City Council Packet - 01/24/2005
Agenda Item No. 3_1
For Agenda of February 22, 2005
COUNCIL MINUTES
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2005
• Mayor Dirksen called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
• Council Present: Mayor Dirksen; Councilors Harding, Sherwood, Wilson and
Woodruff
Staff Present: City Manager Monahan, City Engineer Duenas, Community
Development Director Hendryx, Public Works Director Koellermeier, Assistant to
the City Manager Newton, Finance Director Prosser, City Recorder Wheatley,
• 2005 Council Goal-Setting Discussion (continued from January 18, 2005)
Mayor Dirksen opened the discussion among Council and staff members
regarding implementation of the list of goals developed by the Council at its
January 18, 2005, meeting:
Goal 1 - Revitalize Downtown
• Complete and implement the Downtown Plan
• Urban renewal implementation
o Public relations plan and vote
• Identify and begin projects
Community Development Director Hendryx reviewed some ideas with Council
regarding the implementation of this goal. Specific elements of the goal that
could be implemented were discussed including identifying and implementing
code amendments.
The urban renewal matter was discussed at length. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the
timeline should an urban renewal district be placed before the voters in 2005.
Ninety percent of an urban renewal plan (identify projects) would need to be
completed by the end of March 2005. The urban renewal election would need to
be called for by the City Council no later than the last meeting of July 2005. Mr.
Hendryx reviewed some of the requirements for developing an'urban renewal
proposal: public involvement/comment; work with other jurisdictions.
Mayor Dirksen noted that work is being done now by the downtown task force. A
report on the committee's recommendations will soon be coming to the City
Council. The Mayor offered that this preliminary work by the Task Force might
be incorporated as the public involvement plan is put together.
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 1
January 24, 2005
Discussion followed on the nature of an urban renewal district and introducing
the idea to the community about use of an urban renewal district to help finance
projects for the downtown. Once a ballot title has been approved by the Council,
it will be important that promotion of the ballot measure be carried by a citizens
group.
Councilor Wilson noted two of the issues with regard to the City of Tigard being
able to make use of an urban renewal district:
1. City Charter restrictions - urban renewal needs approval of voters.
2. State requirements
Community Development Director Hendryx noted that the City could opt to
proceed with an effort to change the Charter by asking the voters to rescind the
Charter's restrictions on urban renewal.
Mr. Hendryx outlined the process for public education and how tax increment
financing works. There was discussion about the current regional effort for an
urban renewal district with the County, Beaverton and Tigard for the commuter
rail corridor. Tigard needs to decide whether it would like to include the
downtown in this effort. A location at Washington Square is also under
consideration for the regional proposal.
It was noted that specific public projects need to be identified in an urban
renewal plan (e.g., street improvements). The purpose of an urban renewal
district is to spark private development capital projects by financing and
implementing public improvement projects.
Councilor Sherwood noted that Washington County and the City of Beaverton
feel that Tigard is critical to the commuter rail urban renewal project. The
Washington Square segment of the commuter rail line is considered to be an
important piece.
Discussion followed on whether it would be best to work on the downtown and
Washington Square separately or together. Would there be more support for
one over the other? Council considered timing. Should the downtown effort go
before forward before Washington Square?
Councilor Sherwood commented that almost all the improvements for
Washington Square would be street improvements and water drainage. It was
commented that, if the City focused on the downtown, it would be more feasible
to develop a timeline for implementation this year.
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 2
January 24, 2005
There was discussion on whether it would be helpful to conduct a public opinion
poll to determine the level of support for the downtown and the Washington
Square for an urban renewal district and tax increment financing.
In February, the Corridor Urban Renewal Committee will update the City Council
on its efforts and findings.
Councilor Woodruff commented that the first priority for Tigard is to revitalize the
downtown. Tax increment financing would be a source of funding for downtown
improvements. The second priority for Tigard is the regional corridor.
There was discussion about the need to do what is necessary to educate voters
on tax increment financing.
Councilor Woodruff suggested that the downtown urban renewal be placed on
the ballot first and then have the voters consider the regional urban renewal
district in May 2006.
If the downtown is developed as a separate district, it would be administered by
the City of Tigard. If Washington Square became part of a regional urban
renewal district, the governance would be comprised of representatives from
Washington County and the cities of Beaverton and Tigard.
There was discussion on how dollars would become available for tax increment
financing. Finance Director Prosser explained the first hurdle is to obtain seed
money. Bonds can be issued, however the bond community would first like to
see evidence of success (economic growth and stability) before it would be
supportive.
Discussion followed on the development of the governance model that would
allow jurisdictions to determine which projects are put forward in a regional effort.
Also discussed was the need to identify boundaries. Once a district is formed,
the boundaries could be expanded up to 20 percent at a later time. Community
Development Director Hendryx confirmed that separate locations within a larger
region can be part of the same district.
Mayor Dirksen confirmed that the Downtown Task Force Chair Mike Marr
expressed concern with the City Council sitting as the Urban Renewal Agency.
Mr. Marr suggested to the Mayor that the Agency members be appointed by the
Council.
Councilor Harding said it was her understanding that those in the community
who had been opposed to urban renewal in the past were no longer in the City of
Tigard.
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 3
January 24, 2005
Councilor Woodruff summarized that the objectives in the Council's 2005 goals
were as stated; therefore, activities should move forward on the downtown the
Washington Square effort is secondary.
Councilor Harding said the Downtown Task Force should be shown how much
they are appreciated.
There was discussion on starting and completing projects this year, regardless of
whether or not an urban renewal district gets formed.
Community Development Director Hendryx noted the Downtown Task Force
would be meeting with the City Council in March.
The Council members noted the need for staff to flesh out the downtown goal as
stated with details, including projects, timelines, and responsibilities.
Time was taken by Council at this point in the meeting to advise staff about the
Council's overall approach to 2005 goal implementation. Goals should be
achieved with community involvement. Goals, when identified, should also work
toward overall enhancement of the City's appearance.
Council members agreed with Finance Director Prosser's suggestion to develop
a preamble to the 2005 Council goals. The preamble would outline the overlay
of the underlying principles for goal achievement, including community
involvement, adhering to the goals and strategies prepared by the Vision Task
Force, enhancing the appearance of the city, and measuring results.
Goal 2 - Improve 9W
• Identify specific projects
• Prioritize projects/funding
• Leverage additional funding
This goal, noted Councilor Wilson, includes not only identifying projects but also
identifying ways to visually improve the 99W corridor.
There is a need to assess the 99W corridor to determine what is needed. For
example, Councilor Wilson commented that there are areas of right of way along
99W that do not appear to belong to anything.
99W is difficult to cross; research ideas to make it easier.
Mayor also noted that streetscape improvements are needed for 99W.
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 4
January 24, 2005
City Engineer Duenas reviewed some of his ideas, which included encouraging
new, attractive development.
Mr. Duenas reviewed the Hall/99W intersection, which is funded by MSTIP III
dollars. Councilor Sherwood noted that since the Safeway store has closed, this
intersection is less congested. The Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) is considering whether some of the access points from this shopping
center property should be closed. An update on the scope of this $4.3 million
MSTIP project will come to the Council in April. Construction is anticipated to
begin in 2006.
Mr. Duenas referred to the analysis of the McDonald intersection. Widening at
McDonald Street does not look feasible. He reviewed some lane improvements
(lengthening the left-turn lane, establishing a right turn lane).
There was discussion about adjusting timing of traffic signals on 99W.
The Greenburg Road intersection was discussed: improvements, realignments
and use of some of the connector streets.
Councilor Wilson noted the need to identify a series of small improvements over
many years, which would improve intersections, limit access, and create
"backage" roads. Mayor Dirksen noted some of the curb cuts along 99W should
be closed.
Councilor Wilson said the City should get ready for redevelopment and look for
opportunities now.
Councilor Woodruff said he would not like to see more studies done; rather, he
would like specific projects to be identified for completion by the end of 2005.
There was discussion on developing a "grand plan," and then approach ODOT to
determine what could be done. A list should be developed for ODOT's review,
which would include specific recommendations for each intersection. Mr.
Duenas referred to the Transportation System Plan which outlines proposals for
Walnut, McDonald, Greenburg, Hall, and the off-ramp at Highway 217.
Councilor Wilson reiterated that some projects should be done this year, but also
staff should plan for long-range projects. Mr. Duenas said he could identify
areas where "backage" roads could be located.
Councilor Woodruff said he would like to see modeling that would show what
projects would give the greatest percentage of benefit.
Mr. Duenas said he could prepare a schedule of incremental improvements.
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 5
January 24, 2005
There was brief discussion of Bull Mountain Road with regard to a pedestrian
crossing.
Goal 3 - Address Growth
• Comprehensive Plan for Tigard, and if funded, for Bull
Mountain
• Metro - seek changes
• Identify and acquire Parks and Open Space
• Review growth of expenditures and revenue
• Graphic identity (branding)
o Signage
o Logo
o Stationery
Community Development Director Hendryx noted that a work program is being
developed for the Comprehensive Plan. A joint meeting with Council and the
Planning Commission is scheduled for February 15, 2005. There was
discussion about how much extra it would cost to do the planning for Bull
Mountain. Community Development Director Hendryx commented that it is
estimated that the two- to three-year Comprehensive Plan update will cost about
$200,000 for outside resources. In addition, all of the long-range planners' and
some of the current planners' time would be devoted to the Comprehensive Plan
update. He said that the Bull Mountain area is about 20 percent the size of
incorporated City of Tigard. He added that the Bull Mountain area does not have
the inventories completed, which has already been done for the City of Tigard.
Councilor Wilson commented that the fallout of the Bull Mountain Annexation
Plan has not been factored in. This area is proceeding on "auto pilot." The City
needs to determine what, if anything, needs to be done. Mayor Dirksen said
there is a need to plan for the Bull Mountain area; however, he would not want to
do it for free. Councilor Harding questioned whether this is the way to proceed,
knowing that the City would get the benefit of the planning later. Councilor
Woodruff commented that people in the Bull Mountain area appear to want to
have the planning done and, perhaps, they should be asked how this planning
should be funded. There is an upcoming meeting scheduled, called by
Washington County Chair Tom Brian, to discuss the Bull Mountain
unincorporated area. Representatives have been asked to attend from the City,
County and unincorporated Bull Mountain community.
Community Development Director said the scope of the planning area for the
Comprehensive Plan needs to be identified. He referred to some planning
responsibilities referred to in the urban services agreement. This agreement
needs to be reviewed as well.
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 6
January 24, 2005
There was discussion on urban reserve areas 63 and 64. Developers are
interested in pursuing new development; however, before development can
occur, the area must be part of a jurisdiction.
Councilor Sherwood raised the issue of whether or not the Metzger area would
be included in the Comprehensive Plan update. She said she thought this area
should be included. Mayor Dirksen noted there would be less significant impact
on the City from this area because Metzger is almost all developed. The
Metzger residents appear to be satisfied with the area as it is now. Incorporating
this Metzger area in the Comprehensive Plan Update might not mean a
significant additional cost. Some redevelopment is occurring in Metzger and
some of the comprehensive planning has been completed as part of the
Washington Square Regional Plan.
There was discussion on the "Metro - seek changes" objective. Mayor Dirksen
noted that other jurisdictions in the County appear to be looking at asking for
changes. The Mayor referred to a recent resolution adopted by the City of
Tualatin and Tualatin is asking other cities to support this action. The Mayor said
he would provide a copy of the Tualatin resolution to the Council members for
review.
There was discussion on the "parks and open space" objective. Public Director
Koellermeier discussed this objective with Council and noted the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) is formulating ideas that will be presented to
the Council. Projects to be done in 2005 would be identified. The Mayor noted
that potential parks for the City and for Bull Mountain should be identified.
Council members noted they would be interested in land for parks - not just the
power line land.
There was discussion on prioritization and utilization of Parks System
Development funds. Requirements for using SDC dollars include a match.
Another funding mechanism may be through a park bond.
When land donations are offered for parks, such land should be useable. There
was brief discussion about a report from citizen Gretchen Buehner regarding
acreage recently annexed where some land might be available for parks. This
possibility should be investigated. Also park land in Areas 63 and 64 should be
identified.
It was noted that it is a "given" that staff should pursue trail land available in PGE
and BPA easements. Trail connections and future opportunities should be
explored.
Councilor Harding questioned that since Washington County is state-park
deficient, would it be worthwhile to lobby for a park in Area 63 and 64? A wildlife
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 7
January 24, 2005
refuge of about 2000 acres is next to Area 63. Finance Director Prosser said the
policy of the state is that it will not site state parks within urban areas.
The objective to "review growth of revenue and expenditures" was discussed.
Council members want the City to live within revenue and set priorities. Mayor
Dirksen referred to the need for discussion on how soon a deficit will occur for
the City of Tigard. Councilor Wilson commented that "finance" might not be a
Council goal, but it is an element that should always be addressed. All
government agencies and the private sector are feeling the same economic
pressure and Councilor Wilson said he did not have a good grasp of the trends
for Tigard. Finance Director Prosser noted there is a meeting scheduled with the
Budget Committee/Council for January 25. The purpose of this meeting is to set
the stage for the upcoming budget preparation process. Also, information about
forecasts and trends could be presented at this time. Tigard has historically
prepared conservative budgets.
Discussion followed on the cost of staffing: private sector vs. public sector
wages and benefits. Councilor Harding noted the loss of benefits in the private
sector and noted her observations of wages and benefits for city employees
when compared to private sector employees in this competitive employment
market.
Union negotiations were discussed briefly. Adjustments have been made to the
pay scale and employees are now paying a share of the cost of health insurance
premiums. There was a comment that the City needs to continue to make
headway in these areas. It was noted that a police arbitration matter has yet to
be resolved. There was discussion about public relations among City employees
so they are aware of the financial constraints and that "we are all in this
together."
Councilor Harding said she would like to see a true comparison of Tigard's tax
rate with that of neighboring cities taking into account the services offered.
Finance Director Prosser commented that avoiding a deficit later rather than
sooner has been due in large part because the Council has been receptive to
adjusting fees and charges to increase revenues.
Discussion followed on "graphic identity (branding)." Assistant to the City
Manager Newton commented about ideas from the Youth Advisory Council and
the logo. The Mayor noted the Council had discussed developing a graphic
design for city signage and the need for professional assistance. Councilor
Sherwood noted it would be best to obtain the services of a professional
designer rather than trying to develop proposals by a committee.
Tigard City Council Minutes Page s
January 24, 2005
The Vision Task Force has prepared suggestions with regard to City identity.
There was discussion about making a list of images of what the people in the
City of Tigard would like to be known for, for example: "city meets country," or "a
village." The logo design could depict aspiration imagery as opposed to what the
image is now. The branding idea would be to develop a number of elements:
fonts, colors, signage, etc.
Additional ideas were suggested including a slogan contest, which could be
conducted describing what Tigard wants to be known for. One idea the Mayor
suggested was "family friendly."
The Cityscape newsletter was discussed briefly. Assistant to the City Manager
Newton suggested that the "purpose" be articulated for the newsletter.
Overall approach to goals: Councilor Woodruff said that the Council wanted to
see projects to be completed in 2005, or make it "live by the end of 05."
III. Non-Agenda Items
Council reviewed the Council/Staff Liaison Appointment chart. The following
adjustments and confirmations were made:
• Councilor Harding will serve on the Tualatin Basin Natural Resources
Coordinating Committee (replacing Councilor Wilson).
• Councilor Harding will serve on the Washington County Coordinating
Committee (replacing Councilor Wilson)
• Former Councilor Brian Moore will continue to serve on the Highway 217
Planning Committee
• Councilor Woodruff, it was noted, is serving on the Joint Water
Commission and will continue to serve.
• Councilor Harding will serve on the Metro Area Communications
Commission Board (replacing former Councilor Ken Scheckla).
Councilor Harding said that volunteers should be acknowledged for their service. She
has heard comments from past volunteers that they did not feel they had been thanked
for their contributions.
IV. Adjournment: 9:30 p.m.
Catherine Wheatley, City Re rder
Attest:
Mayor, Ci y of Tigar
Date:
i:\ad m\cathy\ccm\2005\050124.doc
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 9
January 24, 2005
AL SETTING MEETING
FTIGAP,D IGARD CITY COUNCIL
UARY 24, 2005 7 p.m. CITY OF TIGARD
LIBRARY COM MUNITY ROOM OREGON
0 SW HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OR 97223
PUBLIC NOTICE:
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 1 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 - JANUARY 24, 2005 page 1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
GOAL SETTING MEETING
January 24, 2005 - 7 PM
1. Roll Call and Call to Order
• Mayor Dirksen
II. 2005 Council Goal-Setting Discussion (continued from January 18, 2005)
III. Non-Agenda Items
IV. Adjournment
is \ad m\cathy\cca\2005\050124. doc
COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 24, 2005 page 2
City of Tigard, Oregon
Affidavit of Posting
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
In the Matter of the Proposed Notification of Tigard City Council Meeting Time
and Meeting Location for the January 24, 2005 Council Goal-Setting Meeting
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
11 ~o~ rt F [.e 01 , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by
oath (or affirmation), depose and say:
That I posted in
➢ Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon
➢ Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 1 /
➢ oaf opeo~Ta
➢ Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 4 h c P44/-c-
64 fti;s
a copy of Notice Tigard City Council Meeting Time and Meeting Location for the
January 24, 2005 Council Goal-Setting Meeting. A copy of said Notice being hereto
attached and by reference made a part hereof, on thea¢day of 'Cto-mm 20&~_
Signature of Person who Performed Posting
Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this day of
_1Ct n LAO !L-/ , 2005.
OFFICIAL SEAL
JILL M BYARS
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Sign ture of Notary Public for Oregon
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE~14, 2008
is\adm\cathy\cca\cc meeting notices\affidavit of posting -1-24-05.doc
CITY OF TIGARD
NOTICE OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 24, 2005, 7 p.m.
Tigard Library Community Room
13500 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon
Please forward to:
Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724)
Patrick Harrington, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061)
L,/ Editor, The Regal Courier (Fax No. 503-968-7397)
Notice is hereby given of a Tigard City Council meeting on January 24, 2005, 7 p.m., at the Tigard Public Library
Community Room, 13500 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss Tigard
City Council goals for 2005.
For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171, Ext 2410.
City Recorder
Date:
Post: Tigard City Hall 61
Tigard Permit Center
Tigard Water Building
Tigard Public Library
is\adm\cathy\cca\cc meeting notices\goal setting - january 24, 2005.doc
City of Tigard, Oregon
Affidavit of Notification
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
In the Matter of the Proposed Notification Tigard City Council Meeting Time
and Meeting Location for the January 24, 2005 Council Goal-Setting Meeting
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I,'~ being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by 6-4 oath (or affirmation), depose and say:
That I notified the following people/ organizations by fax of:
■ Tigard City Council Meeting Time and Meeting Location for the
January 24, 2005 Council Goal-Setting Meeting
A copy of said Notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part
hereof, on the q ~ day of 20 0 5
Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724)
V Patrick Harrington, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061)
~ Editor, The Regal Courier (Fax No. 503-968-7397)
Signature of Person who P ormed Notification
Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this. day of
~i9n_ _ , 20-a5 .
OFFICIAL SEAL ~l
GREER A GASTON
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 373020 Signature of Notary Public for Oregon
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT. 10, 2007
is\adm\cathy\cca\cc meeting notices\affidavit of notification -meeting change 1-24-05.doc
01/19/2005 12:23 FAX 5036847297 City of Tigard 0001
m MULTI TX/RX REPORT
xc
TX/RX NO 3853
PCs. 1
TX/RX INCOMPLETE
TRANSACTION OR [ 0615035460724 TT Newsroom
[ 0915039686061 Oregonian
[ 1115039687397 Regal Courier
ERROR INFORMATION
CITY OF TIGARD
NOTICE OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 24, 2005, 7 p.m. i
Tigard Library Community Room
13500 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon
Please forward to:
Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724)
Patrick Harrington, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061)
✓ Editor, The Regal Courier (Fax No. 503-968-7397)
Notice is hereby given of a Tigard City Council meeting on January 24, 2005, 7 p.m., at the Tigard Public Library
Community Room, 13500 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss Tigard
City Council goals for 2005.
For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171, Ext 2410.
City Recorder
~DI~J
Date: .4.,-,Al,
Post; Tigard City Hall 61
Tieard Permit Center
' IV
CITY OF TIGARD
NOTICE OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 24, 2005, 7 p.m.
Tigard Library Community Room
13500 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon
Please forward to:
✓ Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724)
✓ Patrick Harrington, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061)
L/" Editor, The Regal Courier (Fax No. 503-968-7397)
Notice is hereby given of a Tigard City Council meeting on January 24, 2005, 7 p.m., at the Tigard Public Library
Community Room, 13500 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss Tigard
City Council goals for 2005.
For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171, Ext 2410.
City Recorder
Date:
Post: Tigard City Hall
Tigard Permit Center
Tigard Water Building
Tigard Public Library
is\adm\cathy\cca\cc meeting notices\goal setting - january 24, 2005.doc
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Councils R
FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder~(,U~`"'
DATE: January 21, 2005
SUBJECT: Meeting Notes
Attached is an outline summary of the Council-goal setting discussion on January 18,
2005. More complete meeting minutes will be prepared and submitted to the Council for its
consideration.
I hope these notes are useful to you as you prepare for the January 24, 2005, goal setting
meeting, part 2.
Tigard City Council
Meeting Notes
January 18, 2005, Goal-Setting
Called to order at 4:10 p.m. by Mayor Dirksen
Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors Harding, Sherwood, Wilson (arrived at 4:45
p.m.), and Woodruff
Also Present: Tigard Youth Advisory Council President Williams; City Recorder
Wheatley
• Reviewed 2004 Council Goals - status
o Discussed Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Survey results priorities noted by
respondents
o Specific recommendations anticipated soon from the Park and Recreation
Advisory Board as a result of the survey recently conducted
o Publicity materials should clarify that the City is setting aside $150,000
for the skate park as a match to fundraising by the Skate Park Task Force.
o Discussed housing density transfer to the Downtown area.
o Many of the goals have been ongoing for a number of years.
• Discussed how to approach goal-setting for 2005
o Citizen Involvement emphasized, which should be accompanied by
performance measures/outcomes.
■ Look at models to restart citizen involvement
• Potential resource: www.iowaCIPA.org
o Review existing efforts to determine if outcomes are borne out
o Discussed past and. current efforts: CIT Program, Community Assessment
Program
o Discussed CCI program underway.
o Perseverance to remain positive when trying to develop a working citizen
involvement program
o Reviewed Mayor Dirksen's proposed goals (attached)
o Discussed difference between goals, objectives, and tasks. Set far-
reaching goals with several measurable objectives for each, to help
determine whether progress has been made.
■ Brainstorming Discussion Notes
o Transportation - work with ODOT and let them know where and how
Tigard will offer to assist in making improvements at intersections.
0 99W corridor improvements to alleviate congestion
o Address in comprehensive planning (rezoning), limiting connections,
back street access, explore other connections
o Discussion on whether priority transportation projects have been pursued
- review Transportation System Plan and Capital Improvement Program
o Augment citizen involvement for credibility and trust
o Reviewed elements of strategic financial plan
• Audit studies already done to determine whether there is doubling up
on efforts
o TFSTF - does this group need help with developing transportation system
models?
o Identify tangible improvements to reduce congestion on 99W - make it a
priority
o Discussed how much support should City give to proposed Bypass
Corridor. Comment was that, unless there is a substantial reduction of
traffic on 99W, the Bypass would not be supported.
o Discussed funding mechanisms through bond measures and gas tax.
o After discussion, consensus of Council was for Councilors Wilson and
Woodruff to discuss with City Engineer Duenas a list of transportation
priorities
o Tax increment financing was discussed. Education is needed so voters
understand this financing method.
o Urban renewal discussions are taking place on a regional basis
• Development of 2005 goal list
o - Council developed a goal list with objectives identified under each goal.
o Goals were not prioritized
o CCI discussed and how this citizen involvement effort would be useful in
an overall approach for all goal areas; there was discussion that the CCI
might be useful as a separate goal area for citizen involvement
o Metro issues discussed including the Metro Charter (amendment?)
o Address financial strategy; live within budget.
o Discussed long-term projections and health of the general fund.
o Cost containment
o Recheck Financial Plan - 35% staff increase since FY 99-00?
o Beautification discussed including designs for portals to City entrance
points and City parks, new logo, City "branding"; i.e., how does the City
want to be identified. Involve the public
o Discussed urban reserve areas 63 and 64; developers are interested.
o Public safety - addressing the downtown and 99W will help address crime
Council will review goal list (provided to Council as separate document) with staff on
January 24, 2005 at 7 p.m., in the Library Community Room.
Meeting adjourned: 8:02 p.m.
Craig's Suggested Council Goals 2005
1 Committee for Citizen Involvement restructure
a. Boards & Committees reps.
b. Neighborhood assn. reps.
1 City districts identified
2 Ea. Dist. Rep. to Board
3 Budget if active
2 Downtown Plan Completion & Implementation, w/Urban Renewal District
vote in November, if applicable.
3 Comprehensive Plan Review Process Identification & Construction
a. CCI Reps.
b. Planning Commission
c. Planning Staff Resource
3 Financial Strategy review and decision
a. Budget Committee Citizen Members
Study & recommendation
b. CCI Review
c. Joint recommendation to Council
4 City Beautification & Identification
a. City Gateway signage
b. Park Entrance signage
c. Arterial Right-of-Way Maintenance Pilot Project
Draft
Tigard City Council Goals - 2005
1. Revitalize Downtown
• Complete and implement the Downtown Plan
• Urban renewal implementation
o Public relations plan and vote
• Identify and begin projects
~
2. Improve 99W
• Identify, specific projects
• Prioritize projects/funding
• Leverage additional funding
3. Address Growth
• Comprehensive Plan for Tigard and, if funded, for Bull Mountain
• Metro - seek changes*
• Identify and acquire Parks and Open Space
• Review growth of expenditures and revenue
• Graphic identify (branding)
o Signage
o Logo
o Stationery
*Discussion included the following comments:
■ Seek changes at Metro that would free our Comprehensive Plan process to
respond to citizens concerns
■ Initiate discussion with Metro regarding flexibility with density requirements
hadmlcathykcouncil\goals 20051Tigard City Council Goals-2005
Tigard City Council
Meeting Notes
January 18, 2005, Goal-Setting
Called to order at 4:10 p.m. by Mayor Dirksen
Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors Harding, Sherwood, Wilson (arrived at 4:45
p.m.), and Woodruff
Also Present: Tigard Youth Advisory Council President Williams; City Recorder
Wheatley
• Reviewed 2004 Council Goals - status
o Discussed Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Survey results priorities noted by
respondents
o Specific recommendations anticipated soon from the Park and Recreation
Advisory Board as a result of the survey recently conducted
o Publicity materials should clarify that the City is setting aside $150,000
for the skate park as a match to fundraising by the Skate Park Task Force.
o Discussed housing density transfer to the Downtown area.
o Many of the goals have been ongoing for a number of years.
• Discussed how to approach goal-setting for 2005
o Citizen Involvement emphasized, which should be accompanied by
performance measures/outcomes.
■ Look at models to restart citizen involvement
• Potential resource: www.iowaCIPA.org
o Review existing efforts to determine if outcomes are borne out
o Discussed past and. current efforts: CIT Program, Community Assessment
Program
o Discussed CCI program underway.
o Perseverance to remain positive when trying to develop a working citizen
involvement program
o Reviewed Mayor Dirksen's proposed goals (attached)
o Discussed difference between goals, objectives, and tasks. Set far-
reaching goals with several measurable objectives for each, to help
determine whether progress has been made.
• Brainstorming Discussion Notes
o Transportation - work with ODOT and let them know where and how
Tigard will offer to assist in making improvements at intersections.
0 99W corridor improvements to alleviate congestion
o Address in comprehensive planning (rezoning), limiting connections,
back street access, explore other connections
o Discussion on whether priority transportation projects have been pursued
- review Transportation System Plan and Capital Improvement Program
o Augment citizen involvement for credibility and trust
o Reviewed elements of strategic financial plan
• Audit studies already done to determine whether there is doubling up
on efforts
o TFSTF - does this group need help with developing transportation system
models?
o Identify tangible improvements to reduce congestion on 99W -snake it a
priority
o Discussed how much support should City give to proposed Bypass
Corridor. Comment was that, unless there is a substantial reduction of
traffic on 99W, the Bypass would not be supported.
o Discussed funding mechanisms through bond measures and gas tax.
o After discussion, consensus of Council was for Councilors Wilson and
Woodruff to discuss with City Engineer Duenas a list of transportation
priorities
o Tax increment financing was discussed. Education is needed so voters
understand this financing method.
o Urban renewal discussions are taking place on a regional basis
• Development of 2005 goal list
o Council developed a goal list with objectives identified under each goal.
o Goals were not prioritized
o CCI discussed and how this citizen involvement effort would be useful in
an overall approach for all goal areas; there was discussion that the CCI
might be useful as a separate goal area for citizen involvement
o Metro issues discussed including the Metro Charter (amendment?)
o Address financial strategy; live within budget.
o Discussed long-term projections and health of the general fund
o Cost containment
o Recheck Financial Plan - 35% staff increase since FY 99-00?
o Beautification discussed including designs for portals to City entrance
points and City parks, new logo, City "branding"; i.e., how does the City
want to be identified. Involve the public
o Discussed urban reserve areas 63 and 64; developers are interested.
o Public safety - addressing the downtown and 99W will help address crime
Council will review goal list (provided to Council as separate document) with staff on
January 24, 2005 at 7 p.m., in the Library Community Room.
Meeting adjourned: 8:02 p.m.
1
Craig's Suggested Council Goals 2005
1 Committee for Citizen Involvement restructure
a. Boards & Committees reps.
b. Neighborhood assn. reps.
1 City districts identified
2 Ea. Dist. Rep. to Board
3 Budget if active
2 Downtown Plan Completion & Implementation, w/Urban Renewal District
vote in November, if applicable.
3 Comprehensive Plan Review Process Identification & Construction
a. CCI Reps.
b. Planning Commission
c. Planning Staff Resource
3 Financial Strategy review and decision
a. Budget Committee Citizen Members
Study & recommendation
b. CCI Review
c. Joint recommendation to Council
4 City Beautification & Identification
a. City Gateway signage
b. Park Entrance signage
c. Arterial Right-of-Way Maintenance Pilot Project
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Craig Dirksen
Tigard City Council and Councilor-Elect
i
FROM: Craig Prosse , inance 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:
■ 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).
■ '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 Goal-setting session on January 18.
cc: Bill Monahan, City Manager
Executive Staff
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 Impacted Amount Im lementation 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 Budget
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 Bud et
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
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
3 2005-06 Enhanced Various TBD Council direction or Yes Yes Yes 19
Neighborhood resolution
Program - CAP
3 2005 Enhanced Training Various TBD Council direction & No Yes 21
Budget
3 2006 or MSTIP Needs Road $10 million to Countywide vote No Yes Yes 23
2008 $20 million (Transp.
Improveme
nt
3 TBD Parks & Open Parks CIP $3.59 million Council resolution Yes No Yes 25
Spaces Ac uisition & citywide vote Protection
3 2005 Public Facilities Facilities, $3.41 million CIP & Budget No Yes 27
through Capital Projects - Water,
2010 PW, Records, Sanitary,
Police Storm
3 2005 ROW Maintenance TBD $25,000 to Budget Yes Yes Yes 29
Needs $450,000
3 2005 to Water Supply Water, Water $80 million to IWB Approval & Yes Yes 31
2006 Source CIP $90 million Council resolution
4 2005 to Centralizing City Various $500,000 to Council direction & No Yes 33
2009 Information $1,000,000 Budget
4 TBD Economic TBD TBD Council direction Yes Yes Yes 35
Development
Method of Council Strategic Vision
Rec. Potential Fund(s) Approval/ Goal Finance Plan Survey Page
Priori Timing Issue Impacted Amount Im lementation Candidate? Candidate? Issue? Number
4 2005 Urban Growth General $250,000 to IGA 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 Pro rams
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 Timing Issue Impacted 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
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 TBD No Yes 66
s Regulation $1.37 million
reduction
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
1 2005 to Transportation Other TBD Council ordinance Yes Yes 68
2006 Financing & resolution.
Possible citywide
vote.
1 TBD Urban Renewal Various TBD Council resolution Yes Yes 70
and Cit ide vote
1 2005 Water Utility Rates Water TBD IWB approval & No Yes 72
Council resolution
1 2006 WCCLS Levy General TBD Countywide vote No Yes 74
2 2005, with MSTIP Revenue Various $3 million to County approval No Yes 76
money $5 million
distributed
in 2007
3 2005 Franchise Fee - General, $441,000 per Council ordinance No Yes 78
Water & Sewer Water, & year & resolution
Sanitary
Sewer
3 TBD Privilege Tax General $647,000 Council ordinance No Yes 80
& resolution
3 2005 Telecommunications General Unknown Council ordinance No Yes 83
Re istration Fee & resolution
3 2005 Water Revenue Bond Water CIP $8.84 million Council resolution No Yes 85
5 2005 Passport Agency General TBD Council resolution No Yes 87
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 stuffers 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:
2
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 City 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 Priority/Discussion:
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
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:
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:
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
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 Februaryl5, 2005. That will
be the opportunity for Council and the Commission to finalize the approach for the
update of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this agenda item is to start the
discussion on the approach and scope of the program.
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.
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
budget.
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:
20
~V 1 5 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 28%. During this same time
period, the total number of City of Tigard employees has increased by 5% (2.2% within
the General Fund). 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.
Advantages:
■ 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:
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:
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.
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
arterials 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.
Timing: Initial action on this item will be during the FY 05-06 budget adoption process.
Advantages:
■ Beautify the city and entry points;
■ Removes unsightly areas;
■ Property owners would be happy.
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.
Only two of these projects are consistent with and addressed specifically in the City's
visioning documents.
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.
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
$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.
Implementation Action Required: Council discussion and direction on the preferred
form of an economic development program.
Timing: 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:
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
General Fund.
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.
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.
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
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:
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 supportof 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.
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
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 projectedJund balances are sufficient to meet anticipated needs or if
excess revenues are anticipated.
Council Priority/Discussion:
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.
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 SDC
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:
61
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:
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:
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:
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 RequiredlRevenue 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
Intergovernmental 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:
73
. Re venue Op tions
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.
■ Well-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.
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 56 200
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 local 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 -
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 exchange 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
CLECs $0
Total $647,900
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 tax 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
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
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
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
2005 Council & Staff Liaison Appointments
Committee Name Primary (Council or Alternate. or Staff
Staff). - Re resentative,
Budget Committee Dirksen Wilson Sherwood Woodruff Hardin
Budget Subcom - Social Prosser, Monahan
Services
Budget Subcom. Events Dirksen Wilson Sherwood Woodruff Hardin
Central Business District Dirksen Barbara Shields
Assn.
Comm. for Citizen Involvmt Hend x
Community Develop. Block Sherwood Duane Roberts
Grant Advisory Board
Commuter Rail Steering Dirksen
Committee
Corridor Urban Renewal Dirksen Sherwood
Comprehensive Plan Review Hend x
Coop. Library Advisory Barnes Sherwood
Board
Festival of Balloons
IWB Water Board Woodruff Dennis Koellermeier
Libra Board Barnes
Mayor's Appt. Advisory Jan - June 2005 July - Dec 2005 Jan - June 2006 July - Dec 2006 Jan-June 2007
Com. Woodruff Hardin Sherwood Wilson Woodruff
Metro Area Consolidated Scheckla Gary Ehrenfeld
Communications
Metro
Hwy 217 Brian Moore
Policy Advisory Comm. Wilson Hendryx
--Technical Advisory Com Duenas Hend x
Planned Develop. Review Morgan Tracy
Park & Recreation Advisory Dan Plaza
Council/Staff Liaison Appointment Matrix - Page 1
ti r F Pr~mary(Council ort S,S Alternate or Staff s ; r _
;Committee Name s N -
r r; ri~ c Staff)°fz Re'resentntrve. ;
Regional Water Consortium Woodruff V Dennis Koellermeier
Senior Center Mills
Skate Park Dan Plaza
Tree Board Matt Stine
Tualatin Basin Natural Wilson Hendryx
Resource Coordinating
Committee (Goal 5)
Tigard Chamber of Prosser - (staff: ex
Commerce Board officio)
Transportation Financing Wilson
Strategies Task Force
Vision Task Force Woodruff Loreen Mills/Liz
Newton
Washington County Monahan Al Orr
Consolidated
Communications Com
Washington County Wilson Duenas
Coordinating Committee
Washington Square Hendryx
Re Tonal Task Force
Westside Economic Alliance Wilson Hendryx
Willamette Water Supply Woodruff Koellermeier (staff)
A en
Youth Advisory Council Newton
Youth Forum Newton
Council/Staff Liaison Appointment Matrix - Page 2
Council Liaison Appointments
Elected Official Dirksen 'Wil'son Sherwood 'Woodruff Hardtirg
Name of • Budget Committee • Budget Committee • Budget Committee • Budget Committee • Budget Committee
Board/Committee • Budget Subcom - Events • Budget Subcom - . Budget Subcom - • Budget Subcom - Events • Budget Subcom
or Task Force • Downtown Task Force Events Events • IWB Water Board Events
• Central Business Dist. • MPAC t • Mayor's Appt. • Regional Water • Mayor's Appt.
Assn • ualatin Basin Na . Advisory Comm. Consortium Advisory Comm.
• Commuter Rail Steering urce Coord. Corn CDBG Advisory Bd Willamette Water Supply •
Comm • Westside Economic • Coop. Library Agency-----_~
• Corridor Urban Renewal Alliance Advisory Bd. (Alt) Mayor's Appt. Advisory
• Mayor's Appt. • Corridor Urban mm.
Advisory Comm. Renewal (Alternate) Vision Task Force
• Transportation
ci TF °
• Wash Co Coordinating
Comm. S -H
i:\adm\cat6ylcouncil\apptmatrix\2005appt matrix.docl/6/05 /
~'~CM ~L ri3 C
GccG CS CAW Chad--
w~.
Q 17
Council/Staff Liaison Appointment Matrix - Page 3