING ORGANIZATION WILL INSERT PRICE AGREEMENT #1. THE CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND SPECIAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS (TS & C'S) CONTAINED IN THE PRICE AGREEMENT ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AND SHALL APPLY TO THIS PURCHASE AND SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER ALL OTHER CONFLICTING TS AND C'S, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. F.6.4 In the event a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a Purchase Order constitutes an offer rather than an acceptance, then acceptance by Contractor shall be limited to the terms of the Contract as stipulated In this ITB. F.7 SALES TO UNAUTHORIZED PURCHASERS: It is the Contractor's responsibility to verify Authorized Purchasers' authority to contract pursuant to the Price Agreement. If Contractor is found to have entered into two or more Contracts with an entity other than an Authorized Purchaser, Contractor will be deemed to be in material breach of the Price Agreement. Josepf~ Barrett - VIP BId Document STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 19 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 F.8 VERIFICATION OF PARTICIPANT AUTHORITY: i F.8.2 ORCPP Participants can be verified via on-line Vendor Information Program (VIP), Menu Option #6, Directories. VIP can be accessed by: (A) Personal Computer (PC)/Modem connection using VIPCOMM communication software available at no charge. Call DAS Purchasing @ (503) 378-4649 to obtain copy; or (B) PC/Modem connection using Contractor's own communication software (read only); or (C) Worldwide Web: http://tpps.das.state.or.us/purchasing; I or (D) Procurement Centers (located throughout Oregon). Call (503) 378-4649 for Information or to view list of centers Identified on DAS Purchasing's Web page. F.9 NOT APPLICABLE THIS ITB. F.10 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND VOLUME SALES REPORTS: ' F.10.1.ADMINISTRATIVE FEES/PAYMENT: Contractor shall pay to Department of Administrative Services (DAS) State Purchasing Office, Administrative Fee (VCAF), in an amount equal to Two (2) Percent, of the base unit price of the vehicle (price on page one of Price Agreement), of Contractor's total sales made to Authorized Purchasers using this Price Agreement during the preceding quarter. For the purposes of this Price Agreement quarters end March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31. VCAF Is billed to the Contractor from DAS Purchasing Office on a State invoice generated upon receipt and using the volume of sales reported by the Contractor on the Volume Sales Report (VSR) from the Contractor. Contractor is held responsible for timely reporting and payment, regardless of entity that actually reports or makes VCAF payment to DAS Purchasing. F.10.2. ACCOUNTING AND REQUIRED REPORTS: Contractor shall submit a Volume Sales Report not later than fifteen days at the end of l each calendar quarter or date specified, which contains: (i)complete and accurate details of the Net Receipts for the relevant quarterly period; (ii)Contractor's corresponding calculation of the VCAF due to DAS Purchasing for that period; and (iii) such other information as DAS Purchasing may informally request. Contractor shall send a Volume Sales Report each quarter, whether or not there are reportable sales or VCAF due to DAS Purchasing. i ,loseph Barrett- VIP_Bid, Document. - - Page 22.. STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 20 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 F.10.3. VOLUME SALES REPORT (VSR) INFORMATION. Contractor shall provide the following information on the VSR: F.10.3.1 ITB item number, F.10.3.2 Recycled/non-recycled content, F.10.3.3 Customer name. Separately identify State Agencies and ORCPP. List each State Agency separately, F.10.3.4 Purchase Order number, F.10.3.5 Date ordered, F.10.3.6 Quantity ordered (Price List Items), F.10.3.7 Unit price and extended total, F.10.3.8 Total Dollar Amount for ending Quarter. F.10.4. VOLUME SALES REPORT FORMAT: Contractor shall provide Report(s) in a format approved by both parties. Reports on 3.5 Inch diskette or by e-mail are preferred; however, hard copy reports are acceptable. The following format examples are preferred for VSR: F.10.4.1. Excel Spreadsheet F.10.4.2. Lotus Spreadsheet F.10.4.3. All other report formats must be approved and agreed upon by DAS Contract Administrator and Contractor prior to submission of the first report. F.10.5. REPORT RECEIPT/ACCEPTANCE: The Department of Administrative Service's (DAS)' receipt or acceptance of any of the reports fumished pursuant to this Price Agreement, or any sums paid hereunder, shall not preclude DAS from challenging the validity thereof at any time. F.10.6. DAS RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THIS PRICE AGREEMENT IF VOLUME SALES REPORTS ARE NOT RECEIVED AS SCHEDULED. F.10.7. PAYMENT OF VCAF. Upon receipt of the invoice from DAS Purchasing, Contractor shall remit payment to DAS Purchasing for the amount indicated on the invoice. Contract shall contact the Contract Administrator as identified in the Price Agreement if no invoice in received within thirty (30) days after sending the VSR to DAS Purchasing. Failure to send VSR does not release Contractor from requirement to remit required VCAF. F.10.7.1. The fee shall be In the form of a check remitted to: Department of Administrative Services Attn: State Procurement Office .1225 Ferry Street SE, 0140 Salem, Oregon 973014285 Joseph, Barrett ,VIP Bill Document Page 23 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 21 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 F.10.7.2. If the total VCAF to be paid for the quarter does not exceed $ 100.00, Contractor shall not be required to submit the affected Administrative Fee and shall add such fee to the amount owed for the next succeeding quarter. These Administrative Fees shall not be subject to Interest accrual as explained in F.10.8. F.10.8. INTEREST: Any payments Contractor makes or causes to be made to DAS Purchasing after the due date as Indicated on invoice, shall accrue interest at a rate of 18% per annum or the maximum rate permitted by law, whichever is less, until such overdue amount shall have been paid in full. DAS'S right to interest on late payments under F.10. shall not preclude DAS from exercising any of its other rights or remedies pursuant to this Price Agreement or otherwise with regards to Contractor's failure to make timely remittances. F.10.9 COMPLIANCE AUDITS. Each Contractor will be monitored by DAS for compliance throughout the term of the Price Agreement(s) through the reports required under Section F.10. Additionally, DAS reserves the right to audit each Contractor's Price Agreement(s) and Contract files. F.10.9.1 In the event that any such audit reveals underpayment of Administrative Fees, the affected Contractor shall forthwith pay the amount of deficiency, together with Interest thereon at the rate provided in Section F.10.1. At DAS request, the affected Contractor shall pay the reasonable costs of an audit if such audit shows an underpayment exceeding TEN PERCENT (10%) of the Administrative Fees due during the Administrative Periods audited. F.10.10. THE STATE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE ANY PRICE AGREEMENT(S) AWARDED IF REPORTS ARE NOT RECEIVED AS SCHEDULED. F.11 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Contractor acknowledges and agrees that the State shall bear no liability on Contracts entered into for purchases by non-State Agencies, which liability the State expressly disclaims. With regard to non-State Agencies, Contractor agrees to look solely to the respective contracting party for any rights and remedies Contractor may have at law or in equity arising out of the sale and purchase of Contractor's Goods and/or Services and the resulting contractual relationship, if any, with each such contracting party, ose ¢arrett VIl? Bid Document. " STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 22 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 F.12 INDEMNIFICATION: Contractor shall defend, save, hold harmless, and indemnify the State, its agencies, departments, divisions, and their officers, employees and agents from and against all claims, suits, actions, losses, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses of any nature whatsoever (collectively, "Claim") resulting from, arising out of, or relating to the Price Agreement and Contracts, including but not limited to (1) the activities of Contractor or its officers, employees, subcontractors, or agents, (2) the Goods sold, and (3) the Services provided. F.12.1 Provided, however the Oregon Attorney General must give written authorization to any legal counsel purporting to act in the name of, or represent the interests of, the State and/or its officers, employees and agents prior to such action or representation. Further, the State, acting by and through its Department of Justice, may assume Its own defense, including that of Its officers, employees and agents, at any time when in the State's sole discretion it determines that (I) proposed counsel Is prohibited from the particular representation contemplated; (ii) counsel Is not adequately defending the interests of the State and/or its officers, employees and agents; (iii) important governmental Interests are at stake; or (iv) the best interests of the State are served thereby. Contractor's obligation to pay for all costs and expenses shall include those incurred by the State in assuming its own defense and/or that of officers, employees, and agents under (1) and (11) above. F.13 EVENTS OF DEFAULT: F.13.1 CONTRACTOR. Contractor shall be in default under the Price Agreement it F.13.1.1 Contractor breaches any Price Agreement or Contract covenant, warranty, certification, or obligation; F.13.1.2 Contractor institutes an action for relief In bankruptcy or has instituted against it an action for insolvency; makes a i general assignment for the benefit of creditors; or ceases doing business on a regular basis of the type identified in Contractor's obligations under the Price Agreement and Contracts entered into thereunder, or F.13.1.3 Contractor attempts to assign rights in, or delegate duties under, the Price Agreement or any Contract entered into thereunder, without DAS' prior written consent. rrr~u 1 Joseph_Barrett.-VIP Bid Document . . _ _ . _ Page 25 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 23 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 F.13.2 STATE. The State shall be in default under the Price Agreement If the State fails to make timely payment under any Contract for its purchase(s). F.14 TERMINATION: I I F.14.1 MUTUAL CONSENT. The Price Agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual written consent of the parties. F.14.2 STATE. F.14.2.1 DAS may, at its sole discretion, terminate the Price Agreement, in whole or in part, for convenience. F.14.2.2 DAS shall be excused from performance and may terminate the Price Agreement, in whole or in part, immediately upon notice to Contractor, or at such later date as DAS may establish in such notice, upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (i) federal or State laws, regulations, or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that the purchase by Authorized Purchasers of Goods offered under the Price Agreement is i prohibited or (ii) Contractor is in default of a material provision of the Price Agreement or any Contract entered into thereunder. Pursuant to this Section F.14.2.2, upon receipt of written notice of termination, Contractor shall stop performance under the Price Agreement as directed by DAS. F.15 REMEDIES: State shall be entitled to recover any and all damages it may suffer as the result of Contractor's material breach of the Price Agreement, Including but not limited to direct, indirect, incidental, and consequential damages, and any equitable remedies to which it may show itself entitled. Contractor's remedy shall be restricted to reinstatement of the Price Agreement if wrongfully terminated by DAS. However, with the exception of defense costs and expenses pursuant to F.12, neither party shall be entitled to recover attorney's fees, court and investigative costs, or any other fees or expenses associated with pursuing a remedy for damages arising out of or relating to the Price Agreement F.16 NOTICES: All notices required to be given by Contractor under the Price Agreement shall be in writing and addressed to the DAS point of contact identified In the ITB. All notices required to be given by the State shall be in writing, addressed to the Contractor's representative, and sent to the address specified in the Bid. Mailed notices shall be deemed'given five (5) business days after post marked, when deposited, properly addressed and prepaid, into the U.S. postal service. Faxed notices shall be deemed given upon electronic confirmation of successful transmission to the designated fax number. _..._.....n..._ p dose h Barrett -VIP gid Document age 26 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 24 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 F.17 ACCESS TO RECORDS: Contractor shall maintain all fiscal records relating to the Price Agreement in accordance with generally-accepted accounting principles, and shall maintain all other records relevant to Contractor's performance of the Price Agreement (collectively, "Records"). The State and its duly authorized representatives shall have access to Records for purposes of examination and copying. Contractor shall retain and keep accessible all Records for a minimum of six (6) years, or such longer period as may be required by applicable law following expiration or termination of the Price Agreement, or until the conclusion of any audit, controversy or litigation arising out of or related to the Price Agreement, whichever date is later. F.18 SEVERABILITY: If any provision of the Price Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining terms acid provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Price Agreement did not contain the particular provision hold to be invalid. F.19 SURVIVAL: Termination of the Price Agreement shall not extinguish or prejudice the State's right to enforce the warranty, access to records, indemnification, governing law, venue, consent to jurisdiction, and remedies provisions. F.20 ASSIGNMENT/SUBCONTRACT/SUCCESSORS: Contractor shall not assign, sell, transfer, or subcontract rights or delegate responsibilities under the Price Agreement, in whole or in part, without the prior written approval of DAS. Further, no such written approval shall relieve Contractor of any obligations under the Price Agreement, and any assignee or delegate shall be considered the agent of Contractor. The provisions of the Price Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties to the Price Agreement and their respective successors and permitted assigns. F.21 GOVERNING LAW: The Price Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Oregon without regard to principles of conflicts of law. .Joseph+8arrett-VIP 13id_D6cument Page 27! STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 25 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 F.22 VENUE; CONSENT TO JURISDICTION: Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "Claim") between the State and Contractor that arises from or relates to the Price Agreement shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Marion County for the State of Oregon; provided, however, if a Claim must be brought in a federal forum, then unless otherwise prohibited by law it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. CONTRACTOR, BY SUBMITTAL OF ITS SIGNED BID, HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OF SAID COURTS. Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of the State's sovereign or governmental immunity, whether derived from the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution or otherwise, or of any defenses to claims or jurisdiction based thereon. F.23 MERGER CLAUSE; AMENDMENT; WAIVER: The Price Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Contractor and the State on the subject matter thereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified therein regarding the Price Agreement. No waiver, consent, or amendment of terms of the Price Agreement shall be binding either party to: (a) the Price Agreement or (b) Contracts entered into thereunder, unless such is in writing, is signed by both parties to the Price Agreement, and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Waivers and consents shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of DAS to enforce any provision of the Price Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by the State of that or any other provision. SECTION G - STANDARD CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS GA ORDER OF PRECEDENCE: The printed Terms and Conditions set out in this Section G are the Standard Terms and Conditions for State of Oregon contracts. The State may also provide Special Terms and Conditions in Section H, which apply only to Contract(s) entered into under the Price Agreement. Whenever possible, all terms and conditions are to be harmonized. In the event of a conflict between the Standard and Special Terms and Conditions, the Special Terms and Conditions take precedence, unless the Standard term in question is required by law. In the event of any other conflict, the Contract shall be interpreted utilizing the following order of precedence: (1) the Special Terms and Conditions, (ii) these Standard Terms and Conditions, (iii) the Specifications, (iv) the remaining portions of the Invitation to Bid, (v) the Bid, and (vi) the Purchase Order. .bseph Rarrett-_VIP Bid Document STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 26 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 G.2 PURCHASE ORDERS: G.2.1 DAS; PURCHASING AGENCIES: Purchase Orders shall incorporate the Price Agreement by reference, and identify the Price Agreement numbs:, the ITB number, and the Bid item number(s) of the Unit(s) and options ordered. However, no language in a Purchase Order shall vary, amend, modify, or add terms or conditions to the Price Agreement. Operative provisions in Purchase Orders shall be limited to: designation of Authorized Purchaser and its authorized representative; identification of Goods and order quantities; optional Services, equipment and accessories offered under the terms of the Price Agreement; delivery schedules in accordance with the terms of the Price Agreement; and Delivery Destination and Invoicing addresses. G.2.2 ORCPP: The Mandatory Purchase Authorization Language set out in Section G.2.3 shall be required on the front page of each Purchase Order submitted to Contractor by an ORCPP Participant for Goods and/or Services ordered under the Price Agreement G.2.3 ORCPP MANDATORY PURCHASE ORDER LANGUAGE: THIS PURCHASE IS PLACED AGAINST STATE OF OREGON SOLICITATION # 10200045-04 AND PRICE AGREEMENT # -ORDERING ORGANIZATION WILL INSERT PRICE AGREEMENT #1. THE CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND SPECIAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS (TS & C-S) CONTAINED IN THE PRICE AGREEMENT ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AND SHALL APPLY TO THIS PURCHASE AND SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER ALL OTHER CONFLICTING TS AND C'S, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. G.2.4 In the event a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the Purchase Order constitutes an offer rather than an acceptance, then acceptance by Contractor shall be limited to the terms of the Contract as stipulated in the ITB. G.3 DELIVERY DESTINATION: Goods, including al! Delivery Components and options and attachments, If any, shall be delivered F.O.B. destination to the address or location specified in the Purchase Order ("Delivery Destination"), together with all Delivery Components, warranty documentation, inspection reports, and certifications, where applicable. Provided, however, Contractor may charge Authorized Purchaser a delivery charge in accordance with the provisions of D.2.3. ose h Barrett -VIP Bid Document _ Pa a 29 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 27 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 GA PAYMENT; OVERDUE ACCOUNT CHARGES: Payment shall be due and owing no later than thirty (30) calendar days from date of acceptance or expiration of inspection period, whichever occurs first. (Payment alone, however, shall not con3titute acceptance.) Contractor may only assess overdue account charges, in accordance with the provisions of ORS 293.461 (3), up to a maximum rate of two-thirds of one percent per month (8% per annum). G.5 PAYMENT ADDRESS: Payment shall be sent to Contractor at the address specified in the invoice. G.6 INVOICES: Each invoice shall include the applicable Purchase Order number, vehicle ID number of the Unit and that of all optional attachments, if any. Contractor shall invoice Authorized Purchaser upon delivery of entire order. G.7 MOST FAVORABLE PRICES AND TERMS: Contractor represents that all prices, terms and benefits offered by Contractor are equal to or better than the equivalent prices, terms and benefits being offered by Contractor to any other state or local government unit or commercial customer. GJA Should Contractor, during the term of the Contract, enter Into any contract, agreement or arrangement that provides lower prices, more favorable terms or greater benefits to any other such government unit or commercial customer, the Contract shall thereupon be deemed amended to provide the same price or prices, terms and benefits to the Authorized Purchaser. This provision applies to comparable Goods and Services, and to purchase volumes by the Authorized Purchaser that are not less than the purchase volumes of the government unit or commercial customer that has received the lower prices, greater benefits or more favorable terms. G.7.2 Donations of Goods or Services to charitable, nonprofit or government entities, if the donations are recognized as such and are deductible under the federal internal Revenue Code, shall not be considered contracts, agreements, sales or arrangements with other i government units or commercial customers that call for the application of this paragraph. i ' Page 30 Joseph ~Sarrett -VIP Bid Document STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 28 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 G.8 INSPECTIONS/ACCEPTANCE: The Authorized Purchaser shall have fourteen (14) calendar days from date of delivery of the Goods within which to inspect and accept or reject them. If the Goods are rejected, Authorized Purchaser shall provide Contractor with written notification of rejection. Notice of rejection shall include itemization of apparent defects, including but not limited to (i) discrepancies between the Goods and the applicable specifications or warranties; (ii) other apparent defects in design, materials, or manufacture; and/or (iii) otherwise nonconforming Goods (including late delivery). Notice of rejection shall also indicate whether cure will be allowed. G.8.1 CURE: The Authorized Purchaser may elect to have the Contractor deliver substitute Goods that comply with the Contract specifications and warranties, or have the Goods repaired, at Authorized Purchaser's option. The Contractor shall either deliver substitute conforming Goods or make all corrections reasonably deemed necessary by the Authorized Purchaser within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of notice of rejection and opportunity to cure. Failure to complete cure within the ten (10)-calendar-day period shall constitute default. G.8.2 REMOVAUREIMBURSEMENT: If the Goods are rejected or acceptance is revoked, the Contractor shall refund any Contract payments that have been made with regard to the rejected Goods, and shall (at Contractor's sole cost and expense) remove the Goods within seven (7) calendar days of receiving notice of rejection or revocation of acceptance. Nothing contained in this Section G.8 shalt preclude the Authorized Purchaser from other remedies to which it may be entitled upon rejection or revocation of acceptance. G.9. WARRANTIES: G.9.1. AUTHORITY; BINDING OBLIGATION: Contractor represents and warrants that Contractor has the power and authority to enter into L and perform the Contract and that the Contract, when executed and r delivered, shall be a valid and binding obligation of Contractor enforceable in accordance with its terms. G.9.2. WARRANTY ON MATERIALS, DESIGN, MANUFACTURE: Contractor warrants that all Goods shall be new, unused, current production models. Where specifications have been made a part of the ITB, i Contractor further warrants that all Goods shall be in compliance e with and meet or exceed all specifications. Manufacturer's warranty against defects in materials, design and manufacture shall extend for not less than three (3) years or thirty-six thousand miles bumper to bumper. aseph Barrett -VIP Bid Document Page 31 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 29 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 G.9.3. WARRANTY ON SERVICE STANDARDS: Contractor warrants that all services, where provided, shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner by property certified, licensed, qualified personnel, and in accordance with the highest applicable professional and/or industry standards. G.9.4 WARRANTY OF SAFETY AND HEALTH REQUIREMENTS: Contractor warrants that the Goods comply with all applicable federal and State health and safety standards, including but not limited to, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OROSHA). G.9.5 MANUFACTURER WARRANTIES: Contractor shall have all manufacturer warranties covering the Goods and component parts, where applicable, transferred to the Authorized Purchaser (or the State, It Authorized Purchaser Is a State Agency) at time of delivery at no charge. G.9.6 WARRANTY OF TITLE. Contractor warrants that all Goods are free and clear of any liens or encumbrances, and that Contractor has full legal title to the Goods, and that no other person has any right, title or interest In the Goods which shall be superior to or infringe upon the rights granted to Authorized Purchaser (or the State if Authorized Purchaser is a State Agency). G.9.7 WARRANTIES CUMULATIVE: The warranties set forth in this section are In addition to, and not in lieu of, any other warranties provided in the Contract All warranties provided in the Contract shall be cumulative, and shall be interpreted expansively so as to afford the Authorized Purchaser (or the State, if Authorized Purchaser is a State Agency) the broadest warranty protection available. CONTINUED NEXT PAGE ,{oseph_Barrett,-VIP Bid Document Pa a 32 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 30 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 G.10 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS AND STANDARDS: G.10.1 Contractor shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the Contract Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Contractor expressly agrees to comply with the following laws, regulations and executive orders to the extent they are applicable to the Contract: (i) Titles VI and VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; (ii) Sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; (III) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended; (iv) Executive Order 11246, as amended; (v) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended; (vi) The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended;(vii) ORS Chapter 659, as amended; (vill) all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to the foregoing laws; and (ix) all other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations. The laws. regulations, and executive orders applicable to the Contract are incorporated by reference where so required by law. For public Contracts as defined in ORS 279.310 (1), Authorized Purchaser's performance Is conditioned upon Contractor's compliance with ORS 279.312, 279.314, 279.316, and 279.320, the terms of which are incorporated by reference into such Contracts. G.10.2 In the event of a conflict between the Specifications and applicable federal or State laws, the federal or state laws shall prevail. Provided, however, in the event any conflict is based solely upon minimum standards, such as quality or safety, the higher or more stringent standard shall apply. Contractor shall be responsible for making any modifications required to achieve compliance with the required laws and standards. Contractor shall notify the Authorized Purchaser of any such required modifications upon receipt of knowledge or notification of such. #1 G.10.3 in the event any Good or component part is recalled by a regulatory body or the manufacturer, or discovered by Contractor not to be in compliance with the applicable standards, Contractor shall immediately notify the Authorized Purchaser at the address specified in the Authorized Purchasers Purchase Order of the recall or non- compliance, and shall provide copies of the notice or other documentation. The Authorized Purchaser may elect to cancel any order and terminate the Contract in whole or in part, based upon such recall or non-compliance, or may require Contractor to promptly provide substitute Goods or complete necessary modifications, where applicable. doseP_. i . h .....8 _aRett-VIP Bid Document. _e 3 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 31 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 G.10.4 Contractor shall be responsible for promptly removing recalled or non-compliant Goods and for making any required substitutions or modifications, Including shipping, handling, parts, labor, and travel, and all other expenses, at no cost to the Authorized Purchaser. G.10.5 Notwithstanding the foregoing G.10.3 and G.10.4, in the event required modifications impair the utility of a Unit for its intended purpose or level of function in the reasonable opinion of Authorized Purchaser, Authorized Purchaser may elect to cancel any order and/or terminate the Contract In whole or in part, at no cost or penalty. Contractor shall be responsible for removing the non-compliant Goods, wherever located, sat no cost to the Authorized Purchaser, and for reimbursing Authorized Purchaser all amounts paid, less the value of the use of such non-compliant Goods while In Authorized Purchaser's possession. As used In this Section, "cost' Includes labor, transportation and shipping costs, Insurance, travel, meals, accommodations, etc. G.11 FOREIGN CONTRACTOR: If the amount of a Contract with an Oregon Authorized Purchaser exceeds $10,000 and if Contractor is not domiciled in or registered to do business in the State of Oregon, Contractor shall promptly provide to the Oregon Department of Revenue all information required by that Department relative to the Contract. The Oregon Authorized Purchaser shall be entitled to withhold final payment under the Contract until Contractor has met this requirement. G.12 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET: Contractor shall provide the Authorized Purchaser with a Material Safety Data Sheet as defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for any Goods provided under the Contract which may release or otherwise result in exposure to a hazardous chemical under normal conditions of use. In addition, Contractor must label, tag or mark such Goods. . G.13 RECYCLED PRODUCTS: Contractor shall use recycled and recyclable products to the maximum extent economically feasible in the performance of the Contract if Authorized Purchaser is subject to ORS 279.555. These products shall include recycled paper, recycled PETE products, as defined in ORS 279.545(5), and other recycled plastic resin products. Contractor shall specify the minimum percentage of recycled product incorporated into the Goods provided under the Contract G.14 TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: Contractor agrees that time Is of the essence for Contractor's performance obligations under the Contract , . , . . _ i~Joseph•13arrett-VIP Bid Document _ _ . _ _ . Page 34. STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 32 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 GA5 FORCE MAJEURE: Neither Authorized Purchaser nor Contractor shall be held responsible for delay or default caused by fire, riot, acts of God, war, or any other cause which Is beyond the party's reasonable control. Contractor shall, however, make all reasonable efforts to remove or eliminate such a cause of delay or default and shall, upon the cessation of the cause, diligently pursue performance of its obligations under the Contract The Authorized Purchaser may terminate the Contract upon written notice after reasonably determining that such delay or default will likely prevent successful performance of the Contract. G.16 STATE AGENCIES ONLY: FUNDS AVAILABLE AND AUTHORIZED; PAYMENTS: G.16.1 If Authorized Purchaser Is a State Agency, the following applies: Authorized Purchaser has sufficient funds available and authorized within Its biennial appropriation or limitation to financ the cost of purchases under the Contract prior to the end of the current biennium. Contractor understands and agrees that Authorized Purchaser's payment of amounts under the Contract attributable to purchases made after the last day of the current biennium is contingent on Authorized Purchaser's receiving from the Oregon Legislative Assembly appropriations, limitations, or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow Authorized Purchaser, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continu to make payments under the Contract. G.16.2 Agency will only pay for completed Goods and Services that are accepted by Agency. G.17 TERMINATION: G.17.1 MUTUAL CONSENT: The Contract maybe terminated at anytime by mutual written consent of the parties. G.17.2 AUTHORIZED PURCHASER: G.17.2(a) If Authorized Purchaser is a State Agency, it may in its sole discretion, at any time terminate the Contract, in whole or in part, for convenience. G.17.2(b) Authorized Purchaser is excused from performance and may terminate the Contract, in whole or in part, immediately upon notice to Contractor, or at such later date as Authorized Purchaser may establish in such notice, upon the occurrence of any of the following events: JosephBarrett -VIP .Bid Document _ , _ . Page 35 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 33 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 G.17.2(b) (CONTINUED) (1) Authorized Purchaser falls to receive funding, or appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority at levels sufficient to pay for the Goods to be purchased andlor the Services to be provided under the Contract; or (ii) federal or state laws, regulations, or guidelines are modified or Interpreted in such a way that either the purchase of Goods and/or Services by Authorized Purchaser under the Contract is prohibited, or the Authorized Purchaser is prohibited from paying for such Goods and/or Services from the planned funding source; or (iii) Contractor breaches any material provision of the Contract. Pursuant to this section, upon receipt of written notice of termination, Contractor shall stop performance under the Contract as directed by the Authorized Purchaser. G.17.3 CONTRACTOR: Contractor may terminate the Contract immediately upon notice to Authorized Purchaser, or at such later date as it may establish in such notice, upon material breach of the Contract by Authorized Purchaser. G.18 INDEMNIFICATION: G.18.1 Contractor shall defend, save, hold harmless, and Indemnify the Authorized Purchaser (or the State if Authorized Purchaser Is a State Agency) and its officers, employees and agents from and against all claims, suits, actions, losses, damages, liabilities, and costs and expenses of any nature whatsoever (collectively, "Claim") resulting from, arising out of, or relating to (i) the activities of Contractor or its officers, employees, subcontractors, or agents, (ii) the Goods sold, and (III) the Services provided pursuant to the Contract. G.18.2 Provided, however, that with regard to State Agencies the Oregon Attorney General must give written authorization to any legal counsel purporting to act in the name of, or represent the interests of, the State and/or its officers, employees and agents prior to such action or representation. Further, the State, acting by and through its Department of Justice, may assume its own defense, including that of its officers, employees and agents, at any time when in the State's sole discretion it determines that (I) proposed counsel is prohibited from the particular representation contemplated; (ii) counsel is not adequately defending the interests of the State and/or its officers, employees and agents; .(III) important governmental interests are at stake; or (iv) the best interests of the State are served thereby. Contractor's obligation to pay for all costs and expenses shall include those incurred by the State in assuming its own defense and/or that of its officers, employees, and agents under (1) and (ii) above. :Jdseph.$arrett-VIP Bid Document Pa a STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 34 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 G.19 REMEDIES: G.19.1 AUTHORIZED PURCHASER: In addition to the remedies afforded elsewhere herein, Authorized Purchaser (or the State, If Authorized Purchaser Is a State Agency) shall be entitled to recover for any and all damages suffered as the result of Contractor's breach of Contract, including but not limited to direct, Indirect, Incidental and consequential damages, as provided in ORS 72.7110 to 72.7170. Authorized Purchaser (or the State, IfAuthorizod Purchaser is a State Agency) shall also be entitled to any equitable remedies to which it may show itself entitled. G.19.2 CONTRACTOR: Contractor's remedy shall be restricted to recovery of actual damages incurred as the result of material breach of the Contract by Authorized Purchaser. G.19.3 ATTORNEYS' FEES: With the exception of defense costs and expenses pursuant to G.16, neither party shall be entitled to recover attorney's fees, court and investigative costs, or any other fees or expenses associated with pursuing a remedy for damages arising out of or relating to the Contract. G.20 TRADE SECRETS: Contractor shall label the information and documentation qualifying as trade secrets under ORS 192.501(2) that it wishes to protect from disclosure to third parties with the following: "This data constitutes a trade secret under ORS 192.501(2) and is not to be disclosed except as required by law. " Authorized Purchaser will take reasonable measures to hold in confidence all such labeled Information and documentation. Provided, however, Authorized Purchaser shall not be liable for release of any information when authorized or required by law or court order to do so, whether pursuant to Oregon Public Records Law or otherwise. Further, if Authorized Purchaser is a State Agency, it shall also' be immune from liability for disclosure or release of information under the circumstances set out in ORS 646.473(3). G.21 ACCESS TO RECORDS: Contractor shall maintain all fiscal records relating to the Contract In accordance with generally-accepted accounting principles, and shall maintain all other records relevant to Contractor's performance of the Contract (collectively, "Records"). Authorized Purchaser and its duly authorized representatives shall have access to Records for purposes of examination and copying. Contractor shall retain and keep accessible all Records for a minimum of six (6) years, or such longer period as may be required by applicable law following expiration or termination of the Contract, or until the conclusion of any audit, controversy or litigation arising out of or related to the Contract, whichever date is later. JdseF'13arrett - VIP,Bid Document pp ge 37 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 35 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 G.22 NOTICES: All notices required under the Contract shall be in writing and addressed to the party's authorized representative. For Authorized Purchasers, the authorized representative shall be Identified in the Purchase Order. Contractor's authorized representative shall be the individual specified In the Bid. Mailed notices shall be deemed given five (5) business days after post marked, when deposited, properly addressed and prepaid, into the U.S. postal service. Faxed notices shall be deemed given upon electronic confirmation of successful transmission to the designated fax number. G.23 GOVERNING LAW. The Contract shall be governed by and construed In accordance with the internal laws of the State of Oregon without regard to principles of conflicts of law. With regard to Goods, the UCC shall govern this transaction, as modified by the terms of the Contract. G.24 VENUE; CONSENT TO JURISDICTION: G.24.1 STATE CONTRACT VENUE; CONSENT TO JURISDICTION: Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "Claim") between a State Agency and Contractor that arises from or relates to the Contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Marion County for the State of Oregon; provided, however, if a Claim must be brought in a federal forum, then unless otherwise prohibited by law it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. CONTRACTOR HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OF SAID COURTS. Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of the State's sovereign or governmental immunity, whether derived from the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution or otherwise, or of any defenses to Claims or jurisdiction based thereon. G.24.2 ORCPP CONTRACT VENUE; CONSENT TO JURISDICTION: Any Claims between Contractor and an ORCPP Authorized Purchaser that arise from or relate to the Contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of the county in which such Authorized Purchaser resides, or at Authorized Purchaser's option, within such other county as Authorized Purchaser shall be entitled under the laws of the relevant jurisdiction to bring or defend Claims. If any such Claim must be brought in a federal forum, then unless otherwise prohibited by law it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District in which such Authorized Participant resides. CONTRACTOR HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OF SAID COURTS. . 8 ~osepri isarretf --Vi i' Bid,Documen4 _ _ _ Page 3 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 36 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 G.24.2 (CONTINUED) Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of Authorized Purchaser's sovereign or govemmental immunity, if any, whether derived from the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution or otherwise, or of any defenses to Claims or jurisdiction based thereon. G.25 SURVIVAL: Termination of the Contract shall not extinguish or prejudice Authorized Purchaser's (or the State's, if Authorized Purchaser Is a State Agency) right to enforce the warranty, indemnification, access to records, governing law, venue, consent to jurisdiction, and remedies provisions. G.26 SEVERABILITY: If any provision of the Contract Is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Contract did not contain the particular provision held to be invalid. G.27 ASSIGNMENT/SUBCONTRACT/SUCCESSORS: Contractor shall not assign, sell, transfer, or subcontract rights or delegate responsibilities under the Contract, in whole or In part, without the prior written approval of Authorized Purchaser (or DAS, if Authorized Purchaser is subject to DAS purchasing authority). Further, no such written approval shall relieve Contractor of any obligations under the Contract, and any delegate shall be considered the agent of Contractor. The provisions of the Contract shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties to the Contract and their respective successors and permitted assigns. G.28 MERGER CLAUSE; AMENDMENT; WAIVER: The Contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter thereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified therein regarding the Contract. No waiver, consent, or amendment of terms of the Contract shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained (including that of DAS if Authorized Purchaser is subject to DAS purchasing authority). Waivers and consents shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of the Authorized Purchaser to enforce any provision of the Contract shall not constitute a waiver by the Authorized Purchaser of that or any other provision. G.29 INSURANCE: Contractor shall obtain prior to performing any work under the Contract, and maintain during the term of the Contract (including all warranty periods) the insurance required under Section I. ~o e h Barrett -VIP BId Document _ _ Pa a 39 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 37 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 With regard to workers' compensation insurance, all employers, Including Contractor, that employ subject workers who work under the Contract in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide tha required workers' compensation coverage, unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126(2). Contractor shall require and ensure that each of b subcontractors complies with these requirements. SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS HA Upon request by Authorized Purchaser, Contractor shall provide color chips for all Standard and optional exterior colors. H.2 PLACEMENT OF ORDERS: H.2.1 Contractor shall have ten (10) business days from receipt of Purchase Order containing all required information to process order to manufacturer and verify processing of order with the Authorized Purchaser. H.2.2 Contractor shall provide a copy of the build order verification to the Authorized Purchaser within four (4) business days of receipt from the manufacturer. Contractor/Es failure to timely provide this verification to the Authorized Purchaser may be grounds for default and the Contract may be canceled. H.2.3 Authorized Purchaser will be responsible for verifying accuracy of the order and notifying the Contractor of errors, if any, within five (5) business days of receiving the build order verification from the Contractor. H.2.4 Contractor shall notify Authorized Purchaser of build date, L delivery time, or any changes to such upon receipt of notice from manufacturer within four (4) business days of manufacturers -notification. i i i HA FUEL: Each vehicle shall be delivered or held ready for pick up with no less than a half tank of fuel. H.5 BACK ORDER: Delivery charges for back orders shall be paid by Contractor. J e "'Barrett.- VIP Bid Document p _ _ _ . age 40 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 38 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4184 H.6 ADDITIONAL REMEDIES FOR NON-CONFORMING GOODS: H.6.1 If the Contractor can no longer obtain a substitute conforming vehicle, then Contractor, upon the consent of the Authorized Purchaser, shall provide a substitute vehicle with substantially equivalent equipment, all at the Contract price. H.6.2 If a vehicle with substantially equivalent equipment cannot be supplied, then Contractor shall provide the next year's model with the original equipment ordered, all at the Contract price. H.7 MANUFACTURER CANCELLATION OF ORDER: Contractor shall not be liable when, through no fault of the Contractor, the manufacturer is not able to build an ordered vehicle or the manufacturer cancels the order for a vehicle. H.8 PRE-DELIVERY INSPECTION: The Authorized Purchaser can request to have a pre-delivery Inspection at Contractor's location to insure specification compliance PRIOR TO DELIVERY. H.8.1 If a missing part, component, or accessory cannot be provided and Installed within fourteen (14) calendar days of notice by the Authorized Purchaser, the Authorized Purchaser shall have the right to buy the item or part from another source and bill the Contractor or deduct the cost from the Contractors invoice for the vehicle, Including costs of Installation. H.9 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: Contractor is required to place orders with the manufacturer within ten (10) business days after receipt of Purchase Order. H.9.1 The Authorized Purchaser may assess Liquidated damages of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) for delay for each calendar day, per each Unit, for which the Contractor is over the ten (10) days order deadline in placing the order with the manufacturer. H.10. Disclosure of Social Security Number. Contractor must provide Contractor's Social Security number unless Contractor provides a federal tax ID number. This number is requested pursuant to ORS 305.385 and OAR 150-305.100. Social Security numbers provided pursuant to this authority will be used for the administration of state, federal and local tax laws. GENK1690.DOC DAS Hybrid Utility Vehicle ITB (rel. ver. 9/3/04) I AGENDA ITEM # oZ FOR AGENDA OF November 23, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Approve the purchase of two 1/2 ton pick-up trucks for the Police Department. / ~/J ' PREPARED BY: Ben Tracy, Fleet Coord. DEPT HEAD OK: *_CITY MGR OK:Z w l t1' V ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the purchase of two %z ton pick-up trucks for use by the City's Police Department? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board approve the purchase of two %z ton pick-up trucks, utilizing an existing State of Oregon Contract, to be used to replace two existing vehicles. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Police Department currently has the need to upgrade two vehicles assigned to Community Service Officers (CSOs), a 1994 Chevrolet S-10 pick-up with 62,000 miles and a 1995 Chevrolet S-]0 pick-up with 70,000 miles. The need to upgrade these vehicles as arisen due to the Police Department's requirements for the CSOs vehicles to have a larger cab space for needed equipment and to have more towing capacity for various equipment. The S-10 pick-ups that are to be replaced will be added to the City's pool fleet and be assigned to other department... Given the vehicle needs of the Police Department, staff has determined that larger sized trucks will be a better fit for the CSOs. The %2 pick-ups provide the large cab room that the CSOs will need for their equipment, including mobile data terminals, emergency response equipment and other necessary items. The %2 ton pick-ups will also provide more towing power that is needed by the Department to transport equipment, such as the mobile traffic speed radar sign, and vehicles, such as the Department's motorcycle trailers. Staff has further determined that the best means to procure these trucks would be through the utilization of State of Oregon contract #2344, which the City is eligible to use through it's membership in the Oregon Cooperative Purchasing Program. Utilizing this contract will save the City staff time and cost in preparing a solicitation for the trucks. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED L r 1. Direct staff to prepare and advertise an Invitation to Bid solicitation for the purchase of the replacement vehicles. 2. Do not replace vehicles at this time. 1 VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY S 9 None. J ATTACHMENT LIST 1. State of Oregon contract #2344. FISCAL NOTES The cost of each truck is $19,930 for a total of $39,860. Currently the City has $40,000 budgeted for the trucks within the Police Department's budget. Jose P_h _ STATE OF OREGON Attachment 1 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 1 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 BUYER NAME: W. JACOBS (503) 378-4646 REVISION NUMBER: 004 EFFECTIVE DATE: 08/01/2004 ITEM: CHEVROLET SILVERADO 1/2 TON, 4X4, EXTENDED CAB SWB STARTING WITH 2003 MODELS WITH OPTION TO RENEW FOR ADDITIONAL TERMS AGENCY: STATE AGENCIES AND AUTHORIZED ORCPP MEMB CONTRACTOR: MURRAY CHEVROLET 1999 E POWELL BLVD PO BOX 750 GRESHAM OR 97080 PH#:(503) 661-2222 FAX:00000000009327 CONTACT:JACK WHITE BRAND/TRADE NAME: CHEVROLET SILVERADO, 1/2 TON,EXTENDED CAB,4X4,SWB PRICE: $18,690.00 TERMS: NET 30 FOB: FOB DESTINATION CONTRACT PERIOD: DEC 2 2002 THROUGH JUL 30 2005 DAYS REQUIRED FOR DELIVERY: 120 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF PURCHASE ORDER i MINIMUM ORDER: ONE UNIT TRANSPORTATION CHARGES: NONE WITHIN SALEM OR PORTLAND CITY LIMIT OTHER CONDITIONS: DELIVERY CHARGES FOR ALL OTHER DESTINA- TIONS WILL BE BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEN THE CONTRACTOR AND AUTHORIZED PURCHASER AT TIME OF ORDER PRICE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN RENEWED FOR THE 2005 MODEL YEAR FOR CONTRACTOR PROVIDED UNDERCOATING AND EXTRA KEY COSTS, SEE SECTION 4 OF THE SUMMARY UNDER D.22 AND D.23 THIS CONTRACT COVERS ONLY THOSE ITEMS LISTED. DATE OF ISSUANCE: 12/03/2002 BID NO.: 10200063 02 !Joseph Barrett-VIP did Docum~nf ~ _ _ _ - Page 4 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 2 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 ITEM - 00001 UNIT - EA COMMODITY - 07048 PRICE - $18,690.0000 Year : 2005 Make : Chevy Pickups Model: Silverado 1500 Style: K15753 Ext Cab 143.5" WB 4WD STANDARD EQUIPMENT <<< MECHANICAL Engine, Vortec 4800 V8 SFI (270 HP -+201.4 kVA @ 5200 rpm, 285 lb.-ft. -+384.7 N-ml Q 4000 rpm) Transmission, 4-speed automatic, electronically controlled w/overdrive & tow/haul mode Transfer case, boor-mounted shifter Four wheel drive Battery, heavy-duty, 600 cold-cranking amps-including: rundown protection & retained accessory power Alternator, 105 amps Pickup bed, Fleetside, all-welded steel w/double wall construction & corrosion protection Recovery hooks, 2 front, frame-mounted GVWR, 6400 lbs. (2903 kg) Suspension Package, Solid Smooth Ride Suspension, front, Independent torsion bar, & stabilizer bar Suspension, rear, semi-elliptic 2-stage multi-leaf springs Tires, P245/75R16, all-season, blackwali Wheels, 4 -16" x r (40.6 cm x 17.8 cm) 64ug steel, painted-including: painted center caps & steel spare Tire carrier, outside spare, winch-type mounted under frame at rear Steering, power Brakes, 4-wheel anblock, 4-wheel disc 26 gallon fuel tank Exhaust, aluminized stainless-steel muffler & tailpipe Tools, mechanical jack & wheel wrench, gloves, courtesy mat, spare tire assist hook, floor-mounted in back of cab <<< EXTERIOR Paint, solid Bumper, front, chrome, w/dark gray lower * Bumper. rear, painted black step-including: pad Air dam, Gray Grille, Gray surround Headlamps, dual halogen composite-including: flash-to-pass feature & automatic lamp control Daytime running lamps-including: automatic exterior lamp control Lamps, dual cargo area lamps Mirrors, outside rearview, foldaway, manual, Black, adjustable heads Joseph Barrett -VIP Bfd Document STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 3 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 Glass, Solar-Ray light tinted, all windows Windows, rear quarter swing-out Wipers, Intermittent, front wet-arm w/pulse washers <<< INTERIOR Seats, front vinyl 40/20140 split-bench, 3-passenger, driver & passenger manual reclining w/outboard head restraints, available in front cloth Seats, rear bench, full width, folding, 3-passenger (-including: child seat top tether anchor) Floor covering, rubberized vinyl, Black Steering column, lilt-Wheel, adjustable-including: brakettransmission shift Interlock Steering wheel, steel sleeve-including: theft-deterrent locking feature Theft-deterrent system, PASSLock II Instrumentation, analog-including: speedometer, odometer w/trip odometer, fuel level, voltmeter, engine temperature, oil pressure & tachometer Driver Information Center-including: trip odometer & message center (monitors numerous systems depending on vehicle equipment- Including: low fuel, turn signal "on", transmission temperature, low engine coolant level, battery not charging, oil pressure, & engine oil change notification) Warning tones, headlamp on, key-in-ignition, driver safety belt unfasten, turn signal on Air conditioning, dual-zone, manual, individual climate settings for driver & right front passenger Sound system, ETR AM/FM stereo4ricluding: seek-&-scan, digital clock & 4-speakers Cupholders, front & rear Cigarette lighter, on instrument panel Power outlets, aux7ary, covered, 2 dash-mounted, 12-volt Mirror, inside rearview, manual daylnight Headliner, Shale-colored cloth, wlmatching retainer moldings Visors, padded, Shale-colored, driver & passenger side w/Goth trim, extenders, pocket on driver side & vanity mirror on passenger side Assist handles, front passenger & outboard rear seats Lighting, dome lamp, reading, courtesy, illuminated entry feature, backlit instrument panel switches & door handle-activated illuminated entry Coat hooks, driver & passenger side -Joseph Barrett -VIP Bid Document _ Pa e 6 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 4 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 <<< SAFETY Brakes, 4-wheel antilock, 4-wheel disc Air bags, frontal, driver & right front passenger-including: Passenger Sensing System Daytime running lamps-including: automatic exterior lamp control FACTORY OPTIONS OPTION CODES DESCRIPTION Invoice K15753 Ext Cab 143.5" WB 4WD 18690.00 <<< BODY CODE PICKUP BED, FLEETSIDE, ALL-WELDED STEEL-including: double wall construction & corrosion protection (STD) 0.00 E62 PICKUP BED, SPORTSIDE, REACTION-INJECTED MOLDING (RIM), FLEXIBLE, DENT-RESISTANT & CORROSION-RESISTANT (N/A w/L59 Engine) 683.70 <<< SUSPENSION PKG Z83 SUSPENSION PACKAGE, SOLID SMOOTH RIDE (STD) (N/A w)Z82 Trailering) 0.00 Z85 SUSPENSION PACKAGE, HANDLING/TRAILERING, HEAVY-DUTY 81.70 <<< EMISSIONS FE9 EMISSIONS, FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS 0.00 YF5 EMISSIONS, CALIFORNIA STATE REQUIREMENTS 0.00 VCL EMISSIONS CERTIFICATION, CFF (CLEAN FUEL FLEET) LEV (LOW EMISSION VEHICLE) Option VCL should ONLY be ordered to receive the CFF LEV certification. If VCL Is not ordered, the 'Joseph Barrett - V!P B Document _ " - - _ `T Page 7 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 5 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 vehicle will be produced with your normally selected emission system and may not be CFF LEV certified. Products ordered with the VCL option may not be certified to California emission requirements. Therefore, they may not be legal for registration In California, New York, Massachusetts, Maine & Vermont. Option YF5 should be ordered for all vehicles ordered in California 0.00 <<< ENGINE LR4 ENGINE, VORTEC 4800 V8 SFI-including: 270 HP -+201.4 kid @ 5200 rpm, 285 lb.-ft. -+384.7 N-ml @ 4000 rpm (STD) 0.00 LM7 ENGINE, VORTEC 5300 V8 SFI-Including: 285 HP 212.6 kq Q 5200 rpm, 325 Ib.-ft. -+438.7 N-ml 4000 rpm 688.00 <<< TRANSMISSION M30 TRANSMISSION, 4-SPEED AUTOMATIC, ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED W/OVERDRIVE & TOW/HAUL MODE (STD) 0.00 <<< DIFFERENTIAL NO LOCKING DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 G80 DIFFERENTIAL, LOCKING, HEAVY-DUTY, REAR 253.70 <<< AXLE GT4 REAR AXLE, 3.73 RATIO 0.00 GT5 REAR AXLE, 4.10 RATIO 43.00 <<< PREFERRED EQUIPMENT GROUP 1SA PREFERRED EQUIPMENT GROUP 0.00 <<< TIRES i QNK TIRES, P245/75R16, ALL-SEASON, BLACKWALL (STD) 0.00 QNL TIRES, P245/75R16. ALL-SEASON, WHITE Joseph Barrett - V10-Bid Document g STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 6 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 OUTLINED-LETTER 107.50 QBN TIRES, LT245/75R16C, ON-/OFF-ROAD, BLACKWALL (N/A w/Z83 Suspension) 137.60 QBX TIRES, LT245/75R16C, ON-/OFF-ROAD, WHITE OUTLINED-LETTER (N/Aw/Z83 Suspension) 245.10 <<< SEAT TYPE AE7 SEATS, FRONT VINYL 40/20/40 SPLIT-BENCH, 3-PASSENGER, DRIVER & PASSENGER MANUAL RECLINING W/OUTBOARD HEAD RESTRAINTS, Available in front cloth (STD) 0.00 <<< SEAT TRIM C CLOTH SEAT TRIM 0.00 V VINYL SEATTRIM 0.00 <<< PAINT PAINT, SOLID (STD) 0.00 <<< RADIO SOUND SYSTEM, ETR AWFM STEREO-including: seek-&- scan, digital clock & 4-speakers (STD) 0.00 UBO SOUND SYSTEM, ETR AM/FM STEREO W/CD PLAYER -including: seek-&-scan, digital clock, auto-tone control, speed-compensated volume, Radio Data System (RDS) & 6-speakers 219.30 <<< WHEELS WHEELS, 4-16" X 7" (40.6 CM X 17.8 CM) 6-LUG STEEL, PAINTED-including: painted center caps & steel spare (STD) 0.00 WHEELS, 4-16" X 6.5" (40.6 CM X 16.5 CM) 6-LUG CHROME-STYLED STEEL-including: chrome center caps & steel spare (REQ: PDE Exterior Appearance Pkg) 0.00 <<< ADDITIONAL OPTIONS :Joseph Barrett-VIP Bid Document' STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 7 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 PDE EXTERIOR APPEARANCE PACKAGE-including: (1385) Moldings, bodyside, Black, (TR3) Grille, color-keyed surround, (PY2) Wheels, 4-16" x 6.5" (40.6 cm x 16.5 cm) 6-lug chrome-styled steel and (AJ1) Glass, Solar-Ray deep tinted. w/E62 483.32 w/Fleetside Body 543.52 AIR CLEANER, HIGH-CAPACITY (REQ: Z82 Trallering Equipment or VYU Snow Plow Prep Pkg) 0.00 KNP COOLING, EXTERNAL TRANSMISSION OIL COOLER, AUXILIARY, HEAVY-DUTY AIR-TO-OIL 81.70 TP2 BATTERY, AUXILIARY HEAVY-DUTY, 600 COLD-CRANKING AMPS (REQ: LR4 or LM7 Engine) 116.10 K34 CRUISE CONTROL, ELECTRONIC W/SET & RESUME SPEED-Including: telltale In Instrument panel cluster 199.20 C49 DEFOGGER, REAR-WINDOW, ELECTRIC 150.50 PDD FLOOR COVERING, COLOR-KEYED BOTH CARPETING & MATS 86.00 V43 BUMPER, REAR, PAINTED STEP-including: pad (N/A w/E62 Sportside Body) `CREDIT` -86.00 BVE ASSIST STEPS, STANLESS STEEL W/CHROME PLATED FINISH, TUBULAR Designed to match the chrome vehicle trim accents. The steps are made from a long-lasting & durable stainless steel to provide added protection against corrosion. Mounted between the front & rear wheels beneath the bottom of the rocker ponels.These steps are dealer installed & ship seperately from vehicle to parts dept wNIN ID on packaging. 38.7.00 i ' BVS ASSIST STEPS, STANLESS STEEL W/BLACK COATED FINISH, TUBULAR Designed to match the black vehicle trim accents. The steps are made from a long-lasting & durable stainless steel to provide added protection against corrosion. Mounted between the front & rear wheels beneath the bottom of the rocker panels.These Joseph Barrett - V1P Bid Document _ Page 10 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 8 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 steps are dealer Installed & ship seperately from vehicle to parts dept wNIN ID on packaging. 354.32 PUB PROTECTORS, PICKUP BED, TOP RAIL, BLACK MOLDED PROTECTORS designed to protect pickup bed top rails from dents, dings, & scratches. "Dealer installed accessory & requires no drilling or fasteners' (REQ: Fleetside Body) 102.34 PPB PICKUP BED, EXTENDER expand hauling capabilities, brushed aluminum swings out over an open tailgate for added length to contain cargo & swings back into bed for storage when not in use. Weighing 16.1 lbs., this Dealer installed accessory part is easily installed using a bracket system, attaching to existing vehicle hardware & requires no drilling. (N/A w/E62 Body) 180.60 SAF SPARE TIRE LOCK keyed cylinder lock that utilizes same key as ignition & door 12.90 AU3 DOOR LOCKS, POWER PROGRAMMABLE 139.32 AJ1 GLASS, SOLAR-RAY DEEP TINTED (all windows except light tinted glass on windshield, driver & front passenger) *Rear window is light tinted w/C49 Defogger' 92.02 K05 ENGINE BLOCK HEATER 30.10 VK3 LICENSE PLATE BRACKET, FRONT (will be forced on orders w/ship-to states that require a front license plate) 0.00 I 1 DF2 MiRRORS, OUTSIDE REARVIEW, FOLDAWAY, MANUAL, CAMPER-STYLE, BLACK, HIGH VISIBILITY, EXTENDABLE-including: dual segment mirror on driver's side that provides enhanced wide angle capacity (not recommended for bodies or trailers wider than 86" -218.4 cmj) 60.20 NZZ SKID PLATE PACKAGE-including: aluminum front underbody shield starting behind front bumper STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 9 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 & running to 1st cross-member, protecting front underbody, oil pan, differential case & transfer case, frame-mounted shields 81.70 Z82 TRAILERING EQUIPMENT, HEAVY-DUTY-Including: tral)ering hitch platform, 7-wire harness (harness including: wires for: park lamps, backup lamps, right turn, left turn, electric brake lead, battery & ground) w/Independent fused trailering circuits mated to a 7-way sealed connector. Also Including: (K47) Air cleaner, high capacity. (NIA w/Z83 Suspension) 288.60 B71 WHEEL FLARES, FRONT & REAR (REQ: Fleetslde Body) 154.80 NP8 TRANSFER CASE, ELECTRONIC AUTOTRAC-Including: push- button controls (REQ: L59 Engine) 322.60 UY2 TRAILERING WIRING PROVISIONS, FOR CAMPER, 5TH WHEEL & GOOSENECK TRAILER-including: additional S- way wiring harness routed to front of pickup box & added 7-way sealed connector for the trailer harness (REQ: Z82 Trailering) (WA w/E62 Sportside Body) 30.10 "NATIONAL FLEET INCENTIVE AVAILABLE TO QUALIFIED FLEET BUYERS ONLY'" when VX5 Is on the order, the fleet credit will equal the greater of either the national fleet allowance or retail incentive alternative IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY 0100 VX5 FLEET INCENTIVE INVOICE CREDIT Basic: 3 Years/36,000 Miles Drivetraln: 3 Years/36,000 Miles Corrosion: 6 Years/100,000 Miles Roadside Assistance: 3 Years/36,000 Miles Color Chart 2008 Chevy Silverado 1500 Ext Cab 143.5" WB 4WD EXTERIOR COLORS INTERIOR COLORS - Dark Choi Tan Light Pewter Met X X Black x X Jesepli_Bacrelt -VIP Bid Document - ' + Pa a 12 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 10 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 Dark Green Metallic x X Summit White x X Dark Gray Metallic X X Victory Red X X Arrival Blue Met x X Color Chart Legend Abbreviation Full Name Code INTERIOR COLORS Dark Chef Dark Charcoal 69 Tan Tan 52 EXTERIOR COLORS Light Pewter Met Light Pewter Metallic 11 Black Black 41 Dark Green Metallic Dark Green Metallic 47 Summit White Summit White 50 Dark Gray Metallic Dark Gray Metallic 62 Victory Red Victory Red 74 Arrival Blue Met Arrival Blue Metallic 91 I Joseph i3aReft -VIP Bid Document _ _ _ Page 13 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 11 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 This is a "Price Agreement Summary" document placed on the State of Oregon's Vendor Information Program (VIP) system pursuant to the Price Agreement awarded for invitation to Bid (ITS) #10200063-02, for Chevrolet Silverado, 112 Ton, Extended Cab, 4x4, SWB Pickup. starting with 2003 models. Some of the numbering sequences included in this document may appear to be out of order since the text for this summary document was taken directly from the Invitation to Bid./awarded Price Agreement. ,Kt►MNI+HRRMNMN H1~#i+rk*w tNrtM~.M'kiMiM.tAtiHHrfM h/~wifNiffliffd THIS PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IN THE EVENT THAT ANY PART OF THIS SUMMARY CONFLICTS WITH ANY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT RESULTING FROM INVITATION TO BID #10200063-02, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID CONTRACT SHALL GOVERN. ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AS STATED IN INVITATION TO BID #10200063-02 APPLY, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY NOT BE STATED IN THIS PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY. SECTION C - GENERAL BIDDING INFORMATION SECTION D - SPECIFICATIONS AND PRICING SECTION E ORCPP PARTICIPATION SECTION F - PRICE AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS SECTION G - STANDARD CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS SECTION I - INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS SECTION J - CONTRACTOR REFERENCES SECTION C - GENERAL BIDDING INFORMATION CA GENERAL DEFINITIONS: C.1.1 "Addendum" or "Addenda" means an addition or deletion to, a material change in, or clarification of, the ITS. Addenda shall be labeled as such and shall be made available to all interested Bidders in accordance with the OAR 125-030-0007(4). i i C.1.2 "Authorized Purchaser" means the State of Oregon, acting by j and through DAS. It also means Purchasing Agencies receiving an account number and purchasing product pursuant to DAS purchasing authority and direction, and may also include ORCPP Parlicipants with appropriate purchasing authority under their applicable rules or regulations who receive account numbers and purchase product. I i 14STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 12 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 C.1.3 "Bld" means the Siddefs written offer submitted In response to an ITB, including all necessary attachments. (Refer to Section C.4.1.) C.1.4 "Bid Closing" means the date and time set in the ITB for Bid submission, after which Bids may not be submitted, modified, or withdrawn by Bidder. C.1.5 "Bid Item" means the individual items one (1) through sixteen (16) Identified in the Pricing Submittal Section. C.1.6 "Bid Opening" means the same date and time set for Bid Closing, unless otherwise specified in Section C.10. C.1.7 "Bidder" means the person or other legal entity that submits a Bid in response to an ITB. C.1.8 "Contract" means the entire agreement between the Contractor and the Authorized Purchaser, comprised of the Price Agreement and a signed Purchase Order. C.1.9 "Contractor" means the person or other legal entity with whom the State enters into a Price Agreement setting prices for the purchase of Goods and/or services pursuant to the ITB, and with whom Authorized Purchasers subsequently contract through submittal of Purchase Orders. C.1.10 "DAS" means the State Department of Administrative Services, acting through the State Procurement Office of the Procurement, Fleet and Surplus Services Division. C.1.11 "Good" means the individual Bid item, including all installed components and accessories, if any, described in the ITB, as well as manufacturer options available to the general public. C.1.12 "GVW' means Gross Vehicle Weight. C.1.13 "Invitation to Bid" or "ITB" means the entire solicitation document, including all parts, sections, exhibits, attachments, and Addenda. I j C.14. "ORCPP" means the Oregon Cooperative Purchasing Program, whose Participants include but are not limited to: cities, counties, school districts, special districts, Qualified Rehabilitation Facilities (QRFs), residential programs under contract with the Oregon Department of Human Services, United States governmental agencies, and American Indian tribes or agencies. )Joseph Barcetf-~71P Bid Document '~~y - - Pa a 15 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 13 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 C-14-a. "ORCPP" also includes quasi-State Agencies such as Oregon Department of Higher Education, Oregon Health Sciences University, and Oregon State Lottery with statutory authority or autonomy to solicit for Goods/services Independently. C.1.15 "Participants" means members of ORCPP. C.1.16 "Price Agreement" means the Invitation to Bid and the successful Bidder's Bid. It Is the agreement between the Contractor and the State under which the Contractor agrees to hold prices, terms and conditions firm for a specified period of time for the benefit of Authorized Purchasers. C.1.17 "Purchase Order" means the purchase order document submitted to Contractor by Authorized Purchasers for the purchase of Goods and/or services under the Price Agreement. C.1.18 "Purchasing Agency" means a State Agency subject to DAS purchasing authority under ORS 279.712. C.1.19 "Specifications" means the specific attributes of the Goods to be purchased or Services to be provided, If any. CA.20 "Services" means the services to be performed under the Contract incidental to the purchase of Goods. C.1.21 "Standard" means everything that the manufacturer of a Unit offers to the general public (consumer goods) during the applicable mode) year as standard equipment on the particular model. C.1.22 "State" means the State of Oregon. C.1.23 "State Agency" means every board, commission, department, or agency of the State of Oregon, whose costs are paid, In whole or in part, from funds held in the State Treasury. C.1.24 "UCC" means the Uniform Commercial Code, ORS chapters 71, 72, and 72A, as applicable and as amended from time to time. C.1.25 "Unit" and "Good" may on occasion be used interchangeably; In such cases "Unit" shall mean "Good," as defined in this Section. Joseph Barrett -VIP Bid Document - _ _ _ _ _ - Page 16 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 14 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 C.2 GENERAL INFORMATION: C.2.1 BID SUBMITTAL ADDRESS AND BID CLOSING: DAS will receive sealed Bids until 2:30 p.m. (Pacific time) on the Bid Closing date specified on page one (1) of the ITB, or as amended by Addenda, at the office of DAS Central Purchasing, at the receptionist's desk, on the north end of the second floor, in the General Services Bldg., at 1225 Ferry St. SE U140, Salem, Oregon 97301-4285. C.2.2 SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT: There will be only one point of contact during the procurement process. This Includes the bidding process; requests for brand approval, change, clarification, and protests; the award process; and/or any other questions that may arise. The contact point for this ITB is John Weber, who can be contacted at (503) 373-1197 or via fax (503) 373-1626. C.2.3 VIP SYSTEM: C.2.3(a) VIP VENDOR HANDBOOK: New Bidders are encouraged to request a copy of "VIP Vendor Handbook:' This brochure is available free of charge from DAS State Procurement Office, 1225 Ferry St. SE, U140, Salem, OR 97301 -4285; telephone 503) 378-4642. C.2.3(b) ITBs: ITBs, including all Addenda and most attachments, are posted on the vendor Information program ('VIP System'). Bidders who do not have access to the VIP System may download copies at a Plan Center, or at DAS State Procurement Office, 1225 Ferry St. SE, Salem, Oregon. Bidders may also order hard copies from DAS State Procurement Office for a fee. C.2.3(c) ATTACHMENTS: NONE for this solicitation. 0.2.3(d) ADDENDA: Addenda can be downloaded from the Addenda Menu on the VIP System. Bidders should consult the VIP System regularly until Bid Closing to assure that they have not missed any Addenda announcements. i C.2.3(e) PLAN HOLDER'S LIST: IN ORDER TO APPEAR ON THE BID PLAN HOLDERS LIST, VENDORS MUST BE ENTERED ON THE VIP SYSTEM. Vendors can enter their vendor Information via the internet at: http://tpps.das.state.or.us/purchasing VENDORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THEIR VENDOR INFORMATION IS CURRENT AND CORRECT. DAS does not accept responsibility for Incorrect vendor information shown on the VIP System, or information missing from it. I i iJosephBarrett-VIP Bid Document _ Page 17 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 15 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 C.2.4 BIDDERS NOTE: PRICING PAGES, SECTION D "SPECIFICATIONS", SECTION E "ORCPP PARTICIPATION", SECTION J "CONTRACTOR REFERENCES", SECTION H " SPECICAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS" AND SECTIONS I THROUGH VI CONTAIN INFORMATION REQUIRING RESPONSES OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM BIDDER. C.2.5 TRADE SECRETS: Any information Bidder submits in response to the ITB that Bidder considers a trade secret under ORS 192.501(2) or confidential proprietary information, and that Bidder wishes to protect from public disclosure, must be clearly labeled with the following: "This information constitutes a trade secret under ORS 192.501(2) or confidential proprietary information, and is not to be disclosed except in accordance with the Oregon Public Records Law, ORS Chapter 192." Bidders are cautioned that price information submitted in response to an ITB is generally not considered a trade secret under the Oregon Public Records Law. Further, information submitted by Bidder that is already in the public domain is not protected. The State shall not be liable for disclosure or release of any information when authorized or required by taw or court order to do so. The State shall also be immune from liability for disclosure or release of information under the circumstances set out in ORS 646.473(3). C.20 BID RESULTS: After awards are completed, Bidders may download a tabulation of Bid results from the VIP system. Alternatively, Bidders may submit a written request to DAS State Procurement Office for a copy the tabulation. Each request must indicate the Bid number and must include a self-addressed envelope and a $5.00 check payable to the Department of Administrative Services. C.21 REVIEW OF AWARDED BID FILES: Awarded Bid files are public records and available for review at the DAS State Procurement Office by appointment SECTION D-SPECIFICATIONS D.1 A NEW AND UNUSED: All Goods shall be new, unused, produced from current Standard production components, and shall be delivered ready for use. D.1.5 STANDARD CONSTRUCTION: Unless superseded by the ITB specifications, Goods shall include all components and accessories listed by the manufacturer as Standard on Standard vehicles. All vehicles shall be of identical body style, quality, appointments, and design as those offered during the course of the model year to the general public. Joseph Barrett-VIP Bid Document_ _ _ - _ _ Page 18 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 16 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 D.1.6 STANDARD VEHICLE COMPONENTS: ALL items, such as ashtrays, lighters, dome lights, Inside mirrors, headlights, rear windshield wipers, ABS, Air bags etc., considered Standard factory equipment for the base model by the manufacturer, or which are required under federal regulations, shall be Included as part of the base Bid Item. These items cannot be deleted or added as additional cost item(s) (I.e. options), even if not noted specifically in the specifications. D.1.7. EPA GREEN VEHICLE RATING: All vehicle(s) bid in this ITB shall be rated with at least three rating based on the EPA/Es Green Vehicle Class Rating. If the ratings for the 2003 model year vehicles are not available on the EPA website, the 2002 model year ratings shall be used. These ratings are available at: http:/Iwww.epa.gov/autoemissions. D.1.8. MILEAGE RATINGS: Bidders shall submit with their bids a copy of the manufacturers mileage rating for each 2003 model year vehicle bid, if available. If the 2003 manufacturers mileage rating is not available, DAS shall use the 2002 mileage rating provided at the EPA/Es website: http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions D.1.9. VEHICLE CONTROL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (VECIN): Bidders shall fist for each vehicle bid, the twelve (12) character Vehicle Emission Control Identification Number (including the decimal point), that Is on the permanently attached Vehicle Emission Control Information label usually affixed under the hood of each vehicle. This number can also be found at: http:/Avww.epa.gov/autoemissions. Bids Items submitted without the Vehicle Emission Control Identification Number shall be rejected. D.2 DELIVERY: D.2.2 DELIVERY DATE PROPOSED BY BIDDER: 120 calendar days from date of Purchase Order. • Failure to provide a delivery schedule or submittal of proposed delivery dates later than those required, may result in Bid rejection. Submittal of delivery dates providing for earlier delivery than required by the State will bind the Bidder, should it be awarded a Price Agreement, but shall not be considered for award purposes. D.2.3. DELIVERY CHARGE (SEE SECTION H.3): ALL VEHICLES DELIVERED WITHIN SALEM OREGON AND PORTLAND OREGON CITY LIMITS SHALL NOT BE CHARGED FOR DELIVERY. Joseph.Barrett_VIP Bid Documerit• ~ _ _ Page 19-j STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 17 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 D.23A. DELIVERY CHARGES FOR ALL OTHER DESTINATIONS WILL BE BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND AUTHORIZED PURCHASER AT TIME OF ORDER. D.2.3A.1. AUTHORIZED PURCHASER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PICK UP ORDERED VEHICLE(S) AT CONTRACTOR/ES BUSINESS ADDRESS AND NOT INCUR ANY DELIVERY CHARGES. D.2.3B DELIVERY COMPONENTS: Delivery shall include all of the following items (collectively referred to as "Delivery Components"). D.2.38(a) A copy of all product Information and instructions supplied by the manufacturer. Also see C.22. 13.2.313(b) One (1) copy of the operator's manual and all other operator information and instructions provided by the manufacturer. D.2.39(c) Data sheets (furnished by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for ODOT orders only) will be filled out by Contractor with applicable data and shall be delivered with each Unit. 13.2.36(d) A manufacturer's Statement of Origin signed off to the Authorized Purchaser. 13.2.313(e) Keys, two sets, plus vehicle ID number shall be supplied for each vehicle at time of delivery. All keys shall be same shape and size as original. Each ordered vehicle shall be keyed differently. SECTION 4 - CATEGORY'S I & 11, DEALER OPTION PRICING D.22 UNDERCOATING: Bidders shall provide mandatory pricing for each Item from both categories. UNDERCOATING: $185.00 D.23 EXTRA CODED KEYS: Bidders shall provide mandatory pricing for extra keys requested by the Authorized Purchaser. See D.2.3(e). Bid cost per standard key - $5.00 Bid cost per coded key 0 N/A Joseph Barrett.-VIP Bid Document _ _ Page 20 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 18 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 SECTION E - ORCPP PARTICIPATION Bidder shall specify below whether it will accept orders from, and provide the Goods/services specified in the ITB to ORCPP Participants ("Contract Authorization"). CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION FOR ORCPP PARTICIPANTS: YES SECTION F - PRICE AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS F.I. TERM OF PRICE AGREEMENT: The initial term of the Price Agreement shall be one (1) year, beginning on the date the Price Agreement is awarded. F.2 EXTENSIONS: Upon concurrence of the parties, the Price Agreement may be extended for additional terms ("Extension Terms"). Provided, however, that the maximum duration of the Price Agreement, including all extensions, shall not exceed five (5) years. F.2.1 RENEWAL NOTICE. DAS shall notify Contractor In writing of its intent to extend the Price Agreement ("Renewal Notice) at least ninety (90) calendar days prior to the expiration of the then- current term. F.2.2 CONTRACTOR CONSENT. If Contractor consents to the extension, it shall sign and return the Renewal Notice to DAS within the time period specified therein. If Contractor's consent is contingent upon a price increase, it shall so signify on the Renewal Notice, and shall sign and return it to DAS, together with cost/price documentation supporting the requested Increase, within the time period specified. F.3 EXTENSION TERM PRICE ADJUSTMENTS: F.3.1 BASIS FOR PRICE INCREASE. Price increases, if granted, shall be based solely upon Increases In manufacturer's invoice price to Contractor or decreases, if any, In manufacturer's assistance to Contractor. Joseph'Bairett'- STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 19 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 F.3.2 DAS'S DISCRETION. DAS reserves the right in its sole discretion to determine whether to agree to a price increase for an Extension Term. It further reserves the right to require additional documentation, or to independently verify the basis for and validity of any proposed price increase utilizing its Internal price review and analysis protocols. DAS may accept or reject the requested Increase or offer some lesser amount. F.3.3 COMPROMISE OR REJECTION. In the event DAS offers some compromise amount or rejects the requested price Increase, Contractor may elect to agree to the proposed Extension Term under those conditions, or allow the Price Agreement to expire. However, Contractor has no right to receive, or claim for failure to receive, a price increase for any Extension Term. F.3.4 PRICE ADJUSTMENT FIRM. Approved price increases shall be firm for the duration of the applicable Extension Term. Provided, however, no more than one price increase shall be allowed during any twelve-month period regardless of the number of Extension Terms entered into during that time. F.4 ONE MONTH EXTENSION OPTION: Notwithstanding the foregoing Sections F.1 through F.3, DAS reserves the right in its sole discretion to extend the Price Agreement for a maximum of one (1) calendar month beyond any term. DAS shall notify Contractor in writing of the one-month extension prior to the expiration of the then-current tern. Price adjustments are not available for one-month extensions obtained pursuant to this Section F.4. Consecutive one-month extensions under this Section are also not allowed. F.5 GOODS AND SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED: During the term of the Price Agreement Contractor agrees to deliver all Goods and provide all services ordered by Authorized Purchasers in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract F.6 PURCHASE ORDERS: Contractor shall not accept any Purchase Order that does not comply with the following requirements: F.6.1 STATE AGENCIES: Purchasing Agencies shall use the DAS-approved Purchase Order forms to order Goods and/or services under the Price Agreement unless otherwise authorized by DAS. Purchase Orders shall incorporate the Price Agreement by reference, and identify the Price Agreement number, the ITB number, and Bid item number(s) of the Unit(s) and options ordered. .Joseph Barrett`VIPBid Document _ _ _ ~ Page 2Z STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 20 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 However, no language In a Purchase Order submitted by a State Agency shall vary, amend, modify, or add terms or conditions to the Price Agreement. Operative provisions in Purchase Orders shall be limited to: designation of Authorized Purchaser and its authorized representative; identification of Goods and order quantities; optional Services, equipment and accessories offered under the terms of the Price Agreement; delivery schedules in accordance with the terms of the Price Agreement; and Delivery Destination and Invoicing address. F.6.2 ORCPP PARTICIPANTS: ORCPP Participants shall use their own Purchase Order forms to order under the Price Agreement The Mandatory Purchase Authorization Language set out in Section F.6.3 shall be required on the front page of each Purchase Order submitted to Contractor by an ORCPP Participant for Goods and/or Services ordered under the Price Agreement F.6.3 MANDATORY PURCHASE ORDER LANGUAGE: THIS PURCHASE IS PLACED AGAINST STATE OF OREGON SOLICITATION # 10200063-02 AND PRICE AGREEMENT # -ORDERING ORGANIZATION WILL INSERT PRICE AGREEMENT #1. THE CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND SPECIAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS (TS & C'S) CONTAINED IN THE PRICE AGREEMENT ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AND SHALL APPLY TO THIS PURCHASE AND SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER ALL OTHER CONFLICTING TS AND C'S, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. F.6.4 In the event a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a Purchase Order constitutes an offer rather than an acceptance, then acceptance by Contractor shall be limited to the terms of the Contract as stipulated in this ITB. F.7 SALES TO UNAUTHORIZED PURCHASERS: It is the Contractor's responsibility to verify Authorized Purchasers' authority to contract pursuant to the Price Agreement. If Contractor is found to have entered into two or more Contracts with an entity other than an Authorized Purchaser, Contractorwill be deemed to be in material breach of the Price Agreement Joseph Barrett - V!A B!d•Documerit _ 'r _ _ Page 23 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 21 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 F.8 VERIFICATION OF PARTICIPANT AUTHORITY: F.8.2 ORCPP Participants can be verified via on-line Vendor Information Program (VIP), Menu Option #6, Directories. VIP can be accessed by: (A) Personal Computer (PC)/Modem connection using VIPCOMM communication software available at no charge. Call DAS Purchasing @ (503) 378-4649 to obtain copy; or (B) PC/Modem connection using Contractor's own communication software (read only); or (C) Worldwide Web: hfp://tpps.das.state.or.us/purchasing; or (D) Procurement Centers (located throughout Oregon). Call (503) 378-4849 for Information or to view list of centers identified on DAS Purchasing's Web page. F.9 NOT APPLICABLE THIS ITB. F.10 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND VOLUME SALES REPORTS: F.10.1.ADMINISTRATiVE FEES/PAYMENT: Contractor shall pay to Department of Administrative Services (DAS) State Purchasing Office, Administrative Fee (VCAF),In an amount equal to Two (2) percent, of the base unit price of the vehicle (price on page one of Price Agreement), of Contractors total sales made to Authorized Purchasers using this Requirements Price Agreement during the preceding quarter. For the purposes of this Requirements Price Agreement quarters end March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31. VCAF is billed to the Contractor from DAS Purchasing Office on a State invoice generated upon receipt and using the volume of sales reported by the Contractor on the Volume Sales Report (VSR) from the Contractor. Contractor is held responsible for timely reporting and payment, regardless of entity that actually reports or makes VCAF payment to. DAS Purchasing. F.10.2. ACCOUNTING AND REQUIRED REPORTS: Contractor shall submit a Volume Sales Report not later than fifteen days at the end of each calendar quarter or date specified, which contains: (i)complete and accurate details of the Net Receipts for the relevant quarterly period; (ii)Contractoes corresponding calculation of the VCAF due to DAS Purchasing for that period; and (ill) such other information as Department may informally request Contractor shall send a Volume Sales Report each quarter, whether . or not there are reportable sales or VCAF due to DAS Purchasing. Joseph Barrett-VIP 61d Document _ _ _ Pa a 24 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 22 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 F.10.3. VOLUME SALES REPORT (VSR) INFORMATION. Contractor shall provide the following information on the VSR: F.10.3.1 ITB item number, F.10.3.2 Recycled/non-recycled content, F.10.3.3 Customer name. Separately identify State Agencies and ORCPP. List each state agency separately, F.10.3.4 Purchase Order number, F.10.3.5 Date ordered, F.10.3.6 Quantity ordered (Price List Items), F.10.3.7 Unit price and extended total, F.10.3.8 Total Dollar Amount for ending Quarter. F.10.4. VOLUME SALES REPORT FORMAT: Contractor shall provide Report(s) in a format approved by both parties. Reports on 3.5 inch diskette or by e-mail are preferred; however, hard copy reports are acceptable. The following format examples are preferred for VSR: F.10.4.1. Excel Spreadsheet F.10.4.2. Lotus Spreadsheet F.10.4.3. All other report formats must be approved and agreed upon by DAS Contract Administrator and Contractor prior to submission of the first report. F.10.5. REPORT RECEIPT/ACCEPTANCE: The Department of Administrative Service's (OAS)' receipt or acceptance of any of the reports furnished pursuant to this Requirements Price Agreement, or any sums paid hereunder, shall not preclude DAS from challenging the validity thereof at any time. F.10.6. DAS RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THIS REQUIREMENTS PRICE AGREEMENT IF VOLUME SALES REPORTS ARE NOT RECEIVED AS SCHEDULED. F.10.7. PAYMENT OF VCAF. Upon receipt of the invoice from DAS Purchasing, Contractor shall remit payment to DAS Purchasing for the amount indicated on the invoice. Contract shall contact the Contract Administrator as identified in the Requirements Price Agreement if no invoice in received within thirty (30) days i after sending the VSR to DAS Purchasing. Failure to send VSR does not release Contractor from requirement to remit required VCAF. F.10.7.1. The fee shall be in the form of a check remitted to: Department of Administrative ServicesRPPS Attn: State Procurement Office 1225 Ferry Street SE, U140 Salem, Oregon 97301-+4285 ._.__...P_h 8arretf-VIP BEd Document • . . - _ _ _ _ Page 25 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 23 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 F.10.7.2. If the total VCAF to be paid for the quarter does not exceed $ 100.00, Contractor shall not be required to submit the affected Administrative Fee and shall add such fee to the amount owed for the next succeeding quarter. These Administrative Fees shall not be subject to interest accrual as explained In F.10.8. F.10.8. INTEREST: Any payments Contractor makes or causes to be made to DAS Purchasing after the due date as indicated on invoice, shall accrue Interest at a rate of 18% per annum or the maximum rate permitted by law, whichever Is less, until such overdue amount shall have been paid in full. DAS'S right to Interest on late payments under F.10. shall not preclude DAS from exercising any of its other rights or remedies pursuant to this Requirements Price Agreement or otherwise with regards to Contractor's failure to make timely remittances. F.10.9 COMPLIANCE AUDITS. Each Contractor will be monitored by DAS for compliance throughout the term of the Price Agreement(s) through the reports required under Section F.10. Additionally, DAS reserves the right to audit each Contractor's Price Agreement(s) and Contract files. F.10.9.1 in the event that any such audit reveals underpayment of Administrative Fees, the affected Contractor shall forthwith pay the amount of deficiency, together with Interest thereon at the rate provided in Section F.10.2. At DAS request, the affected Contractor shall pay the reasonable costs of an audit if such audit shows an underpayment exceeding TEN PERCENT (10%) of the Administrative Fees due during the Administrative Periods audited. F.10.10. THE STATE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE ANY PRICE AGREEMENT(S) AWARDED IF REPORTS ARE NOT RECEIVED AS SCHEDULED. LL F.11 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: Contractor acknowledges and agrees that the State shall bear no liability on Contracts entered Into for a) purchases by non-State Agencies, which liability the State expressly disclaims. With regard to non-State Agencies, Contractor agrees to J look solely to the respective contracting party for any rights and remedies Contractor may have at law or in equity arising out of the sale and purchase of Contractor's Goods and/or Services and the resulting contractual relationship, if any, with each such contracting party. Joseph Barrett -VIP Bid Document . _ _ . _ Pa a 26 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 24 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 ► F.12 INDEMNIFICATION: Contractor shall defend, save, hold harmless, and indemnify the State, its agencies, departments, divisions, and their officers, employees and agents from and against all claims, suits, actions, losses, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses of any nature whatsoever (collectively, "Claim") resulting from, arising out of, or relating to the Price Agreement and Contracts, including but not limited to (1) the activities of Contractor or Its officers, employees, subcontractors, or agents, (2) the Goods sold, and (3) the Services provided. F.12.1 Provided, however the Oregon Attorney General must give written authorization to any legal counsel purporting to act in the name of, or represent the interests of, the State and/or its officers, employees and agents prior to such action or representation. Further, the State, acting by and through its Department of Justice, may assume its own defense, including that of Its officers, employees and agents, at any time when in the State's sole discretion it determines that (i) proposed counsel is prohibited from the particular representation contemplated; (li) counsel is not adequately defending the interests of the State and/or Its officers, employees and agents; (iii) important governmental interests are at stake; or (iv) the best Interests of the State are served thereby. Contractor's obligation to pay for all costs and expenses shall include those incurred by the State in assuming its own defense and/or that of officers, employees, and agents under (i) and (il) above. F.13 EVENTS OF DEFAULT: F.13.1 CONTRACTOR. Contractor shall be in default under the Price Agreement it F.13.1.1 Contractor breaches any Price Agreement or Contract covenant, warranty, certification, or obligation; F.13.1.2 Contractor institutes an action for relief in bankruptcy or has Instituted against it an action for insolvency; makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; or ceases doing business on a regular basis of the type identified in Contractor's obligations under the Price Agreement and Contracts entered into thereunder, or F.13.1.3 Contractor attempts to assign rights in, or delegate duties under, the Price Agreement or any Contract entered Into thereunder, without DAS' prior written consent?. r .Joseph Barre_tt_-VIP Bld Document _ Page 27I STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 25 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 F.13.2 STATE. The State shall be In default under the Price Agreement If the State fails to make timely payment under any Contract for its purchase(s). F.14 TERMINATION: F.14.1 MUTUAL CONSENT. The Price Agreement maybe terminated at any time by mutual written consent of the parties. F.14.2 STATE. F.14.2.1 DAS may, at Its sole discretion, terminate the Price Agreement, in whole or In part, for convenience. F.14.2.2 DAS shall be excused from performance and may terminate the Price Agreement, in whole or In part, Immediately upon notice to Contractor, or at such later date as DAS may establish in such notice, upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (1) federal or State laws, regulations, or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that the purchase by Authorized Purchasers of Goods offered under the Price Agreement Is prohibited, or (ii) Contractor is in default of a material provision of the Price Agreement or any Contract entered Into thereunder. Pursuant to this Section F.14.2.2, upon receipt of written notice of termination, Contractor shall stop performance under the Price Agreement as directed by DAS. F.15 REMEDIES: State shall be entitled to recover any and all damages it may suffer as the result of Contractor's material breach of the Price Agreement, including but not limited to direct, indirect, incidental, and consequential damages, and any equitable remedies to which it may show itself entitled. Contractor's remedy shall be restricted to reinstatement of the Price Agreement if wrongfully terminated by DAS. However, with the exception of defense costs and expenses pursuant to F.12, neither party shall be entitled to recover C attorney's fees, court and investigative costs, or any other fees or expenses associated with pursuing a remedy for damages arising out of or relating to the Price Agreement. i F.16 NOTICES: All notices required to be given by Contractor under i the Price Agreement shall be in writing and addressed to the DAS point of contact identified in the ITB. All notices required to be given by i the State shall be in writing, addressed to the Contractor's representative, and sent to the address specified in the Bid. Mailed notices shall be deemed given five (5) calendar? days after post marked, when deposited, properly addressed and prepaid, into the U.S. postal service. Faxed notices shall be deemed given upon electronic confirmation of successful transmission to the designated fax number. Joseph Barrett -VIP Bl`d boiximent • ~ _ - Page 28 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 26 ROASION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07046 PA NUMBER: 2344 F.17 ACCESS TO RECORDS: Contractor shall maintain all fiscal records relating to the Price Agreement in accordance with generally-accepted accounting principles, and shall maintain all other records relevant to Contractor's performance of the Price Agreement (collectively, 'Records'. The State and its duly authorized representatives shall have access to Records for purposes of examination and copying. Contractor shall retain and keep accessible all Records for a minimum of 3 years, or such longer period as may be required by applicable law following expiration or termination of the Price Agreement, or until the conclusion of any audit, controversy or litigation arising out of or related to the Price Agreement, whichever date is later. F.18 SEVERABILITY: If any provision of the Price Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be Illegal or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as If the Price Agreement did not contain the particular provision held to be Invalid. F.19 SURVIVAL: Termination of the Price Agreement shall not extinguish or prejudice the State's right to enforce the warranty, access to records, indemnification, governing law, venue, consent to jurisdiction, and remedies provisions. F.20 ASSIGNMENT/SUBCONTRACT/SUCCESSORS: Contractor shall not assign, sell, transfer, or subcontract rights or delegate responsibilities under the Price Agreement, in whole or in part, without the prior written approval of OAS. Further, no such written approval shall relieve Contractor of any obligations under the Price Agreement, and any assignee or delegate shalt be considered the agent of Contractor. The provisions of the Price Agreement shall be binding upon and shall Inure to the benefit of the parties to the Price Agreement and their respective successors and permitted assigns. F.21 GOVERNING LAW: The Price Agreement shall be governed by and ` construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Oregon without regard to principles of conflicts of law. JosephearTeti-VIP Bid~l7ocument 9 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 27 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 F.22 VENUE; CONSENT TO JURISDICTION: Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "Claim") between the State and Contractor that arises from or relates to the Price Agreement shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Marion County for the State of Oregon; provided, however, if a Claim must be brought in a federal forum, then unless otherwise prohibited by law it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. CONTRACTOR, BY SUBMITTAL OF ITS SIGNED BID, HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OF SAID COURTS. Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of the State's sovereign or governmental immunity, whether derived from the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution or otherwise, or of any defenses to claims or jurisdiction based thereon. F.23 MERGER CLAUSE; AMENDMENT; WAIVER: The Price Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Contractor and the State on the subject matter thereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified therein regarding the Price Agreement No waiver, consent, or amendment of terms of the Price Agreement shall be binding either party to: (a) the Price Agreement or (b) Contracts entered into thereunder, unless such is in writing, is signed by both parties to the Price Agreement, and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Waivers and consents shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of DAS to enforce any provision of the Price Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by the State of that or any other provision. SECTION G - STANDARD CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS G.9 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE: The printed Terms and Conditions set out in this Section G are the Standard Terms and Conditions for State of L Oregon contracts. The State may also provide Special Terms and Y Conditions in Section H, which apply only to Contract(s) entered into under the Price Agreement. Whenever possible, all terms and n conditions are to be harmonized. In the event of a conflict between ` the Standard and Special Terms and Conditions, the Special Terms and Conditions take precedence, unless the Standard term in question is p required by law. In the event of any other conflict, the Contract shall be interpreted utilizing the following order of precedence: (i) Ll the Special Terms and Conditions, (ii) these Standard Terms and Conditions, (iii) the Specifications, (iv) the remaining portions of the invitation to Bid, (v) the Bid, and (vi) the Purchase Order. Joseph, Barrett --VIP Bid Document _ _ _ _ _ Page 30 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 28 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 G.2 PURCHASE ORDERS: G.2.1 DAS; PURCHASING AGENCIES: Purchase Orders shall incorporate the Price Agreement by reference, and identify the Price Agreement number, the ITB number, and the Bid Item number(s) of the Unit(s) and options ordered. However, no language in a Purchase Omer shall vary, amend, modify, or add terms or conditions to the Price Agreement. Operative provisions In Purchase Orders shall be limited to: designation of Authorized Purchaser and its authorized representative; identification of Goods and order quantities; optional Services, equipment and accessories offered under the terms of the Price Agreement; delivery schedules In accordance with the terms of the Price Agreement; and Delivery Destination and invoicing addresses. G.2.2 ORCPP: The Mandatory Purchase Authorization Language set out in Section G.2.3 shall be required on the front page of each Purchase Omer submitted to Contractor by an ORCPP Participant for Goods and/or services ordered under the Price Agreement G.2.3 ORCPP MANDATORY PURCHASE ORDER LANGUAGE: THIS PURCHASE IS PLACED AGAINST STATE OF OREGON SOLICITATION # 10200083-02 AND PRICE AGREEMENT# ORDERING ORGANIZATION WILL INSERT PRICE AGREEMENT #j. THE CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND SPECIAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS (TS & C'S) CONTAINED IN THE PRICE AGREEMENT ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AND SHALL APPLY TO THIS PURCHASE AND SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER ALL OTHER CONFLICTING TS AND C'S, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. G.2.4 In the event a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the Purchase Order constitutes an offer rather than an acceptance, then acceptance by Contractor shall be limited to the terms of the Contract as stipulated in the ITB. G.3 DELIVERY DESTINATION: Goods, including all Delivery Components and options and attachments, if any, shall be delivered F.O.B. destination to the address or location specified in the Purchase Order ("Delivery Destination"), together with all Delivery Components, warranty documentation, inspection reports, and certifications, where applicable. Provided, however, Contractor may charge Authorized Purchaser a delivery charge in accordance with the provisions of D.2.3A. Joseph Barrett - VIP Bid Document _ _ _ Page 31 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 29 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 I ! GA PAYMENT; OVERDUE ACCOUNT CHARGES: Payment shall be due and owing ! no later than thirty (30) calendar days from date of acceptance or expiration of inspection period, whichever occurs first. (Payment alone, however, shalt not constitute acceptance.) Contractor may only assess overdue account charges, in accordance with the provisions of ORS 293.461(3), up to a maximum rate of two-thirds of one percent per month (8% per annum). G.5 PAYMENT ADDRESS: Payment shall be sent to Contractor at the address specified In the Invoice. G.6 INVOICES: Each invoice shall include the applicable Purchase Order number, vehicle ID number of the Unit and that of all optional attachments, if any. Contractor shall invoice Authorized Purchaser upon delivery of entire order. G.7 MOST FAVORABLE PRICES AND TERMS: Contractor represents that all prices, terms and benefits offered by Contractor are equal to or better than the equivalent prices, terms and benefits being offered by Contractor to any other state or local government unit or commercial customer. G.7.1 Should Contractor, during the term of the Contract, enter Into any contract, agreement or arrangement that provides lower prices, more favorable terms or greater benefits to any other such government unit or commercial customer, the Contract shall thereupon be deemed amended to provide the same price or prices, terms and benefits to the Authorized Purchaser. This provision applies to comparable Goods and Services, and to purchase volumes by the Authorized Purchaser that are not less than the purchase volumes of the government unit or commercial customer that has received the lower prices, greater benefits or more favorable terms. G.7.2 Donations of Goods or Services to charitable, nonprofit or government entities, if the donations are recognized as such and are deductible under the federal Internal Revenue Code, shall not be considered contracts, agreements, sales or arrangements with other government units or commercial customers that call for the application of this paragraph. Joseph Barrett- V1P Bld Document _ V_,•._ . Page 32 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 30 'REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 G.8 INSPECTIONSIACCEPTANCE: The Authorized Purchaser shall have fourteen (14) calendar days from date of delivery of the Goods within which to inspect and accept or reject them. If the Goods are rejected, Authorized Purchaser shall provide Contractor with written notification of rejection. Notice of rejection shall include itemization of apparent defects, including but not limited to (1) discrepancies between the Goods and the applicable specifications or warranties; (ii) other apparent defects In design, materials, or manufacture; and/or (ili) otherwise nonconforming Goods (including late delivery). Notice of rejection shall also indicate whether cure will be allowed. G.8.1 CURE: The Authorized Purchaser may elect to have the Contractor deliver substitute Goods that comply with the Contract specifications and warranties, or have the Goods repaired, at Authorized Purchaser's option. The Contractor shall either deliver substitute conforming Goods or make all corrections reasonably deemed necessary by the Authorized Purchaser within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of notice of rejection and opportunity to cure. Failure to complete cure within the ten (10)-calendar-day period shall constitute default. G.8.2 REMOVAUREIMBURSEMENT., If the Goods are rejected or acceptance is revoked, the Contractor shall refund any Contract payments that have been made with regard to the rejected Goods, and shall (at Contractor's sole cost and expense) remove the Goods within seven (7) calendar days of receiving notice of rejection or revocation of acceptance. Nothing contained in this Section G.8 shall preclude the Authorized Purchaser from other remedies to which it may be entitled upon rejection or revocation of acceptance. G.9. WARRANTIES: G.9.1. AUTHORITY; BINDING OBLIGATION: Contractor represents and warrants that Contractor has the power and authority to enter into and perform the Contract and that the Contract, when executed and delivered, shall be a valid and binding obligation of Contractor enforceable in accordance with its terms. G.9.2. WARRANTY ON MATERIALS, DESIGN, MANUFACTURE: Contractor warrants that all Goods shall be new, unused, current production models. Where specifications have been made a part of the ITB, Contractor further warrants that all Goods shall be in compliance with and meet or exceed all specifications. Manufacturer's warranty against defects in materials, design and manufacture shall extend for not less than three (3) years or thirty-six thousand miles bumper to bumper. Joseph Barrett- V!P $id bocument _ _ Page 33 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 31 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 G.9,3. WARRANTY ON SERVICE STANDARDS: Contractor warrants that all services, where provided, shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner by properly certified, licensed, rsonnel, and in professional and/or industry standards. G.9.4 WARRANTY OF SAFETY AND HEALTH REQUIREMENTS: Contractor warrants that the Goods comply with all applicable federal and State health and safety standards, Including but not limited to, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OROSHA). G.9.5 MANUFACTURER WARRANTIES: Contractor shall have all manufacturer warranties covering the Goods and component parts, where applicable, transferred to the Authorized Purchaser (or the State, If Authorized Purchaser Is a State Agency) at time of delivery at no charge. G.9.6 WARRANTY OF TITLE. Contractor warrants that all Goods are free and clear of any liens or encumbrances, and that Contractor has full legal title to the Goods, and that no other person has any right, title or Interest in the Goods which shall be superior to or infringe upon the rights granted to Authorized Purchaser (or the State If Authorized Purchaser is a State Agency). G.9.7 WARRANTIES CUMULATIVE: The warranties set forth in this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other warranties provided in the Contract AJI warranties provided in the Contract shall be cumulative, and shall be interpreted expansively so as to afford the Authorized Purchaser (or the State, if Authorized Purchaser is a State Agency) the broadest warranty protection available. GAD COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS AND STANDARDS: G.10.1 Contractor shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the Contract. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Contractor expressly agrees to comply with the following laws, regulations and executive orders to the extent they are applicable to the Contract: (J) Titles VI and VII of Civil Rights Act of 1984, as amended; (ii) Sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; (iii) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended; (Iv) Executive Order 11246, as amended; (v) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended; (vi) G.10.1 (CONTINUED) The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance ~Jose ti Barrett-VIP Bid Document ~ _ 9 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 32 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 Act of 1974, as amended;(vii) ORS Chapter 659, as amended; (viii) all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to the foregoing laws; and (Ix) all other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations. The laws, regulations, and executive orders applicable to the Contract are incorporated by reference where so required by law. For public Contracts as defined in ORS 279.310 (1), Authorized Purchasers performance Is conditioned upon Contractor's compliance with ORS 279.312, 279.314, 279.316, and 279.320, the terms of which are incorporated by reference Into such Contracts. G.10.2 In the event of a conflict between the Specifications and applicable federal or State laws, the federal or state laws shall prevail. Provided, however, in the event any conflict is based solely upon minimum standards, such as quality or safety, the higher or more stringent standard shall apply. Contractor shall be responsible for making any modifications required to achieve compliance with the required laws and standards. Contractor shall notify'the Authorized Purchaser of any such required modifications upon receipt of knowledge or notification of such. G.10.3 In the event any Good or component part is recalled by a regulatory body or the manufacturer, or discovered by Contractor not to be In compliance with the applicable standards, Contractor shall immediately notify the Authorized Purchaser at the address specified in the Authorized Purchasers Purchase Order of the recall or non- compliance, and shall provide copies of the notice or other documentation. The Authorized Purchaser may elect to cancel any order and terminate the Contract In whole or in part, based upon such recall or non-compliance, or may require Contractor to promptly provide subsUMe Goods or complete necessary modifications, where applicable. G.10.4 Contractor shall be responsible for promptly removing recalled or non-compliant Goods and for making any required substitutions or modifications, including shipping, handling, parts, labor, and travel, and all other expenses, at no cost to the Authorized Purchaser. G.10.5 Notwithstanding the foregoing G.10.3 and G.10.4, in the `Joseph_l3arrett._V1PBidDocument ~ ~ Page35~ STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 33 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 event required modifications impair the utility of a Unit for Its Intended purpose or level of function In the reasonable opinion of Authorized Purchaser, Authorized Purchaser may elect to cancel any order and/or terminate the Contract in whole or in part, at no cost or penalty. Contractor shall be responsible for removing the non-compliant Goods, wherever located, at no cost to the Authorized Purchaser, and for reimbursing Authorized Purchaser all amounts paid, less the value of the use of such non-compliant Goods while In Authorized Purchaser's possession. As used in this Section, "cost" Includes labor, transportation and shipping costs, insurance, travel, meals, accommodations, etc. GA i FOREIGN CONTRACTOR: If the amount of a Contract with an Oregon Authorized Purchaser exceeds $10,000 and if Contractor Is not domiciled In or registered to do business in the State of Oregon, Contractor shall promptly provide to the Oregon Department of Revenue all information required by that Department relative to the Contract. The Oregon Authorized Purchaser shall be entitled to withhold final payment under the Contract until Contractor has met this requirement. G.12 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET: Contractor shall provide the Authorized Purchaser with a Material Safety Data Sheet as defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for any Goods provided undor tho Contract which may release or otherwise result in exposure to a hazardous chemical under normal conditions of use. In addition, Contractor must label, tag or mark such Goods. G.13 RECYCLED PRODUCTS: Contractor shall use recycled and recyclable products to the maximum extent economically feasible in the performance of the Contract If Authorized Purchaser is subject to 6RS 279.555. These products shall include recycled paper, recycled PETE products, as defined in ORS 279.545(5), and other recycled plastic resin products. Contractor shall specify the minimum percentage of recycled product incorporated into the Goods provided under the Contract G.14 TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: Contractor agrees that time Is of the essence for Contractor's performance obligations under the Contract G.15 FORCE MAJEURE: Neither Authorized Purchaser nor Contractor Joseph $arrett-VIP B'id 1566ument _ _ _ _ _ r Page 36 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE§ PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 34 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 shall be held responsible for delay or default caused by fire, riot, acts of God, war, or any other cause which is beyond the party's reasonable control. Contractor shall, however, make all reasonable efforts to remove or eliminate such a cause of delay or default and shall, upon the cessation of the cause, diligently pursue performance of its obligations under the Contract. The Authorized Purchaser may terminate the Contract upon written notice after reasonably determining that such delay or default will likely prevent successful performance of the Contract. G.16 STATE AGENCIES ONLY: FUNDS AVAILABLE AND AUTHORIZED; PAYMENTS: G.16.1 If Authorized Purchaser Is a State Agency, the following applies: Authorized Purchaser has sufficient funds available and authorized within Its biennial appropriation or limitation to financ the cost of purchases under the Contract prior to the end of the current biennium. Contractor understands and agrees that Authorized Purchaser's payment of amounts under the Contract attributable to purchases made after the last day of the current biennium is contingent on Authorized Purchaser's receiving from the Oregon Legislative Assembly appropriations, limitations, or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow Authorized Purchaser, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continu to make payments under the Contract. G.16.2 Agency will only pay for completed goods and services that are accepted by Agency. G.17 TERMINATION: G.17.1 MUTUAL CONSENT: The Contract maybe terminated at anytime by mutual written consent of the parties. G.17.2 AUTHORIZED PURCHASER: C G.17.2(a) If Authorized Purchaser Is a State Agency, it may in Its sole discretion, at any time terminate the Contract, in whole or in part, for convenience. G.17.2(b) Authorized Purchaser is excused from performance and may ! terminate the Contract, in whole or in part, immediately upon notice to Contractor, or at such later date as Authorized Purchaser may establish in such notice, upon the occurrence of any of the following events: GA 7(b) (CONTINUED) (I) Authorized Purchaser fails to receive 1 Jose h Barrett-VIP Page 37 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 35 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 funding, or appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority at levels sufficient to pay for the Goods to be purchased and/or the services to be provided under the Contract; or (ii) federal or state laws, regulations, or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that either the purchase of Goods and/or services by Authorized Purchaser under the Contract is prohibited, or the Authorized Purchaser is prohibited from paying for such Goods and/or services from the planned funding source; or (iii) Contractor breaches any material provision of the Contract. Pursuant to this section, upon receipt of written notice of termination, Contractor shall stop performance under the Contract as directed by the Authorized Purchaser. G.17.3 CONTRACTOR: Contractor may terminate the Contract immediately upon notice to Authorized Purchaser, or at such later date as it may establish in such notice, upon material breach of the Contract by Authorized Purchaser. G.18 INDEMNIFICATION: G.18.1 Contractor shall defend, save, hold harmless, and indemnify the Authorized Purchaser (or the State If Authorized Purchaser is a State Agency) and its officers, employees and agents from and against all claims, suits, actions, losses, damages, liabilities, and costs and expenses of any nature whatsoever (collectively, "Claim") resulting from, arising out of, or relating to (1) the activities of Contractor or its officers, employees, subcontractors, or agents, (ii) the Goods sold, and (iii) the Services provided pursuant to the Contract G.18.2 Provided, however, that with regard to State Agencies the Oregon Attorney General must give written authorization to any legal counsel purporting to act in the name of, or represent the interests of, the State and/or its officers, employees and agents prior to such action or representation. Further, the State, acting by and "s through its Department of Justice, may assume its own defense, including that of its officers, employees and agents, at any time when in the State's sole discretion it determines that (i) proposed counsel is prohibited from the particular representation contemplated; (ii) counsel is not adequately defending the interests i of the State and/or its officers, employees and agents; (Ili) Important governmental interests are at stake; or (iv) the best interests of the State are served thereby. Contractor's obligation to pay for all costs and expenses shall include those Incurred by the State in assuming its own defense and/or that of its officers, employees, and agents under (1) and (i) above. GAG REMEDIES: STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 36 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 G.19.1 AUTHORIZED PURCHASER: In addition to the remedies afforded elsewhere herein, Authorized Purchaser (or the State, If Authorized Purchaser Is a State Agency) shall be entitled to recover for any and all damages suffered as the result of Contractor's breach of Contract, including but not limited to direct, indirect, incidental and consequential damages, as provided In ORS 72.7110 to 72.7170. Authorized Purchaser (or the State, if Authorized Purchaser Is a State Agency) shall also be entitled to any equitable remedies to which it may show Itself entitled. G.19.2 CONTRACTOR: Contractor's remedy shall be restricted to recovery of actual damages incurred as the result of material breach of the Contract by Authorized Purchaser. G.19.3 ATTORNEYS' FEES: With the exception of defense costs and expenses pursuant to G.18, neither party shall be entitled to recover attorney's fees, court and investigative costs, or any other fees or expenses associated with pursuing a remedy for damages arising out of or relating to the Contract G.20 TRADE SECRETS: Contractor shr 11 label the information and documentation qualifying as trade secrets under ORS 293.501(2) that it wishes to protect from disclosure to third parties with the following: "This data constitutes a trade secret under ORS 192.501(2) and is not to be disclosed except as required by law. "Authorized Purchaser will take reasonable measures to hold in confidence all such labeled Information and documentation. Provided, however, Authorized Purchaser shall not be liable for release of any information when authorized or required by law or court order to do so, whether pursuant to Oregon Public Records Law or otherwise. Further, if Authorized Purchaser is a State Agency, it shall also be immune from liability for disclosure or release of information under the circumstances set out in ORS 646.473(3). G.21 ACCESS TO RECORDS: Contractor shall maintain all fiscal records relating to the Contract in accordance with generally-accepted accounting principles, and shall maintain all other records relevant to Contractor's performance of the Contract (collectively, "Records'). Authorized Purchaser and its duly authorized representatives shall have access to Records for purposes of examination and copying. Contractor shall retain and keep accessible all Records for a minimum of 3 years, or such longer period as may be required by applicable law following expiration or termination of the Contract, or until the conclusion of any audit, controversy or litigation arising out of or related to the Contract, whichever date Is later. G.22 NOTICES: All notices required under the Contract shall be in ~Fa e 3 4oseph.6rreft VIP.BidDocument STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 37 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 writing and addressed to the party's authorized representative. For Authorized Purchasers, the authorized representative shall be identified in the Purchase Order. Contractor's authorized representative shall be the individual specified in the Bid. Mailed notices shall be deemed given five (5) business days after post marked, when deposited, properly addressed and prepaid, into the U.S. postal service. Faxed notices shall be deemed given upon electronic confirmation of successful transmission to the designated fax number. G.23 GOVERNING LAW: The Contract shall be governed by and construed In accordance with the internal laws of the State of Oregon without regard to principles of conflicts of law. With regard to Goods, the UCC shall govem this transaction, as modified, if so, by the terms of the Contract. G.24 VENUE; CONSENT TO JURISDICTION: G.24.1 STATE CONTRACT VENUE; CONSENT TO JURISDICTION: Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "Claim") between a State Agency and Contractor that arises from or relates to the Contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Marion County for the State of Oregon; provided, however, If a Claim must be brought in a federal forum, then unless otherwise prohibited by law it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. CONTRACTOR HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OF SAID COURTS. Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of the State's sovereign or governmental immunity, whether derived from the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution or otherwise, or of any defenses to Claims or jurisdiction based thereon. G.24.2 ORCPP CONTRACT VENUE; CONSENT TO JURISDICTION: Any Claims between Contractor and an ORCPP Authorized Purchaser that arise from or relate to the Contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of the county in which such Authorized Purchaser resides, or at Authorized Purchaser's option, within such other county as Authorized Purchaser shall be entitled under the laws of the relevant jurisdiction to bring or defend Claims. If any such Claim must be brought in a federal forum, then unless otherwise prohibited by law it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District in which such Authorized Participant resides. CONTRACTOR HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OF SAID COURTS. G.24.2 (CONTINUED) Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of JoSeph.Barrett_V!PBld Document _ _ Page 40 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 38 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 Authorized Purchaser's sovereign or governmental immunity, if any, whether derived from the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution or otherwise, or of any defenses to Claims or jurisdiction based thereon. G.25 SURVNAL: Termination of the Contract shall not extinguish or prejudice Authorized Purchaser's (or the State's, If Authorized Purchaser is a State Agency) right to enforce the warranty, indemnification, access to records, governing taw, venue, consent to jurisdiction, and remedies provisions. G.26 SEVERABILITY: If any provision of the Contract Is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or otherwise Invalid, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Contract did not contain the particular provision held to be invalid. G.27 ASSIGNMENT/SUBCONTRACT/SUCCESSORS: Contractor shall not assign, sell, transfer, or subcontract rights or delegate responsibilities under the Contract, in whole or in part, without the prior written approval of Authorized Purchaser (or DAS, if Authorized Purchaser is subject to DAS purchasing authority). Further, no such written approval shal! relieve Contractor of any obligations under the Contract, and any delegate shall be considered the agent of Contractor. The provisions of the Contract shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties to the Contract and their respective successors and permitted assigns. G.28 MERGER CLAUSE; AMENDMENT; WAIVER: The Contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter thereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified therein regarding the Contract No waiver, consent, or amendment of terms of the Contract shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained (including that of DAS if Authorized Purchaser is subject to DAS purchasing authority). Waivers and consents shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of the Authorized Purchaser to enforce any provision of the Contract shall not constitute a waiver by the Authorized Purchaser of that or any other provision. G.29 INSURANCE: Contractor shall obtain prior to performing any work under the Contract, and maintain during the term of the Contract (including ail warranty periods) the insurance required under Section 1. With regard to workers' compensation Insurance, all employers, Joseph Barrett -VIP Bid Document . , _ ' Page 41 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 39 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 Including Contractor, that employ subject workers who work under the Contract in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide the required workers' compensation coverage, unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126(2). Contractor shall require and ensure that each of Its subcontractors complies with these requirements. SECTION H -SPECIAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS H.1 Upon request by Authorized Purchaser, Contractor shall provide color chips for all Standard and optional exterior colors. H.2 PLACEMENT OF ORDERS: H.2.1 Contractor shall have ten (10) business days from receipt of Purchase Order containing all required information to process order to manufacturer and verify processing of order with the Authorized Purchaser. H.2.2 Contractor shall provide within four (4) business days of receipt from manufacturer a copy of the build order verification to the Authorized Purchaser. Repeated neglect of not providing this verification to the Authorized Purchaser may be grounds for default and the Contract may be canceled H.2.3 Authorized Purchaser will be responsible for verifying accuracy of the order and notifying the Contractor of errors, if any, within five (5) business days of receiving the build order verification from the Contractor. H.2.4 Contractor shall notify Authorized Purchaser of build date and proposed delivery time, and any changes to such upon receipt of notice from manufacturer. H.3 DELIVERY DESTINATION: The Delivery Destinatlon address shall be specified In the Purchase Order. HA FUEL: Each vehicle shall be delivered or held ready for pick up with no less than a quarter tank of fuel. H.5 BACK ORDER: Delivery charges for back orders shall be paid by Contractor. H.6 ADDITIONAL REMEDIES FOR NON-CONFORMING GOODS: H.6.1 If the Contractor can no longer obtain a substitute conforming ;Joseph Barrett -VIP BId Document - - • • _ _ _ _ _ _ Page 42 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 40 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 vehicle, then Contractor, upon the consent of the Authorized Purchaser, shall provide a substitute vehicle with substantially equivalent equipment, all at the Contract price. H.6.2 If a vehicle with substantially equivalent equipment cannot be supplied, then Contractor shall provide the next year's model with the original equipment ordered, all at the Contract price. H.7 MANUFACTURER CANCELLATION OF ORDER: Contractor shall not be liable when, through no fault of the Contractor, the manufacturer is not able to build an ordered vehicle or the manufacturer cancels the order for a vehicle. H.8 PRE-DELIVERY INSPECTION: The Authorized Purchaser can request to have a pre-delivery inspection at Contractor's location to insure specification compliance PRIOR TO DELIVERY. H.8.1 If a missing part, component, or accessory cannot be provided and installed within fourteen (14) calendar days, the Authorized Purchaser shall have the right to buy the item or part from another source and bill the Contractor or deduct the cost from the Contractors invoice for the vehicle, including costs of installation. H.9 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: Contractors are required to place orders with the manufacturer within ten (10) business days after receipt of Purchase Order. H.9.1 The Authorized Purchaser may assess Liquidated damages of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) for delay for each calendar day, per each unit, for which the Contractor is over the ten (10) days order deadline in placing the order with the manufacturer. H.10. Disclosure of Social Security Number. Contractor must provide Contractor's Social Security number unless Contractor provides a federal tax ID number. This number is requested pursuant to ORS 305.385, OAR 125-20-410(3) and OAR 150-305.100. Social Security numbers provided pursuant to this authority will be used for the administration of state, federal and local tax laws. H.11 CONTRACTOR'S SOLE REMEDY Joseph,Barrett --VIP . id Document _ _ Pa a 43 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 41 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 2344 For its sole remedy, after exhausting any provisions for'cover' under Oregon's UCC (ORS Chapters 71 & 72), contractor lessor/renter/seller Is limited to the difference between market price and contract price at the time and place for tender, less expenses saved, without incidental damages. For the avoidance of doubt, contractor specifically disclaims and otherwise waives any right or privilege to recover consequential, exemplary, Incidental, nominal, special, or other statutory damages, and specifically shall not recover damages for lost opportunity or profits, or pursue any remedy in equity, by specific performance or otherwise. - AGENDA ITEM # 9.3 FOR AGENDA OF November 23.2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Intergovernmental Agreement for Towing Services PREPARED BY: Chief Dickinson DEPT HEAD OK t4-- ~ CITY MGR OK t' LV ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL A request to have the Mayor sign three copies of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for Towing Services between Tigard and Washington County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends signing the IGA. INFORMATION SUMMARY Since 12/12/02, the City of Tigard Police Department has had a towing agreement with Washington County which sets standards and regulates the participating tow companies. The IGA addresses issues of timely response, rates, and equipment requirements. It provides for a Tow Coordinator to administer the Towing Procedures Manual and maintain standards. The IGA requires the Mayor's signature. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY This does not address a specific goal or strategy. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachments: Three (3) copies of the contract. FISCAL NOTES There is no cost associated with participation in the IGA. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR TOWING COORDINATION SERVICES This Agreement is entered into, by and between Washington County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, and Tigard Police Department WHEREAS ORS 190.010 authorizes the parties to enter into this Agreement for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the Agreement has authority to perform. Now, therefore, the parties agree as follows: 1) The effective date is: January 1. 2005, or upon final signature, whichever is later. The expiration date is: December 31.2006; unless otherwise amended. 2) The parties agree to the terms and conditions set forth in Attachment A, which is incorporated herein, and describes the responsibilities of the parties, including compensation, if any. 3) Each party shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws; and rules and regulations on non-discrimination in employment because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, marital status, age, medical condition or handicap. 4) To the extent applicable, the provisions of ORS 279.312, 279.313, 279.314, 279.316, 279.320 and 279.334 are incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth. 5) Each party is an independent contractor with regard to each other party(s) and agrees that the performing party has no control over the work and the manner in which it is performed. No party is an officer, agent or employee of any other. 6) No party or its employees is entitled to participate in a pension plan, insurance, bonus, or similar benefits provided by any other party. 7) This Agreement may be terminated, with or without cause and at any time, by a party by providing 30 days written notice of intent to the other party(s). 8) Modifications to this Agreement are valid only if made in writing and signed by all parties. 9) Subject to the limitations of liability for public bodies set forth in the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, and the Oregon Constitution, each party agrees to hold harmless, defend, and indemnify each other, including its officers, agents, and employees, against all claims, demands, actions and suits (including all attorney fees and costs) arising from the indemnitor's performance of this Agreement where the loss or claim is attributable to the negligent acts or omissions of that party. City specifically agrees, subject to the limits of the Tort Claims Act and the Oregon Constitution, to indemnify and defend County for any claim, demand, action or suit arising from any City policy, practice, procedure or custom, and any claim, demand, action or suit which alleges that a tow ordered by a City officer was improper or without authority. PAGE 1 OF 2 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT GMICO TRACrFw~TERC0e1FSw0PJZ0 S\1GA.11•9.98 10) Each party shall give the other immediate written notice of any action or suit filed or any claim made against that party that may result in litigation in any way related to this Agreement. 11) Each party agrees to maintain insurance levels or self-insurance in accordance with ORS 30.282, for the duration of this Agreement at levels necessary to protect against public body liability as specified in ORS 30.270. 12) Each party agrees to comply with all local, state and federal ordinances, statutes, laws and regulations that are applicable to the services provided under this Agreement. 13) This Agreement is expressly subject to the debt limitation of Oregon Counties set forth in Article XI, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution, and is contingent upon funds being appropriated therefore. 14) This writing is intended both as the final expression of the Agreement between the parties with respect to the included terms and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement. WHEREAS, all the aforementioned is hereby agreed upon by the parties and executed by the duly authorized signatures below. JuCriLs o~6'f~7194_'~'~ n /~~DUe m ,bey 3 Zooms 42, - Signa re Date ' ~ ' ig • Dirk' ser ranted me Title Address: !3/ S CU Gam. 7~L2 WASHINGTON COUNTY: Signature Date i Printed Name Title Address: Mail Stop # Hillsboro, OR PAGE 2 OF 2 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT GMCON CrFRM\MAsrencoeiaS\H0R=r+sueA-11.9.98 ATTACHMENT A Statement of Work/Schedule/Payment Terms Washington County agrees to provide Tow Coordination Services to Tigard Police Department (hereinafter Contract Agency) for the duration of this contract. These services shall consist of 1) Providing a Tow Coordinator to oversee contracts with tow firms and administer the Towing Procedures Manual, including enforcement of suspension and termination provisions. 2) Conducting background checks on all tow drivers and related tow employees as required by the Towing Procedures Manual. 3) Complaint handling from citizens and other agencies 4) Conducting tow lot inspections and inspections of towing equipment 5) Define tow areas and administer rotational tow lists with contracted dispatcher. 6) Maintain and administer contract with contracted dispatcher. 7) Providing periodic reports to contract agencies regarding number of tows, average response times and other information as agreed. In consideration of Washington County providing the above services, City agrees to notify Washington County of any tow issues or complaints arising from a non-consensual law enforcement tow, and to fully cooperate with County in investigating these complaints. City also agrees to utilize towing policies and procedures which are compatible with the lowing Procedures Manual and do not conflict with the provisions of the Manual or the contract between Washington County and contract tow firms. These services do not include, and City shall remain solely responsible for the following: 1) Conducting hearings under ORS 809.716 or other statutes on impoundment of vehicles towed by City officers, and paying for any tows by City officers which are found to be improper. 2) Providing any required notice of impoundment or towing, including but not limited to notice under ORS 819.180, 809.720 or 809.725. Washington County will maintain rotational tow lists for each area, but will not create or administer a tow list for an individual agency. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 11/23/04 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discussion with State Senator Ginn Burdick ' and tate Re resentative La 'Gaaliziio n PREPARED BY: Joanne Ben son DEPT HEAD OK~O CITY MGR OK ~ v ~IVnV/J~~~ I ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL On November 23, 2004 the City Council will have an opportunity to discuss issues of interest to the City of Tigard with State Senator Ginny Burdick and State Representative Larry Galizio. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Identify issues of interest or concern to Senator Burdick and State Representative Galizio. INFORMATION SUMMARY Senator Burdick and Representative Galizio were contacted and agreed to meet with the City Council prior to the 2005 Legislative Session. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Community Character and Quality of Life - Communication Goal - Citizen involvement opportunities will be maximized by providing educational programs on process, assuring accessibility to information in a variety of formats, providing opportunities for input on community issues and establishing and maintaining two-way communication. CL ATTACHMENT LIST No attachments. 'o u FISCAL NOTES Ll J None ® iAadm\oitycouncilkowxilagenda itemaummaria\2004Wurdick-galizio.docl1/15/04 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 11/23/04 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE Formal Graduation of Tigard's Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Volunteer Program Class II / I n ~()')'J PREPARED BY: Mike Lueck DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK 1 V 1'v' + ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Meeting the neighborhood volunteers who are the second graduating class of the City's new Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program and provide some background information on where the program is now. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action required; Informational only. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard has a new "Partners Being Prepared" program, Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) designed to help our neighborhoods be ready for unexpected disasters. If a disaster overwhelms or delays the community's emergency services, CERT team members can provide life saving assistance, such as disaster medical aid, search and rescue and fire suppression during the critical first minutes. With the technical assistance of local emergency services, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVFR), Tigard has trained an additional fourteen (14) individual volunteers from its community in basic response skills. The City's second class rotation was completed on October 30, 2004. Currently, through several advertisement avenues the City is recruiting for its third class, scheduled February 2005. The training and skills that these individuals received will help do the "greatest good for the greatest amount of people" in our community neighborhoods following a disaster until help arrives. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED L None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Goal: The program through initial and enhancement training will maximize the volunteer's effectiveness in emergency and non-emergency events, developing a strong partnership in emergency preparedness and community caring. ATTACHMENT LIST Sample copy of the "Achievement Certificate" FISCAL NOTES The City of Tigard's CERT program is 99% federally funded through a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) Grant. The Grant is overseen by Oregon Department of State Police and Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) and managed by the City's CERT Coordinator. In FY 04 the City originally requested $23,993.18 and was awarded $4,509.00. The amount executed to date by the City is $2,205.59. The City is currently drafting another application for Federal grant money to support this program through 2006. L`V►p►LI l ~ ~ ~ K►r Ott--- • s xv of CX/► "'Ut v"" - ~ ant's Stuff' urse Se earn Go a~ a~+ ~e5p°n .rnergen~y ed~'~, ate' 02 4 Tp6 1f1(1rn~n~ C~ V0.0y course- GL tu SeP ber 30' tember 7 pc oc- ? r d+ ~'~r~,lle} C~ a,b ~tr~se ua;att }2esc`1e lCbael LueCk .1~ G arse ravager Co l 5 S~ crL---cZ~"I'~- AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE : November 23, 2004 (limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED ;,0 T'aric~ ~ ~h 15A, :5k.) I364:5k.) F~ rn ~•,i~.~..y ~k.ar ~p,~+-h, D~ Cj 722.3 5v3- 521-1y 7 C i i 1 1 I CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Page 1 W,Widra.w n AGEI\T)A ITEM # 6 OR AGENDA OF November 23, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGO , COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 32 (SW Fern Street) r, f , n PREPARED BY: G.BBerry DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK w 4 v V ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a sewer reimbursement district to construct a sanitary sewer project as part of the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached Resolution forming the Reimbursement District. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed project would provide sewer service to six lots along SW Fern Street between SW 135th and 138'h Avenues. Through the City's Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program, the City would install public sewers to each lot within the Reimbursement District and the owners would reimburse the City for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer at the time of connection to the sewer. In addition, each owner would be required to pay a connection fee, currently $2,535, before connecting to the line and would be responsible for disconnecting the existing septic system according to County rules and any other plumbing modifications necessary to connect to the public line. Each owner has been notified of the hearing by mail. The notice, mailing list and additional details are included in the City Engineer's Report attached as Exhibit A to the proposed resolution. On May 25, 2004, the City Council approved an agreement with Washin§ton County to include the sewer as part of a project to improve SW Walnut Street between SW 121St and 135` Avenues through the Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program. Another resolution to finalize the formation of the Reimbursement n, District, with cost adjustments, will be submitted for Council action after construction is completed and actual construction costs are determined. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. u J VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable. ATTACHMENT LIST Proposed Resolution Exhibit A, City Engineer's Report Exhibit B, Map Vicinity Map Communication Plan Notice to Owners Mailing List Resolutions Nos. 01 - 46,03-55 Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County for the Improvement of Walnut Street through the Major Streets Improvement Pro&nam FISCAL NOTES Funding is by unrestricted sanitary scwcr funds. I WON 0"M M dO"IM WW . ON" 3 ft aWvNMma.wffa+"00 ara«n w V%Cft m.rl&a 00MI1-n*4 n uM u w &K L C 7 i i i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO.04- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 32 (SW FERN STREET) WHEREAS, the City has initiated the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program to extend public sewers and recover costs through Reimbursement Districts in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.09; and WHEREAS, these property owners have been notified of a public hearing in accordance with TMC 13.09.060 and a public hearing was conducted in accordance with TMC 13.09.050; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the area to be included in the Reimbursement District, the estimated costs, a method for spreading the cost among the parcels within the District, and a recommendation for an annual fee adjustment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the formation of a Reimbursement District as recommended by the City Engineer is appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1 The City Engineer's report titled "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 32", attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. SECTION 2 A Reimbursement District is hereby established in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.09. The District shall be the area shown and described on Exhibit B. The District shall be known as "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 32, SW Fern Street." SECTION 3 Payment of the reimbursement fee as shown in Exhibit A is a precondition of receiving City permits applicable to development of each parcel within the Reimbursement District as provided for in TMC 13.09.110. SECTION 4 An annual fee adjustment, at a rate recommended by the Finance Director, shall be applied to the Reimbursement Fee. SECTION 5 The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the County Recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.09.090. SECTION 6 This resolution is effective upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2004. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 04- Page 1 Exhibit A City Engineer's Report Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 32 (SW Fern) Background This project will be constructed and funded under the City of Tigard Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program (NSEP). Under the program the City of Tigard would install public sewers to each lot within the project area. At the time the property owner connects to the sewer, the owner would pay a connection fee, currently $2,535, and reimburse the City for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer. There is no requirement to connect to the sewer or pay any fee until connection is made. In addition, property owners are responsible for disconnecting their existing septic system according to Washington County rules and for any other modifications necessary to connect to the public sewer. Proiect Area - Zone of Benefit An existing line in Fern Street will be extended east to service six lots as shown on Exhibit Map B. Cost The estimated cost for the sanitary sewer construction to provide service to the six lots is $40,474. Engineering and inspection fees amount to $5,464 (13.5%) as defined in TMC 13.09.040(1). The estimated total project cost is $45,938. This is the estimated amount that should be reimbursed to the sanitary sewer fund as properties connect to the sewer and pay their fair share of the total amount. However, the actual amount that each property owner pays is subject to the City's incentive program for early connections. In addition to sharing the cost of the public sewer line, each property owner will be required to pay an additional $2,535 connection and inspection fee when connection to the public line is made. All owners will be responsible for all plumbing costs required for work done on private property. Reimbursement Rate All properties are zoned R-4.5 but vary in lot size from 21,000 to 57,000 square feet as can be seen in the following list of lots. Therefore, it is recommended that the total cost of this portion of the project be divided among the seven properties proportional to the square footage of each property. Other reimbursement methods include dividing the cost equally among the owners or by the length of frontage of each property. These methods are not recommended Engineer's Report, Reimbursement District No.32 - Fern Street Pagel of 4 because there is no correlation between these methods and the cost of providing service to each lot or the benefit to each lot. Each property owner's estimated fair share of the public sewer line is $0.187 per square foot of the lot served. Each owner's fair share would be limited to $6,000, to the extent that It does not exceed $15,000, for connections completed within three years of City Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report following construction in accordance with Resolution 01-46 (attached). In addition to paying for the first $6,000, owners will remain responsible for paying all actual costs that exceed $15,000. Upon request, payment of costs that exceed $15,000 may be deferred until the lot is developed as provided by Resolution 03-55 (attached). Annual Fee Adiustment TMC 13.09.115 states that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to each property owner's fair share of the sewer line costs on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The Finance Director has set the annual interest rate at 6.05% as stated in City of Tigard Resolution No. 98-22. Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with an annual fee increase as indicated above and that the reimbursement district continue for fifteen years as provided in the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 13.09.110(5). Fifteen years after the formation of the reimbursement district, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee. Submitted November 9, 2004 Ag s in P. Duenas, P.E. City gineer I:WQMD4-zoos h cip%w2 A weep • Wws a (trr aX"V)VeftnWsemerx mama 32•rem ~%&y mexiamonnarwn%J 1.23-04 roam aist az row„ aW a.aoc Engineer's Report, Reimbursement District No.32 Fem Street Page 2 of 4 FERN STREET Reimbursement District No. 32 Estimated Cost to Property Owners November 8, 2004 ESTIMATED OWNER SITE ADDRESS TAX LOT ID AREA (S.F.) COST TO PAID BY PAID BY PROPERTY OWNER CITY OWNER 1 HAVILAND, RANDALL S TR & LEUEEN M 13625 SW FERN ST 2S104BDO13DO 21169.66925 $3,957 $3,957 $0 2 ROMAN, CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF PORTLAND 13665 SW FERN ST 2S104BD01400 22346.68844 $4.177 $4,177 $0 3 BENETTI, MARCO A & SALLY A 13650 SW FERN ST 2S104BD02100 48852.1919 $9,132 $6,000 $3,132 4 NATHMAN, CHRISTINE P & PARISI, BARNARDINO 13640 SW FERN ST 2S104BD02200 57418.4428 $10,733 $6,000 $4,733 5 CLARKE. JOHN A & NANCY J 13620 SW FERN ST 2S104BD02300 51257.81613 $9,581 $6.000 $3,581 6 CLARKE, JOHN A & NANCY J NO ADDRESS (FERN ST) 2S104BOO2102 44716.0566 $8,358 $6.000 $2,358 Totals 245781 $45,938 $32,134 $13,804 I 1 I i I t1ENGWO4 M FY CIAWYM Stmt. Phan s (by CeuwyT *krbtN sm.m dwm 31-Fam SIAWVTY COUNCRNFORMAnOM Fpm Remo DM No. 32.3d$ I IMQ0W Page 3 of 4 FERN STREET Reimbursement District No. 32 Estimated Cost to Property Owners Summary November 8, 2004 Estimated Construction Cost $35,195 15% contingency (construction) $5,279 Estimated construction subtotal $40,474 13.5% contingency (Admin & Eng) $5,464 total project costs $45,938 total area to be served (S.F.) 245,761 total cost per S.F. to property owner $0.18692266 w L °r ri is J J t1ENO12004-2= FY CFlwelmR S"*-plug3(by CoWA#A MhnWMM dlebk 32-Fem MMeWrff COUNMWORMATIOM Fem Reimb DW No. 32.3de 111=0045:07 PM Page 4of4 LGVIOILI 1 r 0 0 Mir FERN STREET SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT #32 A PORTION OF THE NE 1 /4 OF SECTION 4 T2S R1 W W.M. WALNUT LANE ly 10-0 p pil FERN ST __W-~- - - a i EXHIBIT B FERN STREET SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT M 32 A PORTION OF THE NE 1 /4 OF SECTION 4 T2S R1 W W. j , WALNUT LANE I co I FERN ST I _ M r , I 1 f I 4 { I 1 I VICINITY MAP Communications Plan Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 32 (SW Fern Street) Goal: Construction of a Sanitary Sewer Extension for Reimbursement District No. 32. Timeline: FY 04-05 Construction Season. Communication Goal: To communicate to property owners within the Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District the estimated cost of connecting to the public sanitary sewer line, the construction schedule, and final cost for the Reimbursement District. Date Item Description Responsibility Explain Program to Reimbursement Engineering 3/18/04 General Meeting District property owners proposed for Manager FY04-05 9/9/04 Neighborhood Meeting Mail Meeting Notice to property owners Engineering Notice within the Reimbursement District No. 32 Clerical Services Events Calendar Post Meeting on Web Page Events Engineering Calendar Clerical Services Meet with property owners to review Engineering 9/22/04 Neighborhood Meeting Manager estimated costs and construction activity. Consultant 11/8/04 Hearing Notice Mail Notice of formation of Reimbursement Engineering District to Property Owners Clerical Services 11/23/04 Formation Hearing City Council reviews and forms proposed City Engineer Sanitary Sewer District 1214/04 Notice of Decision Mail Notice of Decision to property owners Engineering within District Clerical Services Lateral Locations Confirm with property owners location of Inspector laterals Construction Notice Hang Construction Notice on doorknobs of Inspector property owners impacted b project Contractor Construction Inspection Inspector is available to receive and Inspector respond to complaints Notice to property Send hearing notice, Resolution, property Project Engineer owners of final hearing owner cost to each property owner. Engineering Clerical Services Send approved Resolution with final costs Project Engineer Final Notice to each property owner Engineering Clerical Services Prepared by: G. N. Berry Approved by: P-~ lienO20042006 ty d9k*21M l Wool • 3 CWftNeknbu femerd dWk132•lem Wee0dry c==rJOmUtlon111.2104 RYn dst 32 WnMW YC,tbns pandoe November 8, 2004 NOTICE Informational Hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, November 23, 2004 AT 7:30 PM IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD OR 97223 TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: Proposed Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 32. (SW Fern Street) The Tigard City Council will conduct an informational public hearing to hear testimony on the proposed Reimbursement District formed to install sewers in SW Fern Street. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted as required by Section 13.09.060 of the Tigard Municipal Code. Further information and the scheduled time for this item during the Council meeting may be obtained from the Engineering Department, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223, by calling 503 718-2468 or at www.ci.tigard.or.us. hoVk2004-loos ry dv~MA5U8e - ohM3 coy murty)Vsimh emmx dwna 32.fm aneendly mv,dnbrmxwnVftc 1- fnmunm, MaAng.doe Proposed Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 32 (SW Fern Street) At this meeting, City Council will be requested to form a sewer reimbursement district to provide your neighborhood with sewer service. There is no requirement to connect to the sewer or pay any fee until connection is made. Each property owner's estimated fair share of the public sewer line is based on the area of the lot served and is summarized in the attached tables. This amount will be revised once construction is completed and final costs are determined. An annual increase of 6.05% simple interest will also be applied to this amount. The amount each property owner will be required to pay will be limited to $6,000 for connections completed within three years of City Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report following construction, in accordance with Resolution 01-46. Please note that this resolution also requires the owner to pay any fair share amounts that exceed $15,000. Consequently, if the final fair share for an owner exceeds $15,000, the owner would be required to pay $6,000 plus the amount the fair share exceeds $15,000. Under Resolution 03-55, payment of the amount in excess of $15,000 may be deferred until the owner's lot is developed. The owner would also be required to pay a connection fee of $2,535 at the time of connection to the sewer. In addition, property owners are responsible for disconnecting their existing septic system according to Washington County rules and for any other modifications necessary to connect to the public sewer. 1.iOV2004-20MOy dol2lst,aNtav,.krtur"n m. Od 030,Wp CmxO b-adwOredw, 1ftw4m 2S104BD-02100 BENETTI MARCO A & SALLY A 13650 SW FERN ST TIGARD, OR 97223 2S1046D-02102 CLARKE JOHN A & NANCY J 54966 MALLARD DR BEND, OR 97707 2S1048D-02300 CLARKE JOHN A & NANCY J 54966 MALLARD DR BEND, OR 97707 2S104OD-01300 HAVILAND RANDALL S TR & HAVILAND LEUEEN M 13625 SW FERN ST TIGARD.OR 97223 2S1048D-02200 NATHMAN CHRISTINE P & PARISI BERARDINO 13640 SW FERN ST PORTLAND, OR 97223 2SI04BD-01400 ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF PORTLAND IN OREGON 2838 E BURNSIDE PORTLAND, OR 97214 I I I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 01- y tP A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 98-51 AND ESTABLISHING A REVISED AND ENHANCED NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council has initiated the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program to extend public sewers through Reimbursement Districts in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.09; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 1998, the City Council established The Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program through Resolution No. 98-51 to encourage owners to connect to public sewer. The program was offered for a two-year period after which the program would be evaluated for continuation; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2000, the City Council extended The Ncighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program an additional two years through Resolution No. 00-60; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that residential areas that remain without sewer service should be provided with service within five years; and WHEREAS, Council has directed that additional incentives should be made available to encourage owners to promptly connect to sewers once service is available and that owners who have paid for service provided by previously established districts of the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program should receive the benefits of the additional incentives. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Resolution No. 98-51 establishing the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program is hereby repealed. SECTION 2: A revised incentive program is hereby established for the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. This incentive prograin shall apply to sewer connections provided through the sewer reimbursement districts shown on the attached Table 1 or established thereafter. All connections qualifying under this program must be completed within three years after Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report following a L public hearing conducted in accordance with TMC Section 13.09.105 or by two years from the date this resolution is passed, which ever is later, as shown on the attached Table 1. SECTION 3: To the extent that the reimbursement fee determined in accoxianee with Section 13.09.040 does not exceed $15,000, the amount to be reimbursed by an owner of a lot zoned single family residential shall not exceed $6,000 per connection, provided that the lot owner complies with the provisions of Section 2. Any amount over $15.000 shall be reimbursed by the owner. This apples only to the reimbursement fee for the sewer installation and not to the connection fee, which is still payable upon application for RESOLUTION NO.01-4-JAP Page 1 i sewer connection. SECTION 4: 1'he City Engineer's Report required by TMC Chapter 13.09 shall apply the provisions of this incentive program. Residential lot owners who do not connect to sewer in accordance with Section 2 shall pay the full reimbursement amount as determined by the final City Engineer's Report. SECTION 5: Any person who has paid a reimbursement fee in excess of the fee required herein is entitled to reimbursement from the City. The amounts to be reimbursed and the persons to be paid shall be determined by the Finance Director and approved by the City Manager. There shall be a full explanation of any circumstances that require payment to any person who is not an original payer. The Finance Director shall make payment to all persons entitled to the refund no later than August 31, 2001. SECTION 6: The Sanitary Sewer Fund, which is the funding source for the Neighborhood Sewer 'Reimbursement District Program, shall provide the funding for the installation costs over $6,000 up to a maximum of $15,000 per connection. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2001 PASSED: This 1 day of 2001. 4-L~ LA. ayor Ci of 'and ATTEST: Recorder - City of " and MCitywideWoUtesolution Revising the Neighborhood sewer Incentive Program PE.S0L ..^N NO. 01 _„`_b ~ Page 2 TABLE 1 Reimbursement Districts vim Refunds Available DISTRICT FEE PER LOT REIMBURSEMENT AVAILABLE INCENTIVE PERIOD ENDS TIGARD ST.No.8 5.103 No rewroursoment available FAFtHAVEN ST/WYNo.9 4,500 No ra nbxsemad available HILLVIEW ST No.11 8.000 July 11. 2003 100"a JOHNSON NoA2 5.505 No reknburseffwd avalable 100T"AINEZ No.13 8.000 July 11,2003 WALNUT & TIEDEMAN N0.14 8.000 Juy 11.2003 BEVELANDBHERMOSA N0.15 5,036 No reimbursement evaWe DELMONTE No.18 6,0D0 July 11.2003 OUARA No.17 8,000 July 11.2003 -WALNUT a 121ul No. la Anw ant to be reknbumed win be Throo yoom hwn aorviee avalabYlty ROSE VISTA No20 determined once final costs are determined. Currently beano constructed CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO.03-_55 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAM (RESOLUTION NO.01- 46). WHEREAS, the City Council has initiated the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program to extend public sewers through Reimbur=Aent Districts in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.09; and WMREAS, on July 10, 2001, the City Council established the Revised and Enhanced Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program through Resolution No. 01-46 to encourage owners to connect to public sewer within three-years following construction of sewers; and WHEREAS, Council has directed that additional incentives should be made available to encourage owners of large lots to promptly connect to sewers once service is available. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: In addition to the incentives provided by Resolution No. 01-46, any person whose reimbursement fee exceeds $15,000 and wishes to connect a single family home or duplex to a sewer constructed through a reimbursement district may defer payment of the portion of the reimbursement fee that exceeds $15,000, as required by Section 3 of Resolution No. 0146, until the lot is partitioned or otherwise developed in accordance with a land use permit. The land use permit shall not be issued until payment of the deferred amount is made. The Annual Fee Adjustment required by TMC Section 13.09.115 shall not apply to payment of this deferred amount. SECTION 2: Lots that qualify under Section 1, within reimbursement districts that have exceeded the three-year period for connection, and have not connected to sewer can connect the existing structure, pay a reimbursement fee of $6,000, and defer payment of the portion of the reimbursement fee that exceeds $15,000 if connection to the sewer is completed within one year after the effective date of this resolution. SECTION 3: Vacant lots improved with a single family home or duplex during-the term of the reimbursement district shall qualify for the provisions of Resolution No. 0146, pay $6,00&if the fee exceeds that amount, and may defer payment of the portion of the reimbursement fee that exceeds $15,000 as provided by Section 1. SECTION 4: Vacant lots that are partitioned, subdivided, or otherwise developed during the life of the reimbursement district shall qualify for the provisions of Resolution No. 0146, shall pay a reimbursement fee of $6,000, and shall pay any amount due over $15,000 at the time of development. The Annual Fee Adjustment required by TMC Section 13.09.115 shall not apply to payments made under this section. SECTION 5: The owner of any lot for which deferred payment is requested must enter into an agreement with the City, on a form prepared by the City Engineer, acknowledging the RESOLUTION NO.03- .55 Page 1 owner's and owner's successors obligation to pay the deferred amount as described in Section 1. The City Recorder shall cause the agreement to be filed in the office of the County Recorder to provide notice to potential purchasers of the lot. The recording will not create a lien. Failure to make such a recording shall not affect the obligation to pay the deferred amount. SECTION 6: Any person who qualifies under Section 1 and has paid a reimbursement fee for the portion of the reimbursement fee in excess of $15,000 is entitled to reimbursement for that amount from the City upon request. The amounts to be reimbursed and the persons to be paid shall be determined by the Finance Director and approved by the City Manager. There shall be a full explanation of any circumstances that require payment to any person who is not an original payer. Any person requesting a refund must sign an agreement similar to that described in Section 5 acknowledging the obligation to pay the refunded amount upon partitioning or developing the lot. SECTION 7: The Sanitary Sewer Fund continues to remain the funding source for the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Program and shall provide the funding for the installation costs over $6,000 up to a maximum of $15,000 per connection and for any deferred payment permittod by this resolution. SECTION 8: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This J"y - day of ~2¢n , 2003. - / AL -Wa'yeW City of Tigard Craig E. Dirksen, Council President ATTEST: o - City Recorder - City of Tigard j NenplprpM~IrMuy~nM avkbNNtloi. e. 01ae t0 M OTOO N 07 W ZMIO.14-M 26MM b M 1-+e I 0= 1 1 I 1 RESOLUTION NO. 03- ,55 Page 2 A INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT MAJOR STREETS TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO: SW WALNUT STREET: SW 121St AVENUE to SW 135th AVENUE CITY OF TIGARD AMENDMENT NO. 1 THIS AMENDMENT modifies the Agreement dated February 24, 2004, between WASHINGTON COUNTY, acting by and through its Elected Officials, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY"; and the CITY OF TIGARD, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as "CITY." WITNESSETH ARTICLE 1 - RECITALS WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY have determined that because of the Rroposed closure of SW Walnut Lane at the intersection of SW Walnut Street and SW 135 Avenue, SW Fern Street, from SW 135`n to SW 138th, will receive an increase in traffic volumes as residents will be diverted to use SW Fern Street for access purposes because of the closure of SW Walnut Lane; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY have determined that SW Fern Street, from SW 135`" to SW 1381h, is deficient to safely handle the projected increase in traffic volume in its current state; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY have determined that safety and road improvements consisting of widening, new pavement, extruded curbs, storm and sanitary sewer modifications, herein after referred to as "Fern Street Improvements", should be undertaken; and o. WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY have agreed to include these road and safety improvements as part of the SW Walnut Street Improvement Project, and both parties desire to modify the original Agreement to include this increase in scope and costs, and CITY agrees to pay for such improvement work that is further described and shown on ® attached Exhibit A. L9 J NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the covenants and agreements to be kept and performed by the parties hereto, it is agreed that the original agreement is hereby amended as follows: , ARTICLE 2 - WASHINGTON COUNTY OBLIGATIONS 1. COUNTY shall perform, or cause to be performed, all actions necessary for the design and construction of the Fern Street Improvements as part of PROJECT. 2. COUNTY shall review the Fern Street Improvements plans, bid items, quantities and technical specifications and incorporate the Fern Street Improvements as specific bid items into the bid documents for the PROJECT. _ 3. COUNTY shall, following the bid opening, notify the CITY of the amount of the construction cost of the Fern Street Improvements as contained in the bid and provide CITY the opportunity for review of the contract bid proposal prior to contract award. ARTICLE 3 - CITY OF TIGARD OBLIGATIONS 1. CITY shall provide all inspection and testing of the Fern Street Improvements in coordination with the COUNTY. ARTICLE 4 - COMPENSATION 1. DESIGN: As design work upon the PROJECT, including the Fern Street Improvements, is performed, County shall, on a quarterly basis, prepare and submit design invoices to CITY for the cost of the work for Fern Street Improvements. Estimated design costs are $37,695. Notwithstanding, the estimate of the costs shown above, the CITY shall reimburse the COUNTY for the actual amount of its cost incurred for the design of the Fern Street Improvements. 2. CONSTRUCTION: As construction work upon the PROJECT is performed, COUNTY shall, on a quarterly basis, prepare and submit construction invoices to the CITY for the construction of the Fern Street Improvements. Estimated construction costs for the Fern Street Improvements are $114,900, not including overlay, which is estimated at $5,500. In addition to the Fern Street Improvements bid items, the CITY shall also pay COUNTY for any easement acquisition cost associated with the Fern Street Improvements, an allocated share of the costs of applicable lump sum contract items (i.e. mobilization, erosion control), extra work required for the Fern Street Improvements and non-construction costs. Non-construction costs include the cost of COUNTY services including project management and surveying which shall be calculated at a flat rate of five percent (5%) of the Fern Street Improvements -2- ARTICLE 5 - PROJECT DEFINITION AND SCOPE 2. SCOPE: The scope of improvements associated with the PROJECT and described in the original Agreement shall remain unchanged, but include: A) CITY desired elements for improvements to SW Fern Street, from SW 135u to SW 138h Avenues, including road widening, new pavement, extruded curbs, storm and sanitary sewer modifications. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year hereinafter written. DONE AND DATED this day of .2004. CITY OF TIGARD WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON C Mayor Chair ' 6 0 Date: ' U Date:_ -7 T' APPROVED %AIASHINGTON (L N= 130ARD OF COMMISSI02dUS ATTEST: WNUTEORDERt 5..«t'..~....... DATE (ly City Recorder Recording Secre APPROVED AS TO FORM: r , 146111A Loretta S. Skurdahl Senior Assistant County Counsel -3- AGENDA ITEM # ~I FOR AGENDA OF November 23, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 33 (SW Walnut Street) PREPARED BY: G. B4er8rv DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK VZ~a ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a sewer reimbursement district to construct a sanitary sewer project as part of the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached Resolution forming the Reimbursement District. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed project would provide sewer service to three lots along the south side of SW Walnut Street east of SW 130 Avenue and two lots west of SW 124' Avenue. Through the City's Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program, the City would install public sewers to each lot within the Reimbursement District and the owners would reimburse the City for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer at the time of connection to the sewer. In addition, each owner would be required to pay a connection fee, currently $2,535, before connecting to the line and would be responsible for disconnecting the existing septic system according to County rules and any other plumbing modifications necessary to connect to the public line. Each owner has been notified of the hearing by mail. The notice, mailing list and additional details are included in the City Engineer's Report attached as Exhibit A to the proposed resolution. On February 10, 2004, the City Council approved an agreement with Washington County to improve Walnut Street between SW 121St and 135th Avenues through the Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program. The agreement provides for the construction of the sewer within the proposed reimbursement district. Another resolution to finalize the formation of the Reimbursement District, with cost adjustments, will be submitted for Council action after construction is completed and actual construction costs are determined. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable. ATTACHMENT LIST Proposed Resolution Exhibit A, City Engineer's Report Exhibit B, Map Vicinity Map Communication Plan Notice to Owners Mailing List Resolutions Nos. 01 - 46, 03-55 Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County for the Improvement of Walnut Street through the Major Streets Improvement Program FISCAL NOTES Funding is by unrestricted sanitary sewer funds. CW020042= N • q~ 3 (by 0X#*YY 6kT6AW nm9 OtlMC 33+sftfi WvWt*, murrlk~m~tlpn~ -to-o~n.n au 33 .a aue LEGIBILITY STRIP WALNUT STREET SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT M 33 N A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 4 T2S RI W W. MARIE CT _ W N *4 UT t WALNUT ST VICINITY MAP Communications Plan Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 33 (SW Walnut Street) Goal: Construction of a Sanitary Sewer Extension for Reimbursement District No. 33. Timellne: FY 04-05 Construction Season. Communication Goal: To communicate to property owners within the Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District, the estimated cost of connecting to the public sanitary sewer line, the construction schedule, and final cost for the Reimbursement District. Date Item Description Responsibility Explain Program to Reimbursement Engineering 3/18/04 General Meeting District property owners proposed for Manager FY04-05 9/9/04 Neighborhood Meeting Mail Meeting Notice to property owners Engineering Notice within the Reimbursement District No. 32 Clerical Services Events Calendar Post Meeting on Web Page Events Engineering Calendar Clerical Services Meet with property owners to review Engineering 9/22/04 Neighborhood Meeting estimated costs and construction activity. Manager Consultant 11/8/04 Hearing Notice Mail Notice of formation of Reimbursement Engineering District to Property Owners Clerical Services 11/23/04 Formation Hearing City Council reviews and forms proposed City Engineer Sanitary Sewer District 1214/04 Notice of Decision Mail Notice of Decision to property owners Engineering within District Clerical Services Lateral Locations Confirm with property owners location of Inspector laterals Construction Notice Hang Construction Notice on doorknobs of Inspector property owners impacted b project Contractor Inspector is available to receive and Construction Inspection Inspector respond to complaints Notice to property Send hearing notice, Resolution, property Project Engineer owners of final hearing owner cost to each property owner. Engineering Clerical Services Send approved Resolution with final costs Project Engineer Final Notice to each property owner Engineering Clerical Services Prepared by: G N Berry Approved by: L--.V P • bL~-s.-r► VMVN ClN-2M N dpWI*O street - (ey CMMtYY dmanWeM "rid 334Y.M t Wee,&Y mur<Vv Manomt 1-23.04 mim mst 33 m ur&=ffo s plan.eoe u J November 8, 2004 NOTICE Informational Hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, November 23, 2004 AT 7:30 PM IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD OR 97223 TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: Proposed Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 33 (SW Walnut Street) The Tigard City Council will conduct an informational public hearing to hear testimony on the proposed Reimbursement District formed to install sewers in SW Walnut Street. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. 's The public hearing on this matter will be conducted as required by Section 13.09.060 of the Tigard Municipal Code. I Further information and the scheduled time for this item during the Council meeting may be obtained from the Engineering Department, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223, by ! calling 503 718-2468 or at www.ci.tigard.or.us. L.W0200 -2006 y tlD\w 2lnul grvvt - phase 3 (Cy muty)Vekn6u WKW dfsWd 33-w2IM shcetuXy cooWVonrofbnknotlce 1- formation headrq.doc Proposed Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 33 (SW Walnut Street) At this meeting, City Council will be requested to form a sewer reimbursement district to provide your neighborhood with sewer service. There is no requirement to connect to the sewer or pay any fee until connection is made. Each property owner's estimated fair share of the public sewer line is based on the area of the lot served and is summarized in the attached tables. This amount will be revised once construction is completed and final costs are determined. An annual increase of 6.05% simple interest will also be applied to this amount. The amount each property owner will be required to pay will be limited to $6,000 for connections completed within three years of City Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report following construction, in accordance with Resolution 01-46. Please note that this resolution also requires the owner to pay any fair share amounts that exceed $15,000. Consequently, if the final fair share for an owner exceeds $15,000, the owner would be required to pay $6,000 plus the amount the fair share exceeds $15,000. Under Resolution 03-55, payment of the amount in excess of $15,000 may be deferred until the owner's lot is developed. The owner would also be required to pay a connection fee of $2,535 at the time of connection to the sewer. In addition, property owners are responsible for disconnecting their existing septic system according to Washington County rules and for any other modifications necessary to connect to the public sewer. M.no2004-2005 h dPWA*U SLIM - Mw a ror CM++rH.WneL+swnw% &AW 33, 21mA s"Mtky canaNamaeonVa6w i Ww aoe A 2S104AD-03900 CARLTON MARK M AND DEMELLO BRENDA G 12600 SW WALNUT ST TIGARD, OR 97223 2S104AC4)0200 HELM LAVELLE I TRUSTEE 8075 SW WINCHESTER WAY WILSONVILLE, OR 97070 ^.S104AG10900 LEARY KATHLEEN JOAN b MULLEN MARY JEAN & ZECHMANN BARBARA 10020 SW JOHNSON TIGARD.OR 97223 2SI04AD-04000 TRIGG CHARLES L 12570 SW WALNUT TIGARD.OR 97223 2SI04AC-10E00 WEINANDY MICHAEL C & DONAHUE MARY KATHLEEN 13300 SW WALNUT ST TIGARD.OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 01--4(P A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 98-51 AND ESTABLISHING A REVISED AND ENHANCED NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council has initiated the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program to extend public sewers through Reimbursement Districts in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.09; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 1998, the City Council established The Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program through Resolution No. 98-51 to encourage owners to connect to public sewer. The program was offered for a two-year period after which the program would be evaluated for continuation; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2000, the City Council extended The Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program an additional two years through Resolution No. 00-60; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that residential areas that remain without sewer service should be provided with service within five years; and WHEREAS, Council has directed that additional incentives should be made available to encourage owners to promptly connect to sewers once service is available and that owners who have paid for service provided by previously established districts of the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program should receive the benefits of the additional incentives. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Resolution No. 98-51 establishing the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program is hereby repealed. SECTION 2: A revised incentive program is hereby established for the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. This incentive program shall apply to sewer connections provided through the sewer reimbursement districts shown on the attached Table 1 or established thereafter. All connections qualifying under this program must be completed within three years after Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report following a public hearing conducted in accordance with TMC Section 13.09.105 or by two years fiom the date this resolution is passed, which ever is later, as shown on the attached Table 1. SECTION 3: To the extent that the reimbursement fee determined in accordance with Section 13.09.040 does not exceed $15,000, the amount to be reimbursed by an owner of a lot zoned single family residential shall not exceed $6,000 per connection, provided that the lot owner complies with the provisions of Section 2. Any amount over $15,000 shall be reimbursed by the owner. This applies only to the reimbursement fee for the sewer installation and not to the connection fee, which is still payable upon application for RESOLUTION NO.01 Page I ~ I sewer connection. SECTION 4: The City Engineer's Report required by TMC Chapter 13.09 shall apply the provisions of this incentive program. Residential lot owners who do not connect to sewer in accordance with Section 2 shall pay the full reimbursement amount as determined by the final City Engineer's Report. SECTION 5: Any person who has paid a reimbursement fee in excess of the fee required herein is f entitled tp reimbursement from the City. The amounts to be reimbursed and the persons ` to be paid shall be determined by the Finance Director and approved by the City I Manager. There shall be a full explanation of any circumstances that require payment to any person who is not an original payer. The Finance Director shall make payment to all persons entitled to the refund no later than August 31, 2001. SECTION 6: The Sanitary Sewer Fund, which is the funding source for the Neighborhood Sewer 'Reimbursement District Program, shall provide the funding for the installation costs over $6,000 up to a maximum of S 15,000 per connection. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2001 PASSED: This. day of 2001. • I ayor Ci of 'and ATTEST: Recorder - City of and 1XitywideM1=\Rmo1udw Revising the Neighborhood Sewer hxwtive Program J J I II RESOLUTION NO.01-(1 Page 2 I i TABLE 1 Reimbursement Districts with Refunds Available DISTRICT FEE PER LOT REIMBURSEMENT AVAILABLE INCENTIVE PERIOD ENDS TIGARD ST.N0.8 5.103 No retmtxxsemeM ewAable FAIRKKVEN STIWYNo.o 4,508 No teknbursemwd avelabb MLLVIEW ST Noll e,ow July 11, 2003 108"ll JOHNSON No.12 5,588 No rehtbmement awlable 100"'& INEZ No.13 8.000 Juy 11,2003 WALNUT b TIEDEMAN No.14 8,000 Juy 11.2003 SEVELAND&HERMOSA NoA 5 5.038 No retrnbursemenl available DELMONTE No.18 8.000 Juy 11.2003 O"MARA No.17 8,000 Juy 11,2003 'WALNUT 6 121" No .1a - Amount to be ro4nburoed we be Trroo yeam from service avasebllity ROSE VISTA H020 determned once final costs are determined. CurmnUy being constructed d H ro W J CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 03.-55 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAM (RESOLUTION NO.01-46). WHEREAS, the City Council has initiated the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program to extend public sewers through Reimbursement Districts in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.09; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2001, the City Council established the Revised and Enhanced Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program through Resolution No. 01-46 to encourage owners to connect to public sewer within three-years following construction of sewers; and WHEREAS, Council has directed that additional incentives should be made available to encourage owners of large lots to promptly connect to sewers once service is available. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: In addition to the incentives provided by Resolution No. 01-46, any person whose reimbursement fee exceeds $15,000 and wishes to connect a single family home or duplex to a sewer constructed through a reimbursement district may defer payment of the portion of the reimbursement fee that exceeds $15,000, as required by Section 3 of Resolution No. 0146, until the lot is partitioned or otherwise developed in accordance with a land use permit. The land use permit shall not be issued until payment of the defen-od amount is made. The Annual Fee Adjustment required by TMC Section 13.09.115 shall not apply to payment of this deferred amount. SECTION 2: Lots that qualify under Section 1, within reimbursement districts that have exceeded the three-year period for connection, and have not connected to sewer can connect the existing structure, pay a reimbursement fee of $6,000, and defer payment of the portion of the reimbursement fee that exceeds $15,000 if connection to the sewer is completed within one year after the effective date of this resolution. SECTION 3: Vacant lots improved with a single family home or duplex during the term of the reimbursement district shall qualify for the provisions of Resolution No. 0146, pay L $6,000 if the fee exceeds that amount, and may defer payment of the portion of the ti reimbursement fee that exceeds $15,000 as provided by Section 1. n r SECTION 4: Vacant lots that are partitioned, subdivided, or otherwise developed during the life of the reimbursement district shall qualify for the provisions of Resolution No. 01-46, shall pay a reimbursement fee of $6,000, and shall pay any amount due over $15,000 at the time 9 of development. The Annual Fee Adjustment required by TPrIC Section 13.09.115 shall j not apply to payments made under this section. SECTION 5: The owner of any lot for which deferred payment is requested must enter into an agreement with the City, on a form prepared by the City Engineer, acknowledging the RESOLUTION NO.03z~'.f2 Page 1 owner's and own.-r's successors obligation to pay the defected amount as described in Section 1. The City Recorder shall cause the agreement to be filed in the office of the County Recorder to provide notice to potential purchasers of the lot. The recording will not create a lien. Failure to make such a recording shall not affect the obligation to pay the deferred amount. SECTION 6: Any person who qualifies under Section 1 and has paid a reimbursement fee for the portion of the reimbursement fee in excess of $15,000 is entitled to reimbursement for that amount from the City upon request. The amounts to be reimbursed and the persons to be paid shall be determined by the Finance Director and approved by the City Manager. There shall be a full explanation of any circumstances that require payment to any person who is not an original payer. Any person requesting a refund must sign an agreement similar to that described in Section 5 acknowledging the obligation to pay the refunded amount upon partitioning or developing the lot. SECTION 7: The Sanitary Sewer Fund continues to remain the funding source for the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Program and shall provide the funding for the installation costs over 56,000 up to a maximum of $15,000 per connection and for any deferred payment permitted by this resolution. SECTION 8: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. JA PASSED: This -l - day of 2003. Craig E. Dirksen, Council President ATTEST: L~t~~ _ City Recorder - City of Tigard n u RESOLUTION NO. 03- Page 2 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT MAJOR STREETS TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO: SW WALNUT STREET: SW 1215' AVENUE to SW 135th AVENUE CITY OF TIGARD THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between WASHINGTON COUNTY, acting by and through its Elected Officials, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY"; and the CITY OF TIGARD, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as "CITY." W ITNESSETH ARTICLE 1 - RECITALS WHEREAS, Washington County voters in May, 1995, approved a Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program - Six Year Serial Levy for Roads (MSTIP 3); and in May 1997, the voters approved Measure 50, which converted the MSTIP3 levy to a part of the COUNTY permanent rate; and WHEREAS, one of the MSTIP 3 projects is the construction of improvements to SW Walnut Street, a City of Tigard major collector road between SW 1215` Avenue and SW Gaarde Street and an arterial between SW Gaarde Street and SW 135th Avenue, herein after referred to as the "PROJECT", as shown generally on the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopted a revised schedule for construction of the MSTIP 3 projects and indicated its intent to proceed with the MSTIP3 projects on a revised schedule in light of the fiscal impact of Measure 50; and WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 authorizes agencies to enter into intergovernmental agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement has the authority to perform; and L WHEREAS, CITY desires to design and construct utility improvement work (waterline, sanitary sewer, and franchise underground conduits) and paving work within the project limits along SW Walnut Street, in conjunction with the PROJECT. The said CITY ! waterline, sanitary sewer, franchise underground conduits, and paving improvements are m herein after referred to as "Utility and Paving Improvement Work" and are further described W and shown on attached Exhibit A; and, J WHEREAS, CITY has requested that the design, construction, and inspection of the Utility and Road Improvement Work be added to the PROJECT, and CITY agrees to pay for such requested utility improvement work; and, WHEREAS, under such authority, it is the mutual desire of the COUNTY and CITY to enter into such an Agreement to cooperate in the design and construction of the improvements to the waterline, sanitary sewer, franchise underground conduits and paving as part of the PROJECT, with the allocation of responsibilities as detailed below; NOW, THEREFORE, the premise being in general as stated in the foregoing recitals, and in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants as set forth below, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE 2 - WASHINGTON COUNTY OBLIGATIONS - 1. COUNTY shall, upon execution of this Agreement, assign a liaison person to be responsible for coordination of PROJECT with CITY. 2. COUNTY shall perform, or cause to be performed, all actions necessary for the design and construction of the PROJECT (including the Utility and Paving Improvement Work), project management, design and construction engineering, right-of-way acquisition, regulatory and land use permits and approvals, contract administration, and construction management. COUNTY shall coordinate the design of, advertise for, award, and administer the construction contract for the PROJECT. 3. COUNTY shall review Utility and Paving Improvement Work plans, bid items, quantities and technical specifications and incorporate the Utility Improvement Work as specific bid items into the bid documents for the PROJECT. The COUNTY reserves the right to require alignment or other design modifications to the Utility and Paving Improvement Work to minimize impacts to the PROJECT. 4. COUNTY shall provide CITY with the opportunity for design review of final plans prior to bidding. 5. COUNTY shall; following the bid opening, notify the CITY of the amount of the construction cost of the Utility and Paving Improvement Work as contained in the bid and provide CITY the opportunity for review of the contract bid proposal prior to ` contract award. C 6. COUNTY shall provide inspection services for Utility and Paving Improvement Work trench excavation and backfill, and CITY shall provide inspection and testing services i for Utility and Paving Improvement Work installation on behalf of the CITY. Coordination between the COUNTY and CITY inspection services shall be as set forth i under Article 3 - City Obligations. 7. COUNTY shall provide a final cost accounting for the PROJECT, including all internal and external costs, to the CITY within 90 days of final acceptance and payment to the contractor. -2- 8. COUNTY shall perform actions regarding compensation as set forth in Article 4 - Compensation. ARTICLE 3 - CITY OF TIGARD OBLIGATIONS 1. CITY shall, upon execution of this Agreement, assign a liaison person to be responsible for coordination of PROJECT with COUNTY. 2. CITY shall provide inspection and testing of Utility and Paving Improvement Work installation in coordination with the COUNTY. CITY shall monitor all "acceptance testing" conducted by the construction contractor as specified by the construction documents or franchise utility owner, which may include disinfection, pressure testing, and vault and valve box installation. Testing and monitoring shall be at the City's expense. 3. CITY shall perform actions regarding compensation as set forth in Article 4 - Compensation. ARTICLE 4 - COMPENSATION 1. DESIGN: As design work upon the PROJECT is performed, County shall, on a quarterly basis, prepare and submit design invoices to CITY for the cost of the work for Utility and Paving Improvement Work. Estimated design costs are $67,536 for Waterline improvements design; $15,612 for Sanitary Sewer Improvements design; $73,154 for Franchise Underground Conduits design, and $0 for Paving Improvements, for a total design cost of $156,302. Within thirty days of the execution of this agreement, CITY shall pay the COUNTY the sum of $39,076 (approximately one-fourth of estimated Utility and Paving Improvement Work design). Upon depletion, the quarterly statement from the COUNTY shall include the amount due from the CITY for Utility and Paving Improvement Work. CITY shall pay COUNTY the amount due within thirty (30) days of its receipt of the billing. CL Notwithstanding, the estimate of the costs shown above, the CITY shall reimburse the COUNTY for the actual amount of its cost incurred for the design of the Utility and Paving Improvement Work. J n 2. CONSTRUCTION: As construction work upon the PROJECT is performed, U COUNTY shall, on a quarterly basis, prepare and submit construction invoices to the CITY for the construction of the Utility and Paving Improvement Wdrk. Estimated construction costs are $532,000 for Waterline Improvements; $20,000 for Sanitary Sewer Improvements; $588,750 for Franchise Underground Conduits; and $42,017 for Paving Improvements, for a construction total of $1,182,767. -3- Within thirty days of the execution of the construction contract, CITY shall pay the COUNTY the sum of $295,692 (approximately one-fourth of estimated Utility and Paving Improvement Work). Upon depletion, the quarterly statement from the COUNTY shall include the amount due from the CITY for Utility and Paving ' Improvement Work. CITY shall pay COUNTY the amount due within thirty (30) days of its receipt of the billing. In addition to Utility and Paving Improvement Work bid items, CITY shall also pay COUNTY any easement acquisition cost associated with the Utility and Paving Improvement Work, an allocated share of the costs of applicable lump suai contract items (i.e. mobilization, erosion control), extra work required for the Utility and Paving Improvement Work and non-construction costs. Non-construction costs include the cost of COUNTY services including project management, surveying, inspection and construction contract administration which shall be calculated at a flat rate of fifteen percent (15%) of the Utility and Paving Improvement Work construction costs. 3. CITY and COUNTY understand that the design and construction costs are estimates and are used to determine project budgets and deposit amounts used within this agreement. Final costs will be based on the actual contract amount of the schedule of prices and quantities used and installed. Final payments made by the CITY to the COUNTY related to this PROJECT shall be based on actual design invoices, actual bid prices, construction quantities and non-construction costs. 4. COUNTY shall provide the CITY with a final statement of Utility and Paving Improvement Work expenses within ninety (90) days of the completion of the final design phase. Within ninety (90) days after the completion of the construction contract, the COUNTY shall provide the CITY with a final statement of Utility and Paving Improvement Work and bill the CITY for any remaining costs in excess of the deposits made, or refund any excess to the CITY. Upon the completion of the construction and completion of Record Drawings, the COUNTY shall deliver one set of reproducible Record Drawings related to the Utility and Paving Improvement Work, to the CITY, for their files. C ARTICLE 5 - PROJECT DEFINITION AND SCOPE 1. DEFINITION: The PROJECT shall be defined as the road improvements to SW 3 Walnut Street, between SW 12151 and SW 135 h Avenues, and is o the third phase of a three-phase project to make improvements to the section of Walnut Street from 1215` Avenue to 135t1i Avenue. u All construction shall meet CITY standards. -4- 2. SCOPE: The scope of improvements associated with the PROJECT shall include, but not be limited to: A) Reconstruction and widening of SW Walnut Street to accommodate three lanes of traffic (two 11-foot travel lanes with a 12-foot center turn lane), two 5-foot bike lanes, curbs, gutters and 6-foot sidewalks along both sides from SW 12151 Avenue to SW 135`h Avenue. B) All required storm drainage improvements including water quality facilities, grading, landscaping, illumination, signing, striping and other associated work. - C) CITY desired elements for improvements to existing utility facilities, including upgrades to waterlines, sanitary sewers and installation of franchise underground conduits. Also included is the overlay of a portion of SW Walnut Street between SW 13151 and SW 129`h Avenues. ARTICLE 6 - GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. LAWS OF OREGON The parties agree to abide by all applicable laws and regulations regarding the handling and expenditure of public funds. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon. All provisions required by ORS Chapter 279 to be included in public contracts are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. 2. DEFAULT Either party shall be deemed to be in default if it fails to comply with any provision of this Agreement. CITY and COUNTY agree time is of the essence in the performance of any of the obligations within this Agreement. Complaining party shall provide the other party with written notice of default and allow thirty (30) days within which to cure the defect. CITY shall pay the COUNTY for all costs incurred for satisfactorily completed and authorized work up to the time of default. CITY or COUNTY shall be liable for all costs and damages arising from their default. 3. INDEMNIFICATION This Agreement is for the benefit of the parties only. Each party agrees to indemnify and hold the other harmless, to include their respective officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against all claims, demands and causes of actions and suits of any kind or nature for personal injury, death or damage to property on account of or rising out of services performed, the omission of services or in any way resulting from the acts or omissions of the parties so -5- indemnifying and/or its officers, employees, agents or representatives. Indemnification is subject to and shall not exceed the limits of liability of the Oregon Tort Claims Act (ORS 30.260 through 30.003). In addition, each party shall be solely responsible for any contract claims, delay damages or similar items arising from or caused by the action or inaction of the party. 4. DOCUMENTS ARE PUBLIC PROPERTY All records, reports, data, documents, systems, and concepts, whether in the form of writings, figures, graphs, or models that are prepared or developed in connection with the PROJECT, shall become public property. 5. MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in specific instances and for the specific purpose given. 6. DISPUTE RESOLUTION The parties agree to use their best efforts to resolve any dispute arising out of this Agreement by mediation. If mediation is not successful within 30 days, the parties are free to utilize any legal remedy they may have. 7. SEVERABILITY If any terms or provisions of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and the application of those terms and provisions shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 8. NONDISCRIMINATION No person shall be denied or subjected to discrimination in receipt of the benefits of any services or activities made possible by or resulting from this Agreement on the grounds of race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, L age or marital status. Any violation of this provision shall be considered a material C defect and shall be grounds for cancellation, termination or suspension in whole or in part by the COUNTY. 5 0 9. INTEGRATION This Agreement includes the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any a prior discussions or agreements regarding the same subject. There are not understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this contract. -6- ARTICLE 7 - TERM OF AGREEMENT 1. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of execution for four (4) years. 2. This Agreement may be amended or extended for periods of up to one year by consent of the parties, subject to provisions of this Agreement. Except for breach, it may be canceled or terminated for any reason beyond the control of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year hereinafter written. DONE AND DATED this day of .2004. CITY OF TIGARD WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON (G-11 Bltl~ Mayo Chair Date: FCb!'u q e Date: 2 - ~z`q - D APn! -VF i. ^.'r• : iiNGTON COUNTY E::P.a.) r., GOMMISSIONERS ATTEST: t~►N IT r: o z~..R ~j`11.Q oA^ F . l`1o`O L)Wafl dty Recorder ecording Secrets APPROVED AS TO FORM: oretta . Skurdahl Senior Assistant County Counsel -7- nation o Sanitary Sewer S Y .y. 4 1 ~ ursement District No. 33 T~ Walnut Street) W~ CD N o 3 o s ~M 23 2004 t C November _ 1 rsement District So. 33 imbu treet wctlnul YY 1 #51 SEWEA 1yPAG~ u ~45GgEcu^U~Sh LN,`5 A* F }NE ' ~ SAA~~GA110N ~ NE Y vlclt iY MAP -MINIM low District So- Imbursement Walnut Street rovided to S lots Sealer service will be p was incorporated int tre t MSTI etween 121St project rove Walnut S pToject to imp and 135th Av. 3 ondu~ted gs C y eeting TOwn tall to ~ arch General ~tedM 18' Z~~ver Extension PrO~ o Condu Citywide Se explain the and ans`~1er questions eating VvbOfhOOd'n 2004 at T°wn gall r1eig beX 22' these owners . Conducted Septem act details wit d prod h . Staff reviewe 4 33 Dis t-rict N°. burs ewent Reim t Stir eetW wainu 51ots: project Cost e0 O~er) ,y Estimated basement F ee (p Re n' care foot Solg per sA eX~eed that it does not • rogram ter e within three years af 6 000 to themaaeste Incentive YT red to ~ geduif connection is u on request until $15,000 callable be deferred P Service be~On'es a s $15,00 can over it Amount development °~curs 33 bu-rselnent District N°. R.e1 greet .Walnut S n S the follows g' each °wner pay fees ~'hlch ~n addition Inspection • connection d construction S,2,535 months for ent facility finds ~eatm Service charge per eo fire system • $50 (averaged anCe °f the mainten operation and ect to the lateral installe All costs to cone 6 through thlS pr~~ect low LEGIBILITY STRIP eimbursement District No. 33 Walnut Street project will be performed next summer Final costs will be based ono ctualineering construction costs plus 13.5% eng and inspection fees of the district will be broug Finalization ee d back to Council after all work is Complete and actual costs are known ommendation St ~.f Rey ing oluti~n f orm 1 apPrO~ e the reS 33 ~Sw w alnut That C~usementi-District N~. 'Reimbux Stxeet~ 8 AGENDA ITEM No. 9 Date: November 23, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: Revised Parks Systems Development Charge Methodology and Rates Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony 1AADM\GREER\CITY COUNCIL\CCSIGNUP\PH TESTIMONY.DOC AGENDA ITEM No. /q Date: November 23, 2004 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent - S eakin In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & P ne No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & P. one No. 1!5~-/~ 97~ 6 Sv 3 4(146-101 -/910ip Name, Addre one No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 11 1 1 .j Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 11/23/04 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Conduct Public Hearing- Revised Parks System Development Charge Methodolog and Rates PREPARED BY: Dan Plaza, 2590 DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Conduct Public Hearing on Resolution Revising Parks SDC Methodology and Rates STAFF RECOMMENDATION Council conduct the public hearing. 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. The revision not only updates the methodology, but it also increases the rates as of January 1, 2005. On September 21, 2004, the Council discussed the revising of the Parks SDC Methodology and authorized staff to publicly release the revised "draft" of the SDC Methodology which began the process for this public hearing and adoption of the Revised Parks SDCs. Notification requirements were met when the City notified the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland of this public hearing. As required by law, a draft of the Revised Parks SDC Methodology was made available for public review on September 24, 2004. A legal notice, announcing the public hearing, was published in the Tigard Times on November 18, 2004, and posted in the City Hall Lobby bulletin board. The Public Works Director met with the Chair of the Home Builders Board and its Director on October 27. The Home Builders' Director stated that he was familiar with the City's consultant, Don Ganer, and had no problem with the methodology used in the revision. The Home Builders submitted a request for additional information regarding the CIP list and the Bull Mountain White Paper, Parks and Open Spaces. Staff provided that infonnation. The Home Builders also state concerns regarding potential of double charging in situations where tree mitigation money would be used to plant trees in city parks or open spaces. The Home Builders further stated that they had a concern both with the number of acres and the total cost of greenway acquisition identified in the SDC update process. The City consultant and staff have analyzed these issues and have prepared an adjustment to the methodology that, if accepted by Council, would modify the proposed SDC charges downward by 3.5% thus resolving the double charge issue. In regard to the green space concern staff is recommending no change to the proposed methodology. Staff is basing this recommendation on the fact that city residents have consistently indicated a desire to increase green spaces in the City. Staff further has concluded that Oregon law already allows for appropriate credits against SDCs for donation of green ways made by developers. The rates, if adopted by Council, will generate approximately $5,588,988 in additional SDC revenue over the next five-years (does not include Bull Mountain, which, if annexed, would have generated an additional $5,000,000 in SDC revenue over the next five-years). It should be noted that, upon implementation, SDC rates for a single-family home will increase from $1,852 to $3,893, or $3,753 if the Council accepts adjustment for tree mitigation revenue. The entire rate schedule is published in the attached Methodology Report. The process necessary to adopt this new SDC Methodology is: 1) conduct a public hearing at the November 23 Council meeting, 2) consider the Home Builders request and the proposed remedy, and direct staff regarding the Council's intentions in this matter, 3) adopt a resolution and an ordinance modifying the TMC at the December 14 Council meeting. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not conduct a hearing. 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 Park land ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1 - Revised Parks System Development Charges Methodology and Rates Attachment 2 - Don Ganer Memo dated November 9, 2004, discussing Home Builders Association Issues FISCAL NOTES Under the current methodology the City anticipates raising approximately $2.3M over the next 5-year period. Under the revised rates, it is estimated that the City will raise approximately $7.9M over the same period. • CITY C~ TIGARD PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES METHODOLOGY UPDATE REVISED DRAFT as of November 10, 2004 i i i i i Don Caner PO So= 91491 Portland, OR 97291 • 503-690-8981 • DGaner@GanerAssociates.com Associates, Inc. CONTENTS 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 METEIODOLOGY 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 pave 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 3 I I I I CITY OF TIGARD 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 updated the parks SDCs in March 2001 to include annual rate adjustments to account for changes in costs. 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). These documents consider parks needs for current city boundaries and the urban services planning area for which the City of Tigard is responsible under agreement with Washington County. 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 11/10/04 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 in 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 that 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 11/10/04 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 transferabiiity 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 (i.e., partnerships, other City revenues, etc.). (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 i • sources, such as bonds and property taxes. i i Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 3 REVISED DRAFT as of 11/10/04 (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. i i i i i Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 4 REVISED DRAFT as of 11/10/04 (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. (3) 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 and the adjacent 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 11/10/04 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 arc 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 City of Tigard and the adjacent 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 Projected 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 for Tigard 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 11/10/04 TABLE 3.2 CITY OF TIGARD 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 Tigard and the adjacent urban services planning area. An employee is any person who receives remuneration for services, and whose services arc 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 11/10/04 TABLE 3.3 ESTIMATES OF AVERAGE DAILY AVAILABILITY OF PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES Non-Employed Live In/ Live In/ Live Out/ Adult (18+1 5-17 Kids Work In Work Out Work In Total Summer (June-Sept) Weekdav 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 MeaWBreaks 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) Weekday Before Work 0.5 0.5 1 Mea"reaks 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 Winter Hours/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 1 j 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 X 3)/12 Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 8 REVISED DRAFT as of 11/10/04 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 (I8+) 5-17 Kids Work In Work Out Work In Total Population & Employment Data 9,140 7,270 5,798 15,821 27,382 65,411 (2000 Census) Annual Weighted Avg. Hours 1~( 7.14 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 % of Total 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 Non-Resident Employee 55,416 18.60% 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 11/10/04 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 Planned LOS Current Current Surplus or 2008 Growth Facile Tvoe (Units/1000) Inventory Need (Deficiency Need Need Neighborhood Parks (acres) 0.68 19.06 36.21 (17.15) 39.80 3.59 Community Parks (acres) 1.81 102.87 112.03 (9.16) 122.87 10.84 Greenways (acres) 3.25 173.00 201.05 (28.06) 220.50 19.44 j Linear Parks (acres) 0.81 52.22 50.14 2.08 55.00 2.78 j Total Acres 6.55 347.15 399.43 52.29 438.17 36.65 Trails (miles) 0.19 8.00 11.95 (3.95) 13.11 1.16 Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 10 REVISED DRAFT as of 11/10/04 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. 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 that benefit both residential and non-residential development (i.e., community parks, linear parks, etc.), and 100% for those facilities that 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)* $410,000 $8,503,400 $1,472,310 $1,472,310 $ 0 Community Parks (acres)** 440,000 8,800,000 4,769,600 4,202,018 567,582 Greenways (acres)*** 130,000 6,175,000 29527,200 2,226,463 300,737 Linear Parks (acres)# 230,000 6399400 639,400 563,311 76,089 Trails (miles)## 520,000 2,657,200 603.200 531.41 9 71.781 Totals $26,775,000 $10,011,710 $8,995,521 $1,016,189 Percentage of Growth Costs 89.8% 10.2% * Neighborhood Parks are considered to benefit residential population only; cost per unit is based on land at $250,000 per acre and development at $160,000 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. Development cost assumes that approximately $10,000 per acre in costs will be donated through tree mitigation. Community Parks cost is based on $250,000 per acre for acquisition and $190,000 for development. Land cost estimate is based on a review of recent acquisitions in the cities of Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin and Hillsboro, and by the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District. Development cost assumes that approximately $10,000 per acre in costs will be donated through tree mitigation. Greenways cost of $130,000 per acre is based on a review of recent similar acquisitions in the cities of Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin and Hillsboro, and by the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District. Greenways cost assumes that approximately $10,000 per acre in costs will be donated through tree mitigation. # Linear Parks cost is based on $140,000 per acres for acquisition and $90,000 per acre for development. Development cost assumes that approximately $10,000 per acre in costs will be donated through tree mitigation. 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 in the cities of Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin and Hillsboro, and by the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District. Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. I I REVISED DRAFT as of 11/10/04 F. Compliance/Administrative Costs The City incurs costs in the development and administration of the SDCs and may recoup a portion of those costs in accordance with ORS 223.307(5). Compliance/administrative costs during the 5-year collection period have been estimated as follows: Master Plan Update ($100,000 for consulting and staff services) $100,000 Annual PCIP Management, Accounting and Reporting Costs (approximately $10,000 per year for consulting, legal, audit, financial reporting and staff services) $50,000 SDC Methodology Reviews and Update $15,000 Total Estimated 5-year Compliance/Administrative Costs $165,000 These costs are allocated between population and employment based on the growth share percentages included in Table 3.8, page 11, and are shown in Table 3.9, below. TABLE 3.9 COMPLIANCE/ADMINISTRATIVE COST ALLOCATIONS Estimated 5-year Compliance/ Share of Compliance/ Administrative Tvoe of Development Growth Costs Administrative Costs Cost Allocation Population (Residential) 89.8% $165,000 $148,252 Employment (Non-residential) 10.2% $165,000 $16,782 L C J Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 12 REVISED DRAFT as of 11/10/04 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) b) the residential improvements cost per capita (Formula 4b, page 14), c) the residential improvements cost per dwelling unit (Formula 4c, page 14), d) the residential SDC tax credit per dwelling unit (Formula 4d, page 15), and e) 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 L NET RESIDENTIAL SDC-ELIGIBLE COSTS C Residential SDC Eligible Costs 1 Growth-Required Facilities $8,995,521 PLUS: Compliance/Administrative Costs $148,252 EQUALS: Total Growth-Required Costs $9,143,774 Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 13 REVISED DRAFT as of 11/10/04 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 3. 1, 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 $9,143,774 5,268 = $1,736 C. Formula 4c: 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 C The results of these calculations are displayed in Table 4.3, page 15. i I Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 14 REVISED DRAFT as of 11/10/04 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 $1,736 $4,634 Multi-Family: 1.86 $1,736 $3,228 Manufactured Housing: 1.81 $1,736 $3,142 D. Formula 4d: Residential SDC Tax Credit 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 11/10/04 TABLE 4.4 TAX CREDIT PER DWELLING UNIT Tax Credit Per Type of Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Single-Family: $881 Multi-Family: $211 Manufactured Housing: $166 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 Dwelline Unit Single-Family: $4,634 $881 $3,753 Multi-Family: $3,228 $211 $3,017 Manufactured Housing: $3,142 $166 $2,976 Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 16 REVISED DRAFT as of 11/10/04 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), b) the Tax Credit Per Employee (Formula 5b, page 18); and c) 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. SDCs are charged for the activity of development, not employment, and the non-residential parks SDCs are based the impacts new capacity for employees will have on the need for parks facilities. 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 Elip-ible Costs Growth-Required Facilities $1,016,189 PLUS: Compliance/Administrative Costs 1~ 748 EQUALS: Total Growth-Required Costs $1,032,936 Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 17 REVISED DRAFT as of 11/10/04 B. Formula 5b: 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 Sb. 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 $1,032,936 3,134 = $330 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 11/10/04 The amount of this credit is shown in Table 5.3, below. TABLE 5.3 TAX CREDIT PER EMPLOYEE Tax Credit Per Emlloyee Present Value of Tax Payments = $75 D. Formula 5d. 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 $330 $75 $255 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 11/10/04 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 $255 (SDC rate) _ $27,540. 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 Ematoyee hs ification (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 is based on two factors: (1) the change in average market value of residential land in Washington County, and (2) the change in construction costs according to the Engineering News Record (ENR) Northwest (Seattle, Washington) Construction Cost Index. The weight given to each factor should be modified as needed to reflect the portion each factor represents of total costs in the Parks Capacity Improvements Plan (Appendix A). Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 20 REVISED DRAFT as of 11/10/04 LEGIBILITY STRIP ' p ppENDM Page l of 5 draft as of 11109104 ACITY IMPROVEMENTS pROG~M PROJECT SDC PARKS cxx °!o O'[195L WgDiNG _,~~S - ° SDC-ELIGIBLE pOR110N of Tigard - MI~ ixSw Y _C;ty- - Facilities W1'AL. !o poRT10N rW 110 Recreation. _ - 4 2004_- 2008 - PROJECT GROWW NEW I~Em ^^n~~ Y Grants, Donations $450,70 - SDC, 60% Bonds, Partnerships, LI - 40% 5299,250 Sponsorships, other ~IGIiBOWO OD PARKS 04-09 5750,000 Site Acquisition Grants, Donations ei hborhood Park hborhood Park to 5450,750 SDC, I Bull Mountain N g 60% Bonds, Partnerships, LI roximately 3 acres for a netg ountain. $299,250 Other m-eet g acquire aPP rowth needs in Bull M 4p% Sponsorships, growth and non-g 5750,000 park Site Acquisition 04-08 ants' Donations Neighborhood ark to 6010 0 S450,150 'DC', Gr 3 acres for a neighborhood p Bond, Partnerships' LI 2 Bull Mountain in Bull Mountain. 5299,250 Other - acquire apProximately 40°!0 th needs Sponsorships, meet growth and non-grow 04-09 5750,000 $288. Grants, Donations Neighborhood Park Site ark to 480 SDC, 0 3 Bull Mountainproximhborhood P 60% partnerships, LI 3 acres for a neig Mountain. 5191,520 Bonds, other - acquire apately 40% non-growth needs in Bull 5480,000 Sponsorships, meet growth and Q4.0S velopment Gran is Donations Nei hborhood park De acres SDC, 288,480 partner 4 Bull ships+ LI mountain N g k of approximately 3 60% 5 Bonds a neighborhood Par ountain. , - develop rowth needs in Bull M 4010 to meet growth S191,520 , other and non-g S490,00() Sponsorships, 04.08 ment Park roximDevelopately SDC, Grants, Donations 3 acres $2gg,490 5 Bull Mountain Neighborhood ark of app 60°10 Bonds, Partnerships, LI orhood P Mountain. o x,191,520 Other - develop a netghb rowth needs !"Bull 4010 Sponsorships, growth and non-g 5480,000 to meet anent 04-08 Park Develop ihborhood roximately 3 acres 6 Bull Mountain Neg ark of aPP Mountain. - a neighborhood P needs in Bull develop rowth to meet growth and non g ~~wat~~ ~ 1 a ~ nor - mmmm~ APPEND' A page 2 of 5. draft as of 11109104 IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM CAPAC TY I - OTt1FR PROJECT SDC PARKS. °t° RTtMING of Tiga~-- - ° SDC ~-IGIB ovm poRT10N City Facilities PORTION QMNS1 PORTION ~ ~ rks aria R~re IDTAL 2004 -_2008 PROJECT GROW M Donations ° S750,000 Grants, - SO 100% Bonds, Pa a shrps, LI 0°t0 Sponsorships, Other N~-FA61 O~00pPARKS 04 08 5150,000 Site Acquisition ° 5150,000 Grants, Donations acres for a neighborhood park 50 100 t° 7 ,N-c -borhood Park Bonds, Partnerships, LI - acquire approximately 3 00t0 s Other t non-gr°'~ needs in the City. S150,000 Sponsorship to meet 04-08. cquisition Grants, Donations Li rhood park 5750.000 ershiPs $ .neighborhood park Site A a neighbo 50 roximately 3 acres for 100% Bonds, Pacts - acquire app 0°/C Other t non-gtO`' needs in the City g750,000 sponsorships, to mee 04-08 uisition Grants, Donations 9 Neighborhood Park Site3 qes for a neighborhood Park 50 100% S695,000 partnership', LI roximately Bonds, Other - acquire app 5685.000 0°t° Sponsorships, ' non-growth needs in the City. to meet 04-08 cquisition 000 Grants, Donations Neighborhood Park Site A hborhood park ° $g80, 10 2.14 acres for a 1109 50 100lo Bonds, Partnerships, LI - acquire 4911yrmately the City. 0% Other owth needs in $480,000 Sponsorships, to meet non-gc 04.08 erit acres Donations Pall' Site Developm roximately 3 S00,000 Grants, 11 Neighborhood hborhood park of app $O 100% Bonds, Partnerships, Li - develop a neig Other ds in the City. 0% 5480,000 Sponsorships, to meet non brtowth nee 04-08 Pack Site Development ark of approximately 3 acres 12 Neighborhood develop a neighborhood p to meet non-growth needs in the City. APPENDIX A SDC PARKS CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM page 3 of 5 City of Tigard draft as of 11/0.9/_04_ Parks and Recreation Facilities - - - 2004 - 2008 TOTAL % SDC-ELIGIBLE % OTHER PROJECT PROJECT GROWTH PORTION OTHER PORTION FUNDLNG PROJECT YBS ~ NM OF TOTAL COST hUU OF TOTAL COST SOURCES NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS -13:Neighborhood Park Site Development 04-08 $480,000 M10 SO 100% 5480,000 Grants, Donations 7 develop a neighborhood park of approximately 3 acres Bonds, Partnerships, LI to meet non-growth needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other 14.Neighborhood Park Site Development 04-08 $438,400 0% $0 100% $438,400 Grants, Donations _ - develop a neighborhood park of approximately 2.74 acres Bonds, Partnerships, LI to meet non-growth needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other CO1 M1UNITY PARKS 15 Bull Mountain Community Park Site Acquisition 04-08 S5,000,000 54% S2,710,000 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 $3,800,000 54% 52,059,600 46% $1,740,400 SDC, Grants, Donations - develop a community park of about 20 acres in size Bonds, Partnerships, LI 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 of 5 City of Tigard draft as of 11/09/04 Parks and Recreation Facilities 2004 - 2008 TOTAL % SDC-ELIGIBLE % OTHER PROJECT PROJECT GROWTH PORTION OTHER PORTION FUNDING - , _ - . PROJECT YBS SQL NEED OF TOTAL COST NM OF TOTAL COST- SOURCES GREENWAYS 17 Greenways Acquisition 04-08 56,175,000 41% 52,527,200 59% $3,647,800 SDC, Grants, Donations - acquire approximately.47.5 acres of greenways Bonds, Partnerships, LI ,.Jo meet growth (19.44) and non-growth. (28.06) Sponsorships, Other needs in the City planning area. TRAILS 18. Trails Acquisition/Development 04-08 52,657,200 23% 5603,200 77% $29054,000 SDC, Grants, Donations acquire/develop approximately 5.11 miles of trails to Bonds, Partnerships, LI meet growth (1.16) and non-growth (3.95) needs. Sponsorships, Other LINEAR PARKS 19 Linear Parks Acquisition/Development 04-08 5639,400 100% 5639,400 0% $0 SDC, Grants, Donations - acquire/develop approximately 2.78 acres of linear parks Bonds, Partnerships, LI to meet growth needs in the City planning area. Sponsorships, Other APPENDIX A 1 SDC PARKS CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM page 5 of 5 City-of Tigard _ draft as of 11/09/04 i Parks and Recreation Facilities - - 2004 -2008 , - TOTAL % SDC-ELIGIBLE % OTHER PROJECT GROWTH PORTION OTHER PORTION - PROJECT YB$ ~4~T r~ QEjff.ALCOST NM OF TOTAL COST TOTALS $26,775,000 37.39% S10,011,710 62.61% S16,763,290 Neighborhood Parks $8,503,400 17.31%. S1,472,310 82.69% $7,031,090 Community Parks $8,800,000 54.20% S4,769,600 45.80% $4,030,400 Greenways $6,175,000 40.93% $2,527,200 59.07% $3,647,800 Trails 52,657,200 22.70% $603,200 77.30% 52,054,000 Linear Parks $639,400 100.00% 5639,400 0.00% 50 Totals 526,775,000 37.39% S10,011,710 62.61% $16,763,290 i I APPENDIX A • SDC Eligible Res Non-Res Neighborhood Parks S1,472,310 51,472,310 SO Community_ Parks _ S4,769,600 54,202,018 $567,582 `Greenways S2,527,200 52,226,463 5300,737 Trails S603,200 S531,419 571,781 _ Linear _Parks 5639,400 5563,311 $76,089 Totals 510,011,710 S8,995,521 51,016,189 89.8% 10.2% 88.1% 11.9% Administrative Costs S165,000 5148,252 $16,748 Total SDC Eligible_ $10,176,710 S9,143,774 $1,032,936 Fund Balance SO 50 NET SDC Eligible S9,143,774 S1,032.936 New Residents/Employees 5268 3134 Cost Per Capita 51,736 5330 persons Single family 2.67 S4,634.37 multi family 1.86 S3,228.44 manufactured 1.81 $3,141.65 credit SDC Rate Single family S881 $3,753.37 multi family $211 $3,017.44 manufactured S166 52,975.65 employee $75 5255 Dan PO Box 91491 Portland, OR 97291 Ganer Phone: (503) 690.8981 Fax: (503) 645.8543 Associates, Inc. DGaner@GanerAssociates.com November 9, 2004 Mr. Dan Plaza, Parks Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Recommendation for Resolving HBA Issues Regarding Parks SDC Update Dear Dan: Following are the issues and recommendations we discussed at our meeting on November 2, 2004 to resolve HBA issues identified during our October 27, 2004 meeting with Tim Roth and Ernic Platt. 1. HBA inquired about the source of projects included in CIP list - the HBA requested copies of the adopted Tigard Park System Master Plan and the Bull Mountain Annexation White Paper on Parks and Open Spaces. RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Staff will provide copies of these documents to HBA. 2. HBA was concerned with both the number of acres and the total estimated cost for Greenways - HBA suggested these numbers could be reduced if private buffers and/or tree mitigation requirements are considered as greenways. RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Staff said that City residents have consistently expressed a desire to increase the amount of greenspace in the City, so reducing the acreage included in the SDC calculations is not recommended. Developers are allowed to receive credits against the parks SDCs for the donation of greenways, and these donations reduce the SDC costs for developers. Staff estimates that the parks development cost for trees is approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per acre. Staff recommends that the City review the impact on the proposed SDC rates if the costs per acre for greenways and for park development were reduced by $10,000 to account for tree mitigation requirements. The impacts of these changes on the parks SDC rates are shown on the following page. Public Sector Management and Technical Consulting Services • a Mr. Dan Plaza November 9, 2004 page 2 IMPACTS OF $10,000 PER ACRE COST REDUCTION ON PROPOSED PARKS SDC RATES SDC Rates in Draft SDC Rates with a $10,000 9/22/04 Report per acre Cost Reduction Single Family $3,893 $3,753 Multi-Family $3,126 $3,017 Manufactured Housing $3,083 $2,976 Employee $265 $255 Please let me know if you have questions or need any additional infonnation. Sincerely, Don Ganer, President Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland Entered into the Record on By: Etni p Y! November 15, 2004 Agenda Item#-2- Exhibit Mayor Craig Dirksen City Councilors City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Parks SDC Update: Dear Mayor Dirksen and Councilors: I am submitting these comments on behalf of the 1200+ firms who are members of the Home Builders Assn. of Metro Portland. I wish to thank the staff and your consultant for taking the time to meet with a group of our members as well as staff of the HBAMP to explain the proposal at hand and to answer our questions. We did ask several questions, and have been informed by city staff of the recommendations for changes and additions to the draft methodology report prepared by Don Ganer, dated September 12, 2004. Our concerns can be summarized as follows: 1. We raised the concern that the city is collecting a considerable sum of money thru the tree removal mitigation program, and thought it appropriate that some portion of that money be dedicated to the tree planting portion of the park capital improvement budget. Per the staff recommendation, that is being accomplished. 2. We raised the concern that quite often the conditions of approval of a subdivision will require the set-aside or dedication and improvement of open spaces, trails, wetlands and wetland buffers. Per staff, we understand that it is recommended that developers may request of the city that the open space/trail/wetland/wetland buffer areas and improvements be designated for credits against the SDC's payable from that development. If this is correct, then this concern has also been addressed. 3. We raised the concern that the amount of greenways in the Capital Improvement Plan seems disproportionately large. Table 3.8 of the Ganer report indicates that the greenway line item comprises 26% of the overall cost of anticipated new facilities. Furthermore, the greenway, linear parks and trails line items taken 15555 SW Bangy Road ♦ Suite 301 ♦ Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Phone: 503.684.1880 s Fax: 503.684.0588 ♦ www.homebuildersportiand.org Striving forAffordobil/ty, Balance and Choice N' together comprise 40% of the overall anticipated cost of the new facilities. It just does not seem reasonable to expect a parks CIP to be weighted that heavily toward non-intensive use park spaces. 4. The latest recommended SDC (Gaper letter dated November 9, 2004) for a single family home is $3,753, which represents a 102.6% increase over the current fee. We ask that if this is to be the fee decided upon, then the increase be implemented in phases, perhaps one-half in January 2005 and the balance one year later. No matter what business one may be in, it is difficult to imagine that anyone would think of (or try to justify) a 100% increase in the product or service that they may be selling. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these amendments. Sincer y, , r e Platt Director of Local Governme t Affairs 11/23/04 17:17 FAX _ QJ001 PORTLAND OffICC OTHER OFFICES G~ o1490.tk 11-01 now York. new 7ork )2) sr s00rrlson isradS s-oss10, .0ski►rte. J ,01110.6, -rrs-► 97206-3161 rukirs)00, k 6 A R V L Y S C H U• C R T Q A R a K •.L SOS 221 35/39 •wx S03 216 0259 • •/.~Mt.►N1- or ►►Oreso,o.AL CO.ro►AT10x^. Csf ~.r.COM FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION DATE: November 23, 2004 CwEN T/MATI-ERNO: 35180-00100 To: FAx No. Pson No. Jaime Dumbi Dennis Kollc meier 503 684-8840 City of Tigard - Parks DePL FROM: FAx No. PRONE NO. Edward J. Sullivan / Carrie Richter (503) 226-0259 (503) 553-3106 NUMarit OF PAGza6 INCLUDING COVER: 4 ORIGINALs Fou ow By MAM: Yes W YOU DO NOT UC[1VL ALL OR TW PAGLS, t•Il:AU CALL OUR OMCX AT SRII X18-3931) IC310 AS SOON AS TOSSMLL AND ASK /'OR SA ELY BLLL. DOCUMENT(S) BEING SENT: L.ener to Mayor Dirkscn and City Council MMAGE: Please forward to City Council for their consideration during tonight's meeting. Thank you. Entered into the Record on L By: C ry % s ki ~n Agenda Item#~ Exhibit s~ 0 9 U J TALE MMAGL 13 WTENDED ONLY FM THE USE OF 771E ININVOUAL OR ENTRY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AHD MAY CONTAIN WORMAMN TART IS pRIVILEGED. OONFEENTIAL AND E1IMFr FROM DISCLOSURE tDCOM APPLICABLE LAW. IF TM READER Of THIS MFMAGE IS HOT TTY WTOMW IRECrOMr, Ot TIC DeLOYM OR AGENT RESPON991Jr TO UELIVPR rr M nM IIMMIM FXQPIFNT. YOU ARE HEYMY NO'LMW THAT ANY DLSSIDAM IOK DiST MMON OR COFrM OF TATS COWUNICAMON IS STRICTLY PROMIBITED. IP YOU HAVE RPMMV THIS III EWWR, PLEASE D&AMXA .Y NOTIFY. US BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THII ORIGINAL MHSSAGE TO U3 AT 771E ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE VA POSTAL MMVICE. THANK YOU. ~ Lyll/ZJ/Y{ 11:111 VAL 0002 •rfJ'(.w'S#-~• PORTLAND orrice crNrR orrrCES r~.} rlrseefh Jloor AeN yo►i, wrr 7ork f~ J < ,w rwarrtfon suref ,rrulr. rofhialrlYA ti:•"3 la.rlwe/. •rraon 9720 lovihington. de rcL $03 228 3939 rw• 503 226 0259 038 LAW. C604 r. ►P•t'I:r• ► or '.1:010,3/•Nu.t .u~O~w ,c•i Pleas rc/ly to EDWARD J. SULLIVAN rialffrapiftrblaw.coo TEL Exr !/06 November 23, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL Mayor Craig Dirk= City Council Members City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: City of Tigard Parks SDC Methodology Update Dear Mayor Dirlcsen and Councilors: We represent Venture Properties, Inc. which is in the process of developing Summit Ridge Subdivision, a 130-lot phased subdivision located east of 133rd Avenue, south of Bull Mountain Road and northeast of Beef Band Road. The Summit Ridge development is currently located in unincorporated Washington County and is not subject to the City of Tigard's parks SDC. However, the owners of other properties in the Bull Mountain area and surrounding the Summit Rider property are currently considering a proposal to annex in to the City the affect of which would be that the Summit Ridge development would also be annexed and subject to the Tigard parks SW. Because Venture Properties is concerned that its development of Summit Ridge could be subject to the City's parks SDCs, it submits the following comments opposing the proposed changes to the methodology as currently drafted. Venture Properties believes that the methodology is excessive and does not accurately represent the projected cost for providing park improvements within the City as prescribed in ORS 223.304. At the time Venture Properties sought approval to develop Summit Ridge, it had no notice of or obligation to pay park SDC fees before these properties could be improved Venture Properties has expended significant amounts up to this point developing the property including installing many of the necessary public improvements. The updated fcc methodology proposed here represents a 102.6% increase over the current fee for a single family household. Venture should not be required to pay these foes since they were not effective against theme already approved improvements. Ventura Properties did not anticipate having to pay SDC fees at the current rate, much less at tho increased rate currently proposed by this revised methodology. It would be unfair and improper to undermine these 11/2/04 17:18 FAX 0003 G Mayor Craig Dirksen 5, c. a fi v r r5CN Iju E R T R a It E R B _l City Council Members November 23, 2004 Page 2 expectations and expendimm by imposing an additional and increased fee assessment before the final plats are recorded or building permits issued. Moreover, ORS 227.178(3}(&) and ORS 92.040(2) fix the goal posts for purposes of determining what standards apply to an individual subdivision approval. The standards and criteria that apply to this application are fixed when the application for subdivision approval is deemed complete and these standards are the only ones that continue to apply to the property until the development is completed. Summit Ridge was not subject to a City of Tigard Park SDC at anytime during the application or approval proces:. Thus, it is improper to expand the development requirements beyond those that wcra originally in place. We believe that the amount of money allocated in the Capital Improvement Plan for greenspaces is excessive. The Ganer report indicates on Table 3.8 that the cost for greenway improvements will comprise 25% of the overall cost of anticipated new facilities. Taken together with the linear parks and trail line items, the amount of passive recreation area provided under this methodology will comprise 40'/. of the overall anticipated cost of the new facilities. This amount is excessively weighted toward non-intensive use park spaces and is inconsistent with the City's mission of providing a variety of options for recreation. Further, the conditions of approval for developing the Summit Ridge subdivision required retaining open space for access trails, wetlands, stream buffers and landscaping for open greenspaces. These open space areas will provide quality park and recreation areas for not only the residents of Summit Ridge but also residents of the surrounding Bull Mountain area. As such, these areas should be eligible for credits to offset the after-the-fact charges imposed for providing park areas that will serve this development in excess of the park and recreation facilities currently provided within this development- H is difficult to understand how the City can justify expending SDC monies to provide extensive passive recreation areas while, at the same time„ refusing to authorize SDC credits when the developer provides these passive recreation areas to the residents of this development and to the community as a whole. Finally, although we applaud City staff s willingness to reduce the assessment to offset the amounts charged for tree mitigation monies used to plant trees in city parks or open spaces, we believe that this reduction does not go far enough to offset the amounts charged for tree mitigation. The CIP is still too ambitious in its efforts to charge developers for the costs of landscaping new park or greenspace areas while, at the same time, assessing payments into a mitigation fund for trees that will similarly be used landscape public open spaces. i ! For these reasons, we are respectfimlty requesting that you abandon any further attempt to increase the SDC fees against the already approved Summit Ridge development. Altematively, if the i City decides to move forward with the revised SDC methodology, the revised methodology must provide a means to obtain SDC credits for improvements that were put in place prior to the SDC being 11/23/04 17:10 PAX _ 0004 G Mayor Craig Dirksen 5.1 G• 1t v E Y S C H U R f_ ft T B a tt E R City Council Members 6 J November 23, 2004 Page 3 imposed on the property. Moreover, the level of expenditure in the C1P should be reduced to a more reasonable level. Please place this letter in the record for these proceedings and provide me with notice when and if tho City Council takes any further action on this request. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, GARVEY SCHUBERT BARER sy 2~~- . F 44 an Edward J. Sul Cc: Kelly Ritz PDx 11=141230.1 P52"40100) 11/13W 4:14 M AGENDA ITEM # 9 FOR AGENDA OF 11/23/04 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Update Process Discu i PREPARED BY: Barbara Shields DEPT HEAD OK Y MGR OK ~ QL V V W ISSUE BEFORE TI-IF C UNCII. This presentation will provide an opportunity for the City Council to discuss the overall approach for the Comprehensive Plan Update Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Initiate discussion on the scope and timeline for the Comprehensive Plan update and provide direction to staff. INFORMATION SUMMARY Tigard's Comprehensive Plan was first drafted in 1982, with periodic revisions to specific chapters to maintain consistency with Statewide Planning Goals. Each Oregon municipality is required to have a state-approved Comprehensive Plan to comply with the state land-use planning program. A work program is a description of the scope and timeline to complete a specific project. The Comprehensive Plan is the community's plan: it allows citizens of Tigard to make choices on how land development and redevelopment should occur, and how it will be managed. From 1982, when the Plan was first created, to 2003, Tigard's population grew from 17,700 to 45,000. Most individuals' goals have changed since 1982; why wouldn't the community's change as well? In the last several years, the City has been engaged in several major planning projects, ranging from the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Program, Transportation System Plan, natural resource and green spaces/natural resource management, Bull Mountain annexation, commuter rail/downtown redevelopment, Hwy 217 corridor planning, UGB expansion, and affordable housing. With these long term planning projects and the changes in the community, there is a need take a look at the overall growth management approach to reflect the community's goals in a broader context. The "broader" context should re-examine several growth management areas: 1. Residential Land Analysis 2. Natural Resource/Open Space/Recreation 3. Economic Development 4. Transportation/Traffic 5. Facilities Planning Between December 2002 and April 2004, the Planning Commission held five work sessions on the Comprehensive Plan Update work program. During this time, the Planning Commission reviewed the main elements of the plan update (Exhibit A). The meetings resulted in the Planning Commission's preliminary recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan Update work program. One of the key issues in undertaking the Comprehensive Plan update is the allocation of staff resources. The major effort that is currently underway is the Downtown Improvement Plan. The Downtown Improvement Plan must be completed by June 2005 to meet federal grant requirements. Council's goal setting session is scheduled for January. The Comprehensive Plan update is an important goal that should be considered during goal setting. Goal setting could be used to begin consideration of a series of questions related to the Plan update, including the study area for the update, who should lead the update, public participation, time and resources committed to the update. These issues can be further discussed with the Planning Commission in February. The worksession with the Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled for Februaryl5, 2005. That will be the opportunity for Council and the Commission to finalize the approach for the update of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this agenda item is to start the discussion on the approach and scope of the program. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDF,RFI) Not applicable. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY/ APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES Growth and Growth Management, Goal #6 The City Comprehensive Plan shall be reviewed and revised to: D Accommodate growth while protecting the character and livability of new and established neighborhoods; ➢ Provide for preservation of the natural environment and open space throughout the community; ➢ Provide for parks and alternative transportation (e.g., bike paths); and ➢ Create community gathering places. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment l: November 8, 2004 memo from Barbara Shields to Jim Hendryx regarding Comprehensive Update Program Exhibit A: Comprehensive Plan Update: Phase/Product/Approach Exhibit B: Draft Comprehensive Plan Update: Timeline (months) r FISCAL NOTES i Not applicable. Attachment 1 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Jim Hendryx FROM: Barbara Shields DATE: November 8, 2004 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update Program The objective of this memo is to discuss the Planning Commission's preliminary observations and recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan Update Program. The City's Comprehensive Plan is the document through which the City makes choices on how land development and redevelopment should occur, and how it will be managed. Tigard's Comprehensive Plan was first drafted in 1982, with periodic revisions to specific chapters to maintain consistency with Statewide Planning Goals. Each Oregon municipality is required to have a state-approved Comprehensive Plan to comply with the state land-use planning program. The Comprehensive Plan is the community's plan: it allows citizens of Tigard to make choices on how land development and redevelopment should occur, and how it will be managed. From 1982, when the Plan was first created, to 2003, Tigard's population grew from 17,700 to 45,000. Most individuals' goals have changed since 1982. The Comprehensive Plan update program needs to capture the overall change in the community to assess its relationship to the growth management issues. In the last several years, the City has been engaged in several major planning projects, ranging from the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Program, Transportation System Plan, natural resource and green spaces/natural resource management (Goal 5), Bull Mountain annexation, commuter rail/downtown redevelopment, Hwy 217 corridor planning, UGB expansion, and affordable housing. With these long term planning projects and the changes in the community, there is a need take a look at the overall growth management approach to reflect the community's goals in a broader context. The "broader" context should re-examine several growth management areas: 1. Residential Land Densities and Distribution 2. Natural Resource/Open Space/Recreation 3. Economic Development 4. Transportation/Traffic 5. Urban Facilities Planning I:\CDADNIUERREE\Agenda Sum\11-23-04 Comp Plan Update Attachment 1.DOC Mill Between December 2002 and April 2004, the Planning Commission held five work sessions on the Comprehensive Plan Update work program. During this time, the Planning Commission reviewed the main elements of the plan update: public involvement; preliminary issue identification and data collection; plan update process; and plan adoption (Exhibit A). Each of these meetings was open to any interested citizens and subject to public meeting law. Meeting materials were available on the City's website. The meetings resulted in the Planning Commission's preliminary recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan Update work program. A work program is a description of the scope and timeline to complete a specific project. A summary of the Planning Commission recommendations is contained in the Draft Comprehensive Plan Update Timeline (Exhibit B). The Planning Commission recognized that the overall timeline and result of the Comprehensive Plan would depend on the available resources and the extent of a public outreach program. The public outreach program needs to be adopted by the Council prior to the "production" stage of the program (Exhibit B). The preliminary estimate is to finalize the first two phases of the Comprehensive Plan program in approximately 20-24 months, depending on the type of the public outreach and available City resources. The last two phases are estimated to be completed in approximately 12-18 months. The attached timeline reflects the preliminary recommendations developed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has also recognized that there is a need for a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss several elements of the program prior to Council review and adoption of the program in April 2005: 1. Study Area. Should the unincorporated Bull Mountain area, including the newly added UGB expansion areas, be part of the Comprehensive Plan update program? 2. Task Force. Should the City Council appoint a new Task Force similar to the approach taken with the Downtown Improvement Plan to guide the Comprehensive Plan update process? 3. Public Participation Program. What type of public involvement process should the City develop to include a broad range of community groups (small group discussions, open houses, additional surveys, etc.)? 4. Time and resource commitment. How should the City prioritize the rest of the ongoing projects to assure that the Comprehensive Plan update remains the focal point of the long range planning program for the next 3+ years? These questions are intended to be discussed with the Planning Commission in February. The outcome is the approach and scope of the Comprehensive Plan update program. The next steps are: 1. A joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council in February; 2. Refinement of the work program in March; 3. Council review and adoption of the work program in April. IXDAD"RREE\Agenda Sum\11-23-04 Comp Plan Update Attachment 1.DOC ~X~IgIT „A„ 00 LgGIBILiT`r STRIP live Phan Update. :~t+ to Comprehen roach t, oductl ApP of pub11+~,~Cde'o~°n~ ~►]jaselPr type/' berltype of group xnvolven1°n~ 1. Num must be deter imned ti OY I~"ues ,,No public meetings: n1ee a of public Involvement xr ~Ele►~1 of community Workshop as p ,tw z elvariety Commission plan COCessihigh demand ine rang 2. intense p phago 1.Determ focus groups) 1. to revieplanning eting boards ( w public coups elme , ation program on PC /CC tim pt of public 2 Task Force makeup putreaclilPatlicip to adopt «message " to energize eeting pevelopme attendance mitment plan/ y outreach council n{ program ( 3 Time com Participation 3. General Cit by community ublic outreach public Gu 4. Realistic resolution) expectations/ resource Progrart+ 4. intensity of p . Commission, Counc 5. Role of planningboards Task force' other city 1. High demand on PCtCC ndance local timelmeeting atte network of tease: 1. Establish for data input and 2 Resource-intense Phase.. critical phase before city rtslvolunteers plan update expe cr l Two major steps: and trends review: inter-active p use inventory (residential: corns ris .Land process tease to formulate • Land use distributionlall°Cati°n open spacelnatural resources) 3 Citical p orking range °f and phase 1 2. Establish six w be based on factual not anecdotal use alternatives ~C roUt►d alteMat"' es. subgCOUpsltechnical experts realistic parameters land 13 9 2 M mittee cit wide public discussion ~~~gOrt informat1On residential. and subcom for Y ust address e1 si),Ceh}alufal 3 3 M Task Force a public commerciallindustrial, op meetings °pen to °`Land use resource, public facilities PFDduC~, Must address realistic ader ental Distribution/ Allocation 4d to establish inter- Part", Rep°tt~~ 5. techn Nee ical review group(s) Must include: Land Use Designation Alternatives Map and land Trend Use Inventory Analysis Report 1 ~t.RPl.htllatbata~ComPl'1an~Pt~g{an~ ►ilc~ncnts0~ercicwSecLS~x 1. Update-- Comprelhensive plan p uctlApproach oi+s phaselprod ~onold a point for '~SSues ~~11VQ1Yetr1 t to 1. Kei step pu e involvement fi K@y open houses direc P E;r , t series of wide { introduce range of alternatives structured to: tease for city group to select Plan process must be land use I. Follow UP 2. Critical phase Step par►icip phase 2 l .select preferred alternative discussion on refinements to public ution) ~IroCeSS preferred dltemati~e5 preferred alternative ph olicy plan allocation Jdi stes to support en houses to 3 Critical phase for p 2 goalslpolicis to suPP merit to Step 3: Series of op alternative preferred alternatives discussion r f aced alternative product; Preferred 3, balance polie'es with. realistic shared supp implementation strateges 4. Number of Open Alternative Package: housestgrouP must be i.Preferred Land Use developed as part of Public Designation Map partici ation plan hose; 2, Goals, Pollcies, roducti p ritical 1, Document p ort is, Implementation Strategies 2 production supp No involvement: ,Document production phase l internal review phase 3 2. lnoecume►~t format production of 3. ° Draft Comprehensive plan product: Dray Comprehensive Plan: (.Comprehensive Plan Land use map 2. Comprehensive plan TexV n Text: . Goals, Policies, Imp Strategies Technical 3. Inventory pppend'+xes 2 l:\LRP4N\Datbara~CompPlan\Nrogram C•.lemcotsOcewiewSecl.doc z; woo sire plan Update'rnm v ation Con'p pr®ductl ApprOach * of punuc : cc,nsr~era elTYPeI~`°ent tion 1.lntensive laua m4se eet legal ph 01M S otifica Z process m 'K~y ~ueS Intensive land use n 1 requirements ~X r Yzi '~81~ _ eet all Process ent content must m 2 Hearings s. h:".~ ha 1.Docum laws T applicable land use .,phase Q ~~option of ComPrehensive plan 3 l.N~l3arbara~CnmpPlaa~PruFram 1'1`~n`nuUe`rvic~~Scc1.doe 00000 1 ~LRP IrEGIS1I.ITY gSRlp 26 28 30 3,2 34 36 cline months plan U date:'Vim rehensive 2 6 g l0 12 ,)raft Com edd or Issues: a for involvement cal path meettV and biiCi riaj ve clear messag for pa[uctPanon Program wilt Q'pu a Must ba range of options v ork prog Iti1eh Must Provide*' e Dints of overall t} ent begins 610 , P C11 participa0 a Must re(Overall lpro Pam must snap ble outreachlinvolvem ncil before P activities dprod by Coa plat! prOgra , Must be Draft Public Participation l Develop Plan raft plan Plan 1 Review D . atiort 3. Ado t Public Part Cl nled Force A ussion on residential. t elements Task 01 RT aise REp c, d, to i ation "Sport ROVN~ r r land u t do>tgnal", alt,xation: trap Q en space, !acilities' ltmation options MOO" diblt ~e►Cp~ outs: attics es.oP a discussiun:c[t it\ tit im t 101 an ff++ m au`m nawrat cesourc d Icali> btu>tcones industrial. mmon i>+ucsan unitwtidt commercial, vcou,r,witht tinnsfofck celupItc~°icatstpons: ton tt {and iold tUUndU to rnT`t'dt JrytsV,ortal Mast balan. r„ ducC: x r. Gw,uP V g dUse loventory fit} P NO l yLtx`u[tt:1_'nginec[in Prepare Lan ~,1u>ttt "4 d. rc;u{atlt tt-icthmcalAdv latuta planning Commission part l• d Anal sis inronnauon: n tic c , l its tXp .C c xtcrtauunT' u{ titatl' Rtvtty+- andTren • l`t au", ititits ()p n emu-t,n o tnltm' ~nt- u' l pn nlation sCntO public pubtic 1 nlfundingstrai`s dctetops[c In ' lmuti. a` in,up Suiidable Lands Anal Isis t inana: imPn Kc\icN t ltchn dential Land lnformali` Curet 3, Rest ttvit Resource Anal Isis Kt.,c" {a' 4. 1 5 O to g - and Uiba xalion 6. Annexation and lVaC11111CS lntrastru l r elontent g, Gconom raffic y, Trans oration Land use Part 11. Develop Alternatives ,rehensive Plan Update 7 tmeltncoct04verl. oc ..,.,rt tMC~1\jerree\L~~~ A~'S_I\l emp\Com ~ LIEGIBUTY S'rRlP 26 28 30 3,2 34 36 2 4 6 g 10 12 t Pre ace Alternatives Alternatives g Final v Re rt published e0 gacl, round R x F entatiou r f } kS t~ policies!imPlem r}~ to Goals art of x{ aY4l~5 !slsjor issues'. Vision ' ition from fined P -trans o be determ proeramshousesneeds eed skilled Sa . for < S t w ~ ! lumbe plan'. ess: n r public Participation five proc Resource lntens h' to slime RHO program, consensus on Houses i ; f putlit Participation Open facilitators Conduct Itematov s 5 , A PO atlve intcoduee ahem genies of Small r ; edk pQ1m o preferred alteR it. Conduct FoUo s focused es o on Group workshop cefLnemenis to alternativ Kouses to Series of 111. Co efctted ahemwes (13,11 use share p olicies) (3_5) distribution D a Recommendalioos 1V .Prepare Draft Recommendations assembling 311 pieces in published e. Q,,Usment production phase: one coherent document:C". r, document internal revi format readable * Graphic Presentation. Q~ymefl, • Intensive O.to'ductlo~ , are f)ratl Text limelineoct04vecl.doc 11 P e are Draft Ma s rehensivePlanl7pdate inalize ll. F lnvento S l\Temp\Comp ,..~r,nCUMR~I\}epee\~GCA~ DRAFT 2 4 6 8 10 12 26 28 130 32 34 36 Ill, I ionlin+'1'rrhnical Appendices IV, kr~ (r~x of kill Dovullicul t)rtttt lkuuutrtit Puhlished - - - ' t Sri rtes•~, ~ 4 ~ 1. Prepare Notices (Measure 56, Major Issue It. Pbls) ■ Adoption must follow land use lass 11. Conduct Public Hearin +s PC/CC) ■ lixtenske notification required 111. Finalize Document Plan Adopted C:\DOCUME-1\jerree\LOCALS-1\1'emp\Comprehensive Plan Update Time Iineoct03vcrLdoc 3 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 11/23/2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: An Ordinance Providing a Process for Consideration of Written Demands for Compensation Under 2004 Ballot Measure 37, Adding a New Chapter 1.20 to the Tigard Municipal Code, and Declaring an Emergency. ~,~J PREPARED BY: Jim Hendrvx DEPT HEAD OK Y MGR OK ~ GW~WI~' ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Adoption of an ordinance providing a process for consideration of written demands for compensation under 2004 Ballot Measure 37, adding a new chapter to the Tigard Municipal Code and declaring an emergency. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY Oregon municipalities, including Tigard, have developed a sound system of land use planning, which includes regulations that, in some cases, restrict the uses that can be made of property. These restrictions on use of property have both served the public interest and increased property values by allowing the City to develop a harmonious way avoiding incompatible uses and assuring appropriate development. The voters of the state adopted Ballot Measure 37 in the November 2004 election adding new sections to ORS Chapter 197, which provide that local governments may pay compensation to property owners for reductions in property values, or may waive restrictions as an alternative of payment resulting from land use regulations that restrict uses of the property. Some property owners may believe that existing or future land use regulations as applied to their property both restrict use of the property and reduce the fair market value of the property and consequently may bring claims under Measure 37. Ballot Measure 37 explicitly allows local governments to develop procedures for assessing claims made under Measure 37. I Working in conjunction with the City Attorney's office, an ordinance has been drafted to address Measure 37 claims. The Tigard Municipal Code would be amended by repealing the existing Chapter 1.20 and replacing it with a new Chapter 1.20. Because this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the health, safety, and j _ welfare of the City and is needed to provide a process for claims by December 2, 2004, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect on December 2, 2004. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Delay consideration of ordinance or make modifications to the ordinance. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Memo Attachment 2: Ordinance providing a process for consideration of written demands for compensation under 2004 Ballot Measure 37, adding a new chapter to the Tigard Municipal Code and declaring an emergency. FISCAL NOTES No funds have been identified to either pay demands for compensation or pay for processing Measure 37 claims. CITY OF TIGAaD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE: November 16, 2004 SUBJECT: Measure 37 Ordinance Cities and counties, including Tigard, are required to have comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances (zoning). The voters of the state adopted Ballot Measure 37 in the November 2004 election adding new sections to ORS Chapter 197, which provide that local governments may pay compensation to property owners for reductions in property values, or may waive restrictions as an alternative of payment resulting from land use regulations that restrict uses of the property. Some property owners may believe that existing or future land use regulations as applied to their property both restrict use of the property and reduce the fair market value of the property and consequently may bring claims under Measure 37. Ballot Measure 37 explicitly allows local governments to develop procedures for assessing claims made under Measure 37. Working in conjunction with the City Attorney's office, an ordinance has been drafted to address Measure 37 claims. The Tigard Municipal Code would be amended by repealing the existing Chapter 1.20 and replacing it with a new Chapter 1.20. Because this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the health, safety, and welfare of the City and is needed to provide a process for claims by December 2, 2004, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect on December 2, 2004. Jurisdictions throughout the state are taking different approaches to dealing with the measure. This ordinance may need further revisions over time since we are only beginning to understand the requirements of Measure 37. DRAFT CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 04- AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN DEMANDS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE 37, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 1.20 TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the City has developed a sound system of land use planning, which includes regulations that in some cases restrict the uses that can be made of property; and WHEREAS, the restrictions on use of property have both served the public interest and increased property values by allowing the City to develop a harmonious way avoiding incompatible uses and assuring appropriate development; and WHEREAS, the voters of the state adopted Ballot Measure 37 in the November 2004 election adding new sections to ORS Chapter 197, which provide that local governments may pay compensation to property owners for reductions in property values resulting from land use regulations that restrict uses of the property or may waive restrictions as an alternative to paying compensation; and WHEREAS, some property owners may believe that existing or future land use regulations as applied to their property both restrict use of the property and reduce the fair market value of the property and consequently may bring claims under Measure 37; and WHEREAS, Ballot Measure 37 explicitly allows local governments to develop procedures for assessing claims made under Measure 37; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate for the City to provide a Measure 37 claims procedure, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard Municipal Code is amended by repealing the existing Chapter 1.20 and ' replacing it with a new Chapter 1.20 in the form of Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. SECTION 2: Because this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the health, safety and welfare of the City and is needed to provide a process for claims by December 2, 2004, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect on December 2, 2004. ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 1 DRAFT PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 92004. Jane McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 2004. Craig Dirksen, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Datc ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 2 EXHIBIT A to Tigard Ordinance No. Chapter 1.20 Compensation for Reduction in Property Value 1.20.010 Purpose The purpose of this Chapter is to provide procedures and standards for claims for compensation made pursuant to 2004 Measure 37. 1.20.020 Definitions As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise: "Affected property" means the private real property that is alleged to have suffered a reduction in fair market value as result of the City's regulation restricting the use of that property and for which a property owner seeks compensation for the reduction in value. "Claimant" means the property owner who submits a written claim for compensation under Section 1.20.030. "Decision Maker" means the City Council or any person, board, commission, or other entity to whom the Council has delegated authority to make decisions on Measure 37 claims. "Regulation" shall mean a provision of the City's comprehensive plan, Community Development Code and transportation ordinances. "Restricts the use of property" means prohibiting a particular use of the property or making that use only permissible under certain conditions. Regulations requiring or setting fees to be charged are not restrictions on the use of property. "Manager" means City Manager or designee. 1.20.030 Written Demand for Compensation A. A property owner wishing to make a claim against the City under Measure 37 shall first submit a written demand for compensation to the City. A written demand for compensation is one that includes: 1. Identification of the affected property. Identification may be by street address, subdivision lot number, tax lot number, or any other information that identifies the property. 2. The name and contact information of the person making the claim, the date the Claimant acquired the property, and, if applicable, the date that a family member of Claimant acquired the property and the names and relationships of family members that are previous owners. 3. Identification of the regulation that is alleged to restrict the use of the affected property, the amount of compensation claimed, and a statement whether the Claimant seeks compensation or a waiver, suspension or modification of the regulation. If a waiver or suspension or modification is requested, the extent of the waiver should be described, with a description of the proposed use. 4. The amount claimed as compensation. B. The City encourages but does not require the person claiming compensation to include the following information with the written demand for compensation: 1. A statement describing how the restriction affects the value of the property. 2. A statement describing the extent to which the regulation would need to be waived, suspended, or modified to avoid the need for compensation. 3. An appraisal showing the difference in the property value with and without the regulation. 4. A list of all persons with an ownership interest in or a lien on the property. 5. The name and contact information of the Claimant's authorized representative or representatives, if applicable. 1.20.040 Notice The City shall provide notice of the hearing required by Section 1.20.070 to all owners of the property, lien holders and security interest holders, record owners of property within 500 feet of the property, recognized community participation organizations for the area the property is located, and anyone who has requested notice at least 7 days before the hearing. The notice shall identify the property, state the date, time and place of the hearing, state the amount of the claim or statement describing the extent to which the regulations would need to be waived or suspended, the City contact person and phone number, advise of the availability of the staff report and summarize the hearing procedures and nature of the claim. Failure of any person to receive notice or any defect in the notice shall not invalidate any action taken or decision made at the hearing. 1.20.050 Staff Report City staff shall prepare a report analyzing the claim. The staff report may be reviewed by the Community Development Director, Finance Director, and Manager before being submitted to the Decision Maker. The staff report shall be submitted to the Decision Maker, mailed to the Claimant, and made available to the public at least 7 days before the public hearing required by Section 1.20.070. 1.20.060 Decision Maker Proceedings The Decision Maker shall hold a public hearing on the claim. The public hearing should normally be set within 150 days of the written demand for compensation but may be set at any time. The Decision Maker may hold an executive session on the claim at any time. 1.20.070 Public Hearing The Claimant and any other person shall be provided a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and argument at the public hearing. The Decision Maker may limit the duration of testimony. 1.20.080 Decision Maker Decision In deciding the claim, the Decision Maker may take any of the following actions: 1. Deny the claim based on any one or more of the following findings: a. The regulation does not restrict the use of the private real property, b. The fair market value of the property is not reduced by the passage or enforcement of the regulation. C. The claim was not timely filed. d. The Claimant is not the current property owner. e. The Claimant or family member of Claimant was not the property owner at the time the regulation was adopted. f. The regulation is a historically and commonly recognized nuisance law or a law regulating pornography or nude dancing. g. The regulation is required by federal law. h. The regulation protects public health and safety. i. The City is not the entity responsible for payment. The City is not responsible if the challenged law, rule, ordinance, resolution, goal or other enactment was not enacted or enforced by the City. j. The City has not taken final action to enforce or apply the regulation to the property for which compensation is claimed. k. The Claimant is not legally entitled to compensation for a reason other than those listed in subsections a through g. The basis for this finding must be clearly explained. 1. The City has not established a fund for payment of claims under Measure 37. 2. Pay compensation, either in the amount requested or in some other amount supported by the evidence. If the City pays compensation, the City shall continue to apply and enforce the regulation. Any compensation shall be paid from funds appropriated for that purpose. The City may require any person receiving compensation to sign a waiver of future claims for compensation under Measure 37 and the City may record that waiver with the County Recorder. 3. Waive or not apply the regulation to allow the owner to use the property for a use permitted at the time the Claimant acquired the property. 4. Modify the regulation so that it does not give rise to a claim for compensation. Any such modification shall be as to the specific property only unless the City follows the procedure for a legislative land use decision. 5. Conditionally waive or suspend the regulation subject to receipt of a defined amount of contributions toward compensation by a specified date from persons opposed to the waiver or suspension, such as persons who believe they would be negatively affected by waiver or suspension, with the waiver or suspension being granted if the defined amount of contributions is not received by the specified date. If the contributions are received, compensation shall be paid within 180 days of the date the written demand for compepsation was filed. The specified date shall allow the City time to process the contributions and pay compensation. The Decision Maker may take other actions it deems appropriate in individual circumstances, may modify the listed actions, and/or may combine the listed actions, consistent with Measure 37. The Decision Maker may negotiate an acceptable solution with the Claimant or may direct staff to negotiate with the Claimant. In the event that the Decision Maker directs staff to negotiate, the matter for further action by the Decision Maker no less than 175 days from the date of the notice of claim became complete. The Council shall take final action within 180 days of the written demand for compensation. The Decision Maker shall take actions 2 through 5 only if it determines the claim is valid. A decision by a Decision Maker other than Council shall not be a final decision, but shall be a recommendation to Council. 1.20.090 Delegation of Authority and City Council Review The Council may delegate authority to act as a Decision Maker to any person, board, commission or other entity by motion, resolution or ordinance.. The Council shall review all recommendations of the Decision Maker and make the final decision. If a Decision Maker other than Council has made a recommendation to Council, Council may act on the recommendation by motion or order without a Council hearing. The Council may approve recommendations on its consent agenda. 1.20.100 Authority The City Council shall have the authority to take the actions listed in Section 1.20.080, including the authority to waive or suspend any provision of any City code, ordinance or resolution, notwithstanding any inconsistent provision in this code or the Community Development Code. The City may retain an appraiser to assist the Decision Maker or Council determination. 1.20.110 Reimbursement of Costs If a claim is denied and ultimately determined to be invalid, the Claimant shall reimburse the City for the costs the City incurred in processing the claim. If the costs remain unpaid 90 days after the City provides a detailed invoice demanding reimbursement of costs, a lien for those costs shall be recorded in the City lien docket for the property for which the claim is made. 1.20.120 Severability If any section, phrase, clause, or part of this Chapter is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining phrases, clauses, and parts shall remain in full force and effect. . Entered into the Record on By: 71m CCm/.S CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO.04 4 Agenda Item#-//- Exhibit AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN DEMANDS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE 37, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 1.20 TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the City has developed a sound system of land use planning, which includes regulations that in some cases restrict the uses that can be made of property; and WHEREAS, the restrictions on use of property have both served the public interest and increased property values by allowing the City to develop a harmonious way avoiding incompatible uses and assuring appropriate development; and WHEREAS, the voters of the state adopted Ballot Measure 37 in the November 2004 election adding new sections to ORS Chapter 197, which provide that local governments may pay compensation to property owners for reductions in property values resulting from land use regulations that restrict uses of the property or may waive restrictions as an alternative to paying compensation; and WHEREAS, some property owners may believe that existing or future land use regulations as applied to their property both restrict use of the property and reduce the fair market value of the property and consequently may bring claims under Measure 37; and WHEREAS, Ballot Measure 37 explicitly allows local governments to develop procedures for assessing claims made under Measure 37; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate for the City to provide a Measure 37 claims procedure; now, therefore; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Tigard Municipal Code is amended by repealing the existing Chapter 1.20 and replacing it with a new Chapter 1.20 in the form of Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Section 2. Because this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the health, safety and welfare of the City and is needed to provide a process for claims by December 2, 2004, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect on December 2, 2004. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of .2004. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of .2004. Craig Dirksen, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date l i i i i F-ICMTT A to Tigard Ordinance No. Chapter 1.20 Compensation for Reduction in Property Value 1.20.010 Purpose The purpose of this Chapter is to provide procedures and standards for claims for compensation made pursuant to 2004 Measure 37. 1.20.020 Definitions As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise: "Affected property" means the private real property that is alleged to have suffered a reduction in fair market value as result of the City's regulation restricting the use of that property and for which a property owner seeks compensation for the reduction in value. "Claimant" means the property owner who submits a written claim for compensation under Section 1.20.030. "Decision Maker" means the City Council or any person, board, commission, or other entity to whom the Council has delegated authority to make decisions on Measure 37 claims. "Regulation" shall mean a provision of the City's comprehensive plan, Community Development Code and transportation ordinances. "Restricts the use of property" means prohibiting a particular use of the property or making that use only permissible under certain conditions. Regulations requiring or setting fees to be charged are not restrictions on the use of property. "Manager" means City Manager or designee. 1.20.030 Written Demand for Compensation A. A property owner wishing to make a claim against the City under Measure 37 shall first submit a written demand for compensation to the City. A written demand for compensation is one that includes: • 1. Identification of the affected property. Identification may be by street address, subdivision lot number, tax lot number, or any other information that identifies the property. 2. The name and contact information of the person making the claim, the date the Claimant acquired the property, and, if applicable, the date that a family member of Claimant acquired the property and the names and relationships of family members that are previous owners. 3. Identification of the regulation that is alleged to restrict the use of the affected property and a statement whether the Claimant prefers compensation or a waiver, suspension or modification of the regulation. The extent of the waiver should be described, with a description of the proposed use. 4. The amount claimed as compensation. B. The City encourages but does not require the person claiming compensation to include the following information with the written demand for compensation: 1. A statement describing how the restriction affects the value of the property. 2. A statement describing the extent to which the regulation would need to be waived, suspended, or modified to avoid the need for compensation. 3. An appraisal showing the difference in the property value with and without the regulation. 4. A list of all persons with an ownership interest in or a lien on the property. 5. The name and contact information of the Claimant's authorized representative or representatives, if applicable. 1.20.040 Notice The City shall provide notice of the hearing required by Section 1.20.070 to all owners of the property, lien holders and security interest holders, record owners of property within 500 feet of the property, recognized community participation organizations for the area the property is located, and anyone who has requested notice at least 7 days before the hearing. The notice shall identify the property, state the date, time and place of the hearing, state the amount of the claim or statement describing the extent to which the regulations would need to be waived or suspended, the City contact person and phone number, advise of the availability of the staff report and summarize the hearing procedures and nature of the claim. Failure of any person to receive notice or any defect in the notice shall not invalidate any action taken or decision made at the hearing. will 1.20.050 Staff Report City staff shall prepare a report analyzing the claim. The staff report may be reviewed by the Community Development Director, Finance Director, and Manager before being submitted to the Decision Maker. The staff report shall be submitted to the Decision Maker, mailed to the Claimant, and made available to the public at least 7 days before the public hearing required by Section 1.20.070. 1.20.060 Decision Maker Proceedings The Decision Maker shall hold a public hearing on the claim. The public hearing should normally be set within 150 days of the written demand for compensation but may be set at any time. The Decision Maker may hold an executive session on the claim at any time. 1.20.070 Public Hearing The Claimant and any other person shall be provided a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and argument at the public hearing. The Decision Maker may limit the duration of testimony. 1.20.080 Decision Maker Decision In deciding the claim, the Decision Maker may take any of the following actions: 1. Deny the claim based on any one or more of the following findings: a. The regulation does not restrict the use of the private real property, b. The fair market value of the property is not reduced by the passage or enforcement of the regulation. C. The claim was not timely filed. d. The Claimant is not the current property owner. e. The Claimant or family member of Claimant was not the property owner at the time the regulation was adopted. f. The regulation is a historically and commonly recognized nuisance law or a law regulating pornography or nude dancing. g. The regulation is required by federal law. h. The regulation protects public health and safety. L The City is not the entity responsible for payment. The City is not responsible if the challenged law, rule, ordinance, resolution, goal or other enactment was not enacted or enforced by the City. j. The City has not taken final action to enforce or apply the regulation to the property for which compensation is claimed. k. The Claimant is not legally entitled to compensation for a reason other than those listed in subsections a through g. The basis for this finding must be clearly explained. 1. The City has not established a fund for payment of claims under Measure 37. 2. Pay compensation, either in the amount requested or in some other amount supported by the evidence. If the City pays compensation, the City shall continue to apply and enforce the regulation. Any compensation shall be paid from funds appropriated for that purpose. The City may require any person receiving compensation to sign a waiver of future claims for compensation under Measure 37 and the City may record that waiver with the County Recorder. 3. Waive or not apply the regulation to allow the owner to use the property for a use permitted at the time the Claimant acquired the property. 4. Modify the regulation so that it does not give rise to a claim for compensation. Any such modification shall be for the specific property only unless the City follows the procedure for a legislative land use decision. 5. Conditionally waive or suspend the regulation subject to receipt of a defined amount of contributions toward compensation by a specified date from persons opposed to the waiver or suspension, such as persons who believe they would be negatively affected by waiver or suspension, with the waiver or suspension being granted if the defined amount of contributions is not received by the specified date. If the contributions are received, compensation shall be paid within 180 days of the date the written demand for compensation was filed. The specified date shall allow the City time to process the contributions and pay compensation. The Decision Maker may take other actions it deems appropriate in individual circumstances, may modify the listed actions, and/or may combine the listed actions, consistent with Measure 37. The Decision Maker may negotiate an acceptable solution with the Claimant or may direct staff to negotiate with the Claimant. In the event that the Decision Maker directs staff to negotiate, the matter shall be set for further action by the Decision Maker no less than 175 days from the date of the notice of claim became complete. The Council shall take final action within 180 days of the written demand for compensation. The Decision Maker shall take actions 2 through 5 only if it determines the claim is valid. A decision by a Decision Maker other than Council shall not be a final decision, but shall be a recommendation to Council. 1.20.090 Delegation of Authority and City Council Review The Council may delegate authority to act as a Decision Maker to any person, board, commission or other entity by motion, resolution or ordinance. The Council shall review all recommendations of the Decision Maker and make the final decision. If a Decision Maker other than Council has made a recommendation to Council, Council may act on the recommendation by motion or order without a Council hearing. The Council may approve recommendations on its consent agenda. 1.20.100 Authority The City Council shall have the authority to take the actions listed in Section 1.20.080, including the authority to waive or suspend any provision of any City code, ordinance or resolution, notwithstanding any inconsistent provision in this code or the Community Development Code. The City may retain an appraiser to assist the Decision Maker or Council determination. 1.20.110 Reimbursement of Costs If a claim is denied and ultimately determined to be invalid, the Claimant shall reimburse the City for the costs the City incurred in processing the claim. 1.20.120 Sever-ability If any section, phrase, clause, or part of this Chapter is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining phrases, clauses, and parts shall remain in full force and effect.