The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 12/14/2004 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 14, 2004 COUNCIL MEETING.WILL BE TELEVISED I I:\Ofs\Donna's\Ccpktl I I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 AGENDA ITEM # _ 1. FOR AGENDA OF 1 - a5 - o 5 COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 14, 2004 The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. by Mayor Dirksen. Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors Moore, Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff • STUDY SESSION Y MEET WITH TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSULTANT ON RECRUITMENT Tigard-Tualatin School Board Member Barry Albertson and Oregon School Boards Association Representative Greg McKenzie were present to discuss with the City Council the process the School District will follow to recruit a new superintendent. Superintendent Lowder has notified the District of his plans to seek another post in California. Mr. Albertson advised that the School District is asking all identified stakeholder groups to share with the District the attributes desired in a superintendent. Council members offered the following suggestions: o previous experience as a superintendent or an assistant to someone in that role o fiscally astute o someone who will want to make this post a long-lasting career (i.e., 10 years) o experience working with other governmental jurisdictions o interested in maintaining the good relationships with the city and state agencies o continued regular interaction with the City Manager and Chief of Police o politically astute o possesses a good public persona o consensus builder o community oriented o continuation of the current good relationships Mr. Albertson and Mr. McKenzie reviewed in more detail the process for recruitment. Mayor Dirksen thanked the School District representatives for the opportunity to give input. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 1 Meeting of December 14, 2004 CITY MANAGER 360 PERFORMANCE REVIEW DISCUSSION Council members discussed participation of raters for the 360 performance review of the City Manager. Human Resources Director Zodrow was present and participated in the discussion on this item. Consensus of the Council was to include the following individuals as raters: o Current Mayor & Council members o City of Tigard Department heads ("direct reports") o One or Two Peers to the City Manager (i.e., Washington County Administrator and/or the City of Tualatin City Manager) o Two members from the community (Council discussed a number of individuals for this category including the Planning Commission President, Washington County Board Chair and Councilor Moore, who will be leaving the Council at the end of the year. The names of these two individuals will be submitted to the Human Resources Director.) There was discussion about review components. It was suggested that raters be advised they could place an "N/A" in those areas where they do not feel they are qualified to comment because they do not interact with the City Manager in a particular situation or area that is being rated. Ms. Zodrow reviewed the timeline and it appears that the review could be conducted in March. This item will be discussed again at the January 25, 2005, Council meeting. ➢ COUNCIL DESIGNATION OF VICE CHAIR FOR JOINT WATER COMMISSION Councilor Woodruff agreed to serve as the Vice Chair for the Joint Water Commission. A CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE TO WCCCA BUDGET COMMITTEE - REAPPOINT BOB ROHLF No decision on this appointment was made. Mayor Dirksen will discuss this with City Manager Monahan. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 2 Meeting of December 14, 2004 L CITY HALL CABLE DISCUSSION IT Director Ehrenfeld was present to discuss this item. Council received a memo dated December 10, 2004, from Mr. Ehrenfeld regarding computer and phone cables for City Hall. After brief discussion, Council consensus was to proceed with the installation of new cabling and wiring for City Hall for phones, computers, scanners, copiers and fax machines. Funding authorization was requested (see Consent Agenda Item No. 3.5). BUDGET PRINCIPLES AND STRATEGIC FINANCE PLAN DISCUSSION Finance Director Prosser distributed to the Council members two items: 1. FY 2005-06 Executive Staff Budget Principles 2. Draft Strategic Finance Plan (12-14-04 memorandum from Finance Director Prosser to the Mayor and Council, with the Strategic Plan attached for Council review). Mr. Prosser briefly described the documents and advised this information was being provided to the Council for review before the January 18, 2005 goal-setting meeting. In addition, Mr. Prosser advised that a joint meeting with the Budget Committee members is scheduled for the January 25 Council meeting to review financial forecast information. MEASURE 37 UPDATE This topic appears as Item No. 7 on the Business Agenda for this meeting. City Attorney Ramis reviewed with the Council the proposed ordinances, which would provide a process for written demands for compensation under Ballot Measure 37. Two ordinances were presented to the Council representing one option that would revise Ordinance No. 04-12 to include a requirement for a deposit and submittal information. Mr. Ramis reviewed the deposit and deposit refund provisions of the ordinance. The second ordinance option included a provision for actions by neighboring property owners. City Attorney Ramis confirmed that these provisions are available to property owners regardless of whether this language is included in the Tigard legislation and this would serve as another place for information about this option for residents to use if they have issues concerning their property because of a neighbor's actions Council briefly discussed the pros and cons of the proposed ordinances and some of the scenarios that may occur. It was noted that this ordinance can be further amended at a later time if needed. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 3 Meeting of December 14, 2004 y ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS Council received a copy of a revised legal description for Option 1 regarding the Annexation Public Hearing (Agenda Item No. 8, listed below). EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:20 p.m. as provided by ORS 192.660 (2) h to discuss pending litigation. Executive Session concluded at 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - Mayor Dirksen called the City Council & Local Contract Review Board to order at 7:40 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call - Mayor Dirksen and Councilors Moore, Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff were present. 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports Council Woodruff commented that the 5`h Tuesday meeting held on November 30, 2004, went well. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION • Bruce Dalrymple, Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District Board President asked that additional testimony be received on the Parks System Development Charges, which would be considered by Council later in the meeting (Agenda Item No. 6). After brief discussion among the Council members and staff, Mayor Dirksen advised that short testimony would be heard during that item with it being noted that public hearing had already been conducted at a previous Council meeting. Mr. Frewing had also signed in on the Citizen Communication register for this item and his testimony would be heard during the Council review of this item. Gretchen Buehner, 13429 SW 1361h, Tigard, OR 97223, urged the Council to consider, with open and complete discussion, the City policy of islands and annexation in the near future. She said Tigard has a number of islands and she referred to the Metzger and Bull Mountain areas. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 4 Meeting of December 14, 2004 • Tigard High School Student Envoy Nikki Pham distributed information and gave a report about recent and upcoming activities at Tigard High School. • Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce Dan Murphy reviewed the upcoming Chamber of Commerce events planned for December and January. • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication City Manager Monahan reported that for follow up to the November 23, 2004, City Council meeting, the two items raised by Norman Russell and Ed Duffield regarding the Edgewood neighborhood were resolved at that meeting. He reviewed Mr. Russell's and Mr. Duffield's concerns about a multi-family development. At that meeting, Mayor Dirksen noted that Clean Water Services and Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue reviews all applications and is required to sign off on them before any permits are issued. Youth Advisory Council President Williams reviewed the Consent Agenda: 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 November 9 and November 15, 2004 3.2 Receive and File a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda C. Canvass of Votes for Mayor, Two City Councilor Positions, and Bull Mountain Annexation Measure-November 2, 2004 Election 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Approve the purchase of a Chevrolet police pursuit Tahoe Sport Utility vehicle b. Approve the purchase of two Ford F-250 pick-up trucks for the Public Works Division C. Approve the purchase of three Ford F-350 pick-up trucks for the Public Works Division 3.4 Amend City Manager's Employment Agreement Confirming Health Insurance Benefits - Resolution No. 04-92 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CITY MANAGER WILLIAM A. MONAHAN'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF TIGARD, CORRECTING HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS 3.5 Approve Budget Amendment No. 7 to the FY 2004-05 Budget to Increase Appropriations in the Facility Fund for the Upgrade of the Wiring System in City Hall - Resolution No. 04- 93 Tigard City Council Minutes Page 5 Meeting of December 14, 2004 17- A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT #7 TO THE FY 2004-05 BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE FACILITY FUND FOR THE WIRING/CABLING SYSTEM OF CITY HALL 3.6 Approve Budget Amendment No. 5 to the FY 2004-05 Budget to Increase Appropriations in the Community Services Program to Establish a Residential Services Agency Emergency Fund - Resolution No. 04-94 A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT #5 TO THE FY 2004-05 BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAM TO ESTABLISH A RESIDENTIAL SERVICES AGENCY EMERGENCY FUND Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to approve the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Moore: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff: Yes 4. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING MELVIN WALKER FOR TWENTY- THREE YEARS OF SERVICE WITH THE CITY OF TIGARD a. Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director, presented this agenda item. He noted that Melvin Walker has been an employee of the City of Tigard since 1981. The Public Works staff will miss Mel and wish him well in his retirement. b. Mayor Dirksen read the proposed resolution recognizing Mr. Walker after which Mr. Walker presented to the City Manager some work overalls and requested that the City Manager report for duty. The Mayor and City Manager thanked Mr. Walker for his years of service and wished him well in the future. C. Motion by Councilor Wilson, seconded by Councilor Woodruff, to approve Resolution No. 04-95. RESOLUTION NO. 04-95-A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING MELVIN WALKER FOR TWENTY-THREE YEARS OF SERVICE WITH THE CITY OF TIGARD Tigard City Council Minutes Page 6 Meeting of December 14, 2004 Resolution No. 04-95 was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Moore: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff: Yes CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO COUNCILOR BRIAN MOORE Mayor Dirksen presented a Certificate of Recognition to Councilor Brian Moore, whose term of office expires December 31, 2004. Councilor Moore served more than 12 years as a Board and Committee Member, City Councilor, Council President and Mayor Pro-Tem. Councilor Moore expressed appreciation to the management and employees of the City who contribute so much. He noted he has worked with a number of different Mayors and Council members who were dedicated to the City's well being. He thanked the citizens for allowing him to work for the City. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION TO DECLARE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14040 SW 117TH AVENUE AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CARRY OUT THE SALE OF SAID PROPERTY. a. Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing. b. Buyer Joe Barrett summarized the staff report, which is on file in the City Recorder's office. The issue before the Council was to consider whether to declare the property located at 14040 SW 117th Avenue as surplus property and authorize the City Manager or designee to offer the property for sale and negotiate the final price and terms of sale. C. Public Testimony: None d. Staff recommendation was to declare the property as surplus and authorize the City Manager or designee to offer the property for sale and negotiate the i final price and terms of the sale with a minimum term of $150,000. In response to a question from Councilor Moore, staff confirmed that the house on the property was inhabitable. e. Mayor Dirksen closed the public hearing. f. Council Consideration:- Resolution No. 04-96 Tigard City Council Minutes Page 7 Meeting of December 14, 2004 RESOLUTION NO. 04-96 -A RESOLUTION DECLARING REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14040 SW 117TH AVENUE AS SURPLUS, SETTING THE MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE TERMS OF ANY FUTURE SALE, AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO CARRY OUT THE SALE OF SAID PROPERTY Motion by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Woodruff, to approve Resolution No. 04-96. The motion was adopted by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Moore: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff: Yes 6. ADOPT PARKS SYSTEMS DEVELOr'MENT CHARGES (SDC) METHODOLOGY AND MASTER FEE RATE RESOLUTION a. Mayor Dirksen reopened the public hearing. b. Public Works Director Koellermeier reviewed the staff report, which is on file in the City Recorder's office. The Council conducted a public hearing on November 23, 2004, after which the Council directed staff to prepare a resolution adopting new methodology and rates and an amendment from staff addressing a concern from the Home Builder's Association. Consultant Don Ganer reviewed a PowerPoint presentation, which is on file in the City Recorder's office. C. Public Testimony o E-mail communications between Mr. John Frewing and Public Works Director Koellermeier were distributed to the Council. These communications are on file in the City Recorder's office. o Bruce Dalyrymple, Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD) Board President, 15707 SW Walker Road, Beaverton, OR 97006 tested about his concerns with rates and asked the Council carefully consider the use of balance in making rate-setting decisions since such costs are passed on to consumers in a slow economy that has not yet fully recovered. He said that jurisdictions may be forced to deal with the legislature if cities and counties continue to adopt increased rates. Mr. Dalrymple, in a brief discussion with Councilor Wilson explained the Tigard City Council Minutes Page 8 Meeting of December 14, 2004 action of the THPRD Board wherein the Board approved a rate that was only 65 percent of what was justifiable. o Mr. John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, said he was not asking for a delay of the action setting new SDC rates; rather, he was requesting the City begin a 2005 SDC review. He noted the high cost of land and the need to collect higher fees so that land for parks can be purchased. He contended that the land prices assumed in the study for this current rate consideration were too low and some of the study's conclusions were not consistent with the Park Master Plan. There was discussion between Mr. Frewing and Council members regarding Mr. Frewing's issues and his questions concerning the validity of the data and the resulting recommendations presented in the Ganer study. Mayor Dirksen said these fees will need updating and will be reviewed in the future. o Kelly Ross, representing the Home Builders Association said he would like to reiterate a recommendation made previously by Mr. Ernie Platt and urged that the Council consider phasing in this increase. Mr. Ross advised that projects, which were started a number of months ago, had not included calculations for these increased fees and this adversely impacts homebuilding businesses. Councilor Wilson and Mr. Ross discussed whether some of these costs are eventually passed along to buyers. Mr. Ross noted that most houses built in the Tigard area are not speculative and the ability to pass along increases is a somewhat constrained. d. Response to Public Testimony Mr. Ganer acknowledged he was aware of the action for adopting fees (65 percent of the justifiable amount) by THPRD and the Tigard Council would have the ability to do a similar action and could choose to adopt a rate between 0-100 percent of the justifiable amount. He referred to Mr. Frewing's testimony with regard to estimates for land costs and explained the numbers were derived from an average of prices this last year. He also responded to Mr. Frewing's questions about consistency with the Parks Master Plan, noting his study (Ganer & Associates) did not address all of the projects included in the plan; the projects listed were only those that could be done within a five-year timeframe. Mr. Ganer commented on growth and park land deficiencies, the fact that larger parcels of land are not available, and the basis for the recommended fees. He said that THPRD used a formula based on number of employees and this was successfully challenged and overturned in court. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 9 Meeting of December 14, 2004 The fee proposed for Tigard is based on development activity and is supported by the Tigard legal counsel. e. Mayor Dirksen closed the public hearing. f. Council Discussion Councilor Wilson commented about the total of the SDC fees on average versus the increases of the prices of homes. Councilor Moore said the value of land is increasing more than the increases in fees. He said he would support a later review to determine whether a further fee increase is warranted. Councilor Sherwood advises she supports the proposed fee increase noting that new development puts pressure on parks. Councilor Woodruff advised he also supports the increase noting there is a need to do some catch up with the fees. Councilor Wilson advised he is sensitive to increased housing costs, which are attributable primarily to increased land costs. He said he would support the proposed fee increase although he would rather it not be so drastic. Mayor Dirksen stated that fees need to be reviewed on a regular basis and said he believed the proposed increase was justified. g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 04-97 RESOLUTION NO. 04-97 -A RESOLUTION UPDATING THE PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) METHODOLOGY AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 04-37 BY AMENDING EXHIBIT A THERETO AND INCREASING PARK SDC RATES Motion by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Woodruff, to adopt Resolution No. 04-97. • The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the City Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Moore: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff: Yes Tigard City Council Minutes Page 10 Meeting of December 14, 2004 7. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT MEASURE 37, PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN DEMANDS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE 37, AND AMENDING ORDINANCE 04-12. a. Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing. b. Community Development Director Jim Hendryx presented the staff report, which is on file in the City Recorder's office. His review included a slide presentation, which is on file in the City Recorder's office. City Attorney Ramis also explained the two options before the Council (see also the Study Session review of this agenda item). Mr. Ramis further explained proposed Ordinance, Option 2, which includes a provision for actions by neighboring property owners. Option 2 outlines that if the Council's approval of a claim waiving the enforcement of a regulation causes a reduction in value of other property located in the vicinity of the claimant, these property owners would have the right to maintain an action in State Circuit Court to recover from the claimant the amount of the reduction. The nearby property owners, if successful, would also be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees. Mr. Ramis confirmed for Councilor Woodruff that Measure 37 is silent with regard to the preceding proposed provision. Mr. Hendryx said he has talked to about ten people to date about the process for filing a claim as a result of Measure 37. At this time, it is unclear whether they will pursue claims, All land use ordinances (about 1,000) since Tigard's incorporation have been identified and a data base is being created so members of the public can research Measure 37 issues. C. Public Testimony: None d. Council Discussion: Councilor Moore said he thought the proposed Option 2 Ordinance is "going in the right direction..." and he advised he would support this option. Councilor Wilson advised he preferred Option 1 because he does not want to encourage more litigation. He said Option 2 might appear as if the City is trying to circumvent the will of the voters. He said he would like to carry out the intent of the law while maintaining a semblance of stability. Councilor Sherwood noted that this ordinance would likely need to be revised overtime. She noted she supported the Option 2 Ordinance. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 11 Meeting of December 14, 2004 Councilor Woodruff advised the initial guidelines should be as simple as possible and he favored Option 1. As the City gains experience with implementing Measure 37, changes can be made to the procedures. Mayor Dirksen agreed that the process should be set forth in as pure a way as possible." He outlined his concerns about a potential domino-effect for claims. He noted that Option 2 clarifies existing law and draws attention to potential consequences of Measure 37 to be considered by a claimant and how the claim would impact a neighborhood. Mayor Dirksen said he thought he could support Option 2. e. Close Public Hearing f. Council Consideration: Ordinance 04-13 Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to adopt Ordinance No. 04-13, Attachment 2 (b) ORDINANCE NO. 04-13 (Attachment 2 [b]) - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 04-12 PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE 37, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 1.20 TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY The motion was approved by a majority vote of the City Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Moore: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: No Councilor Woodruff: No Councilor Woodruff asked that it be clarified that the "No" vote cast was related to the issues noted during the discussion on the choice between Option 1 or Option 2. 8. PUBLIC HEARING (Quasi-Judicial) - ARBOR SUMMIT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES ANNEXATION - ZCA 2004-0001 The following description was read by City Attorney Ramis: REQUEST: The applicant is requesting annexation of two (2) parcels containing 8.9 acres into the City of Tigard, better known as Arbor Summit Subdivision I and II. An additional 9.29 acres has been included by means of consent (Bella Vista Subdivision). The City is also including a 17.91 acre piece of the contiguous Summit Ridge Subdivision by using double majority, as allowed by Tigard City Council Minutes Page 12 Meeting of December 14, 2004 Oregon Revised Statute 222.170.2, Effect of consent to annexation by territory. Therefore, this annexation is for eight (8) parcels totaling 36.1 acres. LOCATION: Eight contiguous properties located between SW Bull Mountain Road and SW Beef Bend Road, east of SW 133`d Avenue and west of Turnagain Heights; also known as Arbor Summit I and II, Bella Vista, and a portion of Summit Ridge Subdivisions. 12780 and 12950 SW Bull Mountain Road; 12525, 12635, 12655 and 12825 SW Beef Bend Road; and 2 unaddressed parcels. Washington County Tax Assessor's Map Numbers 2S109AD, Tax Lots 1400 and 1500; 2S109DA, Tax Lot 2200; and 2S109DD, Tax Lots 100, 102, 300, 306 and 7000. ZONE: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The approval standards for annexations are set out in Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10; ORS Chapter 222; and Metro Code Chapter 3.09. a. Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing. b. Community Development Director Jim Hendryx reviewed the staff report, which is on file in the City Recorder's office. Mr. Hendryx distributed a revised legal description for the Ordinance identified as "Option 1." C. City Attorney read a statement regarding legal process. Copies of the legal process were available for review by the public at the entrance to the meeting room. No conflicts were declared by the members of the City Council nor were there any challenges to any Council member's ability to participate in this decision. d. Public Testimony: Applicant - ➢ Michael Robinson, attorney for the applicant, 1120 NW Couch Street, Portland, Oregon 97209, requested that the proposed annexation go forward. Opponents ➢ Isador Morgavi, 15145 SW 199th Avenue, Tigard, OR 97224, read a letter into the record in opposition to the proposals for annexation citing the need to resolve issues before the City considers annexation in the Tigard City Council Minutes Page 13 Meeting of December 14, 2004 Bull Mountain area. Mr. Morgavi asked that the record be kept open for 15 days. A copy of Mr. Morgavi's letter is on file in the City Recorder's office. ➢ Julie Russell, 12662 SW Terraview, Tigard, OR 97224, presented testimony asking the Council to delay consideration of piecemeal annexations. Ms. Russell requested that the record be kept open for 15 days. A copy of Ms. Russell's remarks is on file in the City Recorder's office. ➢ Ken Henschel, 14530 SW 144th Avenue, Tigard, OR 97224, requested that the Council delay consideration of annexations in the area referring to the recent outcome of the election on the Bull Mountain annexation question and his recommendation for a cooling-off period. A copy of Mr. Henschel's remarks is on file in the City Recorder's office. Councilor Woodruff commented that the majority of Tigard residents voted in favor of the annexation of the Bull Mountain area; he noted the Council's responsibility to follow the will of the people who placed the City Council in their positions. Mr. Henschel responded that such decisions should not be made in a vacuum because these decisions would affect a much larger area than just the City of Tigard. He again requested that the Council step back and not do any annexations for awhile. Councilor Moore referenced situations where property owners have requested annexation. Mr. Henschel said that he disagreed with Councilor Moore on this question and recommended the Council step back. ➢ Gretchen Buehner, 13249 SW 136th Place, Tigard, Oregon, testified that a "good chunk" of Bull Mountain consists of Tigard residents who voted for annexation. She asked several process questions: Was the timing of the request prior to the City's decision to place the Annexation Plan on the ballot? Staff responded, yes, the request for annexation was made before the decision to place the Annexation Plan on the ballot. ■ Are there any 120-day time limit issues with respect to this application? City Attorney Ramis responded that he did not think this rule applies because it is not a permit. ■ If the City denies annexation, could this lead to a Measure 37 claim? City Attorney Ramis said that property owners would need to look to their own counsel for advice on Measure 37. ➢ Phil Deckert, 14540 SW 148th Place, Tigard, Oregon, testified in opposition to the annexation as he contended whether or not to annex this area had been addressed in the November election. The majority of Tigard City Council Minutes Page 14 Meeting of December 14, 2004 voters said no to the annexation. He said any action to annex this area would constitute a vote to overturn the will of the people and questioned the Council's right to do this. Mr. Deckert advised that the staff report is defective on the subject of urban services and lacks necessary detail. In response to a question by Mr. Deckert, Community Development Director Jim Hendryx advised that SDC fees are paid at the time of building permit application. Rebuttal Y Michael Robinson, attorney for the applicant, West Hills Development, said that the approval criteria had been met. He cited Page 4 of the Staff Report outlining that adequate facilities are available as delineated in Community Development Code Section 18.320.020. With regard to the two requests that the record be left open for 15 days, the law provides that the record can be requested to be left open for no more than 7 calendar days. He requested approval of the annexation. e. Staff Recommendation - Community Development Director Jim Hendryx advised that the staff recommends the Council adopt the annexation as outlined in the Ordinance, Option 1, to annex the 36.1 acres. Mr. Hendryx noted the process and request is consistent with the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. The procedure is consistent with the Intergovernmental Agreements between the City of Tigard and Washington County. "Consents" are on file for Bella Vista and Arbor Summit I and II. The City has the authority to do incremental annexations. There is a statute that limits annexations within a specific time of a general election. Community Development Director Jim Hendryx referred to the testimony about delaying this annexation request until after the annexation plan election, which is required by state statute. City Attorney Ramis commented on the PGE v. City of Estacada case cited in Mr. Morgavi's testimony (written testimony is on file with the City Recorder). This case dealt with annexations attempted by a very long "cherry-stem" connection using a road. Mr. Ramis said he did not believe this case was applicable to the proposal before the Council. The City has authority to ask for consents or waivers for annexation. Courts have upheld that there is no obligation by taxpayers of a City to extend services to areas outside the City. The City can legitimately condition the extension of services to annexation. f. Council Questions In response to Councilor Wilson, City Attorney Ramis affirmed Mr. Robinson's statement that the record can only be required to be left open for seven days. An additional seven days could be granted upon request by the applicant. City Tigard City Council Minutes Page 15 Meeting of December 14, 2004 Manager Monahan suggested the following timeline: Seven days to receive additional written testimony followed by seven days as a rebuttal period for the applicant with a date certain for continuance of the hearing on December 28, 2004. Mr. Ramis clamed the record could be left open for written submittals only; there is no requirement for additional hearings. Community Development Director Jim Hendryx confirmed for Councilor Woodruff that there is no one living in the proposed annexation areas at this time. City Manager Monahan asked Council to let staff know if there were any additional questions or information needed. Otherwise, staff recommends the Council table this hearing to a date certain and he outlined potential hearing dates of December 28, January 11, or January 25. In response to Councilor Sherwood's request about timing, Mr. Monahan advised there were no impending deadlines, however, he noted delay could mean the loss of some SDC revenue, which in the past has been of concern to residents in the area. Mayor Dirksen noted this proposal to annex is consistent with the City policy to consider taking in property as it comes up for development. The Council, in the past, has not chosen to annex by "cherry stem." The area that is the subject of the public hearing is in the City's park service area and, if the area is not annexed now, there would be a loss of approximately $150,000 that could be used to further the City's Parks Master Plan. There was brief discussion on timeline for the hearing. In view of the lateness of the hour, Council decided it would hear Agenda Item Nos. 9 and 12 at this meeting because of timing issues; however, Agenda Item Nos. 10, 11 and 13 would be continued to December 28, 2004. Motion by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Woodruff, to hold the record open to receive written testimony with an additional seven days available to the applicant to rebut the written testimony and the hearing continued to December 28, 2004, 7:30 p.m. at the Tigard City Hall. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the City Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Moore: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff: Yes Tigard City Council Minutes Page 16 Meeting of December 14, 2004 9. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW BULK SALES IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP) ZONE a. Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing. b. Associate Planner Morgan Tracy presented the staff report, which is on file in the City Recorder's office. The staff and Planning Commission recommend that Council amend the City of Tigard Development Code to allow Bulk Sales as a "Restricted Use" in the IP Zones, subject to limitations of size and outdoor activity. Mr. Tracy presented highlights of the staff report in a PowerPoint presentation format, which is on file in the City Recorder's office. C. Public Testimony Proponents: o Bruce Vincent, 825 NE 20th, Portland, Oregon spoke in favor of the Code Amendment noting there are similar businesses nearby and the request is consistent with Metro rules. o Paul Schatz, 6600 SW Bonita Road, Tigard, OR 97223, noted that Tigard is home to his business and without the proposed amendment, they would not be able to expand. d. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Code Amendment. e. Mayor Dirksen closed the public hearing. f. Council consideration: Motion by Councilor Woodruff, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to adopt Ordinance No. 04-14. ORDINANCE NO. 04-14 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LANGUAGE OF THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMNT CODE CHAPTER 18.520 TO ALLOW BULK SALES WITHIN CERTAIN AREAS OF INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONES, SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS ON SIZE AND OUTDOOR ACTIVITY (ZOA2004-00001) The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the City Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Moore: Yes Tigard City Council Minutes Page 17 Meeting of December 14, 2004 Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff: Yes 10. REVISED CITY/TRIMET MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) This item was set over for consideration at the Tigard City Council meeting of December 28, 2004. 11. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AMENDED MASTER FEES FOR LONG-RANGE PLANNING This item was set over for consideration at the Tigard City Council meeting of December 28, 2004. 12. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO SIGN OREGON PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT/LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND FANNO CREEK TRAIL GRANT APPLICATION a. Parks Manager Dan Plaza summarized the staff report, which is on file in the City Recorder's office. If approved, this grant would provide needed funding for the construction of a segment of the Fanno Creek Trail between Hall Boulevard and Wall Street. Grant approval is not guaranteed; however, Mr. Plaza reported the City should have a good chance of award. b. Council consideration: Motion by Councilor Wilson, seconded by Councilor Woodruff, to approve Resolution No. 04-98. RESOLUTION NO. 04-98 -A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL TO THE OREGON PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OF A FEDERAL LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND GRANT TO PARTIALLY FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 2ND SEGMENT OF THE FANNO CREEK TRAL AT FANNO CREEK PARK The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the City Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Moore: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff: Yes 13. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: MISSION/VALUES EXERCISE RESULTS Tigard City Council Minutes Page 18 Meeting of December 14, 2004 This item was set over for consideration at the Tigard City Council meeting of December 28, 2004. 14. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None 15. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None 16. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilor Woodruff, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the City Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Moore: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff: Yes The meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Gt7 Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder /J Mayor City of Tigard Date: I- o? DS i -ti i~ .9 Tigard City Council Minutes Page 19 Meeting of December 14, 2004 Greeter: Dennis Koellermeier MAYOR'S AGENDA l,.;i e 'TIC~A CI°PY CQtINCIL:: , : MEETING , . DECEMBER=14, 2004 _6.OOp m:.. CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD LIBRARY.COMMUNITY ROOM 13500`SW HALL BOULEVARD- TIGARD,.OR,EGON 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 Communication 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 - DECEMBER 14, 2004 Page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2004 6:00 PM - Second Floor Library Conference Room • MEET WITH TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSULTANT ON RECRUITMENT 6:30 PM - Second Floor Library Conference Room • STUDY SESSION > 360 REVIEW DISCUSSION (Sandy Zodrow) >MEASURE 37 UPDATE ON FILINGS 8L FINALIZE PROCESS (Jim Hendryx/Tim Ramis) > BUDGET PRINCIPLES AND STRATEGIC FINANCE PLAN DISCUSSION (Craig Prosser) > CITY HALL CABLE DISCUSSION (SEE ALSO - CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.5) (Gary Ehrenfeld) >COUNCIL DESIGNATION OF VICE-CHAIR FOR JOINT WATER COMMISSION (Bill Monahan) >CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE TO WCCCA BUDGET COMMITTEE - REAPPOINT BOB ROHLF (Bill Monahan) >ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session as provided by ORS 192.660. 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 at Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 8t Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 PM 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Tigard High School Student Envoy Nikki Pham • Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce Dan Murphy • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 2004 Page 2 Rob Williams will review the Consent Agenda: 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 November 9 and November 15, 2004 3.2 Receive and File a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda C. Canvass of Votes for Mayor, Two City Councilor Positions, and Bull Mountain Annexation Measure-November 2, 2004 Election 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Approve the purchase of a Chevrolet police pursuit Tahoe Sport Utility vehicle b. Approve the purchase of two Ford F-250 pick-up trucks for the Public Works Division C. Approve the purchase of three Ford F-350 pick-up trucks for the Public Works Division 3.4 Amend City Manager's Employment Agreement Confirming Health Insurance Benefits - Resolution No. 04-92 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CITY MANAGER WILLIAM A. MONAHAN'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF TIGARD, CORRECTING HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS 3.5 Approve Budget Amendment No. 7 to the FY 2004-05 Budget to Increase Appropriations in the Facility Fund for the Upgrade of the Wiring System in City Hall - Resolution No. 04- 93 A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT #7 TO THE FY 2004-05 BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE FACILITY r FUND FOR THE WIRING/CABLING SYSTEM OF CITY HALL 3.6 Approve Budget Amendment No. 5 to the FY 2004-05 Budget to Increase Appropriations in the Community Services Program to Establish a Residential Services Agency Emergency Fund - Resolution No. 04-94 i A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT #5 TO THE FY 2004-05 BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 2004 Page 3 COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAM TO ESTABLISH A RESIDENTIAL SERVICES AGENCY EMERGENCY FUND • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:45 PM 4. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING MELVIN WALKER FOR TWENTY- THREE YEARS OF SERVICE WITH THE CITY OF TIGARD a. Staff Recommendation: Dennis Koellermeler, Public Works Director b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration - Resolution No. 04-95 Councilor: I move for adoption ofthe proposed Resolution 04- Councilor: I second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution No. 04- please say "aye. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No. 04- please say "nay. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: Resolution No. 04- (is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote. i Tie votes = failed motion. COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 2004 Page 4 7:50 PM 5. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION TO DECLARE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14040 SW 1 17TH AVENUE AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CARRY OUT THE SALE OF SAID PROPERTY. a. Open Public Hearing (Mayor Dirksen) b. Summation by Joe Barrett, Buyer C. Public Testimony • Proponents • Opponents d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 04-96 Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed Resolution 04- Councilor: 1 second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution No. 04- please say "aye. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No. 04- please say "nay. " Mayor/Councilors: ` Mayor: Resolution No. 04- (is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes = failed motion. i i i COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 2004 Page 5 8:00 PM 6. ADOPT PARKS SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDC) METHODOLOGY AND MASTER FEE RATE RESOLUTION a. Staff Recommendation: Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 04-97 Councilor: 1 move for adoption of the proposed Resolution 04- Councilor: I second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): All of those in fervor of adopting Resolution No. 04- please say "aye. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No. 04- please say "nay. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: Resolution No. 04- (is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes = failed motion. 8:20 PM 7. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT MEASURE 37, PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN DEMANDS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE 37, AND AMENDING ORDINANCE 04-12. a. Open Public Hearing b. Summation by Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director C. Public Testimony • Proponents • Opponents d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 2004 Page 6 f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Ordinance 04-13 Councilor: 1 move for adoption of the proposed Ordinance. Councilor: 1 second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Ordinance. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote ujCouncil. City Recorder: Conducts roll call vole. Mayor: Ordinance No. 04-_ (is approved or fails) by a (unanimous or however votes were split) vote. 8:30 PM 8. PUBLIC HEARING (Quasi-Judicial) - ARBOR SUMMIT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES ANNEXATION - ZCA 2004-0001 The following should be read by either the Mayor or City Attorney: REQUEST: The applicant Is requesting annexation of two (2) parcels containing 8.9 acres into the City of Tigard, better known as Arbor Summit Subdivision I and 11. An additional 9.29 acres has been included by means of c6nsent (Bella Vista Subdivision). The City is also including a 17.91 acre piece of the contiguous Summit Ridge Subdivision by using double majority, as allowed by Oregon Revised Statute 222.170.2, Effect of consent to annexation by territory. Therefore, this annexation is for eight (8) parcels totaling 36.1 acres. LOCATION: Eight contiguous properties located between SW Bull Mountain Road and SW Beef Bend Road, east of SW 133rd Avenue and west of Turnagain Heights; also known as Arbor Summit I and 11, Bella Vista, and a portion of Summit Ridge Subdivisions. 12780 and 12950 SW Bull Mountain Road; 12525, 12635, 12655 and 12825 SW Beef Bend Road; and 2 unaddressed parcels. Washington County Tax Assessor's Map Numbers 2S 109AD, Tax Lots 1400 and 1500; 2S 109DA, Tax Lot 2200; and 2S 109DD, Tax Lots 100, 102, 300, 306 and 7000. ZONE: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single- family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 2004 Page 7 also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The approval standards for annexations are set out in Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10; ORS Chapter 222; and Metro Code Chapter 3.09. a. Open Public Hearing (Mayor) Statement by City Attorney Any person may offer relevant oral and/or written testimony. Oral testimony may be offered only by a person who has been asked to speak by the Mayor. City staff will identify those standards at the beginning of the hearing. The Council has two related decisions to make in this hearing. One is to make a land use decision applying existing state, Metro and City laws. The Council cannot change the law for the land use application now under consideration. Council's other decision is a discretionary decision whether it wants to annex the territory proposed for annexation. In making that decision, the Council must also determine whether statutory provisions relating to annexation have been complied with. Members of the City Council will be asked whether they have any potential conflicts. A potential conflict is a situation in which the Council member or close relative could have a personal or business financial interest in the decision. If a Council member has an actual conflict, the Council member cannot participate. A Council member with a potential conflict may participate after fully describing the potential conflict. An actual conflict exists if the decision would result in financial benefit to the Council member or family member, a conflict is potential if the decision could result in a financial benefit to the Council member. After the discussion of conflicts, any person may challenge participation of a Council member based on an actual conflict or failure to disclose a potential conflict. The Council member in question may respond to such a challenge. After the discussion of conflicts and any challenges, City staff will summarize the written staff report and explain the proposed annexation. Then the applicant and those in favor of the proposed annexation testify. Then those who oppose the application or who have questions or concerns testify. Council members may ask the staff and the witnesses questions throughout the hearing until the record closes. After all testimony is taken, the City staff can make a closing statement. After the record is closed, the City Council will deliberate about what to do with the application. During deliberations, the City Council may re-open the public portion of the hearing if necessary to receive additional evidence before making a decision. A copy of the rules of procedure for the hearing and copies of agendas for today's hearing are available at the entrance. The staff report on this hearing has been available for viewing and downloading on the City's website and a paper copy of the staff report has been available at City Hall. COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 2004 Page 8 You must testify orally or in writing before the close of the public record to preserve your right to appeal the Council' s decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Failure to raise an issue clearly enough so that Council understands and can address the issue precludes an appeal on that issue. Please do not repeat testimony offered by yourself and earlier witnesses. If you agree with the statement of an earlier witness, please just state that and add any additional points of your own. You have the right to respond to new evidence presented at the hearing. You may request that the hearing be continued or the record held open in order to respond to the new evidence. Demonstrations from the audience that prolong or interfere with the hearing are prohibited. Please refrain from them. Please treat all witnesses with respect. Comments from the audience other than from a recognized speaker should not be offered and will not be part of the record. When you are called to testify, please come forward to the table. Please begin your testimony by giving your name, please spell your last name, and give your full mailing address including zip code. If you represent someone else, please say so. If you have any exhibits you want us to consider, such as a copy of your testimony, photographs, petitions, or other documents or physical evidence, at the close of your comments you must hand all new exhibits to the City Recorder. The exhibits will be marked as part of the record. The City staff will keep exhibits until appeal opportunities expire, and then you can ask them to return your exhibits. Conflicts Does any member of the Council wish to declare an actual or potential conflict of interest? Does anyone wish to challenge any Council member's ability to participate in this decision? b. Summation by Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director C. Public Testimony Mayor to call for testimony of - Proponents - Opponents - Rebuttal d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 04-14 Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed Ordinance. Councilor: I second the motion. COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 2004 Page 9 Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Ordinance. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? !Mayor (after discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council. City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote. Mayor. Ordinance No. 04- (is approved or fails) by a (unanimous or however votes were split) vote. 8:50 PM 9. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW BULK SALES IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP) ZONE a. Open Public Hearing b. Summation by Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director C. Public Testimony d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 04-15 Councilor: 1 move for adoption of the proposed Ordinance. Councilor: 1 second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Ordinance. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council. City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote. Mayor: Ordinance No. 04- (is approved or fails) by a (unanimous or however votes were split) vote. COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 2004 Page 10 9:05 PM 10. REVISED CITY/TRIMET MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) a. Staff Report: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Adopt Memorandum of Understanding 9:20 PM 11. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AMENDED MASTER FEES FOR LONG-RANGE PLANNING a. Open Public Hearing b. Summation by Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director C. Public Testimony d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion f. Close Public Hearing g- Council Consideration: Resolution No. 04-98 Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed Resolution 04- Councilor: 1 second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution No. 04- please say "aye. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No. 04- please say "nay. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: Resolution No. 04- (is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes = failed motion. COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 2004 Page 1 1 9:40 PM 12. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO SIGN OREGON PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT/LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND FANNO CREEK TRAIL GRANT APPLICATION a. Staff Report: Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Resolution 04-99 Councilor: 1 move for adoption ofthe proposed Resolution 04- Councilor: 1 second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution No. 04- please say "aye. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No. 04- please say "nay. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: Resolution No. 04- (is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes = failed motion. 9:45PM 13. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: MISSION/VALUES EXERCISE RESULTS a. Staff Report: Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director 1. 9:50PM E 14. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9:55PM 3 1 S. NON AGENDA ITEMS 10:00 PM 16. ADJOURNMENT I:WDM%CATHY\CCA\2004\041214).DOC COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 2004 Page 12 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS - N o€r~a11 The TIGARD CITY COUNCIL on 'I1mes+day, Ue~~ 14, 2004 at 1325 811 C Dt'he Plea 08 8721 A • PO BU 310 • BggPb1, OR 87075 PIS50384-0380 Fse 5038103433 7:30 PM at the City of Tigard Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, egon~willconsider declaring the real property located at EMU: ~A~ s~ace0msswspsBsPS.ssm 14040 SW 117 Avenue as surplus property and authorize the City Manager or designee to offer the property for sale and negotiate the AFFIDAVIT O F PUBLICATION fu Price and terms of the sale. The public hearing on ttus matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code. State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS Further information may be obtained from the Finance Division (staff contact: Joe Barrett) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, 1, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, or by calling (503) 639-4171. depose and say that I am the Accounting TT 10510 Publish December 9, 2004 Manager of the Tigard/Tualatin Times, a newspaper of general circulation, published at Beaverton, in the aforesaid county and state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that City of Tigard Notice of Public Hearing: 12/14 re: property on 117t" Ave CNI TT10510 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 December 9, 2004 'w 0-e&'C-P Charlotte Allsop (Accounting anager) Subscribed and sworn to before me this OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A BURGESS NOTARY OUBLIC-OREGON December 9, 2004 COMMISSION NO. 344589 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2005 NOTARY PUBLIC FOR EGON My commission expires Acct # 10093001 City of Tigard Attn: Accounts Payable 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Sizej X Amount Due $ remit to address above (14c Oregonian EST. 1850 Practically Indispensable. 1320 SW Broadway, Portland, OR 97201-3499 Affidavit of Fublication G. HATTER duly swom depose and say that 1 am the Principal Clerk Of The Publisher of The Oregonian, a newspaper of general circulation, as defined by ORG 193.010 and 193.020, published in the city of Portland, in Witnomah County, Oregon; that the advertisement, the printed text of which is shown below, was published without interruption in the entire and regular issue The Oregonian or the issue on the following dates: 12/10/2004 Principal Clerk of the Publisher: S 1~U y Subscr' and sworn to bef me this date: Notary: Ad Order Number: 0001094892 THE FOLLOWING will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Tuesday December 14, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E and ORS Chapter 197 Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Jim Hendryx) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or call 503-639-4171. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM Ordinance Providing a Process for Consideration of Written Demands for Compensation Under 2004 Ballot Measure 37. The City of Tigard will consider adoption of an ordinance providing a process for consideration of written demands for competisa±on under 2004 Ballot Measure 37, adding a new chapter 1.20 to the Tigard Municipal Code, and declaring an emergency. The proposed ordinance may be viewed on the City's website: www.ci.tigard.or.usPUBLISH DATE:Friday, December 10, 2004 0'r -SEAL ` PATRICIA ATKIi,SON ;rte.;• l NOTA iY ? ORFGON C0:''!ISS 346587 MY COMMISS'u!? "S JUNE 9, 2005 (14c Oregonian Practically Indispensable. 4320 SW Broadway, Portland, OR 97201-3499 Affidavit of Publication City of Tigard 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD OR 972238144 4. _J _O U J R,~,.r~r•....•. _n, c ~ ~ 7 2004 C0j\ANAj %o_j TV NEWSPAPERS 1325 SR CU* DPW, FrOul, M 07210 • PC In 370 • h win, OR 07075 Pale 503.0840300 Poe 503.820.3433 The following will be considered b~r tha IgNA Cm ounc t on Mt kOlirrrtl M@CIMIrAMPI;IPLaa Tuesday December 2001 a:IP1~[ at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. AFFIDAVIT O F PUBLICATION Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public heearin on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E. Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, Planning Division (Staff contact: Morgan Tracy) at 13125 SW Hall depose and say that I am the Accounting Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 or by calling 503-639-4171. Manager of the Tigardfrualatin Times, a PUBLIC BEARING ITEM: newspaper of general circulation, published ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 2004-00001 at Beaverton, in the aforesaid county and CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW BULK SALES IN THE state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and _r Y j REQUEST: A Zone Ordinance Amendment to amend the 193.020, that Industrial Use Table within the Tigard Community Development Code to allow "Bulk Sales" as a permitted use within the IP City of Tigard Public Hearing Item (Industrial Park) zone where presently this use is prohibited. Bulk Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 2004- Sales as defined by the Tig.zr+d Community Development Code are 00001 - Code Amendment to Allow Bulk "Establishments which engage in the sales, leasing and rental of bulky items requiring extensive interior space for display including Sales in the IP Zone - furniture, large appliance and home improvement sales." CNI TT10504 LOCA'T'ION: Citywide. ZONE: IP (Industrial Park). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals a copy of which is hereto annexed, was 1 and 2; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1 and 2; and Community published in the entire issue of said Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.530. newspaper for TT 10504 Publish November 25, 2004 1 successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues November 25, 2004 Ch ~i,K I off. 0jj4,:e Charlotte Allsop (Accounting M nager) Subscribed and sworn to before me this November 25, 2004 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A BURGESS ~ NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 344589 NOTARY PUBL OR OREGON MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16,20C-55 My commission expires Acct # 10093001 City of Tigard Attn: Accounts Payable 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Size a2,43 Amount Due $ 5d• ' remit to address above C0&kL'VjLk--41Tv Ni'APEIS _ cii Y of tiGARD 1325 SW Cnfu OPhi, PuaK OB 87210. PO 110 370. BUnrM, OR 07075 I'MI0&OB403B0 fm503820.3433 OREGON, Iiafl: Np111YiPUfI1J@p1~1111~i~IPi.C1AI PUBLIC HEARING ITEM . AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION The following will be considered by the Tigard City Connell On Center State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS .-Town Halle Room, 13125 SW Hall Boul T, Oregon 1, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, 97223' depose and say that I am the Accounting Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this g matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted by Manager of the Tigard/Tualatin Times, a the Council and available at gity Hall or the tules.of proeodue+ O, , newspaper of general circulation, published lam iu Section 1$390.06_OE, _ Y at at Beaverton, in the aforesaid county and mot Fart . may be obtained ~lot0 S state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and at 13125SW Hailr Hbl state, 0, that Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling at 503-639=4172. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: City of Tigard ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2004-00001 ARBOR SU1 rmT ANNEXATION Arbor Summit Annexation (ZCA) 2004-00001 REQUEST; The applicant is requesting annexation of two (2) CNI TT10507 parcels containing 8.9 acres into the City of Tigard, better known as Arbor Summit Subdivision I and II. An additional 9.29 acres has a copy of which is hereto annexed, was been included by means of consent (Bella Vista Subdivision). The published in the entire issue of said City is also including a 17.91 acre piece of the contiguous Summit newspaper for Ridge Subdivision by using double majority, as allowed by Oregon Revised Statute '222.170.2, Effect of consent to annexation by 2 territory. Therefore, this annexation is for eight (8) parcels totaling 36.1 acres. LOCATION: Eight contiguous properties located between 4W Bull Mountain Road and SW Beef Bend Road, east of successive and consecutive weeks in the SW 133r Avenue and west of Turnagain Heights; also known as following issues Arbor Summit I and II, Bella vista, and a portion of Summit Ridge Subdivisions. 12780 and 12950 SW Bull Mountain Road; 12525, December 2, 2004 12635, 12655 and. 12825 SW Beef Bend Road; and 2 unaddressed December 9, 2004 parcels. Washington County Tax Assessors Map Numbers 2S109AD, Tax Lots 1400 and 1500, 2SI09DA, Tax Lot 2200; and 2S 109131), Tax Lots 100, 102, 300, 306 and 7000. ZONE: " R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is UZ7~ 021A Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Hager) des'ed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a nununum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions Subscribed and sworn to before me this are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Dece er 9, 2004 The approval of standards for annexations are set out in Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10; ORS Chapter 222; and Metro Code Chapter 3.09. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR ZfREGON ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE My commission expires ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE Acct # 10093001 (25¢) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR City of Tigard COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST FIFTEEN Attn: Accounts Payable (15) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF Attn: SW Hall Blvd REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST. 13125 Tigard, OR 97223 Size X 5 Amount Due $3385 /O remit to address above 1 11 12 1 R11r C VTT NEWSPAPER5 CIW OF,' il i®. 1325 SW Caster ONve, hrOiat, OR 97219 • PO Bu 370 • BeareFlaa, OR 91015 ®REG®W Ran: 503-38U380 Fit 501820-3433 Emil: legalltaffi:ing@commnupipeps.com PUBLIC HEARING ITEM AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION The following will be considered by -the TigIird City Coun on Tue~Aav December 14 2004<at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS Town Hall Room, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, -'Oregon 97223. I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, Public oral or written testimony. is invited. The public hearing on this';. depose and say that I am the Accounting matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted bbyt I Manager of the Tigard/Tualatin Times, a the.Council and available at City Hall or-the rules of procedure. newspaper of general circulation, published 'forth m Section 18.390.060E.` Division at Beaverton, in the aforesaid county and '~iFurther information may 11 be'[obtained"from the Planning state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and fi eaittmea' Matthew Scbelde&erl at 13125-SW Hall Blvd; 193.020, that Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling at 503-639-4172. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: ZONE C)@LANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2004-00001 City of Tigard ARBOR SUMMIT ANNEXATION j Arbor Summit Annexation (ZCA) 2004-00001 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting annexation of two (2) CNI TT10507 parcels containing 8.9 acres into the City of Tigard, better known as Arbor Summit Subdivision I and IL An additional 9.29 acres has a copy of which is hereto annexed, was been included by means of consent (Bella Vista Subdivision).. The City is also including a 17.91 acre piece of the contiguous Summit, published in the entire issue of said Ride subdivision by using double majority, as allowed by Oregon newspaper for Revised Statute '222.170.2, Effect of 'consent to annexation by territory. Therefore, this annexation is for eight (8) parcels totaling 2 36.1 acres. (LOCATION: Eight contiguous .properties located between qW Bull Mountain Road and SW Beef Bend Road, east of and consecutive weeks in the SW 133r Avenue and west of Turnagain Heights; also known as successive succe Arbor, Summit I and Il, Bella Vista, and a portion of Summit Ridge following issues Subdivisions. 12780 and 12950 SW Bull Mountain Road; 12525, 12635, 12655 and 12825 SW Beef Bend Road; and 2 unaddressed December 2, 2004 parcels. Washington County Tax Assessor s Map Nunibers December 9, 2004 2SI09AD, Tax Lots 1400 and 1500, 2S109DA, Tax Lot 2200; and 2SI09DD, Tax Lots 100, 102, 300, 306 and 7000. ZONE:' R 7: j~ n Iw~1 1o,4n l jc 0, W~ 0 ~ L Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate, attached single-family homes, detached' vt Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manager) single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions Subscribed and sworn to before me this are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: < The approval of standards for annexations are set out in Community Code .320 ters 18 Cha Com Dice er 9, 2004 Plan Policies 2 and 10 OARS Chapter 222; an18 d Metro Code Chapter 3.09. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR EIREGON ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE My commission expires ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY FIVE Acct # 10093001 (25¢) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST FIFTEEN. City of Tigard (15) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF Attn: Accounts Payable REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, 13125 SW Hall Blvd OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS Tigard, OR 97223 (25¢) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. INFORMATION IS Size ALSO AVAILABLE BY CONTACTING THE STAFF CONTACTS Amount Due $ ~D LISTED ABOVE. ' remit to address above ove y A 1 Y~/iV= ICp2004-00901 ARBOR SUMMIT ,AKNEYATION ~I _ - SITS r _ I t O NO, T ' City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter of the Notice of Changes to Tigard City Council Meeting Schedule and Meeting Locations - December 2004 STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, n h~, r~ F l 7 , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted the '?Notice of Changes to Tigard City Council Meeting Schedule and Meeting Locations - December 2004" in the following locations: • Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon • Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon • Tigard Water Building 8777 SW Burnham Street, Tigard, Oregon ■ Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon A copy of said Notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the j-3 day of 200(/ Signature of Person who Performe Posting day of Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this dY~ OFFIGYAL SEAL JILL M BtiARS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON - - COMMISSION No. 381783 Si ature of Notary Public for Oregon MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 14, 2008 1:1ednM.a Wonns%slO rA of posting • december 04 meettrp cTarges.d= C o~ City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance(s) C~Ca Q-'s 0&4-11 4, otl. N IQ.1q.oq STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I. eAl'80-TzLe VJ"T1.E'1 , 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) Orr ` - 17~•l 0L4- ln `I , which were adopted at the City Council meeting of I Q .114. v`i , with a copy(s) of said Ordinance(s) being hereto attached a d by reference made a part hereof, on the 'P - day of "S P kMA- , 20 CS~ 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Signature of Person who Performe osting Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this day of ~ D~ •fD hQ,r' , 20 DS . OFFICIAL SEAL z j QREER A GASTON Signature of Notary Public for Oregon I ONOTARYPUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 373020 Ii4Y COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT. 10, 2007 11TIG333\USR\DEPTS\ADM\GREER\FORMS\AFFIDAVITS\AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING - ORDINANCE.DOC Co Ij 1) 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 ) `~Qp KIa Uy' 1'' ~ tom( County of Washington ) ss. ) a' ' Oy City of Tigard ) I, f' cc) eLl , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I on December 15, 2005, 1 posted in the following public place, a copy of Ordinance Numbers 04-01 through 04-15 , which were adopted by the City Council. Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon cl~'u Signature of Person who Perfo d Posting Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this 54" day of deZZVA7 ,2066. OFFICIAL SEAL JU M BYARS GG~~ ' NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON MY CO 793 AMISSSION EI XXPIN ES JUNE 14. Zoos Signature of Notary Public for Oregon HednlpreeNamtsWlNevISU111deWl of postft - 04 on*%0 - 01-07 to 04.15 - perm moler.Ooc Attachment 2 (b) CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO. 04-) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 04-12 PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE 37, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 1.20 TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, on November 23, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 0402 without incorporating the written Exhibit A that had been distributed and directed that a revised Exhibit A be prepared to include specific changes; and WHEREAS, a revised Exhibit A has been prepared that includes the changes requested by the Council; now, therefore; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Ordinance 04-12 is hereby amended by adding an Exhibit A to that ordinance in the form of the attached Exhibit A. The Tigard Municipal Code is consequently amended as provided in Ordinance 04-12 and Exhibit A. SECTION 2: Because this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the health, safety and welfare of the City, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately on passage. PASSED: By too -']Dr) vote of all Council members present after being le only, this '!day of 2-kf'r ern 2004. read by number ah-- Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 2004. Craig D ksen, Mayor Approved as to fo : V ~ 'eAy Attorney / ? oI ORDINANCE No. 04 Page 1 EXHIBIT A TO CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO. . J3 PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE 37, INCLUDING A PROVISION FOR ACTION BY NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 1.20 TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE. 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 claim for compensation under Measure 37 in accordance with 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 Claims A. A property owner wishing to make a claim against the City under Measure 37 shall first submit a written claim to the City. A claim under Measure must be in writing and include: ORDINANCE No. 04 Page 2 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. A list of all persons with an ownership interest in or a lien on the property. 4. Identification of the regulation that is alleged to restrict the use of the affected property and a statement describing how the restriction affects the value of the property 5. A statement whether the Claimant prefers compensation or a waiver, suspension or modification of the regulation, and a statement describing the extent to which the regulation would need to be waived, suspended or modified to avoid the need for compensation. A description of the proposed use must be provided. 6. The amount claimed as compensation and documentation supporting the amount. The documentation shall include a market analysis, an appraisal, or other documentation at least equivalent to a market analysis. 7. 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. ORDINANCE No. 04- l Page 3 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 submission of the claim 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. i h. The regulation protects public health and safety. i. The City is not the entity responsible for payment. The City is not responsible if ! i the challenged law, rule, ordinance, resolution, goal or other enactment was not enacted or enforced by the City. ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 4 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 fiord 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 arc received, compensation shall be paid within 180 days of the date the claim 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 claim. 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. ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 5 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 Action by Neighboring Property Owners If a Claim results in a waiver of enforcement of a regulation and the development allowed by the waiver causes a reduction in value of other property located in the vicinity of the Claimant, those property owners shall have the right to maintain an action against the Claimant in state circuit court to recover the amount of the reduction. The nearby property owners, if successful, shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees. This section does not create a right of action against the City. 1.20.110 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. 1.20.120 Deposit and Responsibility for Costs The Claimant shall provide a deposit of $1,000 at the time the claim is filed with the City. If the claim is determined to be valid, the City shall refund the entire deposit. 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 amount of reimbursement exceeds the cost of deposit, the Claimant shall pay any additional amounts within 30 days of a demand by the City. for full reimbursement. If the amount of reimbursement is less than the deposit, the City shall refund the difference to the Claimant. The City shall provide an invoice detailing its costs when demanding additional reimbursement or providing a partial refund. 1.20.130 Severability N 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. ORDINANCE No. 04- 13 Page 6 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO.04 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LANGUAGE OF THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.520 TO ALLOW BULK SALES WITHIN CERTAIN AREAS OF INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONES, SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS ON SIZE AND OUTDOOR AC! IVITY (ZOA2004-00001). WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Zone Ordinance Amendment to amend the language of the Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.520 to allow bulk sales in the Industrial Park Zones as a permitted use; and WHEREAS, planning staff notified the appropriate agencies of the request and received comments from Metro regarding compliance with Title 4 of the Regional Framework Plan; and WHEREAS, staff evaluated Metro's designated Industrial Lands and Employment Lands, and found that the majority of eligible IP zoned land for limited retail uses was on the cast side of SW 72nd Avenue; and WHEREAS, to further comply with the Title 4 rejuirements, the maximum allowable size for a single bulk sales use or combination of uses on one parcel is 60,000 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, to maintain the campus like character for the Industrial Park zone, additional limitations on outdoor storage and activity should be imposed, and WHEREAS, staff modified the proposal so that bulk sales would be allowed only as a restricted use in IP Zoned property, east of SW 72nd Avenue, limited to a maximum size of 60,000 square feet, and with restrictions on outside sales, storage or activity; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the request at their November 15, 2004 public hearing, and unanimously voted in favor of the modified amendment on a 7-0 vote; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the request on December 14, 2004 and determined that the proposed language adequately addressed concerns regarding protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the Tigard citizens, as well as, the interests of business in Tigard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; any applicable Metro regulations; any applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies; and any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed zone ordinance amendment is consistent with the applicable revicow criteria and that approving the request would be in the best interest of the City of Tigard. ORDINANCE No. 04 /4 Page 1 • NOW, TIIREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION l : The specific text amendments attached as °EXEMI T All to this Ord4in am hemby, adopted and approved by the City Council. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By U K/FF Allot[ S vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this / M m day of _ Cam bw-i --.22004. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this f'- day of 2004. Craig Dir n, Mayor roved as to fo -A V ity Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 04 Page 2 i EXHIBIT A Recommended Development Code Text Amendment TABLE 15530.1 USE TABLE: INDUSTRIAL ZONES USE CATEGORY I -P I-L I-H f RESIDENTIAL Household Living R' R' R' Group Living N N N Transitional Housing N N N Home Occupation N N N CIVIC (INSTT=ONAL) Basic Utilities C C P Colleges N N N Community Recreation C1O • CIO C'0 Cultural Institutions N N N Day Care W 9 W 9 R? 9 Emergency Services P P P Medical Centers N N N Postal Service P P P Public Support Facilities P P P Religious Institutions N N N Schools N N N Social/Fraternal Clubs/Lodges N N N COMMERCIAL Commercial Lodging P N N Eating and Drinking Establishments R? N N Entertainment-oriented - Major Event Entertainment N N N - Outdoor Entertainment P N N - Indoor Entertainment P N N - Adult Entertainment N N N General Retail - Sales-Oriented Rz N N - Personal Services w N N - Emir-Oriented P N N r.. I~R 1 N N - Outdoor Sales w - N P P i - Animal-Related P P P Motor Vehicle Related - Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental N P P ` - Motor Vehicle Servicing/Repair C P P - Vehicle Fuel Sales P We P Office P N N I Self-Service Storage P P P Non-Accessory Parking P P P TABLE 18.530.1 (CON T) USE CATEGORY I-P I-L I-H INDUS'T'RIAL Industrial Services N P P Manufacturing and Production - Light Industrial P P P - General Industrial N P P - Heavy Industrial N N P Railroad Yards N N P Research and Development P P P Warehouse/Freight Movement N P P Waste-Related N N P Wholesale Sales R° P P OTHER AgricultureJHorticulture ps ps Ps Cemeteries N C N Detention Facilities C N C Heliports C C C Mining N N P Wireless Communication Facilities P/R6 P P Rail Lines/Utility Corridors P P P Other NA NA Ps P--Permitted R=Restricted Conditional Use N =Not Permitted A single-family detached dwelling or single-family mobile or manufactured home allowed far caretaker or kennel owner/operator when located on the same lot as the permitted use and is exclusively occupied by the caretaker or kennel owner/operator and family. 2 These limited uses, separately or in combination, may not exceed 20% of the entire square footage within a development complex. No retail uses shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area per building or business. 3 In-home day care which meets all state requirements permitted by right. 4 PermittedUf all activities, except employee and customer parking, are wholly contained with a building(s). 5 When an agricultural use is adjacent to a residential use, no poultry or livestock, other than normal household pets, may be housed or provided use of a fenced run within 100 feet of any nearby residence except a dwelling on the same lot. s See Chapter 18.798, Wireless Communication Facilities, for definition of permitted and restricted facilities in the I-P zone. 7 Vehicle fuel sales permitted outright unless in combination with convenience sales, in which case it is permitted conditionally. s Explosive storage permitted outright subject to regulations of Uniform Fire Code. 9 Day care uses with over 5 children are permitted subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment in accordance with Section 18.530.050.C.1. The design of the day care must fully comply with State of Oregon requirements for outdoor openspace setbacks. 10 Limited to outdoor Recreation on (1.) land classified as floodplain on City flood maps, when the recreational use does not otherwise preclude futuro cut and fill es needed in order to develop adjoining industrially zoned upland; and (2.) land located outside the floodplain as shown on City flood maps, when the Recreation Use is temporary and does not otherwise preclude allowed uses or Conditional Uses other than Recreation within the district. Aim. r MAN C 9 3 a i I~ a CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF CHANGES TO TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE AND MEETING LOCATIONS - DECEMBER 2004 Please forward to: ✓ Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) ✓ Patrick Harrington, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061) V Editor, The Regal Courier (Fax No. 503-968-7397) Notice is hereby given of changes to the Tigard City Council Meeting Schedule and Meeting Locations during December 2004: o December 14, 2004 - Regular Business Meeting: 6 p.m. - Library Conference Room on 2nd Floor, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Meeting with Tigard Tualatin School District Consultant on Recruitment 6:30 p.m. - Library Conference Room on 2"d Floor, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Study Session 7:30 p.m. - Library Community Room on I" Floor, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Business Meeting o December 20, 2004 -Joint meeting of the Tigard City Council and the Washington County Board of Commissioners 6:30 p.m. - Library Community Room on 1" Floor, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Special Meeting to Discuss Annexation o December 21, 2004 - Workshop Meeting - Canceled 01 o December 28, 2004 - Business Meeting - Canceled i For further information, please contact City RecLcl- rder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171, Ext 2410. r, P_ L 0 . rz City Recorder Post: Tigard City Hall TigardPermit Center Tigard Water Building Tigard Public Library tudm`u~0f'a~~ 0 nodieesWee•mCm 2004 - a ma•Un0 dwwsAoe 12/10/2004 10:03 FAX 5036847297 City of Tigard I~J001 sss#***is#*sss*#ssss*s*ss**#ss sss MULTI TX/RX REPORT TX/RX NO 3782 PCs. 1 TX/RX INCOMPLETE TRANSACTION OR 1 0615035460724 Tr Newsroom ( 0915039686061 Oregonian 1115039687397 Regal Courier ERROR INFORMATION CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF CHANGES TO' TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE AND MEETING LOCATIONS - DECEMBER 2004 Please forward to: ✓ Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) j ✓ Patrick Harrington, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061) Editor, The Regal Courier (Fax No. 503-968-7397) Notice is hereby given of changes to the Tigard City Council Meeting Schedule and Meeting Locations during December 2004: o December 14, 2004 - Regular Business Meeting: 6 p.m. - Library Conference Room on 2nd Floor, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon I Meeting with Tigard Tualatin School District Consultant on Recruitment 6:30 pm. - Library Conference Room on 2°d Floor, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Study Session 7:30 p.m. - Library Community Room on 1s` Floor, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Business Meeting o December 20, 2004 - Joint meeting of the Tigard City Council and the Washington County Board of Commissioners 6:30 p.m. - Library Community Room on I" Floor, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Special Meeting to Discuss Annexation o December 21, 2004 - Wor~_-hop Meeting - Canceled o December 28, 2004 -Business Meeting- Canceled For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171, Ext 2410. CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF CHANGES TO TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE AND MEETING LOCATIONS - DECEMBER 2004 Please forward to: ✓ Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) ✓ Patrick Harrington, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061) V Editor, The Regal Courier (Fax No. 503-968-7397) Notice is hereby given of changes to the Tigard City Council Meeting Schedule and Meeting Locations during December 2004: o December 14, 2004 - Regular Business Meeting: 6 p.m. - Library Conference Room on 2"d Floor, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Meeting with Tigard Tualatin School District Consultant on Recruitment 6:30 p.m. - Library Conference Room on 2"d Floor, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Study Session 7:30 p.m. - Library Community Room on I" Floor, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Business Meeting o December 20, 2004 - Joint meeting of the Tigard City Council and the Washington County Board of Commissioners 6:30 p.m. - Library Community Room on Ist Floor, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Special Meeting to Discuss Annexation o December 21, 2004 - Workshop Meeting - Canceled o December 28, 2004 - Business Meeting - Canceled For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171, Ext 2410. ct. rLp- City Recorder Post: Tigard City Hall Tigard.Permit Center Tigard Water Building Tigard Public Library c~mnk@Uvy%w%cc meaft radmUtemmber 2004 . cc aneft chw9ft dw City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter of the Proposed Notice of Public Hearing STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, a0 being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted in Y Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon ➢ Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon ➢ Tigard Water Building, 8777 SW Burnham Street, Tigard, Oregon a copy of Notice of Public Hearing of the Pr o1465 t Or Y• a -i < 0 y' Id, a copy of said Notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _day of _De-c e,,t bzr , 206 c/ Signature of Person who Performed Posting Subscribed and sworn (or gifirmed) before me this day of - QCCp_YYl__A3 - - 20_ OFFKX& JILL M A Signature of Not Public for Oregon *NOTARY PLOX-OREGON COMMES" NO. 381793 MY COAAMMION EXARES JUNE 14, 2008 1:WDMIGREER\FORMSIAFFIDAVITSVAFFIDAVIT OF POSTING - PUBLIC HEARING.DOC CITY OF TIGARD Community 0evefopment ShapbVA Better Community CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2004, AT 7:30 P.M., IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: The City of Tigard will consider adoption 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, and declaring an emergency. The proposed ordinance may be viewed on the City's website: www.ci.tigard.or.us THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE ORDINANCE. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY RECORDER OR JIM HENDRYX AT (503) 639- 4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. Attachment 2 (a) CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO. 04- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 04-12 PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE 37, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 1.20 TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, on November 23, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 04-02 without incorporating the written Exhibit A that had been distributed and directed that a revised Exhibit A be prepared to include specific changes; and WHEREAS, a revised Exhibit A has been prepared that includes the changes requested by the Council; now, therefore; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Ordinance 04-12 is hereby amended by adding an Exhibit A to that ordinance in the form of the attached Exhibit A. The Tigard Municipal Code is consequently amended as provided in Ordinance 04-12 and Exhibit A. SECTION 2: Because this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the health, safety and welfare of the City, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately on passage. 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 ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 1 EXHIBIT A TO CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO. PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE 37, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE. 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 claim for compensation under Measure 37 in accordance with 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 Claims A. A property owner wishing to make a claim against the City under Measure 37 shall first submit a written claim to the City. A claim under Measure must be in writing and include: ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 2 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. A list of all persons with an ownership interest in or a lien on the property. 4. Identification of the regulation that is alleged to restrict the use of the affected property and a statement describing how the restriction affects the value of the property. 5. A statement whether the Claimant prefers compensation or a waiver, suspension or modification of the regulation, and a statement describing the extent to which the regulation would need to be waived, suspended or modified to avoid the need for compensation. A description of the proposed use must be provided. 6. The amount claimed as compensation and documentation supporting the amount. The documentation shall include a market analysis, an appraisal, or other documentation at least equivalent to a market analysis. 7. 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. ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 3 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 submission of the claim 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. C. 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 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. ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 4 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 claim 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 claim. The Decision Maker shall take actions 2 through 5 only if it determines the claim is valid. a A decision by a Decision Maker other than Council shall not be a final decision, but shall be a recommendation to Council. ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 5 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 Deposit and Responsibility for Costs The Claimant shall provide a deposit of $1,000 at the time the claim is filed with the City. If the claim is determined to be valid, the City shall refund the entire deposit. 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 amount of reimbursement exceeds the cost of deposit, the Claimant shall pay any additional amounts within 30 days of a demand by the City for full reimbursement. If the amount of reimbursement is less than the deposit, the City shall refund the difference to the Claimant. The City shall provide an invoice detailing its costs when demanding additional reimbursement or providing a partial refund. 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. i i i 1 Y ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 6 • Attachment 2 (b) CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO. 04- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 04-12 PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE 37, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 1.20 TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, on November 23, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 04-02 without incorporating the written Exhibit A that had been distributed and directed that a revised Exhibit A be prepared to include specific changes; and WHEREAS, a revised Exhibit A has been prepared that includes the changes requested by the Council; now, therefore; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Ordinance 04-12 is hereby amended by adding an Exhibit A to that ordinance in the form of the attached Exhibit A. The Tigard Municipal Code is consequently amended as provided in Ordinance 04-12 and Exhibit A. SECTION 2: Because this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the health, safety and welfare of the City, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately on passage. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 2004. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder L APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 2004. E Craig Dirksen, Mayor a Approved as to form: a City Attorney ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 1 EXHIBIT A TO CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO. PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE 37, INCLUDING A PROVISION FOR ACTION BY NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 1.20 TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE. 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 claim for compensation under Measure 37 in accordance with 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 Claims A. A property owner wishing to make a claim against the City under Measure 37 shall first submit a written claim to the City. A claim under Measure must be in writing and include: ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 2 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. A list of all persons with an ownership interest in or a lien on the property. 4. Identification of the regulation that is alleged to restrict the use of the affected property and a statement describing how the restriction affects the value of the property. 5. A statement whether the Claimant prefers compensation or a waiver, suspension or modification of the regulation, and a statement describing the extent to which the regulation would need to be waived, suspended or modified to avoid the need for compensation. A description of the proposed use must be provided. 6. The amount claimed as compensation and documentation supporting the amount. The documentation shall include a market analysis, an appraisal, or other documentation at least equivalent to a market analysis. 7. 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. ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 3 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 submission of the claim 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. ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 4 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 claim 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 claim. The Decision Maker shall take actions 2 through 5 only if it determines j 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. ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 5 1.2°.090 Delevation of Authority and City Council Review e 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 Action by Neighboring Property Owners If a Claim results in a waiver of enforcement of a regulation and the development allowed by the waiver causes a reduction in value of other property located in the vicinity of the Claimant, those property owners shall have the right to maintain an action against the Claimant in state circuit court to recover the amount of the reduction. The nearby property owners, if successful, shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees. This section does not create a right of action against the City. 1.20.110 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. 1.20.120 Deposit and Responsibility for Costs The Claimant shall provide a deposit of $1,000 at the time the claim is filed with the City. If the claim is determined to be valid, the City shall refund the entire deposit. 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 amount of reimbursement exceeds the cost of deposit, the Claimant shall pay any additional amounts within 30 days of a demand by the City for full reimbursement. If the amount of reimbursement is less than the deposit, the City shall refund the difference to the Claimant. The City shall provide an invoice detailing its costs when demanding additional reimbursement or providing a partial refund. 1.20.130 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. ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 6 1 ~ ~vu nG ( l~Z . Ocf Cw AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING - STUDY SESSION December 14, 2004 - 6:30 p.m. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 6:00 PM - Second Floor Library Conference Room • MEET WITH TiGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSULTANT ON RECRUITMENT Barry Albertson from TTSD Board Greg McKenzie of Oregon School Boards Association 6:30 PM - Second Floor Library Conference Room • STUDY SESSION > 360 REVIEW DISCUSSION (Sandy Zodrow) > MEASURE 37 UPDATE ON FILINGS et FINALIZE PROCESS (Jim Hendryx/Tim Ramis) > BUDGET PRINCIPLES AND STRATEGIC FINANCE PLAN DISCUSSION (Craig Prosser) >CITY HALL CABLE DISCUSSION (SEE ALSO - CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.5) (Gary Ehrenfeld) >COUNCIL DESIGNATION OF VICE-CHAIR FOR JOINT WATER COMMISSION (Bill Monahan) >CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE TO WCCCA BUDGET COMMITTEE - REAPPOINT BOB ROHLF (Bill Monahan) >ADMiNISTRATIVE ITEMS a. Calendar Review • December 20: City Council/Washington County Board of Commissioners Meeting - 6:30 pm In the Library Community Room • December 21: Workshop Meeting - Canceled • December 24: Gty Hall Closed - LIBRARY OPEN • December 28: Business Meeting - Canceled • December 31: City Hall Closed - LIBRARY OPEN • January 11: City Council Meeting - 6:30 pm • January 18: City Council Workshop Meeting - 12:00 PM (Noon) • January 25: City Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm b. Distribute - Revised Legal Description for Option No. 1 (Attachment to the proposed ordinance) for Agenda Item No. 8 (Annexation Public Hearing) C. January 6 - Mayor needs a representative at either the Downtown Task Force or County Commuter Rall/Urban Renewal Meeting d. January 1 1 Council Meeting - Consent Agenda hems to be scheduled. e. Distribute - December 20, 2004, Council Agenda f. January 18 Council Goal Setting Meeting - start at noon or 1 p.m? g. Preview future Capital Improvement Projects tour - Tuesday, February 1 at 2 p.m.? • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session as provided by ORS 192.660. 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. 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) (f) - Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from public inspection." These records are specifically Identified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. 192-660 (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 dudes regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be flied. 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 be used In evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment. 192.660 (2) Public Investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public Investments. 192.660 (2) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. 192.660 (2) (1)- Relates to State Landscape Architect Board. 192.660 (2) (m)- Relates to the review and approval of programs relating to security. t:WftWWfty%WWKrV1r* I t.jLd,snNan APrAWV WW121,.Ox 4 ~'LIG~ t t ~~COlJNTY ' i R ' 4.4" ,~~ir`t~lttyU: CITY OF TIG,ARD OREGON "nG~+, Hou O~~yy RC~GTyI' •"t ft~{;;fw rt t ...,.E1~.RD. .t r' wRbj OR~'9.72.2~ , PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with Impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: a Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing Impairments; and w Qualified bilingual Interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it Is Important to allow as much lead-time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 20, 2004 page 1 AGENDA JOINT MEETING OF TI;E TIG A RD CITY COUNCIL AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS December 20, 2004 6:30 PM 1. JOINT MEETING 1.1 Cali to Order - City Council/Washington County Board of Commissioners 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Llalson Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda items 2. DISCUSSION ON ANNEXATION 3. ADJOURNMENT Y. Wn~d11ry`cr+VOM01,MAM COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 20, 2004 page 2 r Alba- AGENDA ITEM # A q Au,k4 FOR AGENDA OF December 14, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE _ Presentation of Certificate of Recognition - Councilor Brian Moore ` PREPARED BY: Liz Newton Z.~ DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Mayor Dirksen will present a Certificate of Recognition to Councilor Brian Moore for more than 12 years of service as a Board and Committee Member and City Councilor, Council President and Mayor Pro-Tern on the Tigard City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action necessary. INFORMATION SUMMARY Councilor Brian Moore's term of office expires on December 31, 2004. To acknowledge Councilor Moore's service to the City of Tigard, Mayor Dirksen will present a Certificate of Recognition to Councilor Moore during the December 14, 2004 Council meeting. Brian Moore also served as a member of the Economic Development Committee from 1987-1992, 99W Task Force from 1991-1997, and a member of the Planning Commission from 1990-1996. His tenn as a City Councilor began in 1996. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED f N/A i f VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST None. FISCAL NOTES N/A i:ldmb;ty couneillaehawiedye moom.aoelva~oe of Tigard t City o Y• h~'.'Ge l~ ~~T?ate Certificate Recognition is hereby granted to: r Mart z Cowtdkr Drma s ~;.~~•1 i_Tr. 3 for outstanding performance and lasting contribution to the City c: s 4::,"'ri3 =~4 Tigard City Council u :s December 14, 2004 Cram Dirk m, Mayor MEMORANDUM Administration Department CITY OF TIGARD Shaping A Better Community TO: City Council FROM: Gary Ehrenfeld, IT Director DATE: December 10, 2004 SUBJECT: Computer & Phone Cables for City Hall The current wiring in the City Hall was installed by GTE in 1986 and at that time it was installed under the concrete floor to a central location that would service the telecommunication configuration at that time. Now that the remodel is being done that configuration will no longer be able to service the new locations. Also, due to technology changes over the years the current cabling in place is not the correct cable needed to meet future telecommunication plans for the city. The cost to replace the cable in the future would be much higher than it would be to install the correct cable now. The cost to install 80 pair of cables which would services all phones, computers, scanners, copiers and fax in City Hall offices and conference rooms will be $25,000. The break down of the total cost is $19,978 for installation, termination, and test, $1,040 for field supervision, $777 for bond and insurance, and $3,215 for contractor profit and overhead. 1f we did decide to use the current cable at a cost of $5000 it would cause several problems. One would be safety because the cable comes out of the floor and would have to be installed across the floor to the new configuration. This causes tripping hazards and a possibility of pulling the cable apart from its connection. Another problem would be if in the future the city decided to go with Voice Over IP for telephone service the old cable would have to be remove and new cable installed. U&C:1Doa writ and Seftbw%Gar"X0eW t 0 Cound1 Memo.doc Tigard City Council - Study Session 12/14/04 - Distributed by Finance Director Prosser FY 2005-06 Executive Staff Budget Principles 1. Do it right! a. Efficiency b. Maintain organizational infrastructure c. Proactive d. Reflect customer viewpoint 2. Address Funding Needs (General and Other Funds) a. Responsibly and efficiently direct existing resources to community priorities b. Provide the best services possible within the funding available as directed by City Council 3. Public Safety - maintain levels of services and public safety 4. Communications and Customer Service - Build strong relations with community to strengthen public support 5. Manage Human Resources - hire and keep the best people to provide quality services 6. Manage external, expanding City assets - maintain and operate streets, parks, water, sewer, storm, etc. assets to be good stewards of the community's investment in infrastructure and to provide quality services 7. Manage internal City assets - maintain and operate City buildings, computer systems and communication systems (information technology), fleet, and property to be good stewards of the community's investment, to support City operations, and to provide quality services. 8. Risk management/Exposures/Insurance Liabilities - enhance worker safety and limit risk exposures. Tigard City Council - Study Session 12/14/04 - Distributed by Finance Director Prosser MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Craig Dirksen Tigard City Council and Councilor-Elect FROM: Craig Prosse , finance Director RE: Draft Strategic Finance Plan DATE: December 14, 2004 Attached to this memo is a draft of the 2005 Strategic Finance Plan for your review and consideration. The City prepared its first Strategic Finance Plan in 2003. It is time to update that plan to reflect current conditions and issues. As we did in 2003, Executive Staff first brainstormed a list of issues that they feel are current or will soon be faced by the City. Executive Staff then organized that list into rough order of priority. Finally, staff wrote brief (1 to 2 page) issue papers on each issue to present to Council. The attached packet contains these issue papers. Council will have at least two opportunities to review and discuss these issues. The first opportunity will come on January 18 at the annual Goal-setting session. At that time, Council may choose to bring some of the issues forward from the attached packet to be considered as possible Council goals for 2005. The second opportunity will come at a second meeting to discuss the Strategic Finance Plan itself. Staff is suggesting that this second meeting occur at the Council workshop meeting of February 15, 2005. At these meetings, Council may choose to include all of the attached issues in its Goals or in its Strategic Finance Plan. It may also drop any issues that it feels appropriate and add any issues it feels are missing from this packet. Finally, Council will be asked to discuss the final list of issues, to assign priorities and timelines, and to provide direction to staff on how the Council wishes staff to proceed on these issues. Most of this • discussion will take place at the Strategic Finance Plan meeting. The packet starts with summary tables that also serve as a Table of Contents. The summary tables provide a one-stop look at all issues. They also contain three columns that require particular attention by Council: 1 i Recommended Priority - this column shows the priority of each issue as determined by Executive Staff. During the Council review of the Strategic Finance Plan, Council will be asked to confirm or modify these priorities. Priorities are listed from 1 (high) to 5 (low). r ~ 7~ ■ Council Goal Candidate? - This column identifies issue papers which Council may want to bring forward during the annual Goal-setting session on January 18 for possible inclusion in the Council Goals for 2005. ■ Strategic Finance Plan Candidate? - This column identifies issues which Council may want to consider in the final Strategic Finance Plan for 2005. This packet of materials is being furnished to you today so that you have an opportunity to review these issues prior to the Goat-setting session on January 18. cc: Bill Monahan, City Manager Executive Staff J Strategic Finance Plan Issues Executive Staff Priorities Funding Needs Method of Council Strategic Vision Rec. Potential Fund(s) Approval/ Goal Finance Plan Survey Page Priori Timing Issue Im acted Amount Implementation Candidate? Candidate? Issue? Number 1 2005 Communication General $141,500 Council direction Yes No Yes 1 & Other plus 1 2005 Downtown General plus TBD Council resolution Yes Yes Yes 3 Improvements others & citywide vote 1 FY 2005- Environmental General $20,000 Council direction & Yes Yes Yes 5 06 Program Bud et 1 2006 General Fund General $1.5 million in Council direction Yes Yes 7 Projections FY 2008-09 1 2004 Increased Legal General $50,000 Council direction, No Yes 9 Costs and Budget Annexation Issues Amendment 1 2004 Measure 37 General TBD Staff No Yes 11 implementation & Budget 1 2005 Value Added various TBD Council direction & Yes Yes 13 Interest Budget 2 2005 Comprehensive. General $225,000 Council Goal & Yes Yes Yes 15 Plan Update Budget 2 TBD Library Operational General $105,000 Council resolution No Yes 17 Hours and funding 1.t~71Ci11.11 Y I3 j KIP Now Strategic Vision Page Council Survey NUM Meth ber Goal Finance Candidate? Plan Issue? 19 od of Appr°vau Candidate? Yes lamentation Yes f und(s) Amount Im on or Yes 21 hn acted council d►rect► Rec. Timtn Potential Issue Various TBD resolution Yes Yes 23 Priori Enhanced Council direc5on & No ,36 3 2005• Neighborhood CAP TBD Yes (Tian %4 Various Bud et vote No Improveme pro ram - County , nt Enhanced Traini ng $10 million to 25 3 2005 Road Yes $20 million No protection v 2006r MSTIP Needs Yes 3 2008 Council resolution ilGon & 61 ide vote Yes Parks CIP 83.59 m No Parks & Open $3.41 million CIP & Budget 29 3 TBD S aces A utsition Yes Facilities, Yes 31 2005 Public Facilit _ Water, Yes 3 Capital projects Sanitary, Budget through pW Records, storm 33 2010 $25,000 to Yes Yes police TBD $A50,000 IWB Approval & Yes 35 RDW Maintenance $80 million to 2005 Water Council resolution No Yes 3 Needs Water, $94 million Council direction & Water Supp►y CIp Yes 005 to $500,000 to Bud et Yes 3 2 Source City Vari ous $1.000,000 Council direc 2006 tion 2005 to Information TBD 2009 TBD Economic 4 TBD Develo ment Method of Council Strategic Vision Rec. Potential Fund(s) Approval! Goal Finance Plan Survey Page Priori Timing Issue Impacted Amount implementation Candidate? Candidate? issue? Number 4 2005 Urban Growth General $250,000 to l5 with County No Yes 37 Boundary $450,000 5 2005 to New Police Facility Facilities $150,000 Citywide vote No Yes 39 2008 plus $10,000,000 5 2005 to Records Program Various $187,000 Budget No Yes 41 2009 5 2005 to Recreation General $860,000 Budget Yes Yes Yes 43 2008 Programs 5 2007 Senior Center General $450,000 Council direction No Yes 45 CDBG Grant Match (Facilities) plus $450,000 rant 5 2005 Solid Waste General $156,000 Negotiation with No Yes 47 Mgt./Recycling/ Haulers & Council Code Enforcement resolution 5 2005 Youth Programs General $100,000 per Council Resolution Yes Yes 49 Grant year & Budget Overall 2005 Employee Benefit Various TBD Union negotiations No Yes 51 Issue Costs & Council Action Strategic Finance Plan Issues Executive Staff Priorities Revenue Options Method of Council Strategic Vision Rec. Potential Fund(s) Approval/ Goal Finance Plan Survey Page Priori Timin Issue Im acted Amount Implementation Candidate? Candidate? Issue? Number 1 2005 CWS Split of Sanitary Unknown Negotiations with No Yes 53 sanitary and Sewer & reduction CWS Stormwater Storm Sewer Revenues 1 2006 Local Option General TBD Citywide Vote Yes Yes 55 Property Tax 1 2004 Long Range General $40,000 Council resolution No No 57 Planning Fee 1 2005 Other User Fees General TBD Council resolution No Yes 59 1 2004 Parks SDCs Parks CIP $5.6 million Council ordinance No No 60 & resolution 1 2005 ROW Fee Review Various TBD Council resolution No Yes 62 1 2005 Street Maintenance Street TBD Staff report to No No 64 Fee Review Maintenance Council Fee 1 2005 Telecommunication General $325,000 to TBO No Yes 66 s Regulation $1.37 million reduction mgum~ mono is Vision page Strateg Survey Number council Finance Plan Issue? 68 Method of Goal candidate? ApprovaU candidate? im lernentadOn Yes Fund(s) Amount Yes lrn acted council ordinance 70 potential issue TSD & resolution. ReC. Other possible ciVwide Yes 72 priori 7~m~n Transportation Yes 2005 to vote. lotion 1 ID5 t financing Council red vote Yes 74 2006 TBD and Ci No Various IWB approval & Yes 76 TBp Urban Renewal Water Tgp council resolution No 1 No Yes 2005 Water Utility Rates Countyw►de vote 1 General TBD County approval 78 WCCLS Levy $3 million to 1 2006 Various $5 million Yes w MSTIP Revenue NO 2 2005, ith Council ordinance 80 money 8441,000 per & resolution distributed General, Year Yes 83 in 2007 franchise fee - Water, & No 3 2005 Water & Sewer Sanitary Council ordinance Yes 85 Sewer $647,000 & resolution No 87 General Council ordinance Yes privilege Tax UnKnown & resolution No Yes TBD tions General il resolution No million Counc mmunica lotion 3 Teleco $&114 n 2005 iStraflon fee Water CIP Coucil reso 3 R Bond TBD 3 2005 passp°a Agency General 5 2005 1 Funding Needs Communication Issue Summary Definition: The City uses a variety of tools and methods to inform, educate, and get input from citizens. The goal is communication that is consistent, accurate, timely and responsive to citizen's needs, interests and community goals. In addition, two-way communication includes closure and feedback to ensure the information shared is understood. The methods the City uses to communicate with citizens include: written tools such as Cityscape, the web page, press releases, TVTV (cable TV) productions brochures, flyers, reports, community connectors, e-mail, displays, surveys and bill stuffers. In most cases, the majority of the cost for these items is the staff time needed to develop the material. Printing costs for brochures, flyers and bill staffers is often an insignificant part of a project cost, which may or may not be funded with general fund dollars. The exceptions are the webpage, cable TV productions, and the Cityscape. One FTE is dedicated to the webpage at an approximate cost of $81,500. Printing and mailing nine issues of the Cityscape each year costs approximately $60,000, excluding staff time. These are both funded with general fund dollars. Another tool is cable television. The City televises two City Council meetings per month and the monthly Focus on Tigard program. TVTV provides the crew for the City Council meetings at no cost to the City. City employees produce/direct and appear in the Focus program as part of regular work assignments. Face to face communication with citizens at meetings, public hearings and over the counter is still an important communication tool but the cost of those meetings is assumed as part of doing business. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Webpage support costs about $81,500 per year. Nine issues of Cityscape cost $60,000 excluding staff time required to write and publish Cityscape. All other costs are embedded in other projects and department budgets. Work Completed to date: The Tigard Beyond Tomorrow survey conducted in the summer of 2004 asked respondents what the most effective means for communication are. Mailed notices and the Cityscape were the most popular at over 28% with the website being second at 17.5%. The newspaper was third at around 15%. In 2000 the website was named by only 6% of the respondents. Implementation Action Required: As a cost saving measure the City Council cut back from twelve to nine Cityscape newsletters last budget year. Since the Cityscape 1 remains a popular communication tool, it is worth investigating less costly alternatives that might allow additional issues to be printed at the same or less cost. In addition, the Council should discuss the communication tools available and determine if new ones should be added and less effective methods used less frequently. Timing: At the Council goal setting in January, staff will have information available on possible cost effective alternatives to expand the distribution of the Cityscape and other communication tools. For example, it might be more cost effective to print the Cityscape on newsprint, contract with the School District to print the newsletter, or encourage more readers to access the Cityscape on-line to reduce postage costs. If the Council provides direction on other communication priorities at the goal setting session, staff will investigate cost effective alternatives to include in the proposed budget. Advantages: • Using a variety of communication tools helps to ensure citizens have access to information and decision makers. ■ The information gained in the recent Tigard Beyond Tomorrow vision survey can be used as a starting point to evaluate the effectiveness of the communication tools currently in use. Disadvantages: ■ The costs for producing communication tools are generally paid for with General Fund dollars, and costs such as printing and postage continue to increase. Recommendation: Gather information on alternatives that would reduce or maintain the cost of producing various communication tools as information for Council's January goal setting. Council Priority/Discussion: r ` 5 g, 2 t Funding Needs Downtown Improvements Issue Summary Definition: The Tigard community is going through an effort to shape the future of Tigard's downtown. Over the next several months the Downtown Improvement Task Force will develop, with the input of the entire community, the future direction for the downtown. The resulting plan will identify development patterns and capital improvements that are needed. How will these improvements be paid for? One option that will be considered by the Task Force and ultimately Council will be the creation of an urban renewal district to generate dedicated revenues to pay for needed improvements Downtown Tigard. The Tigard Charter currently prohibits any renewal districts without an approving vote of the people. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: To be determined. The Downtown Improvement Plan, which is scheduled for completion in June 2005, will identify needs and revenues. Work Completed to date: The Downtown Task Force was appointed by Council in 2004. The City was awarded a Transportation and Growth Management Grant ($129,000) to complete the Downtown Improvement Plan by June 2005. The project is on schedule. Implementation Action Required: Adoption of Downtown Improvement Plan. City Charter prohibits the formation of any urban renewal district without an affirmative citywide vote. Council could refer one of two measures to the people: 1. An amendment of Cibj Charter to remove the requirement for a citywide vote, or 2. Approval of one or more urban renewal districts. Timing: 2005 to 2006 Advantages: ■ The Downtown Improvement Plan will set the standard for the future of the downtown. ■ Creation of a dedicated funding source that increases with growth in assessed values in the urban renewal district and that can be used to pay for needed improvements. Public improvements paid for by urban renewal or other methods will spur private investment that will further increase values in the district, and will accommodate job and housing growth. Once the urban renewal plan is accomplished and all costs are paid for, the assessed value is returned to the general tax roles and helps pay for citywide services. 3 Disadvantages: • Urban renewal "locks up" growth in assessed values during the life of the urban renewal plan, thereby limiting growth in tax revenues for all overlapping taxing jurisdictions. • Urban renewal mechanics are complicated and difficult to explain to the public in an election setting. • Creation of an urban renewal district requires the active support of major property owners within the proposed district. Recommendation: • Complete the Downtown Improvement Plan by June 2005. ■ Explore urban renewal as an option to implement the Downtown Improvement Plan. • Work with property owners In the Tigard Central Business District to assess the level of Interest and support for urban renewal. • Develop a proposed timeline for resolution of this question. Council Priority/Discussion: 4 Funding Needs Environmental Program Issue Summary Definition: Much of what the City of Tigard provides as services and public processes revolve around environmental issues. The Visioning process, public comment, and mandated land use public hearings consistently encourage a higher level of environmental sensitivity, preservation of natural resources, and increased efforts by the City in this area. City issues as diverse as land use regulations, public purchasing, public property maintenance protocols, and volunteer projects all have a common thread of good environmental practices impacting them, and are an area where the City can improve in the delivery of service and public support. There is a clear expectation from the public that the City, as an organization, improve its environmental stewardship. Revenue required/Revenue potential: Unknown at this time. It is currently believed that much of the work the City is doing could be modified or reorganized at a low cost to improve environmental sensitivity. The City will probably need to add some level of technical expertise in staff or consultant support to supplement current capabilities. For financial planning purposes, a combination of existing expenses being re-organized and an additional $20,000 annually for environmental technical expertise is suggested. The $20,000 would pay for a pilot program, with the design of a larger program, if needed, to be based on the results of the initial effort. Ultimately, funding may be necessary for capital costs such as sensitive land purchases, rehabilitation activities on environmentally damaged public lands, conservation easements, etc. Work Completed to date: This concept has been discussed by senior staff but no action has been proposed or taken. Implementation Action Required: Implementation would be accomplished by a combination of Council direction, staff action, and budget implementation. A citywide vote to support a funding measure may develop from this project. Timing: Implementing changes to existing programs and developing new program focus and structure could be accomplished in a six month period. Program aspects requiring budget approval could be developed as a part of the FY 2005-06 budget process and accomplished after July 1, 2005 Advantages: ■ Higher rate of protection for natural resources ■ Higher rate of environmental awareness affecting City issues. Development of policy and regulation consistent with public expectations. ■ More public support Less controversy and criticism 5 Disadvantages: Potential for increased cost Recommendation: The Council should consider this proposal, and if supportive, direct staff to further develop the concept and an action plan for implementation. Council Prlority/Dlscusslon: i i i 6 Funding Needs General Fund Projections Issue Summary Definition: Every year, prior to beginning its annual budget process, the City develops a five-year forecast of revenues and expenditures for all major City funds. For the past several years, the forecast has shown a declining General Fund ending fund balance. This trend is the result of limited revenue growth, increased costs, and greater demand for public services. In the FY 2004-09 forecast, the General Fund balance was projected to go negative in FY 2007-08. The preliminary forecast for FY 2005-10 has just been completed. It continues to show a downward trend in General Fund balances. The date of the potential deficit has been pushed out to FY 2008-09. The City has been working for a number of years to address this downward trend in General Fund balances. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The FY 2005-10 preliminary forecast shows that the General Fund balance could go negative by as much as $1.5 million dollars in FY 2008-09. Under the Oregon Constitution and laws, governmental agencies are prohibited from deficit spending, so corrective action must be taken to limit expenditures or increase revenues. Work Completed to date: The City has been preparing a five-year financial forecast every year since the 1980s. The most recent forecast will be presented to Council at its Goal Setting Session on January 18, 2005. In 2003, the City Council adopted its first Strategic Finance Plan, which has guided City actions since that time. Implementation Action Required: Council direction. Timing: The updated Strategic Finance Plan will be presented to Council on January 18, 2005. Implementation of the Plan will occur over several years. Advantages: ■ The Finance Plan allows the City to forecast projected needs and to develop proactive strategies to guide its financial future. Disadvantages: ■ None 7 1 } Recommendation: Review, modify and adopt the 2005 Strategic Finance Plan to provide guidance to staff on future financial issues. Present and discuss the Strategic Finance Plan with the City's Budget Committee as part of the FY 2005-06 Bud\get process. Council Priority/Discussion: 8 Funding Needs Increased Legal Costs and Annexation Issues Issue Summary Definition: Annexation concerns in Tigard have created significant public comment. In particular, the residents of unincorporated Bull Mountain opposed and through the ballot box, rejected annexation to Tigard. The need to address the annexation question will not fade away. The City is shifting to a parcel-by-parcel approach to annexation, based on property owner petition, non-remonstrance agreements, and traditional annexation methods. The City will need to do a significant amount of work in planning for these annexations, and will also need to revise and update intergovernmental agreements relating to urban services. This effort will require significant legal assistance. Tigard's legal service budget is already tight, due to day to day activities. In addition, the recent passage of Measure 37 created additional legal challenges with related costs. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: To adequately provide legal representation at a variety of levels, approximately $50,000 is needed for 2005. The legal services funds could go to: ■ Working with Washington County's Council to review, and if necessary, prepare revisions to urban services agreements; ■ Prepare findings and assist with staff reports for annexation land use decisions; ■ Defend annexation land use decisions at LUBA and the Court of Appeals; ■ Review the status of consent agreements and non-remonstrance agreements as they are used by Tigard and Washington County, and prepare any necessary revisions; ■ Assess the legality of existing consent and non-remonstrance agreements which apply to the unincorporated area, and determine the legality of transferring consent and non-remonstrance agreements from the County to City; ■ Defend challenges to Tigard's urban service agreements with Washington County; ■ Defend Tigard's position that a public facilities strategy is not warranted in unincorporated Washington County. There are no revenues associated with this issue other than the General Fund dollars which could come after annexation of properties. These revenues would be collected well after the legal expenses are incurred. Work Completed to date: The City Attorney worked on the annexation plan and the decisions made by Council in 2004, regarding annexation. No work has begun to address the issues noted above. 9 Implementation Action Required: Council needs to hold a policy discussion about annexation and the courses of action available. Based on that, a strategy can be developed. Timing: Expenditure of funds related to annexation could begin as soon as an appeal is filed of any annexation decision. Advantages: ■ There is an advantage to a proactive approach, to update up the urban services agreement and process. Disadvantages: ■ To be in a response mode only, the City would be defending against challenges without solidifying the City's position. Recommendation: Discuss with Council a strategy for utilizing legal resources to proactively defend our entity agreements with Washington County. Council Priority/Discussion: M. isA u' J 10 Funding Needs Measure 37 Issue Summary Definition: The voters of the state adopted Ballot Measure 37 in the November 2004 election. This measure added 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. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Unknown at this point. No funding source is provided to recover costs of processing Measure 37 claims, nor are there funds identifies to pay any settlement of claims. In adopting the ordinance to implement Measure 37 claims procedures, the Council has discussed the possibility of requiring a deposit against claims processing costs which could be refundable in whole or in part. Work Completed to date: Working in conjunction with the City Attorney's office, an ordinance has been drafted and adopted to address Measure 37 claims. The Tigard Municipal Code has been amended by repealing the existing Chapter 1.20 and replacing it with a new Chapter 1.20. Implementation Action Required: The Tigard Municipal Code has been amended by repealing the existing Chapter 1.20 and replacing it with a new Chapter 1.20. Staff is currently developing administrative procedures to accept and process claims. Once a claim is filed, the City has 180 days to approve or deny the claim. If the claim is approved, the City may choose to compensate the property owner for lost value or may choose to waive the regulation in question. Timing: December 2, 2004. Advantages: ■ Property owners may request compensation for reductions in property values, or may waive restrictions as an alternative to 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. 11 Disadvantages: ■ May create additional costs for the City in processing and paying claims without providing a source of funds. ■ May create land uses within zones that are inconsistent with existing regulations or land use patterns. ■ Measure 37 is an unfunded mandate. Recommendation: Monitor impacts from Measure 37 and report to State Legislature. Council Priority/Discussion: w 12 Funding Needs Value-Added Enhancements Issue Summary Definition: At their planning session in October, the City Council expressed interest in taking a "value-added" approach to City services. Under this approach, the City would look for the "little bit extra" that can be done to make City services and projects better and that which help to create more livable and user-friendly community. Some value- added can be done at minimal cost simply by re-directing staff efforts. Some will require more attention and in some cases can add costs to projects and services. The Executive Staff has brain-stormed a list of ideas, which is attached to this issue paper. Those that can be done at no cost or minimal cost will be done. Those that will require additional resources to accomplish will be discussed as part of the FY 2005-06 Budget process. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: To be determined. Work Completed to date: A brain-storm list of ideas has been developed. Implementation Action Required: Some items on the list can be implemented by staff with no further direction. Other items may require additional resources, changes in procedures, or negotiation with outside parties. Timing: Value-added ideas can be implemented immediately. Advantages: ■ Implements a stronger customer service and community livability approach to City services. ■ Improves the character and quality of the community. ■ Improves citizen perception of Tigard as a place to live, work, and play. • Addresses some long-standing citizen issues. • May spur corresponding value-added approaches by citizens and businesses in maintenance of their own property and provision of their own services. Disadvantages: ■ In some cases, will add to the cost of City services and projects. • May garner some citizen criticism for focusing on "nice-to-have" items rather than on "essentials." ■ May increase expectations of service levels, which could lead to additional requests for service. 13 1 . Recommendation: Review the attached Value-Added Brain-Storm list to identify items to be implemented immediately. Council Priority/Discussion: 14 Funding Needs Comprehensive Plan Update Issue Summary Definition: Tigard's Comprehensive Plan was first drafted in 1982, with periodic revisions to specific chapters to maintain consistency with Statewide Planning Goals. 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 44,000. 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 to take a look at the overall growth management approach to reflect the community's goals in a broader context. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Consultant costs - as much as $75,000 per year for up to three years. The extent of consultant use will be determined by the role staff plays in the program and the level of detail and citizen involvement directed by Council. Work Completed to date: 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. 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. Implementation Action Required: Council adoption of a Goal during 2005 to initiate updating the Comprehensive Plan over the next 2 - 3 years. Staff will work with consultants and citizen task forces to gather input and develop recommendations. Council will adopt a new Comprehensive plan following this process. Updating the Comprehensive Plan to address key policy issues and community involvement will take two to three years. Implementation of the updated Plan could take another year. Council will have to formally amend the Comprehensive Plan and adopt implementing ordinances. 15 Timing: Establish Task Force in the Spring of 2005 and initiate update to be completed by 2008. Advantages: ■ The Current Comprehensive Plan is out of date and needs to be updated. • Changing needs of the community can be reflected in the plan update. ■ The Plan update coincides with efforts by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Downtown Task Force efforts. ■ Infrastructure needs could be tied to bonds and urban renewal initiatives by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Downtown Task Force. ■ A Comprehensive Plan update can address Vision Task Force Goals. Disadvantages: • No funding source identified • Staff resources will be limited to update. No other initiatives can be started while this project is underway. Recommendation: 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 work session with the Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled for February15, 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. Council Priority/Discussion: 16 Funding Needs Library Operational Hours Issue Summary Definition: A basic measure of library services available to the public is the number of hours per week that a library is open. In FY 2001-02, the Tigard Library was open 69 hours per week. Since that time, funding for library operations from the Washington County Cooperative Library Service (WCCLS) has been steadily cut back. In addition, the Tigard community authorized the building of a substantially larger facility with accompanying increases in operational costs. At the time of the bond measure, there was much discussion as part of the campaign about the need to authorize a countywide local option levy to help cover the increased operating costs of the new building. Voters have twice failed to pass a WCCLS local option property tax levy. City funding for the library has increased, but not enough to maintain the historical level of open hours. Thanks to temporary funding made available by Curtis Tigard and his late sister, Grace T. Houghton, the library has been open 54 hours per week during its first three months of operation. The 54 open hours have been maintained longer than anticipated due to savings from vacant positions, but hours will need to be reduced by the end of December. Once this temporary funding has been expended, it will either be necessary to find additional funding or to reduce library open hours below the current 54 hour level. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The additional revenue required to maintain the 54 open hours for the remainder of the fiscal year would be approximately $52,000. The revenue required over the next five fiscal years would be approximately $105,000 per year (in 2004 dollars) more than the base budget. Work Completed to date: A countywide levy for library operational funding was placed before the voters in November 2002 and again in May 2004. Each time the levy was unsuccessful. In addition, staff has worked very hard with WCCLS member libraries to review and modify the formula used by WCCLS to distribute funds to members. Some changes were made, but not to the full extent advocated by Tigard. Currently, the Library Board is examining the open hours question. At the October 12, 2004 City Council meeting, the Library Board discussed with the Council the dilemma/challenges facing the library in terms of operational hours. The Library Board will meet again with Council in January 2005 to further discuss available options. Implementation Action Required: Both short-term and long-term resolutions to open hours questions need to be explored. The long-term resolution to this issue is a stable funding source, for example, a local option levy for the City of Tigard or a local option WCCLS levy. 17 Timing: Temporary funding for the current 54 open hour level will shortly be expended. Without increased funding to maintain the current hours, open hours will need to be reduced in January. Advantages: ■ Increases access to programs, books, resources and other library services. ■ Introduces more people to services of new library, thereby increasing library use. ■ Promotes goodwill in the community. ■ Provides a gathering place and destination point for residents of all ages. Disadvantages: • Competition with other General Fund needs • Confusion for the public regarding the resources used to maintain open hours vs. funding used to build the new building ■ The number of open hours is part of the formula used to distribute WCCLS funding. A further reduction of open hours could reduce future WCCLS funding for the City of Tigard. Recommendation: • Provide additional funding to the library in order to maintain 54 open hours to the public for the remainder of FY 2004-05. ■ Develop additional revenue support to restore Sunday open hours in FY 2005- 06. ■ Develop a method to incrementally restore library open hours to the historical level of 69 hours. • Continue to explore a future local option levy for the City of Tigard. ■ Strongly support a future WCCLS levy. Council Priority/Discussion: 18 Funding Needs Enhanced Neighborhood Program/Community Assessment Program Issue Summary Definition: The City council has expressed an interest in expanding the Community Connector/Community Assessment Program (CAP) to create a neighborhood-based program that will give citizens and business owners opportunities to work as partners with the City to enhance the community's quality of life. The program would be designed to facilitate citizen involvement in the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program, Neighborhood Watch, land use and development issues, the Capital Improvement Program, neighborhood beautification, traffic and pedestrian safety and other activities. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: To be determined. Revenue required for this program will cover staff costs for developing and implementing the program structure and for neighborhood grants - should Council choose to authorize grant opportunities. The program activities (CERT, Neighborhood Watch, land use neighborhood meetings, etc.) are already incorporated into various department work programs and should not necessitate much in additional funds. There are no revenue sources identified for this program although the availability of grant funds will be explored. Work Completed to date: The City Council discussed the concept at the October 19, 2004 workshop meeting and agreed that staff should work with the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) to develop the concept further. The CCI has discussed the concept at three meetings and the members are enthusiastic about moving forward. The CCI is gathering input from the community about how to define the neighborhood areas and how the program might be structured. Implementation Action Required: The CCI will review the input from a December 7, 2004 community meeting and develop a recommendation for Council consideration in April 2005. i Timing: Moving forward in the development and implementation of the program in winter and early spring will facilitate inclusion of any program costs in the FY 2005-06 i budget. i i Advantages: ■ Provide an organized way for citizens to get more involved in existing programs. ■ Identify new ways for citizens to participate as partners with the City. ■ Enhance the community quality of life. 19 Disadvantages: ■ No stable revenue source identified for any costs that may be associated with the program. Recommendation: Proceed with the development of the program and recommendation to Council on an implementation plan. Council Priority/Discussion: C D 5 20 Funding Needs Enhanced Training Issue Summary Definition: Since FY1999-2000, the approximate total funds allocated citywide for the education and training of all City employees has decreased 39%. During this same time period, the total number of City of Tigard employees has increased by 35%. The current funding is inadequate to provide specialized and professional development training and education of a caliber needed to maintain quality service delivery, improve efficiencies, incorporate innovation, maintain competencies, and retain high quality employees. The American Society of Training and Development reports that organizations with above average training and development budgets outperform competitors and achieve a higher total shareholder return. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: To be determined. Work Completed to date: Departments prepare Training Plans annually at the same time they develop their budget requests. These plans, however, reflect the recent levels of funding rather than actual needs. Implementation Action Required: ■ Discussion by the Budget Committee during consideration of the FY 2005-06 Budget. ■ Development of departmental Training Plans that reflect actual needs as well as anticipated funding levels ■ Development of departmental training budgets that enhance training opportunities. ■ Development of a coordinated approach to assure best use of training dollars. Timing: This issue could be addressed as early as FY 2005 06 or at such other time as determined by the Budget Committee. During 2005, City Administration will work with all departments to formulate a philosophy of planning for, using, and reporting on the use of training dollars. i Advantages: i ■ Enhanced job skills and knowledge, better job performance ■ Improved team and organizational performance ■ Addresses retraining and retooling needs Improved morale - Better trained staff reduce errors and misjudgments that can lead to litigation and dissatisfied customers ■ Improved service delivery ■ Increased efficiencies through better trained staff 21 ■ Ability of the City to attract higher quality candidates for employment ■ Greater opportunities for internal staff to prepare for promotional opportunities ■ Support of the City's Succession Planning efforts to prepare internal candidates for future leadership roles Disadvantages: • Positive results not sufficiently quantifiable or measurable for some ■ Training viewed as "extra" or "luxury" expenditures • Citizens are more critical of most public sector expenditure related to staffing and training. Recommendation: Adequate funding for staff training should be restored based on department needs, justification, and relevance of the enhanced training/education to improved services, efficiency, job performance, and professional development. Departments should prepare training proposals aimed at creating a smarter workforce by improving job knowledge/skills and work performance, increasing service delivery and operational efficiencies, and enhancing career development where appropriate. Council Priority/Discussion: k 22 Funding Needs MSTIP Needs Issue Summary Definition: The County Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP) has been highly successful since its inception. MSTIP 3 projects are almost all initiated or completed, MSTIP 3b (the interim program) is already underway, and the MSTIP Transportation Capital Program (using the permanent portion of the serial levy for MSTIP) covering the six-year period from 2007 through 2012 is in the initial stages of being developed. The transportation-related needs countywide far outstrip the funding sources available through the existing MSTIP program. A new program (most likely called MSTIP 4) will be needed to address some of the high-priority projects in both the County and the cities and continue the success of the program for the next decade. That program will have to be submitted to the voters for approval. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The City of Tigard would most likely receive a proportionate share of a future MSTIP 4. The MSTIP program has traditionally looked at geographic equity as one of the goals in the distribution of funding. The program typically focuses on collectors and arterials identified in the County Transportation Plan and does not normally include state facilities. There have been exceptions, with the Hall Boulevard/99W intersection improvement project being the prime example. Based on MSTIP 3, Tigard can expect several projects within the City to be included with an aggregate amount of $10 to $20 million. Work Completed to date: The Washington County Board of Commissioners has begun a public outreach effort to make known the multitude of transportation-related needs countywide. This includes major transportation projects in the cities and within the unincorporated County. The goal of this public outreach is to determine what, if anything, the residents of the County are willing to pay to implement some of these highly important projects. The Transportation Capital Program will provide from $3 to $5 million dollars to fund a project within the City jurisdiction. The effort to see what the voters would desire to fund beyond that should be in full swing by mid-year 2005. Implementation Action Required: An MSTIP 4 would require a countywide vote for implementation. A ballot measure could come at any May or November election, but has the best chance for passage in a general election (November of an even numbered year) where the double majority requirement is not in effect. Timing: An MSTIP 4 measure would most likely go before the voters in 2006 at the earliest. The next option would most likely be 2008. 23 Advantages: ■ A new MSTIP 4 program to address major projects countywide would continue the success of the MSTIP program and allow the County and the cities in the County to move forward with significant improvements to the countywide system. The City of Tigard can implement some high-priority projects through this program. Projects within the City could improve intra-city circulation and provide facilities to accommodate alternate modes of transportation. Disadvantages: ■ The voters have indicated that they have limitations on what they can afford, regardless of the existing needs. The MSTIP program may face the same challenges faced by bond measures in any election year. ■ Funding through MSTIP for countywide projects may contribute to the perception that the County is meeting its needs through its own resources and does not need additional help. Funding through the state or federal government may be diverted to other counties because of that perception. Recommendation: The City should participate actively in the County's public outreach process and remain engaged through the formulation of a future MSTIP 4. The City should also be prepared to submit projects for consideration that enhance intra-city circulation and are clearly identified as having a high priority with the voters in the City. Council Priority/Discussion: i i i i i i 24 Funding Needs Parks & Open Space Acquisition Issue Summary Definition: The City can issue bonds to finance Parks and Open Spaces purchases. General Obligation bonds require a citywide vote to authorize a special debt service property tax levy. The City could also issue other types of bonds, which do not require voter approval, but would have to identify a source of revenue to be pledged to annual debt service payments. The City currently does not have such a source of revenue. In 1999, the City adopted a 10-year Park System Master Plan. This Park System Master Plan was the result of a comprehensive, collaborative effort between the citizens of Tigard, Tigard staff, and consultants. Tigard's Park System Master Plan is a comprehensive needs assessment and long range plan for meeting the community's parks and recreation needs over a ten-year period. The Plan identifies many projects totaling over $21,000,000. The Plan examines the impacts of the community's growing demand for services, the effects of related planning efforts, the implications of demographic changes, and the contributions made by the park system in providing relief from high density urban development. Further, the Plan sets forth a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which functions as a framework plan or tentative list of projects for a ten-year period. The CIP is reviewed and updated annually to reflect the changing needs of the community and changes in available funding for financing park capital projects. Decisions regarding the actual expenditure of funds for individual park capital projects are incorporated into the City's annual budget process. In 2004, the City's Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) conducted a survey to gauge public interest and willingness to financially support a range of parks and recreation issues. Currently there is support for both additional parks land, as well as additional open space acquisitions. Acquiring additional open space land ranked the most popular project in the survey with 49% of the respondents stating they would financially support it. C The current, proposed 5-year parks CIP (FY 05-06 - FY 09-10) totals $4,235,929. Currently, there are limited funds available for non-SDC eligible projects. Also, there are times when the combination of SDC funds and grant funds do not entirely fund a project. In these cases, projects may not be able to be accomplished because of the limited non-SDC funds. Approximately $400,000 in non-SDC eligible projects is currently unfunded unless the City appropriates General Fund revenue to these projects (Northview Park, Jack Park, Summerlake Park, Englewood Park, and Fanno Creek Park). Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The revenue required to accomplish the open space and greenway purchases identified for the next 5-years (FY 04-05 thru FY 08-09) 25 is approximately $6.1 million. SDC generated revenue, based on recent changes to the SDC rates are anticipated to be $7.9 million over the same five year period. The new Parks SDC methodology adopts a ratio of 41 % SDC and 59% non-SDC revenue for purchase of open space and greenway properties. Thus the non-SDC component, if met by a potential bond sale, would need to be $3.59 million to accomplish the five year plan. A general obligation bond sale of $4 million financed over 10 years would require a property tax levy of approximately $0.13 per $1,000 of assessed valuation to pay annual debt service. Work Completed to date: The PRAB has conducted the survey, and discussed implementation plans. It is anticipated that the PRAB will return to the Council with an action plan including this issue early in 2005. In addition a group a citizens has approached Council and suggested this issue be put on the ballot. Implementation Action Required: A general obligation bond measure must be approved by Council and placed on the ballot for approval by Tigard residents. Timing: To be determined Advantages: • A bond measure would provide the funds necessary to supplement SDC funds for the acquisition and development of parks and open spaces • Easily understandable (known funding source, familiar to voters) ■ A bond measure would provide the funds necessary to pay for those projects which are non-SDC eligible. Disadvantages: ■ Tigard residents have been asked to increase taxes on several occasions over the past several years. Specifically, the successful passage of the new Library Bond and the School District Bond. ■ Although additional bond funds would be advantageous, the projections show limited funding for parks operations and maintenance. The City may not be able to adequately maintain new facilities. Recommendation: Accept the recommendations of the PRAB, due in early 2005. It is anticipated that this recommendation will suggest a bond sale for land acquisition. Open space purchases can be made with minor impacts to the operating budget, whereas park development costs and subsequent additional operational costs will impact the annual budget. Council Priority/Discussion: 26 Funding Needs Public Facilities: Public Works, Records, Police Issue Summary Definition: The City owns and operates several buildings, including City Hall, the Permit Center, the Police Department, the Library, the Niche, the Senior Center, the Public Works Administration Building and annex, and Canterbury Water facility. In addition, the City operates the Water Building, which is owned by the Tigard Water District. The City does not have a dedicated source of funding to provide for the maintenance, repair or expansion of these facilities. The City has traditionally set aside General Funds in anticipation of future building needs. The City has recently addressed capital needs of the Library and City operations in City Hall and the Permit Center. It is prudent, however, to start building renewal and replacement reserves for these facilities. In addition, the City may have an opportunity through the remodel of the current Public Works Building after Public Works moves to the Water Building to address records and police evidence storage needs through the use of this building. Finally, there will be a need within the next five to ten years to address space and facility needs of the Police Department (last addressed in 1999.) Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Projects identified to date include: • FY05-06 Projects o Water Building Renovations - $800,000 o PD Underground Storage Tank Upgrade - $20,000 o Police & records Storage Remodel - $149,425 o Senior Center Seismic Upgrade Design - $20,000 • FY06-07 Projects o Miscellaneous City Facility Projects - $200,000 • FY 07-08 Projects o Miscellaneous City Facility Projects - $200,000 o Senior Center Remodel - $950,000 o Senior Center Seismic Upgrade - $100,000 o RFID Technology (Library) - $750,000 • FY 08-09 Projects o Miscellaneous City Facility Projects - $200,000 o Demolition of Surplus PW Facilities - $200,000 • FY 09-10 Projects o None listed at this time 27 In addition to identified projects, there is a need for contingency funds for needs that may arise during the planning period. General use facilities and facilities used by General Fund'departments (City Hall, Police Department, Permit Center, and Library) are generally supported by General Fund transfers to the Facility Fund. The major exception to this rule is for new construction of major facilities such as the Library. Where appropriate, the City transfers money from enterprise funds or dedicated sources (such as Water, Sanitary Sewer, Buildings) to pay for space needs of staff supporting those operations. Work Completed to date: A seismic study of city facilities was performed in 2000 to identify the seismic upgrade needs of City facilities. A consultant is currently identifying current and future space needs for the Public Works Department. This work will result in recommending and designing needed improvements to the Water Building and assessing the need for future uses of the Ash St. sites currently used by Public Works. Implementation Action Required: Projects will be identified and approved in the City's Capital Improvement Plan. Annual funding is provided through approval of the City Budget. Timing: It is anticipated that the projects identified will be implemented according to the budget approval of the fiscal years indicated if necessary funding is available. Advantages: ■ Provides for greater security of facilities • Meets the long term growth needs of the City ■ Provides for a safe and effective work environment for staff and the public ■ Improved use of facilities to provide better customer service ■ Provides for more meeting rooms for public use Disadvantages: ■ No dedicated funding source. Capital funding need must compete with operating funding needs. ■ Delaying projects would result in increased cost of projects and increased safety and or security risks Recommendation: ■ Develop a capital plan for all City facilities, including identifying renewal and replacement and upgrade needs. ■ Develop policies and a plan for funding renewal and replacement needs during the annual budget process. This may include specific identification of a reserve amounts within the Facility Fund for specific City facilities. ■ Present recommendations to the Budget Committee and the City Council for their review and approval. Council Priority/Discussion: 28 Funding Needs ROW (Rights-of-Way) Maintenance Needs Issue Summary Definition: Rights-of-way (ROW) maintenance includes landscape and general maintenance activities for those areas between the pavement or sidewalk areas (where they exist) and the street rights-of-way line. Current City ordinances place the responsibility for this maintenance on the adjacent property owner. The City Council has been approached by several property owners over the last few years requesting that the city adopt maintenance responsibility for certain rights-of-way. This is typically on ar,arials or collectors where the homes have frontage on an interior street system, but back up to a major street with a wall blocking access to the strip of land needing maintenance. Durham Road is a prime example of this dilemma. The discussion is currently focused on the City assuming responsibility of ROW maintenance on such arterials and collectors. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Depending on the level of service adopted, costs could range from $25,000 to $450,000 annually. Work Completed to date: The City Council has directed staff to provide a proposal to enhance the current level of service in the FY 05-06 budget process. The Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force has the added mission of evaluating potential new funding sources that could be established to provide a stable source of funding for ROW Maintenance. The Task Force will be meeting with City Council in early 2005 to receive direction in this regard. Implementation Action Required: Action on this item will be through the annual budget adoption process. The establishment of new funding sources for this effort would greatly enhance its adoption into the City's annual budget. L Timing: Initial action on this item will be during the FY 05-06 budget adoption process. 2 Advantages: • Beautify the city and entry points; .i ■ Removes unsightly areas; o ■ Property owners would be happy. 9 u J Disadvantages: • Cost: spends already limited maintenance dollars on an aesthetic issue; ■ Potential for conflict - some property owners fulfilling their responsibility and others not. 29 Recommendation: Council should continue to study this issue through the FY 05-06 budget adoption process. Council Priority/Discussion: 30 Funding Needs Water Supply Source Issue Summary Definition: Tigard's Vision document and Council Goals both identify securing a long term water supply as an essential objective of the City. In the 2004 Vision update process, this goal has been refined to include two additional directions, one being to accomplish this goal by 2007 and secondly, to secure an equity position in a source. Tigard is currently participating in three efforts to secure its long term water supply: securing a new long term contract to purchase water from the City of Portland, joining the Joint Water Commission (JWC) and expanding the Scoggins Dam / Henry Hagg Lake complex, and continued study of the Willamette Treatment plant. The Portland option, which would be a long term water sales contract, will not satisfy the Vision goal of obtaining an equity position in a water supply. The City of Portland is only interested in a long term water sales agreement, not in sharing equity in the source. A draft contract will be available for review in early 2005. This alternative will not provide substantial savings to water costs for Tigard citizens. The JWC proposal hinges on the ability to secure permits and approvals to modify Scoggins Dam. The JWC proposal would cost the City of Tigard between $91 and $93 million dollars over the next 40 years. The Willamette option includes continued monitoring of the technical performance of the treatment plant located in Wilsonville. In addition, this option will include the decision to request voter approval to pursue this source. Current economic analysis continues to suggest that the Willamette option is the least costly alternative for the citizens of Tigard. L Only two of these projects are consistent with and addressed specifically in the City's visioning documents. n Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Tigard could be faced with making financial commitments with costs that best current estimates average to be approximately $80 to $90 million dollars over the next 20 to 40 years. To help put these numbers in perspective, a $5 dollar per month increase in each monthly water bill in the Tigard Water Service area would raise approximately $1 million dollars annually. Work Completed to date: Staff has been involved in a joint contract negotiation effort with Portland and eight other wholesale customers over the last year. This contract will ® be available for public review early in 2005. 31 In 2004, the City of Tigard has also become a member of the Joint Water Commission, which will provide the City with the ability to pursue equity ownership in future capacity improvement projects the JWC undertakes. Staff continues to monitor the performance of the Willamette treatment plant, as well as participate in the efforts of the Willamette River Water Coalilition, (WRWC), an organization to which Tigard belongs. The WRWC is currently undertaking a public education project targeting member populations about current information relating to water quality issues affecting the Willamette. Implementation Action Required: The Intergovernmental Water Board will initially produce a recommendation to the City Council. Following that, the City Council will need to indicate its approval. If the City elects to sign a long term supply contract with Portland, the cost of this decision will be borne completely by water rate payers. If the City decides to pursue the JWC or Willamette options, a substantial portion of the capital costs can be assigned to SDC revenues. This will allow for lower water bills. In both of these scenarios, capital costs would be financed by revenue bonds. Council would approve issuance of the Water Revenue Bonds by resolution. Timing: The City will be able to begin the review of the potential Portland contract early in 2005. The City's current contract with Portland expires in 2007. Neighboring cities and water districts are also discussing the possibility of a vote on the Willamette issue. This vote could happen as soon as November, 2005. Decisions to commit major capital in the JWC will need to be made in 2006. Advantages: The advantages of securing a permanent supply source are many: control, financial stability, adequate future supply, and quality control top the list. Disadvantages: Cost. Because the Tigard Water Service Area is so late in securing its source the costs are high, and Tigard will not have the benefit of time to spread costs over a long period. Recommendation: Staff should continue to update Council on options and costs, with a future recommendation to authorize issuance of one or more water revenue bond to purchase some portion of future supply as options finalize. Council Priority/Discussion: 32 Funding Needs Centralizing City Information Issue Summary Definition: The City, like many organizations, maintains a variety of computer systems that rely on a variety of databases. The primary computer systems are Hanson (public works information and data), Tidemark (planning and engineering information and data), and Springbrook (finance and utility billing information and data). In addition to the "big three" systems, the City also has a variety of smaller systems such as FullCourt (municipal court information and data) and in-house databases. Most, if not all, of these systems require overlapping data and yet they do not talk to one another and data cannot be shared or easily transferred. Organizations have discovered that organization-wide single-provider systems, systems that can access unified databases, or systems that can share separate databases provide greater organizational efficiency, reduce duplication of data and effort, and increase data accuracy. All of these benefits also reduce costs or limit future cost increases. The City has been considering different options for improved management of its databases and computer systems. At this time, the City is considering retaining existing computer systems, but modifying and standardizing aspects of those systems to facilitate sharing of information. The first phase of this project would require hiring a consulting team to interview staff, analyze the current system, analyze future information needs of the City, and develop an implementation plan and cost for the project. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Full implementation of a sharing protocol could cost as much as $500,000 to $1,000,000. 2 Work Completed to date: The City has discussed this project internally and with the City's Budget Committee in FY 2004-05. The City has also been making annual contributions to a Computer Systems reserve in the Central Services Fund since 2000. By the end of FY 2004-05 (assuming no budgetary transfers) this reserve will hold g $900,000. + Implementation Action Required: Hire a consultant to begin phase one of this project to define City needs and options and to develop final recommendations for improved database management. Timing: The planning phase should start in FY 2005-06. It would be a three to four year project. Funding will be the major factor on the timing of completing this project. 33 Advantages: ■ One centralized and standardized location of city information for unified access by staff and citizens. ■ All current city system would stay in place and continue to serve each department as it has in the past. Any new system would easily integrate into the centralized collection point. Having information in one location would enable staff and citizens to combine and analyze all information in an easy to use format. Disadvantages: Implementation cost would be high, but once implemented on-going cost would be minimal. Recommendation: Fund money for the first phase of this project. Council Priority/Discussion: 34 Funding Needs Economic Development Issue Summary Definition: The economy in Oregon has been a major focus of concern over the last few years. Several cities in the Portland Metropolitan area have economic development programs, and some of those cities have had notable successes in attracting businesses. The City's Visioning program has identified the need for an economic development program. The Downtown Task Force has also targeted economic development as being essential to the success of the downtown. Economic development programs in cities can take a variety of forms. A common form is urban renewal. This report contains a separate issue paper on urban renewal. Other forms of economic development activity include economic improvement districts, business recruiting, business assistance, tax abatements, and various other incentive programs. The City of Tigard is currently researching possible use of urban renewal in the downtown area and/or Washington Square. Washington County is considering formation of an urban renewal district along the commuter rail line. Three years ago, Tigard and downtown business interests attempted to form an Economic Improvement District/Business Improvement District in the downtown area. That effort failed due to insufficient support by downtown property owners. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Unknown. Until a specific economic development program is identified it is not possible to determine potential costs or funding sources. Work Completed to Date: The City has joined the Regional Partners for Economic Development and the Westside Economic Alliance. The Visioning Task Force has identified the need for establishing an economic development program as part of its 2004 update. The Downtown Task Force has identified the need for an economic development program for the downtown. Council has received updates from the regional Partners for Economic Development. i i Implementation Action Required: Council discussion and direction on the preferred form of an economic development program. 'l'iming: To be determined. 35 Advantages: ■ Improved business climate in Tigard. ■ Greater employment opportunities in Tigard. ■ Increased business development which adds to the City's assessed valuation and property tax revenues. ■ To the extent that economic development brings new businesses to Tigard, this may create opportunities to address redevelopment and infrastructure needs in specific areas. Disadvantages: Economic development growth, if not handled properly, could lead to increased population growth that worsens congestion and aggravates citizens' concerns over density and traffic. Recommendation: ■ Schedule a discussion at a Council workshop to discuss the pros and cons of economic development programs and the form(s) of efforts that work best for Tigard. ■ Work with business and commercial/industrial property owners in the City to assess the level of interest in and support for a City economic development program. Council Priority/Discussion: 36 Funding Needs Urban Growth Boundary Issue Summary Definition: Metro expanded the Urban Growth Boundary west of Tigard by adding planning areas 63 & 64. Since these two areas are adjacent to Tigard's Urban Services area on Bull Mountain, Tigard has been identified as being the logical provider of urban services for these two areas. Prior to completing the Urban Growth Boundary expansion to bring these two areas inside the boundary, it is necessary to develop concept plans for the two areas. Concept plans must address the statewide planning goals and guidelines as well as Metro's Functional Plan criteria. The concept plans could be developed by Washington County because these areas lie within the unincorporated area, or they could be developed by Tigard as the logical provider of urban services. Concept planning is a time-consuming and expensive process. Regardless of which jurisdiction is determined to develop the plans, a major issue will be how to pay the costs of the plan development. Costs could either be paid out of general revenues of the jurisdiction, fees could be developed and charged to land-owners and developers, or a reimbursement district in some form could be developed to assess property owners. It is not yet know how long it would take to develop the concept plans Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: $250,000 - $400,000 Work Completed to Date: Council has discussed preliminary approach to addressing planning and urbanization needs. Implementation Action Required: The City and the County need to meet to determine which jurisdiction will be responsible for development of the concept plans. Once that is determined, the City and County will need to develop an Intergovernmental Agreement to guide the development of the plans. Ultimately, the City and County will need to amend the Urban Services Agreement between the City and the County to formally designate Tigard as the ultimate service provider for these areas. Once the responsibility for the development of the concept plan is assigned, the two jurisdictions will need to agree on a way to pay the costs of plan development. Is a fee-based approach is chosen, Washington County will need to adopt the fee because the area is outside the City limits. Timing: To be determined. If the City is designated as the lead planning agency it will be necessary to determine the best project approach. The City is planning to update its Comprehensive Plan. If this update were to include an update of the Comprehensive 37 Plan for Bull Mountain, it would be most effective to include the development of these concept plans into the larger project. It is not yet known, however, whether the City's Comprehensive Plan update project will include unincorporated Bull Mountain. Advantages: ■ The City is the logical long term service provider to these areas. ■ The City would be able to shape the future growth of these areas in a manner that serves not only the planning areas but the larger community as well. • Effort could be cost-neutral if the proper funding mechanism is chosen. Disadvantages: ■ Will require extensive staff resources to complete. ■ Annexation will ultimately be required to serve the area. ■ Could lead to illogical City limits boundary until remainder of Bull Mountain annexed. Recommendation: Initiate discussions with the Washington County Board of Commissioners on the best approach to address the future urbanization of these two areas. Council Priority/Discussion: r 38 Funding Needs New Police Facility Issue Summary Definition: If growth in Police staffing trends continues over the next several years, the City will have a need to build a new or expanded Police facility. The current Police facility was expanded in 1999, adding 3,000 square feet of space. At that time, the expanded facility was projected to be sufficient for police Department needs until 2007 to 2009. Since FY 1999-00, the City has added four positions to the Police Department. The Department recently moved its traffic unit and community service officers into one of the modular buildings behind City Hall to create more work space within its main offices. In addition, the department rents three off-site storage units for records and evidence storage. In the current financial forecast, the department is projecting the need for 18 to 24 new positions by 2010. The Department currently has 76 authorized positions. If projections are accurate, by 2010, the department will have 94 to 100 authorized positions. The City is also developing a Downtown Plan at this time. This Plan will lay out a vision for the redevelopment of the downtown area of Tigard. This Plan may create an opportunity to explore the creation of a joint Police/Fire facility within the civic center portion of the redevelopment area. Such a combined facility would not only create a substantial public investment within the redevelopment area, but it could also provide the opportunity for greater cooperation and coordination between police and fire operations. If a new facility is built, police would vacate the space they currently occupy. It is not yet clear what uses might be made of this facility, though it is possible that the City will develop needs for additional office space in the future. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The cost of a new facility cannot be determined until the facility and possible location have been identified. Initial space planning could cost as much as $150,000 and would have to be paid out of the City's i General Fund. ii Construction of a new facility would most likely be paid for by a General Obligation Bond authorized by voters. It might also be possible to use tax increment funding if an urban renewal area is created in the downtown area, but funding from this source would be limited in the early years of an urban renewal district. Work Completed to date: None on a new police facility. 39 The Downtown Plan is currently being developed. Implementation Action Required: Funds for a space and facility plan will need to be provided to develop a proposal that identifies costs and design. If the City chooses to seek General Obligation Bond approval from voters, Council would need to refer a measure for an election. Such a measure would be subject to the double-majority provisions of the Oregon Constitution. It may only be voted on at one of the following elections: 1. May, subject to double-majority requirement 2. November of an odd-numbered year, subject to double majority requirement 3. November of even numbered year, subject to simple majority. Timing: The department projects the need for a new facility soon after 2008. Advantages: ■ Provision of adequate work space for public safety personnel. ■ Reduction of funds currently spent on rental space. ■ Possible enhanced coordination between police and fire operations. ■ Potential contribution to Downtown redevelopment efforts. Disadvantages: • Cost. ■ Need to ask voters for additional property tax revenues to support bonds. • Need to develop alternative use for existing police facility. Recommendation: Council should discuss this issue during consideration of the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the FY 2005-06 budget process. If there is interest in proceeding, staff should be directed to develop a more complete timeline, including a recommendation for start of a space and facility plan. Council Priority/Discussion: 40 Funding Needs Records Program Issue Summary Definition: The City's records management program supports City departments, compliance with public records law, and the Vision Task Force communication goal by providing easy and efficient access to city records. Public records include all print, electronic (including e-mail), audio (including voice mail), and video records. Under Oregon Law and Administrative Rules, all records are assigned retention periods. These periods range from zero time to permanent. Records staff work with departments to ensure that they comply with Public Records laws, gather records for long-term storage, retrieve records from storage as needed, microfilm permanent records, and destroy records that have passed their assigned retention period. City records are stored at the Water Department's Canterbury Yard and rented storage space. The City pays $28,260 per year for rented storage space for general City and Police records. In addition to managing public records, Records Program staff also responds to requests from the public for City records. Often these requests include potential litigation. It is crucial that these requests be handled promptly and professionally. Finally, Records staff also engages a number of special projects throughout the year. Most importantly, Records staff needs to work with other City staff to train them on Public Records requirements and compliance with law and proper treatment of public records. Handling of electronic records in particular requires ongoing attention and training, due in part to the transitory nature of the media. Another special project that is currently underway is the building of a Measure 37 database of land use-related ordinances and resolutions from the incorporation of the City in 1961, and scanning these documents into a PDF format so that they are easily retrievable by staff and the public. This database will contain over 1,000 ordinances and resolutions. i As City budgets have tightened over the past several years, Records program staffing has been reduced. The City Records Program is now operating at a minimal level. i The City is rapidly approaching the point at which it will need to address storage needs because available space is filing up. Options include rental of additional storage space, conversion of an existing City building into a Records Center, and implementation of new records technology, such as optical scanning. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The additional costs associated with the records program include: 41 ■ Renovating the Public Works building for storage, approximately $150,000. (This estimate is based on the square footage costs of the remodeling of City Hall. Actual costs could be higher if structural strengthening of the building is required, which is likely), Adding.5 FTE, $26,650, and ■ Software upgrades $10,500. Work Completed to date: The building renovation and software upgrades have been included in the financial forecast. Additional consideration is being given to the timing of adding a .5 FTE to assist in the records program. Implementation Action Required: Approval of the building renovation and software upgrades through the budget process. Timing: Any items approved in the budget will be acted on after July 2005. ■ The building renovation priority and timing will be determined by the CIP process. ■ The Clerk's Index software installation could take place in the first quarter of the 2005-06 fiscal year. The upgrade to ImageFlow would be in 2008-09 fiscal year. Advantages: ■ By remodeling the Public Works operations facility, Police and City records will be able to store records and evidence in one location consequently reducing overall operating costs and working more efficiently. ■ The electronic document management system will increase the ease of searching for records and reduce retrieval times. The system is accessible for managing scanned images and electronic documents. ■ The .5 FTE will be assigned project work. Types of projects include: updating training on e-mail, computer use, and records policy; creating a catalog for the contents of financial reports; coordinating storage and cataloging of City photographs; and update the City's records manual. ■ Reduction of legal exposure resulting form the loss or unavailability of City records or the retention of Records beyond their expiration date. Disadvantages: ■ Limited availability of funding. Recommendation: ■ Approve capital funds for renovating the current Public Works operation's building to accommodate storage of City records and Police evidence in FY 2005-06. Add staffing as funding allows. ■ Purchase Clerk's Index electronic document management system software module in FY 2005-06. ■ Purchase Clerk's Index Image Flow upgrade in FY 2008-09. Council Priority/Discussion: 42 Funding Needs Recreation Programs Issue Summary Definition: The City's Vision Document "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow", the Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), and the recently conducted Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment Survey results continue to stress the need for the City to provide recreation programs in Tigard. Provider options considered ranged from joining the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, creating a city Recreation Division, or creating a new local park and recreation district to serve Tigard. The survey revealed that 57% of respondents favored creating a Recreation Division, and when asked a follow up question 48% were willing to pay for it. In addition, 52% of the respondents were willing to pay for the construction of a Community Recreation Center to provide additional recreational opportunities such as children's programs, classes, summer playground program, camps, special events, middle school programs, teen programs, performing arts, and adult programs such as sports leagues and classes. The PRAB's top priority is the creation of a City Recreation Division to offer recreation programs, and the construction of a Community Recreation Center. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Ultimately, an in-house program provided by the City of Tigard could cost upwards of $860,000 for personnel, materials and supplies, and capital outlay. The City could move towards a full program by adding services over time. Initial offerings may be eligible for grant funding. A Community Recreation Center could cost up to $6.75 million. Operating costs for a Center are unknown until a facility is designed. Work Completed to date: The PRAB has conducted a survey to assess the public's willingness to provide financial support for the provision of recreation programs. Approximately 57% of respondents favored the creation of a City Recreation Division, with 48% of the respondents further stating they were willing to pay for it. As an interim step Staff will propose granting small recreation grants in the upcoming FY 05-06 budget. Implementation Action Required: Council direction and Budget appropriation. Funding could come from the General Fund, the Council could place a measure before the voters to approve a local tax levy, or Council could place the establishment of a park and recreation district before voters. A bond measure would be necessary to construct a $6.75 million Community Recreation Center. 43 Timing: Timing is dependent upon Council direction and available funding. Advantages: ■ Delivery of a service being requested by the public and the PRAB. ■ More activities for local youth. ■ Greater community focus and identity. Disadvantages: • Additional cost to the General Fund. Recommendation: Approve the concept of funding limited recreational grants as an interim step and await the upcoming Park and Recreation Advisory Board's future recommendation on the provision of recreation programs in the City of Tigard. Council Priority/Discussion: 44 Funding Needs Senior Center CDBG Grant Match Issue Summary Definition: The Tigard Senior Center Building is owned by the City with the senior services (meals, classes, programs and activities) being provided by contract with Loaves and Fishes. The building was originally built with CDBG monies and upgraded once again through CDBG monies. The City provides ongoing building maintenance services, however, there is no dedicated funding source to enlarge the building and update the kitchen equipment to meet the growing service demands of today as well as the coming of age of the baby boomer population. Tigard currently has the highest population of 60+ and 75+ seniors of any area in the County. Nationwide we see a trend of life expectancy increasing from the average of 77 years of age in 2000 to 82 as the average age in 2050. Tigard's population of 65 and older is over 10% today with the baby boomers making up another 22% of our population base. The need to expand and upgrade the building is here today and will grow exponentially in the next ten years. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Based on the encouragement of City Council in November 2003 to prepare the building for the current and coming needs of the aging population in Tigard, Loaves and Fishes and the City approached the Community Development Block Grant program and applied for a $450,000 grant in 2004. This grant application was accepted and the City and Loaves and Fishes have five years to prepare the project plans and drawings and present these to CDBG for final approval. The CDBG funding program requires a full match from the jurisdiction obtaining the grant; thus the City with assistance from Loaves and Fishes must provide $450,000 in cash and in-kind services as a match. In addition, operating costs (electrical, gas, water, etc.) will increase, causing the need for a larger contribution of City resources. Work Completed to date: The City has successfully applied for CDBG funding and the project must be completed within the next five years (no later than FY 2008-09) or the grant approval will lapse. Loaves and Fishes have met with their Site Committee, an C architect and the local Senior Center staff to begin providing general parameters for the project. The first priority for the expansion is to provide meals and address social isolation for the community's seniors, both at the Center and in the home. The second priority is to continue the significant multi-cultural outreach to seniors and their families to create a sense of community and to teach English as a Second Language to enhance the quality of life for Tigard's growing multi-cultural population. Implementation Action Required: The City staff and Loaves and Fishes will: ■ Finalize space and equipment needs for the Senior Center; Provide effective dialog opportunities with the community to garner input on the project priorities and outcomes; 45 ■ Develop project construction plans and specs that are adequate for both the City and Loaves and Fishes needs; ■ Obtain City Council approval to submit the project plans to CDBG for funding; ■ Obtain City Council approval for budget funding of the grant match; and ■ Build the project. Timing: The CDBG grant must be applied for and the construction completed within the next five years. The plan is to apply for the final grant approval for the 07-08 fiscal year. Advantages: ■ Provides larger and updated meal and program space for Tigard's senior and multi-cultural services. • Maintains services which can be provided at the existing facility while the targeted population continues to grow. ■ Provides meal processing which will remain safe and sanitary as the size of the service increases. Disadvantages: ■ Delayed expansion will reduce the services provided to seniors and multi-cultural outreach in our community at a time when both of these populations are growing in Tigard. • No dedicated fund source. Recommendation: In order to provide services to meet the growing aging population needs, providing a match for CDBG funding appears to be the best option available with the City's funds being matched. Council Priority/Discussion: i i i i i i 46 Funding Needs Solid Waste Management/Recycling/Code Enforcement Issue Summary Definition: The City's Vision Task Force recently updated a goal in the area of growth and growth management. The updated goal states that "growth will be managed to protect the character and livability of established areas, protect the natural environment and provide open space throughout the community." Solid waste management plays a critical role in not only maintaining the livability of City neighborhoods but protecting the natural environment as well. Making sure that our neighborhoods are free from debris and garbage generated from households and businesses is a very important part of this. In addition, increasing the recycling of materials from the waste stream is and will continue to be a critical part of protecting our natural environment and reaching this region's goal of 62% waste recovery by 2005. The level of effort that is currently possible is limited because of lack of resources and staffing. An expanded effort that would include greater visibility, program development, expanded efforts in local public education, and pilot projects that could enhance solid waste management and recycling throughout the City. The Solid Waste and Recycling program is currently the responsibility of the City's Financial Operations Manager who also has responsibility for the management of utility billing, payroll, general ledger, purchasing, budgeting, and financial forecasting. The City has a Code Enforcement Officer, but her time is committed to responding to citizen complaints and land use type of code enforcement issues and she does not currently deal with solid waste issues. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The franchise fee on solid waste is currently at 3% of gross revenues. This generates approximately $234,000 to the City's General Fund or $78,000 for every 1 Many of the surrounding jurisdictions have a higher franchise fee assessed on solid waste and, in some cases, those additional revenues are dedicated to sustaining livability and solid waste management in their community. The City of Beaverton is an example where this has happened. An increase in the franchise fee to 5% would produce an additional $156,000 per year. Work Completed to date: None Implementation Action Required: Identification of additional resources needed to address solid waste enforcement needs, solid waste management and recycling needs and revise solid waste collection and disposal fees, if necessary, as part of the rate review process. Also, work with the two City franchised haulers on gaining their support for this effort. 47 Timing: Spring - Summer 2005 Advantages: ■ Enhanced neighborhood livability and code enforcement. ■ Improved recycling in Tigard. ■ Better management and stewardship of the area's natural environment. Disadvantages: • Raising the franchise fee could increase the amount charged by local haulers for the collection and disposal of solid waste. Recommendation: Consider increasing the franchise fee on solid waste with the increased revenue being dedicated to solid waste management, including recycling and code enforcement. Begin working with the City's two solid waste haulers for support and concurrence with this expanded program. Council Priority/Discussion: 48 Funding Needs Youth Programs Issue Summary Definition: Youth Forum - This group of adults representing the City, Tigard-Tualatin School District, Youth Service/Program providers, businesses, the faith community and Youth Advisory Council has been meeting since February 2004 to facilitate expanding programs and activities for youth in the community. Youth Advisory Council: This group of middle and high school students has been meeting bi-monthly since June 2003. Their mission is to "empower, involve and connect the lives of Tigard's youth." The City program is based on the Search Institute Assets concept. The Search Institute is an organization based in Minnesota which has developed a list of 40 assets necessary to the success of youth. In support of the Search Institutes Assets, the Youth Council plans and coordinates a wide range of activities and events to involve Tigard's youth. In addition, they are charged with providing support to other youth activities such as the Skate Park Task Force, and serving as a communication connection for the youth in the community. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Currently a few hours of staff time each month is required for the Youth Forum to support the monthly meetings. Some staff support is also required to support the Youth Advisory Council meetings and chaperone activities/events. Staff time is currently incorporated into work assignments. The Federal Drug Free Communities Program offers a grant - $100,000 each year for 5 years - to support youth activities and programs that provide positive alternatives to drug and alcohol use. Tigard-Tualatin School District and City staff are working with the Youth Forum to apply for the grant in March 2005. If successful, the funds could be used in part to support the Youth Forum and Youth Advisory Council activities. Work Completed to date: Tigard Turns the Tide is an existing 501c3 non-profit that exists primarily to sponsor the Alcohol Free Grad Night Party. The Youth Forum group has been working with the Tigard Turns the Tide Board members to revise their bylaws to reflect a community partnership whose purpose would expand to provide positive programs and activities for youth. Implementation Action Required: Once the Tigard Turns the Tide Bylaws are completed (scheduled for December), the Youth Forum and Tigard Turns the Tide groups will merge into one non-profit entity called Tigard Turns the Tide. That group will submit the request in March for the Drug Free Communities Grant. 49 Timing: If the grant request is awarded, funds will be available for the 2005-06 fiscal year. Advantages: ■ New source of funds for youth programs ■ Multi-year funding Disadvantages: • Short term. Only for five years although under the current program application could be made for the next 5 year cycle. Recommendation: Submit the request of the Drug Free Community Grant in March 2005. Council Priority/Discussion: 50 Funding Needs Employee Benefits (insurance) Issue Summary Definition: Over the last few years, no issue has polarized employers and employees more than health care. The City of Tigard has gone to arbitration twice in three years over the issues of health insurance. Rising costs have necessitated that the City require workers to shoulder an ever-escalating portion of the costs, as have most other agencies and businesses. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey shows that monthly premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose 13.9% over a recent twelve month period - the third consecutive year of double digit increases and the highest premium spike since 1990. The City is committed to offering high quality health care, and has also implemented plan changes, increased deductibles and co-payments, and offered health screenings to address issues. It is a problem that isn't going to disappear anytime soon, and the City needs to adequately fund health insurance while at the same time continue to explore cost efficiencies. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The City experienced a 16% increase this last plan year to its Blue Cross Blue Shield coverage and a 11 % increase for Kaiser insurance. It is anticipated that double digit increases are here to stay for the long term, and the next plan year may see national trends of 20-23% adjustments. Budgeting should take this into account. Work Completed to date: The City has worked extensively with its Health Plan Committee to review and assess options relative to health insurance for its workers. Human Resources has brought in experts in the health insurance field for consultation, worked with regional human resource representatives, and expended a growing amount of staff time and resources with the City's insurance representatives (CCIS) to insure that the most cost effective options are utilized. Implementation Action Required: Impact or interest based bargaining will be necessary in some cases with existing labor units depending on next plan year increases, and Council action will be needed to set the terms for non-represented personnel. i Timing: New rates for the City of Tigard for the plan year starting August 2005 will not be known until April/May of 2005. If rates exceed re-opener clauses in existing labor contracts, negotiations will begin at that time. 51 Advantages: • Adequate funding for health insurance will enable the City to maintain a competitive, equitable position as it relates to health benefits in 2005-2006 • Better opportunities to attract and retain staff • More positive level of morale • Competitiveness with other public sector employers • Funding meets requirements of labor contracts as specified by contribution agreements. Disadvantages: • If there is inadequate funding and premiums become too high for workers to bear, some employees may drop out of insurance coverage altogether. When healthy employees drop out, the resulting adverse selection (leaving employees with greater health issues) brings even higher premiums. Employees without health insurance can face financial ruin, resulting in even more sicker employees working for the City. ■ Inadequate funding will bring additional labor strife, decreased morale ■ Workers will feel a greater pinch in their pocketbooks ■ Tigard may fall behind in comparability to other regional public sector organizations in terms of contributions and benefits • Recruitment and retention may be negatively effected ■ Potential violations of previously agreed upon insurance contribution rates in collective bargaining agreements. Recommendation: The City should continue to explore options to control health care costs while continuing to provide adequate levels of insurance for employees. Council Priority/Discussion: 52 Revenue Options Clean Water Services Split of Sanitary and Stormwater Revenues Issue Summary Definition: Under an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Clean Water Services (CWS), not only are specific service provider responsibilities outlined with regard to the maintenance and operation of the sanitary and stormwater systems, but the process for establishing service rates as well as connection fees are also outlined. Revenues are shared between CWS and cities based on formulas. Tigard sanitary revenues are deposited in the Sanitary Sewer Fund, which has a very healthy fund balance. Storm sewer revenues are placed in the Storm Sewer Fund which has a much smaller fund balance. Rates for both sanitary and stormwater are established by resolution each year by the Board of Directors of CWS (the Washington County Commission). At that time, CWS also certifies what portion of the service rates and/or connection fees are retained by the cities which participate in the IGAs. A few years ago, CWS obtained authority to establish a revenue bond component of the revenue apportionment between the cities and CWS. CWS has established a revenue bond debt service component of the rate. This has, in effect, reduced the cities' portion of total service charges. In addition to the changes to the revenue split resulting from debt service rate component, CWS has begun discussions with participating cities on changing the basic methodology for apportioning revenues between CWS and the cities. Initial discussions have steered towards establishing a cost-based method of revenue apportionment. In other words, revenues would be split based upon size of systems maintained and serviced by each individual city versus a set percentage split of revenues. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Unknown at this time. The City could possibly see reduced sanitary and stormwater revenues it retains. Work Completed to date: CWS has established a review committee made up of finance staff from the cities and CWS staff. Implementation Action Required: Staff will brief Council as the direction of the review becomes clear. Ultimately, any changes to the IGA will require approval of both the CWS Board of Directors and the City Council. Timing: Discussions will continue over the next year or two. 53 1 ` Advantages: • A revised cost-sharing formula could relate more directly to services provided. Disadvantages: ■ Tigard may lose revenues to the Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Funds. Recommendation: • The City needs to maintain an active presence in all CWS discussions regarding any proposed changes in methodology of revenue apportionment. ■ Staff should periodically brief Council on the status of rate sharing directions. ■ Public Works and Engineering staff should review sanitary sewer plans to determine if projected fund balances are sufficient to meet anticipated needs or if excess revenues are anticipated. Council Priority/Discussion: C 5 u J 54 Revenue Options Tigard Local Option Property Tax Levy Issue Summary Definition: A Local Option Property Tax Levy is allowed under the Oregon Constitution (Measure 50) to increase the local property tax rate to pay for needed services. It cannot exceed a period longer than 5 years, after which, it must be re-approved by voters. It can be used for any purpose (i.e. General Fund support) or it can be dedicated to specific services (i.e. Library, Parks, Police, etc.) Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: It is not yet known how much the City would require from a Local Option Property Tax Levy. That is dependent upon what combination (if any) of additional revenues or cuts in expenditures the Council wishes to pursue. A tax rate of 26¢/$1,000 of assessed valuation will raise just over $1,000,000 per year. Work Completed to date: No work on a Local Option Property Tax Levy has been done to date. Departments have preliminarily forecasted funding needs for the five-year period from 2005 to 2010, but those forecasts have not yet been finalized nor reviewed by the Budget Committee. Implementation Action Required: A Local Option Property Tax Levy must be approved by Council and placed on the ballot for approval by Tigard voters. It may only be voted on at one of the following elections: 4. May, subject to double-majority requirement 5. November of an odd-numbered year, subject to double majority requirement 6. November of even numbered year, subject to simple majority. Timing: If a Local Option Levy is approved by voters in May 2006, the first revenues would be received by the City in November 2006. If the Levy is approved by voters in November 2006, the first revenues would be received by the City in November 2007. Advantages: ■ Broad based revenue source • Easily understandable (traditional funding source, familiar to voters) ■ Stable ■ If approved as a rate per $1,000, it will grow with growth in assessed values • Well-established collection mechanism in place Disadvantages: ■ Short term solution - it expires after 5 years, and then must be renewed by voters. 55 ■ Oregon voters have been limiting property taxes for the last 15 years. Tigard voters may not choose to increase their property taxes. Competition on the ballot from other jurisdictions requesting voters to approve funding measures. ■ Competition and confusion with WCCLS measure likely to be on the ballot in 2006. ■ Most property tax measures on the ballot in November 2004 were not approved by voters - including the county public safety levy. Recommendation: Continue to research and explore options with the goal of placing this issue before voters. Council Priority/Discussion: 56 Revenue Options Long Range Planning Fees Issue Summary Definition: In July 2003, Council discussed the potential of instituting an application fee that would support long range planning activities. The City lacks resources to entirely fund this sort of project within the time frame the community expects. The fee would help offset the cost of completing specialized planning studies or projects. Long range planning studies vary in the amount of complexity and costs associated with any particular study or project. Where staff expertise exists and scheduling allows, City staff is assigned to complete particular projects. Other studies and projects require additional resources due to the complexity or intensity of the project or study. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: At its May 18, 2004 Council worksession, Council directed staff to proceed with developing a long range planning fee that would be in addition to existing planning fees. Basically, a "surcharge" would be paid at the time of submittal of specific land use applications. The proposed long range planning fee is anticipated to generate approximately $40,000 per year. Given the fact that the fees are based on permit activity, the actual revenue would fluctuate from year to year. The goal is to have the resources to complete such long range planning projects as the City determines are necessary through the budgetary process. Work Completed to date: Council is scheduled to take action on the proposed fee increase on December 14, 2004 Implementation Action Required: Council approval. Timing: December 2004. Advantages: ■ Development pays for the costs of completing long range planning studies. General Fund support of long range planning activities would be reduced. Disadvantages: ■ Land use fees increase. ■ Development-related fees could be higher in Tigard than in surrounding jurisdictions. ■ Development-related fees supporting Long Range Planning activities are not common. 57 Recommendation: Council Priority/Discussion: 58 Revenue Options Other User Fees Issue Summary Definition: The City of Tigard charges a variety of fees for specific services. Council has directed that whenever possible, users should pay directly for those specific services they use so that the general tax payer does not have to pay for services he or she does not use. The City has centralized all user fees into the Master Fee resolution. City Code requires that all fees be reviewed annually. The Master Fee resolution is updated in June of each year. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: At this time, the revenue potential is unknown. Over the past two to three years, the City has been aggressively reviewing and updating all fees and charges to ensure that they are current. Fees may need to be adjusted to keep them current, but it is unlikely that any large increases will be necessary. The revenue potential from this item is therefore likely to be small. Work Completed to date: The Master Fee resolution was last reviewed in June of 2004. The resolution was updated at that time. There have been a couple of small adjustments since then. Implementation Action Required: Adoption of a new resolution by Council. Timing: June 2005 Advantages: ■ The City maintains cost recovery ratios. • Only those who use the services covered by individual fees incur the cost. • Small, annual increases are easier for citizens to incorporate into their personal financial planning rather than larger increases occurring at multi-year intervals. L Disadvantages: Citizens may feel that they are being "nickled-and-dimed." • Annual fee adjustments may contribute to the perception that government is always asking for more money. Recommendation: Keep City fees current through annual reviews and small adjustments as justified by costs. Council Priority/Discussion: 59 Revenue Options Parks S®C Issue Summary Definition: Systems Development Charges (SDCs) are the fees that developers pay to cities and counties to offset the impacts of their project on the community. By definition, SDC revenues can only be spent on capacity increasing capital improvements. SDCs cannot be used to mitigate existing deficiencies capital systems. Tigard has been collecting Parks SDCs for many years, and this revenue is the primary funding source for the Parks capital improvement program. The City of Tigard Parks SDC methodology and fee schedule was updated in 2004 to reflect changes in state law and to increase cost recovery. The anticipated effective date of this update is January 1, 2005. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Under the old methodology (prior to Jan 1, 2005) the City anticipated collecting $2.3 million in Parks SDCs over the next five years. Under the new methodology the City anticipates collecting $7.9 million over the same time period. The new methodology also specifies projects upon which SDC revenues can be spent, and to what extent SDC revenues can be used. Work Completed to date: City has completed the legally mandated process and on December 14, 2004 the Council will consider adopting a new methodology and rate schedule effective January 1, 2005. Implementation Action Required: Council adoption following public notice and hearing. Timing: December 14, 2004, effective January 1, 2005 Advantages: ■ Increase of $5.6 million in revenues over the next five years. ■ A logical and defensible methodology. ■ New development will pay an appropriate share to maintain the existing parks to population ratio. Disadvantages: ■ The increase does not address the funding of non-SDC eligible projects. Currently, the City has only limited funds to support non-SDC eligible projects. Recommendation: Council should approve the new Parks SDC study and fee schedule. 60 Council Priority/Discussion: l61 Revenue Options Rights-of-Way (ROW) Fee Review Issue Summary Definition: A Rights-of-Way Management Study finalized in May 2003 concluded that the City was not recouping all of its direct and indirect costs associated with the management of the use of the rights-of-way. In addition, not all users of the rights-of- way obtain permits, and franchise utilities with blanket permits are not required to pay permit fees. The refusal of certain franchise utilities to renew their franchise agreements requires that an adequate fee structure be in place to ensure that all direct and indirect costs are recouped. Furthermore, studies have shown that the damage done to streets as a result of utility cuts are much more extensive than previously thought and should be factored into the permit and fee process. The City needs to focus attention on management of rights-of-way and review of fees charged to ensure that direct and indirect costs are recouped to the maximum extent feasible. This review also needs to consider whether permits and fees from in-house utilities such as water, wastewater, and storm water should also be required. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The fee review has the potential to significantly increase revenue, especially if franchise and in-house utilities pay fees as part of the permit process. Work Completed to date: As a result of the Rights-of-Way Management Study recommendations, Council created a ROW Administrator position to review the fee structure among other duties. The recruitment to fill this position is underway and should be completed by January 2005. It is anticipated that the person selected to fill this position would review the current procedures, make recommendations for changes, and oversee implementation of approved changes. Much of the work is anticipated to occur during calendar year 2005. Implementation Action Required: Some of the changes may require Council action through resolution or ordinance. The Telecommunications ordinance is currently being reviewed to broaden its application to include all utilities. Some of the changes resulting from this review may be incorporated through amendments to that ordinance. Timing: The ROW fee review will be performed during calendar year 2005. Changes to the fee structure to recoup direct and indirect costs could be implemented as soon as possible during this review process. Advantages: 62 ■ Revising the fee structure to recoup direct and indirect costs would ensure that the City's costs are recovered and that the long-term damage to streets is addressed as part of that review. • The fee review is timely in that those franchise utilities that do not renew their agreements can be managed just like any other applicant for permits and be charged what is required to compensate the City for its direct and indirect costs. • New revenue from in-house utility fees charged to dedicated funds can better balance the City's fiscal situation. ■ Charging fees to all utilities, whether in-house or not, is more equitable than the current practice. Disadvantages: • The City's Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Storm Sewer funds would have to expend more for fees that are not currently charged. • Rates for City utilities may have to be increased to help pay for the additional permit costs, which could raise concerns among Tigard citizens. Recommendation: The ROW fees should be reviewed with the intent of recouping direct and indirect costs to the maximum extent feasible, and the in-house utilities' rights-of-way activities should be subject to the permit process with full fees charged as part of that process. Council Priority/Discussion: s 63 Revenue Options Street Maintenance Fee Review Issue Summary Definition: The Street Maintenance Fee was established by Ordinance No.03-10 as a new source of revenue to meet street maintenance requirements. The rates, set by Resolution No 04-12, were established based on a 5-year corrective and preventative maintenance plan for addressing the City's $4 million street maintenance backlog and ensuring timely maintenance of the street infrastructure. Ordinance No. 03-10 requires the Finance Director to review the revenue after the first full year following implementation to determine if the revenue is meeting the projected amount. In addition, the ordinance requires the program to be reviewed after three years and the rates re-established based on the average annual cost of an updated five year maintenance plan. Adjustments to the fee would be made at that time taking into consideration overruns, underruns, and any additional funds for street maintenance received from the State through legislation. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The rates were set to generate approximately $800,000 annually. Work Completed to date: The fee collections began April 2004. A review of the revenue collected will be performed after April 2005. There is an opportunity at that time to establish a new rate based on an updated five year maintenance plan. Implementation Action Required: The Finance Director will report his findings to City Council. No other action is required at that time, unless adjustment of the rates is deemed necessary. Any adjustment to the rates would have to be performed by Council resolution. Timing: The Finance Director will review the revenue received after April 2005 and report the findings to City Council. Any adjustment to the rates, if determined by Council to be desirable or necessary, would be after that report. A three-year review will occur in 2007. Advantages: ■ Provides an opportunity to possibly lower the rates if the revenues are on target and the receipts from the State through legislation are factored in. ■ Would be a positive sign to the residents of Tigard that the City is keeping the fees charged as low as possible. Disadvantages: 64 The streets were last rated in 1999 and should be re-rated before the five-year maintenance plan is updated. There would be no opportunity to update the street information if the rates are to be revised by mid-2005. Recommendation: That the rates be adjusted only if the revenues are not reaching the projected amounts. Adjustment of the rates after the three-year period stated in the ordinance would allow for the pavement management information to be updated and the costs for the projects averaged out over a longer period before rate adjustments are contemplated. Council Priority/Discussion: i i; i 65 Revenue Options Telecommunications Regulation Issue Summary Definition: The City of Tigard, like most cities in the US, regulates access of telecommunications companies and other private utilities to public rights of way through franchise agreements and City Code provisions. The telecommunications industry has changed dramatically over the past 15 to 20 years, with the break-up of Ma Bell, the deregulation of the Baby Bells, the advent of cellular technology, and the advent of new technology such as Voice-Over-Internet- Providers (VoIP). Some of the new providers are subject to right of way regulation and some are not. The telecommunications industry in general, and traditional telecommunications providers (Qwest and Verizon) in particular, have been resisting (and in some cases, actively challenging) local authority to regulate access to public rights of way. In June 2001, Qwest brought suit against the City of Portland. This suit is working its way through the federal court system. If Qwest is successful in its suit, Tigard could lose future franchise fees paid by telecommunications companies, and may also be required to pay back franchise fees collected for a specified period of time. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Tigard collects about $325,000 per year in telecommunications franchise fees. Since July 1, 2001 though June 30, 2005, the City will collect about $1.37 million. Work Completed to date: City staff have been actively monitoring Qwest vs Portland. In addition, the City of Tigard is on the steering committee of a joint audit of Qwest and Verizon franchise fees conducted by 70 Oregon cities. Finally, staff is reviewing the City's Telecommunications Code for possible changes to broaden its application to all franchised utilities and to ensure compliance with current interpretations of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Implementation Action Required: It is not yet clear what actions the City of Tigard may need to take. It will need to maintain close coordination with the League of Oregon Cities, other Oregon cities, state legislators, and the Oregon congressional delegation as these issues are brought up in various forums. Timing: This issue has been developing since 2001 and is continuing. It is likely that it will take several years for this issue to reach conclusion. Recommendation: The City should continue to actively monitor this issue as it develops. In addition, the City Council should make its concerns known to state legislators and the Oregon Congressional delegation. 66 Council Priority/Discussion: ~I 3 D 9 i u 67 Revenue Options Transportation Financing Issue Summary Definition: One of the Council Goals for calendar year 2004 is to aggressively pursue solutions to congestion on state, county and City facilities that lie within the City limits. Many of the projects needed to improve circulation within the City are under state or county jurisdiction. The Council goal is to pursue implementation of these projects regardless of jurisdiction. A list of high priority projects was presented to Council at its meeting on March 16, 2004. Many of the projects involve intersections on Highway 99W. In addition, there was a long list of projects considered for the Transportation Bond measure in the year 2000. Although the bond measure failed, the transportation improvement needs remain. Additional sources of funding must be developed to address some of the more urgent transportation projects to alleviate congestion, provide better intra-city traffic circulation, provide facilities for alternative modes of transportation, and accommodate the current and future traffic volumes. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: To be determined. The Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force was reconstituted to evaluate new potential funding sources that could be established to address high-priority transportation projects. In early 2005, the Task Force will meet with Council to discuss potential projects and receive direction on the high-priority projects that need new funding sources for implementation. The intent is to focus the efforts of the Task Force on the areas that Council deem as highly important and better match the proposed funding with the appropriate projects. Work Completed to date: The Task Force has met three times and will continue meeting regularly to discuss potential funding sources. The Task Force will meet with City Council in early 2005 after Council goal setting has been completed. The intent is for Council to provide direction on the high-priority projects that need to be matched with funding sources for implementation. Implementation Action Required: The Task Force will report to City Council periodically on the progress of the Task Force effort. Any proposed new funding sources will be discussed with City Council at a workshop session. New funding sources classified as fees or non-property tax may require an ordinance and resolution. A bond measure to accelerate implementation of numerous projects would require a public process for development of a list and a vote of approval by the Tigard citizens. Timing: The Task Force will evaluate new funding sources with the intention of making an initial recommendation to Council by mid-2005 at the earliest. A bond measure, if proposed, would most likely be scheduled for the general election in 2006 at the earliest. 68 Advantages: ■ New funding sources would address high-priority projects that need to be constructed to meet current and future traffic volumes. ■ Sidewalk improvements and rights-of-way maintenance can be programmed annually once funding sources are identified. The sidewalk projects can enhance safe access to schools and transit stops from the residential neighborhoods. Rights-of-way maintenance on collectors and arterials can spruce up the City's image and minimize the fire hazards by keeping brush cut during the summer months. Disadvantages: ■ The voters have indicated that they have limitations on what they can afford, regardless of the existing needs. Any bond measure would face stiff competition in just about any scheduled election. ■ Adding a new fee or tax in these or any other economic times is not going to be popular and may be referred to the voters for approval. Recommendation: That the Task Force receive direction from Council, continue to evaluate potential new funding sources for recommendation to Council, and make periodic reports to Council on Task Force progress. Council Priority/Discussion: 69 Revenue Options Urban Renewal Issue Summary Definition: Creation of one or more urban renewal districts to generate dedicated revenues to pay for needed improvements in the Washington Square Regional Center, Downtown Tigard, and/or Commuter Rail Line. The Tigard Charter currently prohibits any renewal districts without an approving vote of the people. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: To be determined. The Washington Square Regional Center Plan identifies substantial improvements needed in that area, with costs to match. These costs can only be partially covered by existing revenues and fund sources. The Downtown Plan is still in the development stage so public improvements needed to support the plan are unknown at this time. Work Completed to date: Council has received three informational briefings on the mechanics of urban renewal and urban renewal financing. Council has approved the Washington Square Regional Center Plan and the Washington Square Regional Center implementation study, which identify needed improvements and potential costs. Washington County is actively pursuing funding for the Commuter Rail Line and is exploring urban renewal as a means of providing funding for a portion of the improvements identified in the Regional Center Plan, particularly in the area of commuter rail stations, of which Tigard will have two. The Downtown Task Force has been meeting with interested parties and stakeholders to develop a vision for the downtown. A concept plan is under development and will be considered by Council in June 2005. Once the plan is adopted implementation will take another 12 to 24 months to complete. Urban renewal is a potential funding tool to implement the Plan. Implementation Action Required: City Charter prohibits the formation of any urban renewal district without an affirmative citywide vote. Council could refer one of two measures to the people: 3. An amendment of City Charter to remove the requirement for a citywide vote, or 4. Approval of one or more urban renewal districts. Timing: To be determined 70 Advantages: Creation of a dedicated funding source that grows with growth in assessed values in the urban renewal district and that can be used to pay for needed improvements. ■ Public improvements paid for by urban renewal will spur private investment that will further increase values in the district, and will accommodate job and housing growth ■ Once the urban renewal plan is accomplished and all costs are paid for, the assessed value is returned to the general tax roles and help pay for citywide service. Disadvantages: ■ Urban renewal "locks up" growth in assessed values during the life of the urban renewal plan, thereby limiting growth in tax revenues for all overlapping taxing jurisdictions. ■ Urban renewal mechanics are complicated and difficult to explain to the public in an election setting. ■ Creation of an urban renewal district requires the active support of major property owners within the proposed district. Recommendation: ■ Continue to explore urban renewal as an option for Tigard Work with property owners in the Washington Square Regional Center and the Downtown Task Force, and with Washington County to assess the level of interest and support for urban renewal. ■ Develop a proposed timeline for resolution of this question. Council Priority/Discussion: 71 Revenue Options Water Utility Rates Issue Summary Definition: The Water Fund is an enterprise fund, which by definition used in accounting principles and guidelines, operates as a business enterprise. In the case of the City's Water Fund, the primary source of revenue is water sales. The City operates the fund on the financial principle that the costs associated with the delivery of water shall be borne by the user. Thus, water rates become the mechanism through which the revenue to operate the water system is derived. Tigard uses a rate-making financial model to evaluate future costs, both operational and capital, and design water rates to accommodate these costs. The City Council last reviewed rates in 2000, when a 3-year rate plan was approved. It is anticipated a new rate plan will need to be approved in 2005. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Revenues generated by water sales are anticipated to be $6 million dollars in FY 04-05. This number can be impacted by weather; cool wet summers reduce water sales thus affecting rates. Work Completed to date: The water rate model is updated annually as the budget is approved. Implementation Action Required: Water rates are set by resolution of the City Council. It is anticipated that the IWB will forward a recommendation to the City Council and that the City Council could approve any water rate changes as a part of the master rates and charges resolution adopted annually in June. Water rates are generally effective October 1 through September 30tH Timing: Staff will be preparing a water rate recommendation to be presented to the Intergovern mental Water Board (IWB) in the Spring of 2005. Advantages: ■ Maintains relationship between rates paid by the customer and actual costs; ■ Avoids large rate increases by dealing with changes in smaller increments; • Facilitates good credit rating for the City when debt instruments are sold; • Keeps water issues in the ratepayers minds. Disadvantages: • Rate increases are rarely popular and increase costs to citizens. 72 Recommendation: Accept the recommendation from the IWB when presented and consider adoption of any new rate schedule as a part of the annual rates and charges review in June of 2005. Council Priority/Discussion: i i i 73 Revenue Options WCCLS Local Option Levy Issue Summary Definition: WCCLS Levy: A Countywide Local Option Property Tax Levy for library services is allowed under the Oregon Constitution (Measure 50) to increase the local property tax rate for needed services. It cannot exceed a period longer than 5 years, after which, it must be re-approved by voters. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: It is projected that the tax rate of this levy will be approximately .26/$1,000 of assessed valuation. This would raise approximately $9,500,000 per year. Tigard's share of this amount will be determined according to the WCCLS funding formula. Work Completed to date: A countywide levy for library operational funding was placed before voters in November of 2002 and again in May 2004. The measure failed in 2002 by approximately 600 votes and failed in 2004 for lack of a double majority. A needs analysis for the levy was completed in 2002, as was a phone survey. A citizens group was formed in 2002 and again in 2004 to provide information to the voters of Washington County concerning the benefits of the levy. Significant background information has been compiled concerning this issue. Implementation Action Required: A WCCLS Local Option Property Tax Levy must be approved by the County Board of Commissioners and placed on the ballot for approval by Washington County voters. It may only be voted on at one of the following elections: 1- May of any year, subject to double-majority requirement 2. November of an odd-numbered year, subject to double-majority requirement 3. November of an even numbered year (general election), subject to simple majority. Timing: If the WCCLS Local Option Levy is approved by county voters in May 2006, the first revenues would be received by the County in November 2006. If the Levy is approved by the voters in November 2006, the first revenues would be received by the County in November 2007. Advantages: • Easily understandable ■ Will restore cuts to library service countywide. ■ Weil-established collection mechanism in place ■ Broad-based revenue source Disadvantages: 74 ■ Short term solution-it expires after 5 years, and then must be renewed by the voters • Competition on the ballot from other jurisdictions requesting voters to approve funding measures ■ Competition and confusion with a Tigard local option levy if it is on the same ballot ■ Most property tax measures on the ballot in November 2004 were not approved by voters - including the county public safety levy Recommendation: Continue to research and explore options with the goal of supporting this issue when it is placed before voters in May or November 2006. Council Priority/Discussion: 75 Revenue Options MSTIP Funding Issue Summary Definition: Measure 50 rolled Washington County's serial levy for the Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP) into the County's permanent property tax rate. The County Board of Commissioners is considering adoption of a six-year program (2007 through 2012) of transportation projects using the MSTIP portion of the County's permanent property tax rate. The projects to be selected to be part of this MSTIP Transportation Capital Program must improve collectors and arterials identified in the County's transportation plan. Geographic equity would be a consideration in the project selection. Through this program, the City has the opportunity to submit priority City projects that qualify for implementation using MSTIP dollars. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The County estimates approximately $23 million net annual revenue resulting in approximately $140 million over the six-year period. The target allocation for the City out of this six-year total is $5,287,000. However, because the inflation factor is estimated as twice the amount of interest earned, the actual amount available in the out years of the program is anticipated to be significantly less than in the first year of implementation. The issues are still being worked out, but the funding that could be available for projects that benefit the City would range between $3 and $5 million depending upon the schedule for implementation. Work Completed to date: Through Resolution No. 04-82, City Council approved three projects to be submitted for consideration as part of the County's Transportation Capital Program. Because the timing for implementation of the projects is highly uncertain at this point, only one or two of the projects may actually receive sufficient funding for implementation. In addition, the County staff has indicated that they want to handle projects from beginning to end. Tigard and other cities want to initiate design and rights- of-way acquisition but need construction dollars for implementation. This issue needs to be resolved. Discussions will continue during the next month or two on resolving these issues. i i Implementation Action Required: The Washington County Coordinating Committee consisting of city and County elected officials would recommend a list of projects for adoption by the County Board of Commissioners. The project list and the sequence of implementation adopted by the Board would commit the available dollars for that six- year program. Timing: The County's Transportation Advisory Committee will be meeting during the next two months to resolve the various issues and submit a recommendation to the 76 County Coordinating Committee. The Coordinating Committee will likewise be discussing the program with the intention of submitting a recommendation to the County Board early in 2005. The program dollars will be for the six-year period beginning in 2007 and ending in 2012. Advantages: • Provides an opportunity for the City to have one or more high-priority projects constructed using MSTIP dollars. ■ Commitment of the MSTIP portion of the County's permanent property tax rate to a long-term program would set the stage for a large future MSTIP 4 program to address some of the major transportation needs within the cities and unincorporated Washington County. Disadvantages: • If the projects are limited to those that are not yet programmed for implementation, some of the significant projects of current interest would not be eligible for consideration. ■ The six-year period begins in 2007. Some projects may not be scheduled until late in that period. Some of the projects in Tigard cannot wait that long for implementation. ■ The City would not have control over the project details once the County adopts the project for implementation. Although City input would be considered, the County would have the final say on the project-related decisions. Recommendation: There is no real downside to this situation. The MSTIP portion of the County's permanent property tax rate provides an opportunity for the City to have one or more significant projects funded and implemented through the County's Transportation Capital Program. Staff recommends that the City participate actively in this process, in cooperation with the staff from other cities and the County, to reach a consensus on the project list and on the scheduling for implementation. Council Priority/Discussion: 77 Revenue Options Franchise Fees - Water and Sewer Issue Summary Definition: The City charges private utility companies a fee for use of public rights-of- way to string their wires, or lay pipes and conduit. The fee is calculated as a percentage of the utility's gross revenues collected within the City of Tigard. The City currently charges the electric utility 3.5%, the natural gas utility 5%, and telecommunications companies 5%. The City does not charge its water and sewer utilities any fee, though many cities do. Franchise fees for private utilities cannot be raised outside of the franchise agreement. The franchises with PGE and Qwest do not provide for any mechanism to increase the franchise fee during the life of the agreements. Verizon does not have a current franchise agreement and has declined to negotiate a new agreement pending decision of the Qwest vs. Portland case challenging local franchise authority. If the City wished to pursue increased fees for private utilities with a current agreement, it would need to adopt a privilege tax, which is discussed in another paper. The City could institute franchise fees on its own public utilities at any time. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Charging the City's in-house utility operations a franchise fee would raise the following amounts for the General Fund: Water $307,000 -Sanitary Sewer $77,800 Storm Sewer 156,200 Total $441,000 The additional charges to the water utility could be recovered through a water rate increase. Rates for sanitary sewer and storm sewer are set by CWS and revenues are shared back to the City. Rates would not be increased to recover this cost, and so a franchise fee would reduce revenues to fund sanitary and storm sewer operations. Work Completed to date: Staff have surveyed other cities to see how many charge franchise fees to their own utilities. No other work has been done on water or sewer franchise fees. Implementation Action Required: Council resolution or ordinance. Timing: To be determined. If the decision is made to charge water operations a franchise fee, this should be coordinated with the annual water rate review currently underway. 78 Advantages: ■ Builds off an existing collection that is in place and well established • Broad based - it affects a wide variety of payers (though utility bills) ■ Relatively stable revenue source Disadvantages: • Increased fees will be passed on to water utility customers in the form of a rate increase, thereby increasing their bills Recommendation: • Explore options for charging a franchise fee of no more than 5% on public utilities (water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer.) If options are feasible, consider instituting water and sewer franchise fees. Council Priority/Discussion: 79 Revenue Options Privilege Tax Issue Summary Definition: Oregon Revised Statutes allow cities to adopt and levy a "Privilege Tax" on utilities. This is a tax on the gross revenues of electric or natural gas utilities or on local exchange access revenues of "incumbent !oval exchange carriers, ILECs" (in Tigard's case, this means Qwest and Verizon) for the "privilege" of using public rights of way for the delivery of their services. A privilege tax and a franchise fee are very similar. The only real difference is that a franchise fee is dependent upon the existence of a formal agreement (a franchise) between the utility and the City. Privilege tax rates are also limited by state statute; franchise fee rates are not (though some utilities would argue otherwise.) A privilege tax could be structured in a variety of ways. The method that has been considered by staff establishes the privilege tax and then makes provision for a credit for the amount of franchise fee paid (if any). This establishes the back-up authority of the privilege tax, but only collects an incremental amount over and above the existing franchise fee. If the franchise is not renewed for any reason, then the full amount of the privilege tax would be collected. Tigard has two telecommunications companies with expired franchises: Verizon and Electric Lightwave. Both companies have declined to negotiate new franchises, but are continuing to make franchise fee payments as if their expired franchises were still in effect. Privilege taxes are calculated based on the total gross revenues of electric and natural gas utilities and competitive local exchange carriers telecommunications companies generated within a local jurisdiction and are limited by State law to no more than 5%. State law limits privilege taxes on ILEC telecommunications companies to no more than 7% of local exchange access revenues only. (revenues from the majority of services - E such as call waiting, call forwarding, long distance, internet access, etc. - are excluded form the revenue base. Cable television is franchised 80 Franchise rates for franchised utilities are: Electric & Natural Gas Telecommunications PGE 3.5% of gross Qwest 5.0% of local revenues exchange access Northwest 5.0% of gross Verizon 5.0% of local Natural revenues exchan a access Cypress 5.0% of gross Communications revenues Electric 5.0% of gross Li htwave revenues IDT Corp. 5.0% of gross revenues MCI WorldCom 5.0% of gross revenues Metro Media 5.0% of gross Fiber Network revenues New Access 5.0% of gross Communications revenues OnFiber 5.0% of gross Communications revenues Time-Warner 5.0% of gross Telecom revenues XO 5.0% of gross Communications revenues Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: If a privilege taxis adopted at the levels authorized in State law and it is structured to be net of franchise fees paid, it would generate the following revenue amounts: PGE $550,000 Northwest Natural $0 Qwest $5,400 Verizon $92,500 'r CLECs $0 Total $647,900 i Work Completed to date: An issue paper was presented to the Tigard Budget Committee in May 2004. The Budget Committee's response was mixed. There was little enthusiasm for this tax, but there was also a willingness to keep it on the table for discussion. Implementation Action Required: A privilege :ax could be adopted by ordinance. 81 Timing: There is no specific timeline for this issue. It could be considered at any time that the Council feels appropriate. From a process standpoint, if Council indicated a willingness to move ahead with this revenue source, it would be necessary to draft an ordinance. From that point, it would be advisable to circulate the ordinance to all franchisees and any other utilities affected by the proposal for review and comment. Council would need to hold at least one public hearing on the proposal. It could take several months to go through this process. Advantages: • The tax would produce a significant amount of revenue that would be available to the General Fund. ■ The tax is broad based. ■ The tax is not overly dependent upon economic activity and will help to diversify the City's revenue sources. ■ The tax is not dependent upon the existence of a franchise agreement and protects the revenue stream should a franchisee not renew its agreement and continue to operate in Tigard. ■ The telecommunications industry is aggressively challenging local government rights to regulate and control their rights of way nationally. Franchise fees could be severely curtailed or eliminated by legislative or congressional action. Disadvantages: ■ A privilege tax in excess of current franchise fees will be passed on to utility customers, thereby increasing their bills • Under state law, the incremental increase would be itemized on customer bills Telecommunications companies are challenging local franchise authority nationally and in Oregon. Adopting a privilege tax could add to this push. Recommendation: Proceed with development of a privilege tax proposal. Council Priority/Discussion: 82 a Revenue Options Telecommunications Registration Fee Issue Summary Definition: A telecommunications registration fee is an annual fee charged to telecommunications companies operating within a city. The two traditional methods of obtaining revenues from telecommunications companies to support city operations and rights of way are franchise fees and privilege taxes. Franchise fees are based on a franchise agreement between the city and the company. Privilege taxes are imposed unilaterally based on the city's taxing authority. Other than their underlying authority, franchise fees and privilege taxes are calculated and operate in much the same way. Under state law, franchise fees and privilege taxes for "incumbent local exchange carriers" (ILECs - basically Qwest and Verizon) can only be levied on local exchange access (basically, dial tone charges). By state law, all other revenues (including revenues from charges such as call waiting, call forwarding, long distance, etc.) are excluded from the revenue base used to calculate franchise fee and privilege taxes. (By contrast, franchise fees and privilege taxes for electric and natural gas utilities are based on total revenues.) The traditional method of assessing fees/levying taxes on telecommunication carriers has several problems: 1. The limited revenue base (local exchange access vs. total revenues) as compared to other utilities using the public rights of way. 2. The growth of competitors to ILECs has heightened concerns about the different methodology on calculating franchise fees (local exchange access vs. total revenues.) 3. The growth of cellular service, which is not franchised by the City, is taking customers away from traditional telephone service. 4. The entry of non-traditional telecommunications providers into local markets has created a situation in which it is difficult to keep track of which providers are operating within a city. The City of Eugene addressed these problems by adopting a 2% telecommunications registration fee on non-franchised services. This registration fee was challenged in court, but ultimately upheld. Other cities in Oregon are now looking at adopting telecommunications registration fees. 83 . f In addition, the City of Portland has recently explored the possibility of imposing a tax on cellular phone companies. Reaction to this proposal has been mixed, but negative over all. The cellular telecommunications companies are strongly opposed. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Unknown. Because telecommunications franchise fees are based on only a small portion of traditional telecommunications providers' total revenues, it is difficult to determine the total revenue potential for Tigard. Work Completed to date: None Implementation Action Required: This would require an amendment to the Tigard Municipal Code to establish the fee, and then an amendment to the Master Fee Resolution. Timing: It would take 4 or 5 months to develop this proposal and to take it through the public review process. Cities anticipate that telecommunications companies will be actively lobbying the legislature to pre-empt local telecommunications registration fees. Advantages: • This fee could produce a significant amount of revenue for the City. • This fee would tend to level the playing field between telecommunications providers in terms of the fees paid to the City. ■ This fee would equalize the treatment of all utilities with facilities in the public rights of way. • Registration and payment of a fee would provide the City with valuable information about telecommunications providers operating within the City. ■ Adoption of a registration fee would help to protect the City should telecommunications companies successively lobby the legislature to further limit or eliminate local franchise fees or privilege taxes. Disadvantages: ■ This proposal would generate strong opposition from telecommunications providers. ■ This proposal may increase chances that the legislature would act to pre-empt authority for local telecommunications registration fees. • Telecommunications providers may pass this charge on to customers as a separate line item on the customers' bills and thereby increase costs to local customers. Recommendation: Several other cities are actively considering a telecommunications registration fee, and the legislature will convene in January. The City should monitor statewide activity on this issue to see if other cities are successful. The City should make a determination sometime in the summer of 2005 whether or not to proceed with this proposal. Council Priority/Discussion: 84 Revenue Options Water Revenue Bond Issue Summary Definition: A water revenue bond is a type of bond backed by future water revenues (as compared to a general obligation bond which pledges property taxes as repayment). Tigard is considering this type of bond to finance capital improvements and possibly the up-front or "buy in" costs the City would incur to secure a long term water supply. Tigard's Water operation is currently debt free. The City will be considering the use of water revenue bonds to finance all or a portion of the upcoming water reservoir/pump station/transmission piping project package, named the 550 ft. Service Zone Water Supply System Improvements. The City is also considering obtaining an equity position in a water source. While the source and cost have yet to be determined, financing this project is anticipated to be by revenue bonds. This is consistent with the concept that users should pay their proportional share of projects. Use of a bond that is collected based on property value can produce situations of inequity between property owners, and should be avoided for this reason. In summary, Tigard could be looking to issue revenue bonds within the next two years. Future decisions on a water source could necessitate multiple revenue bond sales. Both of these projects are consistent with, and addressed specifically, in the City's visioning documents. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The 550 ft. Service Zone projects are currently estimated to cost $8.84 million dollars. The buy-in cost of a new source of water is unknown and will depend upon the source selected and negotiations with the holders of those water rights. Work Completed to date: The City has currently done two things in anticipation of these expenses: the Council has kept water rates current for the last three fiscal years, and the City has retained a consultant to develop a water financial planning and rate model to better evaluate options and scenarios. This rate model will also be important in the issuance of water revenue bonds. Implementation Action Required: The Intergovernmental Water Board will initially produce a recommendation to the City Council. Following that, the City Council may authorize the issuance of revenue bonds by resolution. Timing: Bond could be issued as early as 2005. 85 m . Advantages: ■ Revenue bonds are excellent funding mechanisms for utility capital improvements for three reasons: • They do not compete with other public funding based on general revenues and they do not require voter approval, • They extend the concept of "cost of service" principles in which a user of a utility pays a proportional share of the cost to provide that specific service, and • They spread the cost of an improvement to future users of that improvement (intergenerational equity). ■ Revenue bond repayment periods are generally also shorter than the useful life of the project they fund. ■ Current costs of borrowing money are very favorable. Disadvantages: ■ Not using bonding of some type puts City utilities into the business model of pay cash as you go which is not viable where such large amounts of capital are needed. ■ Revenue bonds carry a higher interest rate than general obligation bonds, because their repayment is based on the financial stability of the system and not on an unlimited power to tax. Recommendation: Staff will continue to update Council on options and costs, with a future recommendation probably being to authorize issuance of one or more water revenue bond issuances. Council Priority/Discussion: 86 Revenue Options Passport Application Acceptance Issue Summary Definition: The City of Tigard can become a passport application acceptance agency. Some surrounding cities, such as the City of Beaverton, provide this as a customer service to citizens. Finance staff would accept the application at the City Hall front counter and forward the application to the U.S. Department of State for actual issuance. The City of Beaverton reports that it receives over 5,000 applications per year. The City of Beaverton also has established limited hours of operation (12:30 p.m. until 4:00 p.m.) in order to more effectively manage the program and still provide good customer service. Limited hours are also being considered for implementation in Tigard's case as well. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The application fee is $30 and is levied in addition to the $55 passport fee. The passport agency retains the application fee as reimbursement for providing the service. As envisioned, no additional staffing needs are anticipated unless the number of applications received and processed would generate more than enough revenue to warrant some part-time assistance. The City of Beaverton has estimated passport revenues to their City will be over $160,000 in FY 2004-05. Work Completed to date: Preliminary review of the passport acceptance program has been completed and initial plans, if the program is approved, call for implementation by July, 2005. Implementation Action Required: Update of the fee schedule to include the fee for accepting passport applications and staff training. Timing: Implement by July, 2005 or sooner. Advantages: • A passport application acceptance agency in Tigard will be a benefit to citizens. • Tigard residents as well as other individuals visiting City Hall will have this as an additional customer service provided by the City. ■ This function would produce additional revenue at minimal cost. Disadvantages: • None 87 Recommendation: Continue to investigate the possibility of the City of Tigard becoming a passport application agency once the Finance Department has moved into the remodeled City Hall. Target July, 2005 or sooner for implementation. Council Priority/Discussion: 88 AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE : December 14, 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 Bru C.e 5, 1Da1Y op Ie SDe s Pty GAV 15767 Sw wit )0'A G 6&41<447A , U r,c C?760 C. T74 ARC Boec,r4 >~rv ,cQ~ y~i lY o 'C17 1f f5 p1 6 ~y3 Ke CC dos s CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Page 1 Tigard High Leadershlm~ -M?' 9000 SW Durham Road • Tigard • Oregon • 47224 (503) 431-5518 • FAX (503) 431-5410 • http://ths.ttsd.kl2.or.usJleadership/home.html Council Student Re ort: December 14t6.2004 CitV Academics: rHalf way through the second quarter- Monday New Course Requests were due recently Committee of teachers reviews and decides new courses. Activities: s' Grw+ Winter Formal was last Saturday. "Snow Globe!„ Fundraised $2,000 for Thespians and future productions. ' Morning caroling on Friday as well as free hot chocolate. Athletics: Football- Pac 9 Champs and went to play offs k'' Winter sports- full swing- lots of involvement ~ r`.'tit. ,ffU Football awards night is next Monday night iwr x. Most teams are involved with tournaments/competitions over parts of winter break. s' 'hrt k Y1;! nd Tigerettes dance team won two First place trophies and a 2 place at the ; Gresham Winter competition. '.7 Piece of My Heart just ended "The Little Circus" winter show ~r Ar ltfr .•,tndVh'' ~1~'`'' Choir concerts were last Tuesday and Wednesday ifo x Band concert on Thursday & Choir singing at the Grotto p Band won third place at Finals in the Northwest (small bands) P~+ ht ~'rr Band was the lead band at the Meir & Frank parade after Thanksgiving >SiAr , .h C•{}y,it,: Color Guard has a new instructor and the team is working hard. ,E r 47 I ~ Y 7 ~i to ~ 1 ,ar;•t rr rr ,}s, .',~t >rrl jf'~r"k'pa.r i~l t ~ M j~•+`1ctw V M, tQ 1 ff ry, l,./r f ~ Sty,I~ a«•i$S{q~it ~I('~~r''j~,+'1~r~4 v t~::;i i•~Irirylw~s~,`.~t'~~~tt'..7~' f3~ 1 I ~"rEV~.I' Y. .J)r;• +`i MOtlVation, DedICatlOn, Participation"' -THS Leadership '04-'05 r~~ N's IN N MEMORANDUM Administration CITY OF TIGARD Shaping A Better Community TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council AGENDA ITEM # 3, Q a FROM: Joanne Bengtson FOR AGENDA OF I D.1N . bL DATE: December 3, 2004 SUBJECT: Three-Month Council Calendar Regularly scheduled council meetings are marked with an asterisk December 20 Monday Joint Meeting with Board of Commissioners, 6:30 pm - Library Community Room 24 Friday Christmas Eve - City Hall Closed, Library Open 25 Saturday Christmas Day - Library Closed 31 Friday New Year's Eve - City Hall Closed, Library Open January 1 Saturday New Year's Day - Library Closed 11* Tuesday Council Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 17 Monday Martin Luther King Holiday - City Hall Closed, Library Open 18" Tuesday Council Goal Setting - Noon, Tigard Water Auditorium 25' Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall February 8" Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 15' Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 21 Monday President's Day - City Hall Closed, Library Open 22* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 1 3-Month Council Calendar - December to February AGENDA ITEM TF FOR AGENDA OF December 280 2004 Wilma µeeting Nte: Business/6-30 P•m' December 20, 2004 Meeting Type/Time: C•ay Hall 2004 Meeting Date: Workshop►6:30 P.m. Mme: Location: December 14, Meeting YP Community Room Greeter. December 14, 2004 Meeting Date, P•m- Location: r 13, 2004 Meeting TypeRime' City Hall Materials opDue @ ening 5: Decembe Greeter. December 6, 2004 gill Opening Deadline, December 10, 2004 Location: Materials Due @ 5: December 5, 2 noon November Greeter: November 30, 2Qp4 ning Deadline: Scar, Deadline @ 24, 2004 Bid 0' December 2, 2004 Req to Sched Due @5• Yes Materials Due @ 5: November 29, 2004 Scan Deadline @ noon 19, 2004 ning Deadline: Due @5: November Televised: No Bid Ope noon: November 26, 2004 Req to Schell No Attorney Attends: Scar, Deadline @ November 12, 2004 Televised: Study Session No Req to Sched Due @5' Yes Attorney Attends: Televised: Yes Attomey Attends: Study Session Meeting Canceled Joint Meeting with the Washington County Board of Commissioners Consent Agenda Consent Agenda er Easements VacaU°n Initiation Public Sew (yAC2004-00002) -RES - Jim H• Business Meeting Business Meeting 15 min Parks System Master plan update -Dennis - tll.and & Water Conservation OR Park & Rec Dep Fund Fanno Creek TraGrant App - - Dennis/Jim H -10 min Parks SDC Methodology & Rates - MOTION - Dennis ales Code amendment to allowlbmlH -15 m`n lP (Industrial Park) zone - 5 min Revised CityRriMet - MOU -Duane - Fees -Jim H `Long Range Planning .Arbor Heights Annexation at 14040 Sp 11Craigv 5 min urplus Declare propel & authorize sale of prop page 1 pW Dept: MissionNalues Exercise Results - pPT - Dennis -15 min t RES Recognizing Melvin Walker for 23 yrs Adop Dennis - 5 min of Service - LC%XIDIL11 T 11 KIP Meeting Date: January 11, 2005 Meeting Date: January 18, 2005 Meeting Date: January 25, 2005 Meeting Typelrime: Business/6:30 P.M. Meeting Type rime: Workshop/5:00 P.M. Meeting TypeTme: Business/6:30 P.m. Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Greeter: Liz Greeter: Greeter. Materials Due @ 5: December 28, 2004 Materials Due @ 5: January 4, 2005 Materials Due @ 5: January 11, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: December 27, 2004 Bid Opening Deadline: January 3, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: January 10, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon: December 24, 2004 Scan Deadline @ noon: December 31, 2004 Scan Deadline @ noon: January 7, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: December 10, 2004 Req to Sched Due @5: December 17, 2004 Req to Sched Due @5: December 23, 2004 Televised: Yes Televised: No Televised: Yes Attorney Attends: Yes Attorney Attends: No Attorney Attends: No Study Session Study Session Executive Session Joint meeting with the Budget Committee - Craig - 30 min Council Goal Setting - Water Auditorium - Noon LCRB Update & Feedback on Revised Purchasing & Contracting Administrative Rules-Craig-20 min 'Verizon Agreement - Craig Consent Agenda `5:30 p.m. - Ceremonial meeting & pictures Consent Agenda `Verizon Agreement - Craig Business Meeting `Oath of Office `Mayor's State of City Business Meeting `Youth Council Resolution Affordable Housing Fee Assistance Request - Jim H - MOTION Zone Ord Amend Incorporating FEMA Requirements - ORD - PHL - Jim H -15 min Update of Library Strategic Plan & Operations - PPT - Margaret 'Draft Council Goals - Review 'Vision Update - Liz/Loreen - 20 min Finalize Sewer Reimbursement District #27 PP, PHI, RES- Gus - 10 min Finalize Sewer Reimbursement District #30 PP, PHI, RES- Gus -10 min Formation of Sewer Reimbursement District #32 PP, PHI, RES- Gus -10 min Page 2 Meeting Date: February 8, 2005 Meeting Date: February 15, 2005 Meeting Date: February 22, 2005 Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Workshop/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Greeter: Gus Greeter: Greeter. Gus Duenas Materials Due @ 5: January 25, 2005 Materials Due @ 5: February 1, 2005 Materials Due @ 5: February 8, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: January 24, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: January 31, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: February 7, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon: January 21, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon: January 28, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon: February 4, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: January 7, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: January 14, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: January 21, 2005 Televised: Yes Televised: No Televised: Yes Attorney Attends: Yes Attorney Attends: No Attorney Attends: No Study Session Study Session Executive Session - Litigation - Loreen Joint Meeting with Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force - Gus Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan Update Discussion - Barbara Consent Agenda Consent Agenda Business Meeting Business Meeting Page 3 Meeting Date: March 8, 2005 Meeting Date: March 15, 2005 Meeting Date: March 22, 2005 Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Workshop/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Greeter: Paul deBruyn Greeter: Greeter. Al Orr Materials Due @ 5: February 22, 2005 Materials Due @ 5: March 1, 2005 Materials Due @ 5: March 8, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: February 21, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: February 28, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: March 7, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon: February 18, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon: February 25, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon: March 4, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: February 8, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: February 15, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: February 22, 2005 Televised: Yes Televised: No Televised: Yes Attorney Attends: Yes Attorney Attends: No Attorney Attends: No Study Session Consent Agenda Consent Agenda Business Meeting Business Meeting Page 4 AGENDA ITEM # 3, a G. FOR AGENDA OF 12/14/04 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Receive and File: Canvass of Votes for Mayor Two City Councilor Positions, and the Bull Mountain Annexation Measure from the November 2 2004 Election PREPARED BY: Jane McGarvi DEPT HEAD OK blKI-CITY MGR OK'--- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Receive and File: Official Election Results for the November 2, 2004, election STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and File the Summary Report and Official Election Statements prepared by Washington County Elections Division regarding the Mayor, Two City Councilor positions, and the Bull Mountain Annexation Measure from the November 2, 2004, ballot. INFORMATION SUMMARY Each time the City Recorder canvasses the votes as required by the Washington County Elections Division, a copy is filed with the City Council at a Council meeting in order to officially "receive and file" the information. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Copy of notice advising the Deputy City Recorder canvassed the votes and concurred with the results. Summary Report for the November 2, 2004, General Election Official Election Statement for Tigard City Mayor Official Election Statement for Tigard City Council Official Election Statement for Bull Mountain Annexation FISCAL NOTES The City is not charged for expenses associated with a general election (ORS 254.046). WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON November 22, 2004 RECEIVED C.O.T. Administrative Office NOV 2 4 2004 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Administration Tigard OR 97223 Enclosed you will find a copy of the Abstract of Votes for City of Tigard relating to the election held on November 2, 2004. In accordance with ORS 255.295, please canvass the votes and notify the Washington County Elections Division within thirty (30) days of receipt by signing and returning the bottom portion of this letter to: Washington County Elections Division 3700 SW Murray Blvd. Suite 101 Beaverton OR 97005 Thank you very much. Sincerely, Mickie Kawai Elections Manager MK/jd I have canvassed the votes for City of Tigard, relating to the election on November 2, 2004. By signing this canvass letter, I concur with the final results. 96~UA64TM11~81FR/IZ/I NG SIGNATURE ATE Department of Assessment & Taxation, Elections Division 3700 SW Murray Blvd. Suite 101 Beaverton OR 97005 Phone: 503/846-5800 Fax: 503/846-5810 SUMMARY REPORT WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON OFFICIAL RESULTS GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 2,2004 RUN DATE:11/22/04 02:00 PM REPORT-EL45 PAGE 006 VOTES PERCENT VOTES PERCENT RIVER GROVE CITY COUNCIL TUALATIN CITY COUNCIL POS 2 VOTE FOR 3 VOTE FOR 1 LORI DEERING-MONK. . . . . . . . 18 36.00 MICHAEL GILLESPIE. . . . . . . . 4.298 56.77 CHRISTINE A. FISHER . . . . . . . 18 36.00 FRANK BUBENIK . . . . . . . . . 3.229 42.65 LARRY BARRETT . . . . . . . . . 13 26.00 WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 44 .58 WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.00 Total . . . . . . . . . 7.571 Total . . . . . . . . . 50 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 24 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 0 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 2,779 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 16 TUALATIN CITY COUNCIL POS 4 SHERWOOD CITY MAYOR VOTE FOR 1 VOTE FOR 1 ED TRUAX. . . . . . . . . . . 4,517 58.44 DAVID HEIRONIMUS . . . . . . . . 2.612 41.03 ANGELA WRAHTZ . . . . . . . . . 3.174 41.07 KEITH S. MAYS . . . . . . . . . 3.720 58.44 WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 38 .49 WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 34 .53 Total . . . . . . . . . 7.729 Total . . . . . . . . . 6.366 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 10 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 16 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 2.635 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 1,216 TUALATIN CITY COUNCIL POS 6 SHERWOOD CITY COUNCIL VOTE FOR 1 VOTE FOR 3 BOB BORYSKA. . . . . . . . . . 4.058 54.03 ADRIAN EMERY . . . . . . . . . 1,690 11.56 WADE BROOKSBY . . . . . . . . . 3.415 45.47 J. PATRICK LUCAS . . . . . . . . 732 5.01 WRITE-IN. 37 .49 DAVID C. LUMAN. . . . . . . . . 2,286 15.63 Total . . . . 7.510 DANIEL KING. . . . . . . . . . 2,311 15.80 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 9 KURT KRISTENSEN . . . . . . . . 1.408 9.63 Under Votes . . . 2.855 LINDA A. HENDERSON . . . . . . . 2.722 18.61 PATRICK ALLEN . . . . . . . . . 1.964 13.43 LEE D. WEISLOGEL . . . . . . . . 1,420 9.71 WILSONVILLE CITY MAYOR WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 91 .62 VOTE FOR 1 Total . . . . . . . . . 14,624 CHARLOTTE LEHAN . . . . . . . . 78 97.50 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 498 WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.50 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 7,672 Total . . . . . . . . . 80 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 0 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 51 TIGARD CITY MAYOR (UNEXPIRED) VOTE FOR 1 CRAIG E. DIRKSEN . . . . . . . . 13,439 97.41 WILSONVILLE CITY COUNCIL WRITE-IN. 357 2.59 VOTE FOR 2 Total . . . . . . . . . 13,796 TIM KNAPP . . . . . . . . . . 55 44.72 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 4 BENNY HOLT . . . . . . . . . . 29 23.58 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 8,917 SCOTT M. HANNA. . . . . . . . . 36 29.27 WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.44 Total . . . . . . 123 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Over Votes . . . . . . . 0 VOTE FOR 2 Under Votes . . . . . . . 139 SALLY HARDING . . . . . . . . . 6,336 23.38 JOSHUA CHANEY . . . . . . . . . 2,614 9.65 TOM WOODRUFF . . . . . . . . . 7,691 28.38 31 AMENDS CONSTITUTION: POSTPONEMENT ALICE GRETCHENLBUEHN R 4,440 16.38 .1 o 'fraq 147,741 68.70 WRITE-IN. 181 .67 ~p NO,:. _ . ! 67,311 31.30 Total . . . . . . . . . 27,102 oz i : Total . . . 215,052 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 230 -Over'Vdtes.'. 132 Under Votes 18,102 s i_ Under.'Votes 17,777 p~' CO U4:% NAME HEADING CANVASS WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 2.2004 RUN DATE:11/22/04 02:05 PM REPORT-EL111 PAGE 0077 TIGARD CITY MAYOR (UNEXPIRED) VOTE FOR 1 W C E D R RI I A R T 0 V U V I K E V0 NO G S ET DT E I RE EE N N S R S (CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) (NON) (NON) 0109 409 SUMMERLAKE•WEST 1181 24 2 800 0116 416 SUMMERLAKE•EAST 840 19 0 611 0154 454 BULL MT SPLIT 40 2 0 32 0155 455 S TIGARD/PACIFIC HWY 0 0 0 0 CANDIDATE TOTALS 13439 357 4 8917 CANDIDATE PERCENT 97.41 2.58 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL VOTE FOR 2 TW GB W SH 00 RU R AA JC MO EE I LR OH D AEG TH T 0V UV LD SA R L L A CN E V0 NO YI HN U I L U HE ET DT N UE F C I T ER I RE EE G AY F ES N N S RS (NON) (NON) (NON) (NON) (NON) (NON) 0100 400 WASHINGTON SQUARE 636 298 693 615 390 16 14 1922 0102 402 TIGARD/WALNUT ST 250 78 305 251 155 2 6 749 0103 403 TIGARD/GAARDE ST 933 366 1244 795 769 36 32 2785 0104 404 FOWLER SCHOOL 664 252 753 621 386 14 28 1786 0105 405 TWALITY SCHOOL 942 390 1159 926 655 24 36 2676 0106 406 TIGARD CITY HALL 855 376 926 678 509 27 34 2199 0108 408 SUMMERFIELD 1118 447 1472 1164 850 28 36 2961 0109 409 SUMMERLAKE-WEST 517 236 627 427 433 20 32 1722 0116 416 SUMMERLAKE-EAST 400 160 486 343 276 14 12 1249 0154 454 BULL MT SPLIT 21 11 26 20 17 0 0 53 0155 455 S TIGARD/PACIFIC HWY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CANDIDATE TOTALS 6336 2614 7691 5840 4440 181 230 18102 CANDIDATE PERCENT 23.37 9.64 28.37 21.54 16.38 .66 CEO ---'y ccu,;y, SUMMARY REPORT WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON OFFICIAL RESULTS GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 2.2004 RUN DATE:11/22/04 02:00 PM REPORT-EL45 PAGE 009 VOTES PERCENT VOTES PERCENT 34-99 SHERWOOD CITY ANNEX 11.83 ACRES 3.136 WILSONVILLE CITY CHARTER QUESTION VOTE FOR 1 VOTE FOR 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,618 67.51 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 78.50 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,222 32.49 NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 21.50 Total . . . . . . . . . 6,840 Total . . . . . . . . . 107 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 8 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 0 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 750 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 24 34.100 SHERWOOD CITY ANNEXATION QUESTION 34.82 BANKS FIRE DIST OPERATIONAL LEVY VOTE FOR 1 VOTE FOR 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,779 25.23 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.545 53.61 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,273 74.77 NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.337 46.39 Total . . . . . . . . . 7,052 Total . . . . . . . . . 2.882 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 5 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 3 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 541 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 202 34.98 TIGARD CITY (AREA) ANNEX BULL MT. 34.86 GASTON RFPO OPERATIONS TAX VOTE FOR 1 VOTE FOR 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,294 64.71 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 772 53.46 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,249 35.29 NO. . . . . . . 672 46.54 Total . . . . . . . . . 20.543 Total . . . . . . . . . 1.444 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 27 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 1 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 2.147 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 72 34-98 TIGARD CITY ANNEX BULL MT. (AREA) 34.85 WASHINGTON COUNTY FIRE DIST 2 LEVY VOTE FOR 1 VOTE FOR 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 539 11.38 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,811 45.80 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,199 88.62 NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,510 54.20 Total . . . . . . . . . 4,738 Total . . . . . . . . . 8.321 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 5 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 6 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 162 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 650 34-92 TUALATIN CITY LIBRARY 5 PARK BONDS VOTE FOR 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,063 52.67 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,549 47.33 Total 9,612 Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 12 Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 750 34-93 TUALATIN CITY LIBRARY 6 PARK TAX VOTE FOR 1 4. , YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,198 44.02 4, c U NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.339 55.98 Total . . . . . . . . . 9,537 ;l Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 10 pp Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 827 s r' 1t\i;; ~~O/~' Ccu NAME HEADING CANVASS WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 2.2004 RUN DATE:11/22/04 02:05 PM REPORT-EL111 PAGE 0123 34-99 SHERWOOD CITY ANNEX 11.83 ACRES VOTE FOR 1 0V UV V0 NO Y ET DT E N RE EE S 0 S RS (NON) (NON) 0124 424 NW SHERWOOD CITY 2732 1277 4 463 0135 435 SE SHERWOOD CITY 1886 945 4 287 CANDIDATE TOTALS 4618 2222 8 750 CANDIDATE PERCENT 67.51 32.48 34.100 SHERWOOD CITY ANNEXATION QUESTION VOTE FOR 1 0V UV V0 NO Y ET OT E N RE EE S 0 S RS (NON) (NON) 0124 424 NW SHERWOOD CITY 1067 3069 2 338 0135 435 SE SHERWOOD CITY 712 2204 3 203 CANDIDATE TOTALS 1779 5273 5 541 CANDIDATE PERCENT 25.22 74.77 34.98 TIGARD CITY (AREA) ANNEX BULL MT. VOTE FOR 1 0V UV V0 NO Y ET DT E N RE EE S 0 S RS (NON) (NON) 0100 400 WASHINGTON SQUARE 1252 767 2 271 0102 402 TIGARD/WALNUT ST 528 313 0 57 0103 403 TIGARO/GAARDE ST 2000 1237 2 241 O OF - - ' ~ 0104 404 FOWLER SCHOOL 1437 631 3 181 0105 405 TWALITY SCHOOL 2109 978 8 309 0106 406 TIGARD CITY HALL 1563 940 2 297 k 0108 408 SUMMERFIELD 2362 1281 3 392 0109 409 SUMMERLAKE-WEST 1125 659 6 217 0116 416 SUMMERLAKE-EAST 882 409 1 178 0154 454 BULL MT SPLIT 36 34 0 4 0155 455 S TIGARD/PACIFIC HWY 0 0 0 0 COU CANDIDATE TOTALS 13294 7249 27 2147 CANDIDATE PERCENT 64.71 35.28 NAME HEADING CANVASS WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 2.2004 RUN DATE:11/22/04 02:05 PH REPORT-EL111 PAGE 0124 34.98 TIGARD CITY ANNEX BULL MT. (AREA) VOTE FOR 1 0V UV V0 NO Y ET DT E N RE EE S 0 S RS (NON) (NON) 0097 397 BULL MOUNTAIN 231 2144 3 68 0110 410 BEEF BEND RD 112 1173 0 24 0114 414 BARROWS RD 196 882 2 70 CANDIDATE TOTALS 539 4199 5 162 CANDIDATE PERCENT 11.37 88.62 34.92 TUALATIN CITY LIBRARY & PARK BONDS VOTE FOR 1 0V UV V0 NO Y ET DT E N RE EE S 0 S RS (NON) (NON) 0048 348 LAKE OSWEGO 64 27 0 22 0120 420 TUALATIN CITY 1462 1397 6 176 0123 423 TUALATIN-NORTH 1460 1020 2 264 0128 428 TUALATIN-WEST 555 535 0 123 0133 433 ED BYROM SCHOOL 954 968 3 114 0136 436 TUALATIN CITY 568 602 1 51 CANDIDATE TOTALS 5063 4549 12 750 CANDIDATE PERCENT 52.67 47.32 34-93 TUALATIN CITY LIBRARY & PARK TAX VOTE FOR 1 0V UV V0 NO Y ET DT E N RE EE S 0 S RS (NON) (NON) 0048 348 LAKE OSWEGO 49 39 0 25 0120 420 TUALATIN CITY 1255 1589 6 191 0123 423 TUALATIN-NORTH 1194 1266 2 284 0128 428 TUALATIN-WEST 444 637 0 132 "j 0133 433 ED BYROM SCHOOL 793 1106 1 139 _ 0136 436 TUALATIN CITY 463 702 1 56 CANDIDATE TOTALS 4198 5339 10 827 CANDIDATE PERCENT 44.01 55.98 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF December 14, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: A rove the purchase of a Chevrolet Police Pursuit Tahoe Sport Utilit Vehicle. PREPARED BY: Dennis Koellermeier DEPT HEAD OK: CITY MGR OK: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the purchase of a Chevrolet Police Pursuit Tahoe Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) for use by the City's Police Department? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board approve the purchase of a Chevrolet Police Pursuit Tahoe SUV utilizing an existing State of Oregon Contract. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Police Department currently has the need to replace one vehicle, a 1999 Ford Crown Victoria, with a vehicle with larger, more versatile sports utility vehicle. This replacement is in line with the City's vehicle replacement schedule and the vehicles being replaced will either be rotated within the police fleet or sold if the age and condition of the vehicle so warrant it. Staff has determined that the best means to procure this SUV would be through the utilization of State of Oregon contract 44154, 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 vehicle. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Do not replace the vehicle at this time. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None. ATTACHMENT LIST 1 State of Oregon contract #4154 - Pages 3-6 of a 42 page contract. L FISCAL NOTES C The cost of the SUV is $26,510. Currently the City has $28,000 budgeted for the SUV within the Police Department's budget. 5 a i Page 3 ` Jose h Barrett-VIP Bid Document STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 1 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4154 BUYER NAME: J. WEBER (503) 373-1197 ITEM: CHEVROLET TAHOE, POLICE PURSUIT, 4 DOOR, 4X2, E85 FLEX FUEL SUV IN THE ONLY VEHICLE THAT CAN BE ORDERED FROM THIS PRICE AGREEMENT. PRICE AGREEMENT 1S VALID FOR THE 2005 MODEL YEAR ONLY AGENCY: STATE AGENCIES AND AUTHORIZED ORCPP MEMBERS CONTRACTOR: MURRAY CHEVROLET 1999 E POWELL BLVD PO BOX 750 GRESHAM OR 97080 PH#.(503) 661-2222 FAX:50366993270000 CONTACT:JACK WHITE BRAND/TRADE NAME: CHEVROLET POLICE PURSUIT 4X2 TAHOE SUV PRICE: $26,192.00 TERMS: NET 30 FOB: FOB DESTINATION CONTRACT PERIOD: SEP 7 2004 THROUGH JUL 30 2005 DAYS REQUIRED FOR DELIVERY: 120 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF PURCHASE ORDER MINIMUM ORDER: ONE UNIT TRANSPORTATION CHARGES: SEE D.2.3 THROUGH D.2.3A.1. OTHER CONDITIONS: FOR CONTRACTOR PROVIDED UNDERCOATING AND EXTRA KEY COSTS, SEE D.14 AND D.15 OF SUMMARY C THIS CONTRACT COVERS ONLY THOSE ITEMS LISTED. DATE OF ISSUANCE: 09/07/2004 BID NO.: 10200036 04 Jose. h Barrett -VIP. Bid Document age 4 ~ STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 2 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4154 ITEM-00001 UNIT-EA COMMODITY-99894 PRICE-' $26,192.0000 Year : 2005 Make : Chevy Utility Vehicles Model: Tahoe Police Vehicle Style: C15706 4dr STANDARD EQUIPMENT "ALL STANDARDS ARE 2005 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED"' MECHANICAL Engine, Vortec 5300 V8 SFI Flex-Fuel capable of running on unleaded or up to 85% ethanol (295 HP -219.7 kq Q 5200 rpm, 335 lb.-ft. -452.3 N-ml @ 4000 rpm) Transmission, 4-speed automatic, electronically controlled with overdrive Lever, transmission selector with tow/haul mode, delete Air cleaner, high-capacity Prop shaft, high-speed balanced, police-rated Rear axle, 3.73 ratio Rear wheel drive Battery, single 770 CCA, provides a 770 CCA HD cranking battery, Includes rundown protection and retained accessory power Alternator, 160 amps Cooling, external transmission oil cooler, auxiliary, heavy-duty air-to-oil Cooling, heavy-duty, high-capacity radiator and electric fans Cooling, engine oil, auxiliary, heavy-duty oil-to-coolant Skid Plate Package, includes only aluminum front underbody shield starting behind front bumper and running to 1st cross-member, protecting front underbody and oil pan Recovery hooks, front, frame-mounted Recovery hook cover, delete GVWR, 6400 lbs. (2903 kg) Suspension, heavy-duty, police-rated, front, independent torsion bar, and stabilizer bar and rear, multi-link with coil springs Tires, H-rated, P25517DR16-109H Tire, spare, full-size, located at rear underbody of vehicle, Blackwall Tire carrier, lockable, outside spare, winch-type mounted under frame at rear Wheels, heavy-duty, 5 with heavy-duty bolt-on center caps on road wheels only Steering, power Brakes, 4-wheel antitock, 4 -wheel disc, hydroboost Fuel capacity, approximate, 26 gallon (98 liters) Key, single, 2-sided, random code Joseph Barrett - VI Bld Document Page. STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 3 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4154 <<< EXTERIOR Identifier, Police Vehicle, utilized to identify a vehicle as a police/fire for marketing, order-build process and emission certification purposes.(Must be specified.) Luggage rack, delete Bumper, front, chrome Bumper, rear, chrome step, includes pad Air dam, Gray Air dam extension, delete Moldings, bodyside Grille, painted (Upgradeable to (V22) GrJJJe, chrome surround.) Headiamps, dual halogen composite, includes flash-to-pass feature and automatic lamp control Daytime running lamps, includes automatic exterior lamp control Mirrors, outside rearview, foldaway, power adjustable, heated Glass, Solar-Ray deep tinted (all windows except light tinted glass on windshield, driver and front passenger) (Substitutable to (ANJ) Glass, non-deep tinted) Wipers, anti-lift driver and passenger, intermittent, front wet-arm with pulse washers Door handles, Matte Black Body, liftgate with liftglass, rear door system, includes rear-window wiper/washer Ship Thru to Kerr Industries, required for post plant assembly and 2nd stage optional content. Dealer "invoice only" charge for transportation costs to move vehicle from plant to 2nd stage activity and return vehicle to plant. <<< INTERIOR Seats, front Custom Cloth reclining buckets, includes adjustable head restraints, Inboard armrests, 6-way power adjustable driver seat and rear storage pockets Seats, 2nd row vinyl with front cloth, provides cloth front seats with power driver-side but retains standard vinyl trim on 2nd row seats. Console delete, deletes the floor console that is included with bucket seats. Floor covering, rubberized vinyl, Black Steering column, Tilt Wheel, adjustable, includes brake/transmission shift interlock Steering wheel, steel sleeve, includes theft-deterrent locking feature Driver Message Center, monitors vehicle systems Including low fuel, transmission temperature, engine coolant, security, oil level, oil pressure and oil change Jose h Barrett.- ViP~Bki Document • - - _ - Pa a 6. STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 4 COMMODITY CODE: 99894 PA NUMBER: 4154 Instrumentation, analog, Includes "certified" speedometer with 140 mph scale in 1 mph increments, odometer with trip odometer, fuel level, voltmeter, engine temperature, oil pressure and tachometer Tire pressure monitor (includes sensor to spare tire. Spare tire sensor programmed.) Waming tones, headlamps on, key-In-Ignition, driver and right front passenger safety belt unfasten, turn signal on Windows, power, includes driver express-down and lockout features Door locks, power programmable, Includes lockout protection Keyless entry, remote, Includes 2 transmitters, panic button and content theft alarm Cruise control, electronic with set and resume speed, Includes telltale In Instrument panel cluster Theft-deterrent system, PASSIock li Air conditioning, tri-zone, manual, Individual climate settings for driver, right front passenger and rear passengers, Includes front and rear HVAC systems Heater and defogger, Includes front and side window defoggers, rear passenger heating ducts and heater, rear auxiliary Defogger, rear-window, electric Sound system, ETR AM/FM stereo Includes seek-and-scan, digital clock (Upgradeable to (UB1) Sound system, ETR AM/FM stereo with CD and cassette player or (9R0) Sound system, AM/FM stereo with cassette.) Sound system feature, 8-speakers Radio suppression, braided brass straps attaching to various body locations Power outlets, auxiliary, 2 on instrument panel, 1 in cargo area, 12 volt Power supply 12 volt Mirror, inside rearview, manual day/night Console, overhead mini, includes map lights and rear'seat HVAC controls Headliner, cloth Visors, padded, driver and passenger side with cloth trim, extenders, illuminated vanity mirrors and comer storage pockets on back of visors Assist handles, front passenger and outboard 2nd row seats Lighting, dome lamp, driver and passenger side door switch with delayed entry, cargo lamps, map lights in front and 2nd seat positions Ground studs, auxiliary, 2 per vehicle, rear compartment AGENDA ITEM # J.8. In FOR AGENDA OF December 14, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Approve the purchase of two For F- 50 Pickup Trucks. PREPARED BY: Dennis Koellermeier DEPT HEAD OK: CITY MGR OK: -V-- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the purchase of two Ford F-250 pickup trucks for use by the City's Public Works Department? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board approve the purchase of two Ford F-250 pickups utilizing an existing State of Oregon Contract. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Public Works Department currently has the need to replace two pickup trucks, one is a 1988 Chevrolet 1/2 Ton pickup truck assigned to the Parks Division, and the other is a 1988 Chevrolet l Ton pickup truck assigned to the Sanitary/Sewer Division. All replacements are in line with the City's vehicle replacement schedule. Vehicles that are being replaced will either be rotated within the fleet or sold if the age and condition of the vehicle so warrant it. Staff has further determined that the best means to procure these pickups would be through the utilization of State of Oregon contract #1283, 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 vehicles. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Do not replace vehicles at this time. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. State of Oregon contract #1283 - Pages 3-5 of a 40 page contract. FISCAL NOTES The cost of each F-250 pickup is $19,835 for a total purchase price of $39,670. Currently the City has $58,000 budgeted for the pickups within the Public Works Department's budget. p ;Joseph Barrett VIP Bid Document_ STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 1 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 1283 BUYER NAME: W. JACOBS (503) 3784646 REVISION NUMBER: 004 EFFECTIVE DATE: 08101/2004 ITEM: PICK-UP, 3/4 TON, EXTENDED CAB, LWB, 4X2, FORD STARTING WITH 2002 MODEL. STATEWIDE PRICE AGREEMENT PERIOD ONE YEAR WITH OPTIONS TO RENEW FOR ADDITIONAL TERMS. AGENCY: STATE AGENCIES AND AUTHORIZED ORCPP/DASCANSPC CONTRACTOR: GRESHAM FORD 1945 EAST POWELL PO BOX 647 GRESHAM OR 97080 PH#:(503) 665-0101 FAX:50366504970000 CONTACT:EARL DAY BRAND/TRADE NAME: FORD F250, X20 PRICE: $16,871.00 TERMS: NET 30 FOB: FOB DESTINATION CONTRACT PERIOD: DEC 13 2001 THROUGH JUL 30 2005 DAYS REQUIRED FOR DELIVERY: 90 CALENDAR DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF ORDER MINIMUM ORDER: ONE UNIT TRANSPORTATION CHARGES: NONE WITHIN 75 MILE RADIUS OF SALEM OTHER CONDITIONS: DELIVERY OUTSIDE THE 75 MILE RADIUS OF SALEM, 0.60 PER MILE I _ PRICE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN RENEWED FOR THE 2005 MODEL YEAR. PLEASE VERIFY OPTION PRICING WITH DEALER PRIOR TO ISSUING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR CONTRACTOR PROVIDED UNDERCOATING AND EXTRA KEY COSTS, SEE PAGE 17 OF THE SUMMARY UNDER SECTION 4. THIS CONTRACT COVERS ONLY THOSE ITEMS LISTED. DATE OF ISSUANCE: 12/13/2001 BID NO.: 10200041 01 i Joseph 8anett -VIP Bldpocumer►t Page STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 2 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 1283 ITEM - 00001 UNIT - EA COMMODITY - 07048 PRICE - $16,871.0000 Year : 2005 Make : Ford Pickups Model: Super Duty F-250 Style: X20 Supercab 158" XL +s.+M~H..+..tiN~►~~N STANDARD EQUIPMENT <<< MECHANICAL 5.4L (330) SOHC EFI V8 engine 6-speed manual transmission w/OD 3.73 axle ratio Rear wheel drive 72 amp/hr (750 CCA) maintenance-free battery 130 amp alternator Trailer tow pkg-Inc: 714 pin combination connector, trailer brake wiring kit, trailer tow guide 158" WB 8' pickup box w/tie-down hooks $ partitionable/stackable storage (2) front tow hooks 8,800# GVINR (4400 front/6084 rear), springs (4400 front/6084 rear), axles (4850 front/6084 rear) Twin I-beam front axle Front stabilizer bar HD gas shock absorbers (5) LT235/85R16E all-season SBR BSW tires 16" x 7.0" 8-hole styled steel wheels w/black center omaments Full-size spare tire w!argent steel wheel, lock, underframe crank carrier 2-ton mechanical jack Power steering Power 4-wheel disc brakes w/4-wheel anti-lock braking system 38 gallon fuel tank <<< EXTERIOR Frorit/rear license plate bracket Argent painted front/rear step bumper Black box-rail/tailgate top-edge moldings Valance air dam Argent grille Sealed beam halogen headlamps Pickup box/cargo light Black door handles Black fold-away manual mirrors Solar tinted glass Flip-out rear quarter windows Interval wipers Dual rear access doors Joseph.Barrett-VlP Bid Docurrient_ -L Pi" a 5; STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE:. 3 REVISION NUMBER: 004 COMMODITY CODE: 07048 PA NUMBER: 1283 Removable locking tailgate w/black handle <<< INTERIOR HD vinyl front bench seat w/outboard headrests Vinyl fold-up rear bench seat Black vinyl full-floor covering Color-keyed scuff plates Black vinyl steering wheel Instrumentation-Inc: tachometer, trip odometer, voltmeter, oil pressurelcoolant temp/fuel gauges, indicator lights Belt Minder seatbelt-not-buckled chime & flashing warning light Inside hood release (4) air registers w/positlve shut-off Electronic AM/FM stereo radio-inc: digital clock, (2) speakers Color-keyed instrument panel w/dual cupholders/glove box/ashtray/cigar lighter Rear door map pockets wMtegrated "closed containers only" cupholders Auxiliary power point Color-keyed molded door trim panel4nc: hard armrest, grab handle, reflector 11.6' day/night mirror Color-keyed molded cloth headliner Driver & passenger grab handles Front passenger-side roof ride handle Dual color-keyed cloth sunvisors-inc: driver-side map strap, passenger-side mirror Insert Dual color-keyed coat hooks Front door operated dome lamp w/time delay off Grey fabric back panel cover <<< SAFETY 4-wheel anti-lock braking system Driver & front passenger airbags w/passenger-side deactivation switch Color-keyed safety belts w/front seat adjustable D-rings Front/rear child seat tethers (on all seats) Dual-note hom CONTINUED NEXT PAGE I AGENDA ITEM # 3, 3 C . FOR AGENDA OF December 14, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Approve the purchase of three d 4-350 Pickup Trucks. PREPARED BY :Dennis Koellermeier DEPT HEAD OK: CITY MGR OK: ~ I - ISSUE BEFORE THE CO CIT. Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the purchase of three Ford F-350 pickup trucks for use by the City's Public Works Department? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board approve the purchase of three Ford F-350 pickups utilizing an existing State of Oregon Contract. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Public Works Department currently has the need to replace three pickup trucks, a 1992 Chevrolet 1 Ton Utility Truck assigned to the Storm Water Division, a 1988 Chevrolet 1 Ton Utility Truck assigned to the Street Maintenance Division, and a 1989 Chevrolet 1 Ton Utility Truck also assigned to the Street Maintenance Division. All replacements are in line with the City's vehicle replacement schedule. Vehicles that are being replaced will either be rotated within the fleet or sold if the age and condition of the vehicle so warrant it. Staff has further determined that the best means to procure these pickups would be through the utilization of State of Oregon contract #2372, 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 vehicles. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Do not replace vehicles at this time. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. State of Oregon contract #2372 -Pages 3-5 of a 40 page contract. FISCAL NOTES The cost of each F-350 pickup is $20,397 for a total purchase price of $61,191. Currently the City has $118,000 budgeted for the pickups within the Public Works Department's budget. Joseph Barrett VIP B1d_Uocum6nt, Page 3? STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 1 COMMODITY CODE: 07047 PA NUMBER: 2372 BUYER NAME: W. JACOBS (503) 378-4646 REVISION NUMBER: 003 EFFECTIVE DATE: 08/01/2004 ITEM: 1 TON CAB CHASSIS, STANDARD CAB, 11,000GVW, 60" INCH CAB AXLE, DUAL REAR WHEEL,4X4 STARTING WITH 2003 MODEL YEAR WITH OPTION TO RENEW FOR ADDITIONAL TERMS AGENCY: STATE AGENCIES AND AUTHORIZED ORCPP MEMBERS CONTRACTOR: NORTHSIDE FORD TRUCK SALES INC 6221 N.E. COLUMBIA BLVD PO BOX 55010 PORTLAND OR 97238 5010 PH#:(503) 282-7773 FAX:50328260160000 CONTACT:SHARON TUCKER BRAND/TRADE NAME: FORD F350, CAB CHASSIS,11,000GVW,4X4, DRW,STD.CAB PRICE: $17,485.00 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 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. PLEASE VERIFY OPTION PRICING WITH DEALER PRIOR TO ISSUING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR CONTRACTOR PROVIDED UNDERCOATING AND EXTRA KEY COSTS, SEE SECTION 4 OF THE SUMMARY UNDER D.14 AND D.15 THIS CONTRACT COVERS ONLY THOSE ITEMS LISTED. DATE OF ISSUANCE: 12/03/2002 BID NO.: 10200061 02 Joseph•Barrett,-VlP Bid_Docuriierit Page 4j STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 2 REVISION NUMBER: 003 COMMODITY CODE: 07047 PA NUMBER: 2372 ITEM - 00001 UNIT - EA COMMODITY - 07047 PRICE - $17,485.0000 Year. 2005 Make : Ford Chassis-Cabs l Model: Super Duty F-350 DRW Style: F37 Reg Cab 141" WB 60" CA XL 4WD . STANDARD EQUIPMENT "ALL STANDARDS ARE 2005"' <<< MECHANICAL 6.8L (415) SOHC SEFI V10 engine 6-speed manual transmission WOO 2-speed transfer case 3.73 rear axle ratio Four wheel drive Manual locking front hubs 78 amp/hr (750 CCA) maintenance-free battery 130-amp alternator 7-p)n trailer tow wiring 141" WB (2) front tow hocks Mono-beam front axle HD gas shock absorbers Front/rear stabilizer bar (6) LT235/85R16E all-season SBR BSW tares (6) 16" x 6.0" steel wheels Power steering Power 4-wheel anti-lock disc brakes 40 gallon fuel tank-including: auxiliary fuel tap <<< EXTERIOR Argent painted front bumper Front(rear license plate bracket Argent grille Sealed beam halogen headlights Roof clearance lights Dual front grab handles Manual telescoping trailer tow mirrors w/manual glass Solar tinted glass Fixed interval wipers Black door handles ;Joseph Barrett-VIP Bid. Document _ _ _ _ _ Page 5 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION PRICE AGREEMENT SUMMARY PAGE: 3 REVISION NUMBER: 003 COMMODITY CODE: 07047 PA NUMBER: 2372 <<< INTERIOR HD vinyl bench seat wloutboard seating position integral headrests Black vinyl full floor covering Color-coordinated scuff plates Black vinyl steering wheel Tilt steering column Instrumentation-Including: tachometer, voltmeter, trip odometer, oil pressure/coolant temp/fuel gauges, Indicator lights Inside hood release (4) air registers w/positive shut-off Electronic AM/FM stereo-Including: 2-speakers Color-coordinated instrument panel w/dual cup holders Cigar lighter Auxiliary power point Front passenger assist handle Color-coordinated molded cloth headliner 11.5" day/night rearview mirror Color-coordinated door trim paneWncluding: armrest, grab handle, reflector Color-coordinated cloth sun visors-including: LH retainer strap, RH vanity mirror Dual front color-coordinated coat hooks 1 Front door operated dome lamp w/time delay off Gray fabric back panel cover <<< SAFETY 4-wheel.anti4ock brakes Driver/front passenger airbag supplemental restraint system Color-coordinated safety belts w/adjustable D-rings Child tethers on all seats Dual-note electric hom FACTORY OPTIONS I OPTION CODES DESCRIPTION' Invoice F37 Reg Cab 141" WB 60" CA XL 4WD 17485.00 <<< EMISSIONS i AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF December 14, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CITY MANAGER _WILLIAM A MONAHAN'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF TIGARD CORRECTING HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS. it PREPARED BY: Sand Zodrow DEPT HEAD OK LA4q-.-- CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL During a recent labor arbitration session, it was discovered that the City Manager's employment agreement continues to reference the manager's entitlement to a health insurance benefit, Blue Cross Plan II, which has not been available to him or other employees. The issue before council is, should the employment agreement be modified to accurately reflect the manager's entitlement to health insurance programs which are available to the city. The manager has not been receiving Plan II coverage, so there is no impact on coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a revision to Section 5 B of the Employment Agreement to correctly state the health insurance coverage available to the City Manager. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Manager's Employment Agreement was approved by the City Council on July 27, 2004. Many provisions of the agreement were carried forward without change, including Section 513, Health Insurance. Section 5B of the employment agreement continues to make reference to a health insurance benefit, Blue Cross Plan II, a plan which the City's health insurance provider no longer makes available to the City and its employees. Since August 1, 2001 the City Manager has not received Blue Cross Plan II coverage, nor has he expected to under the terms of the Agreement. At the time Plan II coverage was discontinued, the City Manager was advised of the change and accepted the coverage offered by the City. The proposed resolution contains language which would take the place of existing Section 5B. The new language notes that the City Manager is entitled to receive "medical and dental plans equivalent to programs provided other regular management employees" without reference to any specific plans. This language reflects what has been the practice since August 1, 2001. Adoption of the Resolution will cause the Resolution to be added as an amendment of the City Manager's Employment Agreement, once signed by the Mayor and the employee. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Leave the existing language of the Agreement in place, recognizing that Plan II coverage is not available to the City, thus the employee cannot receive the benefit. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable. ATTACHMENT LIST Proposed resolution with replacement language. FISCAL NOTES There is no cost to this action as the health insurance benefit received by the City Manager is not changed. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF-T9--) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT 47 TO THE FY 2004-05 BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE FACILITY FUND FOR THE WIRING/CABLING SYSTEM OF CITY HALL PREPARED BY: Gary Ehrenfeld DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve Budget Amendment #7 for the purpose of funding the cabling/wiring of the City Hall remodel? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve Budget Amendment 47 transferring $25,000 from the Facility Fund contingency to the remodel project for the cabling/wiring of City Hall. INFORMATION SUMMARY Upon further review of the existing cable/wiring in City Hall, it has been determined that it would be insufficient in meeting today's technical requirements. The existing cabling/wiring will not support future technical use. In addition, the existing cabling/wiring cannot be "spliced" enabling the relocation of individual offices/cubicles throughout the floor plan. Therefore, this is needed not only from a technical perspective but a physical one as well. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Use the existing cabling and spend $5,000 to wire to the office cubicle partitions. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution approving Budget Amendment #7 to the FY 2004-05 Budget to increase appropriations in the Facility Fund. Attachment A showing the amount of the transfer. FISCAL NOTES This action would transfer $25,000 from the contingency in the Facility Fund for the upgrade of the cabling/wiring of the City Hall remodel. Item No. For Council Newsletter dated o y MEMORANDUM Administration Department CITY OF TIGARD slurping A Better Community TO: City Council FROM: Gary Ehrenfeld, IT Director DATE: December 10, 2004 SUBJECT: Computer & Phone Cables for City Hall The current wiring in the City Hall was installed by GTE in 1986 and at that time it was installed under the concrete floor to a central location that would service 'the telecommunication configuration at that time. Now that the remodel is being done that configuration will no longer be able to service the new locations. Also, due to technology changes over the years the current cabling in place is not the correct cable needed to meet future telecommunication plans for the city. The cost to replace the cable in the future would be much higher than it would be to install the correct cable now. The cost to install 80 pair of cables which would services all phones, computers, scanners, copiers and fax in City Hall offices and conference rooms will be $25,000. The break down of the total cost is $19,978 for installation, termination, and test, $1,040 for field supervision, $777 for bond and insurance, and $3,215 for contractor profit and overhead. If we did decide to use the current cable at a cost of $5000 it would cause several problems. One would be safety because the cable comes out of the floor and would have to be installed across the floor to the new configuration. This causes tripping hazards and a possibility of pulling the cable apart from its connection. Another problem would be if in the future the city decided to go with Voice Over IP for telephone service the old cable would have to be remove and new cable installed. i i LIM-Moaxnenb and S@dits% 3aryelaeW top%Coundl Merno.doc AGENDA ITEM # 3 ~D FOR AGENDA OF December 14, 2004 _ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A Resolution approving Budget Amendment #5 to the FY 2004-05 Bud-get to increase appropriations in the Community Services Program to establish a Residential Services Agency Emergency Fund. PREPARED BY: Michelle Wareing DEPT HEAD OK_ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council amend the FY 2004-05 Budget to increase appropriations in the Community Services Program in the amount of $5,105 to establish a Residential Services Agency Emergency Fund? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve Budget Amendment #5 INFORMATION SUMMARY At the August 17, 2004 City Council Workshop meeting, staff presented a proposal to establish a Residential Services Agency Emergency Fund. The purpose of the fund would be to address limited, one-time or emergency funding needs for agencies that provide food and housing services for Tigard residents in need. At the October 12, 2004 Council meeting, Council approved a policy to establish this emergency fund. A budget amendment must be done to appropriate the funds to establish this emergency fund. The amendment will increase appropriations in the Community Services Program by $5,105 and decrease the contingency in the General Fund by the same amount. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not approve Budget Amendment #5. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Growth Management, Goal #3, Strategy 7 - Investigate tools to provide emergency housing. ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution including Attachment A FISCAL NOTES This budget amendment will increase appropriations in the Community Services Program in the amount of $5,105 and will decrease Contingency by the same amount within the General Fund. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF Dec. 14.2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE _ Adopt a Resolution Recognizing Melvin Walker for Twenty-three Years of Service with the City of Tigard r PREPARED BY: Dennis Koellermeier DEPT HEAD OK AO--/ CITY MGR OK 0V ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Adopt a resolution recognizing Melvin Walker's retirement from twenty-three years of service with the City of Tigard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY Melvin Walker has been employed with the City of Tigard since 1981. He started his employment with the City by mowing lawns as a task of the Street Crew, and was the only full-time City employee that was maintaining the City parks at that time. Mel has been a very popular employee and is known for his friendly and approachable personality. The Public Works staff will miss him and wish him well in his retirement. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED n/a VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY n/a ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution FISCAL NOTES n/a AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: December 14, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY SIGNmUP SHEET Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: RESOLUTION TO DECLARE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14040 SW 117TH AVENUE AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZES STAFF TO CARRY OUT THE SALE OF SAID PROPERTY Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony Ctedmlp "rW" c w4ftczzWgnup P►, tes"M SUO- proWty.d- AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: December 14, 2004 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - S eakin Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. MIT AGENDA ITEM J FOR AGENDA OF: December 14, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Declaration of real property located at 14040 SW 117th Avenue as surplus and authorize staff to carryout the sale of said property. PREPARED BY: Joe Barrett DEPT HEAD OK: a CITY MGR OK: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council declare the property located at 14040 SW 117th Avenue as surplus property and authorize the City Manager or designee to offer the property for sale and negotiate the final price and terms of the sale? This property is classified as "standard developed." STAFF RECOMMENDATION Declare the property as surplus and authorize the City Manager or designee to offer the property for sale and negotiate the final price and terms of the sale with a minimum term of $150,000. INFORMATION SUMMARY In order to complete the Gaarde Street Phase 2 project, the City purchased the property located at 14040 SW 1176' Avenue. The existing house was in close proximity to the street being widened and the decision was made to purchase the property, use that portion that was necessary for the project, and sell whatever portion of the property remained. The project has been completed and the City has delineated the right-of-way needed from the said lot for Gaarde Street. The remainder of the lot, including the existing house, is no longer needed for the project and is available for surplus and sale. In preparation of the property being declared surplus, staff had an appraisal of the property conducted by a local appraiser. In the final Summary Appraisal Report that is dated November 17, 2004, the property, both lot and house, was found to have an estimated market value of $150,000. Staff recommends that is estimated market value be considered the minimum acceptable term of sale for the property. . Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 3.44.015 requires a public hearing before Council for approval to proceed with the sale and what the minimum acceptable terms shall be. If approved by Council, staff will prepare an Invitation to Bid that meets all the requirement under TMC 3.44.015 and includes details on the minimum acceptable terms of the possible sale. If no acceptable bids are received, staff with then, in accordance with TMC 3.44.015 (H), bring the property back before the Council for direction on whether or not to keep the terms the same, alter the terms, or list the property with a real estate broker. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Hold property for future sale or other use by City. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Resolution. 2. Summary Appraisal Report dated November 17, 2004. FISCAL NOTES The Summary Appraisal Report indicates that the market value of the property is $150,000. Proceeds from the sale will be deposited in the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Fund, which provided funding for the original purchase. r Team Appraisals, Inc. (503) BU-6552 [File No. 038 iamnnary peata W Report UNIFORM RE8IDENTUIL APPRAIBAL REPORT Rustle. 00O3653T 14040 SW 117TH AVENUE TIGARD OR 9 Zip Co Legaloescriolon PLEASE SEE ATTACHED PLAT MAP County WASHINGTON Assessors Parcel No. R0491202 Tax a 03-04 E. Taxes & 0.00 0.00 Borrower CITY OF TIGARD Owner CITY OF TIGARD Occupant Owner snarl Property rights appraised D-Q Fee SkWe Leasehold Pro ctT PUD Condominium (HUD/VA only) RDA NONE Neighborhood or PProject Name SW TIGARD Mal) Reference TB 655 C5 Census Tract 0319.04 Sale Price S NONE Date of S NONE NIA Lend tent CITY OF TIGARD Address 13125 SW HALL BOULVARD TIGARD OR 97223 M a DAN T. GILBERT Address 7110 S.W. FIR LOOP SUITE 200 TIGARD OR 97223 Locatlaa Urban U&I Suburban Rural Predominant am ou E Present lend use % Lend uss change BaBtup ® Over 75% ❑ 2575% ❑ Under 25% occupancy ~(ooo AG Ono family 90 ❑ Not likely ❑ LD" Growth rate ❑ Rapid ® Stable ❑ Stow ® owner 120 Low E 24 family 2 2 in process Property vskese ❑ Increasing ® Stable ❑ Declining ❑ Tenant 800 BO MutLfamly 2 Ta SINGLE FAMILY Dnaravadlauppy ❑ Shortage ®ki balance ❑ Over anppy ®Vacant (0.5%) Predominard CemrmcW 1 RESIDENTIAL MarMinglim F-1 Under 3 mmos. R -0 mos. F1 Over 6 J"M 250 25 Undeveipp 5 maw Ram aad the molaf aaespamen of no nelBYerleed am 04 aPRaleal fmtoa Naghbahood bamdades and eharwbdsdci: THE SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD IS BOUND ON THE NORTH BY WALNUT STREET EAST BY 99W SOUTH BY BULL MTN ROAD AND TO THE WEST BY CITY LIMITS. Factors that affect tie ffoM )Uy of the properties In the neighborhood (proldmty to employment and arronltles, employment stabllH, appeal to market ate.): THE SUBJECT IS IN AN ESTABLISHED AREA AND HOMES IN THIS AREA ARE GENERALLY OF GOOD TO VERY GOOD QUALITY CONSTRUCTION AND SHOW GOOD MAINTENANCE LEVELS. THE SUBJECT HAS GOOD COMPATIBILITY WITH THE AREA AND HAS GOOD OVERALL MARKETABILITY, ACCESS TO SCHOOLS SHOPPING FREEWAYS AND EMPLOYMENT IS AVERAGE FOR THIS TYPE OF AREA. POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION IS AVERAGE FOR THIS AREA. Market eondtlSons In to subject neighborhood (Including support for the above conclusions related to the Irend of properlyvalues, demand/supply, and markeing Urra - such as data on competlive properties for sale In the neighborhood, description of the prevalence of sales and financing concessions, etc.): HOME VALUES IN TI II AREA ARE RISING GRADUALLY OVER TIME AND SUPPLY AND DEMAND APPEAR TO BE IN BALANCE. MARKETING TIME IS ESTIMATED TO BE 3.6 MONTHS. FHA VA AND CONVENTIONAL FINANCING ARE ALL COMMON IN THIS MARKET AND PRIVATE CONTRACTS ARE TYPICALLY AT MARKET RATES. GENERAL MARKET CONDITIONS IN THIS AREA ARE JUDGED AVERAGE TO GOOD Proled Information for PUDs (i applicable) - - Is the devetoperlbnilder to control of tea Home Dwners' Assoclation (HOA)7 Yes No Apprmdma a total ember of newts In the subject project NIA Apprmdmate total number of units for sale In alas subject project NIA j De2gllm c and recreational fact ilm WA j Dimensions PLEASE SEE ATTACHED PLAT MAP Topography TYPICALLY LEVEL Sb na 9,1478F Caner lot M Yes ❑ No Ste AVERAGE Specific toning elaas18ealon and description R4.5 - SFR - 7,500 SF MINIMUM LOT SIZE Shape IRREGULAR Zoning eompimee ® Legal ❑ Legal nonce do ming (Grandfafhered use) ❑ Illegal ❑ No tonkg Drainage -APP F_ARS ADEQUATE Mprewriuse Olin n view TYPICAL NEIGHBORHOOD U161as Pubic Other Off-sttainprovements Type Pubic Private Landscaping AVERAGE FOR AREA Electricity Street ASPHALT ® ❑ Driveway Surface CONCRETE Gas ® CurWgulter CONCRETE ❑ Apparent easements NONE ADVERSE NOTED j Water ® Skin-A CONCRETE ❑ FEMA Special Rood Hazard Area [J Yes 0 No ! Solitary sever Street lights YES ® ❑ FELLA Zone C Map Data 3/111982 er AMY NONE FEMAMyNo, 41027600048 Comments (apparent adverse easements, encroachments, 5WW assessments, side areas, illegal or legal non;onfonning toning use, etc.): THERE ARE NO ` APPARENT ADVERSE EASEMENTS ENCROACHMENTS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ETC. WHICH HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON TI VALUE OR MARKETABILITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. GENERAL DESCRIPTION EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION FOiINDATION BASEMENT INSULATION No. of Units 1 Foundation CONCRETE Slab NO Area Sq. Ft NONE Rod ❑ i No. of Stales 1 Extertor Walls WOOD Crawl Space YES % Finished NIA Calling ❑ Type (DdjAtL) DETACHD Roof Surface COMP SHINGL Basement NO Calling WA Walls ❑ I Design (Style) RANCH Gutters & Dwnspts. METAL Sump Pump NONE NOTED Wails N/A Floor ❑ i ExlstingaProposed EXISTING WlndowType ALUMINUM Dampness NONE NOTED Roo N/A None ❑ ) Age (Yrs.) 49 StomyScreens DIW/ALUM Settlement NONE NOTED Outside Entry N/A unknown Effective a (Yrs.) 25 Manufactured Hasse NO Iniestalon NONE NOTED ROOMS F aver Uvl n' IOtehen Den F M. Be. Bedrooms ark B Other Area . Ft Basement NONE Lovell X 1 1 1 1 3 1.1 X 1,311 Level 2 Finished area above grade contains: 7 Room 3 Bedrooms • 1.1 Baths • 1,311 S Feet of Gross UvIna Area INTERIOR MalerlalyConditon HEATING KITCHEN EQUIP. ATTIC AMENITIES CAR STORAGE Floors CRPTNIN/FAIR Type FA. Refrigerator ❑ None ❑ Fireplace(s) # 1 ® None ❑ Walls DRYWALUFIAR Fuel GAS RangelOven ® Stairs ❑ Palo ❑ Garage # of cars TdM/Msh WOOD/FAIR Condilon AVG Disposal ❑ Drop Stair ❑ Dealt WOOD ® Attached 2 Befit Floor VINYUFAIR COOLING DWnvasher ® Scuttle ® Porch CONCRETE ® Detached Bath Wainscot FIBERGLASS/FAIR Central NONE Faftod ❑ Floor ❑ Fence ❑ Butll4n Doors FLUSH HLW COR/F Other NONE Microwave ❑ Heated ❑ I _E] Carport l ConSon WA Washer/Orver r-1 Aril shad F-1 I r-1 I Drivew 2 Additional feakires (special energy of clentItems, etc.): PLEASE SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM. Condition of the Improvements, depreciation (phyefeal, f nc8mal, and external), repairs needed, quash of construction, remadelinyadditions, etc.: THE i SUBJECT IS OF AVERAGE QUALITY CONSTRUCTION AND IS FAIR CONDITION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED FOR DETAILS REGARDIN i THE SUBJECTS CONDITION AND NEEDED REPAIRS. Adverse anvironmental conditions (such A but not Burred to, hazardous wastes, kodb substances, etc.) present in the Improvements, on the site, or In the immediate Newly of the subject property.: NONE APPARENT. i Freddie Mac Form 70 4r93 PAGE 1 OF 2 Fantle Mae Form 1004 W93 Form UA2 -'TOTAL for Windows' appraisal software by a Is mode, inc. -1-80OALAMODE INe No. 0003653T ation Section UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT FoNo. 00036537 ESTIMATED SITE VALUE ; 60,000 Comments on CostApproach (such as, source of cost estimate, site value, ESTIMATED REPRODUCTION COST-NEW-OF IMPROVEMENTS: square foot calculation and for HUD, VA and FmRk the estimated remanng Dwaft 1.311 Sq. EL @; 79.25 ; 103.897 economic life of the properly): THERE ARE NO FUNCTIONAL OR Sq. R @$ EXTERNAL INADE UACIES AFFECTING THE SUBJECTS FIREPLACE BUILT-INS PORCH PATIO _ 9,905 VALUE. REPLACEMENT COST HAS BEEN USED RATHER Garage/Carport 380 Sq. R @j 21.58 8,200 THAN REPRODUCTION COST AND REPLACEMENT COST Total Estimated Cost New $ 122,002 FACTORS ARE BASED ON THE MARSHALL & SWIFT i Less Physical FOmdonal 6demel RESIDENTIAL COST HANDBOOK AND LOCAL i Oepreciaion 43,567 3.000 sj 46.567 CONTRACTORS, i Depreciated Value of Improvements ej 75,435 'As4e Value of She Improvements ~j 10 DOO INDICATEDVALUEBYCOSTAPPROACH 145,435 ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 I I 14040 SW 117TH AVENUE 10540 SW WALNUT STREET 11320 SW GAARDE STREET 11720 SW GAARDE STREET TIGARD OREGON TIGARD OREGON TIGARD OREGON TIGARD OREGON J 0.98 tulles 0.18 miles 0.03 miles j Sates Price NONE 149,664 153,000 161,500 rocs 139.09 rte 112.0101 155.14 O Data and/or METROSCAN METROSCAN/RMLS METROSCAN/RMLS METROSCAN/RMLS rllcatl S INSPECTION MLS:4033852 MLS:3069782 MLS:3076719 VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION + - t st DESU WfNN : +(-I$ Adjust DESCRIPTION : + ust ' Saks or Financing CASH CONVENTIONAL: CONVENTIONAL; J f C NONE NOTED NONE NOTED NONE NOTED ate 5104 01104 01/04 Localm SUBURBAN SUBURBAN SUBURBAN SUBURBAN eIa e e FEE SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE rrr SIMPLE S a 9_1 47 SF 16,988 SF -5,900 10,454 SF 0 13,068 SF -3 000 TRAIIC TRAFFIC TRAFFIC 7RAFFIr i and RANCWG 00 RANCH/GOOD RANCH/GOOO RANCH/GOOD a don GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD 49 YEARS 40 YEARS 0 60 YEARS 0 46 YEARS 0 I-AIR FAIR FAIR AVERAGE : -15,000 Above Grade : Bdrmi: B TQtal;Bdmvs: -T aths; 12g_jkdqBL- Baltu Tow: arms ; Baths Room Count 7: 3; 1.1 5 I 1: 1 +1,500 7: 3; 2 -1,000 8 3 1 +1,600 Gross Uvnc Area 1,311 St ft l .o76 . Ft I +5.875 1 366 q Ft - -1.375 1.04 1 S q. Ft, +6,750 Basement 6 Finished NONE NONE NONE NONE Roms ow Grad WA N/A N/A _N/A U SEE ATTACHF_D_ AVERAGE -3.000 AVERAGE 3,000 AVERAGE -3 000 FAU/NO AC FAU/NO AC FAUVCENTRAL -2,500 FALUNO AC Encrav Efficient Item AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE Qara 2 CAR/see aftnch NO GARAGE +5.000 2 CAR GARAGE : 0 1 CAR GARAGE : +2.500 Porch, Patio, Deck, PORCH, DECK PORCH, PATIO PORCH, PATIO POR,DEC,PAT j Tc 1 FIREPLACE 1 FIREPLACE 1 FIREPLACE NO FIREPLACE : +1,000 Feu k. FENCE FENCE FENCE FENCE I 3,475 - 7,875 + 9,250 Adjusted Sales Price Net 2.3 % Net 5.1 % Net 5.7 a( C arable brass 14.2 % 153.139 Gross 5.1 % 145 125 Gross -20.y % 152,250 Comments on Sales Comparison (Including the subject propertys eompatlblty to the neighborhood, etc.): THE COMPARABLES USED ARE JUDGED TO BE THE BEST INDICATORS OF VALUE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE APPRAISAL. ITEM SUBIECi COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO. 3 Date, Price and Data 10/01 NONE KNOWN NONE KNOWN NONE KNOWN Source, for prior sates $147,000 36 MONTHS 36 MONTHS 36 MONTHS L ofacoralsal METROSCAN METROSCAN IMETROSCAN IMETROSCAN Analysis of any current agreement of sale, option, or listing of subject property and analysis of any prior sales of subject and comparables within one year of the date of appralsat C THE SUBJECT DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP IN THE PAST 36 MONTHS. INDICATED VALUE BY SALES COMPAFJSONAPPROACH $ 150,000 INDICATED VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH surb(ect ro the d A k e Estimated Market Rent a. x Gross Rerd MUItl er =t This appraisal is made 'as ls' repairs, alterations, inspections or conditions fisted below subject to eompkton per plans & specifications. Conditions ofApprals2l: THE APPRAISAL IS MADE "AS IS" AND THE APPRAISER ASSUMES THAT THERE ARE NO HIDDEN DEFECTS WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Final Recondiaton: MORE WEIGHT HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH THAN OTHER APPROACHES BECAUSE IT MORE ACCURATELY REFLECTS WHAT INFORMED BUYERS AND SELLERS WILL DO WHEN PROPERTY OFFERED FOI I SALE IS GIVEN REASONABLE EXPOSURE TIME IN THE MARKETPLACE. f The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market valve of the real property that IS the subject of this report based on the above conditions and the certification, contingent and Indting conditions, and market value defa7Biom that are staW In the attached Freddle Mac Form 439/FNMA form 1004B (Revised 6-93 I OVA) ESTIMATE THE MARKET VALUE, AS DEFPJED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY TRAT Is THE SUBJECT OF THIS REPORT, AS OF OCTOBER 21 2004 (WHICH IS THEDATE OFDEPECRONANDTHEEFFECTIVE DATE OFIMSREPOFMTOBE j 150.000 APPRAISER: SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIRED): Slanahr~r SlOnahre ❑ Did ❑ Did Not Name T. GILB R Name Inspect Property Date ReportSigned NOVEMBER 17 2004 1 State Certtcaton fir Slue State Certification J State Lkense # L001068 State OR 0 State State Freddie Mac Form 70 6/93 PAGE 2 OF 2 Fannie Mae forth 1004 B-93 Form UA2 -"TOTAL for WlndwW appraisal software by a to mode, Inc. -1-80D•ALAMODE UNIFORM RESIDEPiTIAI. APPRAISAL REPORT , MARKET DATA ANALYSIS j at b tlwse of pr sl a minus the 0 Mtd cort~aade Dm palles r a sip 0.em P0196 ty h a to a moro 0 ~y wD~ect property. a mtws - made. reducing dp tk6carod o} the s M a In ttw canparahle kderlor b. a las I sttyeet properQ, a jtus + ad art n tlou ktcreasin fie tlNcahd v o of the s ect ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 4 COMPARABLE NO. 5 COMPARABLE Na 6 i 14040 SW 117TH AVENUE 9740 SW McDONALD STREET TIGARD OREGON TIGARD OREGON .Mdrag 0.97 miles NONE '('9-220: 126.8905 0' C31 Data METROSCAN METROSCANIRMLS INSPECTION MLS:307 548 VALUE Al)JUSTME)lTS DESCAVVEN DESCRFrEN . +(-A at DESCRFnaN + - L DESCRFnDN + - L I Sate or awxkv CONVEN rIONAL concosslons NONE NOTED Dab of Saleffln 02104 Locillon SUE! RRAN SUBURBAN FEE SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE .9 ,147 SF 7,405 SF 0 vim TRAFI NEIGHBORHO i D41411111 RANCH/GOOD NCH/GOOO GOOD GOOD 9 YEARS 44 YEAR _ cmxm FAIR AVERAGE -15000 Roam Cwt 7 1.1 3 1.1 1,311 $4L Fl. 1.33 9 0 SQ. ft: 0 51 R, 0 Basement 8 Flnhhed NONE NONE WA WA Boom uft SEE ATTACHED AVERAGE -3000 HN&dCgdm FAU/NO AC BBINONE +1,500 AVERAGE AVERAGE 2 CAR/see attach 2 CAR GARAGE Poteh, Palo, Deck, PORCH, DECK PORCH, PATIO t FhDlx*sl. 1 FIREPLACE 2 FIREPLACES I -1.000 fimct. PA ko FENCE FENCE i 17,500 + F-1 s A*sbd Sales Rice Net 10.3 % Nd % Not % Gregg 1 . % 152,400 GrbS$ % Gross % Dale, Pdce and Data 10101 11103 Souee for jslar sales $147,000 $126,000 mffin acrd METROSCAN METROSCAN Corterxnlx I i i I f i Market Oats Melysb 6-93 ~ Form UA2.(AC) -'TOTAL for windows' appralsal soffm by a to mode, Inc. -1.800-ALAMODE Supplemental Addendum ~ ewer CITY OF TIGARD Hello. 0003653T 14040 SW 117TH AVENUE Cit! TIGARD Couniv WASHINGTON OR Zip ode 97224 Lender CITY OF TIGARD SALES HISTORY: According to county records, the subject was purchased by the city of Tigard on 1013112001 for $147,000 and is currently owned by the city. PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE: Significant professional assistance was provided by Ladd D. Whitcomb (Appraiser Assistant Registration Number: AA01670) including research, analysis, data recording, physical inspection of the subject property and comparable sales as well as final reconciliation of value. This assistance was provided strictly for the training of the assistant and the signing appraiser was intimately involved In all aspects of the development and reporting of this appraisal. PERSONAL PROPERTY: The appraised value Includes only items of equipment considered part of the real estate. No personal property was Included in the final estimate of value Including free standing appliances and any other items not permanently affixed to the subject. DIGITAL SIGNATUREIDELIVERY OF THE APPRAISAL: This appraisal was signed with a digital signature and the software used to prepare this report has a signature security feature In the form of a password over which only the appraiser has control. Should the report be shared In anyway. the signature is removed and the report cannot be resigned by anyone other than the appraiser. In addition, If this report was delivered electronically, it was done so In a PDF format and the Integrity of the report data is protected by a distilling process which allows no changes to be made to a signed appraisal report after transmission. i PURPOSEJFUNCTION/INTENDEO USE OF THE APPRAISAL: The purpose of this appraisal Is to estimate the market value of 1 the subject property as defined in the certification. The function of the appraisal is to assist the client In evaluating the subject property for marketing purposes. The use of this appraisal for any other purpose or function is strictly unauthorized by the appraiser. This includes but Is not limited to Its use for Insurance, probate, litigation, dissolution of marriege/partnershfp purposes, nor is it to be used for lending purposes. See attached cortHtcation and limiting conditions. This appraisal is a llmftod appraisal and a summary appraisal report INTENDED USER OF THE APPRAISAL/CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY: In accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, the appraiser agrees that he/she shall reveal value, analysis, conclusions and/or opinions to no party other than the Client without permission. Note: It is a common misunderstanding that the client of the appraiser to the party or parties listed on the Borrower line of the appraisal It must be understood the client of the appraiser Is the party or parties listed on the Lender/Client line of the appraisal regardless of who pays for the appraisal or who owns the real estate teeing appralsed. This being the case, the appraiser is bound to confidentiality via USPAP and cannot discuss the appraisal nor provide additional copies without consent from the client. it Is this Firm's policy that such permission shall be given In writing. The use of this appraisal by anyone other than the client Is strictly unauthorized by the appraiser. The Borrower is not an authorized user of the appraisal. SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL., Upon acceptance of appraisal assignment the following steps were followed In order to arrive at the final estimate of market value as defined In the certification: General market conditions through various data sources were analyzed to determine market trends, Influences and other significant factors which could Impact the subject property. A physical inspection of the subject was performed, either Interior and exterior, or exterior only based on the type of appraisal requested. A more thorough analysis of relevant collected data was performed and highest and bast use of the subject was determined. The most comparable sales were selected and verified. A report was then composed In accordance with USPAP with every attempt to Include sufficient data and information to lead the Ofent to a similar conclusion of market value. Tho report was then delivered to the client ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICSITRENDS/MARKETING TIME: Recently the subject's market has been relatively stable with home values tieing slowly over time. Supply and demand appear to be in balance. Assuming economic, physical, functional and external conditions remain the same as of the effective date of the appraisal, the subject should sell for the astimated market value within three to six months if good marketing techniques are employed. I! COMPETENCY OF THE APPRAISER: The appraiser possesses the appropriate knowledge, experience and skills to complete this appraisal assignment competently. HIGHEST AND BEST USE: Based on the four defining factors of of highest and best use, the appraiser has determined the highest and best use of the subject property Is single family residential. This was the use of the subject as of the effective date of the appraisal. ASSUMPTIONSiHYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS/LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser assumes the client possesses the appropriate experienco4tund knowledge to understand the appraisal report and the appraisal techniques employed to develop the appraisal. The appraiser noted no evidence of the existence of infestation, dryrot damage, structural problems, mechanical f defects, defective materials used In construction or detrimental environmental conditions, etc., and the final estimate of value is based on the assumption that none of these conditions exist in or around the subject The appraiser is not an expert in the Identification of any of the above mentioned conditions and the appraisers inspection of the subject is not to be misconstrued as a professional home Inspection. Any defects observed by the appraiser have been reported, however, there Is absolutely no guarantee or warranty expressed or Implied by the appraiser that the subject is free of such defects. l: Is always recommended the client has a professional home inspection completed by a property qualified home Inspector. If there Is any question concerning hazardous materials Including, but not limited to, formaldehyde, asbestos, radon, lead, inground storage tanks, etc., an expert In the field of environmental Inspection should be engaged. Additionally, this appraisal is made under the assumption the Improvements comply with local building codes and that any required permits and/or inspections were obtained during the construction process Including any additions or remodeling. The appraiser is making the extraordinary assumption that the city would allow the garage door to be moved to the north side of the dwelling. l INCOME APPROACH: The income approach was considered inapplicable because the subject is In an area of predominately Form TADD-•TOTALforHMdows•apprdWsoftwareb/alamode, Inc.-1-8004 MODE i Re No. ffl-L-V-53-T1 Supplemental Addendum Re No. 0003853T BwqfffXW CITY OF TIGARD Amm 14040 SW 117TH AVENUE Gly TiGARD Cou* WASHINGTON Sta OR 2k3 Co& 97724 P ier CITY OF TIGARD owner occupied residences and there Is Insufficient data to develop fair market rent or a reliable gross rent multiplier. The income approach to value was not used. COST APPROACH: Replacement costs have been used rather than reproduction costs and these crests were derived from the Marshall S Swift Residential Cost Handbook. Physical depreclation Is based on the effective age of the subject property using the agellife method. The subject's site value is based on sales of similar shoe In the subject's area. If she sales were unavailable, the appraiser relied upon abstraction of site values from sales of improved properties. SALES COMPARISON APPROACH: The sales comparison approach to judged most accurate approach to value for single family homes because It more accurately reflects what informed buyers and sellers will do when a prop" offered for solo Is given reasonable exposure in the market. Adjustments in this approach to value have been made to reflect the differences between the subject and comparable sales. These adjustments are market reactions, not cost to reproduce and are based on paired sales analysis whenever possible, observed market activity and office files. The comparable sales selected are judged the most accurate Indicators of value as of the effective date of the appraisal. PROXIMITY OF COMPARABLE SALES: The sales chosen are judged the most proximate comparable sales available at the time of appraisal. 1 i SALE PRICES/FINANCING/CONCESSIONS: Unless otherwise stated, at least two data sources were used to confirm sales Information. SALES DATES: Sale dates provided are close of escrow dates, not contract dates. SITEMEW: The she, shape and landscaping of this she Is typical of many sites In the area and the subject meets neighborhood standards. Unless otherwise stated, there are no known adverse easements, encroachments, special assessments, tilde areas, etc. which will have a negative impact on the value or marketability of the subjoct although this property may be subject to normal utility easements. Zoning Information was obtained from the appropriate planning departments via telephone conversations, faxes and/or Internet sites depending on the municipality. DESIGN/APPEAL: The subjed'e interior, exterior and equipment are typical of many homes In this marketing area. The subject has good compatibility with the neighborhood and it's market appeal Is judged good. QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION: The subject Is of good quality construction which ts typical for the homes in this neighborhood. AGE: The effective age of the subject is estimated to be less than it's actual age because of good preventative maintenance. Adjustments for age are based on the observed effective age of the subject versus the comparable sales, not actual ages. The affect" ages of the comparable sales are based on an exterior Inspection of these properties, RMLS records, Realtors and office files when available. Effective ages of the comparable sales are estimated as of their sales dates because changes or modifications may have been made since the date of sale. CONDITION: At the time of Inspection, subject appears to be In need of some updating and repairs and is currently In fair condition. The subjects shot lived hams are dated and wont and In need of replacement Some these hems include but may not be Iimhad to all floor coverings, Interior and exterior pent, kitchen appliances, kitchen fixtures, light facture, bathroom fixtures and roofing materials. ROOM COUNT: The number of total rooms, bedrooms and bathe Is typical of many houses in the area. The foyer, laundry, bathrooms and all rooms below grade (In tha baserlenl) should they exist, have been excluded from the total above grade (not in the basement) room count. Adjustments for room count are typically limited to bathrooms, not total rooms or bedrooms because square footage adjustments have also been made. Please note that rooms below grade have not been simply disregarded. The have been Included in the basement section of this appraisal per client guidelines. SQUARE FOOTAGE: Estimated square footage and building sketch Information is provided to assist the client in visualhing the subject and measurements are taken from the exterior of the improvements whenever possible. These measurements are typically rounded to the nearest 1/2 foot. The sketch is considered adequate for comparison purposes but is not to be misconstrued as a *blueprint" of the improvements. While due diligence has been employed by the appraiser, this sketch is only an estimate. It should also be noted that the appraiser's estimate of square footage rarely coincides exactly with assessor's records, Realtor estimates and/or other appraiser's sketches. If major discrepancies are found, the client Is urged to obtain an explanation or a second estimate. Should one desire an exact sketch of the subject, an architect Is to be employed. Adjustments made for square footage are market reactions to size differences, not cost to construct per square foot nor on j sales price divided by square footage. Neither of these methods are proper appraisal practices. Please note that, as with room count, below grade square footage has not been disregarded but has not been included In total above grade square footage. It has been included In the basement section of the appraisal. FUNCTIONAL UTILITY: The subject does not currently have access to the garage from the street due to the city taking a f section of the lot and installing a 3 foot retaining wall where the drive way had previously been. the $3,000 functional i utDity/functional depreciation adjustment is based on market reaction and the cost to move the garage door to the front of the house, residing the east side where garage door currently is placed and installing a suitable driveway. The appraiser was unable to determine If this change would be allowed by the city and is making the extraordinary assumption that this change could be made. SALES COMPARISON RECONCILIATION: The adjusted values of the comparable sales in the sales comparison approach were reconciled Into a single value using a weighted analysis by giving most weight to the comparable sales judged most similar to the subject and, accordingly, least weight to the comparables judged least similar. The appralser's opinion of the Form TADD -'TOTAL for Wkdow welal %*aers by s la mode, Ins. -1.80MMODE i 1% M0.000365M Supplemenul Addendum File No. 0003653T CITY OF TIGARD 14040 SW 717TH AVENUE CRY TIGARD Ccut, WASHINGTON R 97224 larder CfTYOFTIGARD subjsct's fair market value is based on the Definitlon of Market Value stated on the certification page. Most weight was placed on comparable#2 due to its location on the same busy street, similar condition and low gross adjustments. Secondary weight was placed on comparable #1 due to Its similar condition and more recent date of sale. (1 V i I I I o a u r I I I Form TADD -'rOTALfor *daW appralad sob= by a Is mode, inc. -1.800-AUMODE BuBdind Sketch lQMMNdCW CITY OF TIGARD 14040 SW 117TH AVENUE CKY TIGARD Cnti WASHINGTON OR 97224 Lff4w CITY OF TIGARD i 21AY LAUNDRY 4 4 40M C FAMILY I MAt DINING KITCHEN BATH BEDROOM BATH I GARAGE LIVING BEDROOM BEDROOM ENTRY 20.a 41.w I i +I Camrnb: AREA CALCULATIONS SUMMARY LIVING AREA BREAKDOWN Cod. Doer em att. IW Total. er-*dam aaelo4ls QL%l ■ixat r20or 1111.00 1312.00 rtnt 11oor Gaa aa~•9a 180.00 380.00 26.0 x 41.0 1066.00 7.0 z 20.0 140.00 5.0 x 21.0 105.00 I i (E f TOTAL LIVABLE (rotmded) 1311 3 Calculations Total (rounded) 1311 Form BllT.B ld -TOTAL iorW4doW ipprateal tuft m by it la mode, Inc. -1.800-ALAMoOE no NO, 00 Plat Map BmwedUfad CITY OF TIGARD 14040 SW 117TH AVENUE CtN TIGARD ComN WASHINGTON State OR Code 97724 rider CITY OF TIGARD ;4 X, .v ;t 1 Y \ fit. r' X rra K 1. J 'iS x X 'l. ~J :1~ ,:R,~ 1• t ~ Y 1. 'r 1 k' ~°v tr' • + •'v v"1.: yam;/'';. rrr,.a as""" wqr .y y1 no Rw .woe "Call teoo I ao~c NAB ~ Hee S a~o amo SW COLE un uoa 7"0 se7 a em R .e2A0 pp ~p e~p~1Ii .Nla 1E ~7 7C~ (µ~7 ele S 1~KTl •y 11,0 100 ty WAR ueo or Iva M 1r00U0 Aq -u N~ ~ ,.j,•f f xs 1.r. as~0 Mm Ir s'i~ soo° 0100 aao ~ t~rr ~Cj~r>: ° n ;f Aq ` 5700 ' l n ~ i CFARLANJ) GtiOUD S t, CO :<nt ! ct~ k ~xa: 47 dam 2700 1 • !S L 7000 N00 fK, C,;' sea e4 q j , i . am& low 7700 1 j~ fy1, , two 10 ayl 4 y~•.~•• Mal) 40 x •ti ~ry`a STREET } .;'~:~f~.+•ti!<<`:f,. ,r •r, fxyx. ':{'!K ~ti.r : .t~ ~k , ,~>t:,;;~, .•f .,+i+1P. ti?1~1c.,' ,r'f ~ Jt+If+.n, ~ :a' Y" h ♦ r a /'a r a . a ~ ,1 a : i i~• . ♦ i1 .S .k , JI 7• h O r . ..writ , Form M.4RPIAT-10TAL for WIndowr oppabal edW= by a is mode, Inc. -1-800•ALAMODE ~llsp on LP ,So 1 s722a . S R 1 VENUE C WASHIt4GT013 C1~ S 117tH A f"L X7-1--As Jk~ LEI "d~~~°`~`r- Jr, Jam' ~1 ~~f : Ij ~ Wstu 13 ~lyalart~°~~' s°I, sdty+ QApp.LOC-~ f01a taWis~do° I No.0003653T i I Subject Photo Page i i Borrower Client CITY OF TIGARD 2LWeftL Address 14_0_40 SW 117TH AVENUE _ City TIGARD _ County WASHINGTON State OR Zip Code 47224 Lender CITY OF TIGARD i Subject Front 14040 SW 117TH AVENUE Sales Pdce NONE Gross I.Mng Area 1,311 ToW Rooms 7 Total Bedrooms 3 Total Bathrooms 1.1 Location SUBURBAN View TRAFIC Site 9,147 SF Quality GOOD Age 49 YF-ARS Subject Rear I I Subject Street L C j I 'p I ,I r ( Form PICPDCSR -"TOTAL for Windows, appralsal software by a la mode, inc. -1-600-ALAMODE re No.0003653T Comparable Photo Page Borr w [Client. CITY OF TIGARD Pro r Address 14040 SW 11 / 1 H AVENUE City TIGARD -_Sourly WASHINGTON State OR Ilo Code 97224 Lender CITY OF'IIGARD f Comparable 1 10540 SW WALNU I STREET Prox to Subject 0.98 tulles Sale Price 149,664 Grass Living Area 1,076 Total Rooms 5 Total Bedrooms 1 Total Bathrooms 1 Locaton SUBURBAN ViaN I RAMC Site 10,968 SF Q;:alily GOOD Age 40 YEARS i Comparable 2 Anw- 11320 SW GAARUL STREET Prox. to Subject 11 18 rudes ,d S,ie Prcc 153,000 1 Qress LIV17g Area 1.300 ` Tutd Rums / a Total Bedrooms 3 Total Saitircims 2 Wcallon SUl)ll MAN VieN RAFt K, Site 10.454 SF Quality GOOD Age 50 YLARS Comparable 3 11720 SW GMRDE STRFf T Prcx. to Subject 0.03 miles k • C ' k Sale P7ce 161,500 is truss LF4ng Area 1,041 Tclal Rooms 6 ~I Total Berrooms 3 Total Bathrooms 1 Location SUBURBAN View TRAFFIC Site 13,068 SF Quality GOOD i Age 46 YFARS R R I I Form PICPIX.CR -'TOTAL for Windows, appraisal software by a la made, Inc. -1.800-AIAN100E s Comparable Photo Page MmwWCM CITY OF TIGARD 14040 SW 117TH AVENUE C 71GARD Owft WASHINGTON Stale OR Code 97724 LwW CITY OF TIGARD Comparable 4 9740 SW MCDONALD STREET Pax to Subject 0.97 miles Saw Prke 169,900 Gross LMnpArea 1,339 Total Roans 7 ToW Bedrooms 3 Total Bduoam 1.1 Loc4m SUBURBAN View NEIGHBORHD Ste 7,405 SF Mww GOOD Ape 44 YEARS t Comparable 5 Prat in ft*ct Salo No@ Grass Lirbp Aran Total Rooms TOW RO&M its TOW Baitwoma Locatm View j Site Ouaiity Ape 1 Comparable B Prox to S&4ed SA Rice Gross UvInp Area Total ROOMS Total BecIrms Total Wlrooms Loealm View Sib t QuaftY Ape I Form PICPOCCR -'TOTAL for Windows' apprawal softim by a Ia mode, Inc. -1-80041 MODE He NO, ODD303T 0lfINlTION OF MARAET VALUE: The most probable price which a properly should bring Ina competitive and open market under al conditions regrdsb to a fair sate, h e buyer and ester, each acibg prudently, Imowiedgeably and assuming th a price is not atfeebd by undue, stimulus. hod in th Is deferdton is h a oatssrmatlan of a sale as of a specBied dale and th a passing of the from seller to buyer under conditions wh eraby: (i) buff and seller am W** rn crIN ; (2) both parks; are wag informed or wait advised, and each acting in what he considers his own beat Interest; (3) a reasonable time Is allowed for w posan In th a open mrieC (4) payment Is made in toms of easft In U.S. dollars or In terms of financial rratgerrients comparable thereto; and (5) he price reprssats th a tnrtref corsirlmdon for h s property sold unaffected by special oc creative floameirg or sales concessins• Wwft by anyone associated with the oak ' Adjustments to th a tompaables must be made for special or emotive brancing or sales concessions. No adprstmads are necessary for th ose costs wh ich are normally paid by sellers as a result of taftom or law In a market area; th ese costs are readily lderdEable shoe th a sailer pays h on costs In vltafy st sales tareaeloro. Special or creative &=ing adjustments can be made to th e comparable property by conparkans to karndrro terms offered by a th led party Inshiftiat render h at is not already Involved in th e property or kx"-ftL Any at) ft d sh outd not be dadated an a meth a" dollar to dollar cost of th a financing or concessim bit h a dollar amount of any adpistnent sh ould alpmAnah h e nwWs reaction m th a financing or concessions roved on th e apprasds )udgemeM. I STATEMENT OF UMRMNO CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION COMMENT AND uMmN6 CON0MONS: Th a Wpratsar's codf don th at appears; in h a appraisal spat Is ub)eetto h a following conacris: 1. Th a appraiser will not be responsible for matters d a legal nature hat affect elth a Ih a property being appraised or Ih a title to It Th a appraber assumes h at Ih a title Is good nd marketable and, th emfom, will not render try opinions about th a this. Th e property is appraised on h e We of it berg mW responsible --rt*. 2. Th a appraiser h ae provided a fifth in h e appraisal report to sh ow appronemYe dimensions of th a Improvement; and th s sketch is included only to assist the reader Of the report in rsueldng he property and uderstrdhg he appralsef s debrrnir4on of Rs stm. 3. The appraiser has axamhed the wallable hood maps that am provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other data somas) and has noted In Cie appralsal report wh eh er the subject silo is located in an iderdl8ed Special Flood Hazard Area Because the appraiser is not a surveyor, h s or she makes i no guarantees, ampresa or Implied, regarding this derfetmhatlon. 4. Th e appraiser will not give bslhra y at appear In court because h e or sh a made an appraisal of th a property In wegkxL unless specific amingernenis to do so has been made beforehand. 5. Th e appraiser h as estlnabd Ih a value of th a tend in th a cost approach at its h Igh est and best use and h e kiprovements it th ok contributory value. Th ese f separate valuations at h • Ind and lmprovemens met not be used In conjunclon with any oh s appraisal and we Invalid 9 th ey are so used. I 8. Th e apprdser h as noted In h e appraisal report ray adverse conditions (such as, needed repairs, depredation, to a presence of h nardous wastes, We substances, etc.) observed during th a Inspection of h e subject pro" or th at h e or sh a became am of dung th a normal research invoked in performing th a appraisal. Unless oh erwise staled In h e appraisal report th a appiaker h as no knowledge of any It Idden or urapparent conditions of h e property or adverse enirkon mental coma (Including th a presents of h azardous wastes, We substances, ek.) th at would make th a property more or less valuable, and h as assumed th at h ere am no such condhforrs and snakes no gunanbes or wamaMfes, empress or Implied, regarding h e condition of Ih a property. 7h e appraiser will not be respmsbie for any such condbkns ih at do mist or for any engineering or testing h at migh t be required to discover wb at er such conditions exist Because th a appraiser Is not an expert In h e laid of emlraeroMai h aurds, th a appraisal report must not be eonsidaed as an erntramadal assessment of he property. I 7. Th a appraiser obtained tit a Information, eslknates, and aprnious h at were mgrassed in th a apprasai report from sources th at h e or sh a considers to be reliable and bageves h em to be fns and correct Th a appraiser does not assume responsibilly for th a money of such items that were hmtsh ed by oth er i parties. i r & Th e appraiser will not disclose th a contents of h e appraisal report except as provided fain th a Unftorm Standards of Pmtesslonat Appraisal Practice. 9. Th a appraiser h as based h Is or h or appraisal report and valuation conclusion n of the Inproremerts will be performed In world adke mariner. to satisfactory completion, repaIrs, or allerdons on the assunmptlon that completion f 1 i j 10. Th e appraiser toast provide h is or h or polar wriden consent before tin a Imder/dknt sped5ed in Ih a appra[sai report can dlsbibute ih a appraisal report (indudbg conclusions about th a property value, th a appraisers identity and professional designations, and references to a r professional appraisal agartkations or h e lam with wh Ich th a appraisers assocla ad) to anyone oh or h an th a borrows; th a mortgagee or its successors and assigns, the mortgage Insurer consultants; professional appraisal organizalons; my state or federally approved ftnanckl hstItution: or any department agency, or fnsbumemtaily of th a United States or any state or he District of Columbia except h at h e lndelclient may dshfMdn the property descrlplon section of the report only to data collection or repordrg smkc(s) WM out h 8rh9 to obtain 1118 appraiser's prior wditen consent. Th e appralser's written consent and approval must also n be obtalned before th a appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to th a pudic th rough advertising, public telagms, news, sales, or odn or media Freddie Mac Form 439 &93 Pape 1012 FarWe Mae Form 1004B 8.93 ato m Team form ACR--*TOTAL for Windowe p~s, Inc. 52 eppralaal software areae by a to made, Inc. -1-800-ALAMODE eenese~r~. Wh No. O APPRAISEIiI'S CERTIFIICATION: The Appraiser certifies and agrees that 1. 1 have researched the subject market area and have selected a mInhum of fires recent sales of properties most similar and prmdmate to the Tabled properly to eamslderslm h h a sales domparBon analysis and Into made a doter adjusknmrdwhen appropapb to refied h e market raacilm to h use Items d sipdfirzt vaiadon, 1 a agdlleert Item Ina eonparebte property is stperler to. a more favorable hen, the subject property. I have made a negative adustmetd to reduce The adJtstsd sales price of the comparable and,1 a slpdfican then in a comparable property Is kierlor to, or leas favorable than The u*d property. I have made a positive adjusimeat to Increase the adjusted ores price of the comparable. 2. 1 have lobo Into eormhleratien the factors hat have an impact on vabae In my development of lh a estimate of market value To the appraisal report 1 h ave not bnwkt* vith h old any signlAcard Wormatim from h a appraisal report ad 1 believe, to h e best d my knowledge. h at all sbteme is and Worrtatim In th e appraisal report are true and eomod. 3. 1 stated to he appraisal report any rry own personal unIT!". acrd professional analysis, opbiiens, and conckmiom, which as sd*d o* to the contingent and kr&V condlons spmlkd in hle form. 4. 1 have no pnaent a prospective Interest h lh a property h d lsthe a Meet to his report, W l have nopresent a prospective personal Internet a bias with rapid to h a participants In h a transaction. I did not base, eith or partaly or eample*, my ahalyals and/or ho aknale of market value In in o appraisal report on ha race, color, relglon, sm h andleap. tar m stets, of national aqh of eltha th a prospective owners or occupants of th a subject property or at h a prosom owners or occupants of to propufla In The vid ft of ft subjed pop". 5. 1 have no preset or contemptaled ton interest In the subject property, and nelth arty amen or War emptoymW nor my corpensalon for pxfmnft This apprals' Is emkpat on M apprabed vats of In property. Q I was not requhd to report a prodstar irad value or okeclon Invakm that favors h e eauss d h• dent or ay related ra ty. The amount at The value estnafe, h s a1LImmM d a sphecific nsutt a h • axurenea d a subssgmrt evert h odor b rsdxtre ny eonpehsstlan and a employment low peAomhkq he opptalst i did not base lln approlsol report an a requested mfnVnan vakgTion, a specific voluallm or to need To approve a specific mnrgage bm 7. 1 performed h Is app *dW In cortw* with h a uniform standards of Prattsslonal Appraisal Prulico h at wen adopted and promulgated by th a Appraisal Stadads Board of The Appralsaf Fandalon and that wen In place a of the efteelve date of his appraisal, with the exception of he departure Rodsiarr of has Stadando, which does net W*. I adonrledge that an eskrhate of t reasonable time for exposure In he open market is a condition In the defnllon of market value and h e eatlnab I drvdaped Is oamishot with th o mabinp Time noted In h o neigh bah oW section of h To report unless I have oh unwise atmd In ITT e reesrtcih0on soclcvh. 11. t hove pasonatilr Inspaded tit kteda ad a dolor am of the sbjed ixWorty end the edabr of all properties listed as conpaables In The appraisal report I turn or early h at 1 h we noted arty apparom or known adverse eaxillons in h e &tW ImprovdtroKs, on h e subjed stmt or an any site with In h e hmedate vkk* of he aMecl property of which I am aware and have made s4akrmnb for these adverse covmftons In my andysk of h e Property value to he oderd in at I had market evidence To support hen. 1 have also commented about tie abed of The adverse conditions on The mabtabky of The id W property. 9. 1 permnary prepared all oamdaslom and opl*rs about h e real estate hat wen set forth In h s appraisal report 01 retied or, sgdAcard professional assistance from any Individual or kndvlduais in h a performance of h e appraWt or h a preparation of th a app t-A report, I h eve named such Individual(s) and disclosed tie specft fasb performed by Than in The reconcOa im section of This appraisal report I amty h st ay kdM+ W so need Is w*W toperform The tasks. I have not uAhortted myane to make a change to aq hear Who report Therefore, l ah unathoxtred change is made tohe apprateal report l will take no nsporsldTty for It SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: 1 a supervlsorY appraiser signed h e appraisal report he or she certifies and agrees that i dkecify supervise the appraiser who prepared he appraisal report, have reviewed he appraisal repot agree with the statements and eaxiusim of lie appralm 2grse to be bound by The appraiser's certifications mesa Dered 4 tirongh 7 above, and am taldng full responsil ty for the appraisal and the appraisal report. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED: 14040 SW 117TH AVENUE TIGARO OR 97224 _r APPRAISER; SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (only It Mquired): C S Signature Name: Name: GIL J Date Sigfined: NOVEMBER '17,2004 Date Sipmed: State Cerlftdon it Slate Catifiwlo # or State Ucemse ;l: L001068 or State license #h: state: OR stale: V Eapkalon Date d Cu fleataa a Uce me: 1131106 Expiration Date of Certification or License: J ❑ Did ❑ Old Not Inspect Property Freddie Mac Farm 438 8.90 Page 2 d 2 Farris Mae form 10045 H3 Form ACR -'T07AL fa WInd owe appraisal software by a To mode, Ire. - 14K)OALAMODE Appraber's Licenses CITY OF TIGARD 14040 SW 117TH AVENUE TIGARD CM* WASHINGTON OR lb C* 97224 LWWw CITY OF TIGARD Appraiser Certification and Licensure Board State Licensed Appralser 26 haws of cm*wk p sAmO n mgL*W for ewrwl Lkmm No: 1.0010611 Wwwo Dab: 211=04 • 1131 Dan T Ga»tt 7110 Town Apprelsels T110 SW! Fir Loop. SutL 200 Ttyrd OR 97223 R. A. (Bob) Keith, Admtnlstrator ' ~ i~1 OR /1167 . tnsonrastwwrnaraawlwrewrown'wanlv®luwoao~nntwataw STATE LICENSED REAL. ESTATE APPRAISER + I GILBERT,DAN T TEAM APPRAISALS 71TKKiARD OR 872238064 0 Expiration, Daft osiolon <'a 091&Qt A! n" i 1 I FamMAP.Dam-IMALfarWlhdowa' qp*g sdtmbyalamod%Ito.-1-800A1MA00E I Before the Tigard City Council Location of Property Sale of Surplus Properly Public Hearing Declaration of real property located 1 I at 14040 SW 117th Avenue as surplus and authorize staff to carry y - out the sale of said property. ivM1~ fl iF 7 Photo of Property Photo of Property House & Garage @ Corner of Gaarde b 117'" Back of House I Back Yard ab LIU Photo of Property Photo of Property Front Yard Side Yard i_ x..~yr ~ r r 1 w Council Action Requested Declare tho property located at 14040 SW 117th Avenue as surplus property and authorize City Manager or designs* to offer property for sale and negotiate final price and terms with a minimum term of $150,000. I 2 e AGENDA ITEM # w FOR AGENDA OF 12/14/04 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Adoption of a Resolution Updating the Parks and Recreation System Development Charge (SDC) Methodology and Amending Resolution No 04-37 by amending Exhibit "A" thereto and Increasing Park SDC Rates. PREPARED BY: Dan Plaza. 2590 DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK L4/Pq_- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council Approve and Adopt a Resolution Creating New Parks SDC Methodology and Increased Rates? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve and Adopt Resolution Creating New Parks SDC Methodology and Increased Rates. INFORMATION SUMMARY On November 23, Council conducted a public hearing on the matter of approving and adopting a revised Parks SDC Methodology and Increased Rates. The Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland and Venture Properties submitted testimony. The Council also reviewed a suggested amendment from staff addressing one of the Home Builders concerns. The revision not only updates the methodology, but it also increases the rates as of January 1, 2005. The proposed skate park is included in the list of current recommended SDC funded projects that are to be paid for from the existing SDC fund balance which is approximately $2,000,000. Council directed staff to prepare a resolution adopting the new methodology and rates, including the proposed amendment. As amended, the proposed rates will be: Single Family: $3,753 Multi-family: $3,017 Manufactured Housing: $2,976 Employee: $ 255 If approved by Council the new rates will be effective January 1, 2005. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not approve resolution. Another option would be to approve the resolution with a different effective date. 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 - Council Resolution Attachment 2 - Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Methodology Update dated 11/10/04 Attachment 3 - Letter from Don Garter dated 11/9/04 FISCAL NOTES Under the current methodology the City anticipates collecting approximately $2.3M over the next 5-year period. Under the revised rates, it is estimated that the City will collect approximately $7.9M over the same period. 7~ CITY OF TIGARD PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES METHODOLOGY UPDATE REVISED DRAFT as of November 10, 2004 6 1 1 I I Don Caner PO Box 91491 Portland, OR 97291 • 503-690.8981 DGaner@GanerAssociates.com Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENT #2 CONTENTS naEe 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 AUTHORITY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2 A. Legislative Authority 2 B. "Improvement fee" and "Reimbursement fee" SDCs 2 C. Requirements and Options for Credits, Exemptions, and Discounts 3 D. Alternative Methodology Approaches 4 3.0 PARKS AND RECREATION SDC METHODOLOGY 5 A. Population and Employment Growth 6 B. Persons Per Dwelling Unit 6 C. Benefit of Facilities 7 D. Facility Needs 10 E. New Facility Costs 11 F. Compliance/Administrative Costs 12 4.0 RESIDENTIAL PARKS AND RECREATION SDC RATES 13 A. Formula 4a: Net Residential SDC-Eligible Costs 13 A. Formula 4b: Residential Improvements Cost Per Capita 14 C. Formula 4c: Residential Improvements Cost Pcr 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 RUM 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 s 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. i i i 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 inodifications 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 transferability of credits, provide a credit for a capital improvement not identified in the City's capital improvements program, or provide a share of the cost of an improvement by other means (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 sources, such as bonds and property taxes. 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. 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 are not generally used by employees (e.g., neighborhood parks), only a residential parks and recreation SDC may be charged. For facilities that benefit both residents and employees (i.e., community parks, etc.), parks and recreation SDCs may be charged for both residential and non-residential development. A. Population and Employment Growth The Parks and Recreation SDCs are based on costs per "capita" (person). Estimates of current and projected population and employment within the 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 Proiected Increase Population: 58,367 - 53,099 = 5,268 Employment: 41,575 - 38.441 = 3,134 B. Persons Per Dwelling Unit The Residential Parks and Recreation SDC rates are based on costs per capita and are calculated based on the number of persons per dwelling unit. Dwelling units typically house different numbers of persons depending on the type of unit (i.e., single family, multi-family, etc-). To determine the appropriate number of persons per dwelling unit, official U.S. Census data gathered 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 Tvoe 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 are directed and controlled either by the employee (self-employed) or by another person or organization. The parks and recreation facilities discussed in this report are defined in the Tigard Park System Master Plan (July 1999). For purposes of this report, neighborhood parks are considered to be used primarily by residents, rather than by employees and other non-residents, and; therefore, the identified needs for these types of facilities are based only on population and do not consider employment. For all other facilities including community parks, linear parks, etc., both population and employment were considered when identifying facility needs. While parks and recreation facilities benefit both residents and employees, the amount of time these facilities are available for use by employees is not the same as for residents; an employee does not create demands for facilities equal to those created by a resident. In order to equitably apportion the need for facilities between employees and residents, an employee-to-resident demand ratio was developed based on the potential time these facilities are available for use. i First, estimates for the average number of hours per day these facilities are available for use were i 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+) 5-17 Kids Work In Work Out Work in Total Summer (June-Sept) Weekday Before Work 1 1 2 Meals/Breaks 1 1 2 After Work 2 2 4 Other Leisure 12 12 2 2 28 Sub-Total 12 12 6 2 4 36 Weekend Leisure 12 12 12 12 0 48 Sub-Total 12 12 12 12 0 48 Summer Hrs/Day 12 12 7.71 4.86 2.86 39.43 Spring/Fa11(April-May, Oct-Nov) Weekday Before Work 0.5 0.5 1 MeaisBreaks 1 1 2 After Work 1 1 2 Other Leisure to 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 Meals/Breaks 1 1 2 After Work 0.5 0.5 1 Other Leisure 8 2 1 1 12 Sub-Total 8 2 3 1 2 16 Weekend Leisure 8 8 8 8 0 32 Sub-Total 8 8 8 8 0 32 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 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. 9 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 (18+1 -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 IQ 7.14 ¢Q7 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 1 242,568 = 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 Facility Type (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 i 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 2,527,200 2,226,463 300,737 Linear Parks (acres)# 230,000 639,400 639,400 563,311 76,089 Trails (miles)4# 520,000 2.657.200 603.200 531,419 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. 11 REVISED DRAFT as of I I/10/04 F. CompliancelAdministradve 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 Tyne of Development Qrqwth Cosh Administrative Costs Cost Allocation Population (Residential) 89.8% 5165,000 $148,252 Employment (Non-residential) 10.2% $165,000 $16,782 ~ s i i Don Garter & 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 c) the residential SDC per dwelling unit (Formula 4e, page 16). The Residential SDC rate is an "improvement fec" 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 I2). Residential Compliance/ Net Residential 4a. New Facility + Administrative = SDC - Eligible Costs Costs Costs Table 4.1 presents the calculation of the net total SDC-eligible costs. TABLE 4.1 NET RESIDENTIAL SDC-ELIGIBLE COSTS Residential SDC Eligible Costs Growth-Required Facilities $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 Rcsidcntial Rcsidcntial ;DC Population Improvements Cost Elivibic Costs n r as P Capita Net Residential SDC-Eligible Costs 59,143,774 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 1 1•. 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 Tvne of Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Per a ita 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. i I I I Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. 15 REVISED DRAFT as of 11/10/04 TABLE 4.4 TAX CREDIT PER-DWELLING UNIT Tax Credit Per Tvoe 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 arc 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 PPr: Swelling Unit Dwelling Unit Dwelling 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 arc based on costs required for and benefits received by new development only, and do not assume that costs arc necessarily incurred for capital improvements when an employer hires an additional employee. SDCs arc charged fir the activity of development, not employment, and the non-residential parks SDCs arc based the impacts new capacity for employees will have on the need for parks facilities. A. Formula Sa: Net Non-Residential SDC Eligible Costs The net non-residential SDC-eligible costs are calculated by adding the non-residential portion of growth-required improvements cost (identified in Table 3.8, page 11) and Compliance/Administrative Costs (Table 3.9, page 12). Non-Residential Compliance/ Net Non-Residential 5a. New Facility + Administrative = SDC - Eligible Costs Costs Costs Table 5.1 presents the calculation of the net total SDC-eligible costs. TABLE 5.1 NET RESIDENTIAL SDC-ELIGIBLE COSTS Non-Residential SDC Eligible Costs Growth-Required Facilities $1,016,189 PLUS: Compliance/Administrative Costs $16,748 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 Tablc 5.2 presents the calculation of the Non-Residential Improvements Cost Per Employee. TABLE 5.2 NON-RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS COST PER EMPLOYEE Nct Non-Rcsidcntial Non- Rcsidcntial SDC Employment Improvements Cost Flieiblc Costs 1aHMC 11cr Employee Growth-Required Facilities 51.032.936 3,134 = $330 C. Formula Sc: 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 Employee 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-Rcsidcntial SDC Tax Non-Rcsidcntial 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-Rcsidcntial 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 Fret illtiali4[1i JL1! Pcr Ettinloycc Classification (SIC1 ftL.L1yD1sQYSs 1-19 Ag., Fish & Forest Services; 37 Transportation Fquipmcnt 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 Cemmunications 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-liealth 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 L City of Tigard Resolution No. 01-13 provides for annual adjustments to parks SDC rates to r 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 s~ 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 u 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 Garter & Associates, Inc. 20 REVISED DRAFT as of 11/10/04 APPENDIX A page 1 of 5 draft as of tll09104 S CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM SDC PARK- PROIFCf •4 ~ VUNDING qty of Tigard._ SDC EUGIBLE POR170111 %Oals Pseits- and Recreation Facilltles ITT PORJION l hull wzasw 2004 - 2008 - PROJECT tut S~ _ - ~ is Donations - P84~ 5450,?50 SDC,Gran 60% Bonds. Partnerships, Ll 400,10 5249.250 Ps, other NF,IGHBQ_ ~0ODp 04-0$ 5750,000 sponsorships, hborhood Park Site Acquisition _ ark to SDC, GTa°u' Donations Bull Mountain Neig neighborhood P 54501750 acres for a Bull $Onds, partnerships, Ll roximately 3 • 5299,250 60% - acquire app rowth needs in Mountain. 40 Other meet growth_and non-g 5750,000 Sponsorships, 04-08 er hborhood Park Site Acquisition Donations neighborhood park to 150 SDC, Grants, Z Bull Mountain N g Mountain. 60" • 5450, partnerships, LI - acquire aPPrOXimately 3 acres for a 5249.250 Bonds, s Other 'growth needs in Bull 40% Sponsorship . meet growth and non g 04-08 S750,000 Site Acquisition [ions Neighborhood Park ark to Grants, Dona 3 Bull Mountain nei hborhood p egg 480 SDC, roximately 3 acres for a S 60°I• S' Bonds, Parnerships, Ll - acquire app 40„• S191,520 Other meet growth and n°n-gCOwth needs in Bull Mountain. sponsorships, 04-08 $480.000 hborhood park Development Dleig 3 acres SDC, Gets' Donations 4 Bull Mountain park of approximately 5288 d80 hips LI . develop a neighborhood 5191.520 6015: Bonds, Partners wth needs in Bull Mountain. 40° a Sponsorships. Other ro 04 to meet growth and non-g 08 5480.000 men[ tions hborhood park D!o mately 3 acres 5288.480 SDC, Grants, D0 ll Mountain ei g g ark of aPP rain. 601 : Partnerships, L1 5 . Bu develop a neighborhood P 5191 520 Bonds. non-910'"' needs in Bull Moun 400,10 S Other to meet growth and 5480,000 Sponsorships, ent 04.08 et hborhood Park D ro mximately 3 acres 6 Bull Mountain hborhood park of app -d evelop a neighborhood Bull MQ11ntain. meet growth and non-growth needs in to APPE,, DIX A page 2 of 5 draft as of 11109104 CAPACITY IMpRO'VEMENTS PROGRAM PRaJEa I. SDC PARKS _ 0119R ~pAIG .city of_Tigard_- SDC.EL1G18LF pORT10N parks and liecreation Facilities GROL pORVEM 2008 PROJECT _ , .t t off[ 2004 - _ rILU 4r-~~z►°.•"- Donations ~T SO 100%• 5750 000 Grano, Bonds, Farinerships, LI Other 0°''• Sponsorships. plEIGHBOR ~ODPARNS 5750,000 04-08 - Ac uisition Donations so 100.1. 5750.000 Grants, partnerships, Ll 7 Neighborhood park site ages for a neighborhood park acquire approximately 3 Bonds, other the City. 00/4 Sponsorships= to meet non-growth needs in 04-09 S750,000 Site Acquisition Grants, Donations 8 Neighborhood Park hborhood park ° 5750,000 y 3 acres foc a neig SO 100 /e Bonds. Partnerships. Lt acquire approxtmatel % Other 5750,000 0 Sponsorships. owth needs in the City' to meet non-gr 04.08 Acquisition Grants, Donations l 9 Neighborhood park Site aes for a neighborhood park 5685,000 Partnerships L . roximately 3 50 100 ' Bonds, - acquire aPP City 06% Other s in the 5b85,000 Sponsorships, to meet non-growth need 04 -08 Park Site Acquisition a 5480 000 Grants, Donations hborhood 2 74 acres for a neighborhood park 10 Neig S0 100 /e Bonds, Partnerships, LI - acquire aPProxtma"' City- 0% Other non-growth needs in the 5480,000 Sponsorships, to meet non-gr 04-08 Park Site Development roximately 3 acres 5480,000 Grants. Donations 1 l Neighborhood neighborhood park of app 50 t00'/• Bond;, Partnerships, LI develop a neig Oe Other owth needs in the City 5480.000 sponsorships, to meet non-gr 04-08 12 Neighborhood Park Site Development neighborhood park of approximately 3 acres - develop a to meet non-growth needs in the City. s APPENDIX A SDC PARKS CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM page 3 of 5 _ _l City of Tigard_ - draft as of 11/09/04 Parks and Recreation Facilities 2004 -2008 TOTAL % SDC-ELIGIBLE % OTHER PROJECT PROJECT GROWIH _ PORTION OTH>FR PORTION FUNDING PROJECT YBS S ST NEEL) OF TOTAL COST M OF TOTAL COS [ SOURCES NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS 13-Neighborhood Park Site Development 04-08 S480,000 0% SO 100% $480,000 Grants, Donations - develop a neighborhood park of approximately 3 acres Bonds, Partnerships, LI to meet non-growth needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other 14_iNeighborhood Park Site Development 04-08 S438,400 00/0 SO 100% 5438,400 Grants, Donations - develop a neighborhood park of approximately 2.74 acres Bonds, Partnerships, LI to meet non-growth needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other COMMUNITY PARKS 15, Bull Mountain Community Park Site Acquisition 04-08 $5,000,000 54% 52,710,000 46% 52,290,000 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 53,800,000 54% 52,059,600 46% S1.740,400 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_PA_RKS CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM page 4 of 5 _r~Ci of Tigard draft as of 11109104 ! Parks and Recreation Facilities---- 12004 -2008 TOTAL % SDC-ELIGIBLE % OTiIER PROJECT PROJECT GROWM PORTION OTHER PORTION FUNDING i-- - - - - - PROJECT hEM OF TOTAL COST bM OF TOTAL COST SOURCES GREENWAYS 17iGreenways Acquisition 04-08 56,175,000 410%. 52,527,200 59% $3,647,800 SDC, Grants, Donations ~i - acquire approximately 47.5 acres of greenways Bonds, Partnerships, LI to _meet growth (19.44) and non-growth (28.06) Sponsorships, Other needs in the City planning area. - - TRAILS 1.8, Trails Acquisition/Development 04-08 $2,657,200 23% $603,200 77% $2,054,000 SDC, Grants, Donations _ acquire/develop approximately 5.11 miles of trails to Bonds, Partnerships, LI meet growth (1.16) and non-growth (3.95) needs. Sponsorships, Other - LINEAR PARKS 19i Linear Parks Acquisition/Development 04-08 $639,400 100% 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 ppPENDIX A page 5 of 5 draft as of 11I09t04 ARKS CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM SDC"P - OTIER Cit.LofTigard e SDC IGID~ % nim PORTION Parks and Recreation Facilities /o PORTION , ~r cc><,"L TOTAL - 2004-.-.200jum 8--.. - PROJECT GR 5lr~ S? 1°••"'" JjEm 37.39% 510,011,710 62.61% 516,763,290 526,775,000 57,031,090 0 51 S4,472 7b9,,310600 -82.69% 58,503,400 17,31% 45.90% 54,030,400 TOTALS - - 58,800,000 54.20% 59.07 $3,647,800 % 40.93% 52,5271200 77.3 % $2,054,000 Neighborhood Parks 56,175,000 ° 5603,200 SO Co,,,,ity_Parlls $2,657,200 22.70% 400 0.00°/. 100.00% 5639, 62.61% 516,763,290 GreenwaYs 5639,400 S 10,011,710 Trails $26,775,000 37.39% Linear Parks y Totals Nano APPENDIX A i SDC Eligible Res Non-Res _ Neighborhood Parks 51,472,310 $1,472,310 _ SO i Community_ Parks $4,769,600 54,202,018 5567,582 Greenways 52,527,200 S2,226,463 5300,737 Trails_ _ S603,200 5531,419 571,781 Linear Parks 5639,400 S563,311 $76,089 Totals 510,011,710 $8,995,521 51,016,189 89.8% 10.2% 88.1% 11.9% Administrative Costs S165,000 5148,252 $16,748 Total SDC Eligible S10,176,710 59,143,774 S1,032,936 !Fund Balance _ I NET SDC Eligible 59,143,774 S1,032,936 i New ResidentslEmployees 5268 3134 Cost Per Capita S1,736 5330 persons Single family _ 2.67 $4,634.37 multi family 1.86 S3,228.44 manufactured 1.81 53,141.65 credit SDC Rate Single family $881 S3,753.37 multi family 5211 S3,017.44 manufactured $166 $2,975.65 employee S75 5255 Don PO Box 91491 Portland, OR 97291 Caner & 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 S`JV 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 Ernie 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 ATTACHMENT #3 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 information. Sincerely, Don Ganer, President Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. Park System Development Charge Park System Development Charge Land Cost Per Acre Land Cost Sources: t1 ODD _ Land costs for 1994 and 1998 ware estimates used by the City of Tigard and the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, respectively, for their pBD,Om SDC methodologies. off. Vapour '•.,prm: The land cost estimate for 2004 Is from an analysis of eastern Washington /11o,900 ' [ s, County park land coats performed by Don Ganer. ItOg00o -nom Bin ! 3% r Land costs for 19951997 were calculated using the average annual rate of increase between 1994.1998. 19M 1908 1900 1097 Igoe I= 7000 70M 2002 tom 2004 Land costs for 1999.2007 were calculated wing the average annual rate of yr Increase between 1998.2004. Proposed 2005 Park SDC Rates Tlgara Park SDCs per Single Family Dwelling Unit $7,7 /2900 Single Family: $3753 3.0010 1 Multi-Family: $3017 a.lm aooo I1,eat Mfg. Housing: $2976 11.100 11,199 ' " 1010 Employee: $255 /ea0 a /Me IM7 IM 1919 2002 2MI 7002 tom 202/ 7015 1 Bill Monahan - Re: Revised Parks SDC Methodology and Rates Page 1 ~~L .Q.UV ~ Yl c1 ~ rY1KY1 GI Y1. IC GC~I t1Y1'S d~ls-~-r~ bu ecI From: "John Frewing" <jfrewing@teleport.com> To: "Dennis Koellermeier" <DENNIS@ci.tigard.or.us>~~ Date: 12/10/2004 12:58:49 PM tai Subject: Re: Revised Parks SDC Methodology and Rates t U Dennis, $ Thanks for your reply to my message of last Sunday. I didn't get from your message whether you read or evaluated the various discrepancies which I identified in the new 'methodology' for Tigard Parks SDCs. Yes, I did recall that the City Council closed the public hearing on this matter back on November 23. That is why I chose to forward my comments to you, hoping that you would evaluate them, as necessary with consultant Ganer, and propose appropriate changes before the City Council votes on the revised SDC methodology and amounts. Knowing that we all want additional parks and openspace as voiced so clearly in a variety of settings, eg the Vision Survey of 2004, it seems that we ought to be doing the best job possible of ensuring that current mechanisms are fully utilized to gain these tracts as soon as possible, before going to the voters for bonding or other financing tools. If you do not want to evaluate the discrepancies I identifed in my comments to you, I desire to use this email to ask any interested City Council member to ask you the same questions and develop the information sufficient to resolve these discrepancies in the course of discussion before approving the new parks SDC methodology and amounts. All of the City Council members have voiced support for new parks and openspace. Please let me know of any evaluation you might have before Tuesday night's City Council meeting. Recall that I sent an additional three comments in a second email a few minutes after the first email. These comments were that a) the ORS seems to prohibit a methodology based on new employment (which the Ganer methodology uses), b) there is no identification whether the proposed SDCs are 'improvement'or'reimbursement' SDC charges, which quite different charges under Oregon law and 3) you consider my comments as 'objections' for purposes of ORS appeals. John Frewing Original Message From: "Dennis Koellermeier" <DENNIS@ci.tigard.or.us> To: <jfrewing@teleport.com> Cc: "Bill Monahan" <BILL@ci.tigard.or.us> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 2:54 PM Subject: Re: Revised Parks SDC Methodology and Rates > Mr. Frewing, > The Council closed the Public Hearing on this the evening of Nov 23, so > no new testimony can be accepted. Thankyou. > Dennis Koellermeler Bill Monahan - Re: Revised Parks SDC Methodology and Rates Page 2 > Main #:503-639-4171 ex.2596 > Direct 503-718-2596 > Dennis@CI.Tigard.OR.US > "John Frewing" <jfrewing@teleport.com> 12/5/2004 1:12:59 PM > Dear Dennis, > On November 23, 1 believe that you, Dan Plaza and consultant Don Ganer > presented to the Tigard City Council a revised Parks SDC Methodology and > Rates. Council approved the work that was done to date and has > scheduled an ordinance adopting new rates for December 14, 2004. > Because the city has not taken final action on this matter, 1 took the > opportunity to review the Ganer study and have provided some comments > below. I think that consultant Ganer has correctly done his > calculations, but my comments deal instead with the inputs or > assumptions used by Ganer. As I recall, City Council did not have any > comments on these matters. > I ask that you review the comments below, ask Ganer to review them as > well, let me know if you see changes which staff believes can and should > be made prior to Council action on December 14 and let me know if you > find errors in my representation of the situation regarding Tigard > parks. My motivation is to gain for Tigard the parks, greenspaces, > linear parks, trails, etc. which our many citizens have asked for over > the years and are outlined in the Tigard Parks Master Plan of 1999. In > the event that you disagree with making changes now, I would ask that > you urge Council to start a new Parks SDC Update process to incorporate > the changes which my comments below suggest. > Sincerely, John Frewing > TIGARD PARKS SDC METHODOLOGY - COMMENTS 12/1/04 > > A Regarding the underlying population numbers, which are reportedly > based on the 2000 Census, I did not find the same classifications as > reported by Ganer. One of the closest classifications I did find (2000 > US Census - Oregon, US Census Bureau, 2002) at the Tigard library was > the number of children, aged 5-17, within the City of Tigard. The > census book gives a number of 7342, while Ganer purports to cite a > number for "the City and adjacent urban services planning area" and > gives this number as 7270. Both numbers are for year 2000. Ganer, p.5, > 9. This itself Is not a large difference, but it is in the wrong > direction and the Ganer number purports to include some unincorporated > areas (UPAA) on Bull Mountain and Metzger. Inclusion of the > unincorporated areas should Increase the "Tigard city limits" number by > some 20 per cent. Ganer should be asked to clarify his underlying > population numbers and classification of employment by citing his > sources with some specificity. > B Regarding the SDC Parks Capacity Improvements Program (Appendix A of > the Ganer report), there Is no definition of the area considered to be Bill Monahan - Re: Revised Parks SDC Methodology and Rates Page 3 > "in Bull Mountain". This is important because this appendix is the > state mandated 'capital improvements program' and limits the location of > some of the proposed neighborhood parks to be funded with SDC monies. > C The "Revised Parks SDC Methodology" has hidden within it much more > than simply the mathematics of funding. It includes an "updated Parks > Capacity Improvements Program including selected needs" identified in > the Tigard Parks Master Plan and the Bull Mountain Annexation White > Paper on Parks and Open Spaces. This "update" falls far short of the > existing master plan in that Appendix A (the list of projects) > identifies only 7 of the 13 needed new neighborhood parks identified in > the master plan, only 1 of the 2 needed new community parks identified > in the master plan and 0 of the 2 needed new pocket parks identified in > the master plan. Thus, this 'update' includes only about half of the > master plan parks and greenspace areas. There has been no public > process to make this "update" to the master plan or "select" projects to > be funded by SDC monies. Such public process should be started > immediately. > > D Appendix A, the SDC Parks CIP, identifies several needed new > 'neighborhood' parks at 3 acres each. However, the master plan for > Tigard parks identifies 'neighborhood' parks as being 4 to 14 acres > each. This is another example of the new "methodology' subverting the > established master plan and leaving Tigard with substandard parks > capacity. Ganer should be asked to explain this discrepancy and correct > his 'methodology' to show implementation of Tigard's parks master plan. > E Ganer's new 'methodology' purports to calculate SDC amounts only to > cover'growth' as distinguished from'current deficiencies' which are > presumably to be funded by other means. For the neighborhood parks > identified "in the City", Ganer assumes 0% of these park needs are the > result of growth. I know of several developments and vacant areas > slated for development "in the City" and SDC charges for such > development should go to park development "in the City". As such, the > percentage of funding for the "in City" neighborhood parks which comes > from SDC monies should be higher than zero. I would appreciate seeing > the calculation of the corrected percentage based on current maps of > land available for development "in the City". Similarly, the percentage > of SDC funding for Greenways, Trails and Linear Parks should reflect > some growth within Tigard city boundaries. > > > F Thruout the Ganer report, acquisition costs of park acreage is > assumed constant at $250,000 per acre. He makes a general reference to > 'recent' similar acquisitions by Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin and > Hillsboro and by THP&R District. Recent discussions, surveys and > transactions which have been made public to the Tigard City Council > indicate a more realistic acquisition cost of some $400,000 per acre. > In view of the likelihood that all land purchases will not be made in Bill Monahan - Re: Revised Parks SDC Methodology and Rates Page 4 > the current year and raw land real price escalation has been significant > in recent years, Ganer should be requested to justify his $250,000 > assumption and correct it if necessary. Similar justification should be > requested for greenway, trail and linear park lands. > G State law allows for both 'improvement' SDC charges and > 'reimbursement' SDC charges; the former for capacity enhancements, the > latter for any capital project, including major repairs, upgrades or > renovations related to parks. However, Ganer notes that reimbursement > SDC charge projects need to be included in the list of projects to be > funded with SDC revenue. The Ganer'methodology' (more specifically, > the Tigard SDC Parks CIP, Appendix A) does not identify ANY major > repairs, upgrades or renovations to existing park areas or facilities > for the next 5 years. Tigard staff should be asked to confirm in > writing that no such needed improvements will reasonably be expected > over the next 5 years; I believe that some improvements to existing > parks should be planned. > H The Ganer report estimates that persons who work in Tigard, but are > not residents of Tigard have no potential use of Tigard parks, > greenspaces, trails, etc during the weekends throughout the year. Ganer, > p 8. My experience is that these persons in fact, do use Tigard > facilities, whether it be walking on the Fanno Creek trail system in > Tigard, playing on parks in company teams or enjoying the wildlife which > is sustained on the greenways and open spaces in Tigard. I believe the > numbers in the associated chart should reflect such use. The result > will be to increase the share of SDC. costs borne by non-residential > development. On this same chart, Tigard youth (age 5-17) are assumed to > have 12 hours each summer day, 10 hours each fall/spring weekend day and > 8 hours each winter weekend day available for use of Tigard parks, > greenspaces, etc. My observation is that these youth are engaged in a > wide variety of activities other than park use (work, skill training, > arts and music education, travel, etc.) during these times and their > time available for park use should be weighted less. Similarly, the > assumed 'time available for use' methodology does not reflect actual > park usage data which Tigard does have and does not reflect things such > as the closed gate at Cook Park, our only community park, for several > months each winter. The result of these changes in assumptions will be > to increase the share of SDC costs borne by non-residential development. > Alternative to making these changes, an actual survey, rather than > assumptions, should be conducted to validate the 'available for use' > hours in Table 3-3. > I Tigard City Council should give serious consideration to different > methodologies, eg one which is based on actual use of Tigard park areas > rather than that used in the Ganer report, based on 'potential time > these facilities are available for use' by different classes of people. > Available time for park use is not a fair measure of benefit by > different people. Also, the externalities associated with Tigard parks > should be valued and charged to beneficiaries, ie the air cleaning Bill Monahan - Re: Revised Parks SDC Methodology and Rates Page 5 > associated with forested area should be charged to those creating air > pollution (automobile and manufacturing activities). Water retention > and cleaning afforded by streams and wetlands in Tigard park areas > should be valued and charged to beneficiaries, ie those who create > impervious areas (parking lots) should be responsible for a significant > share of these externalized costs. > J 1 admit that I just don't understand the rationale for a SDC 'tax > credit' for each dwelling unit or employee. The Ganer report starts (p. > 15) by saying that a portion of funds used to repay bonds sold for Parks > Capacity Improvements MAY come from property taxes paid by new > homeowners or commercial property developments. To the extent that > funds other than SDC monies (grants, donations, bonds, partnerships, > LIDs, sponsorships, other) may be necessary to complete the purchase of > a park tract (eg to make up for current park deficiencies), all Tigard > land owners should pay their fair share. The entire premise of the > study is to find an amount of SDC which will pay for the parks serving > growth - nowhere is it required that new homes and employment be exempt > from helping Tigard correct past deficiencies in park acquisition and > development. Ganer should be requested to justify any reduction of SDC > amounts caused by later payment of property taxes by new homeowners or > commercial development owners. As a community, we all share in solving > deficiency problems. > K The Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland proposed a > reduction in SDC charges to avoid a "double charge" in cases "where tree > mitigation money would be used to plant trees in city parks or open > spaces". Staff estimated that up to $10,000 per acre is used for tree > planting in parks development. Ganer proposes to reduce the cost of > EVERY park and openspace acre by $10,000 as a result of this information > and request. I believe a more appropriate resolution of this concern > would be to simply reduce the SDC charge on any individual project where > tree mitigation charges are indeed spent on tree planting at new city > parks or openspace acres. In such cases, the SDC charge would be > reduced by the amount of the tree mitigation fees which are spent on new > parks and open spaces. Many developments do not involve tree mitigation > fees (mitigation can be done on site) and many openspace acres do not > involve tree planting and many park developments do not require the > maximum $10,000 per acre in tree planting. The wholesale reduction of > park and openspace development by $10,000 is not appropriate. There is > no data to suggest that tree mitigation fees have been received in that > amount for tree planting in parks and openspaces. CC: "Bill Monahan" <bill@ci.tigard.or.us>, "City Council" <council@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Sally Harding" <sallyfortigard@comcast.net>, "Alice Gaut" <aeg@csgpro.com>, "Sue Beilke" i Bill Monahan Re: Revised Parks SDC Methodology and Rates Page 6 <sbeilke@europa.com>, "Lisa Hamilton-Treick" <Lisa@HamiltonRealtyGroup.com>, "Brian Wegener" <brian@tualatinriverkeepers.org>, "Barbara Sherman" <BSherman@commnewspapers.com>, "Patrick Harrington" <pharrington@news.oregonian.com> C 1 1- I AGENDA ITEM No. 7 Date: December 14, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY( SIGN-UP SHEET Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT MEASURE 37, PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN DEMANDS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE 37, AND AMENDING ORDINANCE: 04-12 Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 7 Date: December 14, 2004 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent - S eakin In Favor O onent - S eakin A ainst Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 12/14/2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: MEASURE 37: AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 04-12 PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN DEMANDS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE 37 PREPARED BY: Jim Hendrvx DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Adoption of an ordinance amending Ordinance 04-12 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 Hold public hearing and adopt ordinance amending Ordinance 04-12. INFORMATION SUMMARY On November 23, 2004, the City Council conducted a public hearing on adoption of an ordinance providing a process for consideration of written demands of compensation under 2004 Ballot Measure 37. Council adopted the ordinance (Ordinance 04-12) with direction to the City Attorney and staff to make revisions to Exhibit A, including the requirement for a deposit and submittal information. In order to carry out Council's direction, it is necessary-to adopt an ordinance, amending Ordinance 04-12 along with a revised Exhibit A. The amended ordinance and Exhibit A carries out Council's direction. Several jurisdictions have included a provision for actions by neighboring property owners. A separate ordinance and Exhibit A has been attached for Council's consideration. If the Council's approval of a claim by waiving the enforcement of a regulation causes a reduction in value of other property located in the vicinity of the claimant, these property owners would have the right to maintain an action in State Circuit Court to recover from the claimant the amount of the reduction. The nearby property owners, if successful, would also be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees. 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. 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. 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 to Council Dated December 1, 2004 Attachment 2 (a): Proposed 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. Attachment 2 (b): Proposed 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, including provision for actions by neighboring property owners. FISCAL NOTES No funds have been identified to either pay demands for compensation or pay for processing Measure 37 claims. ATTACHMENT I CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE: December 1, 2004 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Ordinance 04-12 Providing a Process for Consideration of Claims for Compensation Under 2004 Ballot Measure 37, Adding a New Chapter 1.20 to the Tigard Municipal Code, and Declaring an Emergency. On November 23, 2004, the City Council conducted a public hearing on adoption of an ordinance providing a process for consideration of written demands of compensation under 2004 Ballot Measure 37. Council adopted the ordinance (04-12) with direction to the City Attorney and staff to make revisions to Exhibit A, including the requirement for a deposit and submittal information. In order to carry out Council's direction, it is necessary to adopt an ordinance, amending Ordinance 04-12 along with a revised Exhibit A. The amended Ordinance and Exhibit A carries out Council's direction. Several jurisdictions have included a provision for actions by neighboring property owners. A separate ordinance and Exhibit A have been attached for Council's consideration. If the Council's approval of a claim by waiving the enforcement of a regulation causes a reduction in value of other property located in the vicinity of the claimant, these property owners would have the right to maintain an action in state circuit court to recover from the claimant the amount of the reduction. The nearby property owners, if successful, would be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees. 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. Attachment 2 (a) CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO. 04- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 04-12 PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE 37, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 1.20 TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, on November 23, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 04-02 without incorporating the written Exhibit A that had been distributed and directed that a revised Exhibit A be prepared to include specific changes; and WHEREAS, a revised Exhibit A has been prepared that includes the changes requested by the Council; now, therefore; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Ordinance 04-12 is hereby amended by adding an Exhibit A to that ordinance in the form of the attached Exhibit A. The Tigard Municipal Code is consequently amended as provided in Ordinance 04-12 and Exhibit A. SECTION 2: Because this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the health, safety and welfare of the City, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately on passage. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 2004. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder L APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 2004. is Craig Dirksen, Mayor Approved as to form: i ! City Attorney ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 1 EXHIBIT A TO CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO. PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 2004 BALLOT MEASURE 37, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE. 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 claim for compensation under Measure 37 in accordance with 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" sliall 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 Claims A. A property owner wishing to make a claim against the City under Measure 37 shall first submit a written claim to the City. A claim under Measure must be in writing and include: ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 2 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. A list of all persons with an ownership interest in or a lien on the property. 4. Identification of the regulation that is alleged to restrict the use of the affected property and a statement describing how the restriction affects the value of the property. 5. A statement whether the Claimant prefers compensation or a waiver, suspension or modification of the regulation, and a statement describing the extent to which the regulation would need to be waived, suspended or modified to avoid the need for compensation. A description of the proposed use must be provided. 6. The amount claimed as compensation and documentation supporting the amount. The documentation shall include a market analysis, an appraisal, or other documentation at least equivalent to a market analysis. 7. 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 6 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 f 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. ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 3 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 submission of the claim 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 Maher 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. ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 4 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 claim 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 claim. 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. ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 5 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 Deposit and Responsibility for Costs The Claimant shall provide a deposit of $1,000 at the time the claim is filed with the City. If the claim is determined to be valid, the City shall refund the entire deposit. 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 amount of reimbursement exceeds the cost of deposit, the Claimant shall pay any additional amounts within 30 days of a demand by the City for full reimbursement. If the amount of reimbursement is less than the deposit, the City shall refund the difference to the Claimant. The City shall provide an invoice detailing its costs when demanding additional reimbursement or providing a partial refund. 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. i' is i~ 3 i ORDINANCE No. 04- Page 6 .0 ATTACHMENT 2 Agenda Item: S• r Hearing Date: November 15, 2004 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ciff a MAW commmty awt FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON sh,~0 ,4aettrrcom=rati SECTION 1. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE NAME: CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW BULK SALES AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE IP (INDUSTRIAL PARK) ZONE CASE NO.: Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) ZOA2004-00001 PROPOSAL: To amend the Industrial Use Table within the Tigard Development Code to allow "Bulk Sales" as a permitted use within the IP Zone where presently this use is prohibited. Bulk Sales as defined by the Development Code are "Establishments which engage in the sales, leasing and rental of bulky items requiring extensive interior space for display including furniture, large appliance and home improvement sales." APPLICANT(S): Paul Schatz III Robert Smelts, Smetco, Inc. 6600 SW Bonita Road P.O. Box 560 Tigard, OR 97224 Au,ora, OR 97002 AGENT: Bruce Vincent ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations or combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g, restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. LOCATION: I-P zones. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Communi Develo ment Code Chapters: 18.380, 18.390 and 18.530; I Comprehensive an o Isles -General Policies and 2-Citizen involvement; Statewide Planning Goals: 1-Citizen Involvement and 2-Land Use anning; an Metro ode: 3.07.110-3.07.170 and 3.07.440. SECTION 11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission alter the allowable uses within the IP Zone to. permit limited Bulk Sales as determined through the public hearing process and make a recommendation to the Tigard City Council. ZOA2004-00001 PAGE 1 OF 10 11/15/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION 0 SECTION 1111. BACKGROUND INFORMATION This request has been initiated by a private party representing two clients (Paul Schatz furniture and Smetco, Inc.) whose properties are both located in an I-P zone. In anticipation of a use expansion and conversion to a bulk sales use, the applicant is requesting this code change in recognition of the changing nature of the area around the 1-5/Bonita intersection, and also in part to acknowledge that Bulk Sales are compatible with and therefore should be permissible in Industrial Park zones. Bulk sales are presently prohibited in the Industrial Park Zone. In 1997, the Community Development Director issued an interpretation for the Paul Schatz property regarding a request to add 4,000 square feet of showroom/sales space to the furniture store. While a previous version of the development code was in effect at that time, certain uses in the I-P zones were limited, as follows: Convenience sales and personal services; children's day care; eating and drinking establishments; personal services, facilities; and retail sales (of which "bulk sales" were included part of this use at that time) , general separately or in combination shall not exceed a total of 20 percent of the entire square footage within a development complex. The property contained 44.5% retail, and was considered at that time to be non-conforming. Non-conforming uses may be continued, but no such non-conforming use may be enlarged, increased or extended to occupy a greater area of land or space than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of the code. Also, no additional structure, building or sign shall be constructed on the lot in connection with such non-conforming use of land. As a result, the request to add space to the use was rejected. The applicant contends that when the code was amended in 1998, and the "bulk sales" use was separated from "General Retail Sales," it more appropriately belonged in the industrial park zone. In so claiming, the applicant argues that the I-P zone acts more like a bridge between commercial and industrial zoning than a fully dedicated industrial zone. Thus uses with a large storage component with a relatively small level of retail activity are appropriate for industrial park zones. This proposal partially seeks to legitimize the current non-conforming Paul Schatz furniture use, as well as the Home Depot and approximately 20 other bulk sales uses in the IP zones, by allowing bulk sales as a permitted use in the zone. SECTION IV. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA Chapter 18.380 states that legislative text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. This section regulates amendments. It outlines the process for reviewing Development Code Text Amendments. The present amendment will be reviewed under the Type IV legislative procedure as set forth in the chapter. ZOA2004-00001 PAGE 2 OF 10 11/15/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Chapter 18.390.060G states that the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: + The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; This chapter establishes standard decision-making procedures for reviewing applications. The amendment under consideration will be reviewed under the Type IV legislative procedure as detailed in the chapter. Notice was provided to DLCD 45 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing as required. In addition, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged by DLCD. The following are the applicable Statewide Planning Goals that are applicable to this proposal: Statewide Planning Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and for changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Chapter 18.390. Notice has been published in the Tigard Times Newspaper prior to the public hearing. Individual notice to property owners was not required since the proposal will increase the allowable uses on the affected properties. Additional notice was sent to all adjacent cities as well as Metro. Two Public Hearings are held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) in which public input is welcome. Interested parties (previously called Citizen Involvement Team (CIT) members) were also notified of the proposed changes. Statewide Planning Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. The Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process for and policies to review changes to the Development Code consistent with Goal 2. The City's plan provides analysis and policies with which to evaluate a request for amending the Code consistent with Goal 2. + Any applicable Metro regulations; Title 1: (Metro code 3.07.110-3.07.170) Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation State law and the Metro Code require that the Metro Urban Growth Boundary have sufficient capacity to accommodate the expected growth for 20 years. It is Metro's policy to minimize the amount of growth boundary expansion. One goal of the Framework Plan is the efficient use of land within the UGB efficiently by increasing its capacity to accommodate housing and employment. Title 1 directs each city and county in the region to consider actions to increase its capacity and to take action if necessary to accommodate its share of regional growth as specified in this title. ZOA2004-00001 PAGE 3 OF 10 11/15/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION The applicant's proposal to allow bulk sales in the Industrial Park zone should have no net effect on the employment capacity, as bulk sales uses can employ similar numbers of employees as other outright permitted uses in the industrial park zone. A list of those currently allowed uses and the employees per acre figures (where available) follows: Table 1-Employment Density for Industrial Park Allowable Uses and Proposed Use ERMITTED USES Emp/Acre CONDITIONAL USES EmPlAcre Emergency Services 70 Basic Utilities n/a Postal Service 40 Community Recreation 10 n/a Public Support Facilities n/a Motor Vehicle Servicing/Repair n/a Commercial Lodging 40 Detention Facilities n/a Outdoor Entertainment n/a Heliports n/a Indoor Entertainment 3 Repair-Oriented n/a RESTRICTED USES Animal-Related n/a Household Living 1 n/a Vehicle Fuel Sales 28 Day Care 3, 9 n/a Office n/a Eating and Drinking Establishments 2 25 Self-Service Storage 2 Sales-Oriented 2 n/a Non-Accessory Parking n/a Personal Services 2 17.5 Light Industrial n/a Wholesale Sales 4 n/a Research and Development n/a Agriculture/Horticulture 5 n/a PROPOSED USE Wireless Communication n/a Bulk Sales 15-40 Facilities 6 n/a Rail Lines/Utility Corridors 35 n/a=data not available 1 A single-family detached dwelling or single-family mobile or manufactured home allowed for caretaker or kennel owner/operator when located on the same lot as the permitted use and is exclusively occupied by the caretaker or kennel owner/operator and family. 2 These limited uses, separately or in combination, may not exceed 20% of the entire square footage within a development complex. No retail uses shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area per building or business. 3 In-home day care which meets all state requirements permitted by right. 4 Permitted if all activities, except employee and customer parking, are wholly contained with a building(s). 5 When an agricultural use is adjacent to a residential use, no poultry or livestock, other than normal household pets, may be housed or provided use of a fenced run within 100 feet of any nearby residence except a dwelling on the same lot. 6 See Chapter 18.798, Wireless Communication Facilities, for definition of permitted and restricted facilities in the I-P zone. 9 Day care uses with over 5 children are permitted subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment in accordance with Section 18.530.050.C.1. The design of the day care must fully comply with State of Oregon requirements for outdoor openspace setbacks. 10 Limited to outdoor Recreation on (1.) land classified as floodplain on City flood maps, when the recreational use does not otherwise preclude future cut and fill as needed in order to develop adjoining industrially zoned upland; and (2.) land located outside the floodplain as shown on City flood maps, when the Recreation Use is temporary and does not otherwise preclude allowed uses or Conditional Uses other than Recreation within the district. ZOA2004-00001 PAGE 4 OF 10 11/15/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Apart from the C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-C (Community Commercial) zones, all other commercial zones have higher average employee densities than the IP Zone. Bulk Sales are currently not allowed in those zones: Table 2-Avers a em to ee density per zoning classification Zone Employee Density C-G 27 C-C 17 C-N 16 C-P 88 CBD 50 MUE 27 1-H 25 I-L 24 I-P 24.4 Title 4: (Metro code 3.07.440) Protection of Industrial And Other Employment Areas Title 4 sets forth requirements to limit intrusions of commercial uses into industrial zones. Certain uses are permissible within set guidelines (such as restrictions on types of use, or limitations on the size of uses.) The majority of the IP zones are located within designated "Industrial Areas". Within these areas, Metro's requirements state: Cities and counties shall review their land use regulations and revise them, if necessary, to include measures to limit new buildings for retail commercial uses-such as stores and restaurants-and retail and professional services that cater to daily customers-such as financial, insurance, real estate, legal, medical and dental offices-in order to ensure that they serve primarily the needs of workers in the area. One such measure shall be that new buildings for stores, branches, agencies or other outlets for these retail uses and services shall not occupy more than 5,000 square feet of sales or service area in a single outlet, or multiple outlets that occupy more than 20,000 square feet of sales or service area in a single building or in multiple buildings that are part of the same development project. Cities and counties shall review their land use regulations and revise them, if necessary, to include measures to limit new buildings for the uses described above to ensure that they do not interfere with the efficient movement of freight along Main Roadway Routes and Roadway Connectors shown on Metro's Freight Network Map, November, 2003. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, restrictions on access to freight routes and connectors, siting limitations and traffic thresholds. This subsection does not require cities and counties to include such measures to limit new other buildings or uses. These sorts of limitations prevent larger scale uses, such as bulk sales, from locating in these areas. Therefore, staff recommends that the limitation preventing bulk sales in the designated "Industrial Areas" remain in place. However, there are additionally areas of IP Zoned property that is designated as "Employment Areas" by Metro's Regionally Significant Industrial Land inventory. Within these areas Metro's requirements state: ZOA2004-00001 PAGE 5 OF 10 11/15/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION In Employment Areas, cities and counties shall limit new and expanded retail commercial uses to those appropriate in type and size to serve the needs of businesses, employees and residents of the Employment Areas. Generally, the size limitation is 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area in a single building, or retail commercial uses with a total of more than 60,000 square feet of retail sales area on a single lot or parcel, or on contiguous lots or parcels, including those separated only by transportation right-of-way. Staff finds that the proposed use, "bulk sales" provides goods that would directly benefit the employees and more notably the residents within the employment areas. However, staff does acknowledge that "bulk sales" by virtue of its name is also clearly a commercial use. This raises a significant question as to the applicant's proposal. While there are exemptions that would allow retail commercial uses to exceed the 60,000 gross square foot limitation', staff is not inclined to find, nor has the applicant demonstrated that these exemption criteria have been or would be met. Instead, staff is more comfortable in recommending a limitation in line with Metro's requirements. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed use classification change be from "N" (Prohibited) to "R" (Restricted) with a footnote reference. This reference would reflect Metro's requirements, and define the area where such uses are permissible: These limited uses, shall only be allowed in IP zoned property east of SW 72" Avenue. These uses, separately or in combination shall not exceed 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area in a single building, or commercial retail uses with a total of more than 60,000 square feet of retail sales area on a single lot or parcel, or on contiguous lots or parcels, including those separated only by transportation right-of-way. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies: Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.1: This policy states that all future legislative changes shall be consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals and the Regional Plan adopted by Metro. As indicated above under the individual Statewide and Regional Plan goals applicable to this proposed amendment, the amendment as modified by staffs recommendation is consistent with the Statewide Goals and the Regional Plan. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1: This policy states that the City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. This policy is satisfied because notice of the proposed amendment was mailed to all Interested Parties. In addition, notice was published in the Tigard Times of the Public Hearing and notice will be published again prior to the City Council public hearing. I A city or county may authorize new commercial retail uses with more than 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area in Employment Areas if the uses: 1. Generate no more than a 25 percent increase in site generated vehicle trips above permitted non-industrial uses; and 2. Meet the Maximum Permitted Parking - Zone A requirements set forth in Table 3.07-2 of Title 2 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. ZOA2004-00001 PAGE 6 OF 10 11/15/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Public input has been invited in the notice. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.2 and 2.1.3: In pertinent part, this policy states that the Citizen Involvement Team program and the Citizen Involvement Team Facilitators shall serve as the primary means for citizen involvement in land use planning. Policy 2.1.3 states that information on land use planning issues shall be available in understandable form. These policies were satisfied because notice of the proposed amendment was mailed to all Interested Parties. The written notices were written in plain understandable form, and included phone numbers and a contact person for anyone who may have questions. Any applicable provision of the City's implementing ordinances. Code Section 18.530: This chapter establishes the permissible uses and basic development standards for the City's three industrial zones. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a range of industrial services for City residents and facilitate the economic goals of the comprehensive plan. One of the major purposes of the regulations governing development in industrial zoning districts is to ensure that a full range of economic activities and job opportunities are available throughout the City so that residents can work close to home if they choose. The location of land within each industrial district must be carefully selected and design and development standards created to minimize the potential adverse impacts of industrial activity on established residential areas. This chapter also describes the Industrial Park zone as providing appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, or vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. The applicant's proposal to include "bulk sales" into the fold of allowable uses, will meet the purpose of the chapter by increasing the diversity of economic activities and job opportunities in the industrial park zone. The proposed use will also fit within the description of the I-P zone as a "small scale commercial use" if the modifications recommended by staff are included in the amendment. This will limit the use to no more than 20% of the square footage within a development complex, and not to exceed 60,000 square feet. SECTION V. STAFF ANALYSIS Limitations of uses are the basic building blocks of Euclidian zoning. Zones are typically set in three broad classifications: residential, commercial, and industrial. The basic premise was to segregate incompatible uses from one another, and locate the uses in the most appropriate areas of the city. These general zones were then divided into smaller subcategories; low, medium, and high density residential, limited and general commercial, ZOA2004-00001 PAGE 7 OF 10 11/15/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION light and heavy industrial. As society and citizen's needs changed, and uses evolved over time, the clear distinction between uses grew fuzzier. Certain commercial uses were allowed in limited form in the residential zones (e.g. home occupation businesses). Some industrial type uses were allowed in commercial zones (e.g. self serve storage). Limited commercial uses were allowed in industrial zones to support those industrial uses (e.g. restaurants). Finally, mixed use development dissolved the distinction between standard zoning classes, and allowed a blend of residential, commercial, and infrequently, limited industrial uses. Uses are assigned to the most appropriate zone based on their particular level of external impacts (noise, dust, odor, discharge pollution, parking, aesthetic, etc.). So a low impacting retail use would be permissible in a limited commercial zone while a big production factory would be permissible in a heavy industrial zone. Historically, lower impacting uses were allowed to locate in heavier zones, but not visa-versa. However, over time, it was recognized that the available land supply within a particular zone could be devoured by low impacting uses, leaving inadequate area in the heavier zone for the higher impact uses. This was partly due to market factors. As land values and rental rates climbed in the more desirable commercial areas, commercial businesses began drifting toward the lower land prices and rents in the less desirable industrial areas. This incrementally drives up the price of the industrial land and reduces the amount of large contiguous parcels available for large scale manufacturing type uses. This is one premise behind the protections of Metro's Title 4 requirements. Staff believes that "bulk sales" are an appropriate use in the employment areas of the Industrial Park zone since bulk sales refers to the sales, leasing and rental of bulky items requiring extensive interior space for display including furniture, large appliance and home improvement sales. This extensive interior space, need for large service delivery vehicles, and limited public presence are similar to wholesale sales or self service storage which are presently allowed. The Industrial Park zone is appropriate as it seeks to establish a campus like setting. To ensure that campus like setting, a restriction on outdoor storage is also recommended. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, or vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. Bulk sales are consistent with this description. Staff believes that to limit the commercial use to a "small scale," certain restrictions should be placed on "Bulk Sales" Bulk Sales are not appropriate in areas classified as "industrial land" by Metro as these areas limit retail uses to 5,000 square feet, and that is simply inadequate area for "extensive interior space for display". Therefore, staff recommends that the allowance for bulk sales be allowed only in those IP zoned areas designated as "employment lands". This is most easily described as "IP Zoned properties east of SW 72"d Avenue." Using the criteria established by Metro and limiting the allowance to "employment lands" within the IP Zone, staff recommends that the proposed use be allowed as a "R" Restricted Use, subject to the following limitation: These limited uses, separately or in combination, may not exceed 20% of the entire square footage within a development complex. No retail uses shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area in a single building, or commercial retail uses with a total of more than 60,000 ZOA2004-00001 PAGE 8 OF 10 11/15/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION square feet of retail sales area on a single lot or parcel, or on contiguous lots or parcels, including those separated only by transportation right-of-way. Staff additionally recommends that to help maintain a campus like setting, a restriction on outdoor storage should be imposed, such as is described by footnote number 4 in Table 18.530.1: Permitted if all activities, except employee and customer parking, are wholly contained within a building(s). SECTION VI. OTHER ALTERNATIVES No Action - The standard would remain "bulk sales" are not permitted in the I-P zone. This would leave several existing businesses as non-conforming uses, but would continue to strictly limit the range of new commercial uses that are allowed. Expanded Action - Allow bulk sales in a wider range of zones. However, further analysis of this impact would be required, and generally staff does not favor bulk sales in the more dedicated industrial zones. This option would also likely conflict with Metro and Comp. Plan requirements. Alternate Action - Staff is recommending an alternate action option. The applicant proposed allowing bulk sales without restriction in the IP Zone. Staff found that this may violate Title 4 requirements of Metro's code, and further staff seeks to limit the degree of commercial use intrusion in the IP zone, while still providing for a variety of employment opportunities. This would be accomplished by listing Bulk Sales as a "R" Restricted Use, subject to the following footnotes: Permitted if all activities, except employee and customer parking, are wholly contained within a building(s). 1 These limited uses, shall only be allowed in IP zoned property east of SW 72nd Avenue. These uses, separately or in combination shall not exceed 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area in a single building, or commercial retail uses with a total of more than 60,000 square feet of retail sales area on a single lot or parcel, or on contiguous lots or parcels, including those separated only by transportation right-of-way. SECTION VII. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF & OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS Metro responded with a letter addressed to the Planning Commission. They requested a analysis of compliance with the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, as related to the protection of industrial areas from commercial use intrusions. The requested analysis is contained within this report, and a copy was faxed to Michael Jordan, Metro's Chief Operating Officer on November 9, 2004. The City of Tigard Long Range Planning Division has had an opportunity to review this proposal and notes industrial land is limited, as are the uses allowed in industrial lands. Simply because uses are pre-existing non-conforming uses, does not make the argument for changing the code. It is presumed that when the IP zone was placed on the properties, ZOA2004-00001 PAGE 9 OF 10 11/15/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION some uses would become non-conforming. The 20% limitation was to protect the area for industrial uses. The City of Tigard Police Department reviewed the proposal and offered no objections. The City of Beaverton reviewed the request and responded that they do not object to the proposed amendment as it does not appear there are any I-P zoned properties near the common boundary between the two cities. However, Beaverton does note that they are concerned by the potential traffic impacts from allowing large scale retail uses in proximity to Scholls Ferry Road and the intersections thereon. Finally, the City of Beaverton included a general comment with regard to the impact on the regional land use policy. The proposed amendment appears to be another assault on the industrial/employment land supply. The Cities of Durham, King City, Lake Oswego, and Tualatin, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, and Washington County were notified of the proposed amendment and did not respond. ATTACHMENT: Exhibit A - Proposed Development Code Text Changes Exhibit B - Recommended Development Code Text Changes //i, , _ November 8. 2004 EPA D BY: MORG RACY DATE Associate Planner November 8. 2004 APPROVED BY: DI BEWERSDORI~F DATE Planning Manager ZOA2004-00001 PAGE 10 OF 10 11/15/04 PUBLIC BEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Exhibit Proposed Development Code Text Amendment TABLE 18.530.1 USE TABLE: INDUSTRIAL ZONES USE CATEGORY I-P I-L I-H RESIDENTIAL Household Living R' R' R' Group Living N N N Transitional Housing N N N Home Occupation N N N CIVIC (INSTITUTIONAL) Basic Utilities C C P Colleges N N N Community Recreation CIO CIO C'0 Cultural Institutions N N N Day Care R` 9 R' 9 R3 9 Emergency Services P P P Medical Centers N N N Postal Service P P P Public Support Facilities P P P Religious Institutions N N N Schools N N N Social/Fraternal Clubs/Lodges N N N COMMERCIAL Commercial Lodging P N N Eating and Drinking Establishments R2 N N Entertainment-Oriented - Major Event Entertainment N N N - Outdoor Entertainment P N N - Indoor Entertainment P N N - Adult Entertainment N N N General Retail - Sales-Oriented RZ N N - Personal Services R2 N N - Repair-Oriented P N N - Outdoor Sales N P P - Animal-Related P p p Motor Vehicle Related - Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental N P P - Motor Vehicle Servicing/Repair C P P - Vehicle Fuel Sales P p/C' p Office P N N Self-Service Storage P p p Non-Accessory Parking P P p TABLE 18.530.1 (CON'T) USE CATEGORY I-P I-L I-H INDUSTRIAL Industrial Services N P P Manufacturing and Production - Light Industrial P P P - General Industrial N P P - Heavy Industrial N N P Railroad Yards N N P Research and Development P P P Warehouse/Freight Movement N P P Waste-Related N N P Wholesale Sales R4 P P OTHER Agriculture/Horticulture P5 P5 P5 Cemeteries N C N Detention Facilities C N C Heliports C C C Mining N N P Wireless Communication Facilities P/R6 P P Rail Lines/Utility Corridors P P P Other NA NA P8 P=Permitted R=Restricted C=Conditional Use N=Not Permitted A single-family detached dwelling or single-family mobile or manufactured home allowed for caretaker or kennel owner/operator when located on the same lot as the permitted use and is exclusively occupied by the caretaker or kennel owner/operator and family. z These limited uses, separately or in combination, may not exceed 20% of the entire square footage within a development complex. No retail uses shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area per building or business. 3 In-home day care which meets all state requirements permitted by right. 4 Permitted if all activities, except employee and customer parking, are wholly contained with a building(s). 5 When an agricultural use is adjacent to a residential use, no poultry or livestock, other than normal household pets, may be housed or provided use of a fenced run within 100 feet of any nearby residence except a dwelling on the same lot. 6 See Chapter 18.798, Wireless Communication Facilities, for definition of permitted and restricted facilities in the I-P zone. Vehicle fuel sales permitted outright unless in combination with convenience sales, in which case it is permitted conditionally. 8 Explosive storage permitted outright subject to regulations of Uniform Fire Code. 9 Day care uses with over 5 children are permitted subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment in accordance with Section 18.530.050.C.1. The design of the day care must fully comply with State of Oregon requirements for outdoor openspace setbacks. 10 Limited to outdoor Recreation on (1.) land classified as floodplain on City flood maps, when the recreational use does not otherwise preclude future cut and fill as needed in order to develop adjoining industrially zoned upland; and (2.) land located outside the floodplain as shown on City flood maps, when the Recreation Use is temporary and does not otherwise preclude allowed uses or Conditional Uses other than Recreation within the district. EXHIBIT B Recommended Development Code Text Amendment TABLE 18.530.1 USE TABLE: INDUSTRIAL ZONES USE CATEGORY I-P I-L I-H RESIDENTIAL Household Living R' R' R' Group Living N N N Transitional Housing N N N Home Occupation N N N CIVIC (INSTITUTIONAL) Basic Utilities C C P Colleges N N N Community Recreation CIO CIO, CIO Cultural Institutions N N N Day Care R3 9 R3 9 R3 9 Emergency Services P P P Medical Centers N N N Postal Service P P P Public Support Facilities P P P Religious Institutions N N N Schools N N N Social/Fraternal Clubs/Lodges N N N COMMERCIAL Commercial Lodging P N N Eating and Drinking Establishments Rz N N Entertainment-Oriented - Major Event Entertainment N N N - Outdoor Entertainment P N N - Indoor Entertainment P N N - Adult Entertainment N N N General Retail - Sales-Oriented R2 N N - Personal Services R2 N N - Re air-Oriented P N N N N - Outdoor Sales N P P - Animal-Related P P P Motor Vehicle Related - Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental N P P - Motor Vehicle Servicing/Repair C P P - Vehicle Fuel Sales P P/C P Office P N N Self-Service Storage P P P Non-Accessory Parking P P P TABLE 18.530.1 (CON'T) USE CATEGORY I-P I-L I-H INDUSTRIAL Industrial Services N P P Manufacturing and Production - Light Industrial P P P - General Industrial N P P - Heavy Industrial N N P Railroad Yards N N P Research and Development P P P Warehouse/Freight Movement N P P Waste-Related N N P Wholesale Sales R4 P P OTHER Agriculture/Horticulture Ps Ps Ps Cemeteries N C N Detention Facilities C N C Heliports C C C Mining N N P Wireless Communication Facilities P/R6 P P Rail Lines/Utility Corridors P P P Other NA NA P8 P--Permitted R=Restricted C=Conditional Use N=Not Permitted 1 A single-family detached dwelling or single-family mobile or manufactured home allowed for caretaker or kennel owner/operator when located on the same lot as the permitted use and is exclusively occupied by the caretaker or kennel owner/operator and family. z These limited uses, separately or in combination, may not exceed 20% of the entire square footage within a development complex. No retail uses shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area per building or business. 3 In-home day care which meets all state requirements permitted by right. a Permitted if all activities, except employee and customer parking, are wholly contained with a building(s). S When an agricultural use is adjacent to a residential use, no poultry or livestock, other than normal household pets, may be housed or provided use of a fenced run within 100 feet of any nearby residence except a dwelling on the same lot. 6 See Chapter 18.798, Wireless Communication Facilities, for definition of permitted and restricted facilities in the I-P zone. 7 Vehicle fuel sales permitted outright unless in combination with convenience sales, in which case it is permitted conditionally. 8 Explosive storage permitted outright subject to regulations of Uniform Fire Code. 9 Day care uses with over 5 children are permitted subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment in accordance with Section 18.530.050.C. I. The design of the day care must fully comply with State of Oregon requirements for outdoor openspace setbacks. 10 Limited to outdoor Recreation on (1.) land classified as floodplain on City flood maps, when the recreational use does not otherwise preclude future cut and fill as needed in order to develop adjoining industrially zoned upland; and (2.) land located outside the floodplain as shown on City flood maps, when the Recreation Use is temporary and does not otherwise preclude allowed uses or Conditional Uses other than Recreation within the district. [Morgan Trac -Metro Su Iemental-DOC BEDSAUL/VINCENT CONSULTING LLC 825 NE 20TH AVE., SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97232 OFFICE (503) 230.2119 FAX (503) 230.2149 DATE: November 1, 2004 REQUEST: A supplemental to a Type IV Quasi-Judicial Zoning Text Amendment to permit bulk sales in the IP, (Industrial Park District), zone, addressing compliance with Metro code section 3.07.430, pursuant to Metro code section 3.07.820(A) of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan APPLICANTS: Paul Schatz III, Paul Schatz Furniture 6600 SW Bonita Road Robert Smelts Smetco, Inc. 6830 SW Bonita Road OWNERS: Paul Schatz III, Paul Schatz Furniture 6600 SW Bonita Road Robert Smelts Smetco, Inc. 6830 SW Bonita Road LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tax Lot 300: Bonita Gardens, Lot PT 4 Tax Lot 1100: 2002-020 Partition Plat, Lot 1 Both lots in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 Sec.12, T2S, R1 W SIZE: Tax Lot 300: 0.9 Acre, TL 1100: 2.92 Acres. ZONING: I-P-Industrial Park District LOCATION: 6600 and 6830 SW Bonita Road CRITERIA: Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Metro code section 3.07.430 Protection of Industrial Areas i A. In Industrial Areas mapped pursuant to Metro Code section 3.07.130 that are not Regionally Significant Industrial Areas, cities and counties shall limit new and expanded retail, commercial uses to those appropriate in type and size to serve the needs of businesses, employees and residents of the Industrial Areas. Schatz/Smetco Zoning Text Amendment Supplemental 1 Mor an Tracy -.Metro Supplemental.DOC Page2 _ B. In an Industrial Area, a city or county shall not approve: 1. A commercial retail use with more than 20,000 square feet of retail sales area in a single building or in multiple buildings that are part of the same development project; or 2. Commercial retail uses that would occupy more than ten percent of the net developable portion of the area or any adjacent Industrial Area. C. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a city or county may allow the lawful use of any building, structure or land at the time of enactment of an ordinance adopted pursuant to this section to continue and to expand to add up to 20 percent more floor space and 10 percent more land area. (Ordinance No. 97-715B, Sec. 1. Amended by Ordinance No. 02-9696, Sec. 5.) 1. INTRODUCTION On 10/29/04, the applicants' representative received a fax from Morgan Tracy; staff planner assigned to Case File # ZOA 2004-00001, which pertains to the above- mentioned case file. The fax contained a 10/27/04 letter from Michael Jordan, Metro's Chief Operating Officer requesting that the City provide analysis to demonstrate that the subject zoning text amendment complies with Metro code section 3.07.430. (Protection of Industrial Areas that are not Regionally Significant Industrial Areas) Planning staff requested that the applicant provide evidence on this matter so that staff could provide the said analysis requested by Metro. II. Justification for COMPLIANCE with metro code section 3.07.430: The following narrative is intended to demonstrate compliance with Metro code section 3.07.430, pursuant to Metro code section 3.07.820(A) of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan 3.07.430 Protection of Industrial Areas A. In Industrial Areas mapped pursuant to Metro Code section 3.07.130 that are not Regionally Significant Industrial Areas, cities and counties shall limit new and expanded retail, commercial uses to those appropriate in type and size to serve the needs of businesses, employees and residents of the Industrial Areas. APPLICANTS' COMMENT: The City has already determined that a mix of retail commercial uses is appropriate for the I-P zone. As set forth in Chapter 18.530.010, (Purpose), the I-P zoning district: Schatz/Smetco Zoning Text Amendment Supplemental 2 Mgr an Trac Metro SupplementaLDOC . Page 3 A 'Row "provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odors, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone" By their very nature, retail furniture sales and other bulk sales are appropriate for the I-P because they provide services for those employees and residents of the industrial areas and other nearby occupants. Home Depot is the most obvious example of a retail sales use selling bulky items like refrigerators and lumber materials to homeowners. Home Depot is a 120,000 square foot store located directly south of the subject ownerships at Sequoia Parkway and Cardinal Lane. (See Attachment "A") If Home Depot is appropriate for the I-P zone, then it is clear that permitting other smaller scale bulk sale uses, (such as Paul Schatz Furniture), within the existing I-P zoned business parks will also be appropriate for the I-P zone. The City places limits on the types of industrial uses that can occupy the I-P zone, and by so doing, permits uses that are weighed more heavily towards commercial rather than industrial uses. According to Table 18.530-1, (Industrial Zone Use Table), light industrial, (e.g., small-scale machine shops, computer equipment assembly, sign making), research and development firms and wholesale sales are the only permitted industrial uses allowed in the I-P zone. Therefore, only three of the nine industrial use categories are allowed in the I-P zone. However, Table 18.530-1, allows a wide mix of commercial uses, including lodging, eating and drinking establishments, outdoor and indoor entertainment, sales oriented uses, personal services, repair shops, vehicle fuel sales, office uses, self service storage and parking lots. Therefore, based on the limited number of truly "light industrial' uses permitted, the I-P zone is in fact more like a "business park"/mixed use" zone. Therefore, although the I-P zone is technically an industrial zone, it acts more like a bridge between commercial and industrial zoning, and thus is not really the industrially oriented zoning that Metro is seeking to protect under these code criterion. The City of Tigard I-L, (light industrial) and I-H, (heavy industrial) zoning designations strictly limit the kinds of commercial uses allowed in the I-P zone, and therefore they protect the types of industrial uses that Metro wants protected. B. In an Industrial Area, a city or county shall not approve: 9. A commercial retail use with more than 20,000 square feet of retail sales area in a single building or in multiple buildings that are part of the same development project; or 2. Commercial retail uses that would occupy more than ten percent of the net developable portion of the area or any adjacent Industrial Area. APPLICANTS' COMMENT: The proposed zoning text amendment will permit bulk sales in the I-P zone, but the request, in and of itself, does not authorize the types of square footage/percentage restrictions stipulated under this criterion. The applicant asserts that the restrictions sought by this criterion are aimed at truly industrial zones, such as the City's I-L and I-H zone. The applicant has already asserted under the response to 3.07.430 (A) that the I- P zone acts more like a commercial zone rather than a truly industrial zone. Schatz/Smetco Zoning Text Amendment Supplemental 3 Morgan Trap - Metro Supplemental. DOC According to Table 18.530.1, seven of the eighteen commercial use categories are permitted in the I-L and I-H zones, and the rest are not permitted, therefore the City goes farther in its protection of industrially zoned land than does this criterion. That is, the City could have allowed more commercial uses in the I-L and 1-H zone, by placing restrictions on square footage and percentage of net developable area, but they did not, which demonstrates Tigard's commitment to protect industrially zoned land for industrial uses. In fact, within the I-P zone there are restrictions on square footage and percentage of net developable area occupied by eating and drinking establishments, sales oriented and personal service uses. Although the City-mandated restrictions on square footage and percentage of net developable area not absolutely the same as this criterion, they nonetheless limited the amount of land area that can be occupied by commercial uses in the I-P zone and are therefore in keeping with the intent of this criterion. C. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a city or county may allow the lawful use of any building, structure or land at the time of enactment of an ordinance adopted pursuant to this section to continue and to expand to add up to 20 percent more floor space and 10 percent more land area. (Ordinance No. 97-715B, Sec. 1. Amended by Ordinance No. 02-9696, Sec. 5.) APPLICANTS' COMMENT: A review of City of Tigard's Industrial Zoning District standards, (Chapter 18.530), demonstrates that the type of restriction stipulated in this code criterion is already within Tigard's zoning code. Within Table 18.530.1 are uses listed with a "restricted" use category. Footnote #2 in Table 18.530.1 limits uses to 20% of the entire square footage within a development complex. Footnote #2 also limits retail uses to 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area/building or business. Although the City-mandated restrictions on square footage and leasable area not absolutely the same as this criterion, the zoning code nonetheless includes a restricted industrial use category within which limits can be placed on the continued use of industrial uses. IV. CONCLUSION: This supplemental narrative has been submitted at the request of the City of Tigard to address the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan code section 3.07.430. (Protection of Industrial Areas) Evidence has been presented to address all applicable criteria within Metro code sections 3.07.430. Therefore, based on the evidence presented in this supplemental narrative, the applicant believes that the City can provide analysis to demonstrate that the subject zoning text amendment complies with Metro code section 3.07.430. (Protection of Industrial Areas that are not Regionally Significant Industrial Areas) i i i i Schatz/Smetco Zoning Text Amendment Supplemental 4 I,~Gtt311.ITY STRIP 0 rI _ ` FERR > GREENB~ FS r w G Q RO ~'G ~ r 4`r J l,(j J 4 w wAL Q- -Tigard v~~ KRu RY McDoNp,L r Bull Gp,ARDE ST A CD MouNTAmm", R1J ni J 4 RHAM RD DU = O = ~ ' in ! RD City ~~F B ND Du~r ~4. 0 o ~ c!~ 2 TUALpTIN FtD . W c9 Tide 4 Industrial and Employment Areas 1 , r OrdWwm Na 041640 y tI ; \ "4 K - ~.i . _ r EmOWn" lase r r, r r 1 • I 1 ~ iquGBl Wd % kxkwbWAMft - _ 1, .4 i - ~ r ,1 \ r- ~ I ` i r ...c. _ • ( ~ ~ r ~ ` = « i, t. _ v ` `t• \ 1, ` - ~.Y, r. Consolidated Map of Affected IP Zoned Parcels ATTACHMENT 3 aim HIER ~4 e y .s M r-i: IP zoned parcels (east side of SW 72nd )that would allow "Bulk Sales" up to 60,000 square feet. IP zoned parcels that are excluded from bulk sales allowance based on being on west side of SW 72nd IP zoned parcels that are ineligible for "Bulk Sales" based on Metro Title 4 restrictions. 1 Ct7l~til_1l Y 1 t~tt' ~~,.r ~ a' M1 oil, "SO S. t rr5: _F ~r )4 ~?~x} ~4 ~ kt' ~t1"~~Yx '~i ~J'l~J•+rc l`r e ~ t' t fl ~ d P r v 0 • 0 P 0 0 0 0 ° • ® 3 Z i ~ i ,T t MILAIM • ~~®y .441 ♦ • ^ r~ 4 d1l • D ♦ ,rr 0 e e- ► o 0 r - i ~ • d • lo w i ' z''i~i'ax•.~}T~.~S' ':'y„cxyl',l.Fn?~i. '":d'R-: Y. rr. ~ h F;~,S, t r.~*~ c„xk '^t` ,a. .a'._.a:-~''s?~fi"-8'~.?rt~'G~ d 4ti ro~_ Ip `i { t ± r ~ ~ I + y ,5 1 1 x a~ax• Si+SF MoS d t. .fI ~ I M1~ ffib . 3 7` iir .F > l s .l•`+ry', ~Er'faL[»r,'^~ fr~SG+. k'-} r~:~ ~ t w. ~ ~".v P~L~•cfr.L r'~ r ~l F r'~-•.t~ 3r A+~',~ ~ ~ {~,~,,{u~ "~;'f fiFt r f~~: < r ! Q tY.. r ~i. t "p'r i-3`f'L.~`fi.~_~~` 3t'~ y LEGIBILITY STRIP East Side of Sequoia to 1.5 40 35 35 30 - 25 20 - 15- 10 0- Civic Commercial Bulk Sales West Side of Sequoia 30 - 28 25 20 - 15 - 10 - 1 1 0 Civic Commercial Bulk Sales i i 4 t L~ r O `r-)p4 74T H 0- C;~ • U~ Ile) - LEGIBILITY STRIP Strip Mail off SW 72nd 35 30 29 25 20 15 10 5- 1 1 0- Commercial Industrial Bulk Sales LrV1t31L1 ! Y 5 ~ RlP r" 11 _ 1 r two vilwo s ~~a ST,M'~Tq,~yJ~^'~ y~"l' ~~`Yi-}4 ~"~33~.'h s^ °Cs ~~fa.it~ • r~ f. {~.r z s c ti Upper BooneS Ferri & ~~rham 25 20 20 . 12 15 10 Bulk Sales 5 ~ Commercial Industrial 3s L.G\J1QIL.1 ~ Y J ~ ~Ir' t r r Vii. r •'~i f ~cj~f'. `f r 1 ''1 1 1 { r . ~l 4 .j3 i+ 1 ~ > 1 r FIN ws„ y+,,~t• a 3+'}y;.,+,:pXt .Mi~~y tR A1~.t, h r` Y - C } s ir. k'S)?3~{`~ }'~~Lz`~r*~415,{w~~ ? a .~,~tk4t * + .F-, r +a'j :6 3" t.+F' s R rC~ `fir {7i.cY ',x !t iY' . West of 74th 35 - 30 30 - 25 20 19 15 10- 5 0 Commercial Industrial Bulk Sales ~ U ~ n r~ F- CL f LO I r a J_ _m W J ►.IeG►8►-►''f`t S'TR►P Sandauc~ i~er and 30 24 25 15 _ Sams 10 Bu Industrial 0 Gommerciai 1 _ 1' 1 N . and Street Tag 18 16 1C - 14 10 4 Bulk Sales 2 ~ industrial commercial East Side of Sequoia to 1-5 Bulk Business Type FSISC Bulk Sales? Paul Schatz Furniture Commercial/Retail FS Y 1 Commercial 1 Ati eh Bros Commercial/Retail FS Y 1 Commercial 1 Smetco Vacant FS ? John Barleycorn Restaurant FS N 1 Commercial Home Depot Commercial/Retail FS Y 1 Commercial 1 Office Depot Commercial/Retail FS Y 1 Commercial 1 Sweet Tomatos Restaurant FS N 1 Commercial Um ue Bank Commercial OB N I .Commercial Prov Medical Plaza Service FS N 1 Civic Civic 2 West Marine Commercial/Retail SC Y 1 Commercial 1 Commercial 35 Tap Plastics Commercial/Retail SC N 1 Commercial Big Town Hero Restaurant SC N 1 Commercial Bulk Sales 8 Damons Vacant SC N 1 Commercial Starbucks Restaurant OB N 1 Commercial Courtyard Marriotte Hotel FS N 1 Commercial Lindal Ceder Homes Commercial Sc N 1 Commercial H2F Media Service Sc ? 1 Commercial Precision Images Service SC N 1 Commercial Total Building Products Commercial/Office SC Y 1 Commercial 1 Supply Rush Commercial/Office SC N 1 Commercial Renaissance Office SC ? 1 Commercial Fun Liquidators Commercial/Office SC ? 1 Commercial BRCSpirits SC ? 1 Commercial Keller Swartwood In Service SC N 1 Commercial Severn Trent Labs Service SC N 1 Commercial Com ix Inc Commercial SC N 1 Commercial Smith & Nephew Service SC N 1 Commercial La Provence Bake SC N 1 Commercial Cool-am Conducto-Lube Commercial SC N 1 Commercial Interior Sca es Service SC N 1 Commercial Oregon Data Service SC N 1 Commercial Noble & Wolf Inc SC ? 1 Commercial Com anionlink Software Service SC N 1 Commercial Rocking Horse Daycare Service SC N 1 Civic Pro"ectus Commercial/Retail SC Y 1 Commercial 1 Innovation Construction Service SC N 1 Commercial Bu b e Com uters SC ? 1 Commercial 36 8 West Side of Sequoia Business Type FSISC Bulk Tigard Use Category Bulk Sales? Yes =1 Orthopedics NW Service FS N Civic 1 Captaris-Verision Offices SC N Commercial 1 Oregonian Service SC N Commercial 1 Honeywell Service SC N Commercial 1 Uniglobe Travel Service SC N Commercial 1 Verison Commercial/Retail SC N Commercial 1 Bally Fitness Service FS N Commercial 1 Saif Corporation Offices SC N Commercial 1 Civic 1 Verizon Wireless Offices SC N Commercial 1 Commercial 28 Siemens Offices SC N Commercial 1 Napier & Co Service SC N Commercial 1 Bulk Sales 1 Lingo Systems Offices SC N Commercial 1 Hewlett Packard Offices SC N Commercial 1 Agilent Technolgies Offices SC N Commercial 1 I-Sence Offices SC N Commercial 1 Geo Engineers Service SC N Commercial 1 J.C.Reeves Service SC N Commercial 1 Westlake Consulting Service SC N Commercial 1 Eshelon Telecom Service SC N Commercial 1 Prud Properties Service SC N Commercial 1 Mediware Offices SC N Commercial 1 Commonwealth Real Service SC N Commercial 1 Sterling Internet Solu Service SC N Commercial 1 U.M.D. Technology Service SC N Commercial 1 Geo Design Service SC N Commercial 1 United Pipe & Supply Commercial/Retail FS Y Commercial 1 1 Ryder Truck Rental Commerciai/Service FS N Commercial 1 Alpha Computers Offices FS N Commercial 1 Pitman Brooks Service FS N Commercial 1 29 Strip Mall off SW 72nd Business Type FS/SC Bulk Tigard Use Category Bulk Sales? Yes =1 Cascade Comp Mait Service SC N Commercial 1 Dominos Pizza Restaurant SC N Commercial 1 Lees Cleaners Service SC N Commercial 1 Signs Now Service SC N Commercial 1 VW Mart Service/Retail SC N Commercial 1 Subway Restaurant SC N Commercial 1 Teriyaki Express Restaurant SC N Commercial 1 El Sol De Mexico Restaurant SC N Commercial 1 .Northwest Rugs Commercial/Retail SC Y Commercial 1 1 T-Moble USA Offices OB N Commercial 1 Tolt Technologies Offices OB N Commercial 1 Pierre' Amelotte Int Offices OB N Commercial 1 HCM Offices OB N Commercial 1 Commercial 29 Green Wood Products Offices OB N Commercial 1 Industrial 1 Dept Of Human Res Offices OB N Commercial 1 Chem West Systems Industrial FS N Industrial 1 Bulk Sales 1 American Fam Ins Service SC N Commercial 1 Salon Pacific Service SC N Commercial 1 Bunce Palmer CPA's Service OB N Commercial 1 Chaffey Corp Offices OB N Commercial 1 Computeration Inc Offices OB N Commercial 1 Indpend Paper Mkg Offices OB N Commercial 1 Qualcomm Inc Offices OB N Commercial 1 Republic Morg Ins Service OB N Commercial 1 Protection One Service SC N Commercial 1 Pacific Star Production Offices SC N Commercial 1 Corperate Express Service SC N Commercial 1 V.F. Leasing Service SC N Commercial 1 Medical Spec Solution! Service SC N Commercial 1 Geoga Pacific Offices SC N Commercial 1 I Upper Boones Ferry & Durham Business Type FSISC Bulk Tigard Use Category Bulk Sales? Yes =1 Advantest Whse/Office WC ? Industrial 1 Stash Tea Corp Whse/Office WC N Industrial 1 North American World Whse/Office WC ? Industrial 1 Commyni-K Whse/Office WC ? Industrial 1 Otis Elevator Whse/Office WC N Industrial 1 Super Floors Whse/Office WC Y Industrial 1 Bassit'Furniture Whse/Office WC Y Industrial 1 Associated Bus Syms Whse/Office WC ? Industrial 1 Vision Bus Products Whse/Office WC ? Industrial 1 Industrial 20 Brighton Eletronics Whse/Office WC ? Industrial 1 Commercial 12 . CNC Polymers Inc Industrial WC N Industrial 1 Kingston Whse/Office WC ? Industrial 1 Bulk Sales 3 Metro One Whse/Office WC N Industrial 1 Hauge Prov Of Ore Whse/Office WC N Industrial 1 LFllnc Whse/Office WC ? Industrial 1 Lenay Products Whse/Office WC ? Industrial 1 Northwest Roller Industrial WC N Industrial 1 Johnstone Supply Commercial WC Y Commercial 1 Copytronics Service WC ? Commercial 1 Arlenco Distribution Whse/Office WC ? Industrial 1 Joslin Sales Whse/Office WC ? Industrial 1 Stash Tea Corp Whse/Office WC N Industrial 1 Connect-Air Intl Offices SC ? Commercial 1 Earth Protection Ser Offices SC ? Commercial 1 LPM Systems Offices SC ? Commercial 1 TZ Medical Offices SC ? Commercial 1 Proline Sales & Mktg Offices SC ? Commercial 1 Consolidated Imfo Ser Offices SC N Commercial 1 Coram Health Care Offices SC N Commercial 1 Amec Offices SC ? Commercial 1 Sonetics/Flightcom Offices SC ? Commercial 1 Geopacific Engineering Service SC N Commercial 1 32 West of 74th Business Type FS/SC Bulk Tigard Use Category Bulk Sales? Yes =1 Elmo Studds Commercial/Retail FS Y Commercial 1 1 Allstate Ins Service OB N Commercial 1 Life Era Inc Offices OB N Commercial 1 Rockwell Automation Offices OB N Commercial 1 Landau Associates Offices/whse SC N Industrial 1 Siren Net.Com Offices/whse SC N Industrial 1 McLoughlin&Eardley Offices/whse SC N Industrial 1 Commercial 30 Cachet Home Furnish Commercial/Retail SC Y Commercial 1 1 Industrial 19 Exhibits Northwest Commercial SC Y Commercial 1 1 Classic Sign System Commercial SC N Commercial 1 Bulk Sales 7 Geoline Postioning Offices/whse SC N Industrial 1 Gre Con Offices/whse SC ? Industrial 1 Live Wire Tech Offices/whse SC N Industrial i Cognex Offices/whse SC N Industrial 1 Brand Athletics Offices/whse SC ? Inaustrial 1 Brand Innovators Offices/whse SC ? Industrial 1 Sportech Officeslwhse SC ? Industrial 1 Retro 3 Contractors Service SC N Commercial 1 Thai Orchid Offices/whse SC N Industrial 1 Cent Station Steam Offices/whse SC ? Industrial 1 Stompbox Music Offices/whse SC ? Industrial 1 Brakeaway Products Offices/whse SC ? Industrial 1 Collectors Press Commercial SC N Commercial 1 FG&T Construction Service SC N Commercial 1 Dry-B-Lo Service SC N Commercial 1 SLS Custom Homes Service SC N Commercial 1 A.D.Cook Fine Art Commercial/retail SC Y Commercial 1 1 Stay N power Service SC N Commercial 1 Gma Costruction Service SC N Commercial 1 NW Airospace Support Officeslwhse SC N Industrial 1 Tom Posey Co Offices/whse SC ? Industrial 1 Affordable Glass&Mirr Commercial/Retail SC Y Commercial 1 1 Convenient House Wa Offices/whse SC ? Industrial 1 Paradise Auto Care Service FS N Commercial 1 Sharp & Asso Const Service FS N Commercial 1 Westcoast Coating Service FS N Commercial 1 Meyer Sigh Co Commercial FS N Commercial 1 Interstate Roofing Commercial FS N Commercial 1 Fabric Gallery Commercial/Retail SC Y Commercial 1 1 Blackhawk Comm Commercial SC N Commercial 1 Precision Garage Door Commercial SC N Commercial 1 Scottie Mac Offices/whse SC ? Industrial 1 Maher Irish Dance St Commercial SC N Commercial 1 Thermal Flo Commercial/service SC N Commercial 1 Classic Interiors Commercial SC Y Commercial 1 1 Perf Power Concepts Offices/whse SC N Industrial 1 West Hills Catering Commercial SC N Commercial 1 Action Fundraising Service SC N Commercial 1 Lakeside Motors Service FS N Commercial 1 49 Hunziker and Sandburg Business Type FS/SC Bulk Tigard Use Category Bulk Sales? Yes =1 Chinook Trading Sc ? Commercial 1 Covert Engineers Service Sc N Commercial 1 Blue Wire Sc ? Commercial 1 Selectron SC N Commercial 1 Fax Back Inc SC N Commercial 1 Viable Links Sc N Commercial 1 CSM SC ? Commercial 1 ACS Testing Service SC N Commercial 1 Allied Van Lines Service FS N Commercial 1 Pro Source Commercial WC N Commercial 1 Gensco WC ? Commercial 1 Central Sprinkler Commercial WC N Commercial 1 Commercial 24 All Phase Industrial WC N Industrial 1 Industrial 4 Port Plastics Industrial WC N Industrial 1 H.J. Arnett Ind Industrial WC N Industrial 1 Bulk Sales 1 Telecom Labs Inc WC N Industrial 1 Sensory WC N Commercial 1 Stowaway 2 Commercial WC Y Commercial 1 1 Spectra Floors Commercial WC N Commercial 1 Pedo McCormack Pac Offices FS N Commercial 1 Progressive Insur Service FS N Commercial 1 Climate Conditioning Service SC N Commercial 1 Amer Lazertech FS N Commercial 1 Northwest Med Teams Service FS N Commercial 1 Tigard Tual Admin Service FS N Commercial 1 Western Freezer Commercial FS N Commercial 1 TOC Mgt Services Service FS N Commercial 1 Western Family Commercial FS N Commercial 1 28 MENNN Tigard Street Business Type FS/SC Bulk Tigard Use Category Bulk Sales? Yes =1 Kadels Auto Body Service FS N Commercial 1 Allas Construction Service Sc N Commercial 1 Commercial 16 Closets To GO Commercial/Retail Sc Y Commercial 1 Industrial 4 Northwest Refinishing Industrial Sc N Industrial 1 Western Plumbing Service SC N Commercial 1 Bulk Sales 1 Greenway Electric Commercial Sc N Commercial 1 PDI Group SC N Commercial 1 Precian Test & Bal Service SC N Commercial 1 Fry Electronics Sc ? Commercial 1 JTD Inc Industrial SC N Industrial 1 NW Dryer Industrial Sc N Industrial 1 Barrier Corp Commercial SC N Commercial 1 Innovite SC ? Commercial 1 Endurance Product Sc ? Commercial 1 Pak-Daddys SC ? Commercial 1 Westside Dance Acd Commercial/Service SC N Commercial 1 AFM Wholesale Commercial FS N Commercial 1 Willamitte Electric Commercial FS N Commercial 1 JND Fire Spinkler Industrial SC N Industrial 1 JBC Roofing Commercial SC N Commercial 1 20 AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: December 14, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-] U DICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: ARBOR SUMMIT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES ANNEXATION ZCA 2004-0001 Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony k%aftVmw%ctV eaaKall=*p_p" teaumy c$ wmxa wmd= AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: December 14, 2004 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - S eakin Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. -77-5-4dvC' 1770-9q-, fdA, ole I-q zx y Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Na e, Addres & Phone y NN Name, Address & Phone No. J ys' 3 5-w /414 0 3 -.~5--83 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF December 14, 2004 b r%4,rnuc-,d +J ia• a&o4 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Annexation of properties with two options: (1) - Arbor Summit I & II and (2) Arbor Summit I & II plus other adjacent ro rties. PREPARED BY: Mathew Scheidegger DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve one of the two proposed annexation options? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends annexation of Arbor Summit I & H and other adjacent properties totaling 36.1 acres (Option #1). INFORMATION SUMMARY West Hills Development applied for approval to subdivide property on Bull Mountain Road, known as Arbor Summit I and II. The subdivision's approval included a condition of approval requiring annexation. West Hills applied for annexation of two parcels (Arbor Summit I and II) equaling 8.9 acres. According to ORS 222.170, the City may include any contiguous property to the land proposed to be annexed if a majority of the owners of more than one half of the land in that territory consent in writing to the annexation. The Bella Vista Subdivision (SUB2002-00007) submitted a consent for annexation of 9.29 acres of land for which they received subdivision approval. Combined, Arbor Summit and Bella Vista total 18.19 acres. Summit Ridge, a subdivision approved in 2004 lies between Arbor Summit and Bella Vista. Summit Ridge was required to annex at the time of final plat approval. Summit Ridge is contiguous to both Arbor Summit and Bella Vista. With the double majority process allowed by ORS 222.170, additional property can be added to the Arbor Summit and Bella Vista Subdivisions. Staff suggests adding 17.91 acres of parcels from the Summit Ridge Subdivision. Since there are no electors involved, the additional Summit Ridge land can be added under the double majority process. Adding Bella Vista and Summit Ridge to the annexation creates a more complete annexation. Staff has presented the Council with two options for annexation. One is for Arbor Summit I and II. The other, as recommended by staff, includes the Bella Vista and a portion of the Summit Ridge Subdivision, along with Arbor Summit I & II. Option #1 Approve the annexation of eight (8) parcels of approximately 36.1 acres into the City of Tigard through the double majority process. Option #2 Approve the original annexation request of the two parcels of the Arbor Summit I and II Subdivision. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Deny the request. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Management Goal #2: Urban Services are provided to all citizens within Tigard's urban growth boundary and recipients of services pay their share. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Ordinance Option #1 Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Ordinance Option #2 Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Vicinity Map Attachment 3: Staff Report to the City Council FISCAL NOTES Application fees and appeal fees have been paid by the applicant. Option 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 2004- AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 36.1 ACRES, APPROVING ARBOR SUMMIT ANNEXATION AND OTHER ADJACENT PROPERTIES (ZCA2004-00001), AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(4)(B) and 222.170 to initiate an annexation upon receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed and written consent from owners of more than half the land in the territory proposed to be anncxcd;and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently lic within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on December 14, 2004 to consider the annexation of eight (8) parcels of land consisting of 36.1 acres and withdrawal of said property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Water District for certain debt obligations, however, in this instance the Water District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09, ORS 222.120 and 222.524, notice was given and the City held a public hearing on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal of the annexed property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District on December 14, 2004; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District by Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning most closely conforming to the County zoning; and WHEREAS, the current zoning district is R-7, an existing City zone that has been adopted by the County and the zoning after annexation would remain R-7 so that no zone change is necessary; and ORDINANCE NO. 20C 4- ZCA2004-00001 Arbor Summit Annexation Page-1 oft WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 and has been reviewed for compliance with the Tigard Community Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan and the annexation substantially addresses the standards in Metro 3.09 regulating annexations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the applicable service districts is in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in the attached Exhibit "A" and shown in Exhibit "B" and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, the Wawhington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting by the City Recorder. SECTION 3: City staff' is directed to take all necessary measures to implement the annexation, including filing certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative processing, filing with state and county agencies as required by law, and providing notice to utilities. SECTION 4: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effective date of the withdrawal of the property from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District shall be the effective date of this annexation. SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of this property from the Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 2005. SECTION 6: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 92004. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 2004. Craig Dirksen, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE NO. 2004- ZCA2004-00001 Arbor Summit Annexation Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A Agenda Item No. 8 - 12/14/04 ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION Ordinance - Option 1 (revised) A tract of land situated in the Section 9, Township 2 South Range 1 West Willamette Meridian described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of the subdivision plat of Arlington Heights being on the southerly right -of-way of SW Bull Mountain Road; thence N O1 ° 57' 48" E a distance of 13.03 feet to the southerly right-of-way of SW Bull Mountain Road; thence S 88° 04' 30" W, along said southerly right-of-way, a distance of 625.20 feet; thence S 01 ° 56'56" W a distance of 426.22 feet; thence S 88° 56' 17" E a distance of 212.83 feet; thence S 02° 00' 00" W a distance of 274.12 feet; thence N 88° 49' 24" W a distance of 335.71 feet; thence S 01 ° 15'49" W a distance of 475.19 feet; thence S 87° 59' 46" E a distance of 303.50 feet; thence S O1 ° 15' 46" W a distance of 561.57 feet; thence S 87° 59' 46" E a distance of 303.50 feet; thence S 01 ° 14' 45" W a distance of 298.88 feet; thence S 02° 27'42" W a distance of 250.09 feet; thence N 69° 39' 06" E a distance of 400.35 feet; thence S02° 25' 39" W a distance 514.32 feet; thence S 11 ° 57' 02" E a distance of 371.23 feet to the northerly right-of-way of SW Beef Bend Road and a point on a curve to the left; thence along said curve to the left with a radius of 1967.00 feet, a central angle of 1° 26' 18" (a chord which bears N 55° 57' 57" E, 49.38 feet) and a length of 49.38 feet; thence N 11° 57' 02" W a distance 317.08 feet; thence N 65° 00' 28" E a distance of 322.47 feet; thence S 28° 38' 14" E a distance of 205.97 feet to the northerly right-of-way of SW Beef Bend Road and a point on a curve to the left; thence along said right-of-way and said curve to the left with a radius of 967.00 feet, a central angle of 00° 04' 39" (a chord which bears N 40° 35' 14" E, 1.31 feet) and a length of 1.31 feet; thence N 40° 32' 54" E, said right-of-way, a distance of 206.72 feet; thence N 46° 22' 17" W, leaving said right-of-way a distance of 32.27 feet; thence N 28° 16' 04" W a distance of 132.02 feet; thence N 48° 34' 22" E a distance of 120.17 feet; thence S 46° 22' 17" E a distance of 126.72 feet; thence N 76° 46' 51" E a distance of 29.53 to the northerly right-of-way of SW Beef Bend Road and a point on a curve to the right; thence along said right-of-way and said curve to the right with a radius of 4033.00 feet, a central angle of 1° 26' 03" (a chord which bears N 44° 16' 04" E, 101.15 feet) and a length of 101.15 feet; thence N 44° 59' 11" E, along said right-of-way, a distance of 32.80 feet; thence leaving said right-of-way N 46°22' 17" W a distance of 94.16 feet; thence N 01 ° 43' 13" E a distance of 231.86 feet; thence N 89° 41' 17" W a distance of 444.20 feet; thence N 02° 02' 19" E a distance of 117.39 feet; thence N 01 ° 28' 06" E a distance of 173.36 feet; thence N 02° 14' 47" E a distance of 134.59 feet; thence N 00° 00' 56 W a distance of 130.41 feet; thence N 01° 54' 35" E a distance of 389.30 feet; thence N 01° 11' 42" E a distance of 276.26 feet; thence N 89° 41' 55" W 2.82 feet; thence N 01 ° 49' 33" E a distance of 86.28 feet; thence S 88° 49' 24" E a distance of 92.48 feet; thence N 01° 56' 48" E a distance 721.21 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 36.1acres. -7-7 c m i = ate- '.:t # I~ - e ~ .x•, =8~ : z" o"$ ;fir;%`~ ''4y.:; OR. 0.3 Ox lot '•S~ VIF, , Y. b ' a[ Otl ON{71 to yR ■ J yy - i a Syr. W I 14 Is • v~ 1tli If !t U W ° = m It= W H"Ztk ms 3/'.ItlO I~ is . iP Et I a, 1 q The R 1• z 11•^ I' t ' 3/?L 1' C. 12 o t~ i~ ! ► r + h l Ix 'd, q, i In 13 h rn 9 Y. y ti~ , Is 1■ t OD Iff 00 !3 M CV I~ C6 CV C\l Ono C\j h :fir:.::; ! ~.j. h x . a l' [ r • ~ v 'a• • n, r'/.%>. 1 . .'Y Y'•v` f: 'R J:a:R.♦'.!•f•:.~J:C,Y-~,>.7,~:a,4..v•>::.:. >.a [_.I: ••i ~i r. / ._->_a-•..__i.V..•. v..:~ S.r~~v.~~'y~n'.y♦: Y_,:v .c 1 T t- v v , t ♦ Y ! [ v ! : ti- Y a > , . x r •M v 'e } 0 • A s f %Y _ Y 'x ! 'Y Y i •1 r>. . f / Option 2 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 2004- AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 89 ACRES, APPROVING ARBOR SUMMIT ANNEXATION (ZCA2004-00001), AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(4)(B) and 222.170 to initiate an annexation upon receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed and written consent from owners of more than half the land in the territory proposed to be anncxcd; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on December 14, 2004 to consider the annexation of two (2) parcels of land consisting of 8.9 acres and withdrawal of said property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Water District for certain debt obligations, however, in this instance the Water District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09, ORS 222.120 and 222.524, notice was given and the City held a public hearing on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal of the annexed property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District on December 14, 2004; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District by Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning most closely conforming to the County zoning; and WHEREAS, the current zoning district is R-7, an existing City zone that has been adopted by the County and the zoning after annexation would remain R-7 so that no zone change is necessary; and ORDINANCE NO. 2004- ZCA2004-00001 Arbor Summit Annexation Page-1 oft WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 and has been reviewed for compliance with the Tigard Community Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan and the annexation substantially addresses the standards in Metro 3.09 regulating annexations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the applicable service districts is in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in the attached Exhibit "A" and shown in Exhibit "B" and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting by the City Recorder. SECTION 3: City staff is directed to take all necessary measures to implement the annexation, including filing certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative processing, filing with state and county agencies as required by law, and providing notice to utilities. SECTION 4: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effective date of the withdrawal of the property from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District shall be the effective date of this annexation. SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of this property from the Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 2005. SECTION 6: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 2004. j Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder i APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 2004. i Craig Dirksen, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE NO. 2004- ZCA2004-00001 Arbor Summit Annexation Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A C 20085 NW Tanasboume Drive Hillsboro, OR 97124 QLDD P 503.858.4242 F 503.645.5500 DESIGN GROUP. INC www.ldodesign.com LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR ANNEXATION THAT PORTION OF THE NORT'E&AS'I7 QUARTER OF SECTION 9, T. 2 S., R. 1 W., W.M., WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 21, -ARLINGTON HEIGHTS", THENCE N88053 '33-W. 318.93 FEET ALONO THE NORTH LINE OF THE TRACT OF LAND TO WMUS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 99114503 OF THE DEW RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY TO THE SOUI`HEAST CORNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND TO TIGARD T UAI ATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 96099726 OF SAID RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT, N02000'00"E, 275.00 FEET; THENCE NSMG' 17-W, 212.83 FEET; THENCE N01°56'56"E, 42622 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF S.W. BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD; THENCE N8840410"E, 625.20 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PLAT OF "ARLINGTON HEIGHTS; THENCE ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID PLAT, S01056'48"W, 734.24 FEET; THENCE N88°49'24"W, 92.36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 8.9 ACRES Docunjm 2S/12/2004 EXHIBIT 6 7i I 'i' I ' I I KN ' I %--,a s ot S. if?" l ~I~ I I N ~ i~ A R~pi~ III i \ '~•-~___.1.~-__-~~,Y ( yp~nrtiai loan. Y_ - ~ ~ I n iaersi~~ woe or- r=4 Is' por- Np~ N r N 1 bb pt LIM~ so, AW3"7-W 212.V p3~ NECST'JJb N&M24V f7 JT&AY D2Jd' % , N j r Y „ Dot "aiy-11' \ Nfs j&2 06 crow NEti 1 I/'/ 0,- r MAY 12, 2004 DESCRIPTION SKETCH LOC JOB #3091 L-LD C7, PROPERTY A POR7101M OF 7H£ NORTHEAST 114 OF S£C770N 9, T. 2 R. 1 W, W.M., WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON ~ PREPARED FOR: DESIGN GROUP WEST HILLS DEV. CO. AbchmW Agenda Item: Hearing Date: December 14, 2004 7:30 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL CITY Of TIGARD FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON c S Aeeacrcon"Ma SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: ARBOR SUMMIT ANNEXATION CASE NO.: Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) ZCA2004-00001 APPLICANT: West Hills Development OWNER: Numerous Owners. 15500 SW Jay Street List is available upon Beaverton, OR 97006 request. PROPOSAL: West Hills Development applied for approval to subdivide property on Bull Mountain Road, known as Arbor Summit I and II. The subdivision's approval included a condition of approval requiring annexation. West Hills applied for annexation of two parcels (Arbor Summit I and II) equaling 8.9 acres. According to ORS 222.170, the City may include any contiguous property to the land proposed to be annexed if a majority of the owners of more than one half of the land in that territory consent in writing to the annexation. The Bella Vista Subdivision (SUB2002- 00007) submitted a consent for annexation of 9.29 acres of land for which they received subdivision approval. Combined, Arbor Summit and Bella Vista total 18.19 acres. Summit Ridge, a subdivision approved in 2004 lies between Arbor Summit and Bella Vista. Summit Ridge was required to annex at the time of final plat approval. Summit Ridge is contiguous to both Arbor Summit and Bella Vista. With the double majority process allowed by ORS 222.170, additional property can be added to the Arbor Summit ! and Bella Vista Subdivisions. Staff suggests adding 17.91 acres of parcels from the Summit Ridge Subdivision. Since there are no electors involved, the addi`.:anal Summit Ridge land can be added under the double majority process. Adding Bella Vista and Summit Ridge to the annexation creates a more complete annexation. Staff has presented the Council with two options for annexation. One is for Arbor Summit I and ll. The other, as recommended by staff, includes the Bella Vista and a portion of the Summit Ridge Subdivision, along with Arbor Summit I & 11. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 1 OF 6 ZCA2004 =1 -ARBOR SUMMIT ANNEXATION 12114/2004PUBLIC HEARING CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7, Medium Density Residential. EQUIVALENT CITY ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7, Medium Density Residential. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10.000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. LOCATION: WCTM 2S109AD Tax Lots 01400 and 01500. (Arbor Summit) WCTM 2S109DA Tax Lot 02200. (Summit Ridge) WCTM 2S109DD Tax Lots 00100, 00102, 00300, 00306 and 07000. (Bella Vista) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10; Metro Code Chapter 3.09; and ORS Chapter 222. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council find that the proposed annexation will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of the Annexation by adoption of the attached Ordinance (OPTION 1). SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Information and Proposal Description: West Hills Development applied or approval to subdivide property on Bull Mountain Road, known as Arbor Summit I and ll. A condition of approval required annexation as a result. West Hills applied for annexation of Two parcels (Arbor Summit I and II) equaling 8.9 acres. According to ORS 222.170, the City may include any contiguous property to the land proposed to be annexed if a majority o the owners of more than one half of the land in that territory consent in writing to the annexation. The Bella Vista Subdivision (SUB2002-00007) submitted a consent for annexation of 9.29 acres of land for which they received subdivision approval. Combined, Arbor Summit and Bella Vista total 18.19 acres. i ! Summit Ridge, a subdivision approved in 2004 lies between Arbor Summit and Bella ' Vista. Summit Ridge was required to annex at the time of final plat approval. Summit Ridge is contiguous to both Arbor Summit and Bella Vista. With the double majority process allowed by ORS 222.170, additional property can be added to the Arbor Summit and Bella Vista Subdivisions. Staff suggests adding 17.91 acres of parcels from the Summit Ridge Subdivision. Since there are no electors involved, the additional Summit Ridge land can be added under the double majority process. Adding Bella Vista and Summit Ridge to the annexation creates a more compete annexation. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 2 OF 6 ZCA2004-00001 - ARBOR SUMMIT ANNEXATION 12/14/2004PUBLIC HEARING Staff has presented the Council with two options. One is for only Arbor Summit I and II. The other as recommended by staff includes the Bella Vista and a portion of the Summit Ridge Subdivision. Cilion #1 pprA ove The annexation of eight (8) parcels of approximately 36.1 acres into the City of Tigard through the double majority process. O lion #2 Approve The original annexation request of two parcels of approximately 8.9 acres better known as the Arbor Summit I and 11 Subdivisions. Vicinity Information: e subject parcels are located south of SW Bull Mountain Road and north of SW Beef Bend Road. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Th-e-r-elevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive an o icies 2.1.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2, and; Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.320. Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant policies of the Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: Com rehensive Plan Policy 2. 11.11: The i shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program an shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. This Policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement program. Interested parties and surrounding property owners within 500 feet have been notified of the public hearing and notice of the hearing has been published in a newspaper of general circulation. The site has been posted since November 02, 2004, and the hearing was announced at the December Focus on Tigard Television Show. There have been a number of opportunities for citizens to be involved in the decision making process. Policy 10.1.1: The City shall review each of the following services as to adequate capacity, or such services to be made available, to serve the parcel if developed to the most intense use allowed, and will not significantly reduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. The services are: water, sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire protection. This Policy requires adequate service capacity delivery to annexed parcels. The City of Tigard Police, Engineering and Water Departments, NW Natural Gas, Tualatin Valley ire i and Rescue, have all reviewed the annexation request and have offered no objections. The is subject parcels are part of three separate subdivisions. Services to the subject parcels have been addressed and conditioned within the reviews of the Arbor Summit, Summit Ridge and the Bella Vista Subdivision approvals. This policy has been complied with. If required by an adopted capital improvements program ordinance, the applicant shall sign and record with Washington County a nonremonstrance agreement regarding the following: The formation of a local improvement district (L.I.D.) for any i of the following services that could be provided through such a district. The extension or improvement of the following: water, sewer, drainage and streets. The formation of a special district for any of the above services or the inclusion of the property into a special service district for any of the above services. No L.I.D's were required with the subject parcels, subdivision approvals. All services listed above have been conditioned to be constructed. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 6 ZCA2004-00001 -ARBOR SUMMIT ANNEXATION 12/14/2004PUBLIC HEARING The City shall provide urban services to areas within the Tigard urban planning area or with the urban growth boundary upon annexation. The City of Tigard has an urban services agreement with Washington County for those areas within the City's urban growth boundary. This policy has been complied with. Policy 10.1.2• approval of ppro osed annexations of land by the city shall be based on findings with respect to the following: the annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincorporated territory; or the annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the city; the police department has commented upon the annexation; the land is located within the Tigard urban planning area and is contiguous to the city boundary; the annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in 10.1.1(a). This Policy pertains to boundary criteria for annexations. The property. Is adjacent to the Tigard City limits and does not create pockets or islands as shown on te annexation map included in this application. The City of Tigard Police Department has been notified of the annexation and has not provided any objection to it. Services to the subject property are addressed above. Community Development Code Section 18.320.620: Tfiis' Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals: All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area; Adequate service water, sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire protection) capacity is available to serve the annexed parcels. gThe City of Tigard Police, Engineering and Water Departments, NW Natural Gas, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, have all reviewed the annexation request and have offered no objections. Additionally, the adequacy and availability, of services was reviewed as part of the Arbor Summit, Summit Ridge and Bella Vista subdivision approvals. Therefore, this policy is satisfied. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. Applicable Comprehensive Plan policies have been addressed above. Ordinance provisions were addressed during the individual reviews of the Arbor Summit, Summit Ridge and Bella Vista subdivisions. This standard has been met. Assignment of comprehensive Plan and zoning designations. The comprehensive plan designation an ne zoning designation placed on a property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation. The assignment of these designations shall occur I automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations, the City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map i and zoning designations to the City designations which are the most similar. A zone i change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or/zoningg map designation other than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. The subject propperty is in the Urban Service Area and is zoned R-7 medium density residential. The R-7 zoning designation is consistent with the original Washington County's R-6 zoning designation as shown in the table below. The City's zoning was adopted by the County with the City's R-7 zoning district. Therefore, the property does not need to be rezoned upon annexation. According to Section 18.320.020.C, the City's Comprehensive plan and zoning designations occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 4 OF 6 zCA2004.00001 -ARBOR SUMMIT ANNEXATION 12/14/2004PUBLIC HEARING Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and zoning designations to City designations which are most similar. 'I'ABLE 320.1 ('O\~ ERSION FABI.E FOR COl NT% AND CVIA P1.A.% AND ZONING UESWNA VION5 ashing(on ('ounh Land U%e Cith of Figurd Zoning cit.. ar Tigard Ui%tricts/Plan I)esiznation Plan Designation R-5 Res. 5 units:acre R-4.5 SIR 7.500 sy !1. hm den<tt\ 1.5 units acre R-(, Res. (i units :acre k-7 SI R 5.000 %LI. li. Med density h-12 unit; acre R-9 Res. 1) units'acre R-12 Multi-fiimil% 12 units acre Med densm 6-12 tints acre R-12 Res. 12 unas acre I4-12 \lu16-11unih 12 units acre \Icd densit\ 6-12 unit; acre R-15 Res. 15 units acre R-25 Multi-lhntih 25 unit. acre \lcdnun•I Itph densnt 1-25 units a le R-24 Res 24 units acres R-25 Multi-I';unth 25 unit, acre Mcdnnn-I It):h Jciwi\ 1.'-25 units a,:re (M)ice Commercial ('-I' Commercial Prullesslunal CP Commercial Prul'c-i uil NC Neighborhimid Conimcrctal ('N NcighN)rhood Commercial Neighhurhuud Commercial ('111) Commercial ltusines; ('13D Commercial Business ('141) ('pill mer6;1I liusiness 1)i;trirt I )tstrict I )i;tnet (i(' General (Commercial l'l i (ienenal commercial ( i ( icncral Commercial IND Industrial 1-1. Liglu Industrial I.ipht Industri;d■ Metro N e` Vo- 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as discussed below: Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065; The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements. Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a necessary party; The process required by the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the Urban Planning Agreement for annexations. Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans; This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, this criterion is satisfied. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 5 OF 6 ZCA20044)0001 -ARBOR SUMMIT ANNEXATION 12/14/2004PUBLIC HEARING Consistency with specific direct) applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes contained in the Regional framework Plan or any functional plans; Because the Development Code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro functional plan requirements, by comp)ing with the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, the annexation is consistent with the applicable Functional Plan and the Regional Framework plan. Whether the_ proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and economic provisions of public facilities and services; The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provision of public facilities or services because it is adjacent to existing city limits and services. Many services have been extended to the subject parcels as a result of earlier development. If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be the primary criterion for approval; The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries. Consistency with other applicable criteria for the boundary change in question under state and local law. Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Engineering, Building, Police Department, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Public Works, and Water Department have all reviewed this proposal and have offered no objections to annexation. SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS NW Natural Gas, Tri-Met Transit Development, Metro Land Use & Planning and Washington County have had the opportunity to review the proposal and have offered no objections. BASED ON THE FINDINGS INDICATED ABOVE, PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2004-00001 - ARBOR SUMMIT ANNEXATION (OPTION 1). December 2 2004 at ew egger DATE PREPrF Associate Planner December 2 2004 Ic ar ew )tsdorff Planning Ma ager STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 6 OF 6 ZCA2004-00001 -ARBOR SUMMIT ANNEXATION 12/14/2004PUBLIC HEARING L41 u A "(Jr lee a" n co J. ~ ~ ~,Y2ovr- eat ~.e u>,Y19 S~-•~ AD Stateme1t by City~y t ~ -Yalsti. Any person may offer relevant oral and/or written testimony. City staffvll identify standards at the beginning of the hearing,--,A ~ ~ s 1 ,Q~► a, sEa,.~7 The Council has two related decisions to make in this hearing. One is to make a land use decision applying existing state, Metro and City laws. The Council cannot change the law for the land use application now under consideration. Council's other decision is a discretionary decision whether it wants to annex the territory proposed for annexation. In making that decision, the Council must also determine whether statutory provisions relating to annexation have been complied with. embers of the Ci ounci will' be asked whether they have any inflicts. A personal conflict-,-the .pRtte. I'l. Coumeil-mernberwith a potential-cett€lict ~ -nmy-paniei"te4fteF-fitily-desoribing-t-h potential-conflict-Ate actual-oonflict-exists-if the 1-rttembe"rfami"ember-,-a-oonflist-is o e ber. After the discussion of conflicts, any person may challenge participation of a Council member based on an actual conflict or failure to disclose a potential conflict. The Council member in question may respond to such a challenge. After the discussion of conflicts and any challenges, City staff will summarize the written staff report and explain the proposed annexation. Then the applicant and those in favor of the proposed annexation testify. Then those who oppose the application or who have questions or concerns testify. Council members may ask the staff and the witnesses questions throughout the hearing until the record closes. After all testimony is taken, the City staff can make a closing statement. After the record is closed, the City Council will deliberate about what to do with the application. During deliberations, the City Council may re-open the public portion of the hearing if necessary to receive additional evidence before making a decision. C copy of the of cedure for the hearing and copies of agendas for today's hearing are available at the` sentranceIThe staff report on this hearing has been available for viewing and downloading on the City's website and a paper copy of the staff report has been available at City Hall. You must testify orally or in writing before the close of the public record to preserve your right to appeal the Council's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Failure to raise an issue clearly enough so that Council understands and can address the issue precludes an appeal on that issue. Please do not repeat testimony offered by yourself and earlier witnesses. If you agree with the statement of an earlier witness, please just state that and add any additional points of your own. You have the right to respond to new evidence presented at the hearing. You may request that the hearing be continued or the record held open in order to respond to the new evidence. Demonstrations from the audience that prolong or interfere with the hearing are prohibited. Please refrain from them. Please treat all witnesses with respect. Comments from the audience other than from a recognized speaker should not be offered and will not be part of the record. When you are called to testify, please come forward to the table. Please begin your testimony by giving your name, please spell your last name, and give your full mailing address including zip code. If you represent someone else, please say so. If you have any exhibits you want us to consider, such as a copy of your testimony, photographs, petitions, or other documents or physical evidence, at the close of your comments you must hand all new exhibits to the City Recorder. The exhibits will be marked as part of the record. The City staff will keep exhibits until appeal opportunities expire, and then you can ask them to return your exhibits. Conflicts Does any member of the Council wish to declare an actual or potential conflict of interest? Does anyone wish to challenge any Council member's ability to participate in this decision? Wommnpr"Y awlry a Ohta"-dZ O Entered into the Record only Isador W. Morgavi By: T5 GQCVL ('n0(-q7 A -V.k 15145 SW 119' Ave. Agenda Item#Y3L Exhibit i Tigard, OR 97224 I realize the need for breverity and have endeavored to be as concise as lx)ssible. However I was unable to learn beforehand how much time would be allowed and was therefore unable to time this presentation so I solicit your indulgence. After!) out of'1 U Bull Mountain residents recently declined your invitation to come into die city, you Mr. Mayor, council members and officials from Metro and the county trade remarks that indicated that there might be something on the horizon; something that would provide an opportunity to dispel die general atmosphere of acrimony and distrust that had developed. There seethed to be a mutual desire to find a way to bring about a dialogue that would eventually allow everyone to achieve some, if not all of their aspirations. This new beginning was view skeptically by some and hopefully by the many who would like to see and end to hostilities. Many will be disappointed by the annexation under consideration and will see it as a reaffirmation of the prior hard line that fostered the conflicts of the past. I feel certain that there are those in Metro and the county who will be dismayed at the apparent arbitrary "Damn the torpedoes" flavor of this action and the increased difficulty it will create for everyone to address our problems in a forthright and civil Page 1 of 4 manner that has full citizen involvement. It will most certainly bring the matter to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Aside from the foregoing; there are other reasons to alter course. Staff proposal is flawed by concluding that the 9.29 acres of property south of the 17.94 acres in Summit Ridge (tax lot 2S109DA-02200) is properly included in the total area for calculating the percent of effected property ownership. This area is neither adjacent to nor contiguous to "Tigard. Documentation received did not include owner consent for these 17.94 acres be annexed. 'Therefore the total area to use for determination of the double majority approval is 27.23 acres and the 8.9 acres of Arbor Heights I & II is less than the 50% required by ORS 222.170.2. All property in this matter is owned by developers and their consent to annexation was obtained early this year as a condition for their obtaining required permits. 'The legality of this practice is questionable; it is certainly not in keeping with the spirit of preserving the rights of residents to have a voice in their affairs. The developers will agree to anything, complete their development and then leave the community to suffer the lose of the rights that were prostituted by the developer and the city. I believe the legislature recognized this in drafting ORS 222.170.2 that requires "The legislative body of the city need not call or hold an election in any contiguous territory proposed to be annexed if a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed consent in writing to annexation and the owners of more than half of the land in that territory consent in writing to the annexation of their land and those owners and electors file a statement of their consent Page 2 of 4 No "elector registered in the territory" has consented to this proposed annexation. Neither Riverside Homes nor West Hills Development is on the voter registration rolls. This practice of "pre-consent" borders on blackmail and I ask that you provide me with your authority to do so. The Public Facilities and Service Assessment For Bull Mountain states in its recommendations 1 and 2 that the Urban Planning Area Agreement must be amended to allow this practice but such amendment has not been done. The recommendations of the Executive Summary of the White Paper of the Bull Mountain Annexation Planning Subcommittee (approved on June 22, 2004) states, in part: a) I Tpdate the comprehensive Plan as soon as possible. b) Pursue a Public Facility Strategy /moratorium or other measures to slow or stop growth until the comprehensive Plan is updated. None of this has been done. The proposed annexation is highly irregular and though this per se is not prohibited, it must be reasonable. In Portland General Electric v Estacada the Oregon Supreme Court held that "It would be absurd to think that the legislature intended that a city would have carte blanche authority to reach out it's tentacles like an octopus and envelope property which in no wise was beneficial to the city or to the annexed property. If this were not so, there would be nothing to prevent cities from attaching to territories far removed from the city environs by a narrow strip as long as the Page 3 of 4 property was contiguous" It further declared, " ...the annexation at issue was unreasonable principally because it was employed for the sole purpose of enhancing the revenue of the city...". Aside for the revenue, it has not been shown that there is a need that this property be annexed, nor has there will be any benefit to the property owners; both of these are statutory requirements. Since King City forms the southern edge of Tigard's Urban Growth Boundary, the proposed annexation would effectively create 2 small islands at the south end of the area under consideration and a very large one to the east. Please keep the public record open for at 15 business clays. Thank you. Page 4 of 4 W ~w i 1 „yam i t i ate ~ ~ •tlf~Yft''rt c , -V 4w w Z~~E 3A1,4'4 h Aft We are fast approaching the end of a year that has been difficult for both Tigard and the Bull Mountain Community. We have all expended precious time and significant resources in an effort to accomplish what we each believed was best for our respective communities. It is unfortunate that as this year draws to a close, an atmosphere of tension lingers. At this time of the year when peace on earth is a traditional theme, perhaps it's time to seek new ways to accomplish common goals. Perhaps it is a time to work to minimize conflict and think about how to foster a spirit of cooperation. No doubt, we don't all share exactly the same vision for Tigard and Bull Mountain. Yet, as reasonable adults there is no reason we cannot work together toward finding mutually beneficial long-term solutions to the annexation issue. We recognize Tigard's need for growth and the necessity to realize the maximum revenue from all sources. This provides the best financial base Entered into the Record on ~.I~-1•oy By: U kA Q Rxkf Q Agenda Item# 9S Exhibit for the larger community. As well, we're confident that Tigard recognizes our commitment to maintaining a stable, livable community for the residents of Bull Mountain. These are not mutually exclusive objectiv--s. We recognize that the city of Tigard inherited some unfortunate land use decisions that were made years ago. We recognize that the solutions to these problems will require cooperation and assistance from other jurisdictions, but this will take time and effort. However, a more positive outcome is all but guaranteed if trust is fast built and a spirit of cooperation is fostered... Imagine the possibilities. A gesture in the right direction would begin with your delay on the piece- meal annexation proposed this evening, an annexation which offers no benefit to the residents of Bull Mountain; an annexation that only fuels the fire of bad will. The council was surprised recently at the ease in annexing Alpine View. The reason... it was seen by the residents as a logical and efficient completion of the Tigard community, in stark contrast to the annexation proposed this evening. We ask this evening that the council help us to help each other. The council has the opportunity this evening to take the first step. It will cost little to delay this annexation and will buy much in helping to create an environment where we can possibly work together in addressing the future of Bull Mountain as a whole community. Thank you for your time and consideration. We wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holiday Season. 'r i i Sct brn~°f~~ Q,~ter /Z-/ "OJT /Yj( Submitted by Ken Henschel ' at the 12/14/04 Council Public Hearing , The election is over now, and the votes have been tabulated. On unincorporated Bull Mountain, 899/6 of the voters decided, for whatever reasons, that they don't want to be a part of Tigard at , this time. 4 Yet, here we are again, talking about annexations on Bull Mountain. i I think that it's time for some very basic choices to be made. And you, Mayor Dirkson and i Councilors, sit in the driver's seats, as you have the opportunity to choose the path for the future ! that makes the most sense for the community. I think that we can all agree on one thing-that the last 18 months have been no fun for any of us. People and events have seemed to spiral out of control; and tempers have flared on both sides of the table. I But you folks on the City Council have two very clear paths that you can take. P 1: You can.continue the rhetoric in the press, that no matter what the residents want, you are going to gobble them up a bite at a time if necessary. You can continue proceedings like this one, annexing whatever you can, whenever you can. The consequences of these actions are inevitable. Not only will you further infuriate the 89% who voted against Tigard annexation, and invite more LUBA appeals, but you will begin the process of also angering the 11 % of the voters who voted for annexation. If your goal is to anger 100% of unincorporated Bull i Mountain, it seems that Path #1 is the way to go. Path #2: Instead of watching your meager 11% support dwindle away to nothing, you can work to instead increase that 11% support. This can be done most effectively by the following actions: First, stop rubbing salt in our wounds by these continued annexation attempts. There is no i annexation so urgent that it can't wait for awhile. What's the big rush? Allow for a substantial cooling-off period. What will that hurt? Next, begin really listening to the community. I don't think that you really understand the needs of the Bull Mountain residents. Chet to know us. We don't bite (unless we're pushed too hard). Then, change your mindset. Resolve that you're no longer going to force Bull Mountain into ! your city. Instead, resolve to create an environment that is so enticing that Bull Mountain residents want to be a part of Tigard. Wouldn't you rather we came to you asking you to be part of Tigard instead of fighting to stay out of Tigard? i ( These are your basic two choices. The residents of Bull Mountain are watching. Washington i County is watching. Metro is watching. Other Cities in the area are watching. Everybody's watching. Please, be leaders. Choose wisely which path you take, starting tonight. Because the path that you choose tonight will either pour more gasoline on the fire, or it will extend a much-needed olive branch. i Councilors... Mayor... Everybody's watching. Your call. i ! SITE CHARACTERISTICS bLocation: The properties lie between SW ARBOR SUMMIT I & II Bull Mt. Road and SW Beef Bend Road. Kharac teristics: Two options are presented ANNEXATION to City Council due to consent of additional properties through Double Majority. Public Hearing PSite Size: Option #1 = 36.1 Acres December 14, 2004 DSite Size: Option #2 = 8.9 Acres DOUBLE MAJORITY CONSENT 0 According to ORS 222.170, the City may 0 Arbor Summit #1 and #2 contain include any contiguous property to the 8.9 acres. land proposed to be annexed if a P Bella Vista contains 9.29 acres. majority of the owners of more than 0 Total = 18.19 acres. one half of the land in that territory 0 Portion of Summit Ridge to be annexed consent in writing to the annexation. by Double Majority = 17.91 ornoR..1: Approve the annexation ,a request of (8) parcels of ?Rt3cR R1A4d/r apprr~xnatety 38.1 acres - .,'f 07TION a2; N c!~ a2 into the City of Tigard Approve the applicant's original - through the adoption of a lD.r - t _ annexation request of (2) parcels separate ordinance. of appro xanately 8.9 acres into the This includes 8.9 acres City of Tigard through the adoption of Arbor Summit 01 and of a separate ordinance. This ,Y 02 17.91 acrea of includes Arbor Summit 01 and 112. Summit Ridge and 9.29 The highlighted parcels depict the area proposed to be annexed. acres of Bella Vista Subdivision. The highlighted parcels depict the area proposed to be annexed. 1 Staff Recommendation 0 Staff recommends that the Council adopt the proposed ordinance and legal description of Option #1. Z 'r u J 2 C AGENDA ITEM No. 9 Date: December 14, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW BULK SALES IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP) ZONE Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony t:teft%W k W V cokrzftcWgrWp * tesbwV bulk Was t= affwWnMnLdx / [ 1 AGENDA ITEM No. 9 Date: December 14, 2004 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - S eakin Against) Neutral Na e, Address & Phone Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. uCC VZnI Cc-,Vt !V N we, Address & Phone o. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. '5'w Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. r Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 3 D 110 AGENDA ITEM # Q FOR AGENDA OF December 14, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Code Amendment to Allow Bulk Sale in t IP Zone PREPARED BY: Morgan Tracy DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE OUNCIL Should Council accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission to amend the city of Tigard Development Code to allow Bulk Sales as a "Restricted Use" in the IP Zones, subject to limitations of size and outdoor activity? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and adopt the attached ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY This request has been initiated by a private party representing two clients (Paul Schatz furniture and Smetco, Inc.) whose properties are both located in an I-P zone. In anticipation of a use expansion and conversion to a bulk sales use, the applicant is requesting to allow bulk sales uses as permitted uses in the I-P zone. Bulk sales are presently prohibited in the Industrial Park Zone. During the public and agency comment period, Metro submitted a request for additional findings showing compliance with the Regional Framework Plan, specifically Title 4- Protection of Industrial And Other Employment Areas. Title 4 restricts commercial retail uses in designated Significant Industrial areas. Staff, in its analysis determined that certain areas of IP zoned land would be inappropriate for bulk sales uses, but that other IP zoned areas, generally east of SW 72"d Avenue are suitable, with certain restrictions on the size of the use (60,000 square feet) and requiring that all activity and storage occur indoors. Following this analysis, Metro concurred that with the recommended modifications, the proposal satisfied Title 4 requirements. On November 15, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the merits of the request. The Commission found that the area east of SW 72nd was in transition and was already populated by less intensive industrial uses. In a 7-0 unanimous motion, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the requested code amendment, as modified by staff (limit bulk sales to IP zones east of SW 72"d, no outside storage) OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Adopt the applicant's request for unrestricted allowance of bulk sales in the IP Zone. Reject any amendment to the Development Code. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Ordinance Exhibit A: Recommended Text Change Attachment 2: November 15, 2004 Staff Report with attachments to the Planning Commission Attachment 3: Map of Affected Parcels Attachment 4: Applicant's Data FISCAL NOTES There is no fiscal impact anticipated for this action. All application fees have been paid by the applicant. Background ■ Amendment initiated by Paul Schatz Furniture and Smetco, Inc. in anticipation Code Amendment to allow of a use expansion and conversion of Bulk Sales in the IP zone property to a bulk sales use. • Request is to allow bulk sales uses as permitted uses in the f-P zone. Bulk sates December 14, 2004 are presently prohibited in the Industrial Park Zone. • Proposal in Conflict with METRO Title 4 Requirements. Title 4 restricts commercial retail uses in designated Significant Industrial areas. Analysis Analysis (continued) 1 Y , Y•• • Staff determined that certain areas of IP f' zoned land generally east of SW 72nd METRO Title 4 Avenue are suitable for Bulk Sales uses, i•t; , ~ Legend and would not conflict with Title 4?`; requirements subject to the following 'A- y limitations: - These uses, separately or in combination, shall r' . a not exceed 60,000 square feet of gross 11. ' 6 w .W leasable area t =11 - All activities, except employee and customer uk parking, are wholly contained with a building. Lit 4, JY Analysis (continued) Legislative History •~j • ! gt Recommended Amendment V Key to Affected IP Parcels • On November 15, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to IP Parcels where bulk discuss the merits of the request. sales would be allowed. • The Commission found that the area east of SW 72nd was in transition and was _ rr ®IPParcels where Title 4 already populated by less intensive prevents bulk sales. Industrial uses. t ® IP Parcels where bulk • In a 7-0 unanimous motion, the sales could be allowed Commission moved to recommend but am extluded in this approval of the requested code 1 amendment. amendment, as modified by staff 1 Recommendation ■ Staff recommends that Council accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 18.530 of the Tigard Development Code to allow Bulk Sales as a Restricted Use in the Industrial Park Zone. 2 AGENDA ITEM # D FOR AGENDA OF 12/14/04 Coin+;nued !a•a$.p~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Revised Ci /TriMet MOU PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK TY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council approve a revised City/TriMet Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for improving local transit services? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve the revised MOU as written. INFORMATION SUMMARY In 2003, Tigard became the first suburban city selected by TriMet as a target for local service and pedestrian improvements. In December of last year, Council considered and adopted a memo of understanding (MOU) with TriMet to formalize a partnership to plan for these improvements. Within the MOU, each party commits to working together during the next three years to put new ideas for local transit improvements into action. The agreement carries out Council's long term goal of improving acces to transit. Council's November 16, 2004, packet included a draft copy of revised MOU for Council's information and consideration. At the November meeting, Jim Hendryx indicated that staff would. return to Council in December for adoption of the revised MOU. A copy of the new MOU is attached. Why change the MOU? As highlighted in the November le staff report, the reason for changing the MOU is twofold. First and most important is that the timeframe of the original MOU was tied to the completion date for Commuter Rail. The new MOU reflects the change in Commuter Rail startup to FY 07 from FY 06. Second, the new MOU includes some language changes requested by TriMet's legal office. None of these change the substance of the original agreement. A benefit to Tigard of revising the MOU as proposed is the additional year of transit agency time and attention the City will receive. The updated MOU has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney as to form. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None considered. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Transportation and Traffic Goal #3, "Alternative modes of transportation are available and use is maximized." ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment #1: Memorandum of Understanding. FISCAL NOTES The agreement does not involve the obligation of City funds. Implementation of proposed capital improvements will depend on funding availability as part of each organization's annual budget process. i/citywide/triMet.MOU.revised MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DEVELOPMENT OF TIGARD ACCESS PLAN PLANNING Dated: October 7, 2004 Among: The Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, a mass transit district organized under the laws of the State of Oregon ("TriMet") And: The City of Tigard, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon ("Tigard") RECITALS A. TriMet owns and operates a public mass transit system serving the Portland metropolitan area including a rail system operating from the City of Gresham to the City of Hillsboro. Together with Washington County, TriMet is currently planning to construct the Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Project ("Commuter Rail'), a 14.7-mile commuter rail line between Beaverton Transit Center and Wilsonville. B. Development of Commuter Rail in the Highway 217 corridor provides TriMet and Tigard with a unique opportunity to cooperatively achieve their common goals in the Tigard area (the "Area"). C. TriMet and Tigard are committed to developing a Tigard access plan (the "Access Plan") to provide for a comprehensive process that will capitalize on the regional efforts surrounding Commuter Rail, in order to improve access, leverage public and private investments, and enhance and promote mobility options in the Area. D. This Memorandum of Understanding is intended to document the understandings of TriMet and Tigard with respect to development of the Access Plan, UNDERSTANDINGS 1. Development of Access Plan/Planning Coordination of Projects. It is understood that TriMet and Tigard will meet regularly to develop the Access Plan which efforts shall entail coordination by the parties in planning for projects related to improving access to public transit in the Corridor. The particular projects selected for planning to be included in the Access Plan shall be subject to the mutual agreement of the parties. Types of projects to be included in the Access Plan may include, but not necessarily be limited to: ■ Bus stop improvements ■ Transit preferential improvements for buses ■ Pedestrian access improvements Bike access improvements ■ Public Information (maps, etc.) In addition to development of the Access Plan, a final report prepared by the parties will identify longer term projects. 2. Chances to Bus Routes: It is understood that TriMet will examine and may implement changes to bus routes in order to improve access to public transit in the Area. 3. Community Outreach: It is understood that, in order to involve community members in all aspects related to the Access Plan, TriMet and the City will develop and implement a community outreach strategy targeted toward the diverse community and business members that comprise the Corridor. 4. General Provisions: a. Term: This Memorandum of Understanding shall be in effect from December 1, 2004 through the opening of Commuter Rail, and may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties hereto. b. Withdrawal: Either party may withdraw from this Memorandum of Understanding, without penalty or liability of any nature, by providing the other party to this Memorandum of Understanding with ninety (90) days prior written notice of its intent to do so. C. Independent Contractors; No Agency: In connection with this Memorandum of Understanding, each party is an independent contractor for all purposes and will have no authority to bind or commit the other. d. No 'T'hird Party Beneficiaries: TriMet and Tigard are the only parties to this Memorandum of Understanding, and as such are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Memorandum of Understanding gives or shall be construed to give or provide any benefit, direct, indirect or otherwise, to any third party unless such third party is expressly described by name in a modification or amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding, and such third party is intended by the parties hereto to be a beneficiary of such modification or amendment to this Memorandum of Understanding. i e. Notices: All notices and communications under this Memorandum of i Understanding shall be directed to the representatives designated below: i For Tri-Met: Tom Mills Tri-Met 4012 SE 17th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97202 (503) 962-4883 For Tigard: Duane Roberts City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 ext 2444 Any notices or communications hereunder shall be in writing and deemed effective if deposited in U.S. Mail (Certified return receipt), hand delivered, or transmitted by facsimile with successful confirmation. f. Intezration: This MOU contains the entire agreement between the parties as to the subject matter of this MOU and the parties have no obligations except as expressly stated herein. Any waiver, consent, modification, amendment or change to the terms of this MOU must be in writing and signed by the authorized representatives of each party to be effective and binding. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum of Understanding effective for the dates noted herein. TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN CITY OF TIGARD TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON (TRIMET) By: By: Fred Hansen Craig Dirksen General Manager Mayor i/Irpn/ddrriMetMOU.11-04 AGENDA ITEM No. 11 Date: December 14, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AMENDED MASTER FEES FOR LONG-RANGE PLANNING Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. II Date: December 14, 2004 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - S eakin In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF December 14, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Q041-tw ea ta~a~►o~ COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Adopt Amended Master Fees for.Long Range-Planning PREPARED BY: Jim Hendrvx DEPT HEAD OK Y MGR OK Wy~ ISSUE BEFORE THE OUNCIL Adoption of a resolution amending Resolution No. 04-37 by amending and increasing certain land use planning fees. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Council directed staff to proceed with developing a long range planning fee to help off-set the costs of completing long range planning studies and projects. Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution amending Resolution 04-37 and increase certain land use fees. INFORMATION SUMMARY In July 2003, Council discussed the potential of instituting an application fee that would support long range planning activities. The fee would help offset the cost of having outside resources involved in completing specialized planning studies or projects. Examples could include completing technical portions of the Comprehensive Plan update, Goal 5 related work, and the Downtown Improvement Plan. How has the City funded such studies in the past? Typically, long range planning studies or projects have been funded with a combination of resources. For example, the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, adopted by Council in 2002, took 2 -3 years to complete. It involved considerable resources from the City ($134,000). It also included funding from the State through the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) program. Long range planning studies vary in the amount of complexity and costs associated with any particular study or project. Where staff expertise exists and scheduling allows, City staff is assigned to complete particular projects. At its May 18, 2004 Council work session, Council directed staff to proceed with developing a long range planning fee that would be in addition to existing planning fees. Basically, a "surcharge" would be paid at the time of submittal of specific land use applications. The intent of the long range planning fee is to offset some or all of the costs of completing long range planning studies. It would be used to help pay the costs of hiring consultants, temporary staff or interns for specific identified projects, not for general long range activities, such as direct costs of City personnel or capital and/or equipment needs of the City. With minor exception, it is proposed that planning fees increase by 14.76% for the long range planning surcharge. The existing planning fees are based on average costs for processing a particular application. Costs include direct personnel costs, materials, notices, etc. The new planning fees not only would include those costs, but would also include an amount to offset the cost of doing long range planning projects. The few planning fees that do not increase include specific appeals, blasting permits, hearing postponements, and plat name changes. The proposed long range planning fee is anticipated to generate approximately $30,000 - $40,000 per year. Given the fact that the fees are based on permit activity, the actual revenue could fluctuate from year to year. The goal is to have a fund to complete such long range planning projects as the City determines are necessary through the budgetary process. Public notification of the proposed fee was given in the Tigard Times. Additionally, individual developers who submitted any land use application proposed for inclusion within the last 2 years, were provided notice. Notice was also posted in the lobby at City Hall. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Take no action. 2. Delay action. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Proposed resolution Exhibit A: City of Tigard Fees and Charges Schedule Attachment 2: Memo to City Council dated November 29, 2004 FISCAL NOTES It is estimated that the long range planning fee could generate $30,000 - $40,000 per year. Actual amount of revenue is dependent upon permit activity. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 04-37 BY AMENDING EXHIBIT A THERETO AND INCREEASING CERTAIN LAND USE PLANNING FEES. WHEREAS, the City Council has given direction to staff to determine the cost of recovering staff time and project costs for the Long Range program; and WHEREAS, the current land use planning fees recover costs associated with the Current Planning program; and WHEREAS, staff identified those land use planning fees that benefit from the Long Range Planning program; and WHEREAS, Long Range Planning fees are to be spent for long range studies and may be used to hire consultants or temporary staff to assist with Long Range Planning projects; and WHEREAS, funds will not be used not for off-setting direct staff costs; and WHEREAS, the fund will grow over time to help offset project costs over several years; and WHEREAS, staff has determined the amounts needed to recover the cost of the Long Range Planning program for each of the benefited land use planning fees, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Resolution No. 04-37 is hereby amended by amending Exhibit A to that resolution to read as shown in Exhibit A hereto and incorporated by this reference. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This 141 day of 2~?c m DYE 2004. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: 04,qvu, Bed-City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 04 - qg Page 1 _JN EXHIBIT A City of Tigard Fees and Charges Schedule Effective Date Fee or Char e Revenue Source Ices 7g12994 De artment 1211412004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - dential lUnits Tigard & Urban Serv $122.00 Accessory UW2904 i~ 1211412004 ;2,302.00 Annexation $250.00 71112003 Appeal a 11 to Hearings officer $300.00 71112003 Expedited Director's Review Decision ( (Deep )posit) $500 00 71112003 Hearings Referee 72804 Planning CommissioniHearing's officer to 6~ 1y1412004 City Council $2,314.00 X412804 6243.00 1211412004 Approval Extension $247.00 71112004 Blasting Permit Conditional Use $4~ 79~ 1211412004 Initial $4474-M 7#1;2094 ;4,790.00 1211412004 Major Modification $48a-88 7942W $529.00 1211412004 Minor Modification 1211 Design Evaluation Team (DET) Recommendation (deposit) ;1,185.00 72804 64~ 8g 1211412004 DevetopmentCode l_Fprovision RevieW amily Building Plan ;48.00 Commercialilndustrialllnstitution ;303.00 E~HIBiT A Ctty of -T19ard Fees and Charges Schedule Effective Date Fee or Char a v41211412004 De ariment Revenue Source 6363 w-w ,sr.6.00 &A Expedited R I a d partition •00 } S83,OpILot Subdivision ment Add $6, 56i - 71112pp4 Subdivision with planned Develop $239 0p iy1412004 Nearing postponement X24 gg 7 Historic OVedaY~eview District Overlay Designation ;3' Historic 0 nation .3,7064 Ou Removal Historic Overlay pesig District 6566.00 Exterior Alteration in Historic Overlay $4070 N 6566.40 District 6566 New Construction in Historic Overlay w Demolition in Historic Overlay District X844 1y1412004 6-89 637.00 Home Occup~Ypne PermI it $2v-AG 6260.00 Tw2w -Type it VA" 1211412004 rnent Gode 6560.04 nit Develop 71112003 Interpretation of the CommuY 100% of Highest Planning Fee + 50% of all Addit oposal. Fees Related to the Joint Application Planning Fee LEGIBILITY STRIP EXHIBIT A City of Tigard Fees and Charges Schedule Fee or Char Effective Date a ~~g84 Revenue Source 1211412004 De artment Land Partition 434.00 -Residential (3 Lots) Residential and Non 53, Residential and Non-Residential (2 Lots) $2,825.00 $2~w~ Expedited $4,039.00 3~&.W Final Plat $822.00 33" 1211412004 $440.00 Lot Line Adjustment V1-J2884 Minor Modification to an Approved Plan $529.00 :89 ~-13A04 52-1 1211412004 $249.00 Non-Conforming Use Confirmation Planned Devel$pment 54.421W 12114 Conceptual Plan Review $6,566.00 71112003 Applicable SDR Fee Detailed Plan Review $250.00 71112004 Plat Name Change $2 80 V412004 1211412004 $340-00 Pre-Application Conference 1211412004 Sensitive Lands Review With Excessive SlopeslWithin Drainage Ways! Within Wetlands (Type II) $2,217.00 With Excessive Slopes/Within Drainage Waysl $3-860- Within Wetlands (Type III) $2,387.00 City of Tigard EXHIBIT A Fees and Charges Schedule Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective Date Within the 100-Year Floodplaing (Type III) $2,086.0 $2,387.00 Sign Permit 74k V" Existing and Modification to an Existing Sign 12114/2004 (No Size Differential) $32..QQ $37.00 Temporary Sign (Per Sign) egg $17.00 Site Development Review & Major Modification #1/2894 Under 100,000.00 $3,536.90 1211412004 $4,058.00 1 Million/Over $4-642. Million $5,327.00+ $5.001$10,000.00 over 1 Million Minor Modification $461.90 $529.00 Subdivision 74112994 Preliminary Plat without Planned Development $4.407.99 * $83.094 1211412004 $4,694.00 + $83.00/lot Preliminary Plat with Planned Development Adder-99 Add $6,540.00 Final Plat egg $1,509.00 Temporary Use Director's Decision Val gg 71113994 $277.00 1211412004 Special Exemption/Non-Profit $0.00 7/1/2003 LP-01115ILIITY STRIP City of Tigard EXHIBIT A Fees and Charges Schedule Fee or Charge Effective Date Department Revenue Source a X994 Tree Removal $172.00 1y1412004 ~6~88~epee+t-* X994 Vacation (Streets and Public Access) --Asters 12/14/2004 $2,017.00 Deposit + Actual Costs 71/2894 Variance/Adjustment $40300 1211412004 Administrative Variance $566.00 Development Adjustment $2~8A $249.00 Special Adjustments $288 Adjustment to a Subdivision $249.00 Reduction of Minimum $247-08 Residential Density $249.00 Access/Egress Standards $4" Adjustment $566.00 Landscaping Adjustments 8 Existing/New Street Trees $285.00 Parking Adjustments Reduction in Minimum or Increase In Maximum Parking Ratio $566.00 Reduction in New or Existing Development/Transit Imprvmnt $5$46 00 Reduction in Bicycle Parking $49" $566.00 City of Tigard EXHIBIT A Fees and Charges Schedule Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective Date Alternative Parking Garage Layout $24.09 $249.00 Reduction in Stacking Lane Length $483:88 $666.00 Sign Code Adjustment $493. $666.00 Street Improvement Adjustment $483:89 $566.00 Tree Removal Adjustment $2!7:99 $249.00 Wireless Communication Facility Adjustments Setback from Nearby Residence $483-88 $566.00 Distance from Another Tower $217.80 $249.00 Zoning Map/Text Amendment 71112004 Legislative - Comprehensive Plan 5734 9A 1211412004 $8,187.00 9 Legislative - Community Development Code $2,604.0 $3,218.00 Quasi-Judicial $2,57-9.00 $2,949.00 Zoning Analysis (Detailed) $46`1:88 7-1112804 $529.00 12/1412004 Zoning Inquiry Letter (Simple) $53-98 X2884 $61.00 1211412004 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE: November 29, 2004 SUBJECT: Long Range Planning Fees Background In July 2003, Council discussed the potential of instituting an application fee that would support long range planning activities. The fee would help offset the cost of having outside resources involved in completing specialized planning studies or projects. Examples could include completing technical portions of the Comprehensive Plan update, Goal 5 related work, and the Downtown Improvement Plan, etc. These sorts of projects are funded through the General Fund and are budgeted yearly. Outside funding sources, such as grants, are considered when available. An example is the recently awarded TGM grant that is funding a major portion of the Downtown Improvement Plan. The State contributed approximately $120,000 toward this project, while the City contributed both an in-kind and cash match. A team of consultants was hired to develop an improvement plan for Downtown Tigard. The City lacked resources to entirely fund this sort of project within the time frame the community expects. How has the City funded such studies in the past? Typically, long range planning studies or projects have been funded with a combination of resources. For example, the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, adopted by Council in 2002, took 2 -3 years to complete. It involved considerable resources from the City ($134,000). It also included funding from the State through the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) program. Another example involved the Tigard Triangle Plan, adopted by the Council in 1997. There were two previous efforts that occurred that were not approved by Council. This project took consultants at least three times to develop. The final project took approximately two years to complete and was totally funded by the City and did not involve outside funding. Long range planning studies vary in the amount of complexity and costs associated with any particular study or project.' Where staff expertise exists and scheduling allows, City staff is assigned to complete particular projects. A recent example included the Bull Mountain Annexation Study and the Public Facilities and Assessment Report for the Bull Mountain Area. Staff expertise and resources allowed both of these studies to be completed over a period of months. Other studies and projects require additional resources due to the complexity or intensity of the project or study. The Downtown Improvement Plan is such an example. The scope of the project involves extensive citizen involvement, detailed traffic analysis, marketing research, and community design elements. Ultimately, the Improvement Plan could result in major revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. Various components of this study are outside the ability and/or expertise of staff to perform. Proposed Surcharge At its May 18, 2004 Council worksession, Council directed staff to proceed with developing a long range planning fee that would be in addition to existing planning fees. Basically, a "surcharge" would be paid at the time of submittal of specific land use applications. The intent of the long range planning fee is to offset the costs of completing long range planning studies. It would be used to help pay the costs of hiring consultants, temporary staff or interns for specific identified projects, not for general long range activities, such as direct costs of City personnel or capital and/or equipment needs of the City. Exhibit A identifies application types where the long range planning fee would be paid. With minor exception, planning fees were increased by 14.76%. The existing planning fees are based on average costs for processing a particular application. Costs include direct personnel costs, materials, notices, etc. The new fees not only would include those costs, but would also include an amount to offset the cost of doing long range planning projects. The few fees that did not increase included specific appeals, blasting permits, hearing postponements, and plat name changes. The proposed long range planning fee is anticipated to generate approximately $30,000 - $40,000 per year. Given the fact that the fees are based on permit activity, the actual revenue could fluctuate from year to year. The goal is to have a fund to complete such long range planning projects as the City determines are necessary through the budgetary process. Public notification of the proposed fee was given in the Tigard Times. Additionally, individual developers who submitted any land use application proposed for inclusion within the last 2 years, were provided notice. Notice was also posted in the lobby at City Hall. We have not received any comments from the public regarding the proposed fees. Summary In conclusion, Council has established a goal to evaluate all fees and charges in an effort to move toward having applications and services be fee supported. The long range planning fee is a step toward achieving this goal. r 1:lcdadmyerreeyimXgeneraltLong Range Planning Fees memo to Council.doc R AGENDA ITEM # (o~ FOR AGENDA OF 12/14/04 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for an Oregon Park and Recreation Department/Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant for a portion of the Fanno Creek Trail PREPARED BY: Dan Plaza, 2590 DEPT HEAD OK 6WCITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council authorize the City Manager to submit to ORPD an application for federal funds available through the Land and Water Conservation Fund as a means of providing needed funding for the construction of a segment of the Fanno Creek Trail between Hall Boulevard and Wall Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the ORPD application. INFORMATION SUMMARY On Wednesday, November 16, 2004, Staff met with Marilyn Almero-Lippincott, the State Parks Grant Coordinator, to discuss two existing City of Tigard trail grants. Among other topics, we discussed the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grant awarded to Tigard for the Grant/Main Fanno Creek Trail segment. LWCF are federal funds administered in Oregon by State Parks. The Grant/Main segment was picked for grant funding approximately two years ago. Marilyn indicated that the federal funding agency, the National Park Service, has allowed the City up to nine additional months to put together a ready-to-go project, with all necessary easements and permits in place and all state/federal required paperwork completed. Failure to meet this deadline would result in the loss of the grant dollars. Currently we are experiencing legal difficulties (unwilling seller, existing land use violation). We discussed with Marilyn the possibility of transferring the dollars to another Fanno Creek Trail segment. The segment we have in mind is the southern or downstream section of the Hall to Wall library trail. Last year, we were awarded a grant from a different program (Recreational Trail Program) to fund this segment. However we have not moved ahead with construction due to the following: 1) pending approval by ODOT for a pedestrian cross walk across Hall Boulevard, and 2) permit requirements by CWS that affect the entire library site. Further, this segment is lacking funds due to the downscaling of the library project after we had applied for, and received, grant dollars. Due to other funding priorities, this section of the trail, included in the original site plan, was deleted from the construction contract. In our discussion with Marilyn we explored the idea of transferring the LWCF grant dollars to this deleted section. Her response was that the grant program rules would prohibit the substitution of another trail segment outside of the original project limits. The rule applicable here is that the new project would not have gone through a federally-required committee rating process. However, she did outline another approach to accomplishing the i same outcome. The application due date for the next round of OPRD/LWCF applications is December 15, 2004. She suggests withdrawing our present Grant/Main project and re-submitting the unfunded library section. In our application and oral presentations we would explain that this new Fanno Creek segment application is intended to replace the previous Fanno Creek segment project. Sticking with the original Grant/Main project is highly risky and could result in the loss of federal dollars, which can not be uses for on-street trail improvements. This loss of federal dollars would not only affect the City, it would result in the State needing to return federal funds which the State does not want to do under any circumstances. It is important to note that we were led to understand that a repercussion of this could be some loss of goodwill toward the City by the State. Currently, the City of Tigard is held in high regard because of the recent Cook Park experience, and the other grants the City has been successful with. Withdrawing from the current grant would not preclude re-applying for the same project at a later date. Because of the current legal difficulties (unwilling seller, existing land use violation), the Grant/Main segment is looking like a long-term project. Rather than risk losing the grant dollars as well as the goodwill of State Parks, we recommend following the Coordinator's recommended alternative Basically the State's preferred "course of action" is as follows: 1) Memo to the Coordinator stating that we are having problems with the Grant to Main Fanno Creek Trail project and that we want to withdraw this grant, and 2) re-apply for a new grant - 2nd segment of the Hall to Wall Fanno Creek Trial at Fanno Creek Park during the upcoming December 15, 2004 cycle. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not apply for the grant. 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 - Council Resolution Attachment 2 - Memo Requesting to Withdraw Main/Grant Segment Grant Attachment 3 - Map of Fanno Creek Trail segment Attachment 4 - Fanno Path, Concrete Pathway costs C FISCAL NOTES j Should the City proceed with a new grant, we will seek $52,192 in grant funds. All State Parks grant programs i require a 50% match. A City match of $53,000 in SDC funds is currently in place for Grant/Main and could be transferred to the new segment of the Fanno Creek Trail at Fanno Creek Park without the need to commit new City dollars. MEMORANDUM TO: Marilyn Almero-Lippincott FROM: Dan Plaza RE: Withdrawal of Main Street to Grant Street Trial Construction Grant DATE: December 1, 2004 Thank you for meeting with us. As you know the City of Tigard is having difficulty in purchasing the needed property to complete the Main Street to Grant Street Segment of the Fanno Creek Trail. First of all there is an unwilling seller, and secondly, the property has a land use violation on it. Both of these difficulties will take a considerable amount of time to resolve. After talking with you on November 17, 2004, it became clear to us that we should recommend to Council that the City withdraw this grant and reapply for another Fanno Creek Trail segment grant at Fanno Creek Park. It is our understanding that the new grant application is due on December 15, 2004. In our new application and oral presentations we will explain to the committee that this new Fanno Creek segment is intended to replace the previous Fanno Creek segment project. It is our understanding that by treating the new Fanno Creek Park segment as a replacement for the old Grant Street/Main Street segment, the State would be able to keep the previously-allocated grant dollars and re-allocate them to a new project. We understand that the new application will be evaluated as a new application and that there are no assurances that we will get the replacement grant funded. Once again, thank you for meeting with us and sharing with us a possible course of action in regard to this issue. r i ATTACHMENT #2 i A* -r ~'`3 i ~ sue. b I 6 ' I j I 1 I i Y I I I I ~ _ I LIBRA Y I to „r tea, / 'A OsMARA ST. - - R p / I I ~ ! /Proposed path I - 0000 segment - &175 LF I I o0 AS - - LIBRARY PARKING LOT Ex/st swore I to m - Proposed relocated swale I I i Proposed boardwalk segment - t200 LF I I Proposed path I 1 segment - f95 LF I I I 7 O I j A .I j ATTACHMENT #3 FANNO PATH CONCRETE PATHWAY ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE BID UNIT TOTAL DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT MOBILIZATION L.S. $4,000.00 DUST/EROSION /SEDIMENTATION CONTROL L.S. $1,200.00 CLEARING AND GRUBING L.S. " $1,200.00 WETLAND MITIGATION L.S. $15,000.00 EXIST SWALE RELOCATION L.S. $10.000.00 PATHWAY EXCAVATION 150 C.Y. $30.00 $4,500.00 REMOVE TREES 5 EA. $150.00 $750.00 CONCRETE 240 S.Y. $15.00 $3,600.00 2"-0" BASEROCK 58 C.Y. $45.00 $2.610.00 314"-0" LEVELING ROCK 50 C.Y. $60.00 $3,000.00 AGGREGATE SHOULDER ROCK 4 C.Y. $30.00 $120.00 BOARDWALK 200 L.F. $100.00 $20,000.00 PROJECT TOTAL $65,980.00 15% ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION $9,897 GRAND TOTAL (Rounded) $75,900 i 1 1 1 1 ATTACHMENT #4 Tigard Comprehensive Plan Fanno Creek Trail Policy 3.5.4 OREGON PARK AND • The City shall provide interconnected RECREATION DEPARTMENT pedestrian/bike paths throughout the City. (OPRD) GRANT Library/Park to Fanno Pointe Segment Main Street to Grant Street Segment Fanno Creek Trail In 2002, City awarded $52,192 In federal LWCF funds to construct Fanno Creek Trail Grant St. to Main St. segment ! The City has been unable to acquire property needed to - complete am project (unwilling seller). • TM property has a land use situation which must be o' retti4' ' These situations will take a considerable amount of time 1 q_t to rectify and we were told that a continued delay will go Agency's (Bureau of Outdoor r =real the Federalrtlawl. ReereaUOn) comfo Now Grant Fanno Creek Trail Segment Hall Boulevard to Wall Street Segment Due to other Library Building funding priorities, this segment of the trail, included in the original Library site plan, was deleted from the Library construction contract. 1 Fanno Creek Trail Fanno Creek Trail • State Parks supports the re-appropriation Benefits of project re-appropriation of the Grant Street/Main Street segment - Avo!ds State loss of pass through federal funds to the Library segment funds - Grant/Main remains eligible for future state • A new application and Statewide Grant grants without prejudice Project Selection Committee approval is - Potential for Halt/Wall segment to be fully still required funded - Preserves City's high (grant-funded) project performance rating with the state i 2 AGENDA ITEM # J FOR AGENDA OF Dec. 14.2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Co,n 4y yU_LP.,4 'gy'p 1 a• ~8 O~ COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Public Works Department: Mission/Values Exercise Results PREPARED BY: Brian Rager DEPT HEAD OK iJ~_ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The Public Works staff will report as to the results of a recent exercise conducted with the department. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action required. Information only. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Public Works department has gone through some personnel changes over the last year, including changes in management staff. In addition, the department identified some key concerns related to the internal culture and environment and was seeking a process that would help to bring about a positive change. It was also a good time to evaluate how the external customers of the department view the service provided. During the summer of 2004, the department began a process referred to as the Mission & Values Exercise. This process involved all Public Works staff and began with a department-wide setting where Staff (management and non-management) were mixed into six different discussion groups. These groups were facilitated by staff from other departments. The result of these group discussions, as well as follow-up discussions with Staff, is a new Mission Statement, Slogan and a set of Core Values for the Public Works Department. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED n/a CL VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COM3vHTTEE STRATEGY n/a J ATTACHMENT LIST u PowerPoint Presentation FISCAL NOTES Only minor printing costs for business cards, wall-mounted displays and door decals. A wise business man once said... ■ "If you run your business this year the way Public Works Department you ran your business last year. you will not be in business next year.' Mission & Values Exercise Results Issues in Public Works: Mission & Values Exercise: ■ Changes in personnel a: ■ Department-wide kickoff on June 29, 2004. a Concern with Internal culture: How do we . ■ Discussion groups Included all staff. treat each other? ■ Facilitators recruited from other departments. r ~ a Concern with Customer Service: How are we ■ Non-biased help doing? ■ Allowed supervisor/management staff to be mixed in the groups. Good opportunity to ask ourselves what we value and what our mission should be. 4tr;', Mission & Values Exercise: Discussion Results: Values .:.r; is We asked three primary questions: ■ Safety a support from ■ 'What are the most important things you value IMF s Respect Management in the work environment?' ■ Honesty ■ Leadership a Professionalism ■ 'What do you see as the Department ,T ■ Humor ■ Laughter ■ Quality Training mtsskxt?' ■ 'How do you want to be treated by your ■ Trust ■ Fairness to All ■ Teamwork coworkers?' 1 Discussion Results: Mission Discussion Results: Treatment ■ Provide good, ■ Go the extra mile. ` a Respect ■ Treat others as you courteous. prompt ■ Provide a hig"UsIlty ■ Treat as equals (no want to be treated. service. product favoritism) ■ Be friendly to one • Operate prdessbnaily. a Fairness to all another. ■ Maintain the City a Be consistent ■ Be trustworthy. infraahodure to the ■ Deal with Indlvldual but of our ability. problems; do not punish the whole group. Follow Up to Discussions Public Works Mission Statement ■ Management staff developed drafts of 'The Public Works Department proudly Mission Statement, Slogan and list of Values. provides stewardship over the City's ■ Managers met with each division to review water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, drafts. streets, fleet, buildings, and parks ■ Final Ail-Staff meeting on September 30, services In a safe, eff7clenk courteous and 2004 professional manner." ■ Final comments and changes ■ Celebration luncheon r.;,. Public Works Slogan ~tiR Public Works Core Values C "Taking care of the community" = Professionalism Respect Integrity ~ Dedication i Enthusiasm 1 ' I I 2 r. Other Follow Up Next Steps: ■ Public Works customer satisfaction survey. ■ Slogan on PW business cards ■ Proposed for introduction after January 1, a Slogan on door decals 2005. Ku ■ Make Mission Statement, Slogan and Core Values visible. ■ New clothing policy. a Conduct our business In accordance with our Mission and Core Values. ■ Mission and Values will become part of performance reviews. ■ Review Mission & Values biannually. Slogan: Door Decal Example 42- C'»ucrt~llu~rriaa~r a is i' 3